The Impact of Budget Cuts on Local Development Companies in Ireland

Contents:

Executive Summary3

Introduction5

Ireland National Goals/National Reform Programme6

In-Depth LEADER10

In-Depth SICAP/LCDP13

OECD17

Interdepartmental Communication18

Administration Cost Caps21

Case Study: Tipperary23

The National Exchequer26

Tendering27

Recommendations29

Appendices32

Works Cited46Executive Summary:Local development companies (LDCs) in Ireland rely on funding from various government departments to deliver services to members of disadvantaged and rural communities across Ireland. Since 2008, this funding has been reduced in total by an estimated total of 45%. This document is an analysis of the effects and the issues budget cuts have created, along with providing solutions to ease the financial burden on local development companies in order to ensure services can be delivered to communities that rely on them.

Irish National Goals/National Reform Programme There are 5 goals for Ireland to meet by 2020, as defined by the EU in the areas of: Employment Research/Development Climate Change Education Poverty A variety of LDC programmes make significant contributions towards each goal. This impact should be recognised by the government when determining funding.

Core LDC ProgrammesLEADER Largest LDC programme. Primarily promotes growth in agricultural/rural areas, which make up 62% of Ireland. Funding for LEADER has been cut 45% for the 2014-2020 programme.

SICAP Only national programme for social inclusion in Ireland, remake of LCDP. Since 2008, the programme has seen 43% of its budget cut. Despite this, numbers of people aided by the programme have increased. However, this can be attributed to higher demand due to poverty numbers in Ireland increasing.

Administration Cost Caps Currently, LDCs are only allowed to use 20% (LEADER), or 25% (SICAP) of total funding for administration costs. Due to the overall budget cuts, this requires a parallel cut in administration costs, resulting in redundancies and cutbacks. Having a core cost budget independent of overall budget would allow LDCs stability and consistency in the face of varying budgets.

National Exchequer An independent study showed that LDCs saved the National Exchequer with over 311 million in 2010-2012, amounting to just under 7.8 million per LDC.

Tendering Tendering is beneficial for privatised sectors to increase accountability, but for LDCs it commercialises the development process in a negative way. Tendering gives local communities a poor impression. People do not trust a government entity that transparently prioritises resulting statistics over tangible support. LDCs have experience and rapport with communities, and are held accountable through extensive auditing at both the EU and national levels.

Recommendations Increase available funding for LDCs, in particular LEADER and SICAP funding, and hold it at more consistent levels in order to maximise consistency. Allow LDC flexibility via a core administration cost budget independent of varying funding. Value the success of LDCs not just by the numbers provided through LEADER or SICAP, and recognise the increased burden of higher national poverty. Avoid tendering development and social programmes to private companies that operate with primarily profit maximising intentions, as this undermines the ethos of local development. Improve communication between government departments and LDCs, and recognise the ability of LDCs to provide a variety of different programmes effectively.Introduction:The Irish Local Development Network (ILDN) is the representative body of local development companies (LDCs) in Ireland. LDCs are publically funded by the Irish Government and operate with not-for-profit status. There are currently 49 LDCs in Ireland, 35 rural and 14 urban. LDCs are responsible for administering a wide variety of programmes, with the most prominent being LEADER (Rural Development Programme) and SICAP (Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme). Despite widespread success, both programmes have experienced significant cutbacks to funding from both the Irish Government and the European Union, the two entities that provide joint support. These cutbacks are counterproductive to the European year 2020 goals set forth for Ireland by the EU via the National Reform Programme.In the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis, the LDCs have faced severe budget cuts in the recent 2014-2020 LEADER Rural Development and SICAP programmes set forth by the European Union and Irish Government. Despite this, they have overcome the financial challenges by cutting costs while being able to not only preserve, but in many cases increase the nominal output of their services. However, the ILDN has concerns about how long such output can last in the face of a rapid reduction in funding, administration cost caps, increased burdens stemming from tendering processes, and a necessary reduction of staff and services across all local development companies.

Ireland National Goals:As part of the EU National Reform Programme[footnoteRef:1], Ireland has five Europe 2020 targets. The areas of focus are employment, research and development, climate change and energy, education, and poverty. LDCs work within Irish communities in ways that directly impact these overarching targets that Ireland must meet by the year 2020. The specific headline targets are: [1: Ireland. Department of the Taoiseach. National Reform Programme Ireland. N.p.: n.p., 2015. Print.]

Target 1: Employment:To raise to 69%-71% the employment rate for women and men aged 20-64, including through the greater participation of young people, older workers, and low-skilled workers, and the better integration of legal migrants, and to review the target level of ambition in 2014, in the context of a proposed mid-term review of the Europe 2020 Strategy.

Local development companies administer and provide many different services promoting the employment of underemployed groups of people. Jobs Clubs and Local Employment Services are just two of the services provided by LDCs all around Ireland. The programme formerly known as the Local and Community Development Programme ran from 2007-2013 and contributed to a significant amount of people moving from the Live Register into employment (see Table 5). In addition, the Back to Work Enterprise Allowance Scheme (BTWEA) is a programme run by LDCs designed to aid the transition into self-employment by tapering aspiring entrepreneurs off social welfare benefits rather than simply removing them as per government policy. Clare LDC alone successfully transitioned 406 individuals into self-employment in 2011-2014, with 89.9% of those surveyed considering their business successful or ticking over[footnoteRef:2]. Results like that of just one LDC are consistent across Ireland, despite limited recognition and support from government departments. This is just one of many programmes where the local development companies have proven to be overwhelmingly successful, and still work with limited resources and acknowledgement. [2: Clare Local Development Company.Survey Report: Back to Work Enterprise Allowance Scheme. Dec. 2014.]

Target 2: Research and Development:To raise combined public and private investment levels in this sector to 2.5% of GNP (approximately equivalent to 2.0% of GDP).

Local development companies have been doing research in their respective fields as long as they have worked there. In 2000-2009, the different Partnerships combined to compile a collection of the various pieces of research they individually conducted into the Local Development Programme Research Database[footnoteRef:3]. Research was conducted in many different areas, including childcare, unemployment services, housing, disability services, and preventative drug education. Unfortunately, no such database was created for the research done after 2009, but the ILDN conducted a survey[footnoteRef:4] in September 2013 that shows the LDCs are continuing their research in relevant fields in an effort to ensure the services they provide will have optimal impact. This not only makes LDC services more effective, but also adds to the EU target of reaching 2.5% combined investment, coming from the private investment of each Partnership. [3: Local Development Programme. "Research Database Directory." (2000): n. pag. Web. 2 July 2015.] [4: Irish Local Development Network. "ILDN Working Group Questionnaire Feedback September 2013." (2013): 215-18. Web.]

