Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Comptroller and Auditor General
Ikpon on Value for Money Ex1rninacion
Local Development Initiatives
Oc1obtr 1999
copyGovernment of lrelmd 1999
l~BI 0-707(i-G406-3
middotrhe report Vts prepJred on 1he basis of inforn1ition clcxu111ent11ion tnd
txplan111ons obttincd fro111 1he bodies rlfcrrccl 10 in che rcplt)n
middotrhc draft rcpo11 Vis sent 10 che Accouning Officers of the )ergt1rt111ent of middotrnurisn1
Sport ind Hecn1tion the l)epa111nent of En1crprise middotrriclt and E1nploy1nent incl th
l)ep1nn1tnr of AgriculturLmiddot and Food and their co111n1en1s Cre requested Xllen
1pprorna1e con1n1en[s received ere incorporated in thl final version of the rcpon
RelgtOrt of the Comptroller and Auditor General
Local Development lnitiadves
I havt in 1ccord1nce ilh the provisions of Stclion 9 of the Co1nptroller and Audilor
ce11ertl (Arnenclmerll) Ari 199 carried our a viluc for money exarnin11io11 of local
demiddotelopn1en1 ini1i1timiddotes
I hereby subn1i1 111~middot rlpon of thl abclmiddotl ex1111initinn for prese1H~Hion 10 gtiii fmiddotireann puru111t to Stction J 1 of the siicI Act
John Purcell Comptroller and Auditor General
29 Dctober 1999
C
Table of Contents
Introduction
2 1cl1nin1stririve Efficitmiddotncy
3 Co-nrdinition of 1ctivilies
4 Operational Efficiency
17
30
42
Appendices
5
Page
Glossary
Summary of Findings
Local Development Initiatives
A Annual Costs 11lcl Outputs of lncl1viclu1l County Enterprise Bo1rcb le1cler
Groups rnd Jgte1rrnerships 1995 - 1997
B 1d1nini-tn1tion Cost middotrrLlld-gt of Local f)cvclop111cnt bodies
The Operational Progr1mme for lcx-al llrban and Rur11 Dlvdoprnent
ierfonnance lndica1ors and Hevised largc1s
I) h1re1c1 from Consol1CL1ed Reporting Guicldin~s - DecernbcT 1997
middotrhc lCader Opcrat1011al Progra1nn1c - Pcrfonnancc lndicuors and Rtmiddotvisecl middotrargels
E fturi of l)tveloprnlnl gencie- in county Ho-co1111non and thlt
Services Provided
f Fr1nwwork of AgnTnlltnt Bctween Coun1v Meath CEB and County Mea1h
leider 11 Group
G middotrcr111- nf Reference fltgtr lnc~rdcpa111ncntal Policy Co111111i1rcc
Glossary
AAES
tni1nation
lleneficwy
Bord M6ni
CEil
Coilhe
CSG
1)(1chas
DSCFA
Hfll
Enttmiddotrprise Ir~Ltncl
ESB
f L
Fisherivs llotrds
Forfis
1rca Allcnv~1nce Enterprise Schen1e Vhich is
idministered bv lannerships on behilf of DSCFA
From Jimrny 1999 this sch~nw is known is the llick
to Xork Enterprisc 1llov~1nce
middotrhc role of ani1nation is to i111prove the effec1iveness
of the con1111unity in loc1l develop111cn1
Project pro111oter or con1nu1n11y group in receipt of
fin1ncill suppo11
Stare sponsored body ni1n1ging and developing
pearlinds
County Enterprise Board
St~He sponsored body 1111n1ging public forests ind
nlatcd activities
Coun1y Strategy Groups Crc cs11blished under
OlLURI) to L1cili1a1e co-ordinHiun ind 111inirn1sc
duplication in the dtlivtry of progr1n111Hs ii county
level between the different irntiatives
1middot11e t-lerirage Service it the l)cpa11111ent of rts
f-kririge Gielucht ind rhe Islands
Depinmcnr of Sociil Community ind Fimily Affiirs
Easrern Heilth lloird
Sttle sponsored body issisling Irish co1np1nilts 10
increJse their sales expo11s JJHl e111ploy1nent
Electricity Supply Board
Europe1n U11io11
iition1l 1r~1ining and en1pluynHmiddotn1 1uthority
Sta111tory organisations cl11rged vitl1 responsibilicy for
the developnllnl ind protection or inland fisheries
Forf1s is the policy 1chbulliso1) and co-ordination ho1rd
for industrial developn1ent and sci middotnce and
technology
II) Ireland
Int grtlltd Slrvices lgtrojcct
llC
lncrreg II
lEI I)EJ( II
LE11DEH groups
ITU
11insrrea111ing
Mid-Term Evalua11on
~lonitoring Co1nn1itree
011UHD
lc1rnerships
1 State Ovncd coinpany vhich pro111ores invard
investn1ent
middotrhe Integrated Services 1gtrojec1 V1~ estiblishcd co coshy
onlinate tile inptHs of all slle services in four pilot areas of clisaclvan1age
lnterclepaHn1e11tal Policy Cltnnn1i1tee for LltgtCtl
Devdopmenr w1s est1blish1middotd in June 1995 and ns
function i-gt to Omiddotcrsce and n1ike reco11unenda1ions on
local devclopmelll
111 EU lnili~llive 10 develop cross hltgtrcler co-opcrllion
Jnd to help an1s ovcrcon1e prohle1u~ as-ociated Viti
being on 1ht Unionmiddots internal and externJI fronlitrs
incl to fill gap- in energy netvorks and provide
interconnections Vllh vider european nelvorks
liaisuns c111re actions cle clltJ1cofPen1en1 (e reco1101nie
rurole - 1 Co111111unity lnitiJlit for rurtl cl~veloptlHnr
covering rhc period 1994 to 199)
Companies est1blished undn IEADER 10 11nple111elll
llHmiddot progran1111e objectives
Long-tcrrn unc1nployecl
ProceS of tr1niferring successful pilol project- of an
innov~Hive nalure 10 n1iinline govtrnn1cnt clepart1nents
anti ~1gencies
1n independent evalualion rtq11ir(cl to be carried out
on any EU progrunn1e Vhich is five or n1ore years in
ltJper~1tion
Fsublished to mTrsec rhe operation of any EU progr~1111111e It con1ains reprtscn1arives of thlt EU
co1111nission govern1nent clepart111ents and progran1111e
in1pll~n1entors
Orerationcd lrogrJmme for Local Urban and Hurd
lkvelopmcnt 1994-1999
Area-lhsed lannersh1p Companies
le1ce 111d Heconcilurion
lESI
Pos1 2000 subrnission
Territorial Employment
Picts
Tourism Opcrationll
Progran1111c
Ul~HN ini1iuive
1n EU Initiative to reinforce progress Ovards a
pe1ccful ind stable society by incre1sing econo1nic
dcvelop1nc1H urban and rur~d regeneration
developing cross-lxJrdcmiddotr links incl con1lx111ing soci1l
exclusion
Progra1nn1e for Econo111ic and Social Progress
Suh1nissions nques1ed fro111 govern1ne111 depar11ntnts
other sr11e 1gcncics ind na1ionil 1x1nners on the
future use of structurII funds post 2000
An EU lrnti1tive to hdp the unemployed find 1obs 1n
dis1clv1n1aged areas
middotrhe opera11onal progra111111c for 1ouris111 devltlopnHnt
under tlw Community Support Framework 199i middot 1999
n EU Initiative the purpose of which is 10 1ddress
in 111 integrited tr urban sltxi1l exclusion by
building panncrship arr1ngcnHnrs bttvcen locil
1u1horitil and 01hcr loc1J structures
S1J1mmary middotrhis alue for 1nnney rcpo11 is cnnccrntd vi1h the oper~Hion during the period 1994shy1995middot of loc1J devllop1ntnt initiatives provided through (ounry Enterprise Boards (CEiis) Arc1-B1sed 11nnersh1r Comp1111es (i1rtncrshipsJ ind IEADER groups
CEiigt Wltre es11hished in every countv for thtmiddot p11rrose of promnlng locd emerprise incl econo1111c clev([op1nen1 middotrhcrc 1rc 3 CLBs vhich opcrltttc undtmiddotr agreen1en1
Villi the J)epart1ncn1 of Enterprise middotrrade and E111ploy1nen1
middotrhe purpose of Partnerships is to co1nlx11 unln1ployn1ent ~ind exclusion middotrhere ire
38 lannerships operalrng in 1re1s design11ed as disrdvrntagcd and a fu11her 33 Inell devtlopnumiddotnt gruups in non-dis1dv1nt1gecl 1n1s middotrhesc opertle under in inle1111ldi1ry con11x1ny vhich rt~purt~ to the Igtcp1rt11Hnt uf middotrouris111 Sprnl ind
Rccreilion
The LEADER grours were cstiblrshed under an EU In11io11ive to promote rur11 clevcmiddotlopnitmiddotnt 1ly suppCgtrting lltgtcal developnHtH groups middotrhere middottrl 5i lEAl)EH
groups opirH1ng undcr agrei1nc11t- vith the lJep1ru11ent of Agriculrurl ind Food
From 1994 10 1998 public funding totalling l208 million was providld lo these bodies of vhich pound-127 111illion middotIi pruvicled by 1hc EC Co111n1i~sion incl f~-1 111illion
by 1he Exchequer CEB-gt ~ind Pannirships an funded under the ()perationtl lrofra111111e Or Lltx-al Urlgtan and Hurorl [kvelop111en1 199lt1-1999 (OPUIHD) The UADER groups 1re funded under the LEAD EH Operational Programme 1994- 1999
middotr11e value for niuncy ex1111inttion looked H specific issues rel1ting to rhc
acln1inistr1tive ~ind opilJtiontl etliciincy of thlt thrt~t~ 1ypts of hoclies lht
1rra11gc111ents fo1 co ordination lgtlttvtmiddotcn rhe txxlies and approache~ 10 ltValutlion of
their i111p1ct
Administrative Efficiency
middotrhe divcrsily of 1c1ivi1ies ~ind different stages of developnicnr of the hodies li1111t chc~
exrc11 to Vhich cross con1parisons of achninistrHive efficiency c1n be 111acllt
drrinistc111011 expc11di111re hy all tlte hocl1es 111tallld S28 9 11ull1on 1n tlw pltn11d 1995 to 1middot)97 )uring 1hiI period thl ovcr~i11 rrcenl~tgi of ad1111ni~lration costs to total cxplncli111re declined subtantitlly fro1n 28Yo co 220u principilly bccaust n1any of chc bodies n1ovcd fron1 1 set up phase ICgt being fully operational Achninis1r1t1on expenditure as a ptTcc11t1ge of ltgtlal expcndi1un also varied bttVCltll individu1I hnclitmiddots clue to clitlere1Hes in the nalure of the aclimiddoti1ies undeniken For lX~ttnpk the level of 1cl1ninistr~1tive co-l~ middotoukl he influenced by lhe extent to Vhich
incli11idual bodies is~lll grant support or offer non-financial 1ssist1nce In generil Partnlrships have higher adn1in1strllion cost- nlHive to thlmiddot other hod1es for rhis reasc)n
middotrhe llodies are characterised hy -ubstintitl voluniarmiddotymiddot inputs at board and sulgtshycon1n1inee levels middotrhis is in kclping Vith hirncs-ing local knovledgc and tpenise ro ~1ch1eve con1n1on ob1ectivt~ Key staff VCrC inv1n1hly highly qualified and
rcso ircefuL
lhe develop1ncn1 of n1~1nagen1tmiddotnt inforn1ition _ys1c1ns has not been sari-Ltctorymiddot in
--- middot- --------------shy
ulttf I )(coJlllc1 II If ii itl f itL
that rhert is nn 1tJ1un111ic sharing of d111 11nnng loc1l dtVllop111en1 bodies ind lhe scope for effectiveness inilysis is t1111i1ed middotrhroughoul 1hlt pcritxl covered by lhL ex1111in11ion inforn1ation systt111s vl1icl1 include perfcn1111nce 111e1suns ind inclic1tors (cl n1cJniror etliciltncy incl ~tTectiveness htvL l)etmiddotn under tlevLmiddotlup111cn1 ind pr()grts is heing 1111cle in iddrc sing the deficiencilS
Co-ordination of Activities
The flexible approich 10 the i111ple111et11ition of local dewloprnnt policy rcmiddotstilts in consider1hhmiddot duplicition of the enlcrprislmiddot crvicts providld by thlt three types or hodils Vith 1pcc1 10 objlClies clients incl 1c1ivities middotro i lesser lXtLllt 1here is duplici11on of 1c1ivities concerned ilh coun1ering serious ecnno111ic incl sociil dis1clv1n1ige heciusl Pirtnerships t1rgct specific clitnl groups - the long-tcnn unemployed ind the soci11ly excludld In nine ctsc-s Pinnerships and lEADEH groups share i conunon 1111n1gc1nen1 board
Co-operilion 11nung 1hc hodies ind Villi othtr urginisalions (Stale local govern111tnl co111111unity ind volunttry st ctor incl bllllllSS) ~Jt loctl ltvel to 1chicve igreed objectives con1rib11tcs to the unique innovlit roll of 1hc Local l)evelor1nen1 initiitives
Suhsicly shopping can ltgtCltl1r IHrehy Lmiddotlitmiddotn1s can 1111xin1ise the public funding they rcciivi by tpplying for grillS frolll cliffcnn IJodieS (O 11ppOlt cliiferent elelllt~lllS Oi
their projccls middotrhis incvit1bly leicls lo cluplic11ion in 1d1ninistrllion Fonnil in1erdep1rr111en1il 1gree111en1s should Ix- cmiddotontmiddott1ded to define 1l1e li1ni1s bllVecn the ohrcc11ves clienls ind activities of thl three bodies ind si111ilir 1gree111en1s should he concluded It locil level middotrhese 1green1tmiddotn1 n1ight look for vays of n1ini1nising the id111inisr11ion of 111ultiple tpplicHions for funcling in 1 project
t cohestvlmiddot 1ppro1ch to th( intcgrition of locil govern1nen1 1nd loc~ll develorn1en1 V~ts set out in 1998 by tn in1erclep111n1ental middotrask Force J1nplen1cnt11ion of 1his rep(U1 is underv1y
Operational Efficiency
middotrh1middot 1111in 1ctivi1y ind outpul tirgcts ire being n1et but the absence of baseline perfnnnince d111middot llll1ns lltll ii is not knclvn hoV dc1111nding 1he original r1rgets Vere 1rising fron1 VOrk by the external cviluitors ro thl Oper1tional Progra1nn1es 1111ny nf the 11rge1s h1vc been rlisccl hv tile -loniroring (01nn1inees vhich oversee llH i1nplv111c111tlilt)n c)f rl1ltmiddot Progr11111ncs
1hile tlcn1en1s nf exptmiddotnditun (Pannltrships incl LEAJ)FH groups) Vere son1cvh1t behind tirget II the lttlcl of 1998 it is cxpec1ed by the lgtcp~1111nents 1h11 spcncling targlts viii he n1e1 by the encl of the Operational Progran1111es
Sludils indicHt lhH tht level of dcadvciglll (the tmiddotxrent to Vhich enterprises suppltgtrlt~cl unclir the Operational lrogr1111111es Ould be cst1hlished Vilhout gr1n1s) n11y be in the rangt 4(Yc1 10 50dego ()isplicen1en1 (the ex1cn1 to Vhich suppo11ed enterpri~cs clive11 stils ind en1ploy111en1 oppo11uni11es fro1n other Irish enterprises) 111iy he in the r1ngl 20 (Cl 400u Fron1 eirly l 99H CEBs and P111nerships have been tn1poverecl to Jss1s1 enterprise projects by n1eans of refuncl1ble Jid incl equily Use
ii
S1111111u11v
of thltse forms of id should he expndcd quickly in prelerencl 10 11011-repyJlt gracts 1s they can help to reduce cleHhveight 1nd dispL1ce111tnt and in addi11on 1re t 1111)1 econo1nictl use of public funds
Son1e inst1nces of clispk1cen1en1 providl social benefits vhich n11y outvcigh the
cost involved There is a need for n1orl cl1rity regarding the circu111s11nces in vhich
dispbccrncnr rn he perrnined
Assessment of Impact
lhe developn1en1 of sys1e1ns to 1ssess the in1pact of Local J)tgtvtgtlopn1en1 initkHives is not easy hec1use of 1he clibullersity of objccrives rhc tick of n1easurahility nf so111e
i111p1cts rlie tlJsence of clisagtregtled d1t1 n1odels rclcv1nt lo locil areas and the need for careful in1erpretHio11 of results
Quantitative Assessment
ltJu1n1itJtiC 1sessn1ent of the in11x1c1 of (gtcal l)evclopn1ent hodivs c1n bl carried our by exa1nining ch1nges in vari1ble such as long-tcnn 11ne1nploynHnl ind 1-n11middotrpri-e forn1arinn Studits to dare of thest v1riallles have yielded inlmiddotonclu-ive
rt~sults
rtpon on the i111p~1ct of OJgtLLHI) on ong-tenn ltnen1ployr11lrlt shnvs thtt fro111
1991 to 1996 unc111ploy111cnt in gtJrtntmiddotr~hipmiddotareas fell by roughly poundhe sa111t penentage as in non-P~n1nership ~treas
A111y~is of 11~11ional Live Hcgi~[er cla1a for 1he pc-riod CJ94-1998 indilates ~1 signifi(1n1 Lill in chc kwl of long-cerm unemployment hich b pat11cula1 focu of P~1r111erships bur the reduction n1ay h1ve 111ore 10 do vith 1he in1pact of tron~ 1middotconon1ic gn)vth poundh1n vid1 rhc effec1 of Local l)cvclop111cnt initiatives
A nmiddotiev of the nu1nber of n1anuL1c1uring s1ar1urs fru1n 1987-1996 siHJVS rhar 1he rapid econon1ic grcJvlh fro1n 1995 and the onstmiddott of thtmiddot Local l)evllop111ent iniri11ives did 101 result in an increisecl rate of 1111nuf1c1uring sta11ups
lntc~rnion of enterprise support incl perforn11nct da11 Jcross the Loctl l)evmiddot-lopn1cn1 inipoundiuives voulcl be required in order 10 est1hlish 1he underlying reasmiddot)llS for these rends
Quiitative Assessment
lkciled Census of Populicio11 d11 (1991 a11d 19)6) is available regrd1ng 1ndicacors of distdv1n11ge in Pirtnership 1n~1 hile rherc are lin11tuions inolved in int(-rpreti11g the cl1t1 fu11her ~1111lys1s ~houd facilitlle 1s~es1nen1 of lhl in1p1cr of the actimiddotities of 1111ncrhips
Jhe exlent of n1~11eri1J specificJJly covering 1hc evtlua1ion of i111pacl is very li111ited P1rt11crships hie CJrriecl our evcril cisc Situlies to cxplorL the in1ptrl of 1heir tcliililS ind 10 pro111ute 1-gtesr pr1c1ice (1~l srudies arc undervay also in ni1ny
lEA)EH groups l-lovtver there is i clt-1r nted for 111ore d111 lmiddotulllmiddotcrion and the
clevdopmenc of sonil policy rnocleb co prnvicle a hcncr ins1gl11 into che imp1cr of Loe~ I l)evelop111ent 1c1ivities
iii
bull
Local Development Initiatives
middot
- shy~~ ~~ltmiddot~-
middot
middot~
1 Introduction
Background to Local Development Initiatives
11 Since htbull ltarly 1)90 the (omiddoternn1tmiddotn1 middotill1 the support of 1hc European
lJnion (_lmiddotl) h1s introdutcd 1 nun1hvr of policy initiatives in suppo11 of hxil sltx-ioshy
eltcgtncgtnlilmiddot clcvelltlp1ncnt Tlteslt 1ni1i1timiddotcs stc111111cd fngt1n htmiddot pertcivcd L1ilt1re (Jf
cxiting pnlicicmiddots to _hirl lfllmiddot benefit ol 1middotcono111ic gnnmiddotth lmiddotquitahly tcrn-s local
ro11H1H1nililS ind 111Hn1g thl 111ore distdmiddot1n11gtmiddotd scctCJr of Irish iocitImiddot (~llltrtl to
1hc initiatives ts tliemiddot cn~11ion of lllcd lll1ployn1cn1 oppnnunititmiddot togetlitmiddotr Villi
llHISllrtmiddots to 11cklc cduc1tional distclvan11glmiddot tJlmiddotirltlflllltnlil cl1c1y ind ocial
lxclusion middotrhe IH~v pc ii icy alio n11rked 1 revers~1l fro111 the tr1ditio11al htmiddotgi111ony DI
central govltrnnitmiddotn1 by nmiddotcognising iht roll Vhich local cu11111111ni1amiddot c1n play in
the proctsi of lCltHlltunic trKI Sltgtc1al dtbull(lopn1enc
12 r pri11IJI) purpo--l of Incil J)evelop111lnl V1- co identify Jprropnllt Vays of
-tin1uLtting tll rllvvant luctl re-ources 111 suppo11 of Lllterpngti deth)pn1vn1 ind
tickling long-tern1 unernploy111ent hough llLttetL lhe-imiddot 1rt di-rinct uhjccliVLS 1nU
tlil vXtmiddotnr ro middothich they could htbull 1sotiatcd in operationd llllll- rc1111ined tn he
lthlished it that ti111e
13 IIH 1111in ekmiddotnlLllC ()f the llt appro1ch middotLlL
bull p1rtnersliip hllVtmiddotcn stitulory hu ines ind cD111nH1nity scctnrgt
bull dtmiddotmiddotulurinn to local bodies of lllltmiddotds idcntifiLation pL1nning to-ordi111Cio11 of
progr11111tltS dvlill of 1r111ova1it and ctmiddotriain other action tnd 111on11()ring
of progres
bull involvcrncnt of the eniirlt co111n1unity cspcciilly d1sHhmiddot1nt1gcd groups
bull 1dltl[Hilt1n cgtf a Jtili-li(middot ll)PH)tclt l1tbullrtbulll)y l(l)flCgtllliC 111d S(icmiddoti~1J dlVtbullhipnlcllt
VOllld OCClll (CllCUllellliy
13 middotrt1tmiddot Hhnini-rrililtlll (Jf Lo~middot1l J)tmiddotvlmiddotlopnHmiddotnr in Ireland is cl1ssi1111l1r legt 1ll11 in
oth1 middotr FlJ countriis in li1tl
bull lhltrl artbull i nu111lill of di1inc1 pn1gr1n1n1cs
bull there i strong centrd gullllllhllt 111d EU involve111tlll
bull 111middotv local 1d111ini-tr1t1vc s1n1c1111middotls -ere demiddoticcJ inderH1Hllnt ()r lXiring local
govlmiddotrn111cnt structu1
Ctmiddotrrril goven1111enl control- the hulk of public fininces At locil ltmiddotvel local
aulill gtril ilt~ ft 1 net ions h1 ve 1llen li111i1ed Ct ivering n11ttcrs such ts roads -1ni111ion
111d housing ihill 1hvonric1llv locil ~1u1lionl1tS co1dd lllgtgLmiddot in 111a11v uther ()cal
c lemiddot l le iJ Hnen t
hinmiddotling ~ygttlIll 111d ittthility 10 pursue ltl ignificull ltgtctl c1x11ion middotYtcn1_ 1 middotr1sk
oca Je1ehJ[J111e111 lnitiatiues
Force 1 esrtblish~cl by rhe Governn1tnl 1nadc i nu111her of rtco1n1ncnd1tions in 1
rcpon 111 August 1998 regarcl1ng the mtcgration of local dcvdopment with local
government These ere approved by the Government in September 1998 (sec
paragraphs 10 to 3 31)
Organisational and Management Arrangements
15 The tO main EU funded programmes providing suppon for Local
Development arc the Opernional Programme for Local Urban 1nd Hural
Devclormcnt (OlLUHD) ind 1he llADEH II lrogr1111111c These Opcrntional
lrog11mmcs were drafted by the Department of the Tao1sc1ch and 1hc Dep1rtmen1
of Agriculture and Food (Agricuhure 1nd Food) respectively within EU guidelines
incl 1grced Vith the EU Co1n111ission
16 Each sub-progr1111111e of 011UlI) and IEADER 11 is 1clm1nistc1nl locally by di1inc1 Local J)evelop1ncn1 bodilts middotrhis c11nin~1tion is concerned Vilh Lltx~il
l)evelop111en1 acrivilies 1cl1niniscercd by Coun1y Enlerprise Bltgtards and 1re1-Based
111111crship Companies under OlLURD and by LEADEl groups under LEADER II Hcspons1bili1y for rhee bodies coines under chi rc1nit of three scpar11lt Governn1en1
Dep111ments (sec 11gurc II)
Co1111ty pound11er[Jrise Boards
17 Crn1111y Enterprise lloirds ((Ells) were established 111 Oe1olier 1993 wnh the
tilll or fu tering incl f1cilitating che LCOll01l1iC dcvelopn1ent of local area~ Each CEB
Vts required 10 clrt1 up 1 Counry 1nccrprise Pltn incl its iccions incl prupo-als are
Figure 11 Main Departments and Local Development bodies
Enterprise Trade and
Employment
County Enterprise
Boards
Tourism Sport Government and Recreation Departments and Agriculture
and Area Intermediary and Food DevelopmenlCompany
Management Ltd
bull
Area-Based
Local LEADERPartnershipsDevelopment groupsCompanies and
Bodies community groups
1Jc To5k fmiddot(Jtmiddotccmiddot R(Xlrt u11 rbe 1tfpound7ratiu11 lt oc(lf (io1en1111e1u (11tf Local Jc1elo1me11t Srs1e111s bullbull~Ql( 19)i
2
---1tfrotluct1un
ha ed on 1hi plan middotrhertmiddot art 51 ltEBs in total covering county and urban local
~ll1hori1y 1rc1s Ftch (~EB h1s 1-i 111e1111Jer irHluding repngtStIltHivls of local
govltrnn1c11t public Stl or 1g~ncics hu1ntmiddots Lun1ing lradt union and co11111n1ni1y
inlTest
lH middotrhc CEBs provide 1 r1nge of enltrprigtt -upp()rt -ervices al local levt l eg
admiddot1 ic~ and coun~tlling hus1ncmiddot infonnaiion financial 1sis1ancc and 111an1gtIlllnc
dcmiddottlop11l(Jll middotrhtbull firgltl group- ~tre husinltsse- co11111nu1i1y groups individud
en rcprtJ1(lJrs 1nd -n1i[] enterprises cEBs tonk OVtf re-gtpon-ihililv frorll lhl fltgtrlller
Industrial i)tclop111cnt u1hori1y (ll)A) for the devt~lDpllhllt of 111anufac111ring and
inl =rna1iont gtervicc - finn~ Vilh ltmiddot s th111 ten en1ploycmiddotc In 1ddi1ion_ thtmiddoty is-u111cd
the l1tmiddot roll of pngt11101in~ 111 vnltTpriL culturt
l~1 J-ro111 1hc outet the i)tgtp1r1111lnt of Entcrprist middotrrade and F1nployn1cnt
( Enterpri-e middotrr1dtmiddot 111d L111ploynHmiddotn1) has been responsiblt for co-ord1n~Hing and
supcrvising the crBgt lniti11ly dec1~ions on grant payn1ent~ lo individual projecls
vtre vetted by hl f)t1gt1rt111enl 11ltgttVtL (~EBs Vere ccgtr1s1i1111cd as lin1ited liahili1y
l0111p1nies during iltJltJ) and ifl(I 1January 19CJ(i hive 111idc grtnt decisions
110 Stiffing accon1111ltJLlatiun and 01hcr expen es V(~1tmiddot ini1i1lly provided liy lhtmiddot
lul ii 1u1horitics on a recoupn1cnr lgtt~i and ah hough the CFBs anmiddot nov
inl orporatccl rntny havtmiddot coniinutd Viti lliis 1rrangen1cn1
111 Funding for ltt]is is co-fin111ctmiddotd by Elj _1ruc1urtl funds via suh-progra1111ne I
of 011UHD mcl hv the hchequlr
Ara-amp1setl lc1rt11erslJiJ (-tJn11c111ies
112 1ret-Bit~d 11rtntrhip co1np1nies ltPa11ncrship) vere originally c-tihlished
in 12 ~1rltmiddotmiddotas un 1 pilot hi~i in 1991 10 in1phnhnt an nca-hastmiddotd nmiddotspollgtt to longshy
tlrrn unen1pl(lyn1tlll under tile Progra111111e for Econoinic and Sul-i1I Progrltss (PESP)
_JH Partnerships havt hcen lSt1hlished (2() urhJn ind 1- rural) lo optrat in 55 areas
dtig11Htmiddotd by 1hc (~ovvnlllltlll i~ hling disidvan1~1gtd In 1cldi1ion lherc ire 55 C(lJllllH1nity dcmiddotLmiddotlop111ent groups in non-dtmiddotsig111ted arets middot1J1ch c1ny oul fu11ctior1s
i111iltr to tho~v uf 1he 11r111er-liips middotrile Boards of i)irectors of the co111panil-gt lll
drvn fror11 (1) 1he SlgtCiil p1nncr (ii l -ttle 1genc1tmiddots ind (iii) co111111unity ~ind
vc gt t1n1tr~- cHg111is1 tio11
tmiddot13 The function~ nf the P1rntrsliip art to preptre lnc1I dcmiddottlopn1t~n1 pl1n _ in
con~tdtalion vi1h otl1LI local groups incl hudicmiddots_ to lOLHlltf d1stdvan11gc in 1hcir
~trtts and tiltn lo hlmiddotl thlmiddot-c plans i111ptmiddotn1cmiddotn1td middotrile pl111 oullines the rangt of
socitl ind lmiddotcono111ic tSSlltS to ht addrtmiddot scd in lhimiddot l1rget trta and the ohjeclive to
Ill pursultd h1scd on tile resuh of ~1 ltgtcio-ccono111ic analysis of lhc iret middotrliLmiddot
intbulllllion i~ ro 1tLmiddotlcr11c lnlt11 eronoinic dltmiddotvltmiddotlorn1e1H increise frnrloynHmiddotnt ind
local Develop111e11t l11itiati1es
tickle cxclu~ion incl 1nargintlisa1ion resulting fro111 long-llflll une111ploy111ent vc1y
vide r1nge of 1ctivities i~ unde111ken including job pltCLlllCIH adull education
training con111n1ni1y clevelopn1lmiddotn1 cnviro1111H111tl projLCI~ and youth iniliHives
114 An indepenckn1 in1c1mcdia1y company wis eslahlished in 1992 in111ally under
1he aqigt of 1he Dep111men1of1he Tioisetch and subgtltltjlltgtnily from midmiddot 1997 1he
Depanmcn1 of Tourism Spon and lkcre11ion (Tourism Spon and Hecreuion) 10
oversee 1hc P1nnersllips ind Jocd devclopn1tnl groups middotrhe con1pany 1rca
i)(velopmet11 M1n1gemen1 Iid (ADM) is required 10 cv1lu11e plins from
Ptrlllt~r~hips corn111unity groups ind selecled organisHions lO 1J1ocatc resources in
1ccord1ncc Vilh the eviluation resul1s ind ro 111onitor LXpenditure incl perfon11~1nce
by btneficiarits Over lj(YtJ of funding is spent by tile lartncrsliips incl (he re1111inder
is spent by co1n1nuni1y gro11ps ind nHionil nrgani11ions
115 funding for P1rtnerships co1111nuni1y groups and eligible spending bv selected n11iond org1nisarions is co-fin1ncecl by ElJ s1n1ctural funds incl by the
Exchequer EU funding is provided uh-progrtmme 2 of 011uRD
LEADER
116 This EU lni1ia11vcmiddot for rural devdopmenl w1s origin1lly bunched 111 1991
(lEADloR 1) The obwrnw of 1hc progr11nme wis 10 ltS11lilish locli devdopmen1
1ction groups bullhich voulcl bt responsible for 1he in1plcn1cn11tion of business pl1ns
for heir areis lE1l)EH I v1s 1he subjecl of 111y firs value for 111oney exa111ini1ion
comple1ed 1n Decemhe1 1994 The ini1i111ve wis co111inued under 1he Oper11ional
lrog11mme for IEADER 11 covering ihe period 1994 10 1999 There tre 34 approved
1EADlR groups (is opposed IO 16 group in 1hc orig1nli progr111Hnc) These 11e
iu10110111011- lcg1l cntilies each conrrollecl by 1 boird 111d opeining under 111
igreen1en1 Vith the J)cp111111cnt of gricul1urc and Food (Agriculture incl Fuuclgt Jht-
l)epa1111Hmiddotn1 required th11 the bo1rds h1ve 1 1ripar1ite s1n1crure representative of 1he
con1111unity incl volunt1ry sec1ur luc1l Stite ~1gencies and the priv11t I con11ncrcitl
sector
117 Unlike 1he 01her lniti11ives covered in 1h1gt ex1111in11ion (which are csset11ilily
n11io11il policy initiHivc-) lEAl)EH i in EU lnitiitivl Vliich Va designed incl
Ln1nchccl by the turope~111 Co111111issio11 his 1ne1ns 1hi1 he in1plc111enlalio11 of
LEAJ)flt its 1in1ing ind opertting rules ~in de1ennined Ltrgel~middot Vithin 1ht EU
Co111n1i~sion 1uncling for rhe LEl)EH II lrogr1111n1e is co-financed fron1 ElJ
s1n1c111ioli f11nd the 1lADEH Opci1110111 lrogrunmc 1))4-1999 rnd by ihe
Exchequer
4
In 1roclzut1on
Sc1urces of Finance
118 The Fll Commission incl rhe Exchequer prolidccl funding for the 1niria11middotes inmiddot
the period 199i-199H follows
EU hchequer Toril
pound-111 t-111 ~-nl
CEils 465 516 98 I Parntrships 530 181 711
LEIDER groups 272 ILG 388
126 7 81) 208 0
Scope and objectives of the examination
1l) middotrhe cxa111in~1tion V~1s concerned only vi1h initiatives to pron1ott local
clebullclop111em rhrough Counrv Enrcrprisc Boards Ptrrnerships and LEADEH groups
Thue are 111anv orher ml[1nives for local devdopmcm such as URBAN Terrironal
E11l)loy1nent Picts Pe~tce ~incl Heconciiation 111d lnterreg II vhich ire outside the
scogtc of this ex~1111ina1ion
12middotJ Nei1her iJ)-1 nor the l1rtnershirs arv covered by 111y statutory value fcgt1 11101ey nn1i1 In the interest of producing i cohcivc report on locil l)lmiddotvclopn1cnt
ini1=11ivlts 1hey igreed that the exa111inuion ~hould he extended to chc111 middotrhcir coshy
OJX ration in 1liis resptmiddotlmiddot1 i~ icknovllmiddotclgecl
121 The overall objec11vcs of rhc c1n1inar1on w
bull ro ltVal11are rhc administrative effwncv ol rhc llltXlit (Chaprer 2)
bull lo asstmiddotss the extent of duplic~Hion and co-ordin1tion ~1rrangen1en1s ltCh1p1cr j)
bull to ev~dualc thl operHional efficiency of the bodies (Chipttr 4)
bull to coniidcr ho- tlii i1n1x1ct of 11ie holtl1e~ can hl asscmiddotssecl (Ch1p1cr 5)
1nr The p1opltJ-f of Illgt c_rrn11iiu111011 CFHgt lar111lmiddot-Ji1ps and 1eoJ(1middot grv11S uill IA Fccmiddoti-rlmiddotd l u lrJl(I
)c1lffJ[gtl11ltf hodico
5
loca l)evelojJ1ne1u 11itiatitCs
122 The main issues considered are
Issue Evaluation Criteria
Administrative efficiency Administration costs bull bull Human resources bull Adequacy of management
information systems
Co-ordination of activities Duplicationbull bull Co-ordination
Operational efficiency Targets and performance bull bull Resource allocation and outturn
bull Deadweight and displacement
Impact assessment Quantitative assessments bull bull Qualitative assessments
Methodology
123 Officials 111 the Depanmem of Amicroricuhure and Food the Dcpanmcnr of
Tourism Spoil and lkcrea11on 1he Department of Enlerprise Tracie and
Employmcm 111cl 1DM were interviewed Oua and pipcrs rcbting to targets cosl
and perfon11~1nce Vere ex11nined Analysis Vas carried out of cost and perfonnance
clua aria1ion in perfonnance ck1t1 vas used as a basis for selecting individual Loctl
Development bodies for funher examimtion
124 Selcc1ed CEl3s LEADEH groups and Partnerships were visi1ecl Helevant
personnel Vere intervi(Ld and individual rrojecls Vere visited Sevtrd CISC studies
Vtre identified during the co11rse of this vork and thc~c arc used in this rero11 to
illustr11i key i1SULS middotrhcy should not be ngarltled a1 rcpresentHivi of the cype of
pro1ee1s supponed hy the bodies
125 1Vleetings Vere held vith offici1Js fro1n the l)ep1nn1en1 of the E11viro11111ent
and Loctl Goern111ent ind Ille Co111ba1 lovlmiddotrty Agency lntervieVS look place Vith
the folJoving orga11is~11ions PlJtEmiddotr (Ille netvork of Arc~1-B1scd igtJnnerships)
Comhar IEADER 1u hiireann (tire network of 11ADEH groups) 1he ssociation of
Chief txecutives of Counly EnrcrprisC Bo1rcls (representing County Enlerprise
l3001rcls) the Irish 10111onal Orga1ma11on for 1he ncmployecl (INOU) he
Ken Cork iortb a1ul So111h )uhill CFJJs Trti li )011epal 11ihot1c11 a11d Northside art11lrh1J Fexford Ora11iflfio11 fur R11ral IJltbull1ltlup111c111 anti lao1bull tJ-1nHk Rural Dtbull1tlop111e111 Co Jd (IJ-ADJR ~rn11p) lv11sfonl Co1111111111i~~middot RrrJ1rCli Jd (1d S(J11rh lerry IAmiddottlIOJtllllll Part11crbip Jd (comhi11(c JHADERPart11c1~hip orxa11iatio11~j
6
J11frotll1 rI ion
Conf~r~nr~ of lkhg1ot1s 111 JrcmiddotLrnd (CORIJ vb Yvonne Murplrv lks~ardwr 111d Prof
J1111es A Walsh gtill Mrvnooth
)26 1n eternaJ exrerl IS lt ngagtbulld IO adviSl on the 1ncthodo(ogy of tht --Udy
and rlvtev the study findings_middot
7
2 Administrative Efficiency
21 Tlfrbull chtpter is concerned with the dliciencl of the CEils ltrtnergthips incl
llADER groups in iclminigtIenng locd Development ini111I11es loc1I Dcvdopment
is chirictltnsecl bv t 111uliplirny of object11es mcl ac11vi1ies The control of
achninisrrilive expendirure is 1chicvccl hy reference to stiffing levels pay rates tnd
1he re1sonablcness of 01her 1cl1ninistration expenses
22 Thlt clivers11y of 1he 1c1ivi11es of Local Development bodies ind 1he nexibili1y
in hov rhey set about 1chieving their objecrives li111it rhl extent to vhich cross
co111parisons of efficiency can btmiddot 111ade Neither unifonn perfonnanre inclicarors nor
co111111on infonnirion sysEc1ns on 1cl111inis1ruivc efficiency 1cross the ini1i1tivcs l1ave
been cle1middotcJopecl
23 The ptriocl covered in 1he chtpler is I994- I 998 indus1le However cle11ilecl
tndysrs ti indiviclutl Loctl Dltvelop111ent bodies ielel rel11es 10 I99i - 1997 II
should be noted thu local l)cvelop111ent bodies did 1101 co1nn1ence si1nultancously
incl 1h11 1he lime 11ken 10 esttblish indivicl11d local groups viriccl Accorclingly
expencli1ure in the early ye~trs rel~tles to the middotfullmiddot 1crivilics of i 111inority of groups
and the st111up plt1se of 111any lcgteal groups
24 middotrhe issues incl Calualion cri1t~ri1 used in thi chaptc1 are
Issue Evaluation Criteria
Administration costs Administration costs as a percentage bull of total expenditure
Human resources Extent of Board input bull Staff skills bull
Adequacy of management Data collecllon by Local Development bodies bull information systems Integration of data at national level bull
bull Reporting and monitoring
Administration Costs
25 The tottl 1111oun1 of expcncl1111rc incurred lw Local Develormcnt IJoclics m the
pen0ltI 1994 10 1998 was s208 mrll1on This is tntlysed in Ttble 2 I
26 middotrhc totil expenditure incurred can ht- categorised inro ad1ninisrration costs
vhich are the costs of running the relevant office-i and other exrenditurc Vhich is
cliviclecl IJeteen direct fin1nciil issis1ance 10 enterprise~ ~ind exp~ncliturc on
1ctivirics to incn1se enterprise avireness pro11101e con111n1ni1y dcvclop111cn1 or
redress clis~1dv1nt1ge
8
Atl111i11 ist rrttilt ~lie ic11c_ v
Ta~le 21 Expenditurebull by Local Development bodies 1994-1998
CEBs
P3rtnersh1ps
and other
LloADER Groups
Total
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
poundm poundm poundm poundm poundm
82 28
19 9 46
216 104
230 232
254 301
1 6 53 11 7 202
11 0 261 373 579 75 7
Norg a Expenditure relates to activities under OPLURD and LEADER II Some Local Development bodies also incur expenditure on other activities which arc not funded under OPLURD or LEADER and which are outside the scope of the examination Details for 1995-1997 are contained in Appendix A
b The total expenditure in the table includes Partnerships Community Groups and selected National Organisations
c Includes selected sectoral groups Annual reports of OPLURD and LEADER for 1998
Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total EJcpenditure
2i 1d1ninistra1ion costs 1 a perceniage of total expenditure in the period 1995 shy197 are shown in Tabk 2 L (There was link ad11uniscra11on pending in 1994)
2S dn1inistraliOn CDSIS IS J pcrcen1agt of tOtt[ eXJ1tl1citure decreaStcl uver the
period 199i 10 1997 for t~1ch iniriativtmiddot middotrhis JS clul n11inly co the face that it took
so1ne tin1c for rhe developnHnc groups 10 beco1ne opcrHional 1ncl hence 11n1ch of
the initial expenditure vas on adn1inistration rather thin activic1es This trend i~
1x111iculirly nocKeablc in che cise of LEADER groups md lirtnerships where
acl111inistrHion co1s 1s a percent1ge of tottl expencliture clroppecl sultilanli~11ly
middotrh1re Vere so1ne varialiuns betveen intlividt1al ltEls LFl)FH gnntps ind
Jgta1tnersl1ips middotr11ese ire considered belO Cfhe 1cl111inistration costs of Local
Deiclopnwn1 bodies are shown 111 Appendix B)
CltJUlllJmiddot E11te1prise Rltgttlrtls
29 1middot1icrc v(middotrc no great variations in rhc ad111inistruion costs incurred by che
CEl3s w11h lhe mqorill spending helWtCn pound 100000 and Jl )0000 per innum
1n1lysis of 1997 dat1 shc)Ytbullcl 1h~11 the adn1inistra1ion costs of n1ost CEBs V(n Vithin
1 ~1 r1nge of I ~Ai 10 25S~1 in rel~llion to tnttl expenditure The )ov~st Vas f)uhlin City
H J 1 with Cork Norch being che h1ghcsc ac 11 The level is scronglv mlluencecl IJy
the extent to vhich CFI3s are involved in the provision of gruus is chis increases the
9
local l)cuer4J11unt lnitiaflvcs
Table 22 Administration costs as a percentage of total expenditure
CEBs Partnershipsbull LEADER Groupsbull
Total
1995
poundm
49
15
08
72
Admin c
1996
poundm
43
41
16
100
istration osts
1997
poundm
44
53
20
11 7
Percentage of total expenditure
1995 1996 1997
25 20 19
34 44 28
51 31 17
28 28 22
Note B The figures exclude Community Groups and selected National Organisations b Excludes selected sectoral groups
Source Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General see Appendix A
level of overill expenditure In the c1sc of Cork North their mtin activities are
ini111~1tion incl the rrobullision of suppor1 such 1s counselling and training
wh1Chwould involve lowtr levels of expenditure rlm1 the supply of grant aJCI In the
case of other CFl3s such 1s Dublin City the focus was pnnnpally on the pronsion
of grtnl aid
Part11ersJips
210 P111nersh1ps generally spenl between l)0000 ind l200000 on adminisrruion
1n l997 with some excep11ons Mos 11rtnersl11ps which were esiiblished before
OPLURD had lower adminis1ru1on costs as a percentage of 1otal expenduure rhan
those wl11ch were srtnecl under OPIUlm In 1997 adminis1ra11on expenditure as a
perceniage of 1otil expencliture vas generally in the r1nge of 200u to 40Yo vith the
lowesl a 13 (in rhe case of i011hsidc in Dublin) 10 rhe highest m 51 (1n rhe
case of lnishovltn in J)o11cgal) il1ile 1c111al adn1inistration exptnditure vas si111il1r
in borh Partnerships expenditure on 1crivi1ies VIS significantly greater in Nonhside
as compared ro Donegil lnishowen which wis still in a scr up phase The riming
of projects locil rriorilies in the i1nple111ent1Cion of business rt~1n ind the nu1nbcr
of yltars the Jgtartner-hips have been operating have tn in1p1c1 on the adrninistritivc
cos1s percent1ge indicator
IEADER G10llJlt
211 LEADEH groups genenilly spenr lgtetween 50000 incl U00000 on
~1d1ninis1r1tion in 1997 Vith son1e exceptions In 1997 1dn1inis1rJtion expenditure ~1s
a percentage of 101al expenditure was generally in rhe r111gc 10 to 20 wuh the
lowest at 7 (in rhe c1SL of IJirrow-Nore-Suir) 10 rhe h1ghes1 ll 45 (in the case of
Comhm lorrais) While 1dminis1rarion expenditure wis simiLtr 111 borh LEADlR
10
Adn1i11istrati1cbull IJiciellcy
groups expendilurc on activities (including ~1nin1ation ind provision of grants) v1s
significanlly gnatcr in BarrO-Norc-Suir cor11p1red LO (cJJ11h1ir lnrr1is_ middotr1ierc llL 1
nuirtlltr of factors that can give rise to the variation uch a- hov Vt11 cst1blishcd
lhe sroup is local priorities in the in1ple111ent~1tion of the bu-iiness plan tilt tin1ing
of pro1ecis and 1hc lcnI of grant ml
Human Resources
21lt The loc1I charancr of each of he Local Devclopnw111 boclies mcl the nllure 1 ~incl diversity of thlir operHions n1ean thH thty h1vc l Sllbs11nti1I rolt of initiating
and co ordinating ac11vnies in co-operit1on ith 1 Viele v1ric1y of volunt~1ry and
stttutory org1nisu1ons (see Chapter 3) middotrhe achieve111t~n1 of their objectives is
I clepcndenl on _rhe avail~1hility of high quality plrsonn~I al Board tncl suh-co111111it1Ll
level and clecl1uted high ctl1bre s111f
Extent of Board Input I
2 B There 1s significant input it Boircl level for all of 1he bocl1es Arouncl 1wo 1hircb
of ( EBs operate sub-Boarcl co1111111nccs and half of these suigt-COlllllllllecs inclucle
1 111cn1lxmiddotr clravn fron1 1he local con1n1unit vho are nnt Boltncl clirector ~ middotrhis
invch-t~n1erH in 1octl l)evelopn1tnr bodies e1~tail~ a high dcgrLL of co111n1itn1en1 fro111
people vho are alrctdy active in their local co111111unitics
214 Pr1ctically ill Pirtnerships have suh-co1111111trecs on con1111unity ltlevelopnhmiddotnt=
I education and cnltrpri-e ~incl 111ost LEAl)EH microruups h~1ve -llh-co111111itte1middots on rurtl
touris111environnHn1 natural resources and s111all husinesscraftgt~erviccsr
Prermiddotaratory vork alllndince at 111cct1ngs ancl follov ur ~1ctivities pl1cc considerable
ti111c den1ands on Board and -ub-co111n1ittet 1ne1nbers l)uring chc exuninHion
I lt1bu11clan1 lViclence Vts found of the con1111itn1ent incl skill of Board n1en1lgters and
111en1htmiddotrs of suh-connniutes
Stciff Skills
215 A wide variety of skills is requirecl of 1cxal Developmem swff to match the
range of act1vitilmiddots 11ncle11~1ken middotrhis feature is ranicularly i111portan1 for LEAl)EH
I groL ps and P1rtnershirs clue to tht extent of their nmiddotn1i1 middotrhe staff nf Local
J)cvltmiddotlop111cnt bodies are highly qualified According co ~1 ncenl survey 5lVo of the
i-~~F ond Ihl lCgtfal Jr)(111 c111d RlflI )c11h1p111tllf PTT1JiHlllll1l f11ropca11 )(lt1a F111u Pro~ra1111111
1ttd11a1io11 Unll Apnl (JJJ
1)p(rt111011(1 fro~rc1111111e fnr IJAJ)FJ II (rJl11111111 11ilrcll1Utmiddot iI( Tlr11 R1bull1re11 Rtbullfx11 3re1uftu1 ((middott1rne1 middot (11t A ~(Jlt ialt3 199 7
II
(JC(l )e(lltJjJ11CI 11itiatiU(
CEOs of CEBs huld post-griduite que11ilkirion and funher 2()0 hive prima11middot
ckgrce In the cise of Partnerships 6()0o of 1nan1gers hold a post-gr1du~1te
qualificllion and a funher 24degAgt h1ve 1 pri1n1ry degret
216 flu rc-nurcefulnes- of Lltxil l)cmiddotelop111ent s11ff IS cvident during the course
of the eXltllllill1li01l
Adequacy of Management Information Systems
217 ht avaiL1bili1y of gncgtd 1111111ge111ent infonnation sys1e111s is 1 pnrequisitc fnr
cfficicnt icl1ninis1ration of the inititrives ind for ensuring thll rlllVLnt incl reli1hle
d1t1 is 1v1ilablc for pl1nning plrfonnince 111onitoring ind ev1luation An in-depth
rcvieV of the 1111n1ge1nen1 infon1111ion sysh111s in use Vas 1101 incl11dtd 1n the scope
of the ex1111ina1ion_ 1-lovever ce111in cltfic1cncics in the systen1s htmiddotc1111e app1rent
in discussions Vith officitls in 1hc locil f)evelnp111ent bodies ind during the
qu1n1i111ivt 1nil~middotsis vork
Data Collection by Local Development Bodies
218 E1ch of 1hc bodies opertllS scp1r11e co111pu1erisecl infonnttinn syste111s Vhirh
Vere ck~signtd by consuh1n1 under the aegis of lhe J)cpar1111cnts ind 1l)fmiddotI is
tppropnHe middotrhc pri1111ry purpose of 1hese syste1ns is 10 provide fredbtck on
ae11v1ties by eich Locd Development body ID the Dep1nme111s incl AD1vl The
syste111s should tlso provide 1111n~1ge111ent infor111a1ion for usc locally and facilitite
external evalunion 10vevtr the 1rge nun1bLmiddotr of local groups reponing 10
ditfercnt dtp1n111en1s posls pa11icul1r cJ11lltmiddotngLS tlaquoJr cL1t1 c~tpture
219 l)isc11ssions vitl1 ltgtfficials in the Local l)evelcgtprnent bodies visi1ed indicated
so1ne di~s11i-faction Villi ht kx1l use of systen1s in 1h11 they vere reg1rded as being
1101 user friendly or Vere perceivcd as not being fully suited 10 loc~tl 1ninage111cn1
needs_ In fi(I so111e locd f)evelopn1en1 bodicmiddots h1ve kepi lhltir origin1I syste111s in
11si O -upplc111lnl 1he infon1tttinn provided by the cen1r~1lly debullcloped systeni_ middotrhe
dillicultit~s havt heen recognised ind steps 1rt being t1ke11 011 1n ongoing b1is 10
encourage grc11cr loctl u-e of the C(ntrilly developed syste111~
220 Forn1al 1rr1ngc111en1s ire nor in place Vhich VOuld f1cilitlle nuo111a1ic sharing
of infon111tio11 Joctlly icross ill of rhe groups_ 1his is not possible due to 1he
1bsnce of 1 con1111011 clicnr identifier in the thrtt co111pu1cr sys1e111s_ So111c id-hoc
shiring of dtli such ts projerl tpplicition and 1pprov1ls occurs through rneetings
be1vccn bodies ind via County Str11cgy Groups lmiddotlovcver 1his is no subs1iru1e for
a systen111ic approich to dati sharing
12
Acl111i11 isrrari1e lli-c ieJtlmiddot_ v
22 l A middotide v1riery of perfonna11ce indicnors V1s dtveloped 1hrough discus~ions
w11li 1he external evilullor and with Local Development bodies (se~ Appendix C
mcl OJ LEADEH groups ind Partnersh1ps m 1x111irnlar undertake i wide range of
tctimiddot1 ities and con-lmiddotqucnly 1hcir co111pu1er sy-1en1s c1pture ~1 Viele range of data
middotrhi c111 plicc an tLessive burden on the sn1all 1d111inb1rilie st1ff 1n these bodies
perfonn~tnce 1ncasun111en1 systc111 Vhich focu~es nn 1n agreld StI of key indicuors lo tnco111plttS~ core tctivities and ou1purs and vhich reflect- key objectives
n1ighc be n1ore appropriattmiddot 1ny addicional inforn1uion require1nents could Ix
prltrlided Jess frlmiddotquently through for ex1111ple annual rtporting arrangc111cn1s
22~ 1middot11e fnltomiddoting issues Verlt also noced
bull The p11ori1ics of d1fferen1 loc1I Dcvelopmcnl lxKlies arc not 1den1ical even
Vithin 1hc sunc Local f)cvelopn1ent ini1ia1ive For exan1ple one Local l)evclopn1cnt lxxly 111ight prioritisl 1ss1stance to cl1stclvant1ged groups vhilc 1norher rnight priontise cnterprist clevelop1ncn1_ Exisling 1ne1st1rlll1cnt syste111s do not allov 11le perfon111ncc of chese tvo gruups co be realiticdly r111kecl and con11xircd
bull Measurement should cope w11h the fact that much of the pcrform1nce under
the ini1iat1ves is qualitative in nHure Exunplcmiddots include quil11y of tr~tining openness to disadvantaged groups and qu11i1y of relacionships Vith other
st1tu101) bodies Exiscing n1easunmiddotmiddot111Lllt systcn1s do not cuer for rhcsc 1spects
of perfo1111111ct
bull f)espice initiatieS to involve locd l)evelop111ent bodies in the specificuion of
perfonnancc indicators cxisling perfon111nce n1oni1oring is frequencly seen as son1cth1ng vhich is in1pltgtstcl on groups Vilh lillll direct bcncfi1 in lenns of
e11~1bling 1hltmiddotn1 to understand hov to in1prove 1hcir Ovn perfonnancc~
22 The apprrnd1 described in Case S1uclv I gi1bulls 1n 1nclic111on of 111~ prltp1ratory
Yor involved in developing svsce111s to cviluatc rhc efficiency and tgtfflttivencss of
1he bCKlies Governmenl Dep1rtmenLlt and Local Developmenl bocl1es might es1lt1bl1sh
10 middothat cxtenc this 1ppro~1ch could hl~ applied co rhc 1neasure111en1 and n1anagc1nent
of LDcil Dcvdopmenl periorrnrnc~ Thi 1s a prercquisi1e 10 es11blishing the clati
reqt-ire111ents Yllich should be -arisficd hy the inforn11til~n sys1c1ns in u~e by LocalI l)evmiddotlop111erH bodies Under clie exis1ing s~middotsren1s the inforniHion require111cnts for
detennining 1he extenc ro Vhich value for n1oney is htmiddoting obt1ined front expencli1ure
on lhe iniliatives arl nor 1dequarCly provided for middotrhe current inadequacies of the
inforn)Hion sys1e111i lin1it the scope for evaluation middotrhc middotlid-middotrenn Ev1lt111iuns of both
llA)FR and 011LRD have drawn a11e111ion lo 1his deficiency
Ilo1rc1er 11~-tf)FR groups produce wn11e11 c11u1i1a1ilmiddote repon llriccbull year~r 011d other local 1Je1eop111eu1 lltXlics olso 111c11de c111ai1a11n aJXCt of Jfrfon1u111ce u1 1b1middot1r n7xJt1s AJJ J(ls prod11t1bulld a sene bull of poundltlgt lt1dit- ubich nfhbullc1 q11all1a1inmiddot clfJtltmiddotr_~ of the uork of Parr11erships
J-rr an e(11ded disn1ss1nJ1 nr1 the (flk11e _p_- u_(Jt1j()r11111J1c(bull 111v11i1r1i11g 1middotce middot11F and 1111middot local Urlxo1 111d N11nil FJtnmiddotlopn1ltll lltJ8111n11111middot middot FuroJlllll Sulti(I F1111d lr(Jgn111111Jl 1alifioi1 fh1i1 April 1999
13
lnco l)erelop111enf 11itiati1es
Case Study 1
A benchmarking project
A transnational study funded by the EU is underway to develop benchmarks for pro1ects which seek to insert unemployed people into the labour market The main purpose of benchmarking is to enable organisations to improve their performance
Through a process of discussion and analysis involving the implementing organisations the key processes and desired outcomes are established An agreed set of quantifiable
indicators is developed to give a measure of performance under each key process and desired outcome Overall performance 1s denved by applying an agreed weighting formula to the 1ndiv1dual measures Data capture and performance reporting are
overseen by an independent third party
Graphical representations are produced showing the performance of each group for each key process and outcome Typically the performance of each group will be stronger in some respects than others and future action to improve performance can then ensue
Integration of Data at National Level
224 It is 1111port1nt th11 there should be ce111ral access to cltu to provtclc for a
sys1e1n11ic 1nd co111prchensivLmiddot cv1Jua1ion 1t nation1l level of tl1e efficicnc ind
cffectivcntmiddotss of lcxlttl develop111cnt 1cross the country In 1ddi1ion 1his vould
suppo11 co-01)er1tion ind co-ordina1ion across the bodies
225 Dllt lteld within Governtttent Depa11111enb and ADM is not tntegratecl at the
levtI of tile henefici~111 For exa1nple grant approvJJs to 111 enterprise gr1nt
pJyn1cn1- ~incl e1nploy111cnt 1re not associ1tcd vith 1 unique client identifier in
Enterprise middotrr1dt~ and E111ploy111en(s con1pu1er sys1e111 sin1ik1r veakncss exists in
Agriculture and Foocl and ADM This ctn reduce the scope for evaluttion For
cxainplc the JXrfonnancc of c1Hi1ics vhich obtain financial assis1ance cinno1 readily
be con1p1re(I Vilh 1hose vhich rlCcive 01her non-fin3nci1J supports
226 Whltn CEils were first cstablishccl Enterp11se Traut incl Ftttployment usecl a
cl11ilx1se inheri1ed fro1n 1he J)cpann1en1 of Fin1nce to record ce11~1in key datltI such
is grants piicl ancl ipprovecl on eich enterprise assisted by CEils In aclclition clati
on the Enterprise T11clc ancl Emplovmcnt Business lnfortttation Systettt (BIS) hdcl
grant and e1nploy1nent clua for all 1n1nufac1uring 1nd international services finns
middotr1ie opportunity v1s not taken of co111hining d1ta on the CEB clatal)ase vith its 011
BIS Subscquenllr EntcrpniL middotrrackmiddot incl E111ploy111Lmiddotn1 discontinued recording gran1
piyment cl1t1 on the CEB cL111base finally the coverage of the Forfis annual
etttploytttent survey (which 11pcl11es the BIS) was allowed to clittttnislt so that it no
14
longer allernrts lO include syste111aticillv -i111tll n11nuL1cturing tmiddotnterpriscs Vith less
1han 1en employees Agt a result 1he ibihty of En1erprise Trtcle incl Employmenl lo
1noni1or sn1all indus1ry perfunn~1nce and the cffec1ivencss of s1nall indusC1)
de clopn1cnt progr1111n1es l1as cmiddotonsicleralgtly eJkene(I
227 Enterprise middotrr1de incl Ernployn1tnt is H pr(S(nt agr(eing tcnns of reference
fur 1he es11hlish1ncnt of J sy-itcn1 tn L1cilitate chc inllgrition of CEl3 cL111 in10 1he Bl~
11 ii intended that ForL1s viii include CEB clien1- in its 1nnu1l c1nployn1tnt survey
In addition the l)epann1enl rl~1ns (O acquire a stacistical soft~tre p~1ckage to f1cilita1lt
udysis of CEil cL11a
228 middotrhcre is no nuional pltn to integrHt en1errrisc incl individual clien1 level dtta
fron1 CEl3s ith sin1il1r cLn1 fron1 lEAl)EH gruurs tnd Pannerships Agri(tilture incI
roud does not integrate 1nfonnation vhich is collecllmiddotd fron1 e1ch of 1htgt groups in10
nu onal systen1s and has no plans to do so Al)1 provides rltrltJrts 10 a n111nber of
f)epa111nen1 including Sociil ltollununity ind F11nily 1flairi Fnttrprise middotrr1de and
Fn1ployn1en1 and l~duca1ion and Science
1 229 In 1995 middotrmiddotouris1n Sport ind Hecrcation began 1 process of Stlling up a
I ClnlrJised rerfonnance lllOTlitoring systclll (P~middotIS) for OPJLiHJ) co1nprising ~1ggrega1e
output indicators for CEUs ind Partncrships9 Significin1 rlsources have been
demiddot01ed to developing this systtmiddot111 Pcrfonnance 1ndica1ors Verlt tin~1lly approved by
hlmiddot OPllif) Vtonitoring Con11ni11ee in Jl1y 1999 According lo middot1middotouris1n Srort and
Ht(reation this did not JJlov sufficienl 1in1e to consider extending the sys1e1n
frarnevork 10 provide for co1nplt1nson Vilh o(her rrogr11nn1es such as LEAl)Elt lmiddothe
c11rmiddotent posilion is tliH
bull P1nncrship rerforn11ncc dat~l fro111 I January 19lt)7 IS StJCcessfully taken into
the Jgt~1S l)Ha fron1 co11111n1nity ~ind special inttrcsc groups Vls taken inlo till
PMS for l 998
bull Performance dJla for 1998 from all of the CFlb has beltn rnlla1ed by South
Dublin CEB and taken mlltgt Ille PMS
Tht PMS is used to mon11or 1he levels of ae1ivi11es and outputs under 011UHD 11 JS
usel by thL ex1crn1I ev~tlua1or to assist middotrouris1n Sport and lh~crettion ~ind 1he
OfgtlURl) vlonilonng ConunittlL lO OVLf-itv the Progra1nn1e It is of li111itcd use for
efflCtivcnltSS analysis
23t) A funlicr ditficully is the allsenct of con11x1rison-gt vi1h son1c key h~tseline data
pricbullr to the es1ablishn1ent of ll1Lmiddot bodies for cxunrlt the r11e of nev firn1 fonnalion
and job cretlion 111 -111lt111 firins and 1he pL1cc1nent of long-lenn u11tn1ployecl
middotrourisin Sport and Hlcreation has co111111issionecl a ltudy of b1-cline da1a
15
oca J)e1euj111e11t 11ififlli1e
Reporting and Monitoring
231 Progress npo11s Jre produced every six 111on1hs by 1he lead l)ep1n111en1s for
consider1tion tnd approval lgty the reltv1n1 flonitoring Con1111i11ces Ex1ern1l
cmiddotvdu11ors VCrl eng1ged by middotrouris111 Spltgtn and Hecrea1ion and Agriculture and
rood for 011lHlD ancl lltDEll respcctilely ro produce evduarion rqions ancl 1hey
]11ve ~ilso produced 111id-ten11 rcvievs_ middotr111se repo11s iremiddot considered ll hilf-ye1rly
111ee1ings of 1he nlevint f1onitoring Co1n1nittees_ All Loc1l l)evelop111e111 bodies
prodt1ce 1nn11al rcpo11s ou1lining 1c1ivititS undenaktmiddotn 1oge1htr Vilh financial
s1He111ents 1~ required under the operHional progr11111ncs
232 Nerworking plays an irnponanr role for rhe bocl1s Borh lEtDEH groups and
Pu11Hr~hips have 1he bcncfit of personnel dedica1ed 10 org1nis1ng nelvork
acriv1ries The CEOs of rhe CUh also meer regularly
16
3 Co-ordination of Activities
31 middotrhtmiddot co-cistenrl of chtbull 1hrll types of hltxlics for local clevclop1nen1 lt1- given
rise to concern tlX)llt duplicttion and the Jack of co-ordinuion 1 middotrhe pltllentid for
cluplic1tion irises bcciu_c the bodies co111111e1Htd inderenck~nlly of each olhlr ind