Target 3: Climate Change and EnergyReduce greenhouse gas emissions in the non-traded sector by 20% compared to 2005 levels; increase the share of renewables in final energy consumption to 16% by 2020; to move towards a 20% increase in energy efficiency.

The LEADER Rural Development Programme focuses primarily on improving the agricultural and rural industries of Ireland, and much of this has to do with promoting sustainability in one of the largest economic sectors of Ireland. LEADER, run by the Local Development Companies, focuses on the sustainable management of natural resources and climate action, contributing directly to the climate targets set forth for Ireland by the EU.Additionally, a primary environmental programme administered by the European Union, the Life Programme, awarded funding to a local development company in Duhallow. Funding was granted for the company to preserve its many wildlife species that reside in the River Allow by maintaining the waters cleanliness. Although only one company has been able to secure funding for such a programme, it speaks to the ability of LDCs to administer a wide area of local action plans effectively. Target 4: Education:To reduce the percentage of 18-24 year olds with at most lower secondary education and not in further education and training to 8%; to increase the share of 30-34 year olds who have completed tertiary or equivalent education to at least 60%.

The Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP) is run by Local Development Companies in an attempt to aid members of disadvantaged communities. This is done by providing training and education programmes and options, previously under the LCDP programme, and has seen significant results (see Table 5) in terms of providing the means for young people to enter educational or training programmes. Other such programmes include the Incredible Years programme born out of an LCD-run programme, Homestart, and the After Schools Service for young students.Target 5: Poverty:The Irish contribution to the Europe 2020 poverty target is to reduce by a minimum of 200,000 the population in combined poverty (either consistent poverty, at-risk-of-poverty or basic deprivation).

The SICAP Programme aids in the fight against poverty by contributing to employment exclusively in disadvantaged areas. As a programme, it is required to operate in areas that are defined as disadvantaged by the Pobal HP Deprivation Index[footnoteRef:5]. Although it is not an exact science, it is an attempt to ensure that the services provided by the programme are directly influencing the most in-need communities, rather than simply competing for services provided in more affluent areas. In this way, the programme is ensuring that it make progress in reducing poverty numbers in Ireland. [5: Ireland. Pobal. SICAP Programme Requirements. Vol. 1.1. N.p.: n.p., 2015. Print.]

The objectives of the Local Development Companies contribute directly to all five of these targets for Irelands contribution to Europe 2020. The LDCs have accumulated expert knowledge in their respective fields over the past 20 years. Their effectiveness in combating social exclusion, poverty, and unemployment while promoting environmental sustainability and education through local programmes has been undeniably successful in the past two decades. The LDCs work closely with local authorities, government departments and agencies to deliver programmes such as LEADER, SICAP, Ts, Jobs Clubs, Local Employment Service (LES), Local Training Initiatives (LTIs), Equality for Women Programme and Back to Work Enterprise Allowance (BTWEA). The programmes are a mix of enterprise, training, activation, educational, agricultural, and community supports that advance the direction set forth by the Europe 2020 objectives. These objectives are ambitious and require serious progress, which will require increased support of LDCs and the programmes they offer. The purpose of this report is to show how the actions taken by the Irish Government are adversely affecting its ability to move toward its goals. Severe budget cuts are an on-going threat to compromising the LDCs two core programs (LEADER and SICAP), and by extension, the suite of other programmes they can deliver as a result of implementing the two core services.

In-Depth LEADER:The Liaisons Entre Actions de Developpement de Leconomie Rurale (LEADER) programme, meaning Links between Actions for the Development of the Rural Economy, is the central initiative for Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in Ireland. Historically, LEADER was the beginning of the bottom-up approach to rural development in Ireland. It was created in 1991 by the European Commission and debuted in 17 areas around Ireland. In 1995, LEADER II was created and expanded to cover all rural areas in Ireland, followed quickly by the joint-funded LEADER+ programme in 2000. Throughout its quickly-growing history, however, the focus of LEADER has always been to provide support to local people in order to give them the ability to develop their communities. Today, the LEADER programme is part funded by the EU through the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (55%) and by the Irish National Exchequer (45%)[footnoteRef:6]. It stays true to its history by employing a community led local development (CLLD) approach that focuses on employing bottom-up decision making to ensure the community is creating its own solutions to self-determined problems. Members of the communities form Local Action Groups (LAGs) and create their own personalised Local Development Strategies (LDSs) in order to solve local problems in a locally preferable way. However, the government has shown recently that it would prefer the LAGs to be Local Authority groups rather than community led. Having the government in place of community members undermines trust within the community, which is incredibly important to local results of the programme. [6: Leader Programmes Funding: 26 Mar 2013: Written Answers (KildareStreet.com)." Leader Programmes Funding: 26 Mar 2013: Written Answers (KildareStreet.com). N.p., n.d. Web. 26 June 2015.]

As a programme, LEADER has three primary objectives for EU Rural Development Policy for the seven year period from 2014-2020[footnoteRef:7]: [7: Ireland. European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. LEADER Rural Development Programme 2014-2020. N.p.: n.p., 2014. Print.]

Improve the competitiveness of agriculture; Employ sustainable management of natural resources and climate action; and Develop rural areas in a territorially balanced way.

These three long term objectives are broken into six priorities:1. Fostering knowledge transfer in agriculture, forestry, and rural areas2. Enhancing the competitiveness of all types of agriculture and enhancing farm viability3. Promoting food chain organisation and risk management in agriculture4. Restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems dependent on agriculture and forestry5. Promoting resource efficiency and supporting the shift toward a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy in agriculture, food, and forestry sectors6. Promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction, and economic development in rural areasThese six priorities directly correspond with key objectives in the Europe 2020 targets for Ireland. The National Reform Programme, which lists five targets, claims in Target 1: Employment that the employment recovery was initially led by a relatively narrow group of sectors agriculture, accommodation and food service activities, and professional services (p. 38). In a country that is 62% agricultural land, in order to facilitate economic growth it is imperative that the Government takes the services listed above very seriously. The European Commission Irish Country Profile details the extent of importance agriculture and rural development has in Ireland: Agriculture: 62% of Ireland is agricultural land; less favoured areas constitute three quarters of it. Agricultural employment: 3.3% The agri-food sector accounts for 8% of GDP & 10% of exports (mostly beef & dairy) Competitiveness: High level of farm fragmentation, need to facilitate structural change, high agricultural land prices, need to support a vibrant& consumer oriented agricultural sector Environment: considerable natural resources & biodiversity, disease free status, high level of success & participation in previous agri-environment schemes, public support for the multifunctional role of agriculture, risk of land abandonment. Rural Areas: declining importance of agriculture, pressure from urbanisation, outmigration, strong tourism & cultural identity, experienced in the Leader approach, dynamic population, low ICT uptake, need to create alternative employment sources.[footnoteRef:8] [8: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-07-310_en.htm?locale=en]

From these observations we can conclude that there is a significant need for rural and agricultural support in Ireland. Additionally, the second programme priority of LEADER is defined as improving the sustainable management of natural resources and climate action. The 2020 target names reducing emissions in the non-traded sector to be one of the major goals, of which agriculture, at 32.1%, is the largest in the non-ETS profile[footnoteRef:9]. In 2013, however, emissions in the agriculture sector grew by more than 2% relative to 2012[footnoteRef:10]. If Ireland is to reduce its non-traded sector emissions by 20% relative to 2005, the logical step would be to begin with the sector that contributes the most to emissions. LEADER makes this a priority by preserving ecosystems dependent on agriculture and also by promoting resource efficiency within the sector. [9: Ireland. Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service. Climate Change - Expenditure Impacts. N.p.: n.p., 2013. Print.] [10: Ireland. Department of the Taoiseach. National Reform Programme Ireland. N.p.: n.p., 2015. Print.]

Despite what the LEADER programme does to combat unemployment and poverty, while promoting sustainability, it has recently seen a severe budget cut going into the seven year version of the programme from 2014-2020. Although the majority of the cuts have come from the Irish Government portion of the co-funded budget, the European Union is cutting the programme as well. Following the economic recession in 2008, the Irish government was given special exemption from funding as much of the LEADER programme as in the past, but the EU has not made up for the concession and as such, the programme has seen major reductions in funding. The following tables detail the different cuts made by both the Irish Government and the EU to the LEADER programme between the two seven year initiatives of 2007-2013 to 2014-2020.

Total LEADER BudgetTable 1LEADER Budget 07-13()[footnoteRef:11] [11: Ireland. European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. Rural Development Programme IReland 2007-2013. N.p.: n.p., 2007. Print.]

LEADER Budget 14-20()[footnoteRef:12] [12: Ireland. European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. LEADER Rural Development Programme 2014-2020. N.p.: n.p., 2014. Print.]

% Change in Funding

425,455,000235,000,000-45%

EU Funding for LEADERTable 2EU Funding 07-13()EU Funding 14-20 ()% Change in Funding

234,000,250152,750,000-35%

Irish Government Funding for LEADERTable 3National Funding 07-13 ()National Funding 14-20 ()% Change in Funding

191,454,75082,250,000-57%

The severity of the cutbacks in funding coming from both the Irish Government and the EU is causing a large overall drop in funding for local LEADER programmes, and is having harsh effects on the counties of Ireland and their ability to fund and execute their Local Development Strategies. In-Depth SICAP/LCDP:The Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP) is the successor programme to two previously effective programmes with the main objective of social inclusion: the Local Development Social Inclusion Programme (LDSIP) in 2000-2006 and the Local and Community Development Programme (LCDP) in 2009-2014. During their respective terms, each was the only national programme specifically designed for anti-poverty and social inclusion. The purpose of each programme has been to reduce poverty and promote social inclusion and equality through local, regional, and national engagement and cooperation. Today, not only does SICAP work with disadvantaged demographic groups to increase employment, it also works to empower similarly disadvantaged communities. These groups include: Children and Families in disadvantaged areas Lone Parents New Communities including refugees/asylum seekers People living in Disadvantaged Communities People with Disabilities Roma The Unemployed Travellers Young, unemployed people in disadvantaged areas NEETs young people aged 15-24 who are not in employment, education, or training

Many of the groups listed are also specifically named in the National Reform Programme published by the European Union. At least 50% of the SICAP caseload must be for these individuals and community groups that reside in disadvantaged areas[footnoteRef:13]. In fact, research by Fitzpatrick (2007) in the Value for Money Review LDSIP 2000-2006[footnoteRef:14] shows that if resources are not focused in these areas, the programme becomes simply a competitor with other services for the general population. [13: Ireland. Pobal. SICAP Programme Requirements. Vol. 1.1. N.p.: n.p., 2015. Print.] [14: Ireland. Department of Community, Rural, and Gaeltacht Affairs. Value-for-Money Review of the Local Development Social Inclusion Programme 2000-06. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.]

SICAP is another programme run by LDCs that makes consistent progress towards the specific targets set forth for Ireland by the National Reform Programme. Most specifically SICAP is a great tool for Ireland to make progress in its fourth target: education. This target singles out 18-24 year olds who are not in further education and training. In SICAP, this group is referred to as NEETs (young people Not in Employment, Education, or Training). They have been selected for particular support due to the EU member states having a youth unemployment (15-24 year olds) rate of 23.9% as recently as 2014[footnoteRef:15]. Goal 2 of SICAP is promoting lifelong learning, and the programme is primarily run in schools. Programme Implementers of SICAP work in-school with young people who are at risk of leaving school early, acting under the philosophy that once a child leaves the school system, it is often too late. The Implementers work with close engagement with parents and guardians while running in-school programs at primary and secondary schools in an effort to help promote education to young people. The programme also works with those already outside the system to receive further education and training, and, as seen in the table below, has been effective in this area. Over one hundred thousand young people were engaged by LCDP in 2013 alone, speaking to the programmes reach and potential to help Ireland in its targets if allocated the necessary funding. [15: Ireland. Department of the Taoiseach. National Reform Programme Ireland. N.p.: n.p., 2015. Print]

Although SICAP is the only national programme for anti-poverty and social inclusion, and its goals are fully congruent with the Europe 2020 goals, the programme has seen consistent and significant budget cuts over the past seven years.

Table 4YearAnnual LCDP/LDSIP Budget (millions of euros)Annual % Change

2008 (LDSIP)83.45-5%

2009 (LDSIP)79.40-18%

201067.50-15%

201158.70-17%

201250.10-2%

201349.00-3%

201447.70Total: -43%

[footnoteRef:16] [16: Irish Local Development Network. A Perspective on Local Development Company Administration Funding Impact on Delivery of Local and Community Development Programmes. N.d. Submission to the Interdepartmental Working Group on Administration Funding.]