s1ariccI 11 clitlercnt ti1nes lt1ve sin1ilar ubjemiddottives incl 11rglt ovcrl1pping p(gtpul~1tions
hivmiddot~ se1x1rItc local ad1n1nistr1lll strucrurls 1 rcpo11 to different lgtepa11n1enLi and ire
funded by different opltftlionil progr1111111es_ A a res11h there is 1 need 10 ln-gture
that there nl lttdtqulle 1rr1ngin1Lmiddotnts in pL1c1 to recluce the pnss1hility of cluplicltion
and to ensure that lhtrc is proper co-ordination betVten he ditlerenl bodies
32 Jhe iSSlllS of Jupllcl11on and co-urdinlliun can bl t~sc -lcl
bull bccwcen ch cl1ffllellC loctl Devclormenc boclicmiddots
bull belveen Local ()evelopn1ent hoclies and 01her agencies ~11ch is Enltrpri~tmiddot
lreL1nd 1ncl che l)lmiddot1x1111ntmiddotn1 of Suciil lt0111111un11y incl F1111ily tfL1ir-
1middothis ex1111ination is confined to duplication incl co-orclinat1on belVeen Local
n~vfiopmtell( bodies
33 In this chapter rhlmiddot i-sues of duplication and cn-ordinition are exanuntd under
evduition criteria ~1s shovn bclOmiddot
Issue Evaluation criteria
Du )lication Objectivesbull Clientsbull Activitiesbull Funding of projects bull
Comiddotordination Local level bull National level bull
IDulication
134 1 subst1nliil nu111her of lgencies c111 provide l0~11 l)evelopn1ent suppnrts in
I thl 1111e hgtc~d 1rc~J 1igure 31 fro111 lhe Suulh Vest illus1rites this
35 middotrhe natun of lhtmiddot inllillimiddottmiddots is 1hat lhlrc should be tltmiddotibiliry in str11egic
dlcigtiun n1ahing at locil level Vilhin brc)Jd p1ra11H[lfS lllch 1n sel oul 1n the
Operation1) Progr1111111es middotrhe si1nilari1ies igtelveen ohjectimiddotes clienL ind activilies i~
shltn11 in middotrabies 3_ I to 34 1re 1 result of thlst policies
17
loca )evelofn11enf lnifia11es
Figure 31 Local Development Supports in the South West
Tuartha Chiarrai Teo (Leader)
West Cor Enterprise Board
North Cork Enterprise
Board
Blackwater Resource Development (Leader)
m Car City Partnership
South Cork Enterprise Board
Cork URBAN
Note The following ADM funded community groups are indicated on the map by nun1bers
[] Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo [Z] Bantry Integrated Development Group
G1] East Cork Area Development Ltd ] Avondha Development Partnership fil IRO Duhalow Ltd
[sect] Sliabh Luachra Ltd [Z] Listowef Baronies Group Ltd
Objectives
36 All of 1he Lxxlics trt concerned illl locil econoinic develop1nlllt tnd h~1ve
i IJrief lo rn-ordin11e incl enlunce ex1s1ing suppo11s ii locd level Bo1h lEAl)EH
incl P111nersl1ip grltn1ps arc conccrntmiddotd V1th co1n111unity clcvelop1nent Vhile
P~1nn~rships ire explicitly focused on co1nlx1111ng socitl exclusion
Clients
37 1Ltny sin1il1ri1ies exist hetVeen 1he clitnls uf the lhllt types nf bodies hu1
there tre tlso in1pon1nt clifferenclS ihile CEHs deal Vilh business ickas fro1n any
individual or group thty do not specifically target dis1dv~11111gcd groups vhich are
1hc focus of P111nersh1ps lFAl)ER acliitics ire dirtctcd IOVllcls the loc1J
18
-------
I
Coorclination ojmiddot Acliuitiltgts
Table 31 Objectives
Objectives CEBs Partnerships LEADER
Fogtster development by Area planning Jc1b creation
Business supports Arumatton
C1)unter serious economic and social problems by Aisisting long-term unemployed 1n10 jobs Promoting adult educationtraining Aisisting community development Ericouraging provision of child support Integrate supports at local level
0
Table 32 Clients
Nature of Clients
Pcmiddotpulation coverage
G(bullograph1c coverage
Small Enterprises
Adult Learners
Joigt Seekers incl LongshyTelm Unemployed (LTU)
Ccmmunity Groups
Lone parents
Trc1vellers
Pe)ple with d1sabil1ties
Dirndvantaged youth
i==
CEBs Partnerships LEADER
100 61
100 Includes 13 complete counties and several
other disadvantaged areas
Almost complete in rural areas
(excludes part of cities of Dublin Cork Galway Limerick Waterford)
Note o denotes thor one Local Development body has chosen to pursue this objective
a This relates to designated areas covered by Area-Based Partnerships Soures Tables 3 1 amp 32 These tables were derived from the Operational Programme for LEADER
OPLURO and interviews with managers of Local Development bodies
19
lr1ca )e1eh11111e111 11i1iati1es
Table 33 Main development activities
Activity CEBs Partnerships LEADER
Draft development plans v v v Assess local plans 0 v v Carry out surveys of enterprises v v 0
Provide finance to enterprises v v v Provide advice to enterprises v v v Assist enterprises to access
consultancy support v 0 v Organisefund mentors for enterprises v v v Fund management development v Organisefund marketing initiatives v v Promote enterprise via meetings etc v v v Produce enterprise
brochuresbusiness guides v v v Promote enterprise 1n schools via
competitions training etc v v v Fund prov1s1on of tourism facilities v v Fund road signage Tidy towns v Fund artscultural festivals v v
Table 34 Main activities concerned with countering serious economic and social problems
Activity
Counsel long-term unemployed (lTU)
Carry out skills audit of LTUs
Establish network of L TUs
Organise fund education or
training courses Fund provision of education centres
Fund construction refurbishment
equipment of community resource
or activity centres Fund estate improvement
Fund communityyouth workers
Organise fund community fora
or networks Organise fund homework clubs
Fund youth act1vit1es
Fund play groups creches
CEBs Partnerships
v v v
LEADER
v v
v v
0
Note 0 denotes that not afl Local Development bodies have chosen to undertake these activities
Sources Tables 3_3 amp 34 These tables were derived from the Operational Programme for LEADER OPLURD and interviews with managers of Local Development bodies
20
Coor(i nation ojmiddot11 c I tu it ies
co111nunity in genertl ind local project pron1ottri lhile people vho tr( Slvcrely
socially or ((Cll)Olllically deprived IllJY r1r1iciplle in lEAl)l-f lllivitilS LEAl)EI his
no nmiddot1nit 1n spccifically targlting lhlSl groups In nine c1-es lEAlgtER ancl
P1dncrship Strviccs an dtbulllimiddotlncl by llHmiddot s11ne loc1I group
3~ LEAl)ER Jnd P111r1trships ltivc exten-iiC hut not co111plc1e popult11un
colrttge Jgt111nerships ind 1l)ivl-funcled con1nu1nity groups coVlI 1111ny of 1hc n1ure
conclmiddotn1r11ecl trltls of dis1dvin11ge l)lllt to lhe ficl 1h11 social dis1clvanragc is
spali11ly clis1rilH1ttmiddotd son1ltmiddot 1nmiddot1s of till cuuntry Vh(r( clis1dv1r111ge ex1sts arc nor
cobullbulltmiddotnmiddotd by P1rlnltrships or l)imiddotl-h1nded con1n1uni1v groups
A1tivities
39 It c111 igte gteen fro111 middotro1ble Jl 1hll 1hcre ecrraquoive duplicnion of
de1c]op111e11t tctivities 1crois 1he bodies Vith 1hnost tll of the 1c1ivitics lgteing
llndertlken by JI Je1-t tVO type~ of hodJtS [n inlLfilS Vith ht lllJntgtrs or the
Local l)evelorn1tnl bodies ii middotas indicated 1h~H Vhile thcv are lVtre of this
overl1p they rel~ on co-ordination n1ech1nis111s to ensure that re-ource- are nnl
Vl ~teeI
310 It c111 igte gtltmiddoten fro111 Table 34 1ha1 so111e overlip exisis lielween IEADER
gnurs ind P1nnerships Vith respec1 [o countering serious econo1nic ind soci1l
prcmiddotblv111- middotrills can irislt through i111pnmiddotc1stmiddot defini1ion ind inlerprtlUiun of the r~1nge
of crviltlS providld J-[oll(L the extenl of overlap 1n countering serious econo111ic
and Slgtcitl rroblcins is n111ch less 1han in 1he case of develor1nent activilies pa1tly because of th( 11rgct1ng of -plcific client groups hy P1rtnerships (the long-tenn
uncn1ployed ind the soc111ly ecludedJ
311 It should be no1ecl th~1t 1111ny other agencies or groups outside the scope of
1he exa1nin~nirln are ilso 1ctive II local level For cx1111pllt the Hosco111111on (JmiddotB
1ction Pl111 1997 - 1999 conttins a 111trrix uf dtmiddotvehgtp111ent agltncies incI servicis
pre vided in Coun(y Hosco111111on lhis i- shnmiddotn in ppendix E
F1J1nding of Projects
3 12 Situations can occur vhere pro111oters can 111axilnist thl funding they receive
b~middot applying for surport froo1 cJillenlll groups
W1hlre arc Poor 011s(hcd~ 711c Spali(I )11rih11lPll () r11e11r a11d DeJ11r11011 111 rlrt11d Urito1 1oa11 cl (J C0111ha1Ponrty1l~ltJ1C) 19lt)8
21
ocal Jeveloj1111c111 lniJ1atiUltS middot----- shy
Case Study 2
Subsidy shopping
A promoter had a turnover of pound80000 from an equestrian centre and language school In addition he was a farmer his spouse was a teacher and he had net assets of almost pound05 m1ll1on He wished to develop the equestrian centre and language school and provide accommodation on site for language students he applied to a CEB for financial assistance The estimated cost of the project was as follows
pound Accommodation costs 20000 Classrooms 10000 Indoor arena 22000 Outdoor arena 15000 Tennis court 10000
Total 77000
The CEB considered that financial support would be appropriate for certain nonshyaccommodationmiddot aspects of the project This comprised classrooms indoor arena and outdoor arena costing pound47000 and a grant of pound20000 was approved in May 1996 The Board considered that the promoter should fund all of the accommodation aspects (The Board had a policy of not assisting the provision of accommodation because this is a response to rather than a generator of demand)
In September 1996 the promoter applied to a LEADER group for a grant According to the grant application form the accommodation cost had risen to pound85000 (as against pound20000 in the CEB application) The LEADER group was aware of the financial support already provided by the CEB and the reasons why this level of support was given The LEADER Board approved a grant of pound17000 being 20 of the cost of the accommodation The project promoter was also approved for a marketing grant from LEADER of pound2750
Total capital grants approved for the project (pound37000) amounted to 26 of pro1ected capital expenditure (pound142000)
313 It has been po1n1ccl 011t (by Entlrpnse Trnclc ind Employment ind Tourism
Sport ~ind HecreJtion) 1hat this ct~e srudy gives little risemiddot fur concern 1~ the funcling
vas clinctecl tOv1rds different ele1nent of the projecr l-loCVer the fnlloving
efficiency difficulc1cs arise
bull aclcluionil middotsearchmiddot costs for cl1cnts who mikc mul11ple applicu1ons for ~1-isistance
bull ~1dditiontl tin1e ~pent by n1en1bers of Bo1rd incl evtluuion co1n1ni1tees and adn1inistrJrivc cosrs in Loc1I l)evelnpn1ent bodies
bull thC first Local Devdopment body to approve finannJI assisuncl cannot adopt a middotrotlJ project vieV bCClttUSe it is 110t lV1fe Vhether subsequent tJ1plicati011S ill be 1n1cle for assist1nce to other Local Developn1ent bodies
22
COorcination of Actiuitics
C1gt-ordination
314 As part of their an11nat1011 and co111111unity development 1ctivitits all of the
bol1es part1culirlv LFADER groups and P1rtnersl11ps look for opportunities to
1ni iale and co-orclina1e acrivilies vhich 111iy be underlaken by a vide variety of
st1tutory rnmmun11y and voluntary groups Tlus work usually Licilitates the
provision of econo111ic and social benefits to the co111n1un1ty Typical exunples 1re
bull Organising nevorks of lone parenis
bull Pro1nnting tidy tovns
bull Organising second chancC cducuicgtn
Vihin Local Development hodics therLmiddot is often tc11sion between the priorny to be
given to their co-ordination role ver~us the direct delivery of services including
grants
315 Co-ordination frequently involves the co-operation of several different
organisations at different levels (StHc local government communitvvoluntary
se(tor and business) to ~chicve a con1111on objective middotrhrough their co-ordinarion
roli~ the bodies n1ay harness rhc porcntial of several organisarions to achieve an end1 which would not otherwise be achieved This role has been cited is contnbutmg to
the unique role of the Joell development bod1Lmiddots A good LXimple of this mshyore ination i~ set out in Case Study 3
316 The multiple funding ol this anglmg pro1ect is substint1ally differtnl from the
multiple funding shown 1n Case Study 2 In Cie Stuclv 3 thlt contributions of the
vanous bodies were agreed as part of an integrated plan
317 The co-existence of three significant types of boches (and the inherent
cluphcarion shovn in 1he previous section) places a particular onus on 111anagc111tmiddotn1
of the organisations oH both national and lcxal levels to co-ordintte service provision
Fig1re 32 illustrates for each of the bodiltS the dilftmiddotrcnt co-ordinarion structures in
phe
23
loco l Jc1eofgt11HJ 11 I11 ii iu I ioes
Case Study 3
Co-ordination of a tourism angling project
A LEADER group in an inland county sponsored a study of the tourism development
potential of the county Although the county had weak tourism infrastructure and
practically no angling facilities the study identified several tourism sub-sectors that
could be developed including angling
An initiative was undertaken by the LEADER group to co-ordinate the development of
angling in partnership with fourteen other bodies including Fisheries Boards ESB
Coillte Duchas Bord na M6na and several community development organisations and
angling groups The initiative consists of
bull the upgrading of eight lakes most of which are owned by State agencies and many
of which were overgrown or silted
bull construction of stiles paths etc and restocking the lakes with fish
bull grant support for accommodation providers in the lakes area
The total cost of the project was estimated at around pound05 million Some of these costs are borne by LEADER but most are borne by State agencies and the Tourism
Operational Programme 1994-1999
The LEADER group is involved with other organisations in marketing angling facilities
and the provision of training for the ongoing management of the lakes
Co-ordination at Local Level
318 Cot1n1y Strllcgy croups Vere es1hlimiddotmiddotd1ed in LICh cnu111y under OPLUl~J) O
L1ci[i[Je co-orclin11ion ~ind 111inin1isc cluplic1tinn in lie delivery of progrin1111es
middotrhe Groups provide i forun1 for forn1d conununicition Vithin etch councy and
hctCt11 counties incl cenlrtl policy 111akers_ vlen1lxrship of the Groups includes
the Chlt1irpersn11s of CEl~s Ptr1nerships ind lEAl)EH groups County middotrouri111
Con1n1i1tees Coun1y f11n1~ers incI represen111ives fron1 middotrourisn1 Spon and
Recnation
319 middotrhe cu-ordinttion of services 10 cliencs depends very heavily on cruss-1gtncy
rcpresenltlion incl illendance at 111cetings middotralgtle ~5 shovs 1ypictl Board
repre~enc11ion
24
Coo1middotrh11atio11 o lctiuillcs
Fi1ure 32 Monitoring and Coordination
InterdepartmentalOPLURD OPLEADER Evaluation Polley Committee Evaluation
_l Department of Department of
Enterprise Trade Tourism Sport and Employment and Recreation
ADM Ltd
Partnership Boards
County Strategy Groups
1~BBoards ------shy
Department of Agriculture and Food
LEADER Group Boards
Table 35 Typical Board representation
S~bullctor Represented CEBs LEADER Partnerships
Lcmiddotcal authority members almost complete
Statutory bodies Ernployers I Trade Unions I Farmers Community I Voluntary sector
SouCe Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General
25
ocu )e1Alop111e111 11ifi(lf1ccs
320 CEils ire represented on most IEADER groups incl many Pa11ncrsh1ps
Hovever 1n~1ny lEAl)ER groups and P~111nerships ire not represented on CEBs In
so111e bu1 not all cises vhere cross-board represenlation i lacking there is crossshy
agencymiddot rtpn=sentllion at sub-boird level instead such as evilullion co1n111iuees for
protects_ In nine c1s(s vhere then~ are con1n1on boundaries the san1e Board
1clm1nis1ers both a LEADER group incl Partnership In ciscs where there ire not
m11ch1ng bounclirics 11 1s usud for LEADER groups incl lu1ncrships to have
C01111ll011 UO~trd repreSCl1tatives
321 Agriculture incl Food require all lEADEH groups to specify how they intend
to co-ordinate their activiies Vith other bodies before agree111en1s 10 i111plen1en1 a
LEADER progr1111me are completed Each tgreement includes t clause to this effect
and dso requires IEADER groups to part1n1x11e in Coun1y Strategy Groups
322 The view of the Local Development bodies is 1h11 loctl knowledge is of
piran1oun1 in1po111nce for co-orclina1ing their ~1ctiviries Use is n1aclc of infonntl
contacts 10 ensure tha1 each organisHion is tvarc of Vhat others artgt doing middotrhere
is often no formal 1gree111ent berween Local Devclop111ent bodies H local level
regarding 1h~ lin1its betveen objtgtctives acrivities and clients Hovevcr
consideration should be given 10 drlving up a middotfittcn staten1ent Vhich VOtilcl set
out a broad fra111ework of agree111ent between Loctl Dcvelop111ent bodies A good
exmtple from County Meath is shown in Appendix F
323 from the beginning elected pol1ticd representation was absent fro111 IEADER
incl Partnership 13oards Mc111bers of local authonrics are represented on CEl3s but
not is of right on LEADER groups and Partnerships However local aurhonry
officials arc frequentlv on the boards of lEADEH groups incl Partnerships A process
his been undc1way to 1nclucle 111e111bers of local authonties on rhe Boards of
LEADER groups and Partnerships This process is now complete in the cise of
IEADER incl is d111ost rn111plete 1n the cise of Pirtnerships
GeograpJica ampm1ulmJbull ProJlem
324 The co-orclmation of activi11es it locd level is 111ade 111ore difficult by the lack
of coherence the way the boundmes of the Local Develop111ent bodies were
clr~lvn and because of overltpping houndanes vi1h srHucory bodies 1s 1 result
n1any iltx~d l)evclop111ent bodies 1nust liaise vi1h a nun1ber of orher Iocil
l)evelop111ent bodies Jnd srJn1cory organisations_ middotrt1is increases tl1e acln1inistra1ive
burden on Local Develop111ent bodies ancl 1mpecks rhcir ability to offer unifor111
service delive1y in their territorymiddot and to co-ordinate activities of other Local
Develop111ent bodies and Srate igencies
26
Coordi11atio11 Cf Actiuities
se Study 4
Bcbullundary problem in South County Dublin
The boundary of South Dublin CEB covers the same geographical area as that of South De blin County Council and South Dublin Area of Dublin Tourism In this area there are four Partnership companies
Ta laght Partnership wholly located in Dublin South Clondalkin Partnership wholly located in Dublin South KWCD Partnership divided between Dublin South and Dublin City Scuths1de Partnership divided between South Dublin and Dun
LaoghaireRathdown
Al~o the Dublin Rural LEADER Company covers part of South Dublin as well as Dun LagtghaireRathdown and Fingal Council areas The State service providers such as FlgtS Eastern Health Board (EHB) Department of Social Community and Family Affairs (D3CFA) and Enterprise Ireland do not have the same geographical areas as local auhont1es They are split up into regional areas and these regions impinge on South Dublin CEB as follows
FlgtS Dublin SouthWicklow region of FAS contains part of South Dublin while Dublin WesVKildare region of FAS caters for the rest of the South Dublin area
EHB Each of three regional areas of the EHB Dublin South Central South West and West impinge on the area of South Dublin CEB
D~middotCFA Dublin South region of DSCFA contains part of South Dublin and Dublin West region of DSCFA caters for the remainder
Enlerprise Ireland South Dublin 1s totally contained within Enterprise lrelandmiddots region of Dublin and Mid-East
32~i Agricuhure and Food ha~ poinced ou1 rhar coheren1 geogr~1pliical boundaries
would be contrarv to the bottom upmiddotmiddot approach of LEADER The initial EU proposal
for hl fo11hcommg LEADER lnillatilC stales middotmiddot11 would he desirable rhar rbe eligihle
areas do not coi11citle tuith notional acln1ii11strati1e ho111ularies nnr ufth cli_~ihle
zon$ 1111cler the 1nainstrec11n operations(~ the structural jltntlsmiddot
Co-ordination at National Level
32(1 An Interckpartmcntal Policy Committee for Local Delelopment was
estltulishcd m June 1993 under 1he auspices of 1he Department of the Ta01seach and
subequently reconltt1tuted in Ocwber 1997 under Tourism Span and Rccrea11on 1s
funmon is to oversee 111d make recommendations on local delelopment (Appendix
G shovs the conunitteemiddots renns of reference) fhe co1nn1itcee is chaired by the
Minster of State in Tourism Spo11 and Hecreation ind comprises represenwives of
27
loca I )e1eofJ111e11 f In it itlf ftls
i nu111her of Gov1rnn1ent lgtepart1nc11ts middotrhe ro1111ni11ee has contributed policy
n111eriil 10 1he post 2000 s11b1nission on the future of struc1ural funds ind v1s
involved in 1htmiddot develop1nent of 1ht Integrated Services Prnjec1middot
327 middotn1e co111n1i11et sees i1s fu1ure role is one of infon11ing its([f nf dcvclop111ents
cnh1ncing links Vith local develnp1n~n1 orgtnisuions 111d lt1rn1ng les-gtons fron1
piln1ing projet1s including 1htmiddot porenti~tl for n11instrl1n1ing successful projects
328 middotrhlre is a potential role for the con11nittee 10 get involved in soning out the
sys1t111smiddot in1clequ1cics ind to develop 1 strltcgic lttpproich to coun1ering 1he
neg1tive ispcmiddotcts or duplicuion lhc co111111ittee should consider developing 1n
1green1ent concerning the lin1its hitveen tile olgtjec1ives 1ctivities and clients of the
three types of bodies vhilt- laking account of the li111it1tions on the discretionar
nllure of lhe LE1l)EI Jgtrogran1n1c Vhich is an FU Initiative
329 Fruin 1 viluc for 1noney perspective ind bised on the 1buve 1nilysis the
follr)ving i1nprove111~111s ire desirlttble in the short tern1
bull 1hc cs1ablish111ent of coherent geogr1phical buuncL1rics
bull tn incretse in he forinal co-orclinllion of service provision
The Task Force Report on the Integration of Local Government and Local Development Systems
330 t Trsk Force which was esublished lo reporr on 1h~ 1n1egr111on of locd
govern111ent incl locil clevelopn1cn1 sys1en1s reportccl in August 1998 and its
reco111111end~11ions Vtre approved by C1nvern111cnt in Septen1ber 1998 1 middotrhe 11sk
1orce l-gt concerned to ckvclop 1 vision ~ind s1ra1egy vhich Voulcl encon1pass in
in integralecl IY (he oper11ions of loc1I governn1ent ind Local l)evelop1nent
bodies in order 10 significantly incre~1se 1heir effec1iveness
331 Tire Task Force conltrdercd 1111 Iris could besr be achieved 11 1hc counry rncl
cily level The cclllrrl role will be pL1yed by new Coun1y or City Dcvdopmenl
Boards (CDlb) which will be es1ablislred in each ciry incl cou111y locrl authority
The CDBs with memlJerslup drawn from four sltcrors (ie local governmcnl
co111111uni1y ~ind voluntary social partners and Slate agencies opcra1ing at local level)
ill clrnv up an agreed ~ind con1prehensive Coun1y or City Strategy for Econon1ic
Sociil ind Culturtl l)evelopn1cn1 It VtS 1greecl 11i~11 Jgtannerships or LEAl)EH groups
should cllal Vith clis1clvan1aged areis on an 1greecl basis 1nd 1hat con1111unlly
1)( 111ltgr(lc-d Wnncc~ lropU tla egtlabllshtd 011 a pilot btLgtiL ill f)rce111hcr 1998 ill 011r sltmiddotnmiddoto11S~) ltliltult(l11fa~1middotd arltbullas_ (JbjeLliltmiddot 1s 10 cr1-ordi11flle tbtbull i11p111 ofall S1a1C senlicegt
28
Coorrli11atio11 o Jcmiddotti111 ie------------------------------~---
developinent and -ciciJI incl11sion 111c1sl1re tho11lcl vl1ertmiddot possibll bl cleliVlrld bymiddot
gra~sroots bodies Further nmiddotcon1n1endatinns of the middotr1sk rorcc include
bull (Jl(lprise support func11un lo htbull vered in 1he CFBs Vith rrovision for the
involvement of other Local Dcvdoprncnt bodies such as LEADEH by ~1grec111ent
bull fu11ctional arl1- to coincidemiddot Villi co11n1y or city IHHJndaries or_ t[ sub-county
kmiddotvtmiddotL local elector~il ~treas
bull ~1 si11gle igency to bl nmiddotspt1nsihll for con1n11111i1y dlvclop1nlnl at suh-cuun1y
lclI (either the local tuthoritymiddots Arca Con1111ittee or in clc-ign1tecl
clisadv~1nt1ged 1rc1s groups -gtuch ts P111ntmiddotrJ1ips or LEAJ)ER groups)
I bull any future loctl ckv(loptntmiddotnt groups slloulltl have cou11ty or city councillors on
[heir Boards
An interdc1x1rtn1en1al i111ple1nent~1tio11 group h~ts hLcn fonncd to oversee thl in1plcnltmiddotn111ion of 1l1c middotr~1sk ilnce reco111111endarions
29
4 Operational Efficiency
41 This chapter considers the operational efficiency of the groups Operational
efficiency is concerned Vilh 111aking the best use of 1hc resources provided to
111axin1ise the ltmiddotvel of outputs achieved
42 middotrhe issues and evtluHion criteria arc
Issues Evaluation criteria
Targets and performance Quantification of targets bull Use of baseline data bull Achievement and review bull
Resource allocation and outturn Targets and outturns bull Allocation of resources to Localbull Development bodies
bull Grant cost per job
bull Cost of non-grant outputs
Deadweight and displacement Information on extent bull Effective procedures bull
Targets and Performance
43 OlLUHD contained a number of output md ac[Jv1ty t1rgets to IJe achieved
over the priod 199 middot 1999 A report issued in 1994 crnicised some of the tJrgets
in that they did not refer to previous performance In the absence of this middotbaseline
perform1nce cl11a it is not posstble to know how realistic or demanding these targets
are Extmples of the lick of baseline cl11a include information on new 1obs and new
businesses middotrhc report ilso ronsiclend 1ha1 oilier 11rgets Vere coo n1odcst in relation
10 hat v1s knovn lttbou1 perforn1ancc such as chc tirget for ncv businesses suppo11ed by P1rrnership vith reference to the perforn1ance undltr the original
PESP Partnerships
44 lhe n1ain OPLLRI) targt~ts and 1chievc111cncs against the targets are fhOvn in
Table 41 Most of the original targets were excccdccl bv 1998 rrnny by a wide
margin The only target that w1s quantified in th~ Operational lrogrunme for
LEDER as the creation of obs wluch was set H 4000 over the life of the
Programme Up to encl 1998 an overall job creation figure of 2700 (fulhime job
equivalents) was reponecl
45 Folloving the reco111n1endarions conrainecl in the 1nid-ten11 reviev revised
performance indicators and raised targets were adopted by the OPLURD Monitoring
Ex-a11( Appaiitil of Proposed local Dcmiddotvelop111e111 Progran1me pn1x1rltbulld on bfhalf of DC X11 ~)the SeflJices 11d11ilnltS Research Centrt liCD F11zpa1ncJ Associates a11d Kiert111 lcKeo1m1 lld Febn1ary 1994
30
Tatle 41 OPLURD targets to end-1999 and achievements to end-1998
-
Target
Now JObs
Nt~w businesses
Progression of unemployed to -full-lime jobs -part-time jobs
Number of adults asgtisted to access education
NL mber of children attending preventative education services
Existing businesses su Jported
Cl sterner contacts
=
CEBs
Original Targets
8000
2260
280 pa
20000 pa
Achievements
15500
3 110
2500 (1996-1998)
8700a (1998)
Partnerships
Original
Targets
6900
3640
12500 1500
60000
20400
30000 pa
Achievements
12800
12800
11400 2900
18500
35000
na
Note 8 Only contacts which fed to a provision of a service by the Boards to a client were recorded
Soure OPL URO and annual roports
cn111111i11ee in i-lay 1999 (ee ppendi ))_ middotrhcsc l~1rg~ts appear to he 111ore re~iliitic
having regard to perfonnance in the early ye~1rs of the Progra1nn1e
146 in the cise of ihDlH the mid-term rtmiddotnew notd that the 01 ind1cuors
_cured highly on relevance 1-lovever n1any ut the indicators verc so vague 1ha1
111caningful qu111tificlt1tion vould htmiddot aln1osr 1n1rx1ssible -rhlt reviev concluded that
the pcrforn1ance indicators dieI 1101 provide J sufficiently cltar basis on vhich groups
could debullelop con1n1on indicuor systen1s_ lhe nvit~V proposed a sys1en1 of
ptrf1nnance indicators flt1r discussiltgtn 11ncnchnent incI i111plen1en1a1ion imiddot11e
LEA)ER Morntonng Commince clccidccl that each LEADER group should prepare
i rt~middoti~t~cl t1rgtIS in respect of he indicators proposed in lhlt n1icl-1enn nviev (see
pptmiddotnclix E)_ Nu revised nationil targtli Vtrt agreed by the fmiddot1nnitorin_g Co1n1nittcc
or griculture Jnc1 Food
l
ocal JercoJ11rent 11itulfiteshy
Table 42 Expenditure targets 1994-1999 and outturns 1994-1998
Initiative OP Forecastbull
1994-1999
Revised
Forecast 1994-1999
Latest Forecastc
1994-1999
Outturn 1994-1998
poundm poundm poundm poundm CEBs 818 811 808 620d Partnerships 1047 1036 1083 706e
LEADER Groups 772 947 947 388
Notes a Updated for exchange rate changes and inflation as of May 1999 b Revised forecast is lhBI which has been most recently approved by the Monitonng
Committee ft refers only to expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds c Latest forecast is the most recent estimate by the relevant department of the most
likely outcome It refers only to expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds d Outturn only includes expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds (pound620ni)
Expenditure not co-financed by EU structural funds an1ounted to pound36 1m e Ourtum only includes expendifure co-financed by EU structural funds (pound706m)
Expenditure not co-financed by EU structural funds amount9d ro pound05m Source OPLURD LEADER OP annual reports
Resource Allocation and Outturn
47 Public e-pendi1ure 11rgets ind ou11urns ire shovn in middotrable 42
48 Fro111 the beginning it V1s the viev of Enterprise middotrr~1dL incl En1ployn1tnl thit
there IVlI nut sulliuenc EU funds under 011UHI) 10 support 1lte desired kbullel oldeg
t-pctHliturc by CE13s over 1he life of the Prngrunrnc_ ccorclingly CEB exrenditun
wis in ecess of the level co-finrnred by Ill funds rnd the b1l111n of U6 J million
wis provided bv the hclwquer It is ciltrr 1h11 EU funds rvrilrble for CElh under
011UIU) wrll be fully u11lised bv the encl of 1he lrogrrmme
49 A~ n1ost P1nntrships h1cl to go through J lcng1hy pnxtss of es11hlish1ncn1
incl planning in 19ltJ5 ind 1996 their cxpendiltirc Vas slov in rhuse ye~1rs tlovtver
expenditure 1ccclcr1Ctcl in 1997 and 1998 middotruurisn1 Spo11 ind Hecrellion and 1)11
expecc chH over the full progranllne period c-pencli1urc 1argc1s viii be n1et
410 E-pencli1u1-c under LE1J)fH Vts suhst1nti11ly Ix-In ttrget for rhc pcriocl
1995-1998 A fu11hcr sum of J18 million wrs rllocued to lEDEH liv the EU
Co111n1ission in 1996 fro111 an EU re-erve avai11hle for (on1111unity initiatives In order
to reach lht revised forec~1st expendi1ure in 1999 Voukl h1vc to be 1non 1han lVO
111cl 1 hilf ti111cs lite expenditure of 998 tmiddotlovever griculturc incl Food lXPLCls
1h1t ill alloc1tecl funds viii be spent by the encl of tiltmiddot Progr1n11nemiddot
11ltcor(111g trJ the 11AIJlR ()~ lt11 eliJihle ltpc11di111nmiddot 111ust lgtc co111tlffltlf 1~1 middot JtA f)IJ~ gn111h l~r tbc (IU
of fJrl-1 111Jc_bullr 15J-JY 11Ji~e 111r1111middot1 s 11111sf he Hiid rJ11f I~) llAJ)f( grrgtllJS lxfurc )l_1111c 2000
j2
( ))(rct f iu 11cf fi-c iei Ilt)middot-- middot---------------- shy
A1ocation of Resources to Local Development Bodies
411 Fnlerprise middotrr1clc and E1nployn1en1 inittdly alloctttmiddotd resources equdly to each
CEit middotrhc l)ltp1rtn1ent suhscquently 111nved to 1 1nore dtmiddotn11nd Jtmiddotd 1ppr()~1ch
h1nmiddothy allocations VeHild lgtt varied depending on 1hc relative llctmiddotds uf each aret
Ille c~1p1city of e1ch art lo successfully utilise eriterprimiddotbulle supports ind to crelle jobs
i ind the qud1ty nf thtmiddot cmiddotnterpnstmiddot pL1ns prepared hv each CEB
41 Al)middott placed 1dvcnistmiddot1nents in nevsptpers i11vi1i11g cnn1n1t1ni1y groups
(ou side Ille designated JrLIS of dis1dvintJgt being IUl)kcd Jfter hv Area-Based
P1nncrships) incl relevant n11ion1 organisations to ~11gt11ly for ()JgtLUHI) funding 33
con1n1unity groups ind 15 nitiontl urganisuion Vere sekCtld by t()1I for funding
41 middotrhe allocation of resources to Pirrnvrships hy Al)1l v~1s hiscd on cltt1ilcd
1nIlysis of the socioeconn1uic ch1ractlris1ic- of eJch tre~1 highliglning various
aSf)lt_cts of dtpriv11ion drlVll fro111 tlie 1991 ltensus of Population ()tiler rclcv1nt
v1riihlcs inclt1cll~d the qu~ditv of the pL111 tlttmiddot c1p1ci1y of htmiddot l1rtncrsliip ind the
1v1l1bility-of orher clevelop111ent resources to 1hc lrll such as IE1l)l-J or LiHB1N
4lbulli 1chmiddoter1istmiddot1nents Vere pL1cecl in 11Lmiddotvsp1rtmiddotrs innouncing lhe LEtl)lR lni1i1tivl
and inviting applicnions 1middot1ic~e VCrc assesstmiddotd by 1gricuhure and 1~nod Vith the
1ssi-bull1ance of an incltpcndenl consul11nt to es1ahlish tile txtent to vhich they 111lt~1 iii~
key ftatures of LEl)FH lhtmiddot rltsourctS middotere tllocatcd h~1ving regard to the quality
of the hu iness pl1n subniilllltL 1he population ind cl(gree of rurility of the 1rea and
the ~1vailalgtility of othtr sourcts uf ~lss1st1ncc fn1 Joctl ltkmiddotclop1ncn1 3i loc~d group-
Ver~ sclecled ind 2 SLctoral groups
Grint Cost per Job
4l~i middotr1iere arc specific f1c1ors vhich lin1i1 the usefulness of htmiddot gr1n1 cost per job
incli ~-tlnr in the con1cx1 of lltx11 devclop111cnt middotrhese include
bull (rear d1versil in the ni1urc of the 1ohs cre1ted ind 1he 111ethod of cc)un1ing
I hl111
bull No direct con1p1nson hetveen the VOrk invoVtltI in supporting job cna1ion 11
local level VIiii nationtl joll crcition agtncics
bull middotrile us1ain1bility of jobs 1n1y d1fft r frn111 11in-e crc1tltd by nuional igtncics
bull middotril(middot focu- un job cre1tinn iritmiddot vithin the three 1ypes nf lllt1clic
local Jevelopn1e11r fllifiariues
416 For CEils the number of jobs created is used is a performance meisure The
average gr1n1 cost per job creared vtriecl over the pericxJ under reviev as follovsn
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Number of jobs created 1958 3174 3589 3317 3487
Grant cost per 1ob created pound2535 pound4249 pound3763 pound3884 pound4206
The v1ri11ions from year 10 year miy be panly explained hv the fact 1h11 sometimes
1here is 1 riine t1g hetveen the gn111t expenditure ind 1he creition of thi relevant
jobs Over the period 1994middot97 the average grant cost per 1ob was Aj725 with the
lowest CEil be111g S2269 (Tipperary North) and the highest being gtfi683 (Leitrim)
Cost of Non-Grant Outputs
417 In add111011 to grmt aiding job crcll1011 md adminis1r11ion all of the bodies
~Ire involved in non-granr activities including
CEils
bull Producing enrcrprise plans and generJlly pro1noting in enterprise culurc
bull Busines~ infonnttion 1clvice counselling incl 1nentoring
bull ~ltn1gc111ent devetopn1en1 rraining
lartnersl1ips
bull Enterprise cre11ion and ckvelopment
bull Environ1nent ind infrtstrucrure projects
bull Provision of services to the unen1ployecl
bull Con1n1unity clevelop1ncnt
bull Co1nple1nentary ~incl prevcnt11ive educarion
LEADER groups bull tni1nation 1crivit1es
bull middot1-icl1nical assis11nce
Expenditure on these 1ctiv1tic~ is shovn in middot1middot1blL lt3
418 11blc 43 shovs the v1rying ex1cnt 10 vhich the clitlerenl locil l)cvelop111ent
lxgtdics trt involved in non-gr1n1 ou1pu1s_ Thlt CEB ind LEl)EH groups focus on
gr1nt is grtmiddotarcr th1n Panncrships vho focus on non-gr1nt activi1ies imiddothis is
cons1s1ltnt with tlic list of 1ctiv1ties 111 Tible 34
- 71Jt 111tmeratfJr is l1n11t~ paid 111 the cale11dt1r HCff 01u the de11011111uur1r 1~middot the lllfJloy111e11t ~ai11 Cllthic~( (1er IIitbull yor i11 the jln11middot 11111J rcce11ed jiTu111c1td uufuitl Jimiddotom (Lfgtsmiddot 11 1Jf1bull rbut
empluymc111flt_-e1middot1111h1middots1middotjir11r_ are 1g11ored
31
()fJert-111u1uil Fj)lcicJJ(l --middotmiddot-middotmiddot---------- shy
Table 43 Expenditure on non-grant outputs 1996 - 1997
1996 1997 1996 1997 poundm poundm of total of total
expenditure expenditure
CEBs 39 54 18 24 Pyentnershipsbull 51 136 56 72 LEADER groups 21 34 40 30
folal 11 1 224 31 42
Not~ a 7he figures oxclude Community Groups and selected National Organisations b Excludes selected sectoral groups
Sotrce Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller iJnd Auditor General see Appendix A
Duadweight and Displacement
419 l)ct(lveight refers to situation Vhcre 1 pro1nocer vould undertake 1he
buiness projtmiddotct in 111y evcn1 i_e_ Vitliotll 1 gr1nc or 1sistince fron1 ~1 Iocil
l)e-elorn1en1 body middot1l1e granting of funltls 10 dealthveiglH projects is an ineffic1tgtnt
and ineflec1ivt alloc11ion of resources Disrlacen1tmiddotn1 refers ro situations vhere 1he
golt1cL or ~ervicvs iOlcl by 1 grlttlllltISiiSled rroll10ler divert sales opporlunitiis fro111
other exisling busincssl-gt E111plor111ent c1n hl sin1iL1rlv divlrtecl In chese cases rhe
in1pac1 of thl funds allocHed is achieved at the exptmiddotnsc of other enterprises
420 Tltere is risk of deidweight and c1splacemcnt in Iii gr1nr ictlmiddotUv including
th11 It lltgtcal clevelopn1en1 level A nccnc study stated th~1t 1 ~
ie bate tao concerns uifb the s11ppo11s Or n1icro e111e1JJrse Jbe Jruhlen1 uf
clacue1ibt a11cl clisplaccbull111e11t is e11clc111ic in such Slf)jJ01ts eJHCial~v 1ohlre
sc1cral agencie ure to su1ne clerrecbull inuolultcl in tlishursing such suJfgtorts
The Operational llogrammls for 11--DEH 111d 011lJHD llotlt su1e thll dc1clwe1ght
1ncl clisplact1nent are to Ixmiddot 1voiclld
421 All cn1crprise project Lill into one of 1he folloving fo111 clllgorics
Deadweighl Yes Deadweight No
Displacement No Displacement No
Deadweighl Yes Deadweight No
DisplacementbullYes Displacement Yes
Vlt1tio11al 11ici11nbull11i P11onlies for the xbullnfJd 1000-JrxJG Fitzgltbullrald cmiddott al Fn11omic ond )o(middotial Reearch 1i111u1rmiddot -Hor(h 19Y)
ocu )etelo111u11 t 11 it it1 I ives
Of 1he four possible scenarios onlv one (wi1h no displaccmeni incl no cleaclweigh1)
yields potcn1iil net increises in outpu1 incon1e en1ploy111cnr and consu1nption 1hat
could Ix 111nbu1ible 10 l[ADEH or 011Ul(l) supporl From vil11e for lllClllC)
perspective ii is in1ponant tha1 1hcrc be good infonnation on the extent of
cle1clwe1gl11 and dispLicemem and dfcc1ive prcxeclures 10 deal wi1h 1hem
Deadweight
422 11 is cl1fficuli 10 111eas11re the ex1ent of clcaclweigh1 and no method c1n Ix
rcmicro1rded is provicling tn1~illy rcliallle es1in1~1les [)eichveight Vts exa111ined in the
111idmiddotltnn reviev of OJgtLUHIJ in rcspcct uf fin~1nci1l ~1ssistu1ct givtn 10 s1nall finns
by CEl3s Fron1 a s11nple of finns ~untycd over 40dego of thC pron101ltrs indic1ted thll
they would hivc es11blished the businesses w11hou1 CUl suppo11 A s111cly of micro
enterprises 1h1t fl~Ceivtcl grants under Local )evelop1nent initiitivcs 1nd other
progr11n1111s rcpo11ed deichveight of 45Yi
423 E111erpnse Tricle and F111ploy111en1 has irgued 1h11 1hese estim11cs of
ceJdeiglu are roo high ccorcling tu thl l)erart111e11t the viCS of proinoter~ irt
nor 1 reli1ble guide to cil11er lheir behiviuur or heir SllCLt-S lhe l)cp1nn1ltnt ~1-serts
1hll di CEBs seek 10 ivoicl cleiclwcigh1 However i1 J11s been no1ccl 1h11
rcsrondentsmiddot confidence rcgtrding their abil11y to sta11 i busines in the 1bsence of
i grant c111 he considered 1s 1n underesli111~1le
424 A siucly f 1hc Arca Allowincc Fn1erprise Scheme (AAES) which is
adniinisterecl by P1rrnerships suneyecl a sa111ple of pa111cip1nr- 1 11 Vts concludedbull
thit cleachveigl11 Vas in 1he range 40-50o_ Even alkJving for s1111pling risks the
thnt surbulley-gt t1ke11 1oge1her suggest thlt there is 1 consiclerihlt incidence of
cittciVCight
425 An cximrle of poten1iil cleiclweiglll involving IEADER funding is se1 ou1 in
Cise Study 5
11of11at1011 (~ 1liClO 111tt1pn4 S11pxn3 lcrni 1ltllicn10 d local fgtcbull1ymiddotfop1111bull11t Agc11c1e 11d11try 11a11atirJ11 11111 1111~11-t 1999- lluro (llfe1p11lt- that rcCcbulluetl prro11s fr(J11 1111e17nisc flflt11u_ (danis 1u1 Crrlllachf( t111d Sht11111rJ1t )c1elop111e1111tmiddotc1v111c1uld i111lw arl(hiiS
Set fj lJiAJhk 111iutitlt hmiddot1a11af11J1 r11ul llttmiddot(middotr1111111middot11rlatiu11 lcmiddotontcmiddotv CI ul 1)95
Stjl111plortd a11d tlw 011g (bulln11 l11e111plr~rrmiddotd A11 1al11alio11 (J 11w tlnf1 t1101ra11cc f11terprit Xhe11tc IFNC Co11s1il1a111s J-)7
-1)1 cr11bullrde1middot 1ba11hc prop()r1p11middotuncncl 11IFJ _-lated b(l biy 11011d hatcmiddot 1atmiddotc11 up c111plrJy1111J1rJbull1jshy1middot111101111i1 ~ 111J (J nmiddotfia1c n1lt1ict1orji1r thost 1141u M1ild (UT nLltrfllll dn11( 11 t1) ht1 01)11cd that IJc lllU(rillllf (CtlN n1t1middotJrom l(lllJtiy1111Jl ~r I 1r11gmiddotttrlll llt1fJIO)td 24Ci Ill tbc iRC middot111(~1) 11Yfdd he c1 lgttbulluer t-li11(lft ofdct1tl11eipIJ1 fur AAlS paiticipd11t tha11 the tfiJJlltlllgt q11ofcfl i 1 1ha1 suufbull_ Nou~middotzybullr_ lh1bull s11u~v J(jiJfld (fl that lbulle cht1roocns1il~ vf Amiddot115 KJrticipa11t (tmiddotducatio11 and dt1r(lI011 of 1111c111p()y111cmiddot11t) were lkl(rmiddotmiddot tba11 for thl frn~~-1en11 111u111ploycd uho dul 11ol fx1rtic1xflcgt II Atf)
y
Of)(rotional IJfcicbullnc-)-
ase Study 5
Potential deadweight situation
lr1 1999 a business person 1n a large provincial town decided to provide a bed and bmiddoteakfast establishment in a spacious house that she owned in the centre of the town She decided to focus on the upper end I business market and provide four en-suite rcbulloms She received assurances from several local businesses that they would be willing to refer clients to her Two local hotels also indicated that they would refer cverflow customers
Tie total investment required to refurbish the property fit out and supply furniture crockery and bed linen was esl1maled al pound88000 Loan approval was obtained from the bmk for renovations and the promoter applied to the local LEADER group for a grant
T 1e LEADER group estimated that pound44000 of the proposed expenditure would be
eligible for grant assistance and a grant of pound13000 was approved for the venture
T 1e pro1ect report prepared for the LEADER Board meeting did not include consideration of the possibility lhat the pro1ect might proceed without a grant In that regard the following faclors would have been relevant
bull the premises was located 1n the centre of a busy growing town bull the premises was owned by the promoter bull the owner was self-employed and operated a consultancy service from home bull based on 35 occupancy net cash now in lhe first year was forecast at pound8000 bull if no grant had been paid and the funds had been borrowed instead the estimated
surplus for the year would have been reduced by an increased interest charge of up to pound1300 which would not have substantially changed the potential Viability of
the business venture
426 Posible Vtys of 111i11i1111sing dlHhveigh1 in assisted projects include
bull Targeting financial abullsistancc on projects where the costs of entry to the business arc high relative to the resources available to the promoter So111e pro111nltIS have ve111 li1ni1cd financial resources for fxa111ple 1he vast
n1Jjori1r of Ptrtntrship l lien1s ~ire long-tenn unc1nploycd It is Vorth noting
thtt evtn Vhlt 1dequa1e privite resoune- are lmiddotaiL1hle it 1nty bt difficult
for so1ne Jlt)cal f)evelop1nent bodit~ given their job creation target~ 10 1urn
clumiddotll involve1nent in othlmiddotrvisl sound projects Indeed 1he viev Vts
tprcssed hy 0111e of thosL in1ervitmiddotvecl in the courst of the study 1h~ll fi11111cial
Sllppo11 for CJigihJt projects is often vieVCd hy prOtllltllers ~IS an cntiJe1ll(fl( and
this can 111akl it difficult for Loctl l)tvLlopn1en( ])(xlies to nfusc financial
1ssist1nce (() deathve1gh1 rru1ect
37
(JC( )Ct(()JHUJl 11itiati1es
bull Providing financial assistance by means of repayable grants loans or equity mthcr than non-repayable cash grants middotrhis should discourige reli1ncc on public funds by those entrepreneurs vho
do not need ii Vhiltgt ensuring that entrepnmiddotnctllS vho do need public finance
can alail of it Tltlte m1cl-tcrm evtluil1on of 011UIU) recommenclecl the
incre1sed llSC of loans and l(jUity rlttther thtfl grtf)i reron 1ly tile lndUSll)
Evtlua1ion Uni ncon11ncndccl thll all financial 1ssi-11nce provided uncler 1he
1egis of lEADEH ancl CEils should require 1 fm1neid return From earlv 1998
CfB- ind Pa11nerships hive been tmiddotn1pOVlrld by 1hc EU Con1rnis inn to issisl
projects hy 111c1ns of equity ind rcfuncLtblc 1icl In 199~ tlrnost ~05111 of CEB
assist1ncc (4oo) v1s provided in 1hc fonn of equity 111d refundthle ~1id
Entcrprisc middotrrack ind E1nploy111en1 intend 1h11 refundable forins of 1ssis1ance
Vil] he deployed incrc1nentdly 111 future Al)11 hJs tgllld vi1h P1r1ncrships
tllt clien1- should Vhtre prtctic~ilgtle nceiVl nmiddotfundable 1itl r11hcr th~111 grints
In 1ccurcl111ce wt1h EU regul1llons lEADEH groups ire precluded from
providing lotns or equity to enterprises
427 recent study reported thi1~
le ackn()toleclgc that n1icru e11te17Jrises 111a_v face capital constraints especialfr in the stcut uJdegfJhase but strongf)i s11_rges11hat the n1us1 ejecliue
uov Ju lf(lltress his fJOssible middotn1arkct _(ailunmiddot is Jbrough rJals an( eq1tif)
rather tba11 microran aicl 1Jt~~- uo11c 111inin1ise tbe r1~k ojmiddot creating a cleJenclcnl~) c11111 remiddot
428 It is clear [hll here is cope for n1uch greater use of rep1y~il)[c grin[S loans
ind equi1y 10 111inin1isl dtachveiglil incI such ustmiddot has 1hc 1ddccl 1dv1nt1ge 1h11
1ssistince c1n he providlcl n1ore econon1ic1lly 1 funds c1n bl recycled to 1ssis1
n1ore thtn one project Huvcvcr so111c incre~1se in ~1dn1ini-gttr11ion cos1s could be
expcc1ecl
429 An extre1ne fonn of ckichveiglH irises Vhtn public fin1nciil support is
supplied 10 1 project vhirh as cst1hlishecl and is oreruing in [he Jbsencc nf this
suppon CtSl Siucly 6 involving 1hc ArlJ Allovtnce Enterprise Schlllle illus1r1tes thi
11a11aH11t of 11ficro 111(tpn-lt SupjXJl1 Ao-o a11011til a11d lcx(I Jrbull1tmiddotlup111c1u 11~cmiddot11C11gtmiddot iu1111y tia11r1i(Jll 11it A11~1til CJlt-lt)
rJ1irJ1Ui lnnmiddott111cbull11f Jn-ru1fi(middoti f(lr tbe wnod 20(J-2(XX) Faz Ccrllfd lf t1I c()10111ic (JUI S(Jcial Nc_1middott1rr_h 11_f1ltrlt I-Ion)) JJlt-J
Sltmiddotj~F1111lo1ld o 1u he lh11g-T1middotr111 Ui1tmiddot111plo1middotetl- 1111 10i1atio11 of lbltmiddot Artbulla Alllt1flft 110middot 11tlJHi1e ScJ1111cbull 1HC Co1111raJ11middot 19lt)7
middotmiddot
38
Ojgteraliollal JJicie11lt_~1middot
ase Study 6
Funding the startup of an existing business
A fisherman was 1n receipt of Unemployment Assistance (UA) from the Department of
SJcial Community and Family Affairs (DSCFA) from 1979 to 1999 In September 1998 hi applied for support under the Area Allowance Enterpnse Scheme (AAES)
Uoder the terms of the scheme an applicant must be unemployed for at least a year
and this eligibility must be confirmed in writing on the application form by DSCFA The Praquortnership can subsequently approve the application and may provide minor financial support 1n addition to the main financial benefits provided by DSCFA 1e the receipt of full unemployment payments for a year and on a reducing scale for a further three years plus retention of secondary benefits
Abullcording to the application form the applicant had received a bank loan of pound18000 for the purchase of a boat with repayments commencing on 30 August 1998 In addition hf was the owner of fishing nets to a value of pound6000
Tt1e application form was certified by DSCFA 1n January 1999 to the effect that the applicant was eligible for AAES The certification did not explain
bull how the applicant managed to purchase a boat while on UA bull how he persuaded the bank to provide a loan or pound18000 bull how he was financing the business from August 1998 to January 1999 in particular
the boat repayments and insurance amounting to pound565 per month
Tt1e report prepared for the Partnership Board meeting stated that the applicant had with the knowledge of DSCFA been engaged 1n the fishing industry for the previous ten years on a part-time basis The Board approved the application
mcFA has made the following observations on this case
bull Following an investigation in 1988 the UA payment was terminated but reinstated under appeal with an assessment of net income at pound1250 from fishing per year The case was reviewed 1n 1993 and the net income per year was increased to pound1400 A further review was conducted in September 1998 (the month atter the boat was purchased) and the assessment of net income did not increase
bull It is very difficult to establish an accurate income for such fishermen as fish can be sold to tourists and restaurants for cash
bull The Department did not consider 1t necessary to check with the bank as to what if any security was provided for the loan
bull While failures occur in the scheme they do not cost the Department any more than if the client continued on UA
A[1M has pointed out that fishing comprises a very small proportion of AAES pa1ic1pants supported by Partnerships A recent review of Partnership business su1iports reported that fishing and Bed and Breakfast businesses do not provide a viable full-time 1ob and Area Allowance 1s not an appropriate support payment It also recommended that clearer guidelines should be issued regarding eligib1l1ty
Soure Partnership Business Supports and the Area Allowance Scheme Insights No 8 ADM 1999
J9
locaf f)ltueloJn1e11t fl1itiati1es
Case Study 7
Potential displacement situation
A business proposal was made to a CEB 1n 1998 The promoler wished to provide a food delivery service to factories on industrial estates ie sandwiches baps snacks elc The promoter recognised that there were several competitors Unlike the
competitors he proposed to provide the service via three refrigerated vending machines lhat would be reslocked regularly He applied for and was approved a capital grant of pound5500 by the CEB in December 1998
The project report prepared for lhe Board meeting dealt with the possibility of displacement by noling that lhe promoters service would be provided in a manner different from his compet11ors However the question arises if the project is successful how will its sales be achieved unless by the diversion of the expenditure of faclory employees from one service provider to another
Displacement
430 middotrhc only antlysis of clispL1ce1ncnt vas in respccl uf 11lS 1nd this shl)Vcd a
wide rmge of estimils Using a methodology devised bv Breen and Halpin the
consul11nts esti1111recl that 64oo of the business carried out by 1ES panicipants Vas
diver1cd fron1 other Irish fin11s and Iiiat ~i l1X1 of en1plny1llLl1I created in
thescentcrpriscs v1s at the expense of other enterprises middot1l1e consultants felt thtt the
Breen 111cl 1-ldpin methodology had limitations ancl tlut their estinutes of
clisplicc1nent Vere too high lJsing different 1ssu1nptions incl 1 different
mthodology they estim11ecl that 19 of employment created in AAES enterprises
Vts displacLcl fro1n other cn1erpriscs
431 Possible vays of n1ini111ising clispl1cen1ent include
bull CounsLlting pro1notcrs tovncb exports or cloincstic sectors supplied prltdom1n1111lv l)y import
bull ithholding 1ssis1ance fron1 projec1s in1encling 10 supply goods and stgtrviccs to the clon1es1ic 1111rke1 vhich are alrc1cly supplied by other busineSSlS
bull Providing financial tssisttnce by n1eans of rep1yibllt grants lo1ns ind cqui1y rathtr rhin non-repayable ct~h gr1nts
432 All LEADEH groups Partnerships and CEils are insrruned not to suppon
projects Vhich voulcl displace business fro1n other enterprises
433 CEl3s were advised early in 1999 10 focus heir efforts on thlt development of
n1anuf1cturing incl in1ern1tional services projects vhich viii have the pltgttential 10
clevclop in10 export-oriented finns hile not neglecting other eligible rrojects
(vi1ble non-clcaclveight non-displacc1nen1) outside these sec1ors Jgtirtnersl1ips have
40
()JCltflional Jffrienc)
agmiddoteed tht financid support should not be supplied to businsses 111 plentiful
supply such as hackneys couriers builcling contr1cpoundors Ix-cl and hre1kLi~t
operators vm sales and hairdrclaquors LEADER groups are advised to d11ect the11
Stlj)p(H1S tOvards innltgtva1ive pnijeLt~
4i4 There arc d1ffcrcmiddotnt views among Local Development bodies regarding what is
inmiddotoived in rtcognising diplacetntnt middotrhus -cHne Lltic~11 J)evelopn1en1 bodi1s
co1sider thtl if lhe existing co111peeitors to a project are located outside their county
or evtn their loc~1lity 1hen clisplacen1cn1 is not 1n issue
4s The 1111cl-1cnn reviews of LEADEH and OPLUHD made linlc reference to
displlcemcnt Howevmiddotcr the LEADEH mid-term review contended that displJcemcnt
vculd he 111ini111ised if LEAl)ER groups focused their f1nincial 1ssistance on
111rovative proiects Agnrnlture and Food intend that the final evalu111on of LEADEH