As shown in the table above, the cutbacks over the seven year period have amounted to approximately 43%, despite the lack of any similar national programmes. Despite this, the programme has had continuing success in the number of individuals it has been able to support through its various services designed to help disadvantaged individuals more effectively engage with their communities. The table below details the number of beneficiaries supported by LCDP through Local Development Companies in the face of major budget cuts.

Table 5Beneficiaries of LCDP supported by LCDs201120122013% Change from 2011-2013

# of Individuals Supported

40,29247,79249,790+24%

# of Young People Engaged

65,61487,483104,713+60%

# of Local Community Groups Supported

4,1104,3783,823-7%

Beneficiaries in Education

11,39311,24117,699+55%

Beneficiaries in Training

11,78115,56119,711+67%

# Supported into Employment

1,1211,3701,658+48%

# Supported into Self-Employment

5,0425,6845,781+14%

Total Beneficiaries

139,353

173,509203,175+46%

[footnoteRef:17] [17: Irish Local Development Network. Pre-Budget Submission to Joint Committee on Finance Public Expenditure and Reform. June 2014. ]

It is important to realise, however, that despite the overwhelming success of LDCs to continue to give social aid to the communities they serve, continuous cuts can only be withstood for a short period before LDC results show diminishing returns. In fact, the large increases in capacity seen in 2012 and 2013 are in the context of larger demand. The consistent poverty rate in 2013, the year in which SICAP numbers increased dramatically, was 8.2%, compared to just 5.5% in 2009[footnoteRef:18]. This is speaking towards the necessity of increased attention to poverty and its alleviating programmes, where SICAP is the only anti-poverty and social inclusion programme in the country. With increasing demand, however, SICAP not only has to manage an increased workload combined with lower budget, but now must also work with a lower administration cost cap, as companies managing the programme must cut the costs involved in administering SICAP from 33% of expenditures to just 25% moving forward[footnoteRef:19]. [18: "Statistics." Consistent Poverty Rate Demographic Characteristics and Year. Central Statistics Office Ireland, n.d. Web. 26 June 2015.] [19: Ireland. Pobal. SICAP Programme Requirements. Vol. 1.1. N.p.: n.p., 2015. Print.]

Because the SICAP programme is currently the only national programme for social inclusion, it is imperative that the Department of Social Protection becomes more involved with the local development companies administering it. Due to high natural turnover in government departments, there has become a disconnect in understanding of LCDs by various government departments, which is surprising given the success of the LCDP programme. The DSP has the potential to be a valuable resource to productive LDCs, and interdepartmental communication could alleviate many problems that arise in the current chain of command that includes the Department of Environment, Community & Local Government, Pobal, Local Community Development Committees, and LDCs.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD):The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an international economic organisation that promotes economic and social prosperity around the globe. It is a leading influence in various forms of government worldwide, and specialises in recommending various policies that promote prosperity in quality of living areas. Its primary method involves providing a forum for countries to discuss the integration of evidence-based initiatives, meaning that it exclusively recommends policies and actions that have been proven effective in the field. The OECD runs various seminars that are attended by policymakers, academics, evaluators, practitioners, and social entrepreneurs in order to educate them on how using evidence-based policies can make major impacts in the worlds of both economic and social welfare. This has had major influences in the world of local and community development, and as such has impacted many aspects of the ILDN.The work done by the OECD has had significant impacts on the national departments that fund the ILDN and Local Development Companies, particularly the Department of Environment, Community & Local Government. The ILDN was asked to submit feedback on the Departments Draft Framework Policy for Local & Community Development in Ireland, a document greatly impacted by the work of the OECD. Although the policies outlined by the Department were somewhat influenced by discussions held by the OECD, the ILDN feels that the policies implemented in Ireland are missing opportunities for improvement, specifically in the area of community-led local development (CLLD). As mentioned in the analysis of the LEADER programme, the Department is increasing the use of Local Authorities, or government bodies, to stand in for the Local Action Groups traditionally used by the LEADER programme. This is just one example of a movement away from the locally-led initiatives encouraged by the OECD, as the SICAP programme activated in 2014 decided not to adopt a CLLD approach. The ILDN values the necessity of local acceptance of government aid for disadvantaged areas, and believes the increasing commercialisation of need-focused programmes not only makes them less effective, but becomes a source of suspicion from the local communities. The OECD plays a large role in providing a source of discussion around these issues, but it is up to the government departments to recognise the issues and take steps to avoid them.The OECD conferences bring a variety of important questions to light in order to effectively uncover various viewpoints and ways of thinking. In a 2014 seminar, for example, world policymakers and experts on local development discussed the following questions[footnoteRef:20]: [20: "LEED Programme (Local Economic and Employment Development)." Expert Seminar: What Works, and What Doesn't? Evidence-based Approaches to Tackling Disadvantage (Paris, France). N.p., n.d. Web. 06 July 2015.]

What does it mean to take an evidence-based approach? What does existing evidence tell us about effective approaches to tackling labour market disadvantage at the local and national level? How can policymakers, practitioners, and researchers work together to more effectively collect and use evidence, particularly at the local level?These questions are all vitally important to the objectives of LDCs and are in line with governmental priorities as well. Overall, the ILDN considers the local development companies it represents as the clear choice for administering government aid programmes. They are the bodies that represent the ground-up ethos the OECD consistently cites as the best evidence-based model. Too often the Department and Local Authorities put in local development roles have too strong an economic focus and this greatly outweighs the second priority of community development. Little thought has gone into what happens if local needs differ from national policy, and thus the ILDN considers local development companies to be the perfect medium for delivering development and social programmes.

Interdepartmental Communication:As with any organisation that relies on multiple parties working towards a common goal, communication is essential. The ILDN works within a pre-existing framework of various organisations. While the LDCs it represents are the implementing bodies, the ILDN must work closely with various other sectors, each of which has a different role in terms of designing and implementing the respective policies and programmes run by local development companies. Government DepartmentsThe ILDN works with various different government departments in order to deliver services outlined by the EU and Irish government, including the Department of Environment, Community, & Local Government and the Department of Social Protection. These agencies are primarily in charge of designing policy that will be implemented by the bodies underneath it. The local development companies often give feedback to the Department regarding favourable and effective policies LCDs would support, but ultimately the Department has the last say regarding programme policy.PobalPobal is a governing body created by the Department to support LCDCs by way of consistent communication. Pobal is the liaison between local authorities and the Department, and plays a very similar role to OECD. However, where OECD is a European organisation, Pobal plays a similar role solely in the context of Ireland. Local Community Development CommitteesLCDCs are the bodies that monitor each LDC in terms of each ones progress on the goals set out by different programmes. They are fully supported by Pobal, and function in a supervisory role over the LDCs. However, there is even ineffective communication between LCDCs and LDCs, despite the obvious need for constant feedback and support. LCDCs primarily communicate with LDCs when results are needed to be given to the Department, but beyond this time there is generally insufficient communication regarding departmental expectations.

Local Development CompaniesLDCs are the implementing bodies for the programmes designed by the Department and monitored by Pobal and LCDCs. They are the on-site operators and have a close working relationship with local communities and people. As such, they have valuable information that goes beyond simply LEADER or SICAP statistics. Although they have this information, LDCs are consistently unable to convey this up the organisational ladder, as there is fragmented communication between each rung. Primarily, there needs to be a stronger relationship between Pobal and LDCs, as there has been in the past. This relationship has been substituted with that of Pobal and LCDCs, but they cannot rely solely on vertical communication. A more fluid structure of communication would allow greater spread of ideas and usurp the bureaucratic nature of current communication. In essence, the world of community development is one in which bureaucratic structures fundamentally oppose the values in which the industry is based. Diversifying and improving interdepartmental communication is the first step towards a more creative and effective process for all four departments.

Administration Cost Caps:A key issue currently facing the LDCs is the matter of adjusting administrative costs in accordance with the new, reduced budget. Administrative costs are defined as any expense associated with directing a business. Examples include salaries, utilities, supplies, equipment, rent, and insurance. In the previous LEADER funding period (07-13), a cap was imposed on the companies. It restricted the costs involved with administering the companies and their programmes to 20% of the total costs of the LDC[footnoteRef:21], whereas annual reports of nineteen County Enterprise Boards in Ireland shows that administration costs make up 34% of income[footnoteRef:22]. In the newly defined SICAP programme, the allocation is only slightly higher at 25%. The LDCs are of the opinion that a core cost fund that covered the base costs of the company would be guaranteed, rather than requiring they be a percentage of expenses. Some controversy has recently arisen due to members of the Irish government claiming that LDCs have been exceeding the cap, and therefore misusing their funds. In fact, in March the Department of the Taoiseach claimed the LDCs were running administration costs of 33% as apparent justification for the recent budget cuts[footnoteRef:23]. Although the Taoiseach redacted the statement, public perception of LDCs may be impacted. Currently, there is an interdepartmental working group evaluating the administration cost standards, and it is of vital importance to LDCs. The following data[footnoteRef:24], listing the percentage of administration costs for each LDC with regards to LEADER funding, shows that the companies are very much in line with requirements set forth by the government. [21: Ireland. European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. Rural Development Programme IReland 2007-2013. N.p.: n.p., 2007. Print.] [22: Irish Local Development Network, and Smith Everett & Associates. An Analysis of Local Development Companies Services to the Irish Exchequer. July 2013.] [23: "Taoiseach Accused of Misleading Info on LEADER." Leitrim Observer. N.p., 14 June 2015. Web.] [24: "Leader Programmes Administration: 26 May 2015: Written Answers (KildareStreet.com)." Leader Programmes Administration: 26 May 2015: Written Answers (KildareStreet.com). N.p., n.d. Web. 26 June 2015.]

Table 6LDC

% Administration Cost based on LEADER Expenditure

Avondhu/ Blackwater Partnership Limited21%

Ballyhoura Development Limited16%

Carlow County Development Partnership20%

Cavan Partnership Ltd. & County Monaghan21%

Clare Local Development Company Limited17%

Comhar na nOilein Teoranta17%

Donegal Local Development Company Limited20%

Fingal LEADER Partnership28%

FORUM Connemara25%

Galway Rural Development Company Limited21%

I.R.D. Duhallow16%

Inishowen Development Partnership18%

Kildare (Cill Dara ar Aghaidh Teoranta)22%

Kilkenny LEADER Partnership Limited17%

Laois Community & Enterprise Development20%

Leitrim Integrated Development Company20%

Longford Community Resources Limited20%

Louth LEADER Partnership22%

Mayo North East LEADER Partnership Company29%

Meath Partnership22%

North & East Kerry LEADER Partnership22%

North Tipperary LEADER Partnership Company16%

Offaly Integrated LDC16%

Roscommon Integrated Development19%

Sligo LEADER Partnership Company15%

South East Cork Area Development Limited17%

South Kerry Development Partnership Limited21%

South Tipperary Local Development Company17%

South West Mayo Development Company19%

Waterford LEADER Partnership Limited21%

West Cork Development Partnership19%

West Limerick Resources21%

Westmeath Community Development19%

Wexford Local Development16%

Wicklow Partnership20%

Average20%

It should be noted that the companies that are in excess of the cap are skewed over the 20% because there are remaining funds allocated to them that have yet to be spent. In each case, the spending of the remaining LEADER funds will increase expenses and reduce the percent that administration contributes. However, despite the fact that the LDCs are in compliance with LEADER regulations, such a low cap is ultimately proving to be destructive in the wake of the budget cuts. Because the budget has reduced the amount each company is able to spend, the LDCs must cut their administrative costs to maintain the 20%. In the short term, this calls for widespread redundancies by the LDCs, and in the long term it could result in several companies merging, downsizing, or simply becoming too small to operate and leaving them unable to deliver services. This is the primary reason that the LDCs cannot continue to increase their productivity in the face of smaller budgets. After this wave of cuts, the LDCs will have to run at near-minimum levels of administration costs. Future cuts to LEADER budgets will significantly reduce the number of companies able to administer the programme Ireland has committed to support.

Case Study - Tipperary:In many cases, the impact of budget cuts goes beyond the figures. The impact is being felt by community members in every county in Ireland that receives LEADER funding. The difference from 2014 to 2015 has been significant as the LEADER budget allocations per county were released earlier this year. Tipperary County was one of many that received bad news the day the budget was revealed.In 2014, North Tipperary enjoyed massive successes through its community-led LEADER programming. The North Tipperary LEADER Partnership (NTLP) Local Development Company not only attracted 8 million from outside funders, but also assisted 6,500 individuals and 210 community groups through various programmes, including LEADER. This was all achieved with the North Tipperary share of the Tipperary LEADER funding, averaging to 1.84 million per year. The NTLP also employed 276 local people, and was able to run additional programmes to target aiding self-employment, rural entrepreneurs, and supporting victims of domestic violence[footnoteRef:25]. The two-fold boost to both the local economy and communities in Tipperary was significant in large part to the available funding. Despite such successes in 2014, just one year later the budget for the next seven years in Tipperary was revealed to be just 10.1 million, to be shared between the North and South. This averages to only 720,000 per year for the very same region that enjoyed a hugely effective 2014. This is a cut of 60%, and is already having major effects in 2015[footnoteRef:26]. [25: "Irish Local Development Network." NTLP Assists 6,500 People and Attracts 8m to North Tipperary in 2014. N.p., n.d. Web. June 2015.] [26: Ireland. European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. LEADER Rural Development Programme 2014-2020. N.p.: n.p., 2014. Print.]