11 Viii includ ltSli111a1ion of tltmiddotachveigh1 and clispl1cen1ent effect
Be11e_ficit1 Dis1U1ce111e11t
436 II rhere are ~1ny circu111st~1nces in vhich ltlispl1ce111ent can be ignored thev
shltnild be identified For exunple it 111ay be possible to sustain the c~1se on sociJI
jus1 ice or equity grounds rhu specific groups such JS 1he lung-1ern1 t1nt111ployed
shcbullttld receivlt posi1ivlt cliscri111in~n1on elifJI at the cxfxnse ojotherjoh see~ctYi tOi1
111 lrgucd 1h1t onlt of the obwctives of Partnerships is to 1mprovmiddot( the potcnlld of
the long-tcnn unc111ployccl ind 1he socially ltXcludccl 10 gain cn1ploy111ltnl in lhlt
eccbullno1ny generally ind specifically 1n poundheir Ovn areas_ middotrhc inslrtion of particular
dis1dvant3ged groups into e111ploy1ncnt or a husine~s viii often have thL effec1 of
dis)Jcing a non-clis~1dvantaged person fron1 that 1oh oppo11unity Hcnvcver the
social giin makes the displJce111ent worthwhile
437 Given that CEBs cover the emire populallon incl that Partnlrships and
LEd)EH groups cover 540o and 6Joo respectively the exacpound circun1s11ncltS Vhen
clisplacemem 111ight be permincd for any Local Devdopmelll body should be
cluificd by the relevant Dep1rtmenis
(rnui11g (lUJ Sharing ()I r F111plr1y111e11t S1raUt_r (JfX 011 the lt1bltgt11r _bulllfariltf tgtlt1uu11cmiddotn1 of1111erpnmiddotc_ 7huC and 1111Joy111e11r Jn 19ltXgt
41
5 Assessment of Impact
51 Xhik the 1nc1sun111cnt of the 1chieven1ent of cconon1y 1nd efficiency is
ilnportan1 in the n1an1ge1nenl of the initiatives establishing their in1pact is of even
grci1er 11npnrtance J111pic1 assessn1enl is concerntd Vilh est1blishing the e-1cn1 10
which the local devdoprnent oJ1cc1Jns ire achievecl 1110 the wider contribution of
the initiatives 10 local cconon1ic and socitl developn1ent 11 is desirable thtt
appropri1te sys1tn1s to evaulle 1he 1chicve111ents of the iniliHives in n lttion co their
desired 11np1cts should IJt in place
52 Ille cllvcloprnent nf syste1ns to detennine 1he i1np1ct of the initiitivcs is not
easy middotrhlt clivlr~i1y of Jnc~il dcvelupn1ent objecrive~ n1e1ns thit it is unlikely thH 1ny
one 1ssessn1cn1 niethocl Otild he sufficient So1ne in1p1cts like cn1ploy1nent
crltJtiun can lx quintified Jnd 1chieven1ent can be n1unitorecl chrough che 111alysis
of nJev1n1 perfonnanct indic11ors_ Othcrs like rlttising the level of econo111ic activity
ctn be 1ssessecl 1hrough 1he usc of ccono111ic 1noclels using surroga1e 111e1sures of
irnpacl 1VL1ny of the socitl objeclives of 1he inili11ive are not susceptible to
n1e1sure1ne111 at di incl till i1111xu1 achieved Jre best detenninccl through surveys
of chtngts in local condilions a1 inclividu1I and con1nnir1i1y levels
S3 lhi ch1p1er consiclt~rs 1ppro1chcs co che 1sscss111en1 of i1npact under the
folJoving J1e1dings
Issues Subject
Quantitative assessments Baseline analysis bull bull Use of macroeconomic data
Qualitative assessments Assessing social impacts bull Case studies and international studies bull
Quantitative Assessments
54 lnfonnition on job creacion and the progression of long-tenn une1nployecl
persons 10 fuJI lirlle VOrk 1re rerorted for i[J these ypes Of 1gtltKJies (see middotr1ble 41
ind Append A) Vhile the figures tint hive been reported to end-1998 under
011URI) 1re well 1he1d of the tirgcts thit were set it is difficult to interpret these
resuhs in hrn1s of i111picl in lhe ibsence of bascline cl1t1
Baseline Analysis
55 B1selinc analysis would estiblish the performance of a representative group
of enterprises con1n1uni1y groups incl individu~1ls 1hat did not receive 1ssis11nce
under 1hc initiatives middotrhe rcrfonnancc of 1ssis1ecl entities incl individuils al counry
42
Assess1ne111 lt~ 111JOCI
or r111ional levtgtI could then he co1nparcd Vilh the 1xmiddotrfonnancl of middotn1ttchedmiddot nonshy
tssi ~1ed cnlitiii selected fro1n the repre~entltil group Si1nil1rly tile pcrlltlrn11ncl
of en1i1ies recltiving ditlenmiddotnt kinJ of ~1ssistance could also he antlysed to cletenninc
rel1 live ilnpac1
56 Baseline analysi~ can he pcrfonnld using 1nicroecono111ic d111 (da1a 1bou1
spcltific enterprises) or n1acrotcnnon1ic clat1 (1ggrLg11t~d dat1)_ middotrhc cl1t1 collection
proicduns -11 loc1l level hJve not heimiddotn 1dequatt to suppo11 this kind of ltinalysis
using 1nicrocconon1ic data 1ccordingly analysis against a baseline of non-1ssis1cd
cnlt-rprises co111n1unity groups ind individu1J- cHHlO( hl carried out
I Case Study on Unemployment using Macroeconomic Data
i 5 7 stuclv of the irnpact uf 011l RD on unemplovment ing census clata
(111a- rltgttgtcono111ic data) has hlttll c1rrild out under tile ~1egis of the ()PlUH)
P1oriloring ConHniuec So1nc rcsuhs of the study 1re su11H11arised in Cae Study H
58 middotrtiis finding fro111 ltase S1udy 8 dltgtcs nor nectgtssarily 111ean 11111 P~trtnerships trl
les effective in assisting une111ployed peorle 10 find vork 1s unc111ploycd ptorlt~
in P~ntncrship 1rc1s 111ay he 111on di_-adv~1nt1ged and find ii lllOll dillicull to 1ccess
e111(oy1ncn1 In addition 1he ralt of entry to une1nploy111lnt in Partnership 1reas
1nay he different frorn non-Jgt1r1nershir 1n~~1s 11lt)vevcr the data is inconclusive
I ~1hont tile level of ttlcclivcness of P~111nlr~liips in addressing Ltr1e111rloyn1cnL middotrhe
case s1udy highlights the co111plexity of in1pac1 analysis but also illustrates ils
i irnpbullgtrltnce in le~1cling lo a grlmiddotHer uncllrst1nd1ng of the resulls of progr~11n11H
aCllily More complex ltbta rnodels of the labour nurket at local level woulcl be
nccclecl for a svs1e111~11ic revicv of 1hc elTcctivenesi of Pannerships in tickling longshy
I 1ern~ llllt~n1plon1ent
59 It is of inlertst 10 e-an1inc the trends in the duration of uncn1ployn1ent in
I recent years imiddot~1hle 51 ihOVS thc nun1hers une111plnyecl ylmiddot1r on yctr in ont year
banltls up to 1l1nc years fron1 1994-1999 and the 11ne1nplcgtyn1ent retentugtn r1tcsmiddot
fro1r vtmiddotar to year i_e_ lhe proportion of those 11ne111ployed ho nLmiddot still unen1ploytCI I
one year li1er
I510 middotr1hle 51 shov- 1h1t signific1nt i111provlrnlnts in une111ploy111cnt rerintion
ralc~ htVl occurrLd in recent yetrs particularly for long-ten11 UllLlllploy1nen1 Strong
ecoron1ic grovth in 1lie period covered vould li1ve beltIl of prinH in1ponance in
1he reduction 111 long-1tmiddotrn1 l1ne111ploy111ent ihiJc the long-lerrn une1nployed ire thl
1111in rarge1 group for Partnerships thlse areas are not sep1raccly distinguished 1n
lhe analysis OutlOVS ro schen1es such 1s Co111111u11ity Fn1ployn1cnt could also he I
llllf)()flilll
43
olta JeueloJn1e111 11itioti1cs
Case study 8
Analysis of the impact of OPLURD on long-term unemployment using macrodata
A key part of the analysis was a comparison between the change in unemployment in Partnership areas from 1991-1996 with the corresponding change in non-Partnership
areas The comparison was based on the Census of Population for 1991and1996 The logic behind the comparison was that disadvantaged areas are at risk of falling behind
the general level of economic development unless there is a targeted intervention to ensure that the rising tide of economic growth flows into those areas Thus if the
decline m unemployment in Partnership areas is similar to that in Ireland as a whole
then at least the gap between affluent and poor areas has not widened and Partnerships may have contributed to some extent to this outcome
The consultants measured changes 1n the unemployment rate in two ways (i) by the percentage point (or absolute) change (ii) by the proportionate (or relative to 1991) change
They used a simple example to illustrate the difference between the two measures Assume that Area A has 90 unemployment rate and Area B has 20 unemployment
rate If the unemployment rate declines by 10 percentage points in both areas (the
same absolute change in the rate) the relative rate is quite different since Area A has declined by only 11 (relative to its starting rate) whereas Area B has deemed by 50
(relative to 1s starting rate) Both rates should be used together
The key data was summarised as follows
Unemployment rate
Area 1991 1996 Absolute Percent Percent Change initial rate Points Change Relative to Initial
Ireland 169 14 8 -21dego
Ratebull
-126
Partne1ship areas 256 230 -26 -100 (PESP only)
Non-Partnership 139 119 -20 -141 areas
Note 8 Change in unerriployment rate divided by the initial unemployment rate
The consultants commented that the unemployment rate in PESP Partnership areas
fell by a slightly greater absolute amount than either Ireland or non-Partnership areas but in relative terms they did worse - essentially because they had higher unemployment rates to begin with in 1991
Sourco A Report on the Impact of the Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development on Long- Term Unemployment Goodbody Economic Consultants et el October 1999
44
Assessnu11t q J11pact
Table 51 Duration of unemployment and retention rates 1994-1999
Ye
19 19 19 19 19 19
ar
94 95 96 97 98 99
Less than one year Number
151032 144283 146776 132398 130780 110446
--shy1-2 years 2-3 years 3+ years
Number Retention Number Retention
rate rate
Number
43697 39748 263 40875 283 38361 261 31719 240 28 194 216
27489 64154 26293 602 67955 25852 650 69667 24227 593 61870 18914 493 54448 14496 457 44940
NotB Retenrion rates are calculated as follows_ All of those who wero unemployed for 1-2 years in 1995 (39 748) wcro unernployed for less than one year in 1994 (151032) thus the unemployment retention rate is 263 (39 748+151032) CSO Live Register data
i Case Study on Business Formation using Macroeconomic Data
I 511 tucly of s11111l business forn1ation over ti111e 111ight be usecl to consider issues
middot such as lhe i111pact of lhl initi~Himiddotes on thtbull rice of n1anufacturing st1nups his i~
considered in Case Srudy 9
51~ C~rtater underst1nding is requirtcl of the n1ix of variables vhich n1ay be
responihle for the trends appann( in the data In a situ11ion vhere an unexpected 1 result is obt1inLmiddotd fron1 tile analysi~ C1s in Case Study 9) 11 Otild lgtt necessary to
refirc the analysit using 1111croecono111ic dala un1il the reasons for the trends
observed 1re clarified and the dilTcren1 contribution~ of lhe initiatives to sn1all 1
enterprise fonn~uion ere better understood
513 In order to use 111icrtgteconon1ic cLua 10 assess the in1p1ct of 1ht ini1ia1ivcs on1 n1anufacturing and intern~llional StTviccs it vould be necessJI) to integrate locil
clcvdopment suppo11 dlla from all the mitia11ves -Uh rhe Forfis and Enterprise
middotrr1de and E1nploy1ncn1 Bu~iness InforntHion Sygtt(Jll (BIS) Enterprise lrlttcle incl
Fmrlovment 1ntcncls to proceed with the 1nrcmiddotgra1ion of CEil data with the BIS (See
paragraphgt 2 2i-228) i 514 Enrerprise Tracie ancl Employment h1s commissioned a review 10 take place
in 11middote currenl year on the in1p1ct of CEUs vith particular reference 10 thlt ratlt of 1
bu~i1es~ fonnacion tnd 1he su~tlinability of the johs cre~Htmiddotcl
45
lucal JelJelo111unl l11i1ia11cs
Case Study 9
Use of macroeconomic data on business formation
In 1993 Enterprise Ireland stopped assisting manufacturing and international services firms with less than ten employees This role was transferred to CEBs The trend in the number of Irish-owned startups in manufacturing from 1987 to 1996 has been studied in an effort to detect the impact of economic growth on the rate of startups It might equally be used as a starting point to consider the impact of CEBs in this role
Startups in Irish-owned manufacturing 1987 to 1996bull
600
500
bullOO
300
200
100
0 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Year
The graph shows that the very rapid economic growth from 1993 (which period includes the emergence of the initiatives) did not result in an increased rate of manufacturing startups According to the quoted study The start-up performance 1s surprising The improvement m the economy over the years has not been accompanied by a corresponding growth in the number of manufacturing startupsmiddot
Note a Case study based on ~startups and Closures in Indigenous Manufactunmiddotng an Analysis of the CensCJS of Industrial Production 1986-1995 Irish Banking Review Autumn 1998 Anthony Foley and Teresa Hogan
Source Data Census of lndustna Production CSO
Qualitative Assessments
Assessing Social Impacts
515 Some irnpo11rn1 rnrcro clilt wts cs1rl3lrshecl by ADM reltting 10 middotc1ep1wa1ion
111clic11ors for l1nnership areas Bised on the 1991 Clnsus of Populttion ADM
co1npilecl indic1rors of cleprivuion for all Pannershlp areas domiddotn to l)istrict
Elcctor1l l)ivisiltgtn levc1 l)cprivJriun 1n1p- tre 1lso procluced middotrhe clcprivltlCion
indicators 1nclucled
46
bull educationtl a1tainn1en1
bull ltgtCcu1x11ional profile
bull lltxmiddotil labour n1arket characteris1ics
bull housing
FrOill 1hcse indicators a con1pusite deprivaiion index value Vas con1p11tcd for each
lartnersl11p area for 1991
516 Tlrrs exercr lras rectgtnilv bcrn repeated from tire results of the 1996 Census of lo1n1llli(gtn Fngtnl ~tn in1pac1 assess111en1 ptrspcctivtmiddot relilt1nce ltgtn these indicators
voulcl involve ~0111e li111itllions_ For lt1n1ple chc Census year- do not coincide Vith
Partnership 111ilcstones 111igruion can con1plicatc 1nalysis and [he d111 is not
definitive regltncling c1usality~~
51 ()espile these lin1ilalions analysis of the indicators of dtprivt1ion should
probullicle valuable inforn1ation rcg1rdi11g changes in 1pects of clt~pfiv1tion in different
Partnershq1 anas and should ilso Ltcilitatc con1p1rion ovtr 1i111e Vith nun
la11nersl11p areas lhe ltlmiddotailtbility of this infonnltllion shot1ld ftcilirarc furthCr
ittt111pts to consider the social in1p1c1s of tht~ initlHives
Case Studies and International Studies
5tf Whrle much hrs been wrr11en on tire rctrvrtres of Local Development bodies
chc tlcnt of 111atcrial spccifictlly covering the evtl1111ion of their i1np1c1 is very
li111i1ecl Several Partnerships have c1rried otH case srudil~middotM) to highlight hov issues
wen being trckled by different Partnerships ancl to promote best practice Case studies are undcrv1y tlso in n1lt1ny LLl)FH groups No case studies havtmiddot lgteen u ed
so L1r in tlic cnlcrprisc ind ioh crc1tion ~1rea for CEB ac1ivi1ies
519 A for111J E11ropean s1ucly v1s unck-rtiken of he rnle of p1nnerships in
proriuting sociil cohesion in ten fmiddot1t1nhcr Srarl~ of the EU co111prising ten nniond
rtpcrts (including lrel1ncl) and 1 synli1esis European rt~portjlbull middotrht study and repo11s
j middotltre bt-gtlltl prin1arily on rh1rty ctst tuclic (rhree fro111 etch middotten1ber St~lle) Vhich
looked 11 issues of reprtstnlalion ncgoliHion and alliance lgtuilcling in tile
devElop111ent of strategies and 1c1ion plans ind the vorking 111ethocls skills incl
I reso-_1rces aprlied lgty p~111nershirs
()her 11111101io11s arc rexnccl i11 fJrxr coptmiddot fJrgtCir i~ edttimiddotd l~r I) Pn11gle tf of Ook Tree )rt--
)11J111_ -~)9
_rKmiddottd 1art11c1ih1p~ middotI 5111n--11 511HIL1Y fur Sc)(middotial Cubl~011lt 11 Ccddcbull OJ1tc ( QOua 11h1lta1J11_- fvr w F11n1J1CJ11ltiJ111111111111umiddots1111d -111middotn1wt111 h1111ulrlf1011for1ie lm1ro1(mlW of itll~L tntl lliirk111~ Co11tl11io11s 19ltJ-
47
ocal Jevelop111e11t lnilit1tite_
520 1ihilc the rtpon included n1iny individual references to isol11cd cxirnpks of
1hc 1tll1x1c1 of panncrships Clllpincd rcstarch into 1he effecliveness of 1xnmerships
Vts not Vithin the score of the study middotrhcrc VIS also no 1ue1npt to con1p1re the
perfor1111nce of p1nncrsl1i1)s it nationil l(vel
521 The 1bsencc of specific tllaterial on the cvalL1a1ion of effectiveness of locd
clevelop111en1 bodies is panly clL1e 10 a lick of come~tuil clata 11 local level 10
L1cilita1e in~dysis A pri1n1ry ain1 of the bodies is to L1cilit1te thl locil achievtinent
of resuh~ incl to ltver1gc 1hc 1c1ivitics of local groups Assess1ncnt of effectiveness
of this kind of 1c1ivHy woulcl require that the role played by the lxxlies could he
isollltcl fruin ill oiher contribuiory f1ctors middot1middothis is difficult middotrtiere is 1 cletr need for
more data collernon llld 1hc clcvdop111ent of soual poltl) models which would
f1cili111e bcuer 1ns1gh1 by policy 1111kcrs imo the impact of the arnvities of local
clevdopment boclits
48
Jr
0 Ji~ )~ l ( imiddot
Appendices
~ gt
- _ middot-
---middotmiddot middot--shy ~--y- -~ -middot bull bull - bull __~
middot
middot
_ _~ -- middot ~
Appendix A Annual Cost and Outputs of Individual County Enterprise Boards Partnerships and LEADER Groups 1995-1997
(Jkistd on du1 ~upplicd by Dcp111111ents and ADJ1 Ltd Luc in 1998)
I
Summary of Expenditure on Local Development Programmes (1995-1997) Appendix A
1995 1996
pound000 of total expenditure
pound000 of total expenditure
CEBs
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
Total Expenditure
13485
1421
4895
19801
68dego
7dego
25
100
13503
3879
4284
21666
62
18dego
20
100
LEADER (1)
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
Total Expenditure
23
887
820
1730
2dego 51dego
47dego
100
1529
2350
1684
5563
28
42dego
30dego
100
PartnershipsCommunity Groups
and National Organisations (2)
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
I
-3 025
1532
66
34dego
-5161
5164
-SOoo
50
Total Expenditure 4557 100 10325 100
Aggregate expenditure figures shown in this table have been superseded by more up to date figures shown in Table 21 (1) Local Development groups accounted for 96 of LEADER expenditure in 1995 - 1997 and detailed analysis focused on lhis (2) Partnerships accounted for 84 of total expenditure for 1996 - 1997 and detailed analysis focused on this
1997
pound000
12884
5414
4437
22735
6226
3536
2015
11778
15579
7398
22977
0o of total expenditure
57dego 24dego
19dego
100
53
30
17dego
100
-68oo 32
100
County Enterprise Boards Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1995 Appendix A11
County Enterprise Board Administration
Expenditure pound000
Total Expenditure
pound000 Administration as 0o of
Total Expenditure
Grant Aid as 0o of
Total Expenditure
Non~rant Outputs as
of Total Expenditure
Tipperary South Riding 150 274 55dego 381 7oo
Corllt North 142 315 45dego 55dego Ooo Monaghan 143 375 38oo 621 QOo
Tipperary North County 122 353 35 57dego 8dego Meath 128 373 34oo 59oo 7dego
Louth 135 410 33dego 56dego 11 Ofo
Kildare 157 476 33 48 19dego Kerry 228 747 J 1Ofo 62 7 Limerick City 162 561 29dego 64oo 71
West Cork 142 498 29dego 65dego 6dego
Limerick County 209 714 29dego 63 Soo Westmeath 103 358 29dego 71dego Ooo Longford 95 335 28dego 68dego 4oo
Clare 169 635 27dego 68dego Soo Waterford County 106 396 27oo 73dego Ooo Cork City 150 543 27oo 671 6 Doneaal 124 460 27dego 68dego 5dego Fingal (Oubhn) 152 598 26dego 63dego 11
Mayo 155 651 24 72oo 4dego Waterford City 134 559 24dego 63 13dego Wicklow 127 558 23oo 70 7dego Ca now 149 654 23dego 72 5 South Corllt 187 844 22dego 71dego 7 Leitrim 147 671 22dego 67 11dego Cavan 122 564 22dego 65dego 3dego Laois 121 595 21dego 73 6dego South Dublin 143 670 21 70deg4 9dego Offaly 126 600 21deg4 63dego 16dego Dublin City 111 551 20deg4 67oo 13 Sligo 147 728 20deg4 73dego 7 Roscommon 111 597 19deg4 77 4dego Wexford 144 777 19dego 75deg4 6oo Kilkenny 1()0 637 16oo 84dego OOo
Galway County and City 140 950 15 83 2 Oun Laoghaire - Rathdown 82 743 110o 78oo 11 Oo
Miscellaneous (1) 30 30 Ooo QOo OOo
Total 4895 19801 25 68 7
(1) Refers to set up costs incurred on behatf of au Boards
County Enterprise Boards - Administration Costs as a Percmiddotentage of Total Expendifure --f996 Appendix A12
I _ - vuony c11u1tUllgttl ouaru
I Administration
I Total Expenditure Administration as 0o of Grant Aid as 0o of Non-grant Outputs as
Expenditure pound000 pound000 Total Expenditure Total Expenditure 0 0 of Total Expenditure
Cork North 119 417 29~o 63degshy 8degc -middot
113 28dego 56dego 16degoTipperarv North _counlv 404 -shy -Sliqo 118 457 26dego 50dego 24dego--Mealh 136 532 25~~ 53dego 22dego Laois 151 612 25dego I 59eo 16dego
Westmeath 120 500 24dego 55oo 21dego
Cork City 124 533 23dego 55dego 22oo Roscomn1on 120 536 22dego 61dego 17dego
Louth 133 620 21 Oo 57dego 22dego-Cavan 128 599 21dego 67degc 12dego
Clare 123 581 21Co 61dego 18dego
South Dublin 147 705 21 oo 56 23dego
Dublin City 139 668 21dego 49dego 30deg~
Kildare 128 625 20degh 41 lo 39o-shyTipperary South Riding 108 530 201 68dego 12oo
-Mavo 159 784 20dego 70oo 10dego
Carlow 117 582 20dego 67dego 13oo
West Cork 127 633 20dego 59dego 21
Longford 114 579 20dego 71dego 9dego -
Kerry 114 584 20oo 68deg~ 12oA
South Cork 125 645 19dego 58dego 23dego Limerick Cily 132 683 19oo 64oo 17dego
-Galway 122 631 190~ 69~o 12dego-Kilkenny 120 636 19dego 67dego 14dego
Offaly 117 628 19dego 62dego 19dego
Waterford County 105 563 19 66dego 15dego
Leitrim 121 665 18oo 64 18dego middot-
Oun Laoghairc bull Rathdown 116 648 18dego 57dego 25dego-
Fingal (Dublin) 117 656 18dego 56degc 26deg~ -Wexford 117 708 17oo 68dego 15dego
Wicklow 122 739 16 71 13dego
Donegal 119 757 16dego 65dego 19dego
Limerick County 120 810 15degc 68dego 17dego
Waterford City 118 800 15dego 75dego 10dego--Monaghan 75 616 12 74dego 14degc
Total 4284 21666 2011o 62dego I 18dego I
County Enterprise Boards Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A13
County Enterprise Board Administration Total Expenditure Administration as 0A of Grant Aid as 0o of Non-grant Outputs as
Expenditure pound000 pound000 Total Expenditure Total Expenditure deglo of Total Expenditure
Cork North 106 344 31dego 50dego 19dego
Clare 172 631 27dego 46dego 27oo---shyTieperary North County 116 448 26dego 38 36dego Waterford County 126 505 25dego 54dego 21dego Longford 121 498 24dego 60oo 16dego Wexford 156 647 24dego 56oo 20dego Wicklow 184 796 23dego 57dego 20dego Limerick Cilv 141 619 23oo 51dego 26dego
Mealh 170 751 22oo 52dego 26dego Offaly 113 505 22dego 53dego 25dego Kilkenny 121 545 22dego 48dego 30oo Donegal 94 428 22dego 42dego 35co
Leilrim 139 640 22dego 54dego 24dego------shy -Monaghan 118 556 21dego 57oo 22dego
Waterford City 164 788 21dego 60dego 19dego
Limenck County 147 708 21degk 53dego 26deg1 Louth 161 787 20dego 50dego 30dego
Mayo 122 602 20oo 53dego 27dego
Sligo 99 496 20dego 51 Ofo 29dego Tipperary South R1d1ng 120 619 19eo 60dego 21dego
Carlow 113 593 19dego 65dego 16dego Cork City 127 672 19dego 59 22dego
Weslm~ath 119 637 19dego 60dego 21dego South Cork 131 704 19dego 58dego 23dego
Laois 113 615 18dego 55dego 27 --Kildare 136 761 18 56dego 26dego Cavan 127 740 17dego 63dego 20 West Cork 87 513 17dego 57dego 26dego South Dublin 165 981 17dego 64dego 19dego Dun Laoghaire middot Rathdown 102 621 17dego 48dego 35dego Kerry 94 580 16dego 66 18dego
Roscommon 75 474 16dego 61 23dego Galway 110 835 13 64 23oo Fingal (Dublin) 117 902 13dego 62dego 25dego Dublin City 130 1 195 11 69 20
Total 4436 22735 19dego 57dego 24dego
---
I
LEADER A~minist_ration ~osts -~~ a Percentage of Total Expenditure -_ 1_995 __ Appendix A1 4
I Local Development Group
I
Laois Leader Rural Development Co Lid Cavan-Monaghan Rural Oevelopn1ent Co~rat1ve Soc~ely Ltd
Barrow-Norc-Suir Rural Developmentmiddot 62 81 771 QOo 23dego
Wicklow Rural Partnership Lid bull 26 38 70dego -I QOo 30dego
Westmeath Community Development Ltd
Longford Community Resources Lid -middot
-
8 11
-11 18
70degc
65
bull Oh
QOo
23dego
35dego middotmiddotshy
Mid-South Rural Roscommon Development Assoc1alion Ltd 9 14 63dego QOo 37dego
Rural Resource Development Lid bull 80 129 62degc Ooe 38dego
Meath Con1mumty Partnershrp Co Ltd
Meithcal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo
3
68
5 117
- 60dego
58dego
4dego
OOo
35eo
42dego
South West Mayo Development Co Galway Rural Development Co
54
8
94 middot-middotmiddot
15 58dego
56dego
1Oe
00o
41Co
44
Arigna Catchment Area Community Co 11 23 48dego 4dego 48
Western Rural Development Co Lld bull 28 58 48dego 00o 52oo
Offaly LEADER If Co Lid -middotmiddot
3 6 48~J QOo 52
IRD Duhallow Ltd bull -
Ballyhoura Development Ltd 60 74
131 163
46dego
45dego
OOo middotshy
OOo
54
55
West Limerick Resources Ltd
South Kerry Partnership Ltd bull
Waterford Development Partnership Lid
Tuatha Ch1arra1 Ltd
Word - Wexford Organisation for Rural Development
West Cork LEADER Group bull
Donegal Local Development Co Lid
-
10
29
34
6
51
57
8
- 23 66 76 14
125
160
22
44dego
44dego
44dego
42gtigt
41
35dego 340
3dego
00o
00o
6 1eo
00o
3eo
middotshy
53dege
56dego-56dego
52deg
58dego
65dego
63dego
-middotmiddotshy
Tipperary LEADER Group bull
Totalmiddot Local Development Groups
30 813
95
1584
32dego
51dego
00o
1dego -
68dego
48 -shy
middotshy
Acquisition of Skills
0 -
85 0 OCo 100dego
Other Collective Bodies
Technical Assistance
7
0
23 37
30 QOo
70dego
00o
00o
00dego
i Total Expenditure - LEADER Groups 820 1730 47dego 1dego 52dego
~-
--
Administration txpenditure
EOOO
3 81
Total AdministrationI I Expenditure as 0o of Total
EOOO Expenditurei
98dego
98 82deg~
3
Grant Aid as Non~rantI I I 0o of Total Outputs as of
Expenditure Total Expendituro
2dego 01 middot-shyQO 18dego
middotmiddotshy
bull These groups also existed under the Leader I in11ahve
LEADER Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A15
Total Administration Expenditure as 0o of Total
pound000 Expenditure
81dego56 lv-10Jbull
ro v 106 b1o
77 46dego 91 43dego
113 4 1 Ofo
226 39dego 92 38dego 90 38dego 67 38dego
100 36dego 230 36dego
JUmiddot~ 86 35dego
262 35dego 292 I 32dego 168 31dego 111 31dego 94 30dego- 29dego 65 I 29dego
289
85
29dego 182 27dego 258 25 194 24dego 198 23dego 165 22oo 141 22dego 285 22dego 271 21 249 20 185 19 94 19dego
5173 31
189 0dego 115 75o 86 0
5564 30dego
Grant Aid as 0o of Total
Expenditure
0 J _ 3dego 9dego bo 18dego 13dego
5dego 2dego
35dego 17dego
6dego
18dego 34o 44degc 29dega 26dego 28dego 50dego 19dego 47
5dego 55oo 20 50dego 46dego 42 36 50dego 40dego 20 25 29dego
0 25Vo
OOo
28
Non~rant
Outputs as 0o of Total Expenditure
19dego LO
~-
36dego 45dego 44o 41dego
48dego 57oo 6v-10 27dego 47dego 58dego 55vO 47 31dego 24oo 40dego 43 42dego 21 52dego 24dego 68dego 20dego 56dego 27dego 32dego 36dego 42 29 40dego 61dego 56dego 40dego
100o OOo
100o
42dego
Local Development Group
-Comhar lorrais (LEADER) Teoranta bull lounly ~ligo LlAurH t-artnersh1p co LIO r-cura1 uuo11n LtAUttlt vvmpany Lia ln1sh0Wen Community Development Co ltd middot Laois LEADER Rural Development Co Ltd comhdhail 011ea1n na hlireann South Kerry Partnership Ltd bull Rural Resources Develooment Ltd Blackwaler Region LEADER Co Ltd Meath Community Partnership Co Ltd LonQford Community Resources Ltd Galwav Rural Develooment Co Word-Wexford Organisation for Rural Developmenl
-Barrow-Nore-~uir tltura1 ueve1opment Lta_ Ariana Catchment Area Community Co bull Cavan-MonaQhan Rural Development Co-operative Society lid Me1theal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo Wicklow Rural Partnership Ltd bull Offaly LEADER II Co Ltd bull Doneoal Local Development Co Ltd Mid-South Rural Roscommon Developmenl Association Ltd Co Louth Rural Development Co Ltd Ballyhoura Development Ltd bull Kell-Kildare European LEADER II Teoranta IRD Duhallow ltd_ Tuatha Ch1arrai Lid -South West Mavo Oevelooment Co Westmeath Community Development ltd West Limerick Resources Ltd
-middot West Cork LEADER Groupmiddot Waterford Develooment Partnersh10 Ltd Western Rural Development Co Lid Tinnorarv LEADER Group bull East Cork Area Development Ltd Total - Local Development Groups
Acqu1s1t1on of Skills Uther Collective tsodies Technical Assistance
Total Expendituremiddot LEADER Groups
bull These groups also exisled under the Leader I initiative
Administration Expenditure
pound000
45
deg 64 35 - 47 88 35
25 37 83 60 31 91 94 53 35 28 25
19 84 49 64 46 45 37 31 61 58 49 36 17
1599
0 86
0
1684
---
--
----
----
I
I
LEADER _Admiri_istration_ Costs_as a Percentage_of TotalExpenditure bull 1997 Appendix A-16
Local Development GroupI I
Comhair lorrais (LEADER) Teoranta bull Co Sllqo LEADER Partnership Co Lid Rural Dublin LEADER Compant lid Wicklow Rural Partnershi~ Lid Rural Resource Development Lid Word-Wexford Orqani5allon for Rural Develo~ment Ltd Blackwater Reoion LEADER Co Lid Meath Communit~ Partnershi~ Co Ltd Laois LEADER Ru_ral Oevelooment Co Ltd IRD Ouhallow Ltd bull Oonal Local Oevelooment Co Ltd Kell-Kildare Eurooean LEADER II Teoranla Cavan-Monaghan Rural Oeveloement Co-o~rat1ve Socie_lv Ltd South Kerrv Partnersh10 Lid bull
I South Wesl Mavo Devetooment Co bull I Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo
Waterford Development Partnership Lid Galway Rural Developn-ent Co lnishowen Community Development Group bull Wesl Limerick Resources Ltd Co Louth Rural Dev~topment Co Ltd Comhdhail Oilea1n na hEireann West Cork LEADER Grouo bull Tuatha Ch1arra1 Ltd Westmeath Communitv Develoomenl Ltd Offalv LEADER II Co Ltd bull Ballyhoura Development Ltd East Cork Area Development Ltd Weslern Rural Development Co Ltd Mid-South Rural Roscommon Deveroomenl Assoc1at1on Ltd Longford Community Resources Ltd
Administration I Total Expenditure ExpenditureIpound000 pound000
43 I 96 83 48 52 89 91 46 -58 31 57 60 75
102 59 60
109 78 45 47 46 50 35
104 56 48 39 67
-- 27 83 32 35
Arigna Catchment Area Community Co I 43 middotmiddotmiddot shy
Tipperary LEADER Group 0 38 41Barrow-Nore-Suir RurEii Development bull
Total - local Develooment Grouos 1979
Other Collective Bodies 36 Technical Assistance 0
i Total Expenditure bull LEADER Groups 2015
234 140
186 365 373 204 260 156 293 314 399 568 335 341 626 458
middot-middot 264 277 275 309 221 658 367 314 259 455
Grant Aid as [ Nnn~r~ntAdministration as deglo of Total 0o of Total Expenditure Expenditure
45dego
36dego 34oo 28Co 24dego
24oo 22oo 22dego 20degtc 20oo 19dego 19dego 18degc 18degc 18dego 17dego 17degc 17degh 17 17 16dego 16dego 16dego 15dego 15 15dego 15o
189 I 14dego 592 I 14dego 252 290 414 441 561
11487
142 25dego 75 0 149 0 OOfo 100
11778 17dego 53dego JQOo I
13dego 12Jo 10dego
9oo 7dego
17dego
19dego
25dego 28dego 37dego so~lo
37oo 37dego 30oo 36Yv 40dego 54 45dego 59degn 55dego 61dego 64dego 64degh 56dego 34 49I 6QOo I 23dego 50dego I 34dego 64dego 55 50dego 55deg 55dego 60o 38oo 58dego 71 dego 56o 73dego 54dego 70dego 53dego
20dego 29dego 35oo 3_0 30dego 25dego 48dego 28dego 16degc 32dego 17dego 37dego 23dego 30
Outputs as oo of Total Expenditure I
36Co 39oo 38dego 35dego 26dego 39dego 41dego
48dego 44deg 40dego 27dego 36dego 23oA 27dego 21dego 19dego 19dego 27~o
Partnerships Community Groups and National Organisations Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A17
Partnership Administration Total Expenditure Expenditure pound000 pound000
KWCD Partnershii - -middot 128 128 lnishowen Partnersh10 Board 33 33-middot-Monaahan Partnershii Board 48 48 Lonoford Commumtv Resources ltd 40 40 Galwav Rural Oevelooment Co 39 39 Galwav C1tv Partnership 109 109
~Q_LEAOER Partnershii Co 50 50 Pairt1ocht Gaellacht Th1r Chonaill 48 48 Roscommon Countv Partncrshin 55 55 Pairt1ocht Chonamara 116 116 Cavan Partnershin 18 - 18_ Canal Communities Partnership 67 67 Brav Partnershio 115 115 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 49 50 Tra Li Partnershio 105 107 Waterford Area Partnershio 77 82 West Limerick Resources Ltd 74 82 Southside Partnershin 163 180 North-West KildareNorth Offalv (OAK) 125 139 Mavo bull 288 I 353 Wexford Area Partnershio 132 166 Doneaal Local Develoomenl Co 60 78 Leitnm Partnership 63 94 Clondalkin Partnershio Comoanv 176 305 South Kerrv bull 107 253 Blanchardstown Area Partnershin 208 495 Droaheda Partnershio Comoanv 136 337 Baltvfermot Partnershio 143 359 Cork Cilv bull 176 476 Dundalk bull 196 546 Finnlas bull 169 53 vvovforcl tn ntv prtnPrshio bull 126 501 n11hl1n lnOAr rjtv bull 14 539 T~ll ht bull 7 Ballvmun bull 103 529 Waterford Countv bull 42 227 Limerickmiddot 90 510 Northside Partnershio 125 761
Total Exoendituro - Partnerships 4071 9169
Communilv Grouos 710 773 National Oroanisations 383 383
Total 5164 10325
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) ~--
Administration as 0o Other Activities as 0o of Total Expenditure of Total Expenditure
100dego QOo
100dego QOo
100dego QOo
1QQ0o QOo
100deg QOo
100oo QOo
100oo 0dego 100dego QOo
100dego Ooo 100dego QOo
100middot QO(
1QQ 0o QDo
1QQDo 0dego 100dego OOo
98dego 2dego 94dego 6dego 91dego 9dego 91dego 9dego 90dego 10dego 82oo 18dego 80dego 20dego 77 23 67 33dego 58dego 42 42dego 58dego 42dego 58degc 40dego 69dego 40dego 60oo 37dego 63dego 36dego 64oo 3701 25dego 75degn 2i01 7t01Q TtOn 77deg 19dego 81dego 19dego 81dego 18oo a2deg10 16 84
44dego 56dego
92dego 8dego 100dego 0dego
50deg4 50dego
Partnerships Community Groups and National Organisations Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A 18
Partnership Administration
I Total Expenditure
--middot -shy -shy - --shy Expenditure pound000 - [000- shy
lnishowen Partnershio Board 137 272 Galwav C1tv PnrtnArsh1n 1e~ 35~
Mavo bull 274 580 Canal Commun1tv Partnersh10 122 267-W~~tmeath Communitv Develonmenl Ltd 98 216 Galwav Rural Oevelooment Co ~-
94 211 Monaahan Partnershio Board 100 238 Shoo LEAOEftigtartnersh1p C_o 155 385 Roscommon Counlv Partnershin 146 367 Cavan Partnersh10 72 184 Pa1rtiocht Chonamara 124 328- -LonQford Community Resources Lid 121 334 KWCO Partnershio 205 594 Pairtiocht Gaeltacht Thir Chonaill 99 302 Waterford Area Partnershin 175
middotshy 542 Blanchardstoln_ Area Partnersh1E 159 504 Oundalk bull 147 490 Leitrim Partnership 154 514 - -North West KildareNorth Offalv ltOAKl 122 414 Wexford Area Partnersh1R _ 125 427
_B~lymun bull 112 385 Brav Partnershio 151 526-Oonenal Local Develonment Co 104 371 Wexford Countv Partnershio bull 152 614
_sectQuth Kerrv bull 173 707 Cork Citymiddot 240 1 015 Tra Li Partnershio 122 519
_s1o_ndalk1n PartnershiQ ComQany 140 618 __lliJ_blin Inner C1ly bull 147 647
Tallaaht 173 775 Wesl Limerick Resources Ltd 57 256 F1nnlas bull 152 709 Walerford CountY bull --middot 54 261 Southside Partnershio 141 686 Ballyfcrmot Partnership 132 720 Droaheda Partnersh10 Comoanv 132 723--middot Limerickbull 121 803 Northside Partnershio bull 126 964 Set Un Casis - All Partnershins 28 28
Total Exoenditure bull Partnershios 5269 18858
Communitv Grouos 1 509 3499 National Oraan1salions 621 621
Total 7J98 22977
Administration as 0o Other Activities as 0o I- -middotshy of Total-Expenditure of Total Expenditure
51 oo 49dego-~ v u u-o
middotshy47dego 53dego 46dego 54dego 45lo 55oo-450o 55oo__ 42oo 58dego 40dego 60dego 40eo 60dego 39oo 61degi
38oo 62dego 36dego 64dego 34oo 66dego 33dego 67 32dego 68dego 32dego 68dego 30oo 70dego 30dego 70dego 29 71dego 29dego 71deg(0 29dego 71dego 29dego 71dego 28deg1gt 72dego 25dego 75oo 25dego 75 24dego 76dego-- shy24dego 76oo 23dego 77deg 23dego 77oo-shy22dego 78dego 22dego 78dego 21dego 79dego 2_1 dego 79deg 20dego 80dego 18 82 18 82dego 15 85dego 13dego 87dego
28dego 72
43dego 57=10 100dego OOo-shy32dego 68oo
i bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economrc and Social Progress (PESP)
County Enterprise Boards Grant Cost Per Job 1994-1997 (In Descending Order) Appendix A21
County Enterprise Board Expenditure on Grant Full Time Jobs Part Time Jobs Equivalent Jobs Aid 1994middot1997 pound000 1994-1997 (1) 1994-1997 (1) 1994-1997 (1)
Leitnm 1417 209 6 212 Westmeath 1012 154 0 154 Wexford 1575 280 37 299 Cork C1tv 1089 208 0 208 -Monaahan 1057 178 62 209 Waterford Counlv 1003 188 36 206-South Cork 1566 324 0 324 South Dublin 1753 362 6 365---TinnPrarv South R1dina 922 184 47 208 Limerick Citi 1197 273 10 278 Offalv 1137 243 74 280 Waterford City 1664 387 58 416 Mayo 1565 345 95 393 Limerick City 1512 362 60 392 Kllkennv 1325 320 55 348 DonPnal 1061 254 50 279 Finaal (Dublin) 1377 347 42 368 Wicklow 1538 333 170 418 Kiidare 1004 264 20 274
-Cork North 779 213 0 213
-Carlow 1435 309 169 394 -Cavan 1357 301 152 377 Clare 1 342 335 92 381 Kerrv 1432 288 238 407 Laois 1245 339 42 360 Louth 1045 280 46 303 Dublin Citv 1734 533 0 533
_
SliQo 1182 260 210 365 Oun LaoghaireRathdown 1323 408 3 410 Longford 1145 332 51 358 Roscommon 1208 315 133 382 West Cork 1063 361 21 372 Meath 980 350 23 362 Gatway County and City 2131 843 120 903 Tipperary North County 660 223 136 291
Total 44834 10905 2264 12037
Grant Cost per Job pound
6683 middot-shy6571 5278 5235 5057 4 867 4 834 4801 4444
4306 4061 3999 3988 3857 3812 3802 3743 3680 3666 3658 3647 3599 3522 3518 3459 3448 3254 3238 3231 3203 3 165 2 861 2711
2360 2269
3725
( 1) The jobs created in the year are computed by taking a head count of new jobs 1n enterprises receiving grant aid from CEBs The grant aid expended in the year may not be directly comparable with this as here may be a time rag between the expenditure and the creation of the relevant job but this should be minimised by taking an average over 4 years In computing the equivalent 1obs figure part-lime jobs are taken as 05 of a 1ob
County Enterprise Boards Non Grant Expenditure 1996 Appendix A31
r= middotshy
INPUTS OUTPUTS
I Cou~ty Enterpr_ise Boar_ct_ ~on-Grant - shy
0o of Total _Surveys __ Media _Networks __ ThirdLevel _Second Business - Mentor Activities Expenditure Events Colleges Level Counselling Support
pound000 Schools -
Kildare 241 39oo 1 0 4 3 15 380 40 middotshy
Dublin City 202 30oo 1 9 6 2 20 151 35 Fingal(Oubhn) 171 26dego 1 14 11 I 0 4 3 93 Oun LaoghaireRathdown 160 25oo 1 7 3 0 14 25 84
Sligo 108 24dego 0 68 0 1 3 250 30 - shySouth Cork 150 23dego 20 24 14 1 14 120 45 South Dublin 161 23dego 2 8 0 0 18 105 4
-middot Cork City 118 22dego 2 10 3 2 14 0 14
Loulh 137 22dego 7 3 2 1 6 40 15 Meath 116 22deg1~ 0 3 3 1 12 0 21 West Cork 135 21dego 0 130 2 0 10 174 10 Westmeath 106 21dego 0 0 0 0 17 0 14
Offaly 121 19dego 4 34 5 2 9 17 20 Donegal 144 19dego 1 4 0 1 8 216 46
-107 18oo 0 17 0 1 I 15 150 16
~ Clare
- middot----Leitrim 121 18oo 5 0 4 0 I 9 416 12
Roscommon 92 1Tlo 0 0 0 1 5 484 5 -Limerick City 7
I 17dego 0 2 0 5 5 0 6 Limerick County 137 17dego 1 25 1 0 13 102 7 Laois 101 16dego 0 4 0 0 14 54 bull 1
Tipperary North County 65 16dego 0 0 0 0 12 279 17
Wexford 107 15dego 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 Waterford County 85 15dego 0 2 0 1 0 69 4 Monaghan 86 14deg= 0 0 0 0 7 10 5 Kilkenny 88 14dego 0 16 0 I 0 12 I 19 I 10 Carlow 77 13dego 0 7 0 I 0 10 I 0 I 20 -Wicklow 96 13dego 1 12 0 0 9 70 14
Cavan 74 12oo 5 0 4 1 5 1394 i 31 Tipperary South Ridinq 65 12dego 0 0 3 0 10 80 25 Kerry 71 12dego 1 0 1 0 8 0 20
bullGalway County and City 75 I 12=10 1 2 37 3 12 72 3 Waterford City 82 10dego 0 1 0 1 20 108 33 Mayo 78 10oo 0 48 0 0 5 221 6 Longford 50 9dego 3 5 5 0 7 60 10
Cork North 36 8dego 0 0 0 0 0 340 0
Total 3879 18dego 57 455 108 27 352 5409 726
County Enterprise Boards Non Grant Expenditure 1997 Appendix A32
INPUTS OUTPUTS middotshy
County Enterprise Board Non-Grant bull1o of Total Surveys Media Networks Third Second Business Mentor Management Activities Expenditure Events Level Level Counselling Support Development
EOOO Colleges Schools Programme
Don~al 156 36dego 3 3 1 3 9 55 12 3 Tipperary Nor1h County 162 36dego 0 33 1 0 7 175 12 3 Oun laoghaireRathdown 219 35oo 2 20 6 4 24 240 67 2 Kilkenny 162 30oo 2 12 0 0 27 99 16 3 Louth 233 30 0 14 2 1 11 60 18 6 Sliao 144 29dego 1 7 2 2 7 246 26 6-Laois 167 27oo 0 127 2 0 13 100 6 4 Clare 171 27dego 1 37 12 1 15 97 31 6 Mavo 162 271 0 15 2 0 10 190 6 3 Limerick City 163 26dego 1 29 4 3 6 100 5 4 Kildare 198 26dego 0 24 4 0 15 190 46 6 Wesl Cork 133 26oo 1 271 2 0 10 152 2 4 Limerick County 183 26oo 1 55 12 3 8 194 35 6 Mealh 193 26oo 1 28 3 2 19 48 9 4 Offaly 127 25oo 1 53 6 0 8 59 35 5 Fingal (Dublin) 224 25dego 0 5 0 1 6 446 155 3 Leitrim 157 24oo 2 84 3 2 7 135 14 2 South Cork 164 23dego 0 14 85 1 16 627 15 6 Roscommon 109 23oo 1 27 3 0 11 50 8 4
Gatway County and City 190 23dego 0 5000 10 3 36 18 10 14
Co1lt Ci1V 150 22dego 1 10 5 2 B 1325 16 3 Monaghan 121 22dego 2 24 6 0 B 47 0 3 Tipperary South Riding 131 21 Ofo 1 25 3 0 11 672 20 3 Westmeath 132 21dego 1 3 0 0 29 6 10 4 Waterford Countv 104 21dego 3 32 2 1 21 156 7 3 Dublin City 245 21 oo 1 26 6 5 23 110 50 6 Wexford 131 20dego 1 17 0 0 17 55 16 2 Wicklow 159 20 0 44 0 0 6 32 9 3 Cavan 144 20dego 4 14 7 1 6 134 63 7
CorX North 66 19 1 10 5 2 16 1325 16 3 Waterford City 149 19oo 2 12 0 1 21 183 18 3 South Dublin 184 19dego 1 2 0 0 16 87 37 3 Kerry 104 18 1 324 0 0 12 115 B 2 LonQford 81 16oo 5 41 8 0 5 0 6 41 Carlow 95 16 1 110 1 1 10 228 50 2 Total 5414 24 42 6552 203 39 474 7756 854 182
LEADER Groups Non Grant Expenditure 1995-1997 (1) Appendix A33
Local Development Group
INPUTS
Non-Grant -Activities
pound000
As a 0o of Total--middot
Expenditure
Seminars Held-shy
OUTPUTS
Press I Other tApplications Releases Promotional -Approved-
Projects Referred Creation I Creation of Training Completed to Other of Newmiddot middot Community middotCourses
Actions Agencies Business Association
East Corllt Area Development Ltd 144 51dego 104 110 0 O 0 O 5 2 I O gt-M~e~a~th=C-o~m-m~u~n~i~ttv
0
middotP~a~rt~n-e-rs~h~o=C~o-L-td-----~--1-8-0--+-~5~1~0~---+--7~7-1--+---16-4---- 110 91 11 960 21 12 16
Word - Wexford Ornan1sat1on for Rural Oevetonment bull 351 48oo 0 0 0 0 t-c~innbulle~ra~~-L~e~a~d~er~Gro~u~o~middot~-~~~~~---r-~3~4~3----t-~4~8~o--o 24 7 4 191 45 10 15 13 22 f--~----=~~~~~~~~~+-----~+----~---~+---------l~~-----+-~~----~+-~--~--l~----~f-~300~+-~=-~+-~--~-+~-=~~
Kellmiddot Kildare Euronean Leader II TEO 268 46Yo 85 125 4 74 33 1 10 36 Blackwater Reo1on Leader Co_ Ltd -middot _136----+--4-6A~o------6--7_ __ _ __65------lt----4----I- --7-3__1_---3-1------22--+----3------lt--------1--~__2_4-----1 lnishowen Commumtv Develonment Groun bull 175 46dego 288 86 25 64 27 147 10 17 28 Laois Leader Rural Develonment Co Ltd 103 44dego 67 116 12 56 17 27 40 7 17 Tualha Chiarrai Ltd 244 42dego 239 25 10 168 82 66 24 6 39 West Cork Leader Groun middot 414 38~C -middot-+-~75----t--6-9-8----t----O--t----o-----t --~O-----t----O--t--~1~2_ _____o----shy 33
~c~o~S~h~go~L-ead-e~r~P~bull~rt--n-e--rs~h~ip~Co~~Lt~d--------+-----1~0~1--+-~3~7~~_ ___J3 6 6 73 21 14 20 17 5 Rural Dutgt11n Leader Comoanv Ltd 63 37dego 83 18 -~9--t----2~7--middot-+---6----+---~12-----t--~3---+--~7---+----5-Co_ Louth Rural Devclooment Co Ltd 137 37dego 139 56 18 39 5 23 5 2 11
gt-W~c~kl-o--w~R~u~r~a~I~P-art~n~bull~middot~sh~io~L--td---middot---------~1~4~3--+_~3~6~~-+---5~0~7____~1~12------ O 25 33 209 9 11 6 IRD Duhallow Lld bull ___2~middotbull-1-+-3_~V----t-~283------j--272--+----o-----1 85 40 144 11 37 1A
Rural Resource Dcvclooment ld__middot-------+--20502--+-C3057___-t-1=38~2o---t---5~0t----t--0905----t-----OO--- 0 0 6 9 14 Offalv Lead_~r II Co_ Ltd_middot 130 35oo 49 43 20 76 56 9 17 0 91
gt-S~ou--th~K~bull~Y~P~a~rt~n~bull~s~h~ip~L~t~d-middot________1__1_7~5--+-~34---~~middot--i---1~bull~85----+---1middotQ4_--+-----9--~--0-----+-----o--+----o---~-~2~0---+--3~0-----+--~3~6--1 Galwav Rural DevelgPment Co 126 33dego 38 12 0 147 21 130 19 6 39 Western Rural Devetoomenl Co Ltd 298 33dego 134 102 1 165 46 81 27 1 9 DonPnal L~cal Development Co Ltd 139 32 5 15 1 127 36 29 20 0 13 Lonaford ~ommun1lv Resources Ltd 118 31dego 15 57 7 97 46 22 3 2 5 Westmeath Communitv Develonmenl Ltd 149 30dego 254 50 15 165 60 20 17 5 __sect_____
l-Ba~ll~vlh~ou~ra~De~v-e~lo~rnm~e--n--t-Ll~d~_middot_________t--~2~7~3--+_~30~~~---t---64~-t--bull~8-----t----5--t----2~0~1--l--~8~2-----t--~8~0----+-~59----t---~bull~O---t ~5~2~-t Barrow-Nor~-Suir Rural Development bull -~2~4~7--+--~3~0~----+---3~5~0---__f----5_____15----l--~1~5~1---1C-----92-----t--~65-----t---2~0---t--~10-----t--~2~8-----t Comhair lorrais ILead~rl Teoranta bull 45 29dego o O _o__t------Co__t--_~o___-t-_--o_-+---co_ _____o--_-+_ __o-----t Wesl Limerick Resources 1 tn 126 29dego 69 104 3 103 1h 10 87 7 10 Comhdhail 01leain Na hEireann 64 27dego 41 32 0 124 hO 45 15 0 10
~_~ndegh~Wc~s~t~Mou_nDev~e~lo-nmbulln~t~n~middot------+--~1bullbull-+--2-bull-~-+---12----t--~~5-------0--l----1~middot4___+-_~5~8--t-----4~-+--~13---t------1--+--~3~3-~ Waterford Develooment Partnershio Ltd 209 26dego 56 0 0 95 35 35 34 7 46 Cavan-Monaghan Rural Development
l--C~o~-o~gtP~e~r=a~v~e~S=oc-e=t~y~L~tdo-middot---~-~----+-~2~2~7--+-C2~47o=---+-=2676~-t----11~7~---l----2~174__t---~36700---+----3~0~1--l----2~--+---20---+~--75__t-----2=2~--l Ariana Catchment Arca Community Co bull 121 23dego 21 7 23 105 39 4 5 0 O
f---M~~~h=~~F~o=r~b~a=rth~a--N~a=G~a~e~lt~a~c=ht~a~T~E~o=---~----r-~2=3~7----C2~3o=---+-~1773=----t--~150~--t--~o--t---~4700---+--1-5=7--+-~35~0~--+-~109----t--~2~1----+--~176--j
Mid-South Rural Roscommon Development Association Ltd 63 18 24 18 120 90 36 10 20 5 4
Total Expenditure - Local Development Groups 6227 34dego 7183 2879 730 I 3496 1514 2871 690 291 716
Acqu1s1t1on of skills i 274 Ooo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1-coc~e~c11=n~ca-1-a~s~s~s~ta-n~ce---------------=27~2~---l--0~0~~--t---Co~--t--~o--+--~o=---+-1--~o~-+---~o~-+----o--+------io~-t----o~--+-----io----+
Total Expenditure -LEADER Groups 6773 36dego 7183 2 879 730 3 496 1 514 2 871 (1) Expenditure for 1995-1997 is grouped together as only cumulative output statistics to 31December1997 were available at the time of preparing the report bull These groups also existed under the Leader I initiative
690 291 716
I
Partnerships Non Grant Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A34 middot-middot
INPUTS OUTPUTS
Partnership Name Non-Grant Activities As a 04 of Total Enterprise Services for Preventative Complementary pound000 Expenditure Support Unemployed Education Education
Norths1de Partnership bull 636 84dego 321 1885 520 443 Limerickbull 420 82dego 296 935 100 388 Waterford Counlv bull 184 81 oo 57 0 0 0
t--shy272 328Ballymun bull 426 81oo 401 82
Tallaght bull 466 77dego 496 - 957 143 29 Dublin Inner City bull 405 75dego 343 1651 50 59 Wexford County Partnership bull 375 75dego 138 0 17 272 Finalas bull 365 68oo 557 731 378 155 Dundalk bull 350 64dego 148 388 132 207 Co1lt Citymiddot 300 63dego 344 0 180 261 Ballyfermot Partnership 215 60dego 0 211 40 94 Drogheda Partnership Company 200 60dego 60 0 0 38 Blanchardstown Area Partnership 288 58dego 116 71 48 18 South Kerrv bull 146 58oo 90 212 399 265 Clondalkin Partnership Company 129 42oo 164 0 0 0 Le1tnm Partnership 31 33oo 23 184 0 56 Donegal Local Development Company 18 23dego 0 0 0 0 -IJYexford Area Partnership 34 20oo 14 0 0 13 Mayo 18o lo 181 10 34 North West KildareNorth Offaly 14 10 0 0 u 28 Southside Partnership 17 9dego 0 0 0 0 West Limencilt Resources Ltd 8 9dego 52 0 0 0 Waterford Area Partnershij)shy 5 6dego 49 14 0 5 Tra Li Partnership 2 2 u 0 0 0 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 0 QOo 0 0 0 0 LonQford Community Resources Ltd 0 Ooo 0 0 I 0 0-Pairtiocht Gaeltacht Th1r Chona1ll 0 0 0 0 0 0 lnishowen Partnership Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canal Commun1t1es Partnershrp 0 00o 0 0 0 0 Pairtiocht Chonamara 0 QOa 0 0 0 0 Gatway Rural Development Co 0 OOa 0 0 0 0 Sligo Leader Partnership Co 0 0 16 0 0 0 Roscommon County t-artnersh1p - u 0-1 u 0 u 0 Brav Partnership 0 01 0 0 0 0 Gatwav City Partnership 0 OOo 0 0 0 0 Cavan Partnership 0 00o 0 0 0 0 MonaQhan Partnership Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 KWCD Partnership 0 Ooo 0 0 0 0 Total Expenditure - Partnerships 5098 56dego 3739 7821 2107 2693
Commun1lv Grouas 63 8 0 0 0 0 National Oraanisalions 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 5161 50 3739 7821 2107 2693
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
Partnerships Non Grant Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A35
INPUTS OUTPUTS -
Partnership Non-Grant Activities As a 0o of Total Business Job Groups Preventative -shy -middot middot- -middot pound000 -middot - Expenditure -Start-Ups- shy Placements -shy Supportmiddot Education Projects
Northside Partnership bull I 838 87dego 503 438 28 15 I - -middot -middotmiddot - tCbullbull 602 isgt10 11b tiLj 31 16 I Dr()(lheda Partnership Co I 591 82dego 60 12 177 10 Ballyfermot Partnership 587 a2deg10 88 88 30 3
-middot Southside Partnership 546 80dego I 200 6 80 24 Waterford Counly bull 206 79dego 42 4 23 6 Fmglas bull 557 79dego 257 233 174 28 West limerick Resources Ltd 199 78degc 40 0 50 0 Tallaaht bull 602 78dego 309 646 51 7 Dublin Inner City bull 500 77dego 290 448 34 10 Clondalkin Partnership Conipany 478 77oo 225 562 63 7 Tra L1 Partnership 396 76deg1gt 80 20 67 6 -cork Citymiddot 775 76- 217 111 55 9 Soulh Kerry bull 533 75dego 135 150 61 middot51 -
Wexford County Partnership bull 462 75dego 170 63 31 0 Donegal Local Development Co 267 72dego 150 0 63 2 Bra~ Partnershi~ 375 71degu 71 0 14 Ballymun bull 274 71dego 70 402 50 10 Wexford Area ~artnership OUpound 71o 17U 4 5 18 -shyNorth vvest tildareNorth Offaly 292 71 Oo 56 0 8
I Leitrim Partnership 360 70deg1= 60 3 119 6 Dundalk bull 343 70~~ 71 64 50 10 Blanchardstown Area Partnership 345 68dego 170 97 29 13 Waterford Arca Partnership 367 68dego 37 6 55 1
middotshyPa1rtiocht Gaeltacht Thir Chona1ll 203 67deg~ 75 0 50 10 KWCD Partnership 389 66deg 15 0 0
- 4 middot-
Lonqford Commumtv Resources Ltd 212 64dego 85 4 19 5 middotmiddotshyPairt1ocht Chonamara 205 62 67 2 3 34
middotmiddot-Cavan Partnershio 112 61dego 90 1 49 6 Roscommon County Partnership 221 60degJ 120 0 38 6 -Sligo LeaCer Partnership Co 230 60dego 120 0 32 2 Monaghan Partnership Board 138 58dego 88 0 40 10 Galway Rural Development Company 116 55dego 101 0 51 2 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 118 55deg1= 0 0 20 2 -Canal Communities Partnersh10 145 54deg~ 0 0 16 6 Mavo bull 306 53dego 177 200 28 3 Galway City Partnership 180 50dego 113 0 35 12 lmshowen Partnership Board 134 49dego 60 0 42
Total Expenditure bull Partnerships 13589 72dego 4698 4192 1853 397
Commun1tv Grouos 1 990 57 0 0 0 0 Nalional Oraanisations 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 15579 68dego 4698 4192 1853 397
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
Appendix B Administration Cost Trends of Local Development Bodies
Number of CEBs within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs 1994-1997
Cost Band 1994 1995 1996 1997
ltpound50000 pound50-100000 pound100-150000
pound150-200000
gtpound200000
3 17
15 2
24
7
2
1
32
2
5
23 7
Total Administration Costs pound4_8m pound49m pound43m pound44m
Number of LEADER groups within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs 1995-1997
Cost Band 1995 1996 1997
ltpound50000 25 23 17
pound50-100000 9 11 14 pound100-150000 3
Total Administration Costs pound0Bm pound16m pound20m
Number of Partnerships within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs of Partnerships
Cost Band 1996 1997
ltpound50000 9 6 pound50-100000 7 19 pound100-150000 15 10 pound150-200000 5 10 gt pound200000 2 3
Total Administration Costs pound40m pound53m
11l)(lrJY 11 I
--
Appendix C Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development - Performance Indicators and Revised Targets
-
f 11~
iority Indicator
Jobs
1mber of of 1obs
Revised Targets (1994-1999) Original TargetUnits for total Operational Sub Sub
Programme 2Programme Programme 1
Jobs 15000 proved (for support grant assistance)
Nl1mber of new jobs erbullated not placed in Jobs and vacanc1es) Persons (N 81middot for Sub Pr gtgramme 1wjobs
bullgt provecr figure will mJke up the bulk of thbull i ~jobs created an1ounl) (N 02- for Sub Pr )gramme 2 this eq uates 10 new en terpriscs SUpported)
17000 (Sub Programme 1 8000 Sub Programme 2
1717516900
6900 Sub Programme 3 (Temple Bar) 2000 permanenl in service amp 5000 construction)
AjfJe11c1x CI
~ Priority Indicator
2 Enterprise creation and development
Grants to enterprise Value of grant allocations
Number of enterprises supported
Percentage of investment 1n enterprises provided by the Operational Programme
Provision of improved access for potential entrepreneurs to initial advice Number of firms receiving business advice
Percentage of grant aided firms whose promoters received other Operational Programme support advice consultancy mentoring
Management developm9nt Number of enlerprises participating in managemenl development programmes Number of managers participating in management developmenl programmes
3 Community Development Number of local groups financially assisted
4 Services for the unemployed Number of persons registered for assistance
Number of Long-Term Unemployed persons to benefil from Services for the
I Unemployed expressed as a
I Oo of total number of persons registered for assistance
Units Original Target for total Operational
Programme
pound
Enterprises 2260 new businesses and for Sub Programme 1
Persons and 3640 new and 960 existing for Sub Programme 2
Enterprises 6000 firms and
Persons
280 firmsEnterprises
Persons 500 per annum
No target set groups Local
Persons Caseload of 11 0000 (30000 1n 1995 and
20000 new cases per annum thereafter)
No targel set
Revised Targets (1994-1999)
Sub Sub Programme 1 Programme 2
i
pound16000000pound56020000
17 000 new and6050 new and 7000
existing 3750
existing
(Tolal 9800) (Tolal 24000)
39dego
3000010900
100dego83oo
6000
10000
700
57000 (40000 Local Employment
Scheme Partnerships and 17 000 Non- Local
Employment Scheme)
60dego
AfJXIUimiddot C2
---
Priority Indicator Units Original Target Revised Targets (1994-1999) for total Operational
Sub SubProgramme Programme 1 Programme 2
Progression Number bulllf persons progressing Persons 2500 per annum 16000 to full-time employment (1e placement in a job vacancy) Number of persons progressing Persons 300 per annum 5000 to part-lir le employment (ie placeme11t in a job vacancy) Number of persons assisted into Persons 17000 self-emplJyment (see 1 above) N~mber of persons assisted Persons 19000 under co1nplementary education and training Number of persons in continuing Persons 5000 per annum 2000
1 cducat1or1 Number c1f persons in work Persons 10000 per annum 1000 experience programmes Number Cbullf unemployed referred Persons 5000 onwards middot o other agencies
- -middot 5 ~ducation and Training Complementary education and training Number cmiddotf persons assisted Persons 12000 per annum 19000 under cornplementary education and traini l9
Provision of recognised ce~ificaticbulln Number cf participants ptovided Persons 60003500 with re~1nised certification
I 0o of part1 1pants provided with 30oo reltXJgniset certification
Training for trainers NuOiber ol persons benefiting Persons 1000 under actions tn the area of trai~1ng of trainers and teachers
I of partimiddotipants ptovided with recognise j certification
I 6 Preventive education Number of children attending Children 4080 per annum 44000 preventive education courses I youth serVices
7 lnfrasbucture and enVironmental measures Number o infrastructutal and 20 per annum 1000Protects 98 environmE ntal actions
Appendix C3
Original Target Revised Targets (1994-1999) Priority Indicator Units for total Operational Sub Sub
Programme Programme 1 Programme 2
8 Land development
Area of targeted land developed
Expenditure on developmenl of targeled land
Number of derelict sites eradicated
Number of villages assisted
Number of towns assisted
Number of conservation projects to be funded
9 Other
Entarprse culture Number of participants in activities to promote an enterprise culture 1n schools and colleges
Customer contacts Number of customer contacts with CEBs
Hectares
pound
Sites
Villages and projects
Towns and projects
Projects
Persons 62000
Customer 190000 Contacts
Appendix C 4
Appendix D Extract from Consolidated Reporting Guidelines - December 1997 The LEADER Operational Programme Performance Indicators and Revised Targets
Pe-rformance Indicators
Under the tenns nf the Opcr~llional Progr1111n1e e1ch group is rtmiddot4uired to set ck)vn
1~erforn11nce uHJic~1tors and targets vhitmiddoth it vdl ain1 10 ~1chilve in 1he
itn )le1ncntation of its hu~iness plan and against vh1ch its perfonnance Viii htmiddot
evllua1ed_ Follc)ving ~t rcvitv of the fonn ind contenl of 1hc originil incliclliVl
inclicHors1 cornincnt by the independent evduator and consuh1lion Vilh groups a
dc1111itivc range of perfon111nce inclicJtors llas nclv been prepared
E~11h (~roup is required to llltgtdify ils Busin1middotss Pl1n perforn1ance indicators in this
remiddotiscd forn1at for lmiddotte1sure B Ruril innovation 1neasures and insofar as it is possible
at 1his s1age to prep1re inltlil~ltors for middotleisure C middotrransni1ion~1I cu-operitiun for 1hv
period tnding 5 I l)ece111her 1999 PleJse note thlt 1leisure C does no[ relale to
teclmical suppo11 funding received from AEIDL
lh1 Ile st1te111cru of pcrfonn1ncl indicators -hould rLprcscnl a co111pnhensivc
stncnHmiddotnc of 1argets based on progress to ditc ind the i1nplc111entllio11 of 1he
huine~gt plmiddottll to )1 l)cc~1nbcr iltJ99 including thl acklitional 1ctivitics being
~upportcd vith the funding 11locItcd fron1 the -middotrcservtmiddotmiddotmiddot
imiddotht revised busintmiddot-s plan indicators should he con1plctccl ind rc1urnecl to Huril
De-elopmem Division lw ii _l1nua1v 1998
regress Viii he 1neasurecl 1gainst these t1rgcts by lllttns of the Lf)LJ rerurn~ incl the
quant1tat1ve incl qualitllivc reports outlirlltd in sections 3A jl3 incl 5C of 1hesc
guiklines
Ple1se note thal -hJcled areas ire for infon11a1ion only incl 11 lhis st1ge do nol
require indicators to be Stl All olhltr t1rge1s should ht inpulled in 1he 1ppropri1te
fickl- here rherc is no 1lmiddotlemiddotan1 ac1ivi1y tllSl rl zero
1[Jfx11rL IJ 1
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Animation and Capacity Building
ActivityOutput
Promotion
Number of seminarspublic meetingsworkshops organised to cover the following topics GeneralCommunity SpecialisedSectoral
Number of attendees al the above
Number of press releases articles published media interviews
Circulation of LEADER Newsletter Number issued Number per print run
Number of other promotional actions
Direct Animation Assistance I Technical Advice
Number of private individuals directly assistedadvised
Number of bodies directly assistedadvised GeneralCommunity Specialised Sectoral
Number of development strategiestplansmiddot arising from field work (Le_ not covered in ~other technical assistance beneath) including community plans
Co-ordination of Activities
Number of applications referred to other agencies
Impact
Enhanced Awareness of LEADER Services (Not for completion)
This will be measured by middot
The number of individuals contacting LEADER office
The number of groupsbusinesses contacting LEADER office
The number of applications from promoters
The number of projects promoted by LEADER Group itself
General Level of Local I Community Development
Activity (Not for completion)
This will be measured by middot
The number of applications successfully improved
The number of bodies assistedanimatedrestructured improved
Number of bodies established
More Efficient Use of Resources
(Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number of projects successfully referred to other agencies (i e funded)
i
------MeasL1re B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector ActivityOutput -
I
dministration Processing
Number of staff exclusively I assigned to administrative duties
(2 15 etc)
Number of staff exciusively assigned to animation duties (2 1 5 etc)
Number of Board meetings held
Number of hours worked on a I voluntary basis by Board
members
Number of project evaluation committees
I
Number of project evaluation committee meetings held I
Number of hours worked on a voluntary basis by pro1ect evaluation committee members
I Number of internal LEADER Group evaluation meetingssessionsreviews
I Number of external system auditsreviews (not including accounts)
Co-ordination of Activities I
Number or meetings with other LEADER Groups
I
Number of County Strategy Meetings attended
Number of other meetings with I public bodies
middot shy
Impact
Efficient Delivery of Service (Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number or applications received The number of applications
processed The number of applications approved The number of projects completed
More Efficient Use of Resources
(Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number of projects referred to other agencies (not including those that were referred after provision of animation assistancetechn1cal advice which 1s dealt with beneath)
Apprnd1x 0 3
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector ActivityOutput Impact
Technical Support Studies and Research Knowledge I Expertise Made Available to Potential
Number of studies plansaudits Promoters commissioned by LEADER (Not for completion) Group (not including field work carried This wlfl be measured by out by animators which is included above) The number of LEADER
projects emanating from studies Number of other auditsstudiesplans prototype The number of projects development commissioned by emanating from studies funded promoters amp funded by by other agencies LEADER
The number of bodies restructuredimproved
The number of bodies established
1ppc11cLy ) 4
----
--- --
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
I Sector Activity I Output Impact middot- ---shy
Training Provision of Training Courses Acquisition of Skills (Not for completion)
I Number of training courses commissionedundertaken by This will be measured by LEADER Group (not including animation activ1t1es The number of bodies outlined above) demonstrably LEADER StaffBoard restructuredimproved by GeneralCommunity Courses training provided to SpecialisedSectoral volunteersstaff
I
Number of attendees at the above The number of proiects emanating from training
I PROVISION OF TRAINING GRANTS The number of attendees who
were placed in employment as Number of Training Grants for a result of training
I courses commissioned by promoters and funded under LEADER (not including any of the above)
I GeneralCommunity Courses Spec1al1sedSectoral
Number of attendees at the above
Grant Provision Job CreationRecruitment Assistance I
Number of Employment Grants Employment created provided
I ~-
Afgtj)(11cLmiddot J 5
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Activity I OutputSector
Improvement of Existing Accommodation and
Tourist Amenities
Rural Tourism
Number of capital grants provided
Development of New Accommodation and
Tourist Amenities
Number of capital grants provided
Marketing
Number of marketing grants provided
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number accommodation facilities upgraded to Bord Faille standard
Number of additional beds available
Increased number of visitormiddot capacity
Add1t1ona1 tourist revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Sectoral Benefits
New entrants
Number of additional beds available
Increased number of visilor capacity
Additional revenue generated IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Improved Business Attributable to Marketing
Additional bed-nights arising from marketing strategy
Additional inquiries visits to tourist offices - domestic - overseas
Additional visits to tourist amenities Siles arising from marketing strategy
Number or new marketmg methods tourist packages initiated
Employment- (e g directly arising rrom marketing as opposed to capital grant aid eg as a result or brochures advertisements etc) Created I Sustained
-------
Meas1Jre B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Small Firms Craft Enterprise and Local Services
I
I
i
I
i
i
I
_
Activity I Output
Support for Existing Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Support for New Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Marllteting
Number of marketing grants provided
- -Impact
-Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with improved efficiencyadded value to products and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product ranges
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
I
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises established
New productsproduct ranges
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Greater Awarness of Enterprise Activity
Number of new (geographical) markets developed - within Ireland - within EU - non - EU
Increased sales (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
1J(11di- Igt 7
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Agricultural Forestry and Fishery Products
Activity I Output
Support for Existing Enterprises and Improving
Quality of Existing Products
Number of capital grants provided
Support for New Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Marketing
Number of marketing grants provided
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with improved efficiencyadded value to products and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product ranges
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Number of enterprises established
New productsproduct ranges
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Greater Awareness of Enterprise Activity
Number of new (geographical) markets developed - within Ireland - within EU - non - EU
Increased sales (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector Activity I Output Impact
Freservation of the Improving Awareness Increased Environmental Environment and Livin Awareness9
Conditions Number of capital grants Number of environmental provided plansaction groups established
(not including groupsplans arising from animation andor other technical support outlined above)
Number of entries for Tidy Towns Competition
Benefit to the Built I Cultural of Built I Social and Cultural
Protection I Enhancement Environment
Environment
Number of built sitesstructures provided Number of capital grants
protected or restored
Number of socialcultural events held
Employment created I sustained
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Benefit to the Natural of Natural Environment
Protection I Enhancement Environment
Number of natural sites protected provided Number of capital grants
Number of natural amenities restoredenhanced
Improved Managment of Activities I Alternative
Waste Management Waste I Availability of
Energies Alternative Energy
Number of capital grants Number of alternative energy provided providers established
Number of waste management initiatives implemented
Employment created I sustained
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
AJf)(itrlLmiddot J9
Measure C Transnational co-operation
Sector
Transnational Co~peration
Activity I Output
Grant Provision
GeneralCommunity SpecialisedSectoral Rural Tourism Small Firmscraftsenterprises AgricultureForestryFisheries Products EnvironmenVLiving Conditions Other
Number of Grants provided to final beneficiary (each category is exclusive)
Private Men Private Women Private Jointmiddot CommunityDevelopment Groups Business VoluntarySpecific Issue Groups Co-operatives LEADER Group Other Total
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with establishedimproved efficiency added value to producls and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product rangesnumber of new marketing methods tourist packages initiated
Number of new (geographical) markels developed - within Ireland -within EU - non-EU
Additional inquiries visits to tourist offices - domestic - overseas
Additional visits to tourist amenities sites arising from marlltetmg strategy
Additional bed-nights arising from marketing strategy
Increased sales Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Number of cultural links established
Number of local development strategies studies transferred shared
Number of environmental actions
Employment - created full-time all year fu11-time seasonal part-time all year part-time seasonal
Employment - sustained full-trme all year full-time seasonal part-time all year part-time seasonal
AfJJll1tll~Y )_ Q
Appendix E Matrix of Development Agencies in County Roscommon and the Services Provided (Produced by Roscommon County Enterprise Board)
---------~
c Q
~l agt-EUJ
Co Jnty Slrategy Group CoJnty Enterpnse BoHd
Anmiddotina Enterprise Fund
Lec1der 11
Pai tnersh1p Co ( --~--~---~--~--
Co-Jnty Council ---- middot---~---t--~--~~-~r ---~-~--~-~--~-~--~--~
lrel 3nd Wes ToLnsm
--~---~--~--~---middot -~----~----------~--
Tecgasc
An Bord Tr3cht31a
Forbairt ( ( (
10t Ireland I
FA
Bord Faille (
Bar1ksFinanc1al Insmiddot itulions I
Dcpartmenl of Social Welfare
Buiness Innovation Centre
European lnfc rmat1on Centre
AfJjJCJICfiY E l
Appendix F Framework of Agreement between County Meath CEB and County Meath LEADER II Group
MEMOHANDUM OF AGHEFMFNT
JelVtLll
The Meath County Fn1erpnse Board Ltd
and
Mca th Leader 11
Given he -i1n1brilics bl(lLll ccnnn ispeCls of the n1ni1 of bnth Counry Enterprise Hoard ind lc1dcr
IL ii b 11ceptcJ th11 i high ltkne of co-orxru1on is rcql1inJ to tbullns11n that dtmiddotserv1ng proiccis giin
n11xi1nl1111 txncfit fron1 he s11p1x111 1ncchanis11h avulihh V1tlun hoth orgu11-11in11s_ Vhdc s~ 11HL
division of rcsponsiliililics is possibl~ t outlined hcIO 11 1s ncogni cJ 11111 both groups need 10 1dop1
tn OJICll n(Xihh tpproteh IO the ltsk of f)TltJCCing ClllflCS 111J tppliCtliOllS
lc1dcr II -ill ha prin1a~middot n spon~ibilitv ill 11lc Couniy f()r lhc st1ppon of p1ojlmiddotCS f10111 the frgtllovi11~
sectors
bull Craft Enttrpnscs Cfor fin1nciil suppon ilh 1 li1n11cd fcxmiddotus on soft suppons)
bull Kurii Touris1n
bull Proicn- p1n1nnttd hy Co111111u11i1y CnH1P
bull Exploilition and M1rke1ing of lor1I agriculcur1I fcxxl for(siry tnd fishtnts products
bull Envuonn1tnl for ht follomiddotinJ mc1surcs middot
e Prtscrv1tion ind dcvlmiddotloprnenl of the existing 1rch11te1ur1I heriti(lbull ind bullillages
bull Suppo11 for n1hur1I Cfl111v1ty ind the pron1ot1un C1f cultur1I product- linked ith nir~d
ltlevelcip111ent
bull Prot~ctron rch1btli111ion ind explollllion of nuural rccurces (Oor1 fiunt srndl s1rc11ns
ccc) ind bncl~tpcs
bull Di1x1s1I 1nd fC()ding Clf ISie illdl1ding llSt or energy pnxluuion
ll1is i111plies th11 Le1ltler II tvill cngig1middot 111 p1--delmiddotlltipn1lmiddotnt 1ni11nins research tnd 1111rkc1ing ind he
prin11rily nspons1hlc for the c1pi1d invt~1111enl 1s-oci11ed Vith tht dcvcloprnent of vdue-iltld(d fotgtlt1
produce ind viii dso pronss rtqutsts for 1id for c1p1rd intslmeni ln1ploy111cnt grants 1111rktting
ind 111ining s11ppon- in lht 1hovl stcio1s
The County Enttrpnsc l3cgt1rltl tvill continu1 10 support f(bull1siliilicy cap1td ind (rnploy1ncnl projcd
l1id1 li1vt tilt c1p1lt ily ro gtntricc ernpkraquobull111tn1 v11h1n tll otlllmiddotr -ltmiddotciors Po1cnt1tl projects vhich 111cit
This rtquirvnicnc viii he rtfcrrtd to tteh otliLr in 1cltorltlincc Vitll tlus Agrtllllcnl
middot111t 1ltith Coun1y Enterprise Boird lld ind ilcalh Lealtlcr II arlmiddot lOn1n1incd to rn11ntaining open lines
nf cn111n1un1c11ton tn in1plcn1er1t the tcnn- of thi u11dirs11nd1ng ind alsn co111111ir 1h11 the Chief
Execu1ivltmiddot OfficLmiddotrs will n1eet hH1ndly on 1 111onclilmiddot li1sis to v11s111c cff1cilnt i1npllnhnt1tilgtn middot111i
AgretlllLnt tltgt co111inue 111 orxr11ion un11I _l_t Oeccn1her 19)7 ind viii Ix suh1cc1 10 rcvittmiddot by the
1cith County Enterprise Board 11cl 1n consult1t1011 Vith Lcidtr IL
101hi11g in chis A_irec1ntnt shtll he cltJntruccl 10 li111i1 DI tLStnu lhe _1in11D1y il1nu1011s 111d n1xr1titJns
of till 11lmiddot1th Coun1y Enttrprbc Bo1rd 11cl or lc1der II
Pn1lint B1ker Torn Clinton
Ch11rr111n Ch11n11111
middotlttth Coun1y Enlerprisc Boud Ltd Mc11h lc1dtr II
~ppcndrx I I
Appendix G Terms of Reference for Interdepartmental Policy Committee
Thn New Committees Role
The Role of the new Committee to be cl1Jired by Minister of ~late Finnel will Ix
shned by the Local Demiddotelopnlltnt Mind1Itmiddot given to Department of Tourism Sport
and lkcrca11on by the (jovcrnmenL Key items in that bndate which fall into the
Coumittees remit will mcluclc
A PronH)ticJn of tile integral(lt dcvelop111cnt of tl1e 111o~n dis~1dvantaged urban con1n1unitics hy ensuring that their needs are addresscd ()11 a priority ~incl
coordinated basis in conjunction vi1h 1rea Partnership lton1panie~ by all nlevanr public agencies
bull middot1l1is is regarded as the 1nost urgent priltgtrity
bull Tlw focus will be on developing the opti1ml approach to addressing
the needs of these areas
bull Special co-on linated all-out etfltJl1 in a nun1bcr ltgtf s1nall areas
j B Co-cgtrdination of Ioc~1l lgtcvcloprnent iniriatives and prcp~trnion for the
post - 1999 transition to an integrated Local Development ancl Local
Govcrnn1cnr systc1n
bull 1oc~d l)evelopn1enl IiaiS(gtn Jean1 issues
bull Adclnssing rclevan1 local clcvelopn1cnt issues raised in l3etter Loc~d
(overnnltnt - ~1 Prngra111111e fltgtr CJ1angc anU lh( recenlly ruhl1sliecl Hcport of the J)evcgtlu1ion Co111111ission
bull middotrhe en1phasis vlll ht ltgtn en~uring thal the posi11ve dcvelopn1ents and effective lltV V~l)S of VOrking resulting fro1n Local l)evelop111ent
and Partnership initiative~ arc preserved and strengthened in the
developnltlll nf i renevecl Loc1I Govern111ent
C The Oper1tiond Progrimmc for Locd Urb1n 111cl Rural Development
ancl its sh1pe post - 1lt)99
middot middotrhL 1nain tmiddottsks Vill be tltgt
bull Secure hl btmiddot~r co-ordinttion hltveen the various i111rle1nerHing
1ge11cie- l)ep111n1ents etc
r1jJjJlllriz~y G 7
bull Seek 10 ensure chat problcn1s incl issucs vhlch ~1rise il ~1 local level
ire n-ponclecl ro incl rcsolveltI
bull lclencify i1en1s tltgt be n11instrc1111ed in tern1s cgtf overall policy
bull Consider 1he ou1line of i new 011URJ) for the post - 1999 penocl
taking into ~1ccount the viC-middot of the Social Partncri
D Co-urclin11iun of (gtV(rltdl Govern1nent Policy on Local l)evekgtpn1ent
bull middotr1ie Jn1er-l)epan111ental Pt)licy Con11ni11ee on Loc~d J)evelopn1en1 Vill
be a key foru 111
bull Scctltgtrtl is-ues viii he considered fro111 1he perspective of
encouraging gre~ttcr cO-ltgtrdin~ttion and integr1tion of delivery of
services It local hvel
copyGovernment of lrelmd 1999
l~BI 0-707(i-G406-3
middotrhe report Vts prepJred on 1he basis of inforn1ition clcxu111ent11ion tnd
txplan111ons obttincd fro111 1he bodies rlfcrrccl 10 in che rcplt)n
middotrhc draft rcpo11 Vis sent 10 che Accouning Officers of the )ergt1rt111ent of middotrnurisn1
Sport ind Hecn1tion the l)epa111nent of En1crprise middotrriclt and E1nploy1nent incl th
l)ep1nn1tnr of AgriculturLmiddot and Food and their co111n1en1s Cre requested Xllen
1pprorna1e con1n1en[s received ere incorporated in thl final version of the rcpon
RelgtOrt of the Comptroller and Auditor General
Local Development lnitiadves
I havt in 1ccord1nce ilh the provisions of Stclion 9 of the Co1nptroller and Audilor
ce11ertl (Arnenclmerll) Ari 199 carried our a viluc for money exarnin11io11 of local
demiddotelopn1en1 ini1i1timiddotes
I hereby subn1i1 111~middot rlpon of thl abclmiddotl ex1111initinn for prese1H~Hion 10 gtiii fmiddotireann puru111t to Stction J 1 of the siicI Act
John Purcell Comptroller and Auditor General
29 Dctober 1999
C
Table of Contents
Introduction
2 1cl1nin1stririve Efficitmiddotncy
3 Co-nrdinition of 1ctivilies
4 Operational Efficiency
17
30
42
Appendices
5
Page
Glossary
Summary of Findings
Local Development Initiatives
A Annual Costs 11lcl Outputs of lncl1viclu1l County Enterprise Bo1rcb le1cler
Groups rnd Jgte1rrnerships 1995 - 1997
B 1d1nini-tn1tion Cost middotrrLlld-gt of Local f)cvclop111cnt bodies
The Operational Progr1mme for lcx-al llrban and Rur11 Dlvdoprnent
ierfonnance lndica1ors and Hevised largc1s
I) h1re1c1 from Consol1CL1ed Reporting Guicldin~s - DecernbcT 1997
middotrhc lCader Opcrat1011al Progra1nn1c - Pcrfonnancc lndicuors and Rtmiddotvisecl middotrargels
E fturi of l)tveloprnlnl gencie- in county Ho-co1111non and thlt
Services Provided
f Fr1nwwork of AgnTnlltnt Bctween Coun1v Meath CEB and County Mea1h
leider 11 Group
G middotrcr111- nf Reference fltgtr lnc~rdcpa111ncntal Policy Co111111i1rcc
Glossary
AAES
tni1nation
lleneficwy
Bord M6ni
CEil
Coilhe
CSG
1)(1chas
DSCFA
Hfll
Enttmiddotrprise Ir~Ltncl
ESB
f L
Fisherivs llotrds
Forfis
1rca Allcnv~1nce Enterprise Schen1e Vhich is
idministered bv lannerships on behilf of DSCFA
From Jimrny 1999 this sch~nw is known is the llick
to Xork Enterprisc 1llov~1nce
middotrhc role of ani1nation is to i111prove the effec1iveness
of the con1111unity in loc1l develop111cn1
Project pro111oter or con1nu1n11y group in receipt of
fin1ncill suppo11
Stare sponsored body ni1n1ging and developing
pearlinds
County Enterprise Board
St~He sponsored body 1111n1ging public forests ind
nlatcd activities
Coun1y Strategy Groups Crc cs11blished under
OlLURI) to L1cili1a1e co-ordinHiun ind 111inirn1sc
duplication in the dtlivtry of progr1n111Hs ii county
level between the different irntiatives
1middot11e t-lerirage Service it the l)cpa11111ent of rts
f-kririge Gielucht ind rhe Islands
Depinmcnr of Sociil Community ind Fimily Affiirs
Easrern Heilth lloird
Sttle sponsored body issisling Irish co1np1nilts 10
increJse their sales expo11s JJHl e111ploy1nent
Electricity Supply Board
Europe1n U11io11
iition1l 1r~1ining and en1pluynHmiddotn1 1uthority
Sta111tory organisations cl11rged vitl1 responsibilicy for
the developnllnl ind protection or inland fisheries
Forf1s is the policy 1chbulliso1) and co-ordination ho1rd
for industrial developn1ent and sci middotnce and
technology
II) Ireland
Int grtlltd Slrvices lgtrojcct
llC
lncrreg II
lEI I)EJ( II
LE11DEH groups
ITU
11insrrea111ing
Mid-Term Evalua11on
~lonitoring Co1nn1itree
011UHD
lc1rnerships
1 State Ovncd coinpany vhich pro111ores invard
investn1ent
middotrhe Integrated Services 1gtrojec1 V1~ estiblishcd co coshy
onlinate tile inptHs of all slle services in four pilot areas of clisaclvan1age
lnterclepaHn1e11tal Policy Cltnnn1i1tee for LltgtCtl
Devdopmenr w1s est1blish1middotd in June 1995 and ns
function i-gt to Omiddotcrsce and n1ike reco11unenda1ions on
local devclopmelll
111 EU lnili~llive 10 develop cross hltgtrcler co-opcrllion
Jnd to help an1s ovcrcon1e prohle1u~ as-ociated Viti
being on 1ht Unionmiddots internal and externJI fronlitrs
incl to fill gap- in energy netvorks and provide
interconnections Vllh vider european nelvorks
liaisuns c111re actions cle clltJ1cofPen1en1 (e reco1101nie
rurole - 1 Co111111unity lnitiJlit for rurtl cl~veloptlHnr
covering rhc period 1994 to 199)
Companies est1blished undn IEADER 10 11nple111elll
llHmiddot progran1111e objectives
Long-tcrrn unc1nployecl
ProceS of tr1niferring successful pilol project- of an
innov~Hive nalure 10 n1iinline govtrnn1cnt clepart1nents
anti ~1gencies
1n independent evalualion rtq11ir(cl to be carried out
on any EU progrunn1e Vhich is five or n1ore years in
ltJper~1tion
Fsublished to mTrsec rhe operation of any EU progr~1111111e It con1ains reprtscn1arives of thlt EU
co1111nission govern1nent clepart111ents and progran1111e
in1pll~n1entors
Orerationcd lrogrJmme for Local Urban and Hurd
lkvelopmcnt 1994-1999
Area-lhsed lannersh1p Companies
le1ce 111d Heconcilurion
lESI
Pos1 2000 subrnission
Territorial Employment
Picts
Tourism Opcrationll
Progran1111c
Ul~HN ini1iuive
1n EU Initiative to reinforce progress Ovards a
pe1ccful ind stable society by incre1sing econo1nic
dcvelop1nc1H urban and rur~d regeneration
developing cross-lxJrdcmiddotr links incl con1lx111ing soci1l
exclusion
Progra1nn1e for Econo111ic and Social Progress
Suh1nissions nques1ed fro111 govern1ne111 depar11ntnts
other sr11e 1gcncics ind na1ionil 1x1nners on the
future use of structurII funds post 2000
An EU lrnti1tive to hdp the unemployed find 1obs 1n
dis1clv1n1aged areas
middotrhe opera11onal progra111111c for 1ouris111 devltlopnHnt
under tlw Community Support Framework 199i middot 1999
n EU Initiative the purpose of which is 10 1ddress
in 111 integrited tr urban sltxi1l exclusion by
building panncrship arr1ngcnHnrs bttvcen locil
1u1horitil and 01hcr loc1J structures
S1J1mmary middotrhis alue for 1nnney rcpo11 is cnnccrntd vi1h the oper~Hion during the period 1994shy1995middot of loc1J devllop1ntnt initiatives provided through (ounry Enterprise Boards (CEiis) Arc1-B1sed 11nnersh1r Comp1111es (i1rtncrshipsJ ind IEADER groups
CEiigt Wltre es11hished in every countv for thtmiddot p11rrose of promnlng locd emerprise incl econo1111c clev([op1nen1 middotrhcrc 1rc 3 CLBs vhich opcrltttc undtmiddotr agreen1en1
Villi the J)epart1ncn1 of Enterprise middotrrade and E111ploy1nen1
middotrhe purpose of Partnerships is to co1nlx11 unln1ployn1ent ~ind exclusion middotrhere ire
38 lannerships operalrng in 1re1s design11ed as disrdvrntagcd and a fu11her 33 Inell devtlopnumiddotnt gruups in non-dis1dv1nt1gecl 1n1s middotrhesc opertle under in inle1111ldi1ry con11x1ny vhich rt~purt~ to the Igtcp1rt11Hnt uf middotrouris111 Sprnl ind
Rccreilion
The LEADER grours were cstiblrshed under an EU In11io11ive to promote rur11 clevcmiddotlopnitmiddotnt 1ly suppCgtrting lltgtcal developnHtH groups middotrhere middottrl 5i lEAl)EH
groups opirH1ng undcr agrei1nc11t- vith the lJep1ru11ent of Agriculrurl ind Food
From 1994 10 1998 public funding totalling l208 million was providld lo these bodies of vhich pound-127 111illion middotIi pruvicled by 1hc EC Co111n1i~sion incl f~-1 111illion
by 1he Exchequer CEB-gt ~ind Pannirships an funded under the ()perationtl lrofra111111e Or Lltx-al Urlgtan and Hurorl [kvelop111en1 199lt1-1999 (OPUIHD) The UADER groups 1re funded under the LEAD EH Operational Programme 1994- 1999
middotr11e value for niuncy ex1111inttion looked H specific issues rel1ting to rhc
acln1inistr1tive ~ind opilJtiontl etliciincy of thlt thrt~t~ 1ypts of hoclies lht
1rra11gc111ents fo1 co ordination lgtlttvtmiddotcn rhe txxlies and approache~ 10 ltValutlion of
their i111p1ct
Administrative Efficiency
middotrhe divcrsily of 1c1ivi1ies ~ind different stages of developnicnr of the hodies li1111t chc~
exrc11 to Vhich cross con1parisons of achninistrHive efficiency c1n be 111acllt
drrinistc111011 expc11di111re hy all tlte hocl1es 111tallld S28 9 11ull1on 1n tlw pltn11d 1995 to 1middot)97 )uring 1hiI period thl ovcr~i11 rrcenl~tgi of ad1111ni~lration costs to total cxplncli111re declined subtantitlly fro1n 28Yo co 220u principilly bccaust n1any of chc bodies n1ovcd fron1 1 set up phase ICgt being fully operational Achninis1r1t1on expenditure as a ptTcc11t1ge of ltgtlal expcndi1un also varied bttVCltll individu1I hnclitmiddots clue to clitlere1Hes in the nalure of the aclimiddoti1ies undeniken For lX~ttnpk the level of 1cl1ninistr~1tive co-l~ middotoukl he influenced by lhe extent to Vhich
incli11idual bodies is~lll grant support or offer non-financial 1ssist1nce In generil Partnlrships have higher adn1in1strllion cost- nlHive to thlmiddot other hod1es for rhis reasc)n
middotrhe llodies are characterised hy -ubstintitl voluniarmiddotymiddot inputs at board and sulgtshycon1n1inee levels middotrhis is in kclping Vith hirncs-ing local knovledgc and tpenise ro ~1ch1eve con1n1on ob1ectivt~ Key staff VCrC inv1n1hly highly qualified and
rcso ircefuL
lhe develop1ncn1 of n1~1nagen1tmiddotnt inforn1ition _ys1c1ns has not been sari-Ltctorymiddot in
--- middot- --------------shy
ulttf I )(coJlllc1 II If ii itl f itL
that rhert is nn 1tJ1un111ic sharing of d111 11nnng loc1l dtVllop111en1 bodies ind lhe scope for effectiveness inilysis is t1111i1ed middotrhroughoul 1hlt pcritxl covered by lhL ex1111in11ion inforn1ation systt111s vl1icl1 include perfcn1111nce 111e1suns ind inclic1tors (cl n1cJniror etliciltncy incl ~tTectiveness htvL l)etmiddotn under tlevLmiddotlup111cn1 ind pr()grts is heing 1111cle in iddrc sing the deficiencilS
Co-ordination of Activities
The flexible approich 10 the i111ple111et11ition of local dewloprnnt policy rcmiddotstilts in consider1hhmiddot duplicition of the enlcrprislmiddot crvicts providld by thlt three types or hodils Vith 1pcc1 10 objlClies clients incl 1c1ivities middotro i lesser lXtLllt 1here is duplici11on of 1c1ivities concerned ilh coun1ering serious ecnno111ic incl sociil dis1clv1n1ige heciusl Pirtnerships t1rgct specific clitnl groups - the long-tcnn unemployed ind the soci11ly excludld In nine ctsc-s Pinnerships and lEADEH groups share i conunon 1111n1gc1nen1 board
Co-operilion 11nung 1hc hodies ind Villi othtr urginisalions (Stale local govern111tnl co111111unity ind volunttry st ctor incl bllllllSS) ~Jt loctl ltvel to 1chicve igreed objectives con1rib11tcs to the unique innovlit roll of 1hc Local l)evelor1nen1 initiitives
Suhsicly shopping can ltgtCltl1r IHrehy Lmiddotlitmiddotn1s can 1111xin1ise the public funding they rcciivi by tpplying for grillS frolll cliffcnn IJodieS (O 11ppOlt cliiferent elelllt~lllS Oi
their projccls middotrhis incvit1bly leicls lo cluplic11ion in 1d1ninistrllion Fonnil in1erdep1rr111en1il 1gree111en1s should Ix- cmiddotontmiddott1ded to define 1l1e li1ni1s bllVecn the ohrcc11ves clienls ind activities of thl three bodies ind si111ilir 1gree111en1s should he concluded It locil level middotrhese 1green1tmiddotn1 n1ight look for vays of n1ini1nising the id111inisr11ion of 111ultiple tpplicHions for funcling in 1 project
t cohestvlmiddot 1ppro1ch to th( intcgrition of locil govern1nen1 1nd loc~ll develorn1en1 V~ts set out in 1998 by tn in1erclep111n1ental middotrask Force J1nplen1cnt11ion of 1his rep(U1 is underv1y
Operational Efficiency
middotrh1middot 1111in 1ctivi1y ind outpul tirgcts ire being n1et but the absence of baseline perfnnnince d111middot llll1ns lltll ii is not knclvn hoV dc1111nding 1he original r1rgets Vere 1rising fron1 VOrk by the external cviluitors ro thl Oper1tional Progra1nn1es 1111ny nf the 11rge1s h1vc been rlisccl hv tile -loniroring (01nn1inees vhich oversee llH i1nplv111c111tlilt)n c)f rl1ltmiddot Progr11111ncs
1hile tlcn1en1s nf exptmiddotnditun (Pannltrships incl LEAJ)FH groups) Vere son1cvh1t behind tirget II the lttlcl of 1998 it is cxpec1ed by the lgtcp~1111nents 1h11 spcncling targlts viii he n1e1 by the encl of the Operational Progran1111es
Sludils indicHt lhH tht level of dcadvciglll (the tmiddotxrent to Vhich enterprises suppltgtrlt~cl unclir the Operational lrogr1111111es Ould be cst1hlished Vilhout gr1n1s) n11y be in the rangt 4(Yc1 10 50dego ()isplicen1en1 (the ex1cn1 to Vhich suppo11ed enterpri~cs clive11 stils ind en1ploy111en1 oppo11uni11es fro1n other Irish enterprises) 111iy he in the r1ngl 20 (Cl 400u Fron1 eirly l 99H CEBs and P111nerships have been tn1poverecl to Jss1s1 enterprise projects by n1eans of refuncl1ble Jid incl equily Use
ii
S1111111u11v
of thltse forms of id should he expndcd quickly in prelerencl 10 11011-repyJlt gracts 1s they can help to reduce cleHhveight 1nd dispL1ce111tnt and in addi11on 1re t 1111)1 econo1nictl use of public funds
Son1e inst1nces of clispk1cen1en1 providl social benefits vhich n11y outvcigh the
cost involved There is a need for n1orl cl1rity regarding the circu111s11nces in vhich
dispbccrncnr rn he perrnined
Assessment of Impact
lhe developn1en1 of sys1e1ns to 1ssess the in1pact of Local J)tgtvtgtlopn1en1 initkHives is not easy hec1use of 1he clibullersity of objccrives rhc tick of n1easurahility nf so111e
i111p1cts rlie tlJsence of clisagtregtled d1t1 n1odels rclcv1nt lo locil areas and the need for careful in1erpretHio11 of results
Quantitative Assessment
ltJu1n1itJtiC 1sessn1ent of the in11x1c1 of (gtcal l)evclopn1ent hodivs c1n bl carried our by exa1nining ch1nges in vari1ble such as long-tcnn 11ne1nploynHnl ind 1-n11middotrpri-e forn1arinn Studits to dare of thest v1riallles have yielded inlmiddotonclu-ive
rt~sults
rtpon on the i111p~1ct of OJgtLLHI) on ong-tenn ltnen1ployr11lrlt shnvs thtt fro111
1991 to 1996 unc111ploy111cnt in gtJrtntmiddotr~hipmiddotareas fell by roughly poundhe sa111t penentage as in non-P~n1nership ~treas
A111y~is of 11~11ional Live Hcgi~[er cla1a for 1he pc-riod CJ94-1998 indilates ~1 signifi(1n1 Lill in chc kwl of long-cerm unemployment hich b pat11cula1 focu of P~1r111erships bur the reduction n1ay h1ve 111ore 10 do vith 1he in1pact of tron~ 1middotconon1ic gn)vth poundh1n vid1 rhc effec1 of Local l)cvclop111cnt initiatives
A nmiddotiev of the nu1nber of n1anuL1c1uring s1ar1urs fru1n 1987-1996 siHJVS rhar 1he rapid econon1ic grcJvlh fro1n 1995 and the onstmiddott of thtmiddot Local l)evllop111ent iniri11ives did 101 result in an increisecl rate of 1111nuf1c1uring sta11ups
lntc~rnion of enterprise support incl perforn11nct da11 Jcross the Loctl l)evmiddot-lopn1cn1 inipoundiuives voulcl be required in order 10 est1hlish 1he underlying reasmiddot)llS for these rends
Quiitative Assessment
lkciled Census of Populicio11 d11 (1991 a11d 19)6) is available regrd1ng 1ndicacors of distdv1n11ge in Pirtnership 1n~1 hile rherc are lin11tuions inolved in int(-rpreti11g the cl1t1 fu11her ~1111lys1s ~houd facilitlle 1s~es1nen1 of lhl in1p1cr of the actimiddotities of 1111ncrhips
Jhe exlent of n1~11eri1J specificJJly covering 1hc evtlua1ion of i111pacl is very li111ited P1rt11crships hie CJrriecl our evcril cisc Situlies to cxplorL the in1ptrl of 1heir tcliililS ind 10 pro111ute 1-gtesr pr1c1ice (1~l srudies arc undervay also in ni1ny
lEA)EH groups l-lovtver there is i clt-1r nted for 111ore d111 lmiddotulllmiddotcrion and the
clevdopmenc of sonil policy rnocleb co prnvicle a hcncr ins1gl11 into che imp1cr of Loe~ I l)evelop111ent 1c1ivities
iii
bull
Local Development Initiatives
middot
- shy~~ ~~ltmiddot~-
middot
middot~
1 Introduction
Background to Local Development Initiatives
11 Since htbull ltarly 1)90 the (omiddoternn1tmiddotn1 middotill1 the support of 1hc European
lJnion (_lmiddotl) h1s introdutcd 1 nun1hvr of policy initiatives in suppo11 of hxil sltx-ioshy
eltcgtncgtnlilmiddot clcvelltlp1ncnt Tlteslt 1ni1i1timiddotcs stc111111cd fngt1n htmiddot pertcivcd L1ilt1re (Jf
cxiting pnlicicmiddots to _hirl lfllmiddot benefit ol 1middotcono111ic gnnmiddotth lmiddotquitahly tcrn-s local
ro11H1H1nililS ind 111Hn1g thl 111ore distdmiddot1n11gtmiddotd scctCJr of Irish iocitImiddot (~llltrtl to
1hc initiatives ts tliemiddot cn~11ion of lllcd lll1ployn1cn1 oppnnunititmiddot togetlitmiddotr Villi
llHISllrtmiddots to 11cklc cduc1tional distclvan11glmiddot tJlmiddotirltlflllltnlil cl1c1y ind ocial
lxclusion middotrhe IH~v pc ii icy alio n11rked 1 revers~1l fro111 the tr1ditio11al htmiddotgi111ony DI
central govltrnnitmiddotn1 by nmiddotcognising iht roll Vhich local cu11111111ni1amiddot c1n play in
the proctsi of lCltHlltunic trKI Sltgtc1al dtbull(lopn1enc
12 r pri11IJI) purpo--l of Incil J)evelop111lnl V1- co identify Jprropnllt Vays of
-tin1uLtting tll rllvvant luctl re-ources 111 suppo11 of Lllterpngti deth)pn1vn1 ind
tickling long-tern1 unernploy111ent hough llLttetL lhe-imiddot 1rt di-rinct uhjccliVLS 1nU
tlil vXtmiddotnr ro middothich they could htbull 1sotiatcd in operationd llllll- rc1111ined tn he
lthlished it that ti111e
13 IIH 1111in ekmiddotnlLllC ()f the llt appro1ch middotLlL
bull p1rtnersliip hllVtmiddotcn stitulory hu ines ind cD111nH1nity scctnrgt
bull dtmiddotmiddotulurinn to local bodies of lllltmiddotds idcntifiLation pL1nning to-ordi111Cio11 of
progr11111tltS dvlill of 1r111ova1it and ctmiddotriain other action tnd 111on11()ring
of progres
bull involvcrncnt of the eniirlt co111n1unity cspcciilly d1sHhmiddot1nt1gcd groups
bull 1dltl[Hilt1n cgtf a Jtili-li(middot ll)PH)tclt l1tbullrtbulll)y l(l)flCgtllliC 111d S(icmiddoti~1J dlVtbullhipnlcllt
VOllld OCClll (CllCUllellliy
13 middotrt1tmiddot Hhnini-rrililtlll (Jf Lo~middot1l J)tmiddotvlmiddotlopnHmiddotnr in Ireland is cl1ssi1111l1r legt 1ll11 in
oth1 middotr FlJ countriis in li1tl
bull lhltrl artbull i nu111lill of di1inc1 pn1gr1n1n1cs
bull there i strong centrd gullllllhllt 111d EU involve111tlll
bull 111middotv local 1d111ini-tr1t1vc s1n1c1111middotls -ere demiddoticcJ inderH1Hllnt ()r lXiring local
govlmiddotrn111cnt structu1
Ctmiddotrrril goven1111enl control- the hulk of public fininces At locil ltmiddotvel local
aulill gtril ilt~ ft 1 net ions h1 ve 1llen li111i1ed Ct ivering n11ttcrs such ts roads -1ni111ion
111d housing ihill 1hvonric1llv locil ~1u1lionl1tS co1dd lllgtgLmiddot in 111a11v uther ()cal
c lemiddot l le iJ Hnen t
hinmiddotling ~ygttlIll 111d ittthility 10 pursue ltl ignificull ltgtctl c1x11ion middotYtcn1_ 1 middotr1sk
oca Je1ehJ[J111e111 lnitiatiues
Force 1 esrtblish~cl by rhe Governn1tnl 1nadc i nu111her of rtco1n1ncnd1tions in 1
rcpon 111 August 1998 regarcl1ng the mtcgration of local dcvdopment with local
government These ere approved by the Government in September 1998 (sec
paragraphs 10 to 3 31)
Organisational and Management Arrangements
15 The tO main EU funded programmes providing suppon for Local
Development arc the Opernional Programme for Local Urban 1nd Hural
Devclormcnt (OlLUHD) ind 1he llADEH II lrogr1111111c These Opcrntional
lrog11mmcs were drafted by the Department of the Tao1sc1ch and 1hc Dep1rtmen1
of Agriculture and Food (Agricuhure 1nd Food) respectively within EU guidelines
incl 1grced Vith the EU Co1n111ission
16 Each sub-progr1111111e of 011UlI) and IEADER 11 is 1clm1nistc1nl locally by di1inc1 Local J)evelop1ncn1 bodilts middotrhis c11nin~1tion is concerned Vilh Lltx~il
l)evelop111en1 acrivilies 1cl1niniscercd by Coun1y Enlerprise Bltgtards and 1re1-Based
111111crship Companies under OlLURD and by LEADEl groups under LEADER II Hcspons1bili1y for rhee bodies coines under chi rc1nit of three scpar11lt Governn1en1
Dep111ments (sec 11gurc II)
Co1111ty pound11er[Jrise Boards
17 Crn1111y Enterprise lloirds ((Ells) were established 111 Oe1olier 1993 wnh the
tilll or fu tering incl f1cilitating che LCOll01l1iC dcvelopn1ent of local area~ Each CEB
Vts required 10 clrt1 up 1 Counry 1nccrprise Pltn incl its iccions incl prupo-als are
Figure 11 Main Departments and Local Development bodies
Enterprise Trade and
Employment
County Enterprise
Boards
Tourism Sport Government and Recreation Departments and Agriculture
and Area Intermediary and Food DevelopmenlCompany
Management Ltd
bull
Area-Based
Local LEADERPartnershipsDevelopment groupsCompanies and
Bodies community groups
1Jc To5k fmiddot(Jtmiddotccmiddot R(Xlrt u11 rbe 1tfpound7ratiu11 lt oc(lf (io1en1111e1u (11tf Local Jc1elo1me11t Srs1e111s bullbull~Ql( 19)i
2
---1tfrotluct1un
ha ed on 1hi plan middotrhertmiddot art 51 ltEBs in total covering county and urban local
~ll1hori1y 1rc1s Ftch (~EB h1s 1-i 111e1111Jer irHluding repngtStIltHivls of local
govltrnn1c11t public Stl or 1g~ncics hu1ntmiddots Lun1ing lradt union and co11111n1ni1y
inlTest
lH middotrhc CEBs provide 1 r1nge of enltrprigtt -upp()rt -ervices al local levt l eg
admiddot1 ic~ and coun~tlling hus1ncmiddot infonnaiion financial 1sis1ancc and 111an1gtIlllnc
dcmiddottlop11l(Jll middotrhtbull firgltl group- ~tre husinltsse- co11111nu1i1y groups individud
en rcprtJ1(lJrs 1nd -n1i[] enterprises cEBs tonk OVtf re-gtpon-ihililv frorll lhl fltgtrlller
Industrial i)tclop111cnt u1hori1y (ll)A) for the devt~lDpllhllt of 111anufac111ring and
inl =rna1iont gtervicc - finn~ Vilh ltmiddot s th111 ten en1ploycmiddotc In 1ddi1ion_ thtmiddoty is-u111cd
the l1tmiddot roll of pngt11101in~ 111 vnltTpriL culturt
l~1 J-ro111 1hc outet the i)tgtp1r1111lnt of Entcrprist middotrrade and F1nployn1cnt
( Enterpri-e middotrr1dtmiddot 111d L111ploynHmiddotn1) has been responsiblt for co-ord1n~Hing and
supcrvising the crBgt lniti11ly dec1~ions on grant payn1ent~ lo individual projecls
vtre vetted by hl f)t1gt1rt111enl 11ltgttVtL (~EBs Vere ccgtr1s1i1111cd as lin1ited liahili1y
l0111p1nies during iltJltJ) and ifl(I 1January 19CJ(i hive 111idc grtnt decisions
110 Stiffing accon1111ltJLlatiun and 01hcr expen es V(~1tmiddot ini1i1lly provided liy lhtmiddot
lul ii 1u1horitics on a recoupn1cnr lgtt~i and ah hough the CFBs anmiddot nov
inl orporatccl rntny havtmiddot coniinutd Viti lliis 1rrangen1cn1
111 Funding for ltt]is is co-fin111ctmiddotd by Elj _1ruc1urtl funds via suh-progra1111ne I
of 011UHD mcl hv the hchequlr
Ara-amp1setl lc1rt11erslJiJ (-tJn11c111ies
112 1ret-Bit~d 11rtntrhip co1np1nies ltPa11ncrship) vere originally c-tihlished
in 12 ~1rltmiddotmiddotas un 1 pilot hi~i in 1991 10 in1phnhnt an nca-hastmiddotd nmiddotspollgtt to longshy
tlrrn unen1pl(lyn1tlll under tile Progra111111e for Econoinic and Sul-i1I Progrltss (PESP)
_JH Partnerships havt hcen lSt1hlished (2() urhJn ind 1- rural) lo optrat in 55 areas
dtig11Htmiddotd by 1hc (~ovvnlllltlll i~ hling disidvan1~1gtd In 1cldi1ion lherc ire 55 C(lJllllH1nity dcmiddotLmiddotlop111ent groups in non-dtmiddotsig111ted arets middot1J1ch c1ny oul fu11ctior1s
i111iltr to tho~v uf 1he 11r111er-liips middotrile Boards of i)irectors of the co111panil-gt lll
drvn fror11 (1) 1he SlgtCiil p1nncr (ii l -ttle 1genc1tmiddots ind (iii) co111111unity ~ind
vc gt t1n1tr~- cHg111is1 tio11
tmiddot13 The function~ nf the P1rntrsliip art to preptre lnc1I dcmiddottlopn1t~n1 pl1n _ in
con~tdtalion vi1h otl1LI local groups incl hudicmiddots_ to lOLHlltf d1stdvan11gc in 1hcir
~trtts and tiltn lo hlmiddotl thlmiddot-c plans i111ptmiddotn1cmiddotn1td middotrile pl111 oullines the rangt of
socitl ind lmiddotcono111ic tSSlltS to ht addrtmiddot scd in lhimiddot l1rget trta and the ohjeclive to
Ill pursultd h1scd on tile resuh of ~1 ltgtcio-ccono111ic analysis of lhc iret middotrliLmiddot
intbulllllion i~ ro 1tLmiddotlcr11c lnlt11 eronoinic dltmiddotvltmiddotlorn1e1H increise frnrloynHmiddotnt ind
local Develop111e11t l11itiati1es
tickle cxclu~ion incl 1nargintlisa1ion resulting fro111 long-llflll une111ploy111ent vc1y
vide r1nge of 1ctivities i~ unde111ken including job pltCLlllCIH adull education
training con111n1ni1y clevelopn1lmiddotn1 cnviro1111H111tl projLCI~ and youth iniliHives
114 An indepenckn1 in1c1mcdia1y company wis eslahlished in 1992 in111ally under
1he aqigt of 1he Dep111men1of1he Tioisetch and subgtltltjlltgtnily from midmiddot 1997 1he
Depanmcn1 of Tourism Spon and lkcre11ion (Tourism Spon and Hecreuion) 10
oversee 1hc P1nnersllips ind Jocd devclopn1tnl groups middotrhe con1pany 1rca
i)(velopmet11 M1n1gemen1 Iid (ADM) is required 10 cv1lu11e plins from
Ptrlllt~r~hips corn111unity groups ind selecled organisHions lO 1J1ocatc resources in
1ccord1ncc Vilh the eviluation resul1s ind ro 111onitor LXpenditure incl perfon11~1nce
by btneficiarits Over lj(YtJ of funding is spent by tile lartncrsliips incl (he re1111inder
is spent by co1n1nuni1y gro11ps ind nHionil nrgani11ions
115 funding for P1rtnerships co1111nuni1y groups and eligible spending bv selected n11iond org1nisarions is co-fin1ncecl by ElJ s1n1ctural funds incl by the
Exchequer EU funding is provided uh-progrtmme 2 of 011uRD
LEADER
116 This EU lni1ia11vcmiddot for rural devdopmenl w1s origin1lly bunched 111 1991
(lEADloR 1) The obwrnw of 1hc progr11nme wis 10 ltS11lilish locli devdopmen1
1ction groups bullhich voulcl bt responsible for 1he in1plcn1cn11tion of business pl1ns
for heir areis lE1l)EH I v1s 1he subjecl of 111y firs value for 111oney exa111ini1ion
comple1ed 1n Decemhe1 1994 The ini1i111ve wis co111inued under 1he Oper11ional
lrog11mme for IEADER 11 covering ihe period 1994 10 1999 There tre 34 approved
1EADlR groups (is opposed IO 16 group in 1hc orig1nli progr111Hnc) These 11e
iu10110111011- lcg1l cntilies each conrrollecl by 1 boird 111d opeining under 111
igreen1en1 Vith the J)cp111111cnt of gricul1urc and Food (Agriculture incl Fuuclgt Jht-
l)epa1111Hmiddotn1 required th11 the bo1rds h1ve 1 1ripar1ite s1n1crure representative of 1he
con1111unity incl volunt1ry sec1ur luc1l Stite ~1gencies and the priv11t I con11ncrcitl
sector
117 Unlike 1he 01her lniti11ives covered in 1h1gt ex1111in11ion (which are csset11ilily
n11io11il policy initiHivc-) lEAl)EH i in EU lnitiitivl Vliich Va designed incl
Ln1nchccl by the turope~111 Co111111issio11 his 1ne1ns 1hi1 he in1plc111enlalio11 of
LEAJ)flt its 1in1ing ind opertting rules ~in de1ennined Ltrgel~middot Vithin 1ht EU
Co111n1i~sion 1uncling for rhe LEl)EH II lrogr1111n1e is co-financed fron1 ElJ
s1n1c111ioli f11nd the 1lADEH Opci1110111 lrogrunmc 1))4-1999 rnd by ihe
Exchequer
4
In 1roclzut1on
Sc1urces of Finance
118 The Fll Commission incl rhe Exchequer prolidccl funding for the 1niria11middotes inmiddot
the period 199i-199H follows
EU hchequer Toril
pound-111 t-111 ~-nl
CEils 465 516 98 I Parntrships 530 181 711
LEIDER groups 272 ILG 388
126 7 81) 208 0
Scope and objectives of the examination
1l) middotrhe cxa111in~1tion V~1s concerned only vi1h initiatives to pron1ott local
clebullclop111em rhrough Counrv Enrcrprisc Boards Ptrrnerships and LEADEH groups
Thue are 111anv orher ml[1nives for local devdopmcm such as URBAN Terrironal
E11l)loy1nent Picts Pe~tce ~incl Heconciiation 111d lnterreg II vhich ire outside the
scogtc of this ex~1111ina1ion
12middotJ Nei1her iJ)-1 nor the l1rtnershirs arv covered by 111y statutory value fcgt1 11101ey nn1i1 In the interest of producing i cohcivc report on locil l)lmiddotvclopn1cnt
ini1=11ivlts 1hey igreed that the exa111inuion ~hould he extended to chc111 middotrhcir coshy
OJX ration in 1liis resptmiddotlmiddot1 i~ icknovllmiddotclgecl
121 The overall objec11vcs of rhc c1n1inar1on w
bull ro ltVal11are rhc administrative effwncv ol rhc llltXlit (Chaprer 2)
bull lo asstmiddotss the extent of duplic~Hion and co-ordin1tion ~1rrangen1en1s ltCh1p1cr j)
bull to ev~dualc thl operHional efficiency of the bodies (Chipttr 4)
bull to coniidcr ho- tlii i1n1x1ct of 11ie holtl1e~ can hl asscmiddotssecl (Ch1p1cr 5)
1nr The p1opltJ-f of Illgt c_rrn11iiu111011 CFHgt lar111lmiddot-Ji1ps and 1eoJ(1middot grv11S uill IA Fccmiddoti-rlmiddotd l u lrJl(I
)c1lffJ[gtl11ltf hodico
5
loca l)evelojJ1ne1u 11itiatitCs
122 The main issues considered are
Issue Evaluation Criteria
Administrative efficiency Administration costs bull bull Human resources bull Adequacy of management
information systems
Co-ordination of activities Duplicationbull bull Co-ordination
Operational efficiency Targets and performance bull bull Resource allocation and outturn
bull Deadweight and displacement
Impact assessment Quantitative assessments bull bull Qualitative assessments
Methodology
123 Officials 111 the Depanmem of Amicroricuhure and Food the Dcpanmcnr of
Tourism Spoil and lkcrea11on 1he Department of Enlerprise Tracie and
Employmcm 111cl 1DM were interviewed Oua and pipcrs rcbting to targets cosl
and perfon11~1nce Vere ex11nined Analysis Vas carried out of cost and perfonnance
clua aria1ion in perfonnance ck1t1 vas used as a basis for selecting individual Loctl
Development bodies for funher examimtion
124 Selcc1ed CEl3s LEADEH groups and Partnerships were visi1ecl Helevant
personnel Vere intervi(Ld and individual rrojecls Vere visited Sevtrd CISC studies
Vtre identified during the co11rse of this vork and thc~c arc used in this rero11 to
illustr11i key i1SULS middotrhcy should not be ngarltled a1 rcpresentHivi of the cype of
pro1ee1s supponed hy the bodies
125 1Vleetings Vere held vith offici1Js fro1n the l)ep1nn1en1 of the E11viro11111ent
and Loctl Goern111ent ind Ille Co111ba1 lovlmiddotrty Agency lntervieVS look place Vith
the folJoving orga11is~11ions PlJtEmiddotr (Ille netvork of Arc~1-B1scd igtJnnerships)
Comhar IEADER 1u hiireann (tire network of 11ADEH groups) 1he ssociation of
Chief txecutives of Counly EnrcrprisC Bo1rcls (representing County Enlerprise
l3001rcls) the Irish 10111onal Orga1ma11on for 1he ncmployecl (INOU) he
Ken Cork iortb a1ul So111h )uhill CFJJs Trti li )011epal 11ihot1c11 a11d Northside art11lrh1J Fexford Ora11iflfio11 fur R11ral IJltbull1ltlup111c111 anti lao1bull tJ-1nHk Rural Dtbull1tlop111e111 Co Jd (IJ-ADJR ~rn11p) lv11sfonl Co1111111111i~~middot RrrJ1rCli Jd (1d S(J11rh lerry IAmiddottlIOJtllllll Part11crbip Jd (comhi11(c JHADERPart11c1~hip orxa11iatio11~j
6
J11frotll1 rI ion
Conf~r~nr~ of lkhg1ot1s 111 JrcmiddotLrnd (CORIJ vb Yvonne Murplrv lks~ardwr 111d Prof
J1111es A Walsh gtill Mrvnooth
)26 1n eternaJ exrerl IS lt ngagtbulld IO adviSl on the 1ncthodo(ogy of tht --Udy
and rlvtev the study findings_middot
7
2 Administrative Efficiency
21 Tlfrbull chtpter is concerned with the dliciencl of the CEils ltrtnergthips incl
llADER groups in iclminigtIenng locd Development ini111I11es loc1I Dcvdopment
is chirictltnsecl bv t 111uliplirny of object11es mcl ac11vi1ies The control of
achninisrrilive expendirure is 1chicvccl hy reference to stiffing levels pay rates tnd
1he re1sonablcness of 01her 1cl1ninistration expenses
22 Thlt clivers11y of 1he 1c1ivi11es of Local Development bodies ind 1he nexibili1y
in hov rhey set about 1chieving their objecrives li111it rhl extent to vhich cross
co111parisons of efficiency can btmiddot 111ade Neither unifonn perfonnanre inclicarors nor
co111111on infonnirion sysEc1ns on 1cl111inis1ruivc efficiency 1cross the ini1i1tivcs l1ave
been cle1middotcJopecl
23 The ptriocl covered in 1he chtpler is I994- I 998 indus1le However cle11ilecl
tndysrs ti indiviclutl Loctl Dltvelop111ent bodies ielel rel11es 10 I99i - 1997 II
should be noted thu local l)cvelop111ent bodies did 1101 co1nn1ence si1nultancously