The southern half of the county is already seeing huge changes in its ability to effectively deliver services to the community. The South Tipperary Development Company (STDC) is experiencing the same cuts as the NTLP, and its CEO Niall Morrissey says they will have a devastating impact on local communities throughout Tipperary. Because of the extensive cuts, STDC has been forced to put on hold several ready-to-go community projects, including a plan to expand the New Inn community centre and include wheelchair accessible toilets, and the second half of a project in Carrick-on-Suir to complete restoration of a local marina. These are two examples of projects that are shovel ready, and many other counties face similar issues due to across the board cuts. The following table describes the difference in budget per county for the 2014-2020 years. At 60%, Tipperary County ranked as the 2nd most heavily cut county, behind only Cork. The five most severe cuts were in:

1. Cork 78%2. Tipperary 60%3. Meath 54%4. Kildare 50%5. Kerry 47%

Table 7Sub Regional AreaLEADER Allocation 2007-2013 (m)[footnoteRef:27] [27: Ireland. European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. Rural Development Programme IReland 2007-2013. N.p.: n.p., 2007. Print.]

LEADER Allocation 2014-2020 (m)[footnoteRef:28] [28: Ireland. European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. LEADER Rural Development Programme 2014-2020. N.p.: n.p., 2014. Print.]

% Change in Funding

Carlow7.66.4-16%

Cavan5.08.5+70%

Cork62.213.9-78%

Clare16.28.9-45%

Donegal20.512.9-37%

Galway (county)20.412.2-40%

Kerry19.410.2-47%

Kildare10.65.3-50%

Kilkenny13.37.8-41%

Laois9.47.1-24%

Leitrim10.26.0-41%

Limerick (county)11.79.3-21%

Longford7.27.66%

Louth7.26.1-15%

Mayo20.211.1-45%

Meath15.16.9-54%

Monaghan5.07.6+52%

Offaly10.88.0-26%

Roscommon11.28.9-21%

Rural Dublin (Finegal)6.46.40%

Sligo9.87.7-21%

Tipperary25.310.1-60%

Waterford (county)11.27.5-33%

Westmeath9.07.4-18%

Wexford11.69.8-16%

Wicklow9.16.3-31%

The National Exchequer:The impact of budget cuts to community programmes is by no means limited to the communities themselves. Such extensive cuts have widespread impacts to the Irish economy as a whole. The Irish Local Development Network commissioned external analysis from Smith Everett & Associates to analyse the net contribution LDC services provide to the Irish Exchequer. A full copy of the report can be found in the link in the footnote[footnoteRef:29] below, and all statistics used in the following paragraphs can be attributed to the source. [29: http://ildn.ie/files/page_files/Final%20ILDN%20Study%20Document%20-%2011%2007%202013.pdf]

Smith Everett & Associates determined the overall impact of Local Development Companies on the Irish Exchequer was a net gain of over 311 million during the three year period 2010-2012. This amounts to just under 7.8 million per company. For context, for the seven year period 2014-2020, only twelve out of twenty six counties received more than the amount they contributed for LEADER funding, and many of those counties will divide the funding between multiple companies. Of course, due to the necessary changes to operating structure because of the need to cut administration costs, the future gain to the Exchequer may not be as significant. There is reason to believe, however, that the gain the companies do manage to continue to contribute will far outweigh the funding allocated by the Irish government. Another significant finding in the independent study was that each employed person contributed 3,464 to the Irish Exchequer in 2011 and 2012. In those two years alone LDCs helped over 38,000 people gain employment through their locally run programmes[footnoteRef:30]. This results in nearly a 133 million contribution to the Exchequer, not including the amount of staff that LDCs themselves employ. Unfortunately, it is likely that all of these numbers will decline over the next seven years, as LDCs are already in the process of determining redundancies in order to meet administrative cost requirements. This could have a two-fold effect on the Exchequer. Not only will the contributions that LDCs are organisationally able to produce likely decrease, there will be an increase of LDC employees on the Live Register. In context, the Labour Party in Ireland states that every person made unemployed loses the Exchequer at least 20,000 per year[footnoteRef:31]. [30: Irish Local Development Network, and Smith Everett & Associates. An Analysis of Local Development Companies Services to the Irish Exchequer. July 2013.] [31: Lynch, Ciaran. "Unemployment Rate at Lowest since Crisis - Lynch." The Labour Party. N.p., 1 Apr. 2015. Web. 26 June 2015.]

Tendering:A public tendering programme is being employed by the government for the SICAP programme and a similar expression of interest process for LEADER. This is done in an effort to ensure fair business practices, but the Local Development Companies feel that the process is eroding the ethos within which community development services provide. LDCs were created by the partnership agreement of 1991-1994 called the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP). The partnership agreements are programmes agreed on by the Irish Government and business representative bodies in Ireland. This is how LDCs were established, and have not had to enter in any tendering process before, as their purpose and worth has been predetermined by national government. Currently, however, LDCs are forced to compete with other companies to distribute the services they were created to administer. The LEADER programme employs an Expression of Interest application, where companies detail their services and request funding. SICAP also employs tendering, resulting in projects that prioritise meeting targets over addressing need. LDCs find that the tendering process focuses on only the hot-button issues, and severely restricts the LDCs in their flexibility to provide services as needed. Ultimately, tendering has required LDCs to focus on providing the government with employment statistics, when in reality the communities they serve face many more problems that are more difficult to quantify.LDCs maintain not-for-profit status and many could be classified as social enterprises, which are required to devote their activities and reinvest their surpluses to achieve a wider social or community objective, either in their members, or a wider interest. Any company dedicated to administering the LEADER, SICAP, or any other programs that focus on social inclusion and community development needs to develop rapport and trust within the community. Recently, the communities have seen the focus of local services move to exclusively job creation, and in some cases see the local services as extensions of the state. When the government tenders the responsibility undertaken by LDCs to private or local government entities, the trust established with local people is undermined and its effects are felt in the communities. Just this year, Rathmines Pembroke Community Partnership (RPCP) was made inconsequential because another LDC was selected via tender to distribute SICAP services, combining two LDC contracts into one. This has increased the burden on this one LDC to not only provide twice as many services with severely limited funding, but also to reach government targets defined for two LDCs. Although it was fortunate the contract was given to a nearby LDC, it is clear that having two companies in the area benefits the community and each company, respectively, by allowing the LDCs to work flexibly and maintain the ethos of focusing beyond simply meeting government targets.While it is done with the best intentions, the tendering process by which the government selects companies to distribute its programmes could result in the wrong companies administering programmes such as SICAP. In addition to Rathmines, there are four other LDCs in danger of losing contracts to tendering. This is not to say there is not value in the tendering process, as it is effective in keeping companies accountable in providing services effectively. However, all LDCs undertake yearly audits, and are consistently being held accountable by the government. Local Development Companies work within a pre-existing code of conduct that ensures the efforts of the company are purely for the benefit of the community. However, the tendering process does open the door for private companies that have no incentive to work in such a way, and are being allowed to serve in a local role despite prioritising profit over meeting needs within the community. The ILDN and Local Development Companies urge the Irish National Government to end the tendering process for the local and community development sector and run their social programmes through companies that have the ethos most beneficial to communities while maintaining accountability through extensive auditing processes.