incl 1h11 1he lime 11ken 10 esttblish indivicl11d local groups viriccl Accorclingly
expencli1ure in the early ye~trs rel~tles to the middotfullmiddot 1crivilics of i 111inority of groups
and the st111up plt1se of 111any lcgteal groups
24 middotrhe issues incl Calualion cri1t~ri1 used in thi chaptc1 are
Issue Evaluation Criteria
Administration costs Administration costs as a percentage bull of total expenditure
Human resources Extent of Board input bull Staff skills bull
Adequacy of management Data collecllon by Local Development bodies bull information systems Integration of data at national level bull
bull Reporting and monitoring
Administration Costs
25 The tottl 1111oun1 of expcncl1111rc incurred lw Local Develormcnt IJoclics m the
pen0ltI 1994 10 1998 was s208 mrll1on This is tntlysed in Ttble 2 I
26 middotrhc totil expenditure incurred can ht- categorised inro ad1ninisrration costs
vhich are the costs of running the relevant office-i and other exrenditurc Vhich is
cliviclecl IJeteen direct fin1nciil issis1ance 10 enterprise~ ~ind exp~ncliturc on
1ctivirics to incn1se enterprise avireness pro11101e con111n1ni1y dcvclop111cn1 or
redress clis~1dv1nt1ge
8
Atl111i11 ist rrttilt ~lie ic11c_ v
Ta~le 21 Expenditurebull by Local Development bodies 1994-1998
CEBs
P3rtnersh1ps
and other
LloADER Groups
Total
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
poundm poundm poundm poundm poundm
82 28
19 9 46
216 104
230 232
254 301
1 6 53 11 7 202
11 0 261 373 579 75 7
Norg a Expenditure relates to activities under OPLURD and LEADER II Some Local Development bodies also incur expenditure on other activities which arc not funded under OPLURD or LEADER and which are outside the scope of the examination Details for 1995-1997 are contained in Appendix A
b The total expenditure in the table includes Partnerships Community Groups and selected National Organisations
c Includes selected sectoral groups Annual reports of OPLURD and LEADER for 1998
Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total EJcpenditure
2i 1d1ninistra1ion costs 1 a perceniage of total expenditure in the period 1995 shy197 are shown in Tabk 2 L (There was link ad11uniscra11on pending in 1994)
2S dn1inistraliOn CDSIS IS J pcrcen1agt of tOtt[ eXJ1tl1citure decreaStcl uver the
period 199i 10 1997 for t~1ch iniriativtmiddot middotrhis JS clul n11inly co the face that it took
so1ne tin1c for rhe developnHnc groups 10 beco1ne opcrHional 1ncl hence 11n1ch of
the initial expenditure vas on adn1inistration rather thin activic1es This trend i~
1x111iculirly nocKeablc in che cise of LEADER groups md lirtnerships where
acl111inistrHion co1s 1s a percent1ge of tottl expencliture clroppecl sultilanli~11ly
middotrh1re Vere so1ne varialiuns betveen intlividt1al ltEls LFl)FH gnntps ind
Jgta1tnersl1ips middotr11ese ire considered belO Cfhe 1cl111inistration costs of Local
Deiclopnwn1 bodies are shown 111 Appendix B)
CltJUlllJmiddot E11te1prise Rltgttlrtls
29 1middot1icrc v(middotrc no great variations in rhc ad111inistruion costs incurred by che
CEl3s w11h lhe mqorill spending helWtCn pound 100000 and Jl )0000 per innum
1n1lysis of 1997 dat1 shc)Ytbullcl 1h~11 the adn1inistra1ion costs of n1ost CEBs V(n Vithin
1 ~1 r1nge of I ~Ai 10 25S~1 in rel~llion to tnttl expenditure The )ov~st Vas f)uhlin City
H J 1 with Cork Norch being che h1ghcsc ac 11 The level is scronglv mlluencecl IJy
the extent to vhich CFI3s are involved in the provision of gruus is chis increases the
9
local l)cuer4J11unt lnitiaflvcs
Table 22 Administration costs as a percentage of total expenditure
CEBs Partnershipsbull LEADER Groupsbull
Total
1995
poundm
49
15
08
72
Admin c
1996
poundm
43
41
16
100
istration osts
1997
poundm
44
53
20
11 7
Percentage of total expenditure
1995 1996 1997
25 20 19
34 44 28
51 31 17
28 28 22
Note B The figures exclude Community Groups and selected National Organisations b Excludes selected sectoral groups
Source Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General see Appendix A
level of overill expenditure In the c1sc of Cork North their mtin activities are
ini111~1tion incl the rrobullision of suppor1 such 1s counselling and training
wh1Chwould involve lowtr levels of expenditure rlm1 the supply of grant aJCI In the
case of other CFl3s such 1s Dublin City the focus was pnnnpally on the pronsion
of grtnl aid
Part11ersJips
210 P111nersh1ps generally spenl between l)0000 ind l200000 on adminisrruion
1n l997 with some excep11ons Mos 11rtnersl11ps which were esiiblished before
OPLURD had lower adminis1ru1on costs as a percentage of 1otal expenduure rhan
those wl11ch were srtnecl under OPIUlm In 1997 adminis1ra11on expenditure as a
perceniage of 1otil expencliture vas generally in the r1nge of 200u to 40Yo vith the
lowesl a 13 (in rhe case of i011hsidc in Dublin) 10 rhe highest m 51 (1n rhe
case of lnishovltn in J)o11cgal) il1ile 1c111al adn1inistration exptnditure vas si111il1r
in borh Partnerships expenditure on 1crivi1ies VIS significantly greater in Nonhside
as compared ro Donegil lnishowen which wis still in a scr up phase The riming
of projects locil rriorilies in the i1nple111ent1Cion of business rt~1n ind the nu1nbcr
of yltars the Jgtartner-hips have been operating have tn in1p1c1 on the adrninistritivc
cos1s percent1ge indicator
IEADER G10llJlt
211 LEADEH groups genenilly spenr lgtetween 50000 incl U00000 on
~1d1ninis1r1tion in 1997 Vith son1e exceptions In 1997 1dn1inis1rJtion expenditure ~1s
a percentage of 101al expenditure was generally in rhe r111gc 10 to 20 wuh the
lowest at 7 (in rhe c1SL of IJirrow-Nore-Suir) 10 rhe h1ghes1 ll 45 (in the case of
Comhm lorrais) While 1dminis1rarion expenditure wis simiLtr 111 borh LEADlR
10
Adn1i11istrati1cbull IJiciellcy
groups expendilurc on activities (including ~1nin1ation ind provision of grants) v1s
significanlly gnatcr in BarrO-Norc-Suir cor11p1red LO (cJJ11h1ir lnrr1is_ middotr1ierc llL 1
nuirtlltr of factors that can give rise to the variation uch a- hov Vt11 cst1blishcd
lhe sroup is local priorities in the in1ple111ent~1tion of the bu-iiness plan tilt tin1ing
of pro1ecis and 1hc lcnI of grant ml
Human Resources
21lt The loc1I charancr of each of he Local Devclopnw111 boclies mcl the nllure 1 ~incl diversity of thlir operHions n1ean thH thty h1vc l Sllbs11nti1I rolt of initiating
and co ordinating ac11vnies in co-operit1on ith 1 Viele v1ric1y of volunt~1ry and
stttutory org1nisu1ons (see Chapter 3) middotrhe achieve111t~n1 of their objectives is
I clepcndenl on _rhe avail~1hility of high quality plrsonn~I al Board tncl suh-co111111it1Ll
level and clecl1uted high ctl1bre s111f
Extent of Board Input I
2 B There 1s significant input it Boircl level for all of 1he bocl1es Arouncl 1wo 1hircb
of ( EBs operate sub-Boarcl co1111111nccs and half of these suigt-COlllllllllecs inclucle
1 111cn1lxmiddotr clravn fron1 1he local con1n1unit vho are nnt Boltncl clirector ~ middotrhis
invch-t~n1erH in 1octl l)evelopn1tnr bodies e1~tail~ a high dcgrLL of co111n1itn1en1 fro111
people vho are alrctdy active in their local co111111unitics
214 Pr1ctically ill Pirtnerships have suh-co1111111trecs on con1111unity ltlevelopnhmiddotnt=
I education and cnltrpri-e ~incl 111ost LEAl)EH microruups h~1ve -llh-co111111itte1middots on rurtl
touris111environnHn1 natural resources and s111all husinesscraftgt~erviccsr
Prermiddotaratory vork alllndince at 111cct1ngs ancl follov ur ~1ctivities pl1cc considerable
ti111c den1ands on Board and -ub-co111n1ittet 1ne1nbers l)uring chc exuninHion
I lt1bu11clan1 lViclence Vts found of the con1111itn1ent incl skill of Board n1en1lgters and
111en1htmiddotrs of suh-connniutes
Stciff Skills
215 A wide variety of skills is requirecl of 1cxal Developmem swff to match the
range of act1vitilmiddots 11ncle11~1ken middotrhis feature is ranicularly i111portan1 for LEAl)EH
I groL ps and P1rtnershirs clue to tht extent of their nmiddotn1i1 middotrhe staff nf Local
J)cvltmiddotlop111cnt bodies are highly qualified According co ~1 ncenl survey 5lVo of the
i-~~F ond Ihl lCgtfal Jr)(111 c111d RlflI )c11h1p111tllf PTT1JiHlllll1l f11ropca11 )(lt1a F111u Pro~ra1111111
1ttd11a1io11 Unll Apnl (JJJ
1)p(rt111011(1 fro~rc1111111e fnr IJAJ)FJ II (rJl11111111 11ilrcll1Utmiddot iI( Tlr11 R1bull1re11 Rtbullfx11 3re1uftu1 ((middott1rne1 middot (11t A ~(Jlt ialt3 199 7
II
(JC(l )e(lltJjJ11CI 11itiatiU(
CEOs of CEBs huld post-griduite que11ilkirion and funher 2()0 hive prima11middot
ckgrce In the cise of Partnerships 6()0o of 1nan1gers hold a post-gr1du~1te
qualificllion and a funher 24degAgt h1ve 1 pri1n1ry degret
216 flu rc-nurcefulnes- of Lltxil l)cmiddotelop111ent s11ff IS cvident during the course
of the eXltllllill1li01l
Adequacy of Management Information Systems
217 ht avaiL1bili1y of gncgtd 1111111ge111ent infonnation sys1e111s is 1 pnrequisitc fnr
cfficicnt icl1ninis1ration of the inititrives ind for ensuring thll rlllVLnt incl reli1hle
d1t1 is 1v1ilablc for pl1nning plrfonnince 111onitoring ind ev1luation An in-depth
rcvieV of the 1111n1ge1nen1 infon1111ion sysh111s in use Vas 1101 incl11dtd 1n the scope
of the ex1111ina1ion_ 1-lovever ce111in cltfic1cncics in the systen1s htmiddotc1111e app1rent
in discussions Vith officitls in 1hc locil f)evelnp111ent bodies ind during the
qu1n1i111ivt 1nil~middotsis vork
Data Collection by Local Development Bodies
218 E1ch of 1hc bodies opertllS scp1r11e co111pu1erisecl infonnttinn syste111s Vhirh
Vere ck~signtd by consuh1n1 under the aegis of lhe J)cpar1111cnts ind 1l)fmiddotI is
tppropnHe middotrhc pri1111ry purpose of 1hese syste1ns is 10 provide fredbtck on
ae11v1ties by eich Locd Development body ID the Dep1nme111s incl AD1vl The
syste111s should tlso provide 1111n~1ge111ent infor111a1ion for usc locally and facilitite
external evalunion 10vevtr the 1rge nun1bLmiddotr of local groups reponing 10
ditfercnt dtp1n111en1s posls pa11icul1r cJ11lltmiddotngLS tlaquoJr cL1t1 c~tpture
219 l)isc11ssions vitl1 ltgtfficials in the Local l)evelcgtprnent bodies visi1ed indicated
so1ne di~s11i-faction Villi ht kx1l use of systen1s in 1h11 they vere reg1rded as being
1101 user friendly or Vere perceivcd as not being fully suited 10 loc~tl 1ninage111cn1
needs_ In fi(I so111e locd f)evelopn1en1 bodicmiddots h1ve kepi lhltir origin1I syste111s in
11si O -upplc111lnl 1he infon1tttinn provided by the cen1r~1lly debullcloped systeni_ middotrhe
dillicultit~s havt heen recognised ind steps 1rt being t1ke11 011 1n ongoing b1is 10
encourage grc11cr loctl u-e of the C(ntrilly developed syste111~
220 Forn1al 1rr1ngc111en1s ire nor in place Vhich VOuld f1cilitlle nuo111a1ic sharing
of infon111tio11 Joctlly icross ill of rhe groups_ 1his is not possible due to 1he
1bsnce of 1 con1111011 clicnr identifier in the thrtt co111pu1cr sys1e111s_ So111c id-hoc
shiring of dtli such ts projerl tpplicition and 1pprov1ls occurs through rneetings
be1vccn bodies ind via County Str11cgy Groups lmiddotlovcver 1his is no subs1iru1e for
a systen111ic approich to dati sharing
12
Acl111i11 isrrari1e lli-c ieJtlmiddot_ v
22 l A middotide v1riery of perfonna11ce indicnors V1s dtveloped 1hrough discus~ions
w11li 1he external evilullor and with Local Development bodies (se~ Appendix C
mcl OJ LEADEH groups ind Partnersh1ps m 1x111irnlar undertake i wide range of
tctimiddot1 ities and con-lmiddotqucnly 1hcir co111pu1er sy-1en1s c1pture ~1 Viele range of data
middotrhi c111 plicc an tLessive burden on the sn1all 1d111inb1rilie st1ff 1n these bodies
perfonn~tnce 1ncasun111en1 systc111 Vhich focu~es nn 1n agreld StI of key indicuors lo tnco111plttS~ core tctivities and ou1purs and vhich reflect- key objectives
n1ighc be n1ore appropriattmiddot 1ny addicional inforn1uion require1nents could Ix
prltrlided Jess frlmiddotquently through for ex1111ple annual rtporting arrangc111cn1s
22~ 1middot11e fnltomiddoting issues Verlt also noced
bull The p11ori1ics of d1fferen1 loc1I Dcvelopmcnl lxKlies arc not 1den1ical even
Vithin 1hc sunc Local f)cvelopn1ent ini1ia1ive For exan1ple one Local l)evclopn1cnt lxxly 111ight prioritisl 1ss1stance to cl1stclvant1ged groups vhilc 1norher rnight priontise cnterprist clevelop1ncn1_ Exisling 1ne1st1rlll1cnt syste111s do not allov 11le perfon111ncc of chese tvo gruups co be realiticdly r111kecl and con11xircd
bull Measurement should cope w11h the fact that much of the pcrform1nce under
the ini1iat1ves is qualitative in nHure Exunplcmiddots include quil11y of tr~tining openness to disadvantaged groups and qu11i1y of relacionships Vith other
st1tu101) bodies Exiscing n1easunmiddotmiddot111Lllt systcn1s do not cuer for rhcsc 1spects
of perfo1111111ct
bull f)espice initiatieS to involve locd l)evelop111ent bodies in the specificuion of
perfonnancc indicators cxisling perfon111nce n1oni1oring is frequencly seen as son1cth1ng vhich is in1pltgtstcl on groups Vilh lillll direct bcncfi1 in lenns of
e11~1bling 1hltmiddotn1 to understand hov to in1prove 1hcir Ovn perfonnancc~
22 The apprrnd1 described in Case S1uclv I gi1bulls 1n 1nclic111on of 111~ prltp1ratory
Yor involved in developing svsce111s to cviluatc rhc efficiency and tgtfflttivencss of
1he bCKlies Governmenl Dep1rtmenLlt and Local Developmenl bocl1es might es1lt1bl1sh
10 middothat cxtenc this 1ppro~1ch could hl~ applied co rhc 1neasure111en1 and n1anagc1nent
of LDcil Dcvdopmenl periorrnrnc~ Thi 1s a prercquisi1e 10 es11blishing the clati
reqt-ire111ents Yllich should be -arisficd hy the inforn11til~n sys1c1ns in u~e by LocalI l)evmiddotlop111erH bodies Under clie exis1ing s~middotsren1s the inforniHion require111cnts for
detennining 1he extenc ro Vhich value for n1oney is htmiddoting obt1ined front expencli1ure
on lhe iniliatives arl nor 1dequarCly provided for middotrhe current inadequacies of the
inforn)Hion sys1e111i lin1it the scope for evaluation middotrhc middotlid-middotrenn Ev1lt111iuns of both
llA)FR and 011LRD have drawn a11e111ion lo 1his deficiency
Ilo1rc1er 11~-tf)FR groups produce wn11e11 c11u1i1a1ilmiddote repon llriccbull year~r 011d other local 1Je1eop111eu1 lltXlics olso 111c11de c111ai1a11n aJXCt of Jfrfon1u111ce u1 1b1middot1r n7xJt1s AJJ J(ls prod11t1bulld a sene bull of poundltlgt lt1dit- ubich nfhbullc1 q11all1a1inmiddot clfJtltmiddotr_~ of the uork of Parr11erships
J-rr an e(11ded disn1ss1nJ1 nr1 the (flk11e _p_- u_(Jt1j()r11111J1c(bull 111v11i1r1i11g 1middotce middot11F and 1111middot local Urlxo1 111d N11nil FJtnmiddotlopn1ltll lltJ8111n11111middot middot FuroJlllll Sulti(I F1111d lr(Jgn111111Jl 1alifioi1 fh1i1 April 1999
13
lnco l)erelop111enf 11itiati1es
Case Study 1
A benchmarking project
A transnational study funded by the EU is underway to develop benchmarks for pro1ects which seek to insert unemployed people into the labour market The main purpose of benchmarking is to enable organisations to improve their performance
Through a process of discussion and analysis involving the implementing organisations the key processes and desired outcomes are established An agreed set of quantifiable
indicators is developed to give a measure of performance under each key process and desired outcome Overall performance 1s denved by applying an agreed weighting formula to the 1ndiv1dual measures Data capture and performance reporting are
overseen by an independent third party
Graphical representations are produced showing the performance of each group for each key process and outcome Typically the performance of each group will be stronger in some respects than others and future action to improve performance can then ensue
Integration of Data at National Level
224 It is 1111port1nt th11 there should be ce111ral access to cltu to provtclc for a
sys1e1n11ic 1nd co111prchensivLmiddot cv1Jua1ion 1t nation1l level of tl1e efficicnc ind
cffectivcntmiddotss of lcxlttl develop111cnt 1cross the country In 1ddi1ion 1his vould
suppo11 co-01)er1tion ind co-ordina1ion across the bodies
225 Dllt lteld within Governtttent Depa11111enb and ADM is not tntegratecl at the
levtI of tile henefici~111 For exa1nple grant approvJJs to 111 enterprise gr1nt
pJyn1cn1- ~incl e1nploy111cnt 1re not associ1tcd vith 1 unique client identifier in
Enterprise middotrr1dt~ and E111ploy111en(s con1pu1er sys1e111 sin1ik1r veakncss exists in
Agriculture and Foocl and ADM This ctn reduce the scope for evaluttion For
cxainplc the JXrfonnancc of c1Hi1ics vhich obtain financial assis1ance cinno1 readily
be con1p1re(I Vilh 1hose vhich rlCcive 01her non-fin3nci1J supports
226 Whltn CEils were first cstablishccl Enterp11se Traut incl Ftttployment usecl a
cl11ilx1se inheri1ed fro1n 1he J)cpann1en1 of Fin1nce to record ce11~1in key datltI such
is grants piicl ancl ipprovecl on eich enterprise assisted by CEils In aclclition clati
on the Enterprise T11clc ancl Emplovmcnt Business lnfortttation Systettt (BIS) hdcl
grant and e1nploy1nent clua for all 1n1nufac1uring 1nd international services finns
middotr1ie opportunity v1s not taken of co111hining d1ta on the CEB clatal)ase vith its 011
BIS Subscquenllr EntcrpniL middotrrackmiddot incl E111ploy111Lmiddotn1 discontinued recording gran1
piyment cl1t1 on the CEB cL111base finally the coverage of the Forfis annual
etttploytttent survey (which 11pcl11es the BIS) was allowed to clittttnislt so that it no
14
longer allernrts lO include syste111aticillv -i111tll n11nuL1cturing tmiddotnterpriscs Vith less
1han 1en employees Agt a result 1he ibihty of En1erprise Trtcle incl Employmenl lo
1noni1or sn1all indus1ry perfunn~1nce and the cffec1ivencss of s1nall indusC1)
de clopn1cnt progr1111n1es l1as cmiddotonsicleralgtly eJkene(I
227 Enterprise middotrr1de incl Ernployn1tnt is H pr(S(nt agr(eing tcnns of reference
fur 1he es11hlish1ncnt of J sy-itcn1 tn L1cilitate chc inllgrition of CEl3 cL111 in10 1he Bl~
11 ii intended that ForL1s viii include CEB clien1- in its 1nnu1l c1nployn1tnt survey
In addition the l)epann1enl rl~1ns (O acquire a stacistical soft~tre p~1ckage to f1cilita1lt
udysis of CEil cL11a
228 middotrhcre is no nuional pltn to integrHt en1errrisc incl individual clien1 level dtta
fron1 CEl3s ith sin1il1r cLn1 fron1 lEAl)EH gruurs tnd Pannerships Agri(tilture incI
roud does not integrate 1nfonnation vhich is collecllmiddotd fron1 e1ch of 1htgt groups in10
nu onal systen1s and has no plans to do so Al)1 provides rltrltJrts 10 a n111nber of
f)epa111nen1 including Sociil ltollununity ind F11nily 1flairi Fnttrprise middotrr1de and
Fn1ployn1en1 and l~duca1ion and Science
1 229 In 1995 middotrmiddotouris1n Sport ind Hecrcation began 1 process of Stlling up a
I ClnlrJised rerfonnance lllOTlitoring systclll (P~middotIS) for OPJLiHJ) co1nprising ~1ggrega1e
output indicators for CEUs ind Partncrships9 Significin1 rlsources have been
demiddot01ed to developing this systtmiddot111 Pcrfonnance 1ndica1ors Verlt tin~1lly approved by
hlmiddot OPllif) Vtonitoring Con11ni11ee in Jl1y 1999 According lo middot1middotouris1n Srort and
Ht(reation this did not JJlov sufficienl 1in1e to consider extending the sys1e1n
frarnevork 10 provide for co1nplt1nson Vilh o(her rrogr11nn1es such as LEAl)Elt lmiddothe
c11rmiddotent posilion is tliH
bull P1nncrship rerforn11ncc dat~l fro111 I January 19lt)7 IS StJCcessfully taken into
the Jgt~1S l)Ha fron1 co11111n1nity ~ind special inttrcsc groups Vls taken inlo till
PMS for l 998
bull Performance dJla for 1998 from all of the CFlb has beltn rnlla1ed by South
Dublin CEB and taken mlltgt Ille PMS
Tht PMS is used to mon11or 1he levels of ae1ivi11es and outputs under 011UHD 11 JS
usel by thL ex1crn1I ev~tlua1or to assist middotrouris1n Sport and lh~crettion ~ind 1he
OfgtlURl) vlonilonng ConunittlL lO OVLf-itv the Progra1nn1e It is of li111itcd use for
efflCtivcnltSS analysis
23t) A funlicr ditficully is the allsenct of con11x1rison-gt vi1h son1c key h~tseline data
pricbullr to the es1ablishn1ent of ll1Lmiddot bodies for cxunrlt the r11e of nev firn1 fonnalion
and job cretlion 111 -111lt111 firins and 1he pL1cc1nent of long-lenn u11tn1ployecl
middotrourisin Sport and Hlcreation has co111111issionecl a ltudy of b1-cline da1a
15
oca J)e1euj111e11t 11ififlli1e
Reporting and Monitoring
231 Progress npo11s Jre produced every six 111on1hs by 1he lead l)ep1n111en1s for
consider1tion tnd approval lgty the reltv1n1 flonitoring Con1111i11ces Ex1ern1l
cmiddotvdu11ors VCrl eng1ged by middotrouris111 Spltgtn and Hecrea1ion and Agriculture and
rood for 011lHlD ancl lltDEll respcctilely ro produce evduarion rqions ancl 1hey
]11ve ~ilso produced 111id-ten11 rcvievs_ middotr111se repo11s iremiddot considered ll hilf-ye1rly
111ee1ings of 1he nlevint f1onitoring Co1n1nittees_ All Loc1l l)evelop111e111 bodies
prodt1ce 1nn11al rcpo11s ou1lining 1c1ivititS undenaktmiddotn 1oge1htr Vilh financial
s1He111ents 1~ required under the operHional progr11111ncs
232 Nerworking plays an irnponanr role for rhe bocl1s Borh lEtDEH groups and
Pu11Hr~hips have 1he bcncfit of personnel dedica1ed 10 org1nis1ng nelvork
acriv1ries The CEOs of rhe CUh also meer regularly
16
3 Co-ordination of Activities
31 middotrhtmiddot co-cistenrl of chtbull 1hrll types of hltxlics for local clevclop1nen1 lt1- given
rise to concern tlX)llt duplicttion and the Jack of co-ordinuion 1 middotrhe pltllentid for
cluplic1tion irises bcciu_c the bodies co111111e1Htd inderenck~nlly of each olhlr ind
s1ariccI 11 clitlercnt ti1nes lt1ve sin1ilar ubjemiddottives incl 11rglt ovcrl1pping p(gtpul~1tions
hivmiddot~ se1x1rItc local ad1n1nistr1lll strucrurls 1 rcpo11 to different lgtepa11n1enLi and ire
funded by different opltftlionil progr1111111es_ A a res11h there is 1 need 10 ln-gture
that there nl lttdtqulle 1rr1ngin1Lmiddotnts in pL1c1 to recluce the pnss1hility of cluplicltion
and to ensure that lhtrc is proper co-ordination betVten he ditlerenl bodies
32 Jhe iSSlllS of Jupllcl11on and co-urdinlliun can bl t~sc -lcl
bull bccwcen ch cl1ffllellC loctl Devclormenc boclicmiddots
bull belveen Local ()evelopn1ent hoclies and 01her agencies ~11ch is Enltrpri~tmiddot
lreL1nd 1ncl che l)lmiddot1x1111ntmiddotn1 of Suciil lt0111111un11y incl F1111ily tfL1ir-
1middothis ex1111ination is confined to duplication incl co-orclinat1on belVeen Local
n~vfiopmtell( bodies
33 In this chapter rhlmiddot i-sues of duplication and cn-ordinition are exanuntd under
evduition criteria ~1s shovn bclOmiddot
Issue Evaluation criteria
Du )lication Objectivesbull Clientsbull Activitiesbull Funding of projects bull
Comiddotordination Local level bull National level bull
IDulication
134 1 subst1nliil nu111her of lgencies c111 provide l0~11 l)evelopn1ent suppnrts in
I thl 1111e hgtc~d 1rc~J 1igure 31 fro111 lhe Suulh Vest illus1rites this
35 middotrhe natun of lhtmiddot inllillimiddottmiddots is 1hat lhlrc should be tltmiddotibiliry in str11egic
dlcigtiun n1ahing at locil level Vilhin brc)Jd p1ra11H[lfS lllch 1n sel oul 1n the
Operation1) Progr1111111es middotrhe si1nilari1ies igtelveen ohjectimiddotes clienL ind activilies i~
shltn11 in middotrabies 3_ I to 34 1re 1 result of thlst policies
17
loca )evelofn11enf lnifia11es
Figure 31 Local Development Supports in the South West
Tuartha Chiarrai Teo (Leader)
West Cor Enterprise Board
North Cork Enterprise
Board
Blackwater Resource Development (Leader)
m Car City Partnership
South Cork Enterprise Board
Cork URBAN
Note The following ADM funded community groups are indicated on the map by nun1bers
[] Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo [Z] Bantry Integrated Development Group
G1] East Cork Area Development Ltd ] Avondha Development Partnership fil IRO Duhalow Ltd
[sect] Sliabh Luachra Ltd [Z] Listowef Baronies Group Ltd
Objectives
36 All of 1he Lxxlics trt concerned illl locil econoinic develop1nlllt tnd h~1ve
i IJrief lo rn-ordin11e incl enlunce ex1s1ing suppo11s ii locd level Bo1h lEAl)EH
incl P111nersl1ip grltn1ps arc conccrntmiddotd V1th co1n111unity clcvelop1nent Vhile
P~1nn~rships ire explicitly focused on co1nlx1111ng socitl exclusion
Clients
37 1Ltny sin1il1ri1ies exist hetVeen 1he clitnls uf the lhllt types nf bodies hu1
there tre tlso in1pon1nt clifferenclS ihile CEHs deal Vilh business ickas fro1n any
individual or group thty do not specifically target dis1dv~11111gcd groups vhich are
1hc focus of P111nersh1ps lFAl)ER acliitics ire dirtctcd IOVllcls the loc1J
18
-------
I
Coorclination ojmiddot Acliuitiltgts
Table 31 Objectives
Objectives CEBs Partnerships LEADER
Fogtster development by Area planning Jc1b creation
Business supports Arumatton
C1)unter serious economic and social problems by Aisisting long-term unemployed 1n10 jobs Promoting adult educationtraining Aisisting community development Ericouraging provision of child support Integrate supports at local level
0
Table 32 Clients
Nature of Clients
Pcmiddotpulation coverage
G(bullograph1c coverage
Small Enterprises
Adult Learners
Joigt Seekers incl LongshyTelm Unemployed (LTU)
Ccmmunity Groups
Lone parents
Trc1vellers
Pe)ple with d1sabil1ties
Dirndvantaged youth
i==
CEBs Partnerships LEADER
100 61
100 Includes 13 complete counties and several
other disadvantaged areas
Almost complete in rural areas
(excludes part of cities of Dublin Cork Galway Limerick Waterford)
Note o denotes thor one Local Development body has chosen to pursue this objective
a This relates to designated areas covered by Area-Based Partnerships Soures Tables 3 1 amp 32 These tables were derived from the Operational Programme for LEADER
OPLURO and interviews with managers of Local Development bodies
19
lr1ca )e1eh11111e111 11i1iati1es
Table 33 Main development activities
Activity CEBs Partnerships LEADER
Draft development plans v v v Assess local plans 0 v v Carry out surveys of enterprises v v 0
Provide finance to enterprises v v v Provide advice to enterprises v v v Assist enterprises to access
consultancy support v 0 v Organisefund mentors for enterprises v v v Fund management development v Organisefund marketing initiatives v v Promote enterprise via meetings etc v v v Produce enterprise
brochuresbusiness guides v v v Promote enterprise 1n schools via
competitions training etc v v v Fund prov1s1on of tourism facilities v v Fund road signage Tidy towns v Fund artscultural festivals v v
Table 34 Main activities concerned with countering serious economic and social problems
Activity
Counsel long-term unemployed (lTU)
Carry out skills audit of LTUs
Establish network of L TUs
Organise fund education or
training courses Fund provision of education centres
Fund construction refurbishment
equipment of community resource
or activity centres Fund estate improvement
Fund communityyouth workers
Organise fund community fora
or networks Organise fund homework clubs
Fund youth act1vit1es
Fund play groups creches
CEBs Partnerships
v v v
LEADER
v v
v v
0
Note 0 denotes that not afl Local Development bodies have chosen to undertake these activities
Sources Tables 3_3 amp 34 These tables were derived from the Operational Programme for LEADER OPLURD and interviews with managers of Local Development bodies
20
Coor(i nation ojmiddot11 c I tu it ies
co111nunity in genertl ind local project pron1ottri lhile people vho tr( Slvcrely
socially or ((Cll)Olllically deprived IllJY r1r1iciplle in lEAl)l-f lllivitilS LEAl)EI his
no nmiddot1nit 1n spccifically targlting lhlSl groups In nine c1-es lEAlgtER ancl
P1dncrship Strviccs an dtbulllimiddotlncl by llHmiddot s11ne loc1I group
3~ LEAl)ER Jnd P111r1trships ltivc exten-iiC hut not co111plc1e popult11un
colrttge Jgt111nerships ind 1l)ivl-funcled con1nu1nity groups coVlI 1111ny of 1hc n1ure
conclmiddotn1r11ecl trltls of dis1dvin11ge l)lllt to lhe ficl 1h11 social dis1clvanragc is
spali11ly clis1rilH1ttmiddotd son1ltmiddot 1nmiddot1s of till cuuntry Vh(r( clis1dv1r111ge ex1sts arc nor
cobullbulltmiddotnmiddotd by P1rlnltrships or l)imiddotl-h1nded con1n1uni1v groups
A1tivities
39 It c111 igte gteen fro111 middotro1ble Jl 1hll 1hcre ecrraquoive duplicnion of
de1c]op111e11t tctivities 1crois 1he bodies Vith 1hnost tll of the 1c1ivitics lgteing
llndertlken by JI Je1-t tVO type~ of hodJtS [n inlLfilS Vith ht lllJntgtrs or the
Local l)evelorn1tnl bodies ii middotas indicated 1h~H Vhile thcv are lVtre of this
overl1p they rel~ on co-ordination n1ech1nis111s to ensure that re-ource- are nnl
Vl ~teeI
310 It c111 igte gtltmiddoten fro111 Table 34 1ha1 so111e overlip exisis lielween IEADER
gnurs ind P1nnerships Vith respec1 [o countering serious econo1nic ind soci1l
prcmiddotblv111- middotrills can irislt through i111pnmiddotc1stmiddot defini1ion ind inlerprtlUiun of the r~1nge
of crviltlS providld J-[oll(L the extenl of overlap 1n countering serious econo111ic
and Slgtcitl rroblcins is n111ch less 1han in 1he case of develor1nent activilies pa1tly because of th( 11rgct1ng of -plcific client groups hy P1rtnerships (the long-tenn
uncn1ployed ind the soc111ly ecludedJ
311 It should be no1ecl th~1t 1111ny other agencies or groups outside the scope of
1he exa1nin~nirln are ilso 1ctive II local level For cx1111pllt the Hosco111111on (JmiddotB
1ction Pl111 1997 - 1999 conttins a 111trrix uf dtmiddotvehgtp111ent agltncies incI servicis
pre vided in Coun(y Hosco111111on lhis i- shnmiddotn in ppendix E
F1J1nding of Projects
3 12 Situations can occur vhere pro111oters can 111axilnist thl funding they receive
b~middot applying for surport froo1 cJillenlll groups
W1hlre arc Poor 011s(hcd~ 711c Spali(I )11rih11lPll () r11e11r a11d DeJ11r11011 111 rlrt11d Urito1 1oa11 cl (J C0111ha1Ponrty1l~ltJ1C) 19lt)8
21
ocal Jeveloj1111c111 lniJ1atiUltS middot----- shy
Case Study 2
Subsidy shopping
A promoter had a turnover of pound80000 from an equestrian centre and language school In addition he was a farmer his spouse was a teacher and he had net assets of almost pound05 m1ll1on He wished to develop the equestrian centre and language school and provide accommodation on site for language students he applied to a CEB for financial assistance The estimated cost of the project was as follows
pound Accommodation costs 20000 Classrooms 10000 Indoor arena 22000 Outdoor arena 15000 Tennis court 10000
Total 77000
The CEB considered that financial support would be appropriate for certain nonshyaccommodationmiddot aspects of the project This comprised classrooms indoor arena and outdoor arena costing pound47000 and a grant of pound20000 was approved in May 1996 The Board considered that the promoter should fund all of the accommodation aspects (The Board had a policy of not assisting the provision of accommodation because this is a response to rather than a generator of demand)
In September 1996 the promoter applied to a LEADER group for a grant According to the grant application form the accommodation cost had risen to pound85000 (as against pound20000 in the CEB application) The LEADER group was aware of the financial support already provided by the CEB and the reasons why this level of support was given The LEADER Board approved a grant of pound17000 being 20 of the cost of the accommodation The project promoter was also approved for a marketing grant from LEADER of pound2750
Total capital grants approved for the project (pound37000) amounted to 26 of pro1ected capital expenditure (pound142000)
313 It has been po1n1ccl 011t (by Entlrpnse Trnclc ind Employment ind Tourism
Sport ~ind HecreJtion) 1hat this ct~e srudy gives little risemiddot fur concern 1~ the funcling
vas clinctecl tOv1rds different ele1nent of the projecr l-loCVer the fnlloving
efficiency difficulc1cs arise
bull aclcluionil middotsearchmiddot costs for cl1cnts who mikc mul11ple applicu1ons for ~1-isistance
bull ~1dditiontl tin1e ~pent by n1en1bers of Bo1rd incl evtluuion co1n1ni1tees and adn1inistrJrivc cosrs in Loc1I l)evelnpn1ent bodies
bull thC first Local Devdopment body to approve finannJI assisuncl cannot adopt a middotrotlJ project vieV bCClttUSe it is 110t lV1fe Vhether subsequent tJ1plicati011S ill be 1n1cle for assist1nce to other Local Developn1ent bodies
22
COorcination of Actiuitics
C1gt-ordination
314 As part of their an11nat1011 and co111111unity development 1ctivitits all of the
bol1es part1culirlv LFADER groups and P1rtnersl11ps look for opportunities to
1ni iale and co-orclina1e acrivilies vhich 111iy be underlaken by a vide variety of
st1tutory rnmmun11y and voluntary groups Tlus work usually Licilitates the
provision of econo111ic and social benefits to the co111n1un1ty Typical exunples 1re
bull Organising nevorks of lone parenis
bull Pro1nnting tidy tovns
bull Organising second chancC cducuicgtn
Vihin Local Development hodics therLmiddot is often tc11sion between the priorny to be
given to their co-ordination role ver~us the direct delivery of services including
grants
315 Co-ordination frequently involves the co-operation of several different
organisations at different levels (StHc local government communitvvoluntary
se(tor and business) to ~chicve a con1111on objective middotrhrough their co-ordinarion
roli~ the bodies n1ay harness rhc porcntial of several organisarions to achieve an end1 which would not otherwise be achieved This role has been cited is contnbutmg to
the unique role of the Joell development bod1Lmiddots A good LXimple of this mshyore ination i~ set out in Case Study 3
316 The multiple funding ol this anglmg pro1ect is substint1ally differtnl from the
multiple funding shown 1n Case Study 2 In Cie Stuclv 3 thlt contributions of the
vanous bodies were agreed as part of an integrated plan
317 The co-existence of three significant types of boches (and the inherent
cluphcarion shovn in 1he previous section) places a particular onus on 111anagc111tmiddotn1
of the organisations oH both national and lcxal levels to co-ordintte service provision
Fig1re 32 illustrates for each of the bodiltS the dilftmiddotrcnt co-ordinarion structures in
phe
23
loco l Jc1eofgt11HJ 11 I11 ii iu I ioes
Case Study 3
Co-ordination of a tourism angling project
A LEADER group in an inland county sponsored a study of the tourism development
potential of the county Although the county had weak tourism infrastructure and
practically no angling facilities the study identified several tourism sub-sectors that
could be developed including angling
An initiative was undertaken by the LEADER group to co-ordinate the development of
angling in partnership with fourteen other bodies including Fisheries Boards ESB
Coillte Duchas Bord na M6na and several community development organisations and
angling groups The initiative consists of
bull the upgrading of eight lakes most of which are owned by State agencies and many
of which were overgrown or silted
bull construction of stiles paths etc and restocking the lakes with fish
bull grant support for accommodation providers in the lakes area
The total cost of the project was estimated at around pound05 million Some of these costs are borne by LEADER but most are borne by State agencies and the Tourism
Operational Programme 1994-1999
The LEADER group is involved with other organisations in marketing angling facilities
and the provision of training for the ongoing management of the lakes
Co-ordination at Local Level
318 Cot1n1y Strllcgy croups Vere es1hlimiddotmiddotd1ed in LICh cnu111y under OPLUl~J) O
L1ci[i[Je co-orclin11ion ~ind 111inin1isc cluplic1tinn in lie delivery of progrin1111es
middotrhe Groups provide i forun1 for forn1d conununicition Vithin etch councy and
hctCt11 counties incl cenlrtl policy 111akers_ vlen1lxrship of the Groups includes
the Chlt1irpersn11s of CEl~s Ptr1nerships ind lEAl)EH groups County middotrouri111
Con1n1i1tees Coun1y f11n1~ers incI represen111ives fron1 middotrourisn1 Spon and
Recnation
319 middotrhe cu-ordinttion of services 10 cliencs depends very heavily on cruss-1gtncy
rcpresenltlion incl illendance at 111cetings middotralgtle ~5 shovs 1ypictl Board
repre~enc11ion
24
Coo1middotrh11atio11 o lctiuillcs
Fi1ure 32 Monitoring and Coordination
InterdepartmentalOPLURD OPLEADER Evaluation Polley Committee Evaluation
_l Department of Department of
Enterprise Trade Tourism Sport and Employment and Recreation
ADM Ltd
Partnership Boards
County Strategy Groups
1~BBoards ------shy
Department of Agriculture and Food
LEADER Group Boards
Table 35 Typical Board representation
S~bullctor Represented CEBs LEADER Partnerships
Lcmiddotcal authority members almost complete
Statutory bodies Ernployers I Trade Unions I Farmers Community I Voluntary sector
SouCe Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General
25
ocu )e1Alop111e111 11ifi(lf1ccs
320 CEils ire represented on most IEADER groups incl many Pa11ncrsh1ps
Hovever 1n~1ny lEAl)ER groups and P~111nerships ire not represented on CEBs In
so111e bu1 not all cises vhere cross-board represenlation i lacking there is crossshy
agencymiddot rtpn=sentllion at sub-boird level instead such as evilullion co1n111iuees for
protects_ In nine c1s(s vhere then~ are con1n1on boundaries the san1e Board
1clm1nis1ers both a LEADER group incl Partnership In ciscs where there ire not
m11ch1ng bounclirics 11 1s usud for LEADER groups incl lu1ncrships to have
C01111ll011 UO~trd repreSCl1tatives
321 Agriculture incl Food require all lEADEH groups to specify how they intend
to co-ordinate their activiies Vith other bodies before agree111en1s 10 i111plen1en1 a
LEADER progr1111me are completed Each tgreement includes t clause to this effect
and dso requires IEADER groups to part1n1x11e in Coun1y Strategy Groups
322 The view of the Local Development bodies is 1h11 loctl knowledge is of
piran1oun1 in1po111nce for co-orclina1ing their ~1ctiviries Use is n1aclc of infonntl
contacts 10 ensure tha1 each organisHion is tvarc of Vhat others artgt doing middotrhere
is often no formal 1gree111ent berween Local Devclop111ent bodies H local level
regarding 1h~ lin1its betveen objtgtctives acrivities and clients Hovevcr
consideration should be given 10 drlving up a middotfittcn staten1ent Vhich VOtilcl set
out a broad fra111ework of agree111ent between Loctl Dcvelop111ent bodies A good
exmtple from County Meath is shown in Appendix F
323 from the beginning elected pol1ticd representation was absent fro111 IEADER
incl Partnership 13oards Mc111bers of local authonrics are represented on CEl3s but
not is of right on LEADER groups and Partnerships However local aurhonry
officials arc frequentlv on the boards of lEADEH groups incl Partnerships A process
his been undc1way to 1nclucle 111e111bers of local authonties on rhe Boards of
LEADER groups and Partnerships This process is now complete in the cise of
IEADER incl is d111ost rn111plete 1n the cise of Pirtnerships
GeograpJica ampm1ulmJbull ProJlem
324 The co-orclmation of activi11es it locd level is 111ade 111ore difficult by the lack
of coherence the way the boundmes of the Local Develop111ent bodies were
clr~lvn and because of overltpping houndanes vi1h srHucory bodies 1s 1 result
n1any iltx~d l)evclop111ent bodies 1nust liaise vi1h a nun1ber of orher Iocil
l)evelop111ent bodies Jnd srJn1cory organisations_ middotrt1is increases tl1e acln1inistra1ive
burden on Local Develop111ent bodies ancl 1mpecks rhcir ability to offer unifor111
service delive1y in their territorymiddot and to co-ordinate activities of other Local
Develop111ent bodies and Srate igencies
26
Coordi11atio11 Cf Actiuities
se Study 4
Bcbullundary problem in South County Dublin
The boundary of South Dublin CEB covers the same geographical area as that of South De blin County Council and South Dublin Area of Dublin Tourism In this area there are four Partnership companies
Ta laght Partnership wholly located in Dublin South Clondalkin Partnership wholly located in Dublin South KWCD Partnership divided between Dublin South and Dublin City Scuths1de Partnership divided between South Dublin and Dun
LaoghaireRathdown
Al~o the Dublin Rural LEADER Company covers part of South Dublin as well as Dun LagtghaireRathdown and Fingal Council areas The State service providers such as FlgtS Eastern Health Board (EHB) Department of Social Community and Family Affairs (D3CFA) and Enterprise Ireland do not have the same geographical areas as local auhont1es They are split up into regional areas and these regions impinge on South Dublin CEB as follows
FlgtS Dublin SouthWicklow region of FAS contains part of South Dublin while Dublin WesVKildare region of FAS caters for the rest of the South Dublin area
EHB Each of three regional areas of the EHB Dublin South Central South West and West impinge on the area of South Dublin CEB
D~middotCFA Dublin South region of DSCFA contains part of South Dublin and Dublin West region of DSCFA caters for the remainder
Enlerprise Ireland South Dublin 1s totally contained within Enterprise lrelandmiddots region of Dublin and Mid-East
32~i Agricuhure and Food ha~ poinced ou1 rhar coheren1 geogr~1pliical boundaries
would be contrarv to the bottom upmiddotmiddot approach of LEADER The initial EU proposal
for hl fo11hcommg LEADER lnillatilC stales middotmiddot11 would he desirable rhar rbe eligihle
areas do not coi11citle tuith notional acln1ii11strati1e ho111ularies nnr ufth cli_~ihle
zon$ 1111cler the 1nainstrec11n operations(~ the structural jltntlsmiddot
Co-ordination at National Level
32(1 An Interckpartmcntal Policy Committee for Local Delelopment was
estltulishcd m June 1993 under 1he auspices of 1he Department of the Ta01seach and
subequently reconltt1tuted in Ocwber 1997 under Tourism Span and Rccrea11on 1s
funmon is to oversee 111d make recommendations on local delelopment (Appendix
G shovs the conunitteemiddots renns of reference) fhe co1nn1itcee is chaired by the
Minster of State in Tourism Spo11 and Hecreation ind comprises represenwives of
27
loca I )e1eofJ111e11 f In it itlf ftls
i nu111her of Gov1rnn1ent lgtepart1nc11ts middotrhe ro1111ni11ee has contributed policy
n111eriil 10 1he post 2000 s11b1nission on the future of struc1ural funds ind v1s
involved in 1htmiddot develop1nent of 1ht Integrated Services Prnjec1middot
327 middotn1e co111n1i11et sees i1s fu1ure role is one of infon11ing its([f nf dcvclop111ents
cnh1ncing links Vith local develnp1n~n1 orgtnisuions 111d lt1rn1ng les-gtons fron1
piln1ing projet1s including 1htmiddot porenti~tl for n11instrl1n1ing successful projects
328 middotrhlre is a potential role for the con11nittee 10 get involved in soning out the
sys1t111smiddot in1clequ1cics ind to develop 1 strltcgic lttpproich to coun1ering 1he
neg1tive ispcmiddotcts or duplicuion lhc co111111ittee should consider developing 1n
1green1ent concerning the lin1its hitveen tile olgtjec1ives 1ctivities and clients of the
three types of bodies vhilt- laking account of the li111it1tions on the discretionar
nllure of lhe LE1l)EI Jgtrogran1n1c Vhich is an FU Initiative
329 Fruin 1 viluc for 1noney perspective ind bised on the 1buve 1nilysis the
follr)ving i1nprove111~111s ire desirlttble in the short tern1
bull 1hc cs1ablish111ent of coherent geogr1phical buuncL1rics
bull tn incretse in he forinal co-orclinllion of service provision
The Task Force Report on the Integration of Local Government and Local Development Systems
330 t Trsk Force which was esublished lo reporr on 1h~ 1n1egr111on of locd
govern111ent incl locil clevelopn1cn1 sys1en1s reportccl in August 1998 and its
reco111111end~11ions Vtre approved by C1nvern111cnt in Septen1ber 1998 1 middotrhe 11sk
1orce l-gt concerned to ckvclop 1 vision ~ind s1ra1egy vhich Voulcl encon1pass in
in integralecl IY (he oper11ions of loc1I governn1ent ind Local l)evelop1nent
bodies in order 10 significantly incre~1se 1heir effec1iveness
331 Tire Task Force conltrdercd 1111 Iris could besr be achieved 11 1hc counry rncl
cily level The cclllrrl role will be pL1yed by new Coun1y or City Dcvdopmenl
Boards (CDlb) which will be es1ablislred in each ciry incl cou111y locrl authority
The CDBs with memlJerslup drawn from four sltcrors (ie local governmcnl
co111111uni1y ~ind voluntary social partners and Slate agencies opcra1ing at local level)
ill clrnv up an agreed ~ind con1prehensive Coun1y or City Strategy for Econon1ic
Sociil ind Culturtl l)evelopn1cn1 It VtS 1greecl 11i~11 Jgtannerships or LEAl)EH groups
should cllal Vith clis1clvan1aged areis on an 1greecl basis 1nd 1hat con1111unlly
1)( 111ltgr(lc-d Wnncc~ lropU tla egtlabllshtd 011 a pilot btLgtiL ill f)rce111hcr 1998 ill 011r sltmiddotnmiddoto11S~) ltliltult(l11fa~1middotd arltbullas_ (JbjeLliltmiddot 1s 10 cr1-ordi11flle tbtbull i11p111 ofall S1a1C senlicegt
28
Coorrli11atio11 o Jcmiddotti111 ie------------------------------~---
developinent and -ciciJI incl11sion 111c1sl1re tho11lcl vl1ertmiddot possibll bl cleliVlrld bymiddot
gra~sroots bodies Further nmiddotcon1n1endatinns of the middotr1sk rorcc include
bull (Jl(lprise support func11un lo htbull vered in 1he CFBs Vith rrovision for the
involvement of other Local Dcvdoprncnt bodies such as LEADEH by ~1grec111ent
bull fu11ctional arl1- to coincidemiddot Villi co11n1y or city IHHJndaries or_ t[ sub-county
kmiddotvtmiddotL local elector~il ~treas
bull ~1 si11gle igency to bl nmiddotspt1nsihll for con1n11111i1y dlvclop1nlnl at suh-cuun1y
lclI (either the local tuthoritymiddots Arca Con1111ittee or in clc-ign1tecl
clisadv~1nt1ged 1rc1s groups -gtuch ts P111ntmiddotrJ1ips or LEAJ)ER groups)
I bull any future loctl ckv(loptntmiddotnt groups slloulltl have cou11ty or city councillors on
[heir Boards
An interdc1x1rtn1en1al i111ple1nent~1tio11 group h~ts hLcn fonncd to oversee thl in1plcnltmiddotn111ion of 1l1c middotr~1sk ilnce reco111111endarions
29
4 Operational Efficiency
41 This chapter considers the operational efficiency of the groups Operational
efficiency is concerned Vilh 111aking the best use of 1hc resources provided to
111axin1ise the ltmiddotvel of outputs achieved
42 middotrhe issues and evtluHion criteria arc
Issues Evaluation criteria
Targets and performance Quantification of targets bull Use of baseline data bull Achievement and review bull
Resource allocation and outturn Targets and outturns bull Allocation of resources to Localbull Development bodies
bull Grant cost per job
bull Cost of non-grant outputs
Deadweight and displacement Information on extent bull Effective procedures bull
Targets and Performance
43 OlLUHD contained a number of output md ac[Jv1ty t1rgets to IJe achieved
over the priod 199 middot 1999 A report issued in 1994 crnicised some of the tJrgets
in that they did not refer to previous performance In the absence of this middotbaseline
perform1nce cl11a it is not posstble to know how realistic or demanding these targets
are Extmples of the lick of baseline cl11a include information on new 1obs and new
businesses middotrhc report ilso ronsiclend 1ha1 oilier 11rgets Vere coo n1odcst in relation
10 hat v1s knovn lttbou1 perforn1ancc such as chc tirget for ncv businesses suppo11ed by P1rrnership vith reference to the perforn1ance undltr the original
PESP Partnerships
44 lhe n1ain OPLLRI) targt~ts and 1chievc111cncs against the targets are fhOvn in
Table 41 Most of the original targets were excccdccl bv 1998 rrnny by a wide
margin The only target that w1s quantified in th~ Operational lrogrunme for
LEDER as the creation of obs wluch was set H 4000 over the life of the
Programme Up to encl 1998 an overall job creation figure of 2700 (fulhime job
equivalents) was reponecl
45 Folloving the reco111n1endarions conrainecl in the 1nid-ten11 reviev revised
performance indicators and raised targets were adopted by the OPLURD Monitoring
Ex-a11( Appaiitil of Proposed local Dcmiddotvelop111e111 Progran1me pn1x1rltbulld on bfhalf of DC X11 ~)the SeflJices 11d11ilnltS Research Centrt liCD F11zpa1ncJ Associates a11d Kiert111 lcKeo1m1 lld Febn1ary 1994
30
Tatle 41 OPLURD targets to end-1999 and achievements to end-1998
-
Target
Now JObs
Nt~w businesses
Progression of unemployed to -full-lime jobs -part-time jobs
Number of adults asgtisted to access education
NL mber of children attending preventative education services
Existing businesses su Jported
Cl sterner contacts
=
CEBs
Original Targets
8000
2260
280 pa
20000 pa
Achievements
15500
3 110
2500 (1996-1998)
8700a (1998)
Partnerships
Original
Targets
6900
3640
12500 1500
60000
20400
30000 pa
Achievements
12800
12800
11400 2900
18500
35000
na
Note 8 Only contacts which fed to a provision of a service by the Boards to a client were recorded
Soure OPL URO and annual roports
cn111111i11ee in i-lay 1999 (ee ppendi ))_ middotrhcsc l~1rg~ts appear to he 111ore re~iliitic
having regard to perfonnance in the early ye~1rs of the Progra1nn1e
146 in the cise of ihDlH the mid-term rtmiddotnew notd that the 01 ind1cuors
_cured highly on relevance 1-lovever n1any ut the indicators verc so vague 1ha1
111caningful qu111tificlt1tion vould htmiddot aln1osr 1n1rx1ssible -rhlt reviev concluded that
the pcrforn1ance indicators dieI 1101 provide J sufficiently cltar basis on vhich groups
could debullelop con1n1on indicuor systen1s_ lhe nvit~V proposed a sys1en1 of
ptrf1nnance indicators flt1r discussiltgtn 11ncnchnent incI i111plen1en1a1ion imiddot11e
LEA)ER Morntonng Commince clccidccl that each LEADER group should prepare
i rt~middoti~t~cl t1rgtIS in respect of he indicators proposed in lhlt n1icl-1enn nviev (see
pptmiddotnclix E)_ Nu revised nationil targtli Vtrt agreed by the fmiddot1nnitorin_g Co1n1nittcc
or griculture Jnc1 Food
l
ocal JercoJ11rent 11itulfiteshy
Table 42 Expenditure targets 1994-1999 and outturns 1994-1998
Initiative OP Forecastbull
1994-1999
Revised
Forecast 1994-1999
Latest Forecastc
1994-1999
Outturn 1994-1998
poundm poundm poundm poundm CEBs 818 811 808 620d Partnerships 1047 1036 1083 706e
LEADER Groups 772 947 947 388
Notes a Updated for exchange rate changes and inflation as of May 1999 b Revised forecast is lhBI which has been most recently approved by the Monitonng
Committee ft refers only to expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds c Latest forecast is the most recent estimate by the relevant department of the most
likely outcome It refers only to expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds d Outturn only includes expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds (pound620ni)
Expenditure not co-financed by EU structural funds an1ounted to pound36 1m e Ourtum only includes expendifure co-financed by EU structural funds (pound706m)
Expenditure not co-financed by EU structural funds amount9d ro pound05m Source OPLURD LEADER OP annual reports
Resource Allocation and Outturn
47 Public e-pendi1ure 11rgets ind ou11urns ire shovn in middotrable 42
48 Fro111 the beginning it V1s the viev of Enterprise middotrr~1dL incl En1ployn1tnl thit
there IVlI nut sulliuenc EU funds under 011UHI) 10 support 1lte desired kbullel oldeg
t-pctHliturc by CE13s over 1he life of the Prngrunrnc_ ccorclingly CEB exrenditun
wis in ecess of the level co-finrnred by Ill funds rnd the b1l111n of U6 J million
wis provided bv the hclwquer It is ciltrr 1h11 EU funds rvrilrble for CElh under
011UIU) wrll be fully u11lised bv the encl of 1he lrogrrmme
49 A~ n1ost P1nntrships h1cl to go through J lcng1hy pnxtss of es11hlish1ncn1
incl planning in 19ltJ5 ind 1996 their cxpendiltirc Vas slov in rhuse ye~1rs tlovtver
expenditure 1ccclcr1Ctcl in 1997 and 1998 middotruurisn1 Spo11 ind Hecrellion and 1)11
expecc chH over the full progranllne period c-pencli1urc 1argc1s viii be n1et
410 E-pencli1u1-c under LE1J)fH Vts suhst1nti11ly Ix-In ttrget for rhc pcriocl
1995-1998 A fu11hcr sum of J18 million wrs rllocued to lEDEH liv the EU
Co111n1ission in 1996 fro111 an EU re-erve avai11hle for (on1111unity initiatives In order
to reach lht revised forec~1st expendi1ure in 1999 Voukl h1vc to be 1non 1han lVO
111cl 1 hilf ti111cs lite expenditure of 998 tmiddotlovever griculturc incl Food lXPLCls
1h1t ill alloc1tecl funds viii be spent by the encl of tiltmiddot Progr1n11nemiddot
11ltcor(111g trJ the 11AIJlR ()~ lt11 eliJihle ltpc11di111nmiddot 111ust lgtc co111tlffltlf 1~1 middot JtA f)IJ~ gn111h l~r tbc (IU
of fJrl-1 111Jc_bullr 15J-JY 11Ji~e 111r1111middot1 s 11111sf he Hiid rJ11f I~) llAJ)f( grrgtllJS lxfurc )l_1111c 2000
j2
( ))(rct f iu 11cf fi-c iei Ilt)middot-- middot---------------- shy
A1ocation of Resources to Local Development Bodies
411 Fnlerprise middotrr1clc and E1nployn1en1 inittdly alloctttmiddotd resources equdly to each
CEit middotrhc l)ltp1rtn1ent suhscquently 111nved to 1 1nore dtmiddotn11nd Jtmiddotd 1ppr()~1ch
h1nmiddothy allocations VeHild lgtt varied depending on 1hc relative llctmiddotds uf each aret