Recommendations: The Local Development Companies are valuable resources for Ireland. They provide services and administer programmes that have been tried and tested since they were introduced nearly 20 years ago. LEADER and SICAP (formerly LCDP) are success stories at both individual and community-wide levels throughout Ireland. The Irish government has a responsibility to continue to not only fund, but also aid these companies, which support the countrys efforts to meet targets laid out by the European Union for the year 2020.Funding: The obvious solution to Local Development Company funding would be to increase the monies available for the programmes they provide, particularly LEADER and SICAP. These programmes provide services that directly impact Irelands employment, energy efficiency, education, and poverty levels, and the data presented in this report attest to their effectiveness. Increased funding would allow the companies to take on more community projects, provide services to greater numbers of people, and maintain consistency in services over each seven-year budgetary period. The cuts to the budget for 2014-2020 are already having major effects on the LDCs, as the companies consider options that may include downsizing, merging or dissolving. Increased funding would allow the LDCs to extend their reach and make even more progress toward Irelands national goals.Flexible Administration Caps: Absent new funding, the LDCs would benefit from an increase in the cap on administration costs. The LDCs are struggling to lower administration costs to less than 20% of their recently reduced budgets. Because administration costs must be cut in proportion to the overall budget, LDCs are scaling back on administrative costs, including staff. There have already been more than 60 redundancies, with more likely to come. This has resulted in a time lag where LDC programmes are unable to take on new projects until the LDCs administration stabilises. Currently there are many programmes run by LDCs that do not come with any available administration funds. Private companies would see no reason to deliver programmes with no benefit to them, and with the rise of tendering, these companies would simply cease delivering these services. It is vital to their survival that the contracts stay with LDCs and provide allocations for administration funding. Raising the administration cost caps or establishing a core cost that is independent of the overall budget would go a long way in making the LDCs more resistant to variable budget allocations. Alternative Measures of Success In addition, LDC funding should not simply be tied to individual programme successes. In fact, if a company is in an area that has greater need than services, it could be a sign that the LDC needs greater support from the government, not less. It is also important to realise that these companies provide valuable services to the communities that may be independent of the governed programmes. Five local development companies (Rathmines Pembroke, Waterford LEADER, Ballymun Whitehall, FORUM Connemara, and Fingal LEADER) have faced overwhelming need with limited resources, and Rathmines Pembroke Community Partnership was publically tendered and replaced, despite the 15 years of success it enjoyed in helping the Dublin 4, 6, 6W, and 12 areas. A similar fate could be in store for any LDC that is in an area of higher need that is granted only limited resources, but the process does not consider the limitations on these companies when unemployment is consistently increasing around them.Increased Communication and UtilisationThe communication between the LDCs and government departments can at times be fragmented. Local Enterprise Offices and other branches of Local Authorities working under the Department are in effective competition with local development companies for disadvantaged communities to serve via national programmes. This is rapidly becoming an issue, as tendering and competitive business techniques are turning the practice of aiding disadvantaged communities into a business, with quotas and numerical targets to be met. While the ILDN recognises the need for objective measures of success, it can also be a problem when it interferes with the services being provided. Local development companies have a rapport with the communities coming from years of experience administering programmes across a variety of different fields with positive results. There are several cases in which LDCs have excelled at delivering various types of external programmes, and many more programmes that are perfectly suited for the skillset of LCDs. The Duhallow LIFE Programme is an instance of an LDC being entrusted with funds for a programme in a different field and delivering with great effectiveness. Duhallow LIFE is an example of the wide range of programmes that LDCs are capable of administering, with the great flexibility, experience, and communication that is present in each local development company.Another area in which LDCs would excel is the current programme being run by the Commission for the Economic Development of Rural Areas (CEDRA) in Rural Economic Development Zones (REDZ). The goal is to support 18 projects in these areas throughout Ireland, and is currently being administered by Local Authorities. The focus of the programme is to increase flexibility within similar programmes, a strength of LDCs due to their independent company structures. LDCS provide the perfect liaison between government and Local Authorities to rural communities, perfect for the REDZ initiative. The progress and evidence from the past fifteen years suggests LDCs should be a valued service delivery option, rather than having to compete with Local Authorities to provide for a common beneficiary. The Irish Local Development Network and the local development companies realise the complexities of the budget allocation process. As a group, the LDCs will endeavour to adapt to recent budget cuts and provide core services in an effective, albeit downsized, manner. However, there is a point to which budget cuts cannot continue for LDCs to exist. Many companies have tightened budgets by taking pay cuts or using redundancies, but if budget cuts continue, the companies will reach a tipping point to which they are fiscally unable to function. There is room for improvement in easing the burden of budget cuts on LDCs. Removing the administration cost cap would make LDCs more resistant to future changes in budgetary allowance and reduce the transition time needed to adapt to new budgets. Removing the tendering process also would give LDCs the security to grow knowing the government is invested in having local and community development companies lead community programmes. Until the budget can be restored, it is imperative to remove these restrictions on LDCs to help them survive the real challenges of budget cuts. It is imperative that Ireland recognise the value of LDCs and social enterprise in impacting Irish communities and meeting the EU 2020 Targets.

Recommendations: Increase programme funding LDCs. Introduce a core administration cost fund for LDCs. Increase assistance to LDCs in areas of highest need. Recognise the effectiveness of LDCs and delegate more responsibility to companies to administer programmes.