Ille c~1p1city of e1ch art lo successfully utilise eriterprimiddotbulle supports ind to crelle jobs
i ind the qud1ty nf thtmiddot cmiddotnterpnstmiddot pL1ns prepared hv each CEB
41 Al)middott placed 1dvcnistmiddot1nents in nevsptpers i11vi1i11g cnn1n1t1ni1y groups
(ou side Ille designated JrLIS of dis1dvintJgt being IUl)kcd Jfter hv Area-Based
P1nncrships) incl relevant n11ion1 organisations to ~11gt11ly for ()JgtLUHI) funding 33
con1n1unity groups ind 15 nitiontl urganisuion Vere sekCtld by t()1I for funding
41 middotrhe allocation of resources to Pirrnvrships hy Al)1l v~1s hiscd on cltt1ilcd
1nIlysis of the socioeconn1uic ch1ractlris1ic- of eJch tre~1 highliglning various
aSf)lt_cts of dtpriv11ion drlVll fro111 tlie 1991 ltensus of Population ()tiler rclcv1nt
v1riihlcs inclt1cll~d the qu~ditv of the pL111 tlttmiddot c1p1ci1y of htmiddot l1rtncrsliip ind the
1v1l1bility-of orher clevelop111ent resources to 1hc lrll such as IE1l)l-J or LiHB1N
4lbulli 1chmiddoter1istmiddot1nents Vere pL1cecl in 11Lmiddotvsp1rtmiddotrs innouncing lhe LEtl)lR lni1i1tivl
and inviting applicnions 1middot1ic~e VCrc assesstmiddotd by 1gricuhure and 1~nod Vith the
1ssi-bull1ance of an incltpcndenl consul11nt to es1ahlish tile txtent to vhich they 111lt~1 iii~
key ftatures of LEl)FH lhtmiddot rltsourctS middotere tllocatcd h~1ving regard to the quality
of the hu iness pl1n subniilllltL 1he population ind cl(gree of rurility of the 1rea and
the ~1vailalgtility of othtr sourcts uf ~lss1st1ncc fn1 Joctl ltkmiddotclop1ncn1 3i loc~d group-
Ver~ sclecled ind 2 SLctoral groups
Grint Cost per Job
4l~i middotr1iere arc specific f1c1ors vhich lin1i1 the usefulness of htmiddot gr1n1 cost per job
incli ~-tlnr in the con1cx1 of lltx11 devclop111cnt middotrhese include
bull (rear d1versil in the ni1urc of the 1ohs cre1ted ind 1he 111ethod of cc)un1ing
I hl111
bull No direct con1p1nson hetveen the VOrk invoVtltI in supporting job cna1ion 11
local level VIiii nationtl joll crcition agtncics
bull middotrile us1ain1bility of jobs 1n1y d1fft r frn111 11in-e crc1tltd by nuional igtncics
bull middotril(middot focu- un job cre1tinn iritmiddot vithin the three 1ypes nf lllt1clic
local Jevelopn1e11r fllifiariues
416 For CEils the number of jobs created is used is a performance meisure The
average gr1n1 cost per job creared vtriecl over the pericxJ under reviev as follovsn
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Number of jobs created 1958 3174 3589 3317 3487
Grant cost per 1ob created pound2535 pound4249 pound3763 pound3884 pound4206
The v1ri11ions from year 10 year miy be panly explained hv the fact 1h11 sometimes
1here is 1 riine t1g hetveen the gn111t expenditure ind 1he creition of thi relevant
jobs Over the period 1994middot97 the average grant cost per 1ob was Aj725 with the
lowest CEil be111g S2269 (Tipperary North) and the highest being gtfi683 (Leitrim)
Cost of Non-Grant Outputs
417 In add111011 to grmt aiding job crcll1011 md adminis1r11ion all of the bodies
~Ire involved in non-granr activities including
CEils
bull Producing enrcrprise plans and generJlly pro1noting in enterprise culurc
bull Busines~ infonnttion 1clvice counselling incl 1nentoring
bull ~ltn1gc111ent devetopn1en1 rraining
lartnersl1ips
bull Enterprise cre11ion and ckvelopment
bull Environ1nent ind infrtstrucrure projects
bull Provision of services to the unen1ployecl
bull Con1n1unity clevelop1ncnt
bull Co1nple1nentary ~incl prevcnt11ive educarion
LEADER groups bull tni1nation 1crivit1es
bull middot1-icl1nical assis11nce
Expenditure on these 1ctiv1tic~ is shovn in middot1middot1blL lt3
418 11blc 43 shovs the v1rying ex1cnt 10 vhich the clitlerenl locil l)cvelop111ent
lxgtdics trt involved in non-gr1n1 ou1pu1s_ Thlt CEB ind LEl)EH groups focus on
gr1nt is grtmiddotarcr th1n Panncrships vho focus on non-gr1nt activi1ies imiddothis is
cons1s1ltnt with tlic list of 1ctiv1ties 111 Tible 34
- 71Jt 111tmeratfJr is l1n11t~ paid 111 the cale11dt1r HCff 01u the de11011111uur1r 1~middot the lllfJloy111e11t ~ai11 Cllthic~( (1er IIitbull yor i11 the jln11middot 11111J rcce11ed jiTu111c1td uufuitl Jimiddotom (Lfgtsmiddot 11 1Jf1bull rbut
empluymc111flt_-e1middot1111h1middots1middotjir11r_ are 1g11ored
31
()fJert-111u1uil Fj)lcicJJ(l --middotmiddot-middotmiddot---------- shy
Table 43 Expenditure on non-grant outputs 1996 - 1997
1996 1997 1996 1997 poundm poundm of total of total
expenditure expenditure
CEBs 39 54 18 24 Pyentnershipsbull 51 136 56 72 LEADER groups 21 34 40 30
folal 11 1 224 31 42
Not~ a 7he figures oxclude Community Groups and selected National Organisations b Excludes selected sectoral groups
Sotrce Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller iJnd Auditor General see Appendix A
Duadweight and Displacement
419 l)ct(lveight refers to situation Vhcre 1 pro1nocer vould undertake 1he
buiness projtmiddotct in 111y evcn1 i_e_ Vitliotll 1 gr1nc or 1sistince fron1 ~1 Iocil
l)e-elorn1en1 body middot1l1e granting of funltls 10 dealthveiglH projects is an ineffic1tgtnt
and ineflec1ivt alloc11ion of resources Disrlacen1tmiddotn1 refers ro situations vhere 1he
golt1cL or ~ervicvs iOlcl by 1 grlttlllltISiiSled rroll10ler divert sales opporlunitiis fro111
other exisling busincssl-gt E111plor111ent c1n hl sin1iL1rlv divlrtecl In chese cases rhe
in1pac1 of thl funds allocHed is achieved at the exptmiddotnsc of other enterprises
420 Tltere is risk of deidweight and c1splacemcnt in Iii gr1nr ictlmiddotUv including
th11 It lltgtcal clevelopn1en1 level A nccnc study stated th~1t 1 ~
ie bate tao concerns uifb the s11ppo11s Or n1icro e111e1JJrse Jbe Jruhlen1 uf
clacue1ibt a11cl clisplaccbull111e11t is e11clc111ic in such Slf)jJ01ts eJHCial~v 1ohlre
sc1cral agencie ure to su1ne clerrecbull inuolultcl in tlishursing such suJfgtorts
The Operational llogrammls for 11--DEH 111d 011lJHD llotlt su1e thll dc1clwe1ght
1ncl clisplact1nent are to Ixmiddot 1voiclld
421 All cn1crprise project Lill into one of 1he folloving fo111 clllgorics
Deadweighl Yes Deadweight No
Displacement No Displacement No
Deadweighl Yes Deadweight No
DisplacementbullYes Displacement Yes
Vlt1tio11al 11ici11nbull11i P11onlies for the xbullnfJd 1000-JrxJG Fitzgltbullrald cmiddott al Fn11omic ond )o(middotial Reearch 1i111u1rmiddot -Hor(h 19Y)
ocu )etelo111u11 t 11 it it1 I ives
Of 1he four possible scenarios onlv one (wi1h no displaccmeni incl no cleaclweigh1)
yields potcn1iil net increises in outpu1 incon1e en1ploy111cnr and consu1nption 1hat
could Ix 111nbu1ible 10 l[ADEH or 011Ul(l) supporl From vil11e for lllClllC)
perspective ii is in1ponant tha1 1hcrc be good infonnation on the extent of
cle1clwe1gl11 and dispLicemem and dfcc1ive prcxeclures 10 deal wi1h 1hem
Deadweight
422 11 is cl1fficuli 10 111eas11re the ex1ent of clcaclweigh1 and no method c1n Ix
rcmicro1rded is provicling tn1~illy rcliallle es1in1~1les [)eichveight Vts exa111ined in the
111idmiddotltnn reviev of OJgtLUHIJ in rcspcct uf fin~1nci1l ~1ssistu1ct givtn 10 s1nall finns
by CEl3s Fron1 a s11nple of finns ~untycd over 40dego of thC pron101ltrs indic1ted thll
they would hivc es11blished the businesses w11hou1 CUl suppo11 A s111cly of micro
enterprises 1h1t fl~Ceivtcl grants under Local )evelop1nent initiitivcs 1nd other
progr11n1111s rcpo11ed deichveight of 45Yi
423 E111erpnse Tricle and F111ploy111en1 has irgued 1h11 1hese estim11cs of
ceJdeiglu are roo high ccorcling tu thl l)erart111e11t the viCS of proinoter~ irt
nor 1 reli1ble guide to cil11er lheir behiviuur or heir SllCLt-S lhe l)cp1nn1ltnt ~1-serts
1hll di CEBs seek 10 ivoicl cleiclwcigh1 However i1 J11s been no1ccl 1h11
rcsrondentsmiddot confidence rcgtrding their abil11y to sta11 i busines in the 1bsence of
i grant c111 he considered 1s 1n underesli111~1le
424 A siucly f 1hc Arca Allowincc Fn1erprise Scheme (AAES) which is
adniinisterecl by P1rrnerships suneyecl a sa111ple of pa111cip1nr- 1 11 Vts concludedbull
thit cleachveigl11 Vas in 1he range 40-50o_ Even alkJving for s1111pling risks the
thnt surbulley-gt t1ke11 1oge1her suggest thlt there is 1 consiclerihlt incidence of
cittciVCight
425 An cximrle of poten1iil cleiclweiglll involving IEADER funding is se1 ou1 in
Cise Study 5
11of11at1011 (~ 1liClO 111tt1pn4 S11pxn3 lcrni 1ltllicn10 d local fgtcbull1ymiddotfop1111bull11t Agc11c1e 11d11try 11a11atirJ11 11111 1111~11-t 1999- lluro (llfe1p11lt- that rcCcbulluetl prro11s fr(J11 1111e17nisc flflt11u_ (danis 1u1 Crrlllachf( t111d Sht11111rJ1t )c1elop111e1111tmiddotc1v111c1uld i111lw arl(hiiS
Set fj lJiAJhk 111iutitlt hmiddot1a11af11J1 r11ul llttmiddot(middotr1111111middot11rlatiu11 lcmiddotontcmiddotv CI ul 1)95
Stjl111plortd a11d tlw 011g (bulln11 l11e111plr~rrmiddotd A11 1al11alio11 (J 11w tlnf1 t1101ra11cc f11terprit Xhe11tc IFNC Co11s1il1a111s J-)7
-1)1 cr11bullrde1middot 1ba11hc prop()r1p11middotuncncl 11IFJ _-lated b(l biy 11011d hatcmiddot 1atmiddotc11 up c111plrJy1111J1rJbull1jshy1middot111101111i1 ~ 111J (J nmiddotfia1c n1lt1ict1orji1r thost 1141u M1ild (UT nLltrfllll dn11( 11 t1) ht1 01)11cd that IJc lllU(rillllf (CtlN n1t1middotJrom l(lllJtiy1111Jl ~r I 1r11gmiddotttrlll llt1fJIO)td 24Ci Ill tbc iRC middot111(~1) 11Yfdd he c1 lgttbulluer t-li11(lft ofdct1tl11eipIJ1 fur AAlS paiticipd11t tha11 the tfiJJlltlllgt q11ofcfl i 1 1ha1 suufbull_ Nou~middotzybullr_ lh1bull s11u~v J(jiJfld (fl that lbulle cht1roocns1il~ vf Amiddot115 KJrticipa11t (tmiddotducatio11 and dt1r(lI011 of 1111c111p()y111cmiddot11t) were lkl(rmiddotmiddot tba11 for thl frn~~-1en11 111u111ploycd uho dul 11ol fx1rtic1xflcgt II Atf)
y
Of)(rotional IJfcicbullnc-)-
ase Study 5
Potential deadweight situation
lr1 1999 a business person 1n a large provincial town decided to provide a bed and bmiddoteakfast establishment in a spacious house that she owned in the centre of the town She decided to focus on the upper end I business market and provide four en-suite rcbulloms She received assurances from several local businesses that they would be willing to refer clients to her Two local hotels also indicated that they would refer cverflow customers
Tie total investment required to refurbish the property fit out and supply furniture crockery and bed linen was esl1maled al pound88000 Loan approval was obtained from the bmk for renovations and the promoter applied to the local LEADER group for a grant
T 1e LEADER group estimated that pound44000 of the proposed expenditure would be
eligible for grant assistance and a grant of pound13000 was approved for the venture
T 1e pro1ect report prepared for the LEADER Board meeting did not include consideration of the possibility lhat the pro1ect might proceed without a grant In that regard the following faclors would have been relevant
bull the premises was located 1n the centre of a busy growing town bull the premises was owned by the promoter bull the owner was self-employed and operated a consultancy service from home bull based on 35 occupancy net cash now in lhe first year was forecast at pound8000 bull if no grant had been paid and the funds had been borrowed instead the estimated
surplus for the year would have been reduced by an increased interest charge of up to pound1300 which would not have substantially changed the potential Viability of
the business venture
426 Posible Vtys of 111i11i1111sing dlHhveigh1 in assisted projects include
bull Targeting financial abullsistancc on projects where the costs of entry to the business arc high relative to the resources available to the promoter So111e pro111nltIS have ve111 li1ni1cd financial resources for fxa111ple 1he vast
n1Jjori1r of Ptrtntrship l lien1s ~ire long-tenn unc1nploycd It is Vorth noting
thtt evtn Vhlt 1dequa1e privite resoune- are lmiddotaiL1hle it 1nty bt difficult
for so1ne Jlt)cal f)evelop1nent bodit~ given their job creation target~ 10 1urn
clumiddotll involve1nent in othlmiddotrvisl sound projects Indeed 1he viev Vts
tprcssed hy 0111e of thosL in1ervitmiddotvecl in the courst of the study 1h~ll fi11111cial
Sllppo11 for CJigihJt projects is often vieVCd hy prOtllltllers ~IS an cntiJe1ll(fl( and
this can 111akl it difficult for Loctl l)tvLlopn1en( ])(xlies to nfusc financial
1ssist1nce (() deathve1gh1 rru1ect
37
(JC( )Ct(()JHUJl 11itiati1es
bull Providing financial assistance by means of repayable grants loans or equity mthcr than non-repayable cash grants middotrhis should discourige reli1ncc on public funds by those entrepreneurs vho
do not need ii Vhiltgt ensuring that entrepnmiddotnctllS vho do need public finance
can alail of it Tltlte m1cl-tcrm evtluil1on of 011UIU) recommenclecl the
incre1sed llSC of loans and l(jUity rlttther thtfl grtf)i reron 1ly tile lndUSll)
Evtlua1ion Uni ncon11ncndccl thll all financial 1ssi-11nce provided uncler 1he
1egis of lEADEH ancl CEils should require 1 fm1neid return From earlv 1998
CfB- ind Pa11nerships hive been tmiddotn1pOVlrld by 1hc EU Con1rnis inn to issisl
projects hy 111c1ns of equity ind rcfuncLtblc 1icl In 199~ tlrnost ~05111 of CEB
assist1ncc (4oo) v1s provided in 1hc fonn of equity 111d refundthle ~1id
Entcrprisc middotrrack ind E1nploy111en1 intend 1h11 refundable forins of 1ssis1ance
Vil] he deployed incrc1nentdly 111 future Al)11 hJs tgllld vi1h P1r1ncrships
tllt clien1- should Vhtre prtctic~ilgtle nceiVl nmiddotfundable 1itl r11hcr th~111 grints
In 1ccurcl111ce wt1h EU regul1llons lEADEH groups ire precluded from
providing lotns or equity to enterprises
427 recent study reported thi1~
le ackn()toleclgc that n1icru e11te17Jrises 111a_v face capital constraints especialfr in the stcut uJdegfJhase but strongf)i s11_rges11hat the n1us1 ejecliue
uov Ju lf(lltress his fJOssible middotn1arkct _(ailunmiddot is Jbrough rJals an( eq1tif)
rather tba11 microran aicl 1Jt~~- uo11c 111inin1ise tbe r1~k ojmiddot creating a cleJenclcnl~) c11111 remiddot
428 It is clear [hll here is cope for n1uch greater use of rep1y~il)[c grin[S loans
ind equi1y 10 111inin1isl dtachveiglil incI such ustmiddot has 1hc 1ddccl 1dv1nt1ge 1h11
1ssistince c1n he providlcl n1ore econon1ic1lly 1 funds c1n bl recycled to 1ssis1
n1ore thtn one project Huvcvcr so111c incre~1se in ~1dn1ini-gttr11ion cos1s could be
expcc1ecl
429 An extre1ne fonn of ckichveiglH irises Vhtn public fin1nciil support is
supplied 10 1 project vhirh as cst1hlishecl and is oreruing in [he Jbsencc nf this
suppon CtSl Siucly 6 involving 1hc ArlJ Allovtnce Enterprise Schlllle illus1r1tes thi
11a11aH11t of 11ficro 111(tpn-lt SupjXJl1 Ao-o a11011til a11d lcx(I Jrbull1tmiddotlup111c1u 11~cmiddot11C11gtmiddot iu1111y tia11r1i(Jll 11it A11~1til CJlt-lt)
rJ1irJ1Ui lnnmiddott111cbull11f Jn-ru1fi(middoti f(lr tbe wnod 20(J-2(XX) Faz Ccrllfd lf t1I c()10111ic (JUI S(Jcial Nc_1middott1rr_h 11_f1ltrlt I-Ion)) JJlt-J
Sltmiddotj~F1111lo1ld o 1u he lh11g-T1middotr111 Ui1tmiddot111plo1middotetl- 1111 10i1atio11 of lbltmiddot Artbulla Alllt1flft 110middot 11tlJHi1e ScJ1111cbull 1HC Co1111raJ11middot 19lt)7
middotmiddot
38
Ojgteraliollal JJicie11lt_~1middot
ase Study 6
Funding the startup of an existing business
A fisherman was 1n receipt of Unemployment Assistance (UA) from the Department of
SJcial Community and Family Affairs (DSCFA) from 1979 to 1999 In September 1998 hi applied for support under the Area Allowance Enterpnse Scheme (AAES)
Uoder the terms of the scheme an applicant must be unemployed for at least a year
and this eligibility must be confirmed in writing on the application form by DSCFA The Praquortnership can subsequently approve the application and may provide minor financial support 1n addition to the main financial benefits provided by DSCFA 1e the receipt of full unemployment payments for a year and on a reducing scale for a further three years plus retention of secondary benefits
Abullcording to the application form the applicant had received a bank loan of pound18000 for the purchase of a boat with repayments commencing on 30 August 1998 In addition hf was the owner of fishing nets to a value of pound6000
Tt1e application form was certified by DSCFA 1n January 1999 to the effect that the applicant was eligible for AAES The certification did not explain
bull how the applicant managed to purchase a boat while on UA bull how he persuaded the bank to provide a loan or pound18000 bull how he was financing the business from August 1998 to January 1999 in particular
the boat repayments and insurance amounting to pound565 per month
Tt1e report prepared for the Partnership Board meeting stated that the applicant had with the knowledge of DSCFA been engaged 1n the fishing industry for the previous ten years on a part-time basis The Board approved the application
mcFA has made the following observations on this case
bull Following an investigation in 1988 the UA payment was terminated but reinstated under appeal with an assessment of net income at pound1250 from fishing per year The case was reviewed 1n 1993 and the net income per year was increased to pound1400 A further review was conducted in September 1998 (the month atter the boat was purchased) and the assessment of net income did not increase
bull It is very difficult to establish an accurate income for such fishermen as fish can be sold to tourists and restaurants for cash
bull The Department did not consider 1t necessary to check with the bank as to what if any security was provided for the loan
bull While failures occur in the scheme they do not cost the Department any more than if the client continued on UA
A[1M has pointed out that fishing comprises a very small proportion of AAES pa1ic1pants supported by Partnerships A recent review of Partnership business su1iports reported that fishing and Bed and Breakfast businesses do not provide a viable full-time 1ob and Area Allowance 1s not an appropriate support payment It also recommended that clearer guidelines should be issued regarding eligib1l1ty
Soure Partnership Business Supports and the Area Allowance Scheme Insights No 8 ADM 1999
J9
locaf f)ltueloJn1e11t fl1itiati1es
Case Study 7
Potential displacement situation
A business proposal was made to a CEB 1n 1998 The promoler wished to provide a food delivery service to factories on industrial estates ie sandwiches baps snacks elc The promoter recognised that there were several competitors Unlike the
competitors he proposed to provide the service via three refrigerated vending machines lhat would be reslocked regularly He applied for and was approved a capital grant of pound5500 by the CEB in December 1998
The project report prepared for lhe Board meeting dealt with the possibility of displacement by noling that lhe promoters service would be provided in a manner different from his compet11ors However the question arises if the project is successful how will its sales be achieved unless by the diversion of the expenditure of faclory employees from one service provider to another
Displacement
430 middotrhc only antlysis of clispL1ce1ncnt vas in respccl uf 11lS 1nd this shl)Vcd a
wide rmge of estimils Using a methodology devised bv Breen and Halpin the
consul11nts esti1111recl that 64oo of the business carried out by 1ES panicipants Vas
diver1cd fron1 other Irish fin11s and Iiiat ~i l1X1 of en1plny1llLl1I created in
thescentcrpriscs v1s at the expense of other enterprises middot1l1e consultants felt thtt the
Breen 111cl 1-ldpin methodology had limitations ancl tlut their estinutes of
clisplicc1nent Vere too high lJsing different 1ssu1nptions incl 1 different
mthodology they estim11ecl that 19 of employment created in AAES enterprises
Vts displacLcl fro1n other cn1erpriscs
431 Possible vays of n1ini111ising clispl1cen1ent include
bull CounsLlting pro1notcrs tovncb exports or cloincstic sectors supplied prltdom1n1111lv l)y import
bull ithholding 1ssis1ance fron1 projec1s in1encling 10 supply goods and stgtrviccs to the clon1es1ic 1111rke1 vhich are alrc1cly supplied by other busineSSlS
bull Providing financial tssisttnce by n1eans of rep1yibllt grants lo1ns ind cqui1y rathtr rhin non-repayable ct~h gr1nts
432 All LEADEH groups Partnerships and CEils are insrruned not to suppon
projects Vhich voulcl displace business fro1n other enterprises
433 CEl3s were advised early in 1999 10 focus heir efforts on thlt development of
n1anuf1cturing incl in1ern1tional services projects vhich viii have the pltgttential 10
clevclop in10 export-oriented finns hile not neglecting other eligible rrojects
(vi1ble non-clcaclveight non-displacc1nen1) outside these sec1ors Jgtirtnersl1ips have
40
()JCltflional Jffrienc)
agmiddoteed tht financid support should not be supplied to businsses 111 plentiful
supply such as hackneys couriers builcling contr1cpoundors Ix-cl and hre1kLi~t
operators vm sales and hairdrclaquors LEADER groups are advised to d11ect the11
Stlj)p(H1S tOvards innltgtva1ive pnijeLt~
4i4 There arc d1ffcrcmiddotnt views among Local Development bodies regarding what is
inmiddotoived in rtcognising diplacetntnt middotrhus -cHne Lltic~11 J)evelopn1en1 bodi1s
co1sider thtl if lhe existing co111peeitors to a project are located outside their county
or evtn their loc~1lity 1hen clisplacen1cn1 is not 1n issue
4s The 1111cl-1cnn reviews of LEADEH and OPLUHD made linlc reference to
displlcemcnt Howevmiddotcr the LEADEH mid-term review contended that displJcemcnt
vculd he 111ini111ised if LEAl)ER groups focused their f1nincial 1ssistance on
111rovative proiects Agnrnlture and Food intend that the final evalu111on of LEADEH
11 Viii includ ltSli111a1ion of tltmiddotachveigh1 and clispl1cen1ent effect
Be11e_ficit1 Dis1U1ce111e11t
436 II rhere are ~1ny circu111st~1nces in vhich ltlispl1ce111ent can be ignored thev
shltnild be identified For exunple it 111ay be possible to sustain the c~1se on sociJI
jus1 ice or equity grounds rhu specific groups such JS 1he lung-1ern1 t1nt111ployed
shcbullttld receivlt posi1ivlt cliscri111in~n1on elifJI at the cxfxnse ojotherjoh see~ctYi tOi1
111 lrgucd 1h1t onlt of the obwctives of Partnerships is to 1mprovmiddot( the potcnlld of
the long-tcnn unc111ployccl ind 1he socially ltXcludccl 10 gain cn1ploy111ltnl in lhlt
eccbullno1ny generally ind specifically 1n poundheir Ovn areas_ middotrhc inslrtion of particular
dis1dvant3ged groups into e111ploy1ncnt or a husine~s viii often have thL effec1 of
dis)Jcing a non-clis~1dvantaged person fron1 that 1oh oppo11unity Hcnvcver the
social giin makes the displJce111ent worthwhile
437 Given that CEBs cover the emire populallon incl that Partnlrships and
LEd)EH groups cover 540o and 6Joo respectively the exacpound circun1s11ncltS Vhen
clisplacemem 111ight be permincd for any Local Devdopmelll body should be
cluificd by the relevant Dep1rtmenis
(rnui11g (lUJ Sharing ()I r F111plr1y111e11t S1raUt_r (JfX 011 the lt1bltgt11r _bulllfariltf tgtlt1uu11cmiddotn1 of1111erpnmiddotc_ 7huC and 1111Joy111e11r Jn 19ltXgt
41
5 Assessment of Impact
51 Xhik the 1nc1sun111cnt of the 1chieven1ent of cconon1y 1nd efficiency is
ilnportan1 in the n1an1ge1nenl of the initiatives establishing their in1pact is of even
grci1er 11npnrtance J111pic1 assessn1enl is concerntd Vilh est1blishing the e-1cn1 10
which the local devdoprnent oJ1cc1Jns ire achievecl 1110 the wider contribution of
the initiatives 10 local cconon1ic and socitl developn1ent 11 is desirable thtt
appropri1te sys1tn1s to evaulle 1he 1chicve111ents of the iniliHives in n lttion co their
desired 11np1cts should IJt in place
52 Ille cllvcloprnent nf syste1ns to detennine 1he i1np1ct of the initiitivcs is not
easy middotrhlt clivlr~i1y of Jnc~il dcvelupn1ent objecrive~ n1e1ns thit it is unlikely thH 1ny
one 1ssessn1cn1 niethocl Otild he sufficient So1ne in1p1cts like cn1ploy1nent
crltJtiun can lx quintified Jnd 1chieven1ent can be n1unitorecl chrough che 111alysis
of nJev1n1 perfonnanct indic11ors_ Othcrs like rlttising the level of econo111ic activity
ctn be 1ssessecl 1hrough 1he usc of ccono111ic 1noclels using surroga1e 111e1sures of
irnpacl 1VL1ny of the socitl objeclives of 1he inili11ive are not susceptible to
n1e1sure1ne111 at di incl till i1111xu1 achieved Jre best detenninccl through surveys
of chtngts in local condilions a1 inclividu1I and con1nnir1i1y levels
S3 lhi ch1p1er consiclt~rs 1ppro1chcs co che 1sscss111en1 of i1npact under the
folJoving J1e1dings
Issues Subject
Quantitative assessments Baseline analysis bull bull Use of macroeconomic data
Qualitative assessments Assessing social impacts bull Case studies and international studies bull
Quantitative Assessments
54 lnfonnition on job creacion and the progression of long-tenn une1nployecl
persons 10 fuJI lirlle VOrk 1re rerorted for i[J these ypes Of 1gtltKJies (see middotr1ble 41
ind Append A) Vhile the figures tint hive been reported to end-1998 under
011URI) 1re well 1he1d of the tirgcts thit were set it is difficult to interpret these
resuhs in hrn1s of i111picl in lhe ibsence of bascline cl1t1
Baseline Analysis
55 B1selinc analysis would estiblish the performance of a representative group
of enterprises con1n1uni1y groups incl individu~1ls 1hat did not receive 1ssis11nce
under 1hc initiatives middotrhe rcrfonnancc of 1ssis1ecl entities incl individuils al counry
42
Assess1ne111 lt~ 111JOCI
or r111ional levtgtI could then he co1nparcd Vilh the 1xmiddotrfonnancl of middotn1ttchedmiddot nonshy
tssi ~1ed cnlitiii selected fro1n the repre~entltil group Si1nil1rly tile pcrlltlrn11ncl
of en1i1ies recltiving ditlenmiddotnt kinJ of ~1ssistance could also he antlysed to cletenninc
rel1 live ilnpac1
56 Baseline analysi~ can he pcrfonnld using 1nicroecono111ic d111 (da1a 1bou1
spcltific enterprises) or n1acrotcnnon1ic clat1 (1ggrLg11t~d dat1)_ middotrhc cl1t1 collection
proicduns -11 loc1l level hJve not heimiddotn 1dequatt to suppo11 this kind of ltinalysis
using 1nicrocconon1ic data 1ccordingly analysis against a baseline of non-1ssis1cd
cnlt-rprises co111n1unity groups ind individu1J- cHHlO( hl carried out
I Case Study on Unemployment using Macroeconomic Data
i 5 7 stuclv of the irnpact uf 011l RD on unemplovment ing census clata
(111a- rltgttgtcono111ic data) has hlttll c1rrild out under tile ~1egis of the ()PlUH)
P1oriloring ConHniuec So1nc rcsuhs of the study 1re su11H11arised in Cae Study H
58 middotrtiis finding fro111 ltase S1udy 8 dltgtcs nor nectgtssarily 111ean 11111 P~trtnerships trl
les effective in assisting une111ployed peorle 10 find vork 1s unc111ploycd ptorlt~
in P~ntncrship 1rc1s 111ay he 111on di_-adv~1nt1ged and find ii lllOll dillicull to 1ccess
e111(oy1ncn1 In addition 1he ralt of entry to une1nploy111lnt in Partnership 1reas
1nay he different frorn non-Jgt1r1nershir 1n~~1s 11lt)vevcr the data is inconclusive
I ~1hont tile level of ttlcclivcness of P~111nlr~liips in addressing Ltr1e111rloyn1cnL middotrhe
case s1udy highlights the co111plexity of in1pac1 analysis but also illustrates ils
i irnpbullgtrltnce in le~1cling lo a grlmiddotHer uncllrst1nd1ng of the resulls of progr~11n11H
aCllily More complex ltbta rnodels of the labour nurket at local level woulcl be
nccclecl for a svs1e111~11ic revicv of 1hc elTcctivenesi of Pannerships in tickling longshy
I 1ern~ llllt~n1plon1ent
59 It is of inlertst 10 e-an1inc the trends in the duration of uncn1ployn1ent in
I recent years imiddot~1hle 51 ihOVS thc nun1hers une111plnyecl ylmiddot1r on yctr in ont year
banltls up to 1l1nc years fron1 1994-1999 and the 11ne1nplcgtyn1ent retentugtn r1tcsmiddot
fro1r vtmiddotar to year i_e_ lhe proportion of those 11ne111ployed ho nLmiddot still unen1ploytCI I
one year li1er
I510 middotr1hle 51 shov- 1h1t signific1nt i111provlrnlnts in une111ploy111cnt rerintion
ralc~ htVl occurrLd in recent yetrs particularly for long-ten11 UllLlllploy1nen1 Strong
ecoron1ic grovth in 1lie period covered vould li1ve beltIl of prinH in1ponance in
1he reduction 111 long-1tmiddotrn1 l1ne111ploy111ent ihiJc the long-lerrn une1nployed ire thl
1111in rarge1 group for Partnerships thlse areas are not sep1raccly distinguished 1n
lhe analysis OutlOVS ro schen1es such 1s Co111111u11ity Fn1ployn1cnt could also he I
llllf)()flilll
43
olta JeueloJn1e111 11itioti1cs
Case study 8
Analysis of the impact of OPLURD on long-term unemployment using macrodata
A key part of the analysis was a comparison between the change in unemployment in Partnership areas from 1991-1996 with the corresponding change in non-Partnership
areas The comparison was based on the Census of Population for 1991and1996 The logic behind the comparison was that disadvantaged areas are at risk of falling behind
the general level of economic development unless there is a targeted intervention to ensure that the rising tide of economic growth flows into those areas Thus if the
decline m unemployment in Partnership areas is similar to that in Ireland as a whole
then at least the gap between affluent and poor areas has not widened and Partnerships may have contributed to some extent to this outcome
The consultants measured changes 1n the unemployment rate in two ways (i) by the percentage point (or absolute) change (ii) by the proportionate (or relative to 1991) change
They used a simple example to illustrate the difference between the two measures Assume that Area A has 90 unemployment rate and Area B has 20 unemployment
rate If the unemployment rate declines by 10 percentage points in both areas (the
same absolute change in the rate) the relative rate is quite different since Area A has declined by only 11 (relative to its starting rate) whereas Area B has deemed by 50
(relative to 1s starting rate) Both rates should be used together
The key data was summarised as follows
Unemployment rate
Area 1991 1996 Absolute Percent Percent Change initial rate Points Change Relative to Initial
Ireland 169 14 8 -21dego
Ratebull
-126
Partne1ship areas 256 230 -26 -100 (PESP only)
Non-Partnership 139 119 -20 -141 areas
Note 8 Change in unerriployment rate divided by the initial unemployment rate
The consultants commented that the unemployment rate in PESP Partnership areas
fell by a slightly greater absolute amount than either Ireland or non-Partnership areas but in relative terms they did worse - essentially because they had higher unemployment rates to begin with in 1991
Sourco A Report on the Impact of the Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development on Long- Term Unemployment Goodbody Economic Consultants et el October 1999
44
Assessnu11t q J11pact
Table 51 Duration of unemployment and retention rates 1994-1999
Ye
19 19 19 19 19 19
ar
94 95 96 97 98 99
Less than one year Number
151032 144283 146776 132398 130780 110446
--shy1-2 years 2-3 years 3+ years
Number Retention Number Retention
rate rate
Number
43697 39748 263 40875 283 38361 261 31719 240 28 194 216
27489 64154 26293 602 67955 25852 650 69667 24227 593 61870 18914 493 54448 14496 457 44940
NotB Retenrion rates are calculated as follows_ All of those who wero unemployed for 1-2 years in 1995 (39 748) wcro unernployed for less than one year in 1994 (151032) thus the unemployment retention rate is 263 (39 748+151032) CSO Live Register data
i Case Study on Business Formation using Macroeconomic Data
I 511 tucly of s11111l business forn1ation over ti111e 111ight be usecl to consider issues
middot such as lhe i111pact of lhl initi~Himiddotes on thtbull rice of n1anufacturing st1nups his i~
considered in Case Srudy 9
51~ C~rtater underst1nding is requirtcl of the n1ix of variables vhich n1ay be
responihle for the trends appann( in the data In a situ11ion vhere an unexpected 1 result is obt1inLmiddotd fron1 tile analysi~ C1s in Case Study 9) 11 Otild lgtt necessary to
refirc the analysit using 1111croecono111ic dala un1il the reasons for the trends
observed 1re clarified and the dilTcren1 contribution~ of lhe initiatives to sn1all 1
enterprise fonn~uion ere better understood
513 In order to use 111icrtgteconon1ic cLua 10 assess the in1p1ct of 1ht ini1ia1ivcs on1 n1anufacturing and intern~llional StTviccs it vould be necessJI) to integrate locil
clcvdopment suppo11 dlla from all the mitia11ves -Uh rhe Forfis and Enterprise
middotrr1de and E1nploy1ncn1 Bu~iness InforntHion Sygtt(Jll (BIS) Enterprise lrlttcle incl
Fmrlovment 1ntcncls to proceed with the 1nrcmiddotgra1ion of CEil data with the BIS (See
paragraphgt 2 2i-228) i 514 Enrerprise Tracie ancl Employment h1s commissioned a review 10 take place
in 11middote currenl year on the in1p1ct of CEUs vith particular reference 10 thlt ratlt of 1
bu~i1es~ fonnacion tnd 1he su~tlinability of the johs cre~Htmiddotcl
45
lucal JelJelo111unl l11i1ia11cs
Case Study 9
Use of macroeconomic data on business formation
In 1993 Enterprise Ireland stopped assisting manufacturing and international services firms with less than ten employees This role was transferred to CEBs The trend in the number of Irish-owned startups in manufacturing from 1987 to 1996 has been studied in an effort to detect the impact of economic growth on the rate of startups It might equally be used as a starting point to consider the impact of CEBs in this role
Startups in Irish-owned manufacturing 1987 to 1996bull
600
500
bullOO
300
200
100
0 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Year
The graph shows that the very rapid economic growth from 1993 (which period includes the emergence of the initiatives) did not result in an increased rate of manufacturing startups According to the quoted study The start-up performance 1s surprising The improvement m the economy over the years has not been accompanied by a corresponding growth in the number of manufacturing startupsmiddot
Note a Case study based on ~startups and Closures in Indigenous Manufactunmiddotng an Analysis of the CensCJS of Industrial Production 1986-1995 Irish Banking Review Autumn 1998 Anthony Foley and Teresa Hogan
Source Data Census of lndustna Production CSO
Qualitative Assessments
Assessing Social Impacts
515 Some irnpo11rn1 rnrcro clilt wts cs1rl3lrshecl by ADM reltting 10 middotc1ep1wa1ion
111clic11ors for l1nnership areas Bised on the 1991 Clnsus of Populttion ADM
co1npilecl indic1rors of cleprivuion for all Pannershlp areas domiddotn to l)istrict
Elcctor1l l)ivisiltgtn levc1 l)cprivJriun 1n1p- tre 1lso procluced middotrhe clcprivltlCion
indicators 1nclucled
46
bull educationtl a1tainn1en1
bull ltgtCcu1x11ional profile
bull lltxmiddotil labour n1arket characteris1ics
bull housing
FrOill 1hcse indicators a con1pusite deprivaiion index value Vas con1p11tcd for each
lartnersl11p area for 1991
516 Tlrrs exercr lras rectgtnilv bcrn repeated from tire results of the 1996 Census of lo1n1llli(gtn Fngtnl ~tn in1pac1 assess111en1 ptrspcctivtmiddot relilt1nce ltgtn these indicators
voulcl involve ~0111e li111itllions_ For lt1n1ple chc Census year- do not coincide Vith
Partnership 111ilcstones 111igruion can con1plicatc 1nalysis and [he d111 is not
definitive regltncling c1usality~~
51 ()espile these lin1ilalions analysis of the indicators of dtprivt1ion should
probullicle valuable inforn1ation rcg1rdi11g changes in 1pects of clt~pfiv1tion in different
Partnershq1 anas and should ilso Ltcilitatc con1p1rion ovtr 1i111e Vith nun
la11nersl11p areas lhe ltlmiddotailtbility of this infonnltllion shot1ld ftcilirarc furthCr
ittt111pts to consider the social in1p1c1s of tht~ initlHives
Case Studies and International Studies
5tf Whrle much hrs been wrr11en on tire rctrvrtres of Local Development bodies
chc tlcnt of 111atcrial spccifictlly covering the evtl1111ion of their i1np1c1 is very
li111i1ecl Several Partnerships have c1rried otH case srudil~middotM) to highlight hov issues
wen being trckled by different Partnerships ancl to promote best practice Case studies are undcrv1y tlso in n1lt1ny LLl)FH groups No case studies havtmiddot lgteen u ed
so L1r in tlic cnlcrprisc ind ioh crc1tion ~1rea for CEB ac1ivi1ies
519 A for111J E11ropean s1ucly v1s unck-rtiken of he rnle of p1nnerships in
proriuting sociil cohesion in ten fmiddot1t1nhcr Srarl~ of the EU co111prising ten nniond
rtpcrts (including lrel1ncl) and 1 synli1esis European rt~portjlbull middotrht study and repo11s
j middotltre bt-gtlltl prin1arily on rh1rty ctst tuclic (rhree fro111 etch middotten1ber St~lle) Vhich
looked 11 issues of reprtstnlalion ncgoliHion and alliance lgtuilcling in tile
devElop111ent of strategies and 1c1ion plans ind the vorking 111ethocls skills incl
I reso-_1rces aprlied lgty p~111nershirs
()her 11111101io11s arc rexnccl i11 fJrxr coptmiddot fJrgtCir i~ edttimiddotd l~r I) Pn11gle tf of Ook Tree )rt--
)11J111_ -~)9
_rKmiddottd 1art11c1ih1p~ middotI 5111n--11 511HIL1Y fur Sc)(middotial Cubl~011lt 11 Ccddcbull OJ1tc ( QOua 11h1lta1J11_- fvr w F11n1J1CJ11ltiJ111111111111umiddots1111d -111middotn1wt111 h1111ulrlf1011for1ie lm1ro1(mlW of itll~L tntl lliirk111~ Co11tl11io11s 19ltJ-
47
ocal Jevelop111e11t lnilit1tite_
520 1ihilc the rtpon included n1iny individual references to isol11cd cxirnpks of
1hc 1tll1x1c1 of panncrships Clllpincd rcstarch into 1he effecliveness of 1xnmerships
Vts not Vithin the score of the study middotrhcrc VIS also no 1ue1npt to con1p1re the
perfor1111nce of p1nncrsl1i1)s it nationil l(vel
521 The 1bsencc of specific tllaterial on the cvalL1a1ion of effectiveness of locd
clevelop111en1 bodies is panly clL1e 10 a lick of come~tuil clata 11 local level 10
L1cilita1e in~dysis A pri1n1ry ain1 of the bodies is to L1cilit1te thl locil achievtinent
of resuh~ incl to ltver1gc 1hc 1c1ivitics of local groups Assess1ncnt of effectiveness
of this kind of 1c1ivHy woulcl require that the role played by the lxxlies could he
isollltcl fruin ill oiher contribuiory f1ctors middot1middothis is difficult middotrtiere is 1 cletr need for
more data collernon llld 1hc clcvdop111ent of soual poltl) models which would
f1cili111e bcuer 1ns1gh1 by policy 1111kcrs imo the impact of the arnvities of local
clevdopment boclits
48
Jr
0 Ji~ )~ l ( imiddot
Appendices
~ gt
- _ middot-
---middotmiddot middot--shy ~--y- -~ -middot bull bull - bull __~
middot
middot
_ _~ -- middot ~
Appendix A Annual Cost and Outputs of Individual County Enterprise Boards Partnerships and LEADER Groups 1995-1997
(Jkistd on du1 ~upplicd by Dcp111111ents and ADJ1 Ltd Luc in 1998)
I
Summary of Expenditure on Local Development Programmes (1995-1997) Appendix A
1995 1996
pound000 of total expenditure
pound000 of total expenditure
CEBs
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
Total Expenditure
13485
1421
4895
19801
68dego
7dego
25
100
13503
3879
4284
21666
62
18dego
20
100
LEADER (1)
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
Total Expenditure
23
887
820
1730
2dego 51dego
47dego
100
1529
2350
1684
5563
28
42dego
30dego
100
PartnershipsCommunity Groups
and National Organisations (2)
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
I
-3 025
1532
66
34dego
-5161
5164
-SOoo
50
Total Expenditure 4557 100 10325 100
Aggregate expenditure figures shown in this table have been superseded by more up to date figures shown in Table 21 (1) Local Development groups accounted for 96 of LEADER expenditure in 1995 - 1997 and detailed analysis focused on lhis (2) Partnerships accounted for 84 of total expenditure for 1996 - 1997 and detailed analysis focused on this
1997
pound000
12884
5414
4437
22735
6226
3536
2015
11778
15579
7398
22977
0o of total expenditure
57dego 24dego
19dego
100
53
30
17dego
100
-68oo 32
100
County Enterprise Boards Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1995 Appendix A11
County Enterprise Board Administration
Expenditure pound000
Total Expenditure
pound000 Administration as 0o of
Total Expenditure
Grant Aid as 0o of
Total Expenditure
Non~rant Outputs as
of Total Expenditure
Tipperary South Riding 150 274 55dego 381 7oo
Corllt North 142 315 45dego 55dego Ooo Monaghan 143 375 38oo 621 QOo
Tipperary North County 122 353 35 57dego 8dego Meath 128 373 34oo 59oo 7dego
Louth 135 410 33dego 56dego 11 Ofo
Kildare 157 476 33 48 19dego Kerry 228 747 J 1Ofo 62 7 Limerick City 162 561 29dego 64oo 71
West Cork 142 498 29dego 65dego 6dego
Limerick County 209 714 29dego 63 Soo Westmeath 103 358 29dego 71dego Ooo Longford 95 335 28dego 68dego 4oo
Clare 169 635 27dego 68dego Soo Waterford County 106 396 27oo 73dego Ooo Cork City 150 543 27oo 671 6 Doneaal 124 460 27dego 68dego 5dego Fingal (Oubhn) 152 598 26dego 63dego 11
Mayo 155 651 24 72oo 4dego Waterford City 134 559 24dego 63 13dego Wicklow 127 558 23oo 70 7dego Ca now 149 654 23dego 72 5 South Corllt 187 844 22dego 71dego 7 Leitrim 147 671 22dego 67 11dego Cavan 122 564 22dego 65dego 3dego Laois 121 595 21dego 73 6dego South Dublin 143 670 21 70deg4 9dego Offaly 126 600 21deg4 63dego 16dego Dublin City 111 551 20deg4 67oo 13 Sligo 147 728 20deg4 73dego 7 Roscommon 111 597 19deg4 77 4dego Wexford 144 777 19dego 75deg4 6oo Kilkenny 1()0 637 16oo 84dego OOo
Galway County and City 140 950 15 83 2 Oun Laoghaire - Rathdown 82 743 110o 78oo 11 Oo
Miscellaneous (1) 30 30 Ooo QOo OOo
Total 4895 19801 25 68 7
(1) Refers to set up costs incurred on behatf of au Boards
County Enterprise Boards - Administration Costs as a Percmiddotentage of Total Expendifure --f996 Appendix A12
I _ - vuony c11u1tUllgttl ouaru
I Administration
I Total Expenditure Administration as 0o of Grant Aid as 0o of Non-grant Outputs as
Expenditure pound000 pound000 Total Expenditure Total Expenditure 0 0 of Total Expenditure
Cork North 119 417 29~o 63degshy 8degc -middot
113 28dego 56dego 16degoTipperarv North _counlv 404 -shy -Sliqo 118 457 26dego 50dego 24dego--Mealh 136 532 25~~ 53dego 22dego Laois 151 612 25dego I 59eo 16dego
Westmeath 120 500 24dego 55oo 21dego
Cork City 124 533 23dego 55dego 22oo Roscomn1on 120 536 22dego 61dego 17dego
Louth 133 620 21 Oo 57dego 22dego-Cavan 128 599 21dego 67degc 12dego
Clare 123 581 21Co 61dego 18dego
South Dublin 147 705 21 oo 56 23dego
Dublin City 139 668 21dego 49dego 30deg~
Kildare 128 625 20degh 41 lo 39o-shyTipperary South Riding 108 530 201 68dego 12oo
-Mavo 159 784 20dego 70oo 10dego
Carlow 117 582 20dego 67dego 13oo
West Cork 127 633 20dego 59dego 21
Longford 114 579 20dego 71dego 9dego -
Kerry 114 584 20oo 68deg~ 12oA
South Cork 125 645 19dego 58dego 23dego Limerick Cily 132 683 19oo 64oo 17dego
-Galway 122 631 190~ 69~o 12dego-Kilkenny 120 636 19dego 67dego 14dego
Offaly 117 628 19dego 62dego 19dego
Waterford County 105 563 19 66dego 15dego
Leitrim 121 665 18oo 64 18dego middot-
Oun Laoghairc bull Rathdown 116 648 18dego 57dego 25dego-
Fingal (Dublin) 117 656 18dego 56degc 26deg~ -Wexford 117 708 17oo 68dego 15dego
Wicklow 122 739 16 71 13dego
Donegal 119 757 16dego 65dego 19dego
Limerick County 120 810 15degc 68dego 17dego
Waterford City 118 800 15dego 75dego 10dego--Monaghan 75 616 12 74dego 14degc
Total 4284 21666 2011o 62dego I 18dego I
County Enterprise Boards Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A13
County Enterprise Board Administration Total Expenditure Administration as 0A of Grant Aid as 0o of Non-grant Outputs as
Expenditure pound000 pound000 Total Expenditure Total Expenditure deglo of Total Expenditure
Cork North 106 344 31dego 50dego 19dego
Clare 172 631 27dego 46dego 27oo---shyTieperary North County 116 448 26dego 38 36dego Waterford County 126 505 25dego 54dego 21dego Longford 121 498 24dego 60oo 16dego Wexford 156 647 24dego 56oo 20dego Wicklow 184 796 23dego 57dego 20dego Limerick Cilv 141 619 23oo 51dego 26dego
Mealh 170 751 22oo 52dego 26dego Offaly 113 505 22dego 53dego 25dego Kilkenny 121 545 22dego 48dego 30oo Donegal 94 428 22dego 42dego 35co
Leilrim 139 640 22dego 54dego 24dego------shy -Monaghan 118 556 21dego 57oo 22dego
Waterford City 164 788 21dego 60dego 19dego
Limenck County 147 708 21degk 53dego 26deg1 Louth 161 787 20dego 50dego 30dego
Mayo 122 602 20oo 53dego 27dego
Sligo 99 496 20dego 51 Ofo 29dego Tipperary South R1d1ng 120 619 19eo 60dego 21dego
Carlow 113 593 19dego 65dego 16dego Cork City 127 672 19dego 59 22dego
Weslm~ath 119 637 19dego 60dego 21dego South Cork 131 704 19dego 58dego 23dego
Laois 113 615 18dego 55dego 27 --Kildare 136 761 18 56dego 26dego Cavan 127 740 17dego 63dego 20 West Cork 87 513 17dego 57dego 26dego South Dublin 165 981 17dego 64dego 19dego Dun Laoghaire middot Rathdown 102 621 17dego 48dego 35dego Kerry 94 580 16dego 66 18dego
Roscommon 75 474 16dego 61 23dego Galway 110 835 13 64 23oo Fingal (Dublin) 117 902 13dego 62dego 25dego Dublin City 130 1 195 11 69 20
Total 4436 22735 19dego 57dego 24dego
---
I
LEADER A~minist_ration ~osts -~~ a Percentage of Total Expenditure -_ 1_995 __ Appendix A1 4
I Local Development Group
I
Laois Leader Rural Development Co Lid Cavan-Monaghan Rural Oevelopn1ent Co~rat1ve Soc~ely Ltd
Barrow-Norc-Suir Rural Developmentmiddot 62 81 771 QOo 23dego
Wicklow Rural Partnership Lid bull 26 38 70dego -I QOo 30dego
Westmeath Community Development Ltd
Longford Community Resources Lid -middot
-
8 11
-11 18
70degc
65
bull Oh
QOo
23dego
35dego middotmiddotshy
Mid-South Rural Roscommon Development Assoc1alion Ltd 9 14 63dego QOo 37dego
Rural Resource Development Lid bull 80 129 62degc Ooe 38dego
Meath Con1mumty Partnershrp Co Ltd
Meithcal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo
3
68
5 117
- 60dego
58dego
4dego
OOo
35eo
42dego
South West Mayo Development Co Galway Rural Development Co
54
8
94 middot-middotmiddot
15 58dego
56dego
1Oe
00o
41Co
44
Arigna Catchment Area Community Co 11 23 48dego 4dego 48
Western Rural Development Co Lld bull 28 58 48dego 00o 52oo
Offaly LEADER If Co Lid -middotmiddot
3 6 48~J QOo 52
IRD Duhallow Ltd bull -
Ballyhoura Development Ltd 60 74
131 163
46dego
45dego
OOo middotshy
OOo
54
55
West Limerick Resources Ltd
South Kerry Partnership Ltd bull
Waterford Development Partnership Lid
Tuatha Ch1arra1 Ltd
Word - Wexford Organisation for Rural Development
West Cork LEADER Group bull
Donegal Local Development Co Lid
-
10
29
34
6
51
57
8
- 23 66 76 14
125
160
22
44dego
44dego
44dego
42gtigt
41
35dego 340
3dego
00o
00o
6 1eo
00o
3eo
middotshy
53dege
56dego-56dego
52deg
58dego
65dego
63dego
-middotmiddotshy
Tipperary LEADER Group bull
Totalmiddot Local Development Groups
30 813
95
1584
32dego
51dego
00o
1dego -
68dego
48 -shy
middotshy
Acquisition of Skills
0 -
85 0 OCo 100dego
Other Collective Bodies
Technical Assistance
7
0
23 37
30 QOo
70dego
00o
00o
00dego
i Total Expenditure - LEADER Groups 820 1730 47dego 1dego 52dego
~-
--
Administration txpenditure
EOOO
3 81
Total AdministrationI I Expenditure as 0o of Total
EOOO Expenditurei
98dego
98 82deg~
3
Grant Aid as Non~rantI I I 0o of Total Outputs as of
Expenditure Total Expendituro
2dego 01 middot-shyQO 18dego
middotmiddotshy
bull These groups also existed under the Leader I in11ahve
LEADER Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A15
Total Administration Expenditure as 0o of Total
pound000 Expenditure
81dego56 lv-10Jbull
ro v 106 b1o
77 46dego 91 43dego
113 4 1 Ofo
226 39dego 92 38dego 90 38dego 67 38dego
100 36dego 230 36dego
JUmiddot~ 86 35dego
262 35dego 292 I 32dego 168 31dego 111 31dego 94 30dego- 29dego 65 I 29dego
289
85
29dego 182 27dego 258 25 194 24dego 198 23dego 165 22oo 141 22dego 285 22dego 271 21 249 20 185 19 94 19dego
5173 31
189 0dego 115 75o 86 0
5564 30dego
Grant Aid as 0o of Total
Expenditure
0 J _ 3dego 9dego bo 18dego 13dego
5dego 2dego
35dego 17dego
6dego
18dego 34o 44degc 29dega 26dego 28dego 50dego 19dego 47
5dego 55oo 20 50dego 46dego 42 36 50dego 40dego 20 25 29dego
0 25Vo
OOo
28
Non~rant
Outputs as 0o of Total Expenditure
19dego LO
~-
36dego 45dego 44o 41dego
48dego 57oo 6v-10 27dego 47dego 58dego 55vO 47 31dego 24oo 40dego 43 42dego 21 52dego 24dego 68dego 20dego 56dego 27dego 32dego 36dego 42 29 40dego 61dego 56dego 40dego
100o OOo
100o
42dego
Local Development Group
-Comhar lorrais (LEADER) Teoranta bull lounly ~ligo LlAurH t-artnersh1p co LIO r-cura1 uuo11n LtAUttlt vvmpany Lia ln1sh0Wen Community Development Co ltd middot Laois LEADER Rural Development Co Ltd comhdhail 011ea1n na hlireann South Kerry Partnership Ltd bull Rural Resources Develooment Ltd Blackwaler Region LEADER Co Ltd Meath Community Partnership Co Ltd LonQford Community Resources Ltd Galwav Rural Develooment Co Word-Wexford Organisation for Rural Developmenl
-Barrow-Nore-~uir tltura1 ueve1opment Lta_ Ariana Catchment Area Community Co bull Cavan-MonaQhan Rural Development Co-operative Society lid Me1theal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo Wicklow Rural Partnership Ltd bull Offaly LEADER II Co Ltd bull Doneoal Local Development Co Ltd Mid-South Rural Roscommon Developmenl Association Ltd Co Louth Rural Development Co Ltd Ballyhoura Development Ltd bull Kell-Kildare European LEADER II Teoranta IRD Duhallow ltd_ Tuatha Ch1arrai Lid -South West Mavo Oevelooment Co Westmeath Community Development ltd West Limerick Resources Ltd
-middot West Cork LEADER Groupmiddot Waterford Develooment Partnersh10 Ltd Western Rural Development Co Lid Tinnorarv LEADER Group bull East Cork Area Development Ltd Total - Local Development Groups
Acqu1s1t1on of Skills Uther Collective tsodies Technical Assistance
Total Expendituremiddot LEADER Groups
bull These groups also exisled under the Leader I initiative
Administration Expenditure
pound000
45
deg 64 35 - 47 88 35
25 37 83 60 31 91 94 53 35 28 25
19 84 49 64 46 45 37 31 61 58 49 36 17
1599
0 86
0
1684
---
--
----
----
I
I
LEADER _Admiri_istration_ Costs_as a Percentage_of TotalExpenditure bull 1997 Appendix A-16
Local Development GroupI I
Comhair lorrais (LEADER) Teoranta bull Co Sllqo LEADER Partnership Co Lid Rural Dublin LEADER Compant lid Wicklow Rural Partnershi~ Lid Rural Resource Development Lid Word-Wexford Orqani5allon for Rural Develo~ment Ltd Blackwater Reoion LEADER Co Lid Meath Communit~ Partnershi~ Co Ltd Laois LEADER Ru_ral Oevelooment Co Ltd IRD Ouhallow Ltd bull Oonal Local Oevelooment Co Ltd Kell-Kildare Eurooean LEADER II Teoranla Cavan-Monaghan Rural Oeveloement Co-o~rat1ve Socie_lv Ltd South Kerrv Partnersh10 Lid bull
I South Wesl Mavo Devetooment Co bull I Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo
Waterford Development Partnership Lid Galway Rural Developn-ent Co lnishowen Community Development Group bull Wesl Limerick Resources Ltd Co Louth Rural Dev~topment Co Ltd Comhdhail Oilea1n na hEireann West Cork LEADER Grouo bull Tuatha Ch1arra1 Ltd Westmeath Communitv Develoomenl Ltd Offalv LEADER II Co Ltd bull Ballyhoura Development Ltd East Cork Area Development Ltd Weslern Rural Development Co Ltd Mid-South Rural Roscommon Deveroomenl Assoc1at1on Ltd Longford Community Resources Ltd
Administration I Total Expenditure ExpenditureIpound000 pound000
43 I 96 83 48 52 89 91 46 -58 31 57 60 75
102 59 60
109 78 45 47 46 50 35
104 56 48 39 67
-- 27 83 32 35
Arigna Catchment Area Community Co I 43 middotmiddotmiddot shy
Tipperary LEADER Group 0 38 41Barrow-Nore-Suir RurEii Development bull
Total - local Develooment Grouos 1979
Other Collective Bodies 36 Technical Assistance 0
i Total Expenditure bull LEADER Groups 2015
234 140
186 365 373 204 260 156 293 314 399 568 335 341 626 458
middot-middot 264 277 275 309 221 658 367 314 259 455
Grant Aid as [ Nnn~r~ntAdministration as deglo of Total 0o of Total Expenditure Expenditure
45dego
36dego 34oo 28Co 24dego
24oo 22oo 22dego 20degtc 20oo 19dego 19dego 18degc 18degc 18dego 17dego 17degc 17degh 17 17 16dego 16dego 16dego 15dego 15 15dego 15o
189 I 14dego 592 I 14dego 252 290 414 441 561
11487
142 25dego 75 0 149 0 OOfo 100
11778 17dego 53dego JQOo I
13dego 12Jo 10dego
9oo 7dego
17dego
19dego
25dego 28dego 37dego so~lo
37oo 37dego 30oo 36Yv 40dego 54 45dego 59degn 55dego 61dego 64dego 64degh 56dego 34 49I 6QOo I 23dego 50dego I 34dego 64dego 55 50dego 55deg 55dego 60o 38oo 58dego 71 dego 56o 73dego 54dego 70dego 53dego
20dego 29dego 35oo 3_0 30dego 25dego 48dego 28dego 16degc 32dego 17dego 37dego 23dego 30
Outputs as oo of Total Expenditure I
36Co 39oo 38dego 35dego 26dego 39dego 41dego
48dego 44deg 40dego 27dego 36dego 23oA 27dego 21dego 19dego 19dego 27~o
Partnerships Community Groups and National Organisations Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A17
Partnership Administration Total Expenditure Expenditure pound000 pound000
KWCD Partnershii - -middot 128 128 lnishowen Partnersh10 Board 33 33-middot-Monaahan Partnershii Board 48 48 Lonoford Commumtv Resources ltd 40 40 Galwav Rural Oevelooment Co 39 39 Galwav C1tv Partnership 109 109
~Q_LEAOER Partnershii Co 50 50 Pairt1ocht Gaellacht Th1r Chonaill 48 48 Roscommon Countv Partncrshin 55 55 Pairt1ocht Chonamara 116 116 Cavan Partnershin 18 - 18_ Canal Communities Partnership 67 67 Brav Partnershio 115 115 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 49 50 Tra Li Partnershio 105 107 Waterford Area Partnershio 77 82 West Limerick Resources Ltd 74 82 Southside Partnershin 163 180 North-West KildareNorth Offalv (OAK) 125 139 Mavo bull 288 I 353 Wexford Area Partnershio 132 166 Doneaal Local Develoomenl Co 60 78 Leitnm Partnership 63 94 Clondalkin Partnershio Comoanv 176 305 South Kerrv bull 107 253 Blanchardstown Area Partnershin 208 495 Droaheda Partnershio Comoanv 136 337 Baltvfermot Partnershio 143 359 Cork Cilv bull 176 476 Dundalk bull 196 546 Finnlas bull 169 53 vvovforcl tn ntv prtnPrshio bull 126 501 n11hl1n lnOAr rjtv bull 14 539 T~ll ht bull 7 Ballvmun bull 103 529 Waterford Countv bull 42 227 Limerickmiddot 90 510 Northside Partnershio 125 761
Total Exoendituro - Partnerships 4071 9169
Communilv Grouos 710 773 National Oroanisations 383 383
Total 5164 10325
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) ~--
Administration as 0o Other Activities as 0o of Total Expenditure of Total Expenditure
100dego QOo
100dego QOo
100dego QOo
1QQ0o QOo
100deg QOo
100oo QOo
100oo 0dego 100dego QOo
100dego Ooo 100dego QOo
100middot QO(
1QQ 0o QDo
1QQDo 0dego 100dego OOo
98dego 2dego 94dego 6dego 91dego 9dego 91dego 9dego 90dego 10dego 82oo 18dego 80dego 20dego 77 23 67 33dego 58dego 42 42dego 58dego 42dego 58degc 40dego 69dego 40dego 60oo 37dego 63dego 36dego 64oo 3701 25dego 75degn 2i01 7t01Q TtOn 77deg 19dego 81dego 19dego 81dego 18oo a2deg10 16 84
44dego 56dego
92dego 8dego 100dego 0dego
50deg4 50dego
Partnerships Community Groups and National Organisations Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A 18
Partnership Administration
I Total Expenditure
--middot -shy -shy - --shy Expenditure pound000 - [000- shy
lnishowen Partnershio Board 137 272 Galwav C1tv PnrtnArsh1n 1e~ 35~
Mavo bull 274 580 Canal Commun1tv Partnersh10 122 267-W~~tmeath Communitv Develonmenl Ltd 98 216 Galwav Rural Oevelooment Co ~-
94 211 Monaahan Partnershio Board 100 238 Shoo LEAOEftigtartnersh1p C_o 155 385 Roscommon Counlv Partnershin 146 367 Cavan Partnersh10 72 184 Pa1rtiocht Chonamara 124 328- -LonQford Community Resources Lid 121 334 KWCO Partnershio 205 594 Pairtiocht Gaeltacht Thir Chonaill 99 302 Waterford Area Partnershin 175
middotshy 542 Blanchardstoln_ Area Partnersh1E 159 504 Oundalk bull 147 490 Leitrim Partnership 154 514 - -North West KildareNorth Offalv ltOAKl 122 414 Wexford Area Partnersh1R _ 125 427
_B~lymun bull 112 385 Brav Partnershio 151 526-Oonenal Local Develonment Co 104 371 Wexford Countv Partnershio bull 152 614
_sectQuth Kerrv bull 173 707 Cork Citymiddot 240 1 015 Tra Li Partnershio 122 519
_s1o_ndalk1n PartnershiQ ComQany 140 618 __lliJ_blin Inner C1ly bull 147 647
Tallaaht 173 775 Wesl Limerick Resources Ltd 57 256 F1nnlas bull 152 709 Walerford CountY bull --middot 54 261 Southside Partnershio 141 686 Ballyfcrmot Partnership 132 720 Droaheda Partnersh10 Comoanv 132 723--middot Limerickbull 121 803 Northside Partnershio bull 126 964 Set Un Casis - All Partnershins 28 28
Total Exoenditure bull Partnershios 5269 18858
Communitv Grouos 1 509 3499 National Oraan1salions 621 621
Total 7J98 22977
Administration as 0o Other Activities as 0o I- -middotshy of Total-Expenditure of Total Expenditure
51 oo 49dego-~ v u u-o
middotshy47dego 53dego 46dego 54dego 45lo 55oo-450o 55oo__ 42oo 58dego 40dego 60dego 40eo 60dego 39oo 61degi
38oo 62dego 36dego 64dego 34oo 66dego 33dego 67 32dego 68dego 32dego 68dego 30oo 70dego 30dego 70dego 29 71dego 29dego 71deg(0 29dego 71dego 29dego 71dego 28deg1gt 72dego 25dego 75oo 25dego 75 24dego 76dego-- shy24dego 76oo 23dego 77deg 23dego 77oo-shy22dego 78dego 22dego 78dego 21dego 79dego 2_1 dego 79deg 20dego 80dego 18 82 18 82dego 15 85dego 13dego 87dego
28dego 72
43dego 57=10 100dego OOo-shy32dego 68oo
i bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economrc and Social Progress (PESP)
County Enterprise Boards Grant Cost Per Job 1994-1997 (In Descending Order) Appendix A21
County Enterprise Board Expenditure on Grant Full Time Jobs Part Time Jobs Equivalent Jobs Aid 1994middot1997 pound000 1994-1997 (1) 1994-1997 (1) 1994-1997 (1)
Leitnm 1417 209 6 212 Westmeath 1012 154 0 154 Wexford 1575 280 37 299 Cork C1tv 1089 208 0 208 -Monaahan 1057 178 62 209 Waterford Counlv 1003 188 36 206-South Cork 1566 324 0 324 South Dublin 1753 362 6 365---TinnPrarv South R1dina 922 184 47 208 Limerick Citi 1197 273 10 278 Offalv 1137 243 74 280 Waterford City 1664 387 58 416 Mayo 1565 345 95 393 Limerick City 1512 362 60 392 Kllkennv 1325 320 55 348 DonPnal 1061 254 50 279 Finaal (Dublin) 1377 347 42 368 Wicklow 1538 333 170 418 Kiidare 1004 264 20 274
-Cork North 779 213 0 213
-Carlow 1435 309 169 394 -Cavan 1357 301 152 377 Clare 1 342 335 92 381 Kerrv 1432 288 238 407 Laois 1245 339 42 360 Louth 1045 280 46 303 Dublin Citv 1734 533 0 533
_
SliQo 1182 260 210 365 Oun LaoghaireRathdown 1323 408 3 410 Longford 1145 332 51 358 Roscommon 1208 315 133 382 West Cork 1063 361 21 372 Meath 980 350 23 362 Gatway County and City 2131 843 120 903 Tipperary North County 660 223 136 291
Total 44834 10905 2264 12037
Grant Cost per Job pound
6683 middot-shy6571 5278 5235 5057 4 867 4 834 4801 4444
4306 4061 3999 3988 3857 3812 3802 3743 3680 3666 3658 3647 3599 3522 3518 3459 3448 3254 3238 3231 3203 3 165 2 861 2711
2360 2269
3725
( 1) The jobs created in the year are computed by taking a head count of new jobs 1n enterprises receiving grant aid from CEBs The grant aid expended in the year may not be directly comparable with this as here may be a time rag between the expenditure and the creation of the relevant job but this should be minimised by taking an average over 4 years In computing the equivalent 1obs figure part-lime jobs are taken as 05 of a 1ob
County Enterprise Boards Non Grant Expenditure 1996 Appendix A31
r= middotshy
INPUTS OUTPUTS
I Cou~ty Enterpr_ise Boar_ct_ ~on-Grant - shy
0o of Total _Surveys __ Media _Networks __ ThirdLevel _Second Business - Mentor Activities Expenditure Events Colleges Level Counselling Support
pound000 Schools -
Kildare 241 39oo 1 0 4 3 15 380 40 middotshy
Dublin City 202 30oo 1 9 6 2 20 151 35 Fingal(Oubhn) 171 26dego 1 14 11 I 0 4 3 93 Oun LaoghaireRathdown 160 25oo 1 7 3 0 14 25 84
Sligo 108 24dego 0 68 0 1 3 250 30 - shySouth Cork 150 23dego 20 24 14 1 14 120 45 South Dublin 161 23dego 2 8 0 0 18 105 4
-middot Cork City 118 22dego 2 10 3 2 14 0 14
Loulh 137 22dego 7 3 2 1 6 40 15 Meath 116 22deg1~ 0 3 3 1 12 0 21 West Cork 135 21dego 0 130 2 0 10 174 10 Westmeath 106 21dego 0 0 0 0 17 0 14
Offaly 121 19dego 4 34 5 2 9 17 20 Donegal 144 19dego 1 4 0 1 8 216 46
-107 18oo 0 17 0 1 I 15 150 16
~ Clare
- middot----Leitrim 121 18oo 5 0 4 0 I 9 416 12
Roscommon 92 1Tlo 0 0 0 1 5 484 5 -Limerick City 7
I 17dego 0 2 0 5 5 0 6 Limerick County 137 17dego 1 25 1 0 13 102 7 Laois 101 16dego 0 4 0 0 14 54 bull 1
Tipperary North County 65 16dego 0 0 0 0 12 279 17
Wexford 107 15dego 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 Waterford County 85 15dego 0 2 0 1 0 69 4 Monaghan 86 14deg= 0 0 0 0 7 10 5 Kilkenny 88 14dego 0 16 0 I 0 12 I 19 I 10 Carlow 77 13dego 0 7 0 I 0 10 I 0 I 20 -Wicklow 96 13dego 1 12 0 0 9 70 14
Cavan 74 12oo 5 0 4 1 5 1394 i 31 Tipperary South Ridinq 65 12dego 0 0 3 0 10 80 25 Kerry 71 12dego 1 0 1 0 8 0 20
bullGalway County and City 75 I 12=10 1 2 37 3 12 72 3 Waterford City 82 10dego 0 1 0 1 20 108 33 Mayo 78 10oo 0 48 0 0 5 221 6 Longford 50 9dego 3 5 5 0 7 60 10
Cork North 36 8dego 0 0 0 0 0 340 0
Total 3879 18dego 57 455 108 27 352 5409 726
County Enterprise Boards Non Grant Expenditure 1997 Appendix A32
INPUTS OUTPUTS middotshy
County Enterprise Board Non-Grant bull1o of Total Surveys Media Networks Third Second Business Mentor Management Activities Expenditure Events Level Level Counselling Support Development
EOOO Colleges Schools Programme
Don~al 156 36dego 3 3 1 3 9 55 12 3 Tipperary Nor1h County 162 36dego 0 33 1 0 7 175 12 3 Oun laoghaireRathdown 219 35oo 2 20 6 4 24 240 67 2 Kilkenny 162 30oo 2 12 0 0 27 99 16 3 Louth 233 30 0 14 2 1 11 60 18 6 Sliao 144 29dego 1 7 2 2 7 246 26 6-Laois 167 27oo 0 127 2 0 13 100 6 4 Clare 171 27dego 1 37 12 1 15 97 31 6 Mavo 162 271 0 15 2 0 10 190 6 3 Limerick City 163 26dego 1 29 4 3 6 100 5 4 Kildare 198 26dego 0 24 4 0 15 190 46 6 Wesl Cork 133 26oo 1 271 2 0 10 152 2 4 Limerick County 183 26oo 1 55 12 3 8 194 35 6 Mealh 193 26oo 1 28 3 2 19 48 9 4 Offaly 127 25oo 1 53 6 0 8 59 35 5 Fingal (Dublin) 224 25dego 0 5 0 1 6 446 155 3 Leitrim 157 24oo 2 84 3 2 7 135 14 2 South Cork 164 23dego 0 14 85 1 16 627 15 6 Roscommon 109 23oo 1 27 3 0 11 50 8 4
Gatway County and City 190 23dego 0 5000 10 3 36 18 10 14
Co1lt Ci1V 150 22dego 1 10 5 2 B 1325 16 3 Monaghan 121 22dego 2 24 6 0 B 47 0 3 Tipperary South Riding 131 21 Ofo 1 25 3 0 11 672 20 3 Westmeath 132 21dego 1 3 0 0 29 6 10 4 Waterford Countv 104 21dego 3 32 2 1 21 156 7 3 Dublin City 245 21 oo 1 26 6 5 23 110 50 6 Wexford 131 20dego 1 17 0 0 17 55 16 2 Wicklow 159 20 0 44 0 0 6 32 9 3 Cavan 144 20dego 4 14 7 1 6 134 63 7
CorX North 66 19 1 10 5 2 16 1325 16 3 Waterford City 149 19oo 2 12 0 1 21 183 18 3 South Dublin 184 19dego 1 2 0 0 16 87 37 3 Kerry 104 18 1 324 0 0 12 115 B 2 LonQford 81 16oo 5 41 8 0 5 0 6 41 Carlow 95 16 1 110 1 1 10 228 50 2 Total 5414 24 42 6552 203 39 474 7756 854 182
LEADER Groups Non Grant Expenditure 1995-1997 (1) Appendix A33
Local Development Group
INPUTS
Non-Grant -Activities
pound000
As a 0o of Total--middot
Expenditure
Seminars Held-shy
OUTPUTS
Press I Other tApplications Releases Promotional -Approved-
Projects Referred Creation I Creation of Training Completed to Other of Newmiddot middot Community middotCourses
Actions Agencies Business Association
East Corllt Area Development Ltd 144 51dego 104 110 0 O 0 O 5 2 I O gt-M~e~a~th=C-o~m-m~u~n~i~ttv
0
middotP~a~rt~n-e-rs~h~o=C~o-L-td-----~--1-8-0--+-~5~1~0~---+--7~7-1--+---16-4---- 110 91 11 960 21 12 16
Word - Wexford Ornan1sat1on for Rural Oevetonment bull 351 48oo 0 0 0 0 t-c~innbulle~ra~~-L~e~a~d~er~Gro~u~o~middot~-~~~~~---r-~3~4~3----t-~4~8~o--o 24 7 4 191 45 10 15 13 22 f--~----=~~~~~~~~~+-----~+----~---~+---------l~~-----+-~~----~+-~--~--l~----~f-~300~+-~=-~+-~--~-+~-=~~
Kellmiddot Kildare Euronean Leader II TEO 268 46Yo 85 125 4 74 33 1 10 36 Blackwater Reo1on Leader Co_ Ltd -middot _136----+--4-6A~o------6--7_ __ _ __65------lt----4----I- --7-3__1_---3-1------22--+----3------lt--------1--~__2_4-----1 lnishowen Commumtv Develonment Groun bull 175 46dego 288 86 25 64 27 147 10 17 28 Laois Leader Rural Develonment Co Ltd 103 44dego 67 116 12 56 17 27 40 7 17 Tualha Chiarrai Ltd 244 42dego 239 25 10 168 82 66 24 6 39 West Cork Leader Groun middot 414 38~C -middot-+-~75----t--6-9-8----t----O--t----o-----t --~O-----t----O--t--~1~2_ _____o----shy 33
~c~o~S~h~go~L-ead-e~r~P~bull~rt--n-e--rs~h~ip~Co~~Lt~d--------+-----1~0~1--+-~3~7~~_ ___J3 6 6 73 21 14 20 17 5 Rural Dutgt11n Leader Comoanv Ltd 63 37dego 83 18 -~9--t----2~7--middot-+---6----+---~12-----t--~3---+--~7---+----5-Co_ Louth Rural Devclooment Co Ltd 137 37dego 139 56 18 39 5 23 5 2 11
gt-W~c~kl-o--w~R~u~r~a~I~P-art~n~bull~middot~sh~io~L--td---middot---------~1~4~3--+_~3~6~~-+---5~0~7____~1~12------ O 25 33 209 9 11 6 IRD Duhallow Lld bull ___2~middotbull-1-+-3_~V----t-~283------j--272--+----o-----1 85 40 144 11 37 1A
Rural Resource Dcvclooment ld__middot-------+--20502--+-C3057___-t-1=38~2o---t---5~0t----t--0905----t-----OO--- 0 0 6 9 14 Offalv Lead_~r II Co_ Ltd_middot 130 35oo 49 43 20 76 56 9 17 0 91
gt-S~ou--th~K~bull~Y~P~a~rt~n~bull~s~h~ip~L~t~d-middot________1__1_7~5--+-~34---~~middot--i---1~bull~85----+---1middotQ4_--+-----9--~--0-----+-----o--+----o---~-~2~0---+--3~0-----+--~3~6--1 Galwav Rural DevelgPment Co 126 33dego 38 12 0 147 21 130 19 6 39 Western Rural Devetoomenl Co Ltd 298 33dego 134 102 1 165 46 81 27 1 9 DonPnal L~cal Development Co Ltd 139 32 5 15 1 127 36 29 20 0 13 Lonaford ~ommun1lv Resources Ltd 118 31dego 15 57 7 97 46 22 3 2 5 Westmeath Communitv Develonmenl Ltd 149 30dego 254 50 15 165 60 20 17 5 __sect_____
l-Ba~ll~vlh~ou~ra~De~v-e~lo~rnm~e--n--t-Ll~d~_middot_________t--~2~7~3--+_~30~~~---t---64~-t--bull~8-----t----5--t----2~0~1--l--~8~2-----t--~8~0----+-~59----t---~bull~O---t ~5~2~-t Barrow-Nor~-Suir Rural Development bull -~2~4~7--+--~3~0~----+---3~5~0---__f----5_____15----l--~1~5~1---1C-----92-----t--~65-----t---2~0---t--~10-----t--~2~8-----t Comhair lorrais ILead~rl Teoranta bull 45 29dego o O _o__t------Co__t--_~o___-t-_--o_-+---co_ _____o--_-+_ __o-----t Wesl Limerick Resources 1 tn 126 29dego 69 104 3 103 1h 10 87 7 10 Comhdhail 01leain Na hEireann 64 27dego 41 32 0 124 hO 45 15 0 10
~_~ndegh~Wc~s~t~Mou_nDev~e~lo-nmbulln~t~n~middot------+--~1bullbull-+--2-bull-~-+---12----t--~~5-------0--l----1~middot4___+-_~5~8--t-----4~-+--~13---t------1--+--~3~3-~ Waterford Develooment Partnershio Ltd 209 26dego 56 0 0 95 35 35 34 7 46 Cavan-Monaghan Rural Development
l--C~o~-o~gtP~e~r=a~v~e~S=oc-e=t~y~L~tdo-middot---~-~----+-~2~2~7--+-C2~47o=---+-=2676~-t----11~7~---l----2~174__t---~36700---+----3~0~1--l----2~--+---20---+~--75__t-----2=2~--l Ariana Catchment Arca Community Co bull 121 23dego 21 7 23 105 39 4 5 0 O
f---M~~~h=~~F~o=r~b~a=rth~a--N~a=G~a~e~lt~a~c=ht~a~T~E~o=---~----r-~2=3~7----C2~3o=---+-~1773=----t--~150~--t--~o--t---~4700---+--1-5=7--+-~35~0~--+-~109----t--~2~1----+--~176--j
Mid-South Rural Roscommon Development Association Ltd 63 18 24 18 120 90 36 10 20 5 4
Total Expenditure - Local Development Groups 6227 34dego 7183 2879 730 I 3496 1514 2871 690 291 716
Acqu1s1t1on of skills i 274 Ooo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1-coc~e~c11=n~ca-1-a~s~s~s~ta-n~ce---------------=27~2~---l--0~0~~--t---Co~--t--~o--+--~o=---+-1--~o~-+---~o~-+----o--+------io~-t----o~--+-----io----+
Total Expenditure -LEADER Groups 6773 36dego 7183 2 879 730 3 496 1 514 2 871 (1) Expenditure for 1995-1997 is grouped together as only cumulative output statistics to 31December1997 were available at the time of preparing the report bull These groups also existed under the Leader I initiative
690 291 716
I
Partnerships Non Grant Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A34 middot-middot
INPUTS OUTPUTS
Partnership Name Non-Grant Activities As a 04 of Total Enterprise Services for Preventative Complementary pound000 Expenditure Support Unemployed Education Education
Norths1de Partnership bull 636 84dego 321 1885 520 443 Limerickbull 420 82dego 296 935 100 388 Waterford Counlv bull 184 81 oo 57 0 0 0
t--shy272 328Ballymun bull 426 81oo 401 82
Tallaght bull 466 77dego 496 - 957 143 29 Dublin Inner City bull 405 75dego 343 1651 50 59 Wexford County Partnership bull 375 75dego 138 0 17 272 Finalas bull 365 68oo 557 731 378 155 Dundalk bull 350 64dego 148 388 132 207 Co1lt Citymiddot 300 63dego 344 0 180 261 Ballyfermot Partnership 215 60dego 0 211 40 94 Drogheda Partnership Company 200 60dego 60 0 0 38 Blanchardstown Area Partnership 288 58dego 116 71 48 18 South Kerrv bull 146 58oo 90 212 399 265 Clondalkin Partnership Company 129 42oo 164 0 0 0 Le1tnm Partnership 31 33oo 23 184 0 56 Donegal Local Development Company 18 23dego 0 0 0 0 -IJYexford Area Partnership 34 20oo 14 0 0 13 Mayo 18o lo 181 10 34 North West KildareNorth Offaly 14 10 0 0 u 28 Southside Partnership 17 9dego 0 0 0 0 West Limencilt Resources Ltd 8 9dego 52 0 0 0 Waterford Area Partnershij)shy 5 6dego 49 14 0 5 Tra Li Partnership 2 2 u 0 0 0 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 0 QOo 0 0 0 0 LonQford Community Resources Ltd 0 Ooo 0 0 I 0 0-Pairtiocht Gaeltacht Th1r Chona1ll 0 0 0 0 0 0 lnishowen Partnership Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canal Commun1t1es Partnershrp 0 00o 0 0 0 0 Pairtiocht Chonamara 0 QOa 0 0 0 0 Gatway Rural Development Co 0 OOa 0 0 0 0 Sligo Leader Partnership Co 0 0 16 0 0 0 Roscommon County t-artnersh1p - u 0-1 u 0 u 0 Brav Partnership 0 01 0 0 0 0 Gatwav City Partnership 0 OOo 0 0 0 0 Cavan Partnership 0 00o 0 0 0 0 MonaQhan Partnership Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 KWCD Partnership 0 Ooo 0 0 0 0 Total Expenditure - Partnerships 5098 56dego 3739 7821 2107 2693
Commun1lv Grouas 63 8 0 0 0 0 National Oraanisalions 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 5161 50 3739 7821 2107 2693
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
Partnerships Non Grant Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A35
INPUTS OUTPUTS -
Partnership Non-Grant Activities As a 0o of Total Business Job Groups Preventative -shy -middot middot- -middot pound000 -middot - Expenditure -Start-Ups- shy Placements -shy Supportmiddot Education Projects
Northside Partnership bull I 838 87dego 503 438 28 15 I - -middot -middotmiddot - tCbullbull 602 isgt10 11b tiLj 31 16 I Dr()(lheda Partnership Co I 591 82dego 60 12 177 10 Ballyfermot Partnership 587 a2deg10 88 88 30 3
-middot Southside Partnership 546 80dego I 200 6 80 24 Waterford Counly bull 206 79dego 42 4 23 6 Fmglas bull 557 79dego 257 233 174 28 West limerick Resources Ltd 199 78degc 40 0 50 0 Tallaaht bull 602 78dego 309 646 51 7 Dublin Inner City bull 500 77dego 290 448 34 10 Clondalkin Partnership Conipany 478 77oo 225 562 63 7 Tra L1 Partnership 396 76deg1gt 80 20 67 6 -cork Citymiddot 775 76- 217 111 55 9 Soulh Kerry bull 533 75dego 135 150 61 middot51 -
Wexford County Partnership bull 462 75dego 170 63 31 0 Donegal Local Development Co 267 72dego 150 0 63 2 Bra~ Partnershi~ 375 71degu 71 0 14 Ballymun bull 274 71dego 70 402 50 10 Wexford Area ~artnership OUpound 71o 17U 4 5 18 -shyNorth vvest tildareNorth Offaly 292 71 Oo 56 0 8
I Leitrim Partnership 360 70deg1= 60 3 119 6 Dundalk bull 343 70~~ 71 64 50 10 Blanchardstown Area Partnership 345 68dego 170 97 29 13 Waterford Arca Partnership 367 68dego 37 6 55 1
middotshyPa1rtiocht Gaeltacht Thir Chona1ll 203 67deg~ 75 0 50 10 KWCD Partnership 389 66deg 15 0 0
- 4 middot-
Lonqford Commumtv Resources Ltd 212 64dego 85 4 19 5 middotmiddotshyPairt1ocht Chonamara 205 62 67 2 3 34
middotmiddot-Cavan Partnershio 112 61dego 90 1 49 6 Roscommon County Partnership 221 60degJ 120 0 38 6 -Sligo LeaCer Partnership Co 230 60dego 120 0 32 2 Monaghan Partnership Board 138 58dego 88 0 40 10 Galway Rural Development Company 116 55dego 101 0 51 2 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 118 55deg1= 0 0 20 2 -Canal Communities Partnersh10 145 54deg~ 0 0 16 6 Mavo bull 306 53dego 177 200 28 3 Galway City Partnership 180 50dego 113 0 35 12 lmshowen Partnership Board 134 49dego 60 0 42
Total Expenditure bull Partnerships 13589 72dego 4698 4192 1853 397
Commun1tv Grouos 1 990 57 0 0 0 0 Nalional Oraanisations 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 15579 68dego 4698 4192 1853 397
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
Appendix B Administration Cost Trends of Local Development Bodies
Number of CEBs within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs 1994-1997
Cost Band 1994 1995 1996 1997
ltpound50000 pound50-100000 pound100-150000
pound150-200000
gtpound200000
3 17
15 2
24
7
2
1
32
2
5
23 7
Total Administration Costs pound4_8m pound49m pound43m pound44m
Number of LEADER groups within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs 1995-1997
Cost Band 1995 1996 1997
ltpound50000 25 23 17
pound50-100000 9 11 14 pound100-150000 3
Total Administration Costs pound0Bm pound16m pound20m
Number of Partnerships within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs of Partnerships
Cost Band 1996 1997
ltpound50000 9 6 pound50-100000 7 19 pound100-150000 15 10 pound150-200000 5 10 gt pound200000 2 3
Total Administration Costs pound40m pound53m
11l)(lrJY 11 I
--
Appendix C Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development - Performance Indicators and Revised Targets
-
f 11~
iority Indicator
Jobs
1mber of of 1obs
Revised Targets (1994-1999) Original TargetUnits for total Operational Sub Sub
Programme 2Programme Programme 1
Jobs 15000 proved (for support grant assistance)
Nl1mber of new jobs erbullated not placed in Jobs and vacanc1es) Persons (N 81middot for Sub Pr gtgramme 1wjobs
bullgt provecr figure will mJke up the bulk of thbull i ~jobs created an1ounl) (N 02- for Sub Pr )gramme 2 this eq uates 10 new en terpriscs SUpported)
17000 (Sub Programme 1 8000 Sub Programme 2
1717516900
6900 Sub Programme 3 (Temple Bar) 2000 permanenl in service amp 5000 construction)
AjfJe11c1x CI
~ Priority Indicator
2 Enterprise creation and development
Grants to enterprise Value of grant allocations
Number of enterprises supported
Percentage of investment 1n enterprises provided by the Operational Programme
Provision of improved access for potential entrepreneurs to initial advice Number of firms receiving business advice
Percentage of grant aided firms whose promoters received other Operational Programme support advice consultancy mentoring
Management developm9nt Number of enlerprises participating in managemenl development programmes Number of managers participating in management developmenl programmes
3 Community Development Number of local groups financially assisted
4 Services for the unemployed Number of persons registered for assistance
Number of Long-Term Unemployed persons to benefil from Services for the
I Unemployed expressed as a
I Oo of total number of persons registered for assistance
Units Original Target for total Operational
Programme
pound
Enterprises 2260 new businesses and for Sub Programme 1
Persons and 3640 new and 960 existing for Sub Programme 2
Enterprises 6000 firms and
Persons
280 firmsEnterprises
Persons 500 per annum
No target set groups Local
Persons Caseload of 11 0000 (30000 1n 1995 and
20000 new cases per annum thereafter)
No targel set
Revised Targets (1994-1999)
Sub Sub Programme 1 Programme 2
i
pound16000000pound56020000
17 000 new and6050 new and 7000
existing 3750
existing
(Tolal 9800) (Tolal 24000)
39dego
3000010900
100dego83oo
6000
10000
700
57000 (40000 Local Employment
Scheme Partnerships and 17 000 Non- Local
Employment Scheme)
60dego
AfJXIUimiddot C2
---
Priority Indicator Units Original Target Revised Targets (1994-1999) for total Operational
Sub SubProgramme Programme 1 Programme 2
Progression Number bulllf persons progressing Persons 2500 per annum 16000 to full-time employment (1e placement in a job vacancy) Number of persons progressing Persons 300 per annum 5000 to part-lir le employment (ie placeme11t in a job vacancy) Number of persons assisted into Persons 17000 self-emplJyment (see 1 above) N~mber of persons assisted Persons 19000 under co1nplementary education and training Number of persons in continuing Persons 5000 per annum 2000
1 cducat1or1 Number c1f persons in work Persons 10000 per annum 1000 experience programmes Number Cbullf unemployed referred Persons 5000 onwards middot o other agencies
- -middot 5 ~ducation and Training Complementary education and training Number cmiddotf persons assisted Persons 12000 per annum 19000 under cornplementary education and traini l9
Provision of recognised ce~ificaticbulln Number cf participants ptovided Persons 60003500 with re~1nised certification
I 0o of part1 1pants provided with 30oo reltXJgniset certification
Training for trainers NuOiber ol persons benefiting Persons 1000 under actions tn the area of trai~1ng of trainers and teachers
I of partimiddotipants ptovided with recognise j certification
I 6 Preventive education Number of children attending Children 4080 per annum 44000 preventive education courses I youth serVices
7 lnfrasbucture and enVironmental measures Number o infrastructutal and 20 per annum 1000Protects 98 environmE ntal actions
Appendix C3
Original Target Revised Targets (1994-1999) Priority Indicator Units for total Operational Sub Sub
Programme Programme 1 Programme 2
8 Land development
Area of targeted land developed
Expenditure on developmenl of targeled land
Number of derelict sites eradicated
Number of villages assisted
Number of towns assisted
Number of conservation projects to be funded
9 Other
Entarprse culture Number of participants in activities to promote an enterprise culture 1n schools and colleges
Customer contacts Number of customer contacts with CEBs
Hectares
pound
Sites
Villages and projects
Towns and projects
Projects
Persons 62000
Customer 190000 Contacts
Appendix C 4
Appendix D Extract from Consolidated Reporting Guidelines - December 1997 The LEADER Operational Programme Performance Indicators and Revised Targets
Pe-rformance Indicators
Under the tenns nf the Opcr~llional Progr1111n1e e1ch group is rtmiddot4uired to set ck)vn
1~erforn11nce uHJic~1tors and targets vhitmiddoth it vdl ain1 10 ~1chilve in 1he
itn )le1ncntation of its hu~iness plan and against vh1ch its perfonnance Viii htmiddot
evllua1ed_ Follc)ving ~t rcvitv of the fonn ind contenl of 1hc originil incliclliVl
inclicHors1 cornincnt by the independent evduator and consuh1lion Vilh groups a
dc1111itivc range of perfon111nce inclicJtors llas nclv been prepared
E~11h (~roup is required to llltgtdify ils Busin1middotss Pl1n perforn1ance indicators in this
remiddotiscd forn1at for lmiddotte1sure B Ruril innovation 1neasures and insofar as it is possible
at 1his s1age to prep1re inltlil~ltors for middotleisure C middotrransni1ion~1I cu-operitiun for 1hv
period tnding 5 I l)ece111her 1999 PleJse note thlt 1leisure C does no[ relale to
teclmical suppo11 funding received from AEIDL
lh1 Ile st1te111cru of pcrfonn1ncl indicators -hould rLprcscnl a co111pnhensivc
stncnHmiddotnc of 1argets based on progress to ditc ind the i1nplc111entllio11 of 1he
huine~gt plmiddottll to )1 l)cc~1nbcr iltJ99 including thl acklitional 1ctivitics being
~upportcd vith the funding 11locItcd fron1 the -middotrcservtmiddotmiddotmiddot
imiddotht revised busintmiddot-s plan indicators should he con1plctccl ind rc1urnecl to Huril
De-elopmem Division lw ii _l1nua1v 1998
regress Viii he 1neasurecl 1gainst these t1rgcts by lllttns of the Lf)LJ rerurn~ incl the
quant1tat1ve incl qualitllivc reports outlirlltd in sections 3A jl3 incl 5C of 1hesc
guiklines
Ple1se note thal -hJcled areas ire for infon11a1ion only incl 11 lhis st1ge do nol
require indicators to be Stl All olhltr t1rge1s should ht inpulled in 1he 1ppropri1te
fickl- here rherc is no 1lmiddotlemiddotan1 ac1ivi1y tllSl rl zero
1[Jfx11rL IJ 1
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Animation and Capacity Building
ActivityOutput
Promotion
Number of seminarspublic meetingsworkshops organised to cover the following topics GeneralCommunity SpecialisedSectoral
Number of attendees al the above
Number of press releases articles published media interviews
Circulation of LEADER Newsletter Number issued Number per print run
Number of other promotional actions
Direct Animation Assistance I Technical Advice
Number of private individuals directly assistedadvised
Number of bodies directly assistedadvised GeneralCommunity Specialised Sectoral
Number of development strategiestplansmiddot arising from field work (Le_ not covered in ~other technical assistance beneath) including community plans
Co-ordination of Activities
Number of applications referred to other agencies
Impact
Enhanced Awareness of LEADER Services (Not for completion)
This will be measured by middot
The number of individuals contacting LEADER office
The number of groupsbusinesses contacting LEADER office
The number of applications from promoters
The number of projects promoted by LEADER Group itself
General Level of Local I Community Development
Activity (Not for completion)
This will be measured by middot
The number of applications successfully improved
The number of bodies assistedanimatedrestructured improved
Number of bodies established
More Efficient Use of Resources
(Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number of projects successfully referred to other agencies (i e funded)
i
------MeasL1re B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector ActivityOutput -
I
dministration Processing
Number of staff exclusively I assigned to administrative duties
(2 15 etc)
Number of staff exciusively assigned to animation duties (2 1 5 etc)
Number of Board meetings held
Number of hours worked on a I voluntary basis by Board
members
Number of project evaluation committees
I
Number of project evaluation committee meetings held I
Number of hours worked on a voluntary basis by pro1ect evaluation committee members
I Number of internal LEADER Group evaluation meetingssessionsreviews
I Number of external system auditsreviews (not including accounts)
Co-ordination of Activities I
Number or meetings with other LEADER Groups
I
Number of County Strategy Meetings attended
Number of other meetings with I public bodies
middot shy
Impact
Efficient Delivery of Service (Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number or applications received The number of applications
processed The number of applications approved The number of projects completed
More Efficient Use of Resources
(Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number of projects referred to other agencies (not including those that were referred after provision of animation assistancetechn1cal advice which 1s dealt with beneath)
Apprnd1x 0 3
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector ActivityOutput Impact
Technical Support Studies and Research Knowledge I Expertise Made Available to Potential
Number of studies plansaudits Promoters commissioned by LEADER (Not for completion) Group (not including field work carried This wlfl be measured by out by animators which is included above) The number of LEADER
projects emanating from studies Number of other auditsstudiesplans prototype The number of projects development commissioned by emanating from studies funded promoters amp funded by by other agencies LEADER
The number of bodies restructuredimproved
The number of bodies established
1ppc11cLy ) 4
----
--- --
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
I Sector Activity I Output Impact middot- ---shy
Training Provision of Training Courses Acquisition of Skills (Not for completion)
I Number of training courses commissionedundertaken by This will be measured by LEADER Group (not including animation activ1t1es The number of bodies outlined above) demonstrably LEADER StaffBoard restructuredimproved by GeneralCommunity Courses training provided to SpecialisedSectoral volunteersstaff
I
Number of attendees at the above The number of proiects emanating from training
I PROVISION OF TRAINING GRANTS The number of attendees who
were placed in employment as Number of Training Grants for a result of training
I courses commissioned by promoters and funded under LEADER (not including any of the above)
I GeneralCommunity Courses Spec1al1sedSectoral
Number of attendees at the above
Grant Provision Job CreationRecruitment Assistance I
Number of Employment Grants Employment created provided
I ~-
Afgtj)(11cLmiddot J 5
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Activity I OutputSector
Improvement of Existing Accommodation and
Tourist Amenities
Rural Tourism
Number of capital grants provided
Development of New Accommodation and
Tourist Amenities
Number of capital grants provided
Marketing
Number of marketing grants provided
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number accommodation facilities upgraded to Bord Faille standard
Number of additional beds available
Increased number of visitormiddot capacity
Add1t1ona1 tourist revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Sectoral Benefits
New entrants
Number of additional beds available
Increased number of visilor capacity
Additional revenue generated IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Improved Business Attributable to Marketing
Additional bed-nights arising from marketing strategy
Additional inquiries visits to tourist offices - domestic - overseas
Additional visits to tourist amenities Siles arising from marketing strategy
Number or new marketmg methods tourist packages initiated
Employment- (e g directly arising rrom marketing as opposed to capital grant aid eg as a result or brochures advertisements etc) Created I Sustained
-------
Meas1Jre B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Small Firms Craft Enterprise and Local Services
I
I
i
I
i
i
I
_
Activity I Output
Support for Existing Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Support for New Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Marllteting
Number of marketing grants provided
- -Impact
-Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with improved efficiencyadded value to products and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product ranges
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
I
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises established
New productsproduct ranges
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Greater Awarness of Enterprise Activity
Number of new (geographical) markets developed - within Ireland - within EU - non - EU
Increased sales (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
1J(11di- Igt 7
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Agricultural Forestry and Fishery Products
Activity I Output
Support for Existing Enterprises and Improving
Quality of Existing Products
Number of capital grants provided
Support for New Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Marketing
Number of marketing grants provided
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with improved efficiencyadded value to products and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product ranges
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Number of enterprises established
New productsproduct ranges
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Greater Awareness of Enterprise Activity
Number of new (geographical) markets developed - within Ireland - within EU - non - EU
Increased sales (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector Activity I Output Impact
Freservation of the Improving Awareness Increased Environmental Environment and Livin Awareness9
Conditions Number of capital grants Number of environmental provided plansaction groups established
(not including groupsplans arising from animation andor other technical support outlined above)
Number of entries for Tidy Towns Competition
Benefit to the Built I Cultural of Built I Social and Cultural
Protection I Enhancement Environment
Environment
Number of built sitesstructures provided Number of capital grants
protected or restored
Number of socialcultural events held
Employment created I sustained
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Benefit to the Natural of Natural Environment
Protection I Enhancement Environment
Number of natural sites protected provided Number of capital grants
Number of natural amenities restoredenhanced
Improved Managment of Activities I Alternative
Waste Management Waste I Availability of
Energies Alternative Energy
Number of capital grants Number of alternative energy provided providers established
Number of waste management initiatives implemented
Employment created I sustained
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
AJf)(itrlLmiddot J9
Measure C Transnational co-operation
Sector
Transnational Co~peration
Activity I Output
Grant Provision
GeneralCommunity SpecialisedSectoral Rural Tourism Small Firmscraftsenterprises AgricultureForestryFisheries Products EnvironmenVLiving Conditions Other
Number of Grants provided to final beneficiary (each category is exclusive)
Private Men Private Women Private Jointmiddot CommunityDevelopment Groups Business VoluntarySpecific Issue Groups Co-operatives LEADER Group Other Total
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with establishedimproved efficiency added value to producls and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product rangesnumber of new marketing methods tourist packages initiated
Number of new (geographical) markels developed - within Ireland -within EU - non-EU
Additional inquiries visits to tourist offices - domestic - overseas
Additional visits to tourist amenities sites arising from marlltetmg strategy
Additional bed-nights arising from marketing strategy
Increased sales Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Number of cultural links established
Number of local development strategies studies transferred shared
Number of environmental actions
Employment - created full-time all year fu11-time seasonal part-time all year part-time seasonal
Employment - sustained full-trme all year full-time seasonal part-time all year part-time seasonal
AfJJll1tll~Y )_ Q
Appendix E Matrix of Development Agencies in County Roscommon and the Services Provided (Produced by Roscommon County Enterprise Board)
---------~
c Q
~l agt-EUJ
Co Jnty Slrategy Group CoJnty Enterpnse BoHd
Anmiddotina Enterprise Fund
Lec1der 11
Pai tnersh1p Co ( --~--~---~--~--
Co-Jnty Council ---- middot---~---t--~--~~-~r ---~-~--~-~--~-~--~--~
lrel 3nd Wes ToLnsm
--~---~--~--~---middot -~----~----------~--
Tecgasc
An Bord Tr3cht31a
Forbairt ( ( (
10t Ireland I
FA
Bord Faille (
Bar1ksFinanc1al Insmiddot itulions I
Dcpartmenl of Social Welfare
Buiness Innovation Centre
European lnfc rmat1on Centre
AfJjJCJICfiY E l
Appendix F Framework of Agreement between County Meath CEB and County Meath LEADER II Group
MEMOHANDUM OF AGHEFMFNT
JelVtLll
The Meath County Fn1erpnse Board Ltd
and
Mca th Leader 11
Given he -i1n1brilics bl(lLll ccnnn ispeCls of the n1ni1 of bnth Counry Enterprise Hoard ind lc1dcr
IL ii b 11ceptcJ th11 i high ltkne of co-orxru1on is rcql1inJ to tbullns11n that dtmiddotserv1ng proiccis giin
n11xi1nl1111 txncfit fron1 he s11p1x111 1ncchanis11h avulihh V1tlun hoth orgu11-11in11s_ Vhdc s~ 11HL
division of rcsponsiliililics is possibl~ t outlined hcIO 11 1s ncogni cJ 11111 both groups need 10 1dop1
tn OJICll n(Xihh tpproteh IO the ltsk of f)TltJCCing ClllflCS 111J tppliCtliOllS
lc1dcr II -ill ha prin1a~middot n spon~ibilitv ill 11lc Couniy f()r lhc st1ppon of p1ojlmiddotCS f10111 the frgtllovi11~
sectors
bull Craft Enttrpnscs Cfor fin1nciil suppon ilh 1 li1n11cd fcxmiddotus on soft suppons)
bull Kurii Touris1n
bull Proicn- p1n1nnttd hy Co111111u11i1y CnH1P
bull Exploilition and M1rke1ing of lor1I agriculcur1I fcxxl for(siry tnd fishtnts products
bull Envuonn1tnl for ht follomiddotinJ mc1surcs middot
e Prtscrv1tion ind dcvlmiddotloprnenl of the existing 1rch11te1ur1I heriti(lbull ind bullillages
bull Suppo11 for n1hur1I Cfl111v1ty ind the pron1ot1un C1f cultur1I product- linked ith nir~d
ltlevelcip111ent
bull Prot~ctron rch1btli111ion ind explollllion of nuural rccurces (Oor1 fiunt srndl s1rc11ns
ccc) ind bncl~tpcs
bull Di1x1s1I 1nd fC()ding Clf ISie illdl1ding llSt or energy pnxluuion
ll1is i111plies th11 Le1ltler II tvill cngig1middot 111 p1--delmiddotlltipn1lmiddotnt 1ni11nins research tnd 1111rkc1ing ind he
prin11rily nspons1hlc for the c1pi1d invt~1111enl 1s-oci11ed Vith tht dcvcloprnent of vdue-iltld(d fotgtlt1
produce ind viii dso pronss rtqutsts for 1id for c1p1rd intslmeni ln1ploy111cnt grants 1111rktting
ind 111ining s11ppon- in lht 1hovl stcio1s
The County Enttrpnsc l3cgt1rltl tvill continu1 10 support f(bull1siliilicy cap1td ind (rnploy1ncnl projcd
l1id1 li1vt tilt c1p1lt ily ro gtntricc ernpkraquobull111tn1 v11h1n tll otlllmiddotr -ltmiddotciors Po1cnt1tl projects vhich 111cit
This rtquirvnicnc viii he rtfcrrtd to tteh otliLr in 1cltorltlincc Vitll tlus Agrtllllcnl
middot111t 1ltith Coun1y Enterprise Boird lld ind ilcalh Lealtlcr II arlmiddot lOn1n1incd to rn11ntaining open lines
nf cn111n1un1c11ton tn in1plcn1er1t the tcnn- of thi u11dirs11nd1ng ind alsn co111111ir 1h11 the Chief
Execu1ivltmiddot OfficLmiddotrs will n1eet hH1ndly on 1 111onclilmiddot li1sis to v11s111c cff1cilnt i1npllnhnt1tilgtn middot111i
AgretlllLnt tltgt co111inue 111 orxr11ion un11I _l_t Oeccn1her 19)7 ind viii Ix suh1cc1 10 rcvittmiddot by the
1cith County Enterprise Board 11cl 1n consult1t1011 Vith Lcidtr IL
101hi11g in chis A_irec1ntnt shtll he cltJntruccl 10 li111i1 DI tLStnu lhe _1in11D1y il1nu1011s 111d n1xr1titJns
of till 11lmiddot1th Coun1y Enttrprbc Bo1rd 11cl or lc1der II
Pn1lint B1ker Torn Clinton
Ch11rr111n Ch11n11111
middotlttth Coun1y Enlerprisc Boud Ltd Mc11h lc1dtr II
~ppcndrx I I
Appendix G Terms of Reference for Interdepartmental Policy Committee
Thn New Committees Role
The Role of the new Committee to be cl1Jired by Minister of ~late Finnel will Ix
shned by the Local Demiddotelopnlltnt Mind1Itmiddot given to Department of Tourism Sport
and lkcrca11on by the (jovcrnmenL Key items in that bndate which fall into the
Coumittees remit will mcluclc
A PronH)ticJn of tile integral(lt dcvelop111cnt of tl1e 111o~n dis~1dvantaged urban con1n1unitics hy ensuring that their needs are addresscd ()11 a priority ~incl
coordinated basis in conjunction vi1h 1rea Partnership lton1panie~ by all nlevanr public agencies
bull middot1l1is is regarded as the 1nost urgent priltgtrity
bull Tlw focus will be on developing the opti1ml approach to addressing
the needs of these areas
bull Special co-on linated all-out etfltJl1 in a nun1bcr ltgtf s1nall areas
j B Co-cgtrdination of Ioc~1l lgtcvcloprnent iniriatives and prcp~trnion for the
post - 1999 transition to an integrated Local Development ancl Local
Govcrnn1cnr systc1n
bull 1oc~d l)evelopn1enl IiaiS(gtn Jean1 issues
bull Adclnssing rclevan1 local clcvelopn1cnt issues raised in l3etter Loc~d
(overnnltnt - ~1 Prngra111111e fltgtr CJ1angc anU lh( recenlly ruhl1sliecl Hcport of the J)evcgtlu1ion Co111111ission
bull middotrhe en1phasis vlll ht ltgtn en~uring thal the posi11ve dcvelopn1ents and effective lltV V~l)S of VOrking resulting fro1n Local l)evelop111ent
and Partnership initiative~ arc preserved and strengthened in the
developnltlll nf i renevecl Loc1I Govern111ent
C The Oper1tiond Progrimmc for Locd Urb1n 111cl Rural Development
ancl its sh1pe post - 1lt)99
middot middotrhL 1nain tmiddottsks Vill be tltgt
bull Secure hl btmiddot~r co-ordinttion hltveen the various i111rle1nerHing
1ge11cie- l)ep111n1ents etc
r1jJjJlllriz~y G 7
bull Seek 10 ensure chat problcn1s incl issucs vhlch ~1rise il ~1 local level
ire n-ponclecl ro incl rcsolveltI
bull lclencify i1en1s tltgt be n11instrc1111ed in tern1s cgtf overall policy
bull Consider 1he ou1line of i new 011URJ) for the post - 1999 penocl
taking into ~1ccount the viC-middot of the Social Partncri
D Co-urclin11iun of (gtV(rltdl Govern1nent Policy on Local l)evekgtpn1ent
bull middotr1ie Jn1er-l)epan111ental Pt)licy Con11ni11ee on Loc~d J)evelopn1en1 Vill
be a key foru 111
bull Scctltgtrtl is-ues viii he considered fro111 1he perspective of
encouraging gre~ttcr cO-ltgtrdin~ttion and integr1tion of delivery of
services It local hvel
RelgtOrt of the Comptroller and Auditor General
Local Development lnitiadves
I havt in 1ccord1nce ilh the provisions of Stclion 9 of the Co1nptroller and Audilor
ce11ertl (Arnenclmerll) Ari 199 carried our a viluc for money exarnin11io11 of local
demiddotelopn1en1 ini1i1timiddotes
I hereby subn1i1 111~middot rlpon of thl abclmiddotl ex1111initinn for prese1H~Hion 10 gtiii fmiddotireann puru111t to Stction J 1 of the siicI Act
John Purcell Comptroller and Auditor General
29 Dctober 1999
C
Table of Contents
Introduction
2 1cl1nin1stririve Efficitmiddotncy
3 Co-nrdinition of 1ctivilies
4 Operational Efficiency
17
30
42
Appendices
5
Page
Glossary
Summary of Findings
Local Development Initiatives
A Annual Costs 11lcl Outputs of lncl1viclu1l County Enterprise Bo1rcb le1cler
Groups rnd Jgte1rrnerships 1995 - 1997
B 1d1nini-tn1tion Cost middotrrLlld-gt of Local f)cvclop111cnt bodies
The Operational Progr1mme for lcx-al llrban and Rur11 Dlvdoprnent
ierfonnance lndica1ors and Hevised largc1s
I) h1re1c1 from Consol1CL1ed Reporting Guicldin~s - DecernbcT 1997
middotrhc lCader Opcrat1011al Progra1nn1c - Pcrfonnancc lndicuors and Rtmiddotvisecl middotrargels
E fturi of l)tveloprnlnl gencie- in county Ho-co1111non and thlt
Services Provided
f Fr1nwwork of AgnTnlltnt Bctween Coun1v Meath CEB and County Mea1h
leider 11 Group
G middotrcr111- nf Reference fltgtr lnc~rdcpa111ncntal Policy Co111111i1rcc
Glossary
AAES
tni1nation
lleneficwy
Bord M6ni
CEil
Coilhe
CSG
1)(1chas
DSCFA
Hfll
Enttmiddotrprise Ir~Ltncl
ESB
f L
Fisherivs llotrds
Forfis
1rca Allcnv~1nce Enterprise Schen1e Vhich is
idministered bv lannerships on behilf of DSCFA
From Jimrny 1999 this sch~nw is known is the llick
to Xork Enterprisc 1llov~1nce
middotrhc role of ani1nation is to i111prove the effec1iveness
of the con1111unity in loc1l develop111cn1
Project pro111oter or con1nu1n11y group in receipt of
fin1ncill suppo11
Stare sponsored body ni1n1ging and developing
pearlinds
County Enterprise Board
St~He sponsored body 1111n1ging public forests ind
nlatcd activities
Coun1y Strategy Groups Crc cs11blished under
OlLURI) to L1cili1a1e co-ordinHiun ind 111inirn1sc
duplication in the dtlivtry of progr1n111Hs ii county
level between the different irntiatives
1middot11e t-lerirage Service it the l)cpa11111ent of rts
f-kririge Gielucht ind rhe Islands
Depinmcnr of Sociil Community ind Fimily Affiirs
Easrern Heilth lloird
Sttle sponsored body issisling Irish co1np1nilts 10
increJse their sales expo11s JJHl e111ploy1nent
Electricity Supply Board
Europe1n U11io11
iition1l 1r~1ining and en1pluynHmiddotn1 1uthority
Sta111tory organisations cl11rged vitl1 responsibilicy for
the developnllnl ind protection or inland fisheries
Forf1s is the policy 1chbulliso1) and co-ordination ho1rd
for industrial developn1ent and sci middotnce and
technology
II) Ireland
Int grtlltd Slrvices lgtrojcct
llC
lncrreg II
lEI I)EJ( II
LE11DEH groups
ITU
11insrrea111ing
Mid-Term Evalua11on
~lonitoring Co1nn1itree
011UHD
lc1rnerships
1 State Ovncd coinpany vhich pro111ores invard
investn1ent
middotrhe Integrated Services 1gtrojec1 V1~ estiblishcd co coshy
onlinate tile inptHs of all slle services in four pilot areas of clisaclvan1age
lnterclepaHn1e11tal Policy Cltnnn1i1tee for LltgtCtl
Devdopmenr w1s est1blish1middotd in June 1995 and ns
function i-gt to Omiddotcrsce and n1ike reco11unenda1ions on
local devclopmelll
111 EU lnili~llive 10 develop cross hltgtrcler co-opcrllion
Jnd to help an1s ovcrcon1e prohle1u~ as-ociated Viti
being on 1ht Unionmiddots internal and externJI fronlitrs
incl to fill gap- in energy netvorks and provide
interconnections Vllh vider european nelvorks
liaisuns c111re actions cle clltJ1cofPen1en1 (e reco1101nie
rurole - 1 Co111111unity lnitiJlit for rurtl cl~veloptlHnr
covering rhc period 1994 to 199)
Companies est1blished undn IEADER 10 11nple111elll
llHmiddot progran1111e objectives
Long-tcrrn unc1nployecl
ProceS of tr1niferring successful pilol project- of an
innov~Hive nalure 10 n1iinline govtrnn1cnt clepart1nents
anti ~1gencies
1n independent evalualion rtq11ir(cl to be carried out
on any EU progrunn1e Vhich is five or n1ore years in
ltJper~1tion
Fsublished to mTrsec rhe operation of any EU progr~1111111e It con1ains reprtscn1arives of thlt EU
co1111nission govern1nent clepart111ents and progran1111e
in1pll~n1entors
Orerationcd lrogrJmme for Local Urban and Hurd
lkvelopmcnt 1994-1999
Area-lhsed lannersh1p Companies
le1ce 111d Heconcilurion
lESI
Pos1 2000 subrnission
Territorial Employment
Picts
Tourism Opcrationll
Progran1111c
Ul~HN ini1iuive
1n EU Initiative to reinforce progress Ovards a
pe1ccful ind stable society by incre1sing econo1nic
dcvelop1nc1H urban and rur~d regeneration
developing cross-lxJrdcmiddotr links incl con1lx111ing soci1l
exclusion
Progra1nn1e for Econo111ic and Social Progress
Suh1nissions nques1ed fro111 govern1ne111 depar11ntnts
other sr11e 1gcncics ind na1ionil 1x1nners on the
future use of structurII funds post 2000
An EU lrnti1tive to hdp the unemployed find 1obs 1n
dis1clv1n1aged areas
middotrhe opera11onal progra111111c for 1ouris111 devltlopnHnt
under tlw Community Support Framework 199i middot 1999
n EU Initiative the purpose of which is 10 1ddress
in 111 integrited tr urban sltxi1l exclusion by
building panncrship arr1ngcnHnrs bttvcen locil
1u1horitil and 01hcr loc1J structures
S1J1mmary middotrhis alue for 1nnney rcpo11 is cnnccrntd vi1h the oper~Hion during the period 1994shy1995middot of loc1J devllop1ntnt initiatives provided through (ounry Enterprise Boards (CEiis) Arc1-B1sed 11nnersh1r Comp1111es (i1rtncrshipsJ ind IEADER groups
CEiigt Wltre es11hished in every countv for thtmiddot p11rrose of promnlng locd emerprise incl econo1111c clev([op1nen1 middotrhcrc 1rc 3 CLBs vhich opcrltttc undtmiddotr agreen1en1
Villi the J)epart1ncn1 of Enterprise middotrrade and E111ploy1nen1
middotrhe purpose of Partnerships is to co1nlx11 unln1ployn1ent ~ind exclusion middotrhere ire
38 lannerships operalrng in 1re1s design11ed as disrdvrntagcd and a fu11her 33 Inell devtlopnumiddotnt gruups in non-dis1dv1nt1gecl 1n1s middotrhesc opertle under in inle1111ldi1ry con11x1ny vhich rt~purt~ to the Igtcp1rt11Hnt uf middotrouris111 Sprnl ind
Rccreilion
The LEADER grours were cstiblrshed under an EU In11io11ive to promote rur11 clevcmiddotlopnitmiddotnt 1ly suppCgtrting lltgtcal developnHtH groups middotrhere middottrl 5i lEAl)EH
groups opirH1ng undcr agrei1nc11t- vith the lJep1ru11ent of Agriculrurl ind Food
From 1994 10 1998 public funding totalling l208 million was providld lo these bodies of vhich pound-127 111illion middotIi pruvicled by 1hc EC Co111n1i~sion incl f~-1 111illion
by 1he Exchequer CEB-gt ~ind Pannirships an funded under the ()perationtl lrofra111111e Or Lltx-al Urlgtan and Hurorl [kvelop111en1 199lt1-1999 (OPUIHD) The UADER groups 1re funded under the LEAD EH Operational Programme 1994- 1999
middotr11e value for niuncy ex1111inttion looked H specific issues rel1ting to rhc
acln1inistr1tive ~ind opilJtiontl etliciincy of thlt thrt~t~ 1ypts of hoclies lht
1rra11gc111ents fo1 co ordination lgtlttvtmiddotcn rhe txxlies and approache~ 10 ltValutlion of
their i111p1ct
Administrative Efficiency
middotrhe divcrsily of 1c1ivi1ies ~ind different stages of developnicnr of the hodies li1111t chc~
exrc11 to Vhich cross con1parisons of achninistrHive efficiency c1n be 111acllt
drrinistc111011 expc11di111re hy all tlte hocl1es 111tallld S28 9 11ull1on 1n tlw pltn11d 1995 to 1middot)97 )uring 1hiI period thl ovcr~i11 rrcenl~tgi of ad1111ni~lration costs to total cxplncli111re declined subtantitlly fro1n 28Yo co 220u principilly bccaust n1any of chc bodies n1ovcd fron1 1 set up phase ICgt being fully operational Achninis1r1t1on expenditure as a ptTcc11t1ge of ltgtlal expcndi1un also varied bttVCltll individu1I hnclitmiddots clue to clitlere1Hes in the nalure of the aclimiddoti1ies undeniken For lX~ttnpk the level of 1cl1ninistr~1tive co-l~ middotoukl he influenced by lhe extent to Vhich
incli11idual bodies is~lll grant support or offer non-financial 1ssist1nce In generil Partnlrships have higher adn1in1strllion cost- nlHive to thlmiddot other hod1es for rhis reasc)n
middotrhe llodies are characterised hy -ubstintitl voluniarmiddotymiddot inputs at board and sulgtshycon1n1inee levels middotrhis is in kclping Vith hirncs-ing local knovledgc and tpenise ro ~1ch1eve con1n1on ob1ectivt~ Key staff VCrC inv1n1hly highly qualified and
rcso ircefuL
lhe develop1ncn1 of n1~1nagen1tmiddotnt inforn1ition _ys1c1ns has not been sari-Ltctorymiddot in
--- middot- --------------shy
ulttf I )(coJlllc1 II If ii itl f itL
that rhert is nn 1tJ1un111ic sharing of d111 11nnng loc1l dtVllop111en1 bodies ind lhe scope for effectiveness inilysis is t1111i1ed middotrhroughoul 1hlt pcritxl covered by lhL ex1111in11ion inforn1ation systt111s vl1icl1 include perfcn1111nce 111e1suns ind inclic1tors (cl n1cJniror etliciltncy incl ~tTectiveness htvL l)etmiddotn under tlevLmiddotlup111cn1 ind pr()grts is heing 1111cle in iddrc sing the deficiencilS
Co-ordination of Activities
The flexible approich 10 the i111ple111et11ition of local dewloprnnt policy rcmiddotstilts in consider1hhmiddot duplicition of the enlcrprislmiddot crvicts providld by thlt three types or hodils Vith 1pcc1 10 objlClies clients incl 1c1ivities middotro i lesser lXtLllt 1here is duplici11on of 1c1ivities concerned ilh coun1ering serious ecnno111ic incl sociil dis1clv1n1ige heciusl Pirtnerships t1rgct specific clitnl groups - the long-tcnn unemployed ind the soci11ly excludld In nine ctsc-s Pinnerships and lEADEH groups share i conunon 1111n1gc1nen1 board