Appendix 1: List of Programmes Administered by LDCs:

Programmes: LEADER LCDP/SICAP Rural Social Scheme Ts Community Services Programme Rural Transport Programme Rural Recreation (Walks Scheme) CE & JI Schemes Local Employment Services Jobs Club Back to Work Enterprise Allowance (BTWEA) Better Energy Warmer Homes Equality for Women Local Training Initiatives

Each Local Development Company (LDC) delivers a varied range of programmes. The programmes listed above are delivered by some or all of the Local Development Companies in Ireland.While this list provides details of some of the main programmes delivered on behalf of Government Departments, it is not an exhaustive list and does not demonstrate projects developed by LDCs using a range of other private and philanthropic funding sources[footnoteRef:32]. [32: "Local Development Company Programmes." Irish Local Development Network. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 July 2015.]

Appendix 2 - Rathmines:

Invites you to join us on the 13th May 2015 To mark the end of the RPCP Local and Community Development Programme in Dublin 4, 6, 6W and 12Rathmines Pembroke Community Partnership (RPCP) has delivered the Local and Community Development Programme (LCDP) in Dublin 4, 6, 6W and 12 since late 2009. We have delivered programmes and services on behalf of the Government in Rathmines and the surrounding areas since 1998.As a result of a competitive tendering process, the new Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP), which commenced on 1st April, will be delivered in these areas by the Canal Communities Partnership (CCP).The Local and Community Development Programme will end on the 13th May 2015 and 10 staff members employed through this will be made redundant.RPCP also delivers a number of other programmes and services in the broader Dublin 4, 6, 6W and 12 communities. These programmes include the Dublin 12 Local Employment Service, the Ts Initiative, The Dublin South East Local Childcare Resource Service, the Gateway Mental Health Project, the Dublin 12 Local Drugs Task Force Development Worker/Rehab Practice Mentor and Youth activities among others.These programmes / services will be transferred to other appropriate host organisations and RPCP will continue to operate until all programmes and services have been transferred.The Board of RPCP would like to hold a small event to mark the end of the LCDP and the work of all the other programmes and services as outlined above. RPCP has enjoyed positive working relationshipswith a broad range of individuals and organisations in the Community and this will be an opportunity for us to say goodbye and thank you for your involvement with us.

Appendix 3 LEADER/LCDP Projects:

Cork (LEADER)

LEADER-funded playground in West Cork

Carlow (LCDP)

SICAP-funded skills class in CarlowCavan/Monaghan

LEADER-sponsored paths/parking on Cavan/Monaghan border

Clare

BTWEA services in Clare

Donegal

Free Careers event by Donegal LDC

Galway

Job-Seekers Workshop by Galway Rural DevelopmentKildare

LEADER-sponsored Employment through Sport Training Programme

Kilkenny

Rally against LEADER budget cuts

Laois

LEADER-funded walking/cycling trails

Leitrim

Leitrim Development Company County Recreation Strategy

Longford

LEADER-sponsored local company in Longford

Louth

Opening of Peninsula Playstation in CooleyMayo

Fahy Community Center funded by LEADER

Meath

Access to Success University event in County MeathKerry

Mountain guide skills course by South Kerry Development Partnership

Tipperary

ODonnells Crisps, a LEADER beneficiary from South Tipperary LDC

Offaly

Edenderry Community Cabin art project and community center

Roscommon

Youth fun walk by Roscommon Integrated Development Company

Sligo

LEADER tourism trails by Sligo LEADER Partnership Company

Waterford

Waterford County Museum upgrade by Waterford LEADER Partnership

Westmeath

Opening of Derryarkin motocross track by Westmeath Community Development

Wicklow

County Wicklow Partnership-funded Boardwalk at Birdwatch IrelandLimerick

First self-service library in County Limerick

Works Cited

Clare Local Development Company.Survey Report: Back to Work Enterprise Allowance Scheme. Dec. 2014.European Commission. Ireland: Rural Development Plan. European Commission Press Release Database. N.p., 25 July 2007. Web.

Ireland. Department of Community, Rural, and Gaeltacht Affairs. Value-for-Money Review of the Local Development Social Inclusion Programme 2000-06. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

Ireland. Department of the Taoiseach. National Reform Programme Ireland. N.p.: n.p., 2015. Print.

Ireland. European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. LEADER Rural Development Programme 2014-2020. N.p.: n.p., 2014. Print.

Ireland. European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. Rural Development Programme IReland 2007-2013. N.p.: n.p., 2007. Print.

Irish Local Development Network. "ILDN Working Group Questionnaire Feedback September 2013." (2013): 215-18. Web.

Ireland. Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service. Climate Change - Expenditure Impacts. N.p.: n.p., 2013. Print.

Ireland. Pobal. SICAP Programme Requirements. Vol. 1.1. N.p.: n.p., 2015. Print. Irish Local Development Network, and Smith Everett & Associates. An Analysis of Local Development Companies Services to the Irish Exchequer. July 2013.

"Irish Local Development Network." NTLP Assists 6,500 People and Attracts 8m to North Tipperary in 2014. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 June 2015.

Irish Local Development Network. A Perspective on Local Development Company Administration Funding Impact on Delivery of Local and Community Development Programmes. N.d. Submission to the Interdepartmental Working Group on Administration Funding.

Irish Local Development Network. Pre-Budget Submission to Joint Committee on Finance Public Expenditure and Reform. June 2014.

"Leader Programmes Administration: 26 May 2015: Written Answers (KildareStreet.com)." Leader Programmes Administration: 26 May 2015: Written Answers (KildareStreet.com). N.p., n.d. Web. 26 June 2015.

"Leader Programmes Funding: 26 Mar 2013: Written Answers (KildareStreet.com)." Leader Programmes Funding: 26 Mar 2013: Written Answers (KildareStreet.com). N.p., n.d. Web. 26 June 2015.

"LEED Programme (Local Economic and Employment Development)." Expert Seminar: What Works, and What Doesn't? Evidence-based Approaches to Tackling Disadvantage (Paris, France). N.p., n.d. Web. 06 July 2015.Local Development Programme. "Research Database Directory." (2000): n. pag. Web. 2 July 2015.

"Local Development Company Programmes." Irish Local Development Network. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 July 2015.

Lynch, Ciaran. "Unemployment Rate at Lowest since Crisis - Lynch." The Labour Party. N.p., 1 Apr. 2015. Web. 26 June 2015.

"Statistics." Consistent Poverty Rate Demographic Characteristics and Year. Central Statistics Office Ireland, n.d. Web. 26 June 2015.

"Taoiseach Accused of Misleading Info on LEADER." Leitrim Observer. N.p., 14 June 2015. Web. 38