Co-operilion 11nung 1hc hodies ind Villi othtr urginisalions (Stale local govern111tnl co111111unity ind volunttry st ctor incl bllllllSS) ~Jt loctl ltvel to 1chicve igreed objectives con1rib11tcs to the unique innovlit roll of 1hc Local l)evelor1nen1 initiitives
Suhsicly shopping can ltgtCltl1r IHrehy Lmiddotlitmiddotn1s can 1111xin1ise the public funding they rcciivi by tpplying for grillS frolll cliffcnn IJodieS (O 11ppOlt cliiferent elelllt~lllS Oi
their projccls middotrhis incvit1bly leicls lo cluplic11ion in 1d1ninistrllion Fonnil in1erdep1rr111en1il 1gree111en1s should Ix- cmiddotontmiddott1ded to define 1l1e li1ni1s bllVecn the ohrcc11ves clienls ind activities of thl three bodies ind si111ilir 1gree111en1s should he concluded It locil level middotrhese 1green1tmiddotn1 n1ight look for vays of n1ini1nising the id111inisr11ion of 111ultiple tpplicHions for funcling in 1 project
t cohestvlmiddot 1ppro1ch to th( intcgrition of locil govern1nen1 1nd loc~ll develorn1en1 V~ts set out in 1998 by tn in1erclep111n1ental middotrask Force J1nplen1cnt11ion of 1his rep(U1 is underv1y
Operational Efficiency
middotrh1middot 1111in 1ctivi1y ind outpul tirgcts ire being n1et but the absence of baseline perfnnnince d111middot llll1ns lltll ii is not knclvn hoV dc1111nding 1he original r1rgets Vere 1rising fron1 VOrk by the external cviluitors ro thl Oper1tional Progra1nn1es 1111ny nf the 11rge1s h1vc been rlisccl hv tile -loniroring (01nn1inees vhich oversee llH i1nplv111c111tlilt)n c)f rl1ltmiddot Progr11111ncs
1hile tlcn1en1s nf exptmiddotnditun (Pannltrships incl LEAJ)FH groups) Vere son1cvh1t behind tirget II the lttlcl of 1998 it is cxpec1ed by the lgtcp~1111nents 1h11 spcncling targlts viii he n1e1 by the encl of the Operational Progran1111es
Sludils indicHt lhH tht level of dcadvciglll (the tmiddotxrent to Vhich enterprises suppltgtrlt~cl unclir the Operational lrogr1111111es Ould be cst1hlished Vilhout gr1n1s) n11y be in the rangt 4(Yc1 10 50dego ()isplicen1en1 (the ex1cn1 to Vhich suppo11ed enterpri~cs clive11 stils ind en1ploy111en1 oppo11uni11es fro1n other Irish enterprises) 111iy he in the r1ngl 20 (Cl 400u Fron1 eirly l 99H CEBs and P111nerships have been tn1poverecl to Jss1s1 enterprise projects by n1eans of refuncl1ble Jid incl equily Use
ii
S1111111u11v
of thltse forms of id should he expndcd quickly in prelerencl 10 11011-repyJlt gracts 1s they can help to reduce cleHhveight 1nd dispL1ce111tnt and in addi11on 1re t 1111)1 econo1nictl use of public funds
Son1e inst1nces of clispk1cen1en1 providl social benefits vhich n11y outvcigh the
cost involved There is a need for n1orl cl1rity regarding the circu111s11nces in vhich
dispbccrncnr rn he perrnined
Assessment of Impact
lhe developn1en1 of sys1e1ns to 1ssess the in1pact of Local J)tgtvtgtlopn1en1 initkHives is not easy hec1use of 1he clibullersity of objccrives rhc tick of n1easurahility nf so111e
i111p1cts rlie tlJsence of clisagtregtled d1t1 n1odels rclcv1nt lo locil areas and the need for careful in1erpretHio11 of results
Quantitative Assessment
ltJu1n1itJtiC 1sessn1ent of the in11x1c1 of (gtcal l)evclopn1ent hodivs c1n bl carried our by exa1nining ch1nges in vari1ble such as long-tcnn 11ne1nploynHnl ind 1-n11middotrpri-e forn1arinn Studits to dare of thest v1riallles have yielded inlmiddotonclu-ive
rt~sults
rtpon on the i111p~1ct of OJgtLLHI) on ong-tenn ltnen1ployr11lrlt shnvs thtt fro111
1991 to 1996 unc111ploy111cnt in gtJrtntmiddotr~hipmiddotareas fell by roughly poundhe sa111t penentage as in non-P~n1nership ~treas
A111y~is of 11~11ional Live Hcgi~[er cla1a for 1he pc-riod CJ94-1998 indilates ~1 signifi(1n1 Lill in chc kwl of long-cerm unemployment hich b pat11cula1 focu of P~1r111erships bur the reduction n1ay h1ve 111ore 10 do vith 1he in1pact of tron~ 1middotconon1ic gn)vth poundh1n vid1 rhc effec1 of Local l)cvclop111cnt initiatives
A nmiddotiev of the nu1nber of n1anuL1c1uring s1ar1urs fru1n 1987-1996 siHJVS rhar 1he rapid econon1ic grcJvlh fro1n 1995 and the onstmiddott of thtmiddot Local l)evllop111ent iniri11ives did 101 result in an increisecl rate of 1111nuf1c1uring sta11ups
lntc~rnion of enterprise support incl perforn11nct da11 Jcross the Loctl l)evmiddot-lopn1cn1 inipoundiuives voulcl be required in order 10 est1hlish 1he underlying reasmiddot)llS for these rends
Quiitative Assessment
lkciled Census of Populicio11 d11 (1991 a11d 19)6) is available regrd1ng 1ndicacors of distdv1n11ge in Pirtnership 1n~1 hile rherc are lin11tuions inolved in int(-rpreti11g the cl1t1 fu11her ~1111lys1s ~houd facilitlle 1s~es1nen1 of lhl in1p1cr of the actimiddotities of 1111ncrhips
Jhe exlent of n1~11eri1J specificJJly covering 1hc evtlua1ion of i111pacl is very li111ited P1rt11crships hie CJrriecl our evcril cisc Situlies to cxplorL the in1ptrl of 1heir tcliililS ind 10 pro111ute 1-gtesr pr1c1ice (1~l srudies arc undervay also in ni1ny
lEA)EH groups l-lovtver there is i clt-1r nted for 111ore d111 lmiddotulllmiddotcrion and the
clevdopmenc of sonil policy rnocleb co prnvicle a hcncr ins1gl11 into che imp1cr of Loe~ I l)evelop111ent 1c1ivities
iii
bull
Local Development Initiatives
middot
- shy~~ ~~ltmiddot~-
middot
middot~
1 Introduction
Background to Local Development Initiatives
11 Since htbull ltarly 1)90 the (omiddoternn1tmiddotn1 middotill1 the support of 1hc European
lJnion (_lmiddotl) h1s introdutcd 1 nun1hvr of policy initiatives in suppo11 of hxil sltx-ioshy
eltcgtncgtnlilmiddot clcvelltlp1ncnt Tlteslt 1ni1i1timiddotcs stc111111cd fngt1n htmiddot pertcivcd L1ilt1re (Jf
cxiting pnlicicmiddots to _hirl lfllmiddot benefit ol 1middotcono111ic gnnmiddotth lmiddotquitahly tcrn-s local
ro11H1H1nililS ind 111Hn1g thl 111ore distdmiddot1n11gtmiddotd scctCJr of Irish iocitImiddot (~llltrtl to
1hc initiatives ts tliemiddot cn~11ion of lllcd lll1ployn1cn1 oppnnunititmiddot togetlitmiddotr Villi
llHISllrtmiddots to 11cklc cduc1tional distclvan11glmiddot tJlmiddotirltlflllltnlil cl1c1y ind ocial
lxclusion middotrhe IH~v pc ii icy alio n11rked 1 revers~1l fro111 the tr1ditio11al htmiddotgi111ony DI
central govltrnnitmiddotn1 by nmiddotcognising iht roll Vhich local cu11111111ni1amiddot c1n play in
the proctsi of lCltHlltunic trKI Sltgtc1al dtbull(lopn1enc
12 r pri11IJI) purpo--l of Incil J)evelop111lnl V1- co identify Jprropnllt Vays of
-tin1uLtting tll rllvvant luctl re-ources 111 suppo11 of Lllterpngti deth)pn1vn1 ind
tickling long-tern1 unernploy111ent hough llLttetL lhe-imiddot 1rt di-rinct uhjccliVLS 1nU
tlil vXtmiddotnr ro middothich they could htbull 1sotiatcd in operationd llllll- rc1111ined tn he
lthlished it that ti111e
13 IIH 1111in ekmiddotnlLllC ()f the llt appro1ch middotLlL
bull p1rtnersliip hllVtmiddotcn stitulory hu ines ind cD111nH1nity scctnrgt
bull dtmiddotmiddotulurinn to local bodies of lllltmiddotds idcntifiLation pL1nning to-ordi111Cio11 of
progr11111tltS dvlill of 1r111ova1it and ctmiddotriain other action tnd 111on11()ring
of progres
bull involvcrncnt of the eniirlt co111n1unity cspcciilly d1sHhmiddot1nt1gcd groups
bull 1dltl[Hilt1n cgtf a Jtili-li(middot ll)PH)tclt l1tbullrtbulll)y l(l)flCgtllliC 111d S(icmiddoti~1J dlVtbullhipnlcllt
VOllld OCClll (CllCUllellliy
13 middotrt1tmiddot Hhnini-rrililtlll (Jf Lo~middot1l J)tmiddotvlmiddotlopnHmiddotnr in Ireland is cl1ssi1111l1r legt 1ll11 in
oth1 middotr FlJ countriis in li1tl
bull lhltrl artbull i nu111lill of di1inc1 pn1gr1n1n1cs
bull there i strong centrd gullllllhllt 111d EU involve111tlll
bull 111middotv local 1d111ini-tr1t1vc s1n1c1111middotls -ere demiddoticcJ inderH1Hllnt ()r lXiring local
govlmiddotrn111cnt structu1
Ctmiddotrrril goven1111enl control- the hulk of public fininces At locil ltmiddotvel local
aulill gtril ilt~ ft 1 net ions h1 ve 1llen li111i1ed Ct ivering n11ttcrs such ts roads -1ni111ion
111d housing ihill 1hvonric1llv locil ~1u1lionl1tS co1dd lllgtgLmiddot in 111a11v uther ()cal
c lemiddot l le iJ Hnen t
hinmiddotling ~ygttlIll 111d ittthility 10 pursue ltl ignificull ltgtctl c1x11ion middotYtcn1_ 1 middotr1sk
oca Je1ehJ[J111e111 lnitiatiues
Force 1 esrtblish~cl by rhe Governn1tnl 1nadc i nu111her of rtco1n1ncnd1tions in 1
rcpon 111 August 1998 regarcl1ng the mtcgration of local dcvdopment with local
government These ere approved by the Government in September 1998 (sec
paragraphs 10 to 3 31)
Organisational and Management Arrangements
15 The tO main EU funded programmes providing suppon for Local
Development arc the Opernional Programme for Local Urban 1nd Hural
Devclormcnt (OlLUHD) ind 1he llADEH II lrogr1111111c These Opcrntional
lrog11mmcs were drafted by the Department of the Tao1sc1ch and 1hc Dep1rtmen1
of Agriculture and Food (Agricuhure 1nd Food) respectively within EU guidelines
incl 1grced Vith the EU Co1n111ission
16 Each sub-progr1111111e of 011UlI) and IEADER 11 is 1clm1nistc1nl locally by di1inc1 Local J)evelop1ncn1 bodilts middotrhis c11nin~1tion is concerned Vilh Lltx~il
l)evelop111en1 acrivilies 1cl1niniscercd by Coun1y Enlerprise Bltgtards and 1re1-Based
111111crship Companies under OlLURD and by LEADEl groups under LEADER II Hcspons1bili1y for rhee bodies coines under chi rc1nit of three scpar11lt Governn1en1
Dep111ments (sec 11gurc II)
Co1111ty pound11er[Jrise Boards
17 Crn1111y Enterprise lloirds ((Ells) were established 111 Oe1olier 1993 wnh the
tilll or fu tering incl f1cilitating che LCOll01l1iC dcvelopn1ent of local area~ Each CEB
Vts required 10 clrt1 up 1 Counry 1nccrprise Pltn incl its iccions incl prupo-als are
Figure 11 Main Departments and Local Development bodies
Enterprise Trade and
Employment
County Enterprise
Boards
Tourism Sport Government and Recreation Departments and Agriculture
and Area Intermediary and Food DevelopmenlCompany
Management Ltd
bull
Area-Based
Local LEADERPartnershipsDevelopment groupsCompanies and
Bodies community groups
1Jc To5k fmiddot(Jtmiddotccmiddot R(Xlrt u11 rbe 1tfpound7ratiu11 lt oc(lf (io1en1111e1u (11tf Local Jc1elo1me11t Srs1e111s bullbull~Ql( 19)i
2
---1tfrotluct1un
ha ed on 1hi plan middotrhertmiddot art 51 ltEBs in total covering county and urban local
~ll1hori1y 1rc1s Ftch (~EB h1s 1-i 111e1111Jer irHluding repngtStIltHivls of local
govltrnn1c11t public Stl or 1g~ncics hu1ntmiddots Lun1ing lradt union and co11111n1ni1y
inlTest
lH middotrhc CEBs provide 1 r1nge of enltrprigtt -upp()rt -ervices al local levt l eg
admiddot1 ic~ and coun~tlling hus1ncmiddot infonnaiion financial 1sis1ancc and 111an1gtIlllnc
dcmiddottlop11l(Jll middotrhtbull firgltl group- ~tre husinltsse- co11111nu1i1y groups individud
en rcprtJ1(lJrs 1nd -n1i[] enterprises cEBs tonk OVtf re-gtpon-ihililv frorll lhl fltgtrlller
Industrial i)tclop111cnt u1hori1y (ll)A) for the devt~lDpllhllt of 111anufac111ring and
inl =rna1iont gtervicc - finn~ Vilh ltmiddot s th111 ten en1ploycmiddotc In 1ddi1ion_ thtmiddoty is-u111cd
the l1tmiddot roll of pngt11101in~ 111 vnltTpriL culturt
l~1 J-ro111 1hc outet the i)tgtp1r1111lnt of Entcrprist middotrrade and F1nployn1cnt
( Enterpri-e middotrr1dtmiddot 111d L111ploynHmiddotn1) has been responsiblt for co-ord1n~Hing and
supcrvising the crBgt lniti11ly dec1~ions on grant payn1ent~ lo individual projecls
vtre vetted by hl f)t1gt1rt111enl 11ltgttVtL (~EBs Vere ccgtr1s1i1111cd as lin1ited liahili1y
l0111p1nies during iltJltJ) and ifl(I 1January 19CJ(i hive 111idc grtnt decisions
110 Stiffing accon1111ltJLlatiun and 01hcr expen es V(~1tmiddot ini1i1lly provided liy lhtmiddot
lul ii 1u1horitics on a recoupn1cnr lgtt~i and ah hough the CFBs anmiddot nov
inl orporatccl rntny havtmiddot coniinutd Viti lliis 1rrangen1cn1
111 Funding for ltt]is is co-fin111ctmiddotd by Elj _1ruc1urtl funds via suh-progra1111ne I
of 011UHD mcl hv the hchequlr
Ara-amp1setl lc1rt11erslJiJ (-tJn11c111ies
112 1ret-Bit~d 11rtntrhip co1np1nies ltPa11ncrship) vere originally c-tihlished
in 12 ~1rltmiddotmiddotas un 1 pilot hi~i in 1991 10 in1phnhnt an nca-hastmiddotd nmiddotspollgtt to longshy
tlrrn unen1pl(lyn1tlll under tile Progra111111e for Econoinic and Sul-i1I Progrltss (PESP)
_JH Partnerships havt hcen lSt1hlished (2() urhJn ind 1- rural) lo optrat in 55 areas
dtig11Htmiddotd by 1hc (~ovvnlllltlll i~ hling disidvan1~1gtd In 1cldi1ion lherc ire 55 C(lJllllH1nity dcmiddotLmiddotlop111ent groups in non-dtmiddotsig111ted arets middot1J1ch c1ny oul fu11ctior1s
i111iltr to tho~v uf 1he 11r111er-liips middotrile Boards of i)irectors of the co111panil-gt lll
drvn fror11 (1) 1he SlgtCiil p1nncr (ii l -ttle 1genc1tmiddots ind (iii) co111111unity ~ind
vc gt t1n1tr~- cHg111is1 tio11
tmiddot13 The function~ nf the P1rntrsliip art to preptre lnc1I dcmiddottlopn1t~n1 pl1n _ in
con~tdtalion vi1h otl1LI local groups incl hudicmiddots_ to lOLHlltf d1stdvan11gc in 1hcir
~trtts and tiltn lo hlmiddotl thlmiddot-c plans i111ptmiddotn1cmiddotn1td middotrile pl111 oullines the rangt of
socitl ind lmiddotcono111ic tSSlltS to ht addrtmiddot scd in lhimiddot l1rget trta and the ohjeclive to
Ill pursultd h1scd on tile resuh of ~1 ltgtcio-ccono111ic analysis of lhc iret middotrliLmiddot
intbulllllion i~ ro 1tLmiddotlcr11c lnlt11 eronoinic dltmiddotvltmiddotlorn1e1H increise frnrloynHmiddotnt ind
local Develop111e11t l11itiati1es
tickle cxclu~ion incl 1nargintlisa1ion resulting fro111 long-llflll une111ploy111ent vc1y
vide r1nge of 1ctivities i~ unde111ken including job pltCLlllCIH adull education
training con111n1ni1y clevelopn1lmiddotn1 cnviro1111H111tl projLCI~ and youth iniliHives
114 An indepenckn1 in1c1mcdia1y company wis eslahlished in 1992 in111ally under
1he aqigt of 1he Dep111men1of1he Tioisetch and subgtltltjlltgtnily from midmiddot 1997 1he
Depanmcn1 of Tourism Spon and lkcre11ion (Tourism Spon and Hecreuion) 10
oversee 1hc P1nnersllips ind Jocd devclopn1tnl groups middotrhe con1pany 1rca
i)(velopmet11 M1n1gemen1 Iid (ADM) is required 10 cv1lu11e plins from
Ptrlllt~r~hips corn111unity groups ind selecled organisHions lO 1J1ocatc resources in
1ccord1ncc Vilh the eviluation resul1s ind ro 111onitor LXpenditure incl perfon11~1nce
by btneficiarits Over lj(YtJ of funding is spent by tile lartncrsliips incl (he re1111inder
is spent by co1n1nuni1y gro11ps ind nHionil nrgani11ions
115 funding for P1rtnerships co1111nuni1y groups and eligible spending bv selected n11iond org1nisarions is co-fin1ncecl by ElJ s1n1ctural funds incl by the
Exchequer EU funding is provided uh-progrtmme 2 of 011uRD
LEADER
116 This EU lni1ia11vcmiddot for rural devdopmenl w1s origin1lly bunched 111 1991
(lEADloR 1) The obwrnw of 1hc progr11nme wis 10 ltS11lilish locli devdopmen1
1ction groups bullhich voulcl bt responsible for 1he in1plcn1cn11tion of business pl1ns
for heir areis lE1l)EH I v1s 1he subjecl of 111y firs value for 111oney exa111ini1ion
comple1ed 1n Decemhe1 1994 The ini1i111ve wis co111inued under 1he Oper11ional
lrog11mme for IEADER 11 covering ihe period 1994 10 1999 There tre 34 approved
1EADlR groups (is opposed IO 16 group in 1hc orig1nli progr111Hnc) These 11e
iu10110111011- lcg1l cntilies each conrrollecl by 1 boird 111d opeining under 111
igreen1en1 Vith the J)cp111111cnt of gricul1urc and Food (Agriculture incl Fuuclgt Jht-
l)epa1111Hmiddotn1 required th11 the bo1rds h1ve 1 1ripar1ite s1n1crure representative of 1he
con1111unity incl volunt1ry sec1ur luc1l Stite ~1gencies and the priv11t I con11ncrcitl
sector
117 Unlike 1he 01her lniti11ives covered in 1h1gt ex1111in11ion (which are csset11ilily
n11io11il policy initiHivc-) lEAl)EH i in EU lnitiitivl Vliich Va designed incl
Ln1nchccl by the turope~111 Co111111issio11 his 1ne1ns 1hi1 he in1plc111enlalio11 of
LEAJ)flt its 1in1ing ind opertting rules ~in de1ennined Ltrgel~middot Vithin 1ht EU
Co111n1i~sion 1uncling for rhe LEl)EH II lrogr1111n1e is co-financed fron1 ElJ
s1n1c111ioli f11nd the 1lADEH Opci1110111 lrogrunmc 1))4-1999 rnd by ihe
Exchequer
4
In 1roclzut1on
Sc1urces of Finance
118 The Fll Commission incl rhe Exchequer prolidccl funding for the 1niria11middotes inmiddot
the period 199i-199H follows
EU hchequer Toril
pound-111 t-111 ~-nl
CEils 465 516 98 I Parntrships 530 181 711
LEIDER groups 272 ILG 388
126 7 81) 208 0
Scope and objectives of the examination
1l) middotrhe cxa111in~1tion V~1s concerned only vi1h initiatives to pron1ott local
clebullclop111em rhrough Counrv Enrcrprisc Boards Ptrrnerships and LEADEH groups
Thue are 111anv orher ml[1nives for local devdopmcm such as URBAN Terrironal
E11l)loy1nent Picts Pe~tce ~incl Heconciiation 111d lnterreg II vhich ire outside the
scogtc of this ex~1111ina1ion
12middotJ Nei1her iJ)-1 nor the l1rtnershirs arv covered by 111y statutory value fcgt1 11101ey nn1i1 In the interest of producing i cohcivc report on locil l)lmiddotvclopn1cnt
ini1=11ivlts 1hey igreed that the exa111inuion ~hould he extended to chc111 middotrhcir coshy
OJX ration in 1liis resptmiddotlmiddot1 i~ icknovllmiddotclgecl
121 The overall objec11vcs of rhc c1n1inar1on w
bull ro ltVal11are rhc administrative effwncv ol rhc llltXlit (Chaprer 2)
bull lo asstmiddotss the extent of duplic~Hion and co-ordin1tion ~1rrangen1en1s ltCh1p1cr j)
bull to ev~dualc thl operHional efficiency of the bodies (Chipttr 4)
bull to coniidcr ho- tlii i1n1x1ct of 11ie holtl1e~ can hl asscmiddotssecl (Ch1p1cr 5)
1nr The p1opltJ-f of Illgt c_rrn11iiu111011 CFHgt lar111lmiddot-Ji1ps and 1eoJ(1middot grv11S uill IA Fccmiddoti-rlmiddotd l u lrJl(I
)c1lffJ[gtl11ltf hodico
5
loca l)evelojJ1ne1u 11itiatitCs
122 The main issues considered are
Issue Evaluation Criteria
Administrative efficiency Administration costs bull bull Human resources bull Adequacy of management
information systems
Co-ordination of activities Duplicationbull bull Co-ordination
Operational efficiency Targets and performance bull bull Resource allocation and outturn
bull Deadweight and displacement
Impact assessment Quantitative assessments bull bull Qualitative assessments
Methodology
123 Officials 111 the Depanmem of Amicroricuhure and Food the Dcpanmcnr of
Tourism Spoil and lkcrea11on 1he Department of Enlerprise Tracie and
Employmcm 111cl 1DM were interviewed Oua and pipcrs rcbting to targets cosl
and perfon11~1nce Vere ex11nined Analysis Vas carried out of cost and perfonnance
clua aria1ion in perfonnance ck1t1 vas used as a basis for selecting individual Loctl
Development bodies for funher examimtion
124 Selcc1ed CEl3s LEADEH groups and Partnerships were visi1ecl Helevant
personnel Vere intervi(Ld and individual rrojecls Vere visited Sevtrd CISC studies
Vtre identified during the co11rse of this vork and thc~c arc used in this rero11 to
illustr11i key i1SULS middotrhcy should not be ngarltled a1 rcpresentHivi of the cype of
pro1ee1s supponed hy the bodies
125 1Vleetings Vere held vith offici1Js fro1n the l)ep1nn1en1 of the E11viro11111ent
and Loctl Goern111ent ind Ille Co111ba1 lovlmiddotrty Agency lntervieVS look place Vith
the folJoving orga11is~11ions PlJtEmiddotr (Ille netvork of Arc~1-B1scd igtJnnerships)
Comhar IEADER 1u hiireann (tire network of 11ADEH groups) 1he ssociation of
Chief txecutives of Counly EnrcrprisC Bo1rcls (representing County Enlerprise
l3001rcls) the Irish 10111onal Orga1ma11on for 1he ncmployecl (INOU) he
Ken Cork iortb a1ul So111h )uhill CFJJs Trti li )011epal 11ihot1c11 a11d Northside art11lrh1J Fexford Ora11iflfio11 fur R11ral IJltbull1ltlup111c111 anti lao1bull tJ-1nHk Rural Dtbull1tlop111e111 Co Jd (IJ-ADJR ~rn11p) lv11sfonl Co1111111111i~~middot RrrJ1rCli Jd (1d S(J11rh lerry IAmiddottlIOJtllllll Part11crbip Jd (comhi11(c JHADERPart11c1~hip orxa11iatio11~j
6
J11frotll1 rI ion
Conf~r~nr~ of lkhg1ot1s 111 JrcmiddotLrnd (CORIJ vb Yvonne Murplrv lks~ardwr 111d Prof
J1111es A Walsh gtill Mrvnooth
)26 1n eternaJ exrerl IS lt ngagtbulld IO adviSl on the 1ncthodo(ogy of tht --Udy
and rlvtev the study findings_middot
7
2 Administrative Efficiency
21 Tlfrbull chtpter is concerned with the dliciencl of the CEils ltrtnergthips incl
llADER groups in iclminigtIenng locd Development ini111I11es loc1I Dcvdopment
is chirictltnsecl bv t 111uliplirny of object11es mcl ac11vi1ies The control of
achninisrrilive expendirure is 1chicvccl hy reference to stiffing levels pay rates tnd
1he re1sonablcness of 01her 1cl1ninistration expenses
22 Thlt clivers11y of 1he 1c1ivi11es of Local Development bodies ind 1he nexibili1y
in hov rhey set about 1chieving their objecrives li111it rhl extent to vhich cross
co111parisons of efficiency can btmiddot 111ade Neither unifonn perfonnanre inclicarors nor
co111111on infonnirion sysEc1ns on 1cl111inis1ruivc efficiency 1cross the ini1i1tivcs l1ave
been cle1middotcJopecl
23 The ptriocl covered in 1he chtpler is I994- I 998 indus1le However cle11ilecl
tndysrs ti indiviclutl Loctl Dltvelop111ent bodies ielel rel11es 10 I99i - 1997 II
should be noted thu local l)cvelop111ent bodies did 1101 co1nn1ence si1nultancously
incl 1h11 1he lime 11ken 10 esttblish indivicl11d local groups viriccl Accorclingly
expencli1ure in the early ye~trs rel~tles to the middotfullmiddot 1crivilics of i 111inority of groups
and the st111up plt1se of 111any lcgteal groups
24 middotrhe issues incl Calualion cri1t~ri1 used in thi chaptc1 are
Issue Evaluation Criteria
Administration costs Administration costs as a percentage bull of total expenditure
Human resources Extent of Board input bull Staff skills bull
Adequacy of management Data collecllon by Local Development bodies bull information systems Integration of data at national level bull
bull Reporting and monitoring
Administration Costs
25 The tottl 1111oun1 of expcncl1111rc incurred lw Local Develormcnt IJoclics m the
pen0ltI 1994 10 1998 was s208 mrll1on This is tntlysed in Ttble 2 I
26 middotrhc totil expenditure incurred can ht- categorised inro ad1ninisrration costs
vhich are the costs of running the relevant office-i and other exrenditurc Vhich is
cliviclecl IJeteen direct fin1nciil issis1ance 10 enterprise~ ~ind exp~ncliturc on
1ctivirics to incn1se enterprise avireness pro11101e con111n1ni1y dcvclop111cn1 or
redress clis~1dv1nt1ge
8
Atl111i11 ist rrttilt ~lie ic11c_ v
Ta~le 21 Expenditurebull by Local Development bodies 1994-1998
CEBs
P3rtnersh1ps
and other
LloADER Groups
Total
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
poundm poundm poundm poundm poundm
82 28
19 9 46
216 104
230 232
254 301
1 6 53 11 7 202
11 0 261 373 579 75 7
Norg a Expenditure relates to activities under OPLURD and LEADER II Some Local Development bodies also incur expenditure on other activities which arc not funded under OPLURD or LEADER and which are outside the scope of the examination Details for 1995-1997 are contained in Appendix A
b The total expenditure in the table includes Partnerships Community Groups and selected National Organisations
c Includes selected sectoral groups Annual reports of OPLURD and LEADER for 1998
Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total EJcpenditure
2i 1d1ninistra1ion costs 1 a perceniage of total expenditure in the period 1995 shy197 are shown in Tabk 2 L (There was link ad11uniscra11on pending in 1994)
2S dn1inistraliOn CDSIS IS J pcrcen1agt of tOtt[ eXJ1tl1citure decreaStcl uver the
period 199i 10 1997 for t~1ch iniriativtmiddot middotrhis JS clul n11inly co the face that it took
so1ne tin1c for rhe developnHnc groups 10 beco1ne opcrHional 1ncl hence 11n1ch of
the initial expenditure vas on adn1inistration rather thin activic1es This trend i~
1x111iculirly nocKeablc in che cise of LEADER groups md lirtnerships where
acl111inistrHion co1s 1s a percent1ge of tottl expencliture clroppecl sultilanli~11ly
middotrh1re Vere so1ne varialiuns betveen intlividt1al ltEls LFl)FH gnntps ind
Jgta1tnersl1ips middotr11ese ire considered belO Cfhe 1cl111inistration costs of Local
Deiclopnwn1 bodies are shown 111 Appendix B)
CltJUlllJmiddot E11te1prise Rltgttlrtls
29 1middot1icrc v(middotrc no great variations in rhc ad111inistruion costs incurred by che
CEl3s w11h lhe mqorill spending helWtCn pound 100000 and Jl )0000 per innum
1n1lysis of 1997 dat1 shc)Ytbullcl 1h~11 the adn1inistra1ion costs of n1ost CEBs V(n Vithin
1 ~1 r1nge of I ~Ai 10 25S~1 in rel~llion to tnttl expenditure The )ov~st Vas f)uhlin City
H J 1 with Cork Norch being che h1ghcsc ac 11 The level is scronglv mlluencecl IJy
the extent to vhich CFI3s are involved in the provision of gruus is chis increases the
9
local l)cuer4J11unt lnitiaflvcs
Table 22 Administration costs as a percentage of total expenditure
CEBs Partnershipsbull LEADER Groupsbull
Total
1995
poundm
49
15
08
72
Admin c
1996
poundm
43
41
16
100
istration osts
1997
poundm
44
53
20
11 7
Percentage of total expenditure
1995 1996 1997
25 20 19
34 44 28
51 31 17
28 28 22
Note B The figures exclude Community Groups and selected National Organisations b Excludes selected sectoral groups
Source Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General see Appendix A
level of overill expenditure In the c1sc of Cork North their mtin activities are
ini111~1tion incl the rrobullision of suppor1 such 1s counselling and training
wh1Chwould involve lowtr levels of expenditure rlm1 the supply of grant aJCI In the
case of other CFl3s such 1s Dublin City the focus was pnnnpally on the pronsion
of grtnl aid
Part11ersJips
210 P111nersh1ps generally spenl between l)0000 ind l200000 on adminisrruion
1n l997 with some excep11ons Mos 11rtnersl11ps which were esiiblished before
OPLURD had lower adminis1ru1on costs as a percentage of 1otal expenduure rhan
those wl11ch were srtnecl under OPIUlm In 1997 adminis1ra11on expenditure as a
perceniage of 1otil expencliture vas generally in the r1nge of 200u to 40Yo vith the
lowesl a 13 (in rhe case of i011hsidc in Dublin) 10 rhe highest m 51 (1n rhe
case of lnishovltn in J)o11cgal) il1ile 1c111al adn1inistration exptnditure vas si111il1r
in borh Partnerships expenditure on 1crivi1ies VIS significantly greater in Nonhside
as compared ro Donegil lnishowen which wis still in a scr up phase The riming
of projects locil rriorilies in the i1nple111ent1Cion of business rt~1n ind the nu1nbcr
of yltars the Jgtartner-hips have been operating have tn in1p1c1 on the adrninistritivc
cos1s percent1ge indicator
IEADER G10llJlt
211 LEADEH groups genenilly spenr lgtetween 50000 incl U00000 on
~1d1ninis1r1tion in 1997 Vith son1e exceptions In 1997 1dn1inis1rJtion expenditure ~1s
a percentage of 101al expenditure was generally in rhe r111gc 10 to 20 wuh the
lowest at 7 (in rhe c1SL of IJirrow-Nore-Suir) 10 rhe h1ghes1 ll 45 (in the case of
Comhm lorrais) While 1dminis1rarion expenditure wis simiLtr 111 borh LEADlR
10
Adn1i11istrati1cbull IJiciellcy
groups expendilurc on activities (including ~1nin1ation ind provision of grants) v1s
significanlly gnatcr in BarrO-Norc-Suir cor11p1red LO (cJJ11h1ir lnrr1is_ middotr1ierc llL 1
nuirtlltr of factors that can give rise to the variation uch a- hov Vt11 cst1blishcd
lhe sroup is local priorities in the in1ple111ent~1tion of the bu-iiness plan tilt tin1ing
of pro1ecis and 1hc lcnI of grant ml
Human Resources
21lt The loc1I charancr of each of he Local Devclopnw111 boclies mcl the nllure 1 ~incl diversity of thlir operHions n1ean thH thty h1vc l Sllbs11nti1I rolt of initiating
and co ordinating ac11vnies in co-operit1on ith 1 Viele v1ric1y of volunt~1ry and
stttutory org1nisu1ons (see Chapter 3) middotrhe achieve111t~n1 of their objectives is
I clepcndenl on _rhe avail~1hility of high quality plrsonn~I al Board tncl suh-co111111it1Ll
level and clecl1uted high ctl1bre s111f
Extent of Board Input I
2 B There 1s significant input it Boircl level for all of 1he bocl1es Arouncl 1wo 1hircb
of ( EBs operate sub-Boarcl co1111111nccs and half of these suigt-COlllllllllecs inclucle
1 111cn1lxmiddotr clravn fron1 1he local con1n1unit vho are nnt Boltncl clirector ~ middotrhis
invch-t~n1erH in 1octl l)evelopn1tnr bodies e1~tail~ a high dcgrLL of co111n1itn1en1 fro111
people vho are alrctdy active in their local co111111unitics
214 Pr1ctically ill Pirtnerships have suh-co1111111trecs on con1111unity ltlevelopnhmiddotnt=
I education and cnltrpri-e ~incl 111ost LEAl)EH microruups h~1ve -llh-co111111itte1middots on rurtl
touris111environnHn1 natural resources and s111all husinesscraftgt~erviccsr
Prermiddotaratory vork alllndince at 111cct1ngs ancl follov ur ~1ctivities pl1cc considerable
ti111c den1ands on Board and -ub-co111n1ittet 1ne1nbers l)uring chc exuninHion
I lt1bu11clan1 lViclence Vts found of the con1111itn1ent incl skill of Board n1en1lgters and
111en1htmiddotrs of suh-connniutes
Stciff Skills
215 A wide variety of skills is requirecl of 1cxal Developmem swff to match the
range of act1vitilmiddots 11ncle11~1ken middotrhis feature is ranicularly i111portan1 for LEAl)EH
I groL ps and P1rtnershirs clue to tht extent of their nmiddotn1i1 middotrhe staff nf Local
J)cvltmiddotlop111cnt bodies are highly qualified According co ~1 ncenl survey 5lVo of the
i-~~F ond Ihl lCgtfal Jr)(111 c111d RlflI )c11h1p111tllf PTT1JiHlllll1l f11ropca11 )(lt1a F111u Pro~ra1111111
1ttd11a1io11 Unll Apnl (JJJ
1)p(rt111011(1 fro~rc1111111e fnr IJAJ)FJ II (rJl11111111 11ilrcll1Utmiddot iI( Tlr11 R1bull1re11 Rtbullfx11 3re1uftu1 ((middott1rne1 middot (11t A ~(Jlt ialt3 199 7
II
(JC(l )e(lltJjJ11CI 11itiatiU(
CEOs of CEBs huld post-griduite que11ilkirion and funher 2()0 hive prima11middot
ckgrce In the cise of Partnerships 6()0o of 1nan1gers hold a post-gr1du~1te
qualificllion and a funher 24degAgt h1ve 1 pri1n1ry degret
216 flu rc-nurcefulnes- of Lltxil l)cmiddotelop111ent s11ff IS cvident during the course
of the eXltllllill1li01l
Adequacy of Management Information Systems
217 ht avaiL1bili1y of gncgtd 1111111ge111ent infonnation sys1e111s is 1 pnrequisitc fnr
cfficicnt icl1ninis1ration of the inititrives ind for ensuring thll rlllVLnt incl reli1hle
d1t1 is 1v1ilablc for pl1nning plrfonnince 111onitoring ind ev1luation An in-depth
rcvieV of the 1111n1ge1nen1 infon1111ion sysh111s in use Vas 1101 incl11dtd 1n the scope
of the ex1111ina1ion_ 1-lovever ce111in cltfic1cncics in the systen1s htmiddotc1111e app1rent
in discussions Vith officitls in 1hc locil f)evelnp111ent bodies ind during the
qu1n1i111ivt 1nil~middotsis vork
Data Collection by Local Development Bodies
218 E1ch of 1hc bodies opertllS scp1r11e co111pu1erisecl infonnttinn syste111s Vhirh
Vere ck~signtd by consuh1n1 under the aegis of lhe J)cpar1111cnts ind 1l)fmiddotI is
tppropnHe middotrhc pri1111ry purpose of 1hese syste1ns is 10 provide fredbtck on
ae11v1ties by eich Locd Development body ID the Dep1nme111s incl AD1vl The
syste111s should tlso provide 1111n~1ge111ent infor111a1ion for usc locally and facilitite
external evalunion 10vevtr the 1rge nun1bLmiddotr of local groups reponing 10
ditfercnt dtp1n111en1s posls pa11icul1r cJ11lltmiddotngLS tlaquoJr cL1t1 c~tpture
219 l)isc11ssions vitl1 ltgtfficials in the Local l)evelcgtprnent bodies visi1ed indicated
so1ne di~s11i-faction Villi ht kx1l use of systen1s in 1h11 they vere reg1rded as being
1101 user friendly or Vere perceivcd as not being fully suited 10 loc~tl 1ninage111cn1
needs_ In fi(I so111e locd f)evelopn1en1 bodicmiddots h1ve kepi lhltir origin1I syste111s in
11si O -upplc111lnl 1he infon1tttinn provided by the cen1r~1lly debullcloped systeni_ middotrhe
dillicultit~s havt heen recognised ind steps 1rt being t1ke11 011 1n ongoing b1is 10
encourage grc11cr loctl u-e of the C(ntrilly developed syste111~
220 Forn1al 1rr1ngc111en1s ire nor in place Vhich VOuld f1cilitlle nuo111a1ic sharing
of infon111tio11 Joctlly icross ill of rhe groups_ 1his is not possible due to 1he
1bsnce of 1 con1111011 clicnr identifier in the thrtt co111pu1cr sys1e111s_ So111c id-hoc
shiring of dtli such ts projerl tpplicition and 1pprov1ls occurs through rneetings
be1vccn bodies ind via County Str11cgy Groups lmiddotlovcver 1his is no subs1iru1e for
a systen111ic approich to dati sharing
12
Acl111i11 isrrari1e lli-c ieJtlmiddot_ v
22 l A middotide v1riery of perfonna11ce indicnors V1s dtveloped 1hrough discus~ions
w11li 1he external evilullor and with Local Development bodies (se~ Appendix C
mcl OJ LEADEH groups ind Partnersh1ps m 1x111irnlar undertake i wide range of
tctimiddot1 ities and con-lmiddotqucnly 1hcir co111pu1er sy-1en1s c1pture ~1 Viele range of data
middotrhi c111 plicc an tLessive burden on the sn1all 1d111inb1rilie st1ff 1n these bodies
perfonn~tnce 1ncasun111en1 systc111 Vhich focu~es nn 1n agreld StI of key indicuors lo tnco111plttS~ core tctivities and ou1purs and vhich reflect- key objectives
n1ighc be n1ore appropriattmiddot 1ny addicional inforn1uion require1nents could Ix
prltrlided Jess frlmiddotquently through for ex1111ple annual rtporting arrangc111cn1s
22~ 1middot11e fnltomiddoting issues Verlt also noced
bull The p11ori1ics of d1fferen1 loc1I Dcvelopmcnl lxKlies arc not 1den1ical even
Vithin 1hc sunc Local f)cvelopn1ent ini1ia1ive For exan1ple one Local l)evclopn1cnt lxxly 111ight prioritisl 1ss1stance to cl1stclvant1ged groups vhilc 1norher rnight priontise cnterprist clevelop1ncn1_ Exisling 1ne1st1rlll1cnt syste111s do not allov 11le perfon111ncc of chese tvo gruups co be realiticdly r111kecl and con11xircd
bull Measurement should cope w11h the fact that much of the pcrform1nce under
the ini1iat1ves is qualitative in nHure Exunplcmiddots include quil11y of tr~tining openness to disadvantaged groups and qu11i1y of relacionships Vith other
st1tu101) bodies Exiscing n1easunmiddotmiddot111Lllt systcn1s do not cuer for rhcsc 1spects
of perfo1111111ct
bull f)espice initiatieS to involve locd l)evelop111ent bodies in the specificuion of
perfonnancc indicators cxisling perfon111nce n1oni1oring is frequencly seen as son1cth1ng vhich is in1pltgtstcl on groups Vilh lillll direct bcncfi1 in lenns of
e11~1bling 1hltmiddotn1 to understand hov to in1prove 1hcir Ovn perfonnancc~
22 The apprrnd1 described in Case S1uclv I gi1bulls 1n 1nclic111on of 111~ prltp1ratory
Yor involved in developing svsce111s to cviluatc rhc efficiency and tgtfflttivencss of
1he bCKlies Governmenl Dep1rtmenLlt and Local Developmenl bocl1es might es1lt1bl1sh
10 middothat cxtenc this 1ppro~1ch could hl~ applied co rhc 1neasure111en1 and n1anagc1nent
of LDcil Dcvdopmenl periorrnrnc~ Thi 1s a prercquisi1e 10 es11blishing the clati
reqt-ire111ents Yllich should be -arisficd hy the inforn11til~n sys1c1ns in u~e by LocalI l)evmiddotlop111erH bodies Under clie exis1ing s~middotsren1s the inforniHion require111cnts for
detennining 1he extenc ro Vhich value for n1oney is htmiddoting obt1ined front expencli1ure
on lhe iniliatives arl nor 1dequarCly provided for middotrhe current inadequacies of the
inforn)Hion sys1e111i lin1it the scope for evaluation middotrhc middotlid-middotrenn Ev1lt111iuns of both
llA)FR and 011LRD have drawn a11e111ion lo 1his deficiency
Ilo1rc1er 11~-tf)FR groups produce wn11e11 c11u1i1a1ilmiddote repon llriccbull year~r 011d other local 1Je1eop111eu1 lltXlics olso 111c11de c111ai1a11n aJXCt of Jfrfon1u111ce u1 1b1middot1r n7xJt1s AJJ J(ls prod11t1bulld a sene bull of poundltlgt lt1dit- ubich nfhbullc1 q11all1a1inmiddot clfJtltmiddotr_~ of the uork of Parr11erships
J-rr an e(11ded disn1ss1nJ1 nr1 the (flk11e _p_- u_(Jt1j()r11111J1c(bull 111v11i1r1i11g 1middotce middot11F and 1111middot local Urlxo1 111d N11nil FJtnmiddotlopn1ltll lltJ8111n11111middot middot FuroJlllll Sulti(I F1111d lr(Jgn111111Jl 1alifioi1 fh1i1 April 1999
13
lnco l)erelop111enf 11itiati1es
Case Study 1
A benchmarking project
A transnational study funded by the EU is underway to develop benchmarks for pro1ects which seek to insert unemployed people into the labour market The main purpose of benchmarking is to enable organisations to improve their performance
Through a process of discussion and analysis involving the implementing organisations the key processes and desired outcomes are established An agreed set of quantifiable
indicators is developed to give a measure of performance under each key process and desired outcome Overall performance 1s denved by applying an agreed weighting formula to the 1ndiv1dual measures Data capture and performance reporting are
overseen by an independent third party
Graphical representations are produced showing the performance of each group for each key process and outcome Typically the performance of each group will be stronger in some respects than others and future action to improve performance can then ensue
Integration of Data at National Level
224 It is 1111port1nt th11 there should be ce111ral access to cltu to provtclc for a
sys1e1n11ic 1nd co111prchensivLmiddot cv1Jua1ion 1t nation1l level of tl1e efficicnc ind
cffectivcntmiddotss of lcxlttl develop111cnt 1cross the country In 1ddi1ion 1his vould
suppo11 co-01)er1tion ind co-ordina1ion across the bodies
225 Dllt lteld within Governtttent Depa11111enb and ADM is not tntegratecl at the
levtI of tile henefici~111 For exa1nple grant approvJJs to 111 enterprise gr1nt
pJyn1cn1- ~incl e1nploy111cnt 1re not associ1tcd vith 1 unique client identifier in
Enterprise middotrr1dt~ and E111ploy111en(s con1pu1er sys1e111 sin1ik1r veakncss exists in
Agriculture and Foocl and ADM This ctn reduce the scope for evaluttion For
cxainplc the JXrfonnancc of c1Hi1ics vhich obtain financial assis1ance cinno1 readily
be con1p1re(I Vilh 1hose vhich rlCcive 01her non-fin3nci1J supports
226 Whltn CEils were first cstablishccl Enterp11se Traut incl Ftttployment usecl a
cl11ilx1se inheri1ed fro1n 1he J)cpann1en1 of Fin1nce to record ce11~1in key datltI such
is grants piicl ancl ipprovecl on eich enterprise assisted by CEils In aclclition clati
on the Enterprise T11clc ancl Emplovmcnt Business lnfortttation Systettt (BIS) hdcl
grant and e1nploy1nent clua for all 1n1nufac1uring 1nd international services finns
middotr1ie opportunity v1s not taken of co111hining d1ta on the CEB clatal)ase vith its 011
BIS Subscquenllr EntcrpniL middotrrackmiddot incl E111ploy111Lmiddotn1 discontinued recording gran1
piyment cl1t1 on the CEB cL111base finally the coverage of the Forfis annual
etttploytttent survey (which 11pcl11es the BIS) was allowed to clittttnislt so that it no
14
longer allernrts lO include syste111aticillv -i111tll n11nuL1cturing tmiddotnterpriscs Vith less
1han 1en employees Agt a result 1he ibihty of En1erprise Trtcle incl Employmenl lo
1noni1or sn1all indus1ry perfunn~1nce and the cffec1ivencss of s1nall indusC1)
de clopn1cnt progr1111n1es l1as cmiddotonsicleralgtly eJkene(I
227 Enterprise middotrr1de incl Ernployn1tnt is H pr(S(nt agr(eing tcnns of reference
fur 1he es11hlish1ncnt of J sy-itcn1 tn L1cilitate chc inllgrition of CEl3 cL111 in10 1he Bl~
11 ii intended that ForL1s viii include CEB clien1- in its 1nnu1l c1nployn1tnt survey
In addition the l)epann1enl rl~1ns (O acquire a stacistical soft~tre p~1ckage to f1cilita1lt
udysis of CEil cL11a
228 middotrhcre is no nuional pltn to integrHt en1errrisc incl individual clien1 level dtta
fron1 CEl3s ith sin1il1r cLn1 fron1 lEAl)EH gruurs tnd Pannerships Agri(tilture incI
roud does not integrate 1nfonnation vhich is collecllmiddotd fron1 e1ch of 1htgt groups in10
nu onal systen1s and has no plans to do so Al)1 provides rltrltJrts 10 a n111nber of
f)epa111nen1 including Sociil ltollununity ind F11nily 1flairi Fnttrprise middotrr1de and
Fn1ployn1en1 and l~duca1ion and Science
1 229 In 1995 middotrmiddotouris1n Sport ind Hecrcation began 1 process of Stlling up a
I ClnlrJised rerfonnance lllOTlitoring systclll (P~middotIS) for OPJLiHJ) co1nprising ~1ggrega1e
output indicators for CEUs ind Partncrships9 Significin1 rlsources have been
demiddot01ed to developing this systtmiddot111 Pcrfonnance 1ndica1ors Verlt tin~1lly approved by
hlmiddot OPllif) Vtonitoring Con11ni11ee in Jl1y 1999 According lo middot1middotouris1n Srort and
Ht(reation this did not JJlov sufficienl 1in1e to consider extending the sys1e1n
frarnevork 10 provide for co1nplt1nson Vilh o(her rrogr11nn1es such as LEAl)Elt lmiddothe
c11rmiddotent posilion is tliH
bull P1nncrship rerforn11ncc dat~l fro111 I January 19lt)7 IS StJCcessfully taken into
the Jgt~1S l)Ha fron1 co11111n1nity ~ind special inttrcsc groups Vls taken inlo till
PMS for l 998
bull Performance dJla for 1998 from all of the CFlb has beltn rnlla1ed by South
Dublin CEB and taken mlltgt Ille PMS
Tht PMS is used to mon11or 1he levels of ae1ivi11es and outputs under 011UHD 11 JS
usel by thL ex1crn1I ev~tlua1or to assist middotrouris1n Sport and lh~crettion ~ind 1he
OfgtlURl) vlonilonng ConunittlL lO OVLf-itv the Progra1nn1e It is of li111itcd use for
efflCtivcnltSS analysis
23t) A funlicr ditficully is the allsenct of con11x1rison-gt vi1h son1c key h~tseline data
pricbullr to the es1ablishn1ent of ll1Lmiddot bodies for cxunrlt the r11e of nev firn1 fonnalion
and job cretlion 111 -111lt111 firins and 1he pL1cc1nent of long-lenn u11tn1ployecl
middotrourisin Sport and Hlcreation has co111111issionecl a ltudy of b1-cline da1a
15
oca J)e1euj111e11t 11ififlli1e
Reporting and Monitoring
231 Progress npo11s Jre produced every six 111on1hs by 1he lead l)ep1n111en1s for
consider1tion tnd approval lgty the reltv1n1 flonitoring Con1111i11ces Ex1ern1l
cmiddotvdu11ors VCrl eng1ged by middotrouris111 Spltgtn and Hecrea1ion and Agriculture and
rood for 011lHlD ancl lltDEll respcctilely ro produce evduarion rqions ancl 1hey
]11ve ~ilso produced 111id-ten11 rcvievs_ middotr111se repo11s iremiddot considered ll hilf-ye1rly
111ee1ings of 1he nlevint f1onitoring Co1n1nittees_ All Loc1l l)evelop111e111 bodies
prodt1ce 1nn11al rcpo11s ou1lining 1c1ivititS undenaktmiddotn 1oge1htr Vilh financial
s1He111ents 1~ required under the operHional progr11111ncs
232 Nerworking plays an irnponanr role for rhe bocl1s Borh lEtDEH groups and
Pu11Hr~hips have 1he bcncfit of personnel dedica1ed 10 org1nis1ng nelvork
acriv1ries The CEOs of rhe CUh also meer regularly
16
3 Co-ordination of Activities
31 middotrhtmiddot co-cistenrl of chtbull 1hrll types of hltxlics for local clevclop1nen1 lt1- given
rise to concern tlX)llt duplicttion and the Jack of co-ordinuion 1 middotrhe pltllentid for
cluplic1tion irises bcciu_c the bodies co111111e1Htd inderenck~nlly of each olhlr ind
s1ariccI 11 clitlercnt ti1nes lt1ve sin1ilar ubjemiddottives incl 11rglt ovcrl1pping p(gtpul~1tions
hivmiddot~ se1x1rItc local ad1n1nistr1lll strucrurls 1 rcpo11 to different lgtepa11n1enLi and ire
funded by different opltftlionil progr1111111es_ A a res11h there is 1 need 10 ln-gture
that there nl lttdtqulle 1rr1ngin1Lmiddotnts in pL1c1 to recluce the pnss1hility of cluplicltion
and to ensure that lhtrc is proper co-ordination betVten he ditlerenl bodies
32 Jhe iSSlllS of Jupllcl11on and co-urdinlliun can bl t~sc -lcl
bull bccwcen ch cl1ffllellC loctl Devclormenc boclicmiddots
bull belveen Local ()evelopn1ent hoclies and 01her agencies ~11ch is Enltrpri~tmiddot
lreL1nd 1ncl che l)lmiddot1x1111ntmiddotn1 of Suciil lt0111111un11y incl F1111ily tfL1ir-
1middothis ex1111ination is confined to duplication incl co-orclinat1on belVeen Local
n~vfiopmtell( bodies
33 In this chapter rhlmiddot i-sues of duplication and cn-ordinition are exanuntd under
evduition criteria ~1s shovn bclOmiddot
Issue Evaluation criteria
Du )lication Objectivesbull Clientsbull Activitiesbull Funding of projects bull
Comiddotordination Local level bull National level bull
IDulication
134 1 subst1nliil nu111her of lgencies c111 provide l0~11 l)evelopn1ent suppnrts in
I thl 1111e hgtc~d 1rc~J 1igure 31 fro111 lhe Suulh Vest illus1rites this
35 middotrhe natun of lhtmiddot inllillimiddottmiddots is 1hat lhlrc should be tltmiddotibiliry in str11egic
dlcigtiun n1ahing at locil level Vilhin brc)Jd p1ra11H[lfS lllch 1n sel oul 1n the
Operation1) Progr1111111es middotrhe si1nilari1ies igtelveen ohjectimiddotes clienL ind activilies i~
shltn11 in middotrabies 3_ I to 34 1re 1 result of thlst policies
17
loca )evelofn11enf lnifia11es
Figure 31 Local Development Supports in the South West
Tuartha Chiarrai Teo (Leader)
West Cor Enterprise Board
North Cork Enterprise
Board
Blackwater Resource Development (Leader)
m Car City Partnership
South Cork Enterprise Board
Cork URBAN
Note The following ADM funded community groups are indicated on the map by nun1bers
[] Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo [Z] Bantry Integrated Development Group
G1] East Cork Area Development Ltd ] Avondha Development Partnership fil IRO Duhalow Ltd
[sect] Sliabh Luachra Ltd [Z] Listowef Baronies Group Ltd
Objectives
36 All of 1he Lxxlics trt concerned illl locil econoinic develop1nlllt tnd h~1ve
i IJrief lo rn-ordin11e incl enlunce ex1s1ing suppo11s ii locd level Bo1h lEAl)EH
incl P111nersl1ip grltn1ps arc conccrntmiddotd V1th co1n111unity clcvelop1nent Vhile
P~1nn~rships ire explicitly focused on co1nlx1111ng socitl exclusion
Clients
37 1Ltny sin1il1ri1ies exist hetVeen 1he clitnls uf the lhllt types nf bodies hu1
there tre tlso in1pon1nt clifferenclS ihile CEHs deal Vilh business ickas fro1n any
individual or group thty do not specifically target dis1dv~11111gcd groups vhich are
1hc focus of P111nersh1ps lFAl)ER acliitics ire dirtctcd IOVllcls the loc1J
18
-------
I
Coorclination ojmiddot Acliuitiltgts
Table 31 Objectives
Objectives CEBs Partnerships LEADER
Fogtster development by Area planning Jc1b creation
Business supports Arumatton
C1)unter serious economic and social problems by Aisisting long-term unemployed 1n10 jobs Promoting adult educationtraining Aisisting community development Ericouraging provision of child support Integrate supports at local level
0
Table 32 Clients
Nature of Clients
Pcmiddotpulation coverage
G(bullograph1c coverage
Small Enterprises
Adult Learners
Joigt Seekers incl LongshyTelm Unemployed (LTU)
Ccmmunity Groups
Lone parents
Trc1vellers
Pe)ple with d1sabil1ties
Dirndvantaged youth
i==
CEBs Partnerships LEADER
100 61
100 Includes 13 complete counties and several
other disadvantaged areas
Almost complete in rural areas
(excludes part of cities of Dublin Cork Galway Limerick Waterford)
Note o denotes thor one Local Development body has chosen to pursue this objective
a This relates to designated areas covered by Area-Based Partnerships Soures Tables 3 1 amp 32 These tables were derived from the Operational Programme for LEADER
OPLURO and interviews with managers of Local Development bodies
19
lr1ca )e1eh11111e111 11i1iati1es
Table 33 Main development activities
Activity CEBs Partnerships LEADER
Draft development plans v v v Assess local plans 0 v v Carry out surveys of enterprises v v 0
Provide finance to enterprises v v v Provide advice to enterprises v v v Assist enterprises to access
consultancy support v 0 v Organisefund mentors for enterprises v v v Fund management development v Organisefund marketing initiatives v v Promote enterprise via meetings etc v v v Produce enterprise
brochuresbusiness guides v v v Promote enterprise 1n schools via
competitions training etc v v v Fund prov1s1on of tourism facilities v v Fund road signage Tidy towns v Fund artscultural festivals v v
Table 34 Main activities concerned with countering serious economic and social problems
Activity
Counsel long-term unemployed (lTU)
Carry out skills audit of LTUs
Establish network of L TUs
Organise fund education or
training courses Fund provision of education centres
Fund construction refurbishment
equipment of community resource
or activity centres Fund estate improvement
Fund communityyouth workers
Organise fund community fora
or networks Organise fund homework clubs
Fund youth act1vit1es
Fund play groups creches
CEBs Partnerships
v v v
LEADER
v v
v v
0
Note 0 denotes that not afl Local Development bodies have chosen to undertake these activities
Sources Tables 3_3 amp 34 These tables were derived from the Operational Programme for LEADER OPLURD and interviews with managers of Local Development bodies
20
Coor(i nation ojmiddot11 c I tu it ies
co111nunity in genertl ind local project pron1ottri lhile people vho tr( Slvcrely
socially or ((Cll)Olllically deprived IllJY r1r1iciplle in lEAl)l-f lllivitilS LEAl)EI his
no nmiddot1nit 1n spccifically targlting lhlSl groups In nine c1-es lEAlgtER ancl
P1dncrship Strviccs an dtbulllimiddotlncl by llHmiddot s11ne loc1I group
3~ LEAl)ER Jnd P111r1trships ltivc exten-iiC hut not co111plc1e popult11un
colrttge Jgt111nerships ind 1l)ivl-funcled con1nu1nity groups coVlI 1111ny of 1hc n1ure
conclmiddotn1r11ecl trltls of dis1dvin11ge l)lllt to lhe ficl 1h11 social dis1clvanragc is
spali11ly clis1rilH1ttmiddotd son1ltmiddot 1nmiddot1s of till cuuntry Vh(r( clis1dv1r111ge ex1sts arc nor
cobullbulltmiddotnmiddotd by P1rlnltrships or l)imiddotl-h1nded con1n1uni1v groups
A1tivities
39 It c111 igte gteen fro111 middotro1ble Jl 1hll 1hcre ecrraquoive duplicnion of
de1c]op111e11t tctivities 1crois 1he bodies Vith 1hnost tll of the 1c1ivitics lgteing
llndertlken by JI Je1-t tVO type~ of hodJtS [n inlLfilS Vith ht lllJntgtrs or the
Local l)evelorn1tnl bodies ii middotas indicated 1h~H Vhile thcv are lVtre of this
overl1p they rel~ on co-ordination n1ech1nis111s to ensure that re-ource- are nnl
Vl ~teeI
310 It c111 igte gtltmiddoten fro111 Table 34 1ha1 so111e overlip exisis lielween IEADER
gnurs ind P1nnerships Vith respec1 [o countering serious econo1nic ind soci1l
prcmiddotblv111- middotrills can irislt through i111pnmiddotc1stmiddot defini1ion ind inlerprtlUiun of the r~1nge
of crviltlS providld J-[oll(L the extenl of overlap 1n countering serious econo111ic
and Slgtcitl rroblcins is n111ch less 1han in 1he case of develor1nent activilies pa1tly because of th( 11rgct1ng of -plcific client groups hy P1rtnerships (the long-tenn
uncn1ployed ind the soc111ly ecludedJ
311 It should be no1ecl th~1t 1111ny other agencies or groups outside the scope of
1he exa1nin~nirln are ilso 1ctive II local level For cx1111pllt the Hosco111111on (JmiddotB
1ction Pl111 1997 - 1999 conttins a 111trrix uf dtmiddotvehgtp111ent agltncies incI servicis
pre vided in Coun(y Hosco111111on lhis i- shnmiddotn in ppendix E
F1J1nding of Projects
3 12 Situations can occur vhere pro111oters can 111axilnist thl funding they receive
b~middot applying for surport froo1 cJillenlll groups
W1hlre arc Poor 011s(hcd~ 711c Spali(I )11rih11lPll () r11e11r a11d DeJ11r11011 111 rlrt11d Urito1 1oa11 cl (J C0111ha1Ponrty1l~ltJ1C) 19lt)8
21
ocal Jeveloj1111c111 lniJ1atiUltS middot----- shy
Case Study 2
Subsidy shopping
A promoter had a turnover of pound80000 from an equestrian centre and language school In addition he was a farmer his spouse was a teacher and he had net assets of almost pound05 m1ll1on He wished to develop the equestrian centre and language school and provide accommodation on site for language students he applied to a CEB for financial assistance The estimated cost of the project was as follows
pound Accommodation costs 20000 Classrooms 10000 Indoor arena 22000 Outdoor arena 15000 Tennis court 10000
Total 77000
The CEB considered that financial support would be appropriate for certain nonshyaccommodationmiddot aspects of the project This comprised classrooms indoor arena and outdoor arena costing pound47000 and a grant of pound20000 was approved in May 1996 The Board considered that the promoter should fund all of the accommodation aspects (The Board had a policy of not assisting the provision of accommodation because this is a response to rather than a generator of demand)
In September 1996 the promoter applied to a LEADER group for a grant According to the grant application form the accommodation cost had risen to pound85000 (as against pound20000 in the CEB application) The LEADER group was aware of the financial support already provided by the CEB and the reasons why this level of support was given The LEADER Board approved a grant of pound17000 being 20 of the cost of the accommodation The project promoter was also approved for a marketing grant from LEADER of pound2750
Total capital grants approved for the project (pound37000) amounted to 26 of pro1ected capital expenditure (pound142000)
313 It has been po1n1ccl 011t (by Entlrpnse Trnclc ind Employment ind Tourism
Sport ~ind HecreJtion) 1hat this ct~e srudy gives little risemiddot fur concern 1~ the funcling
vas clinctecl tOv1rds different ele1nent of the projecr l-loCVer the fnlloving
efficiency difficulc1cs arise
bull aclcluionil middotsearchmiddot costs for cl1cnts who mikc mul11ple applicu1ons for ~1-isistance
bull ~1dditiontl tin1e ~pent by n1en1bers of Bo1rd incl evtluuion co1n1ni1tees and adn1inistrJrivc cosrs in Loc1I l)evelnpn1ent bodies
bull thC first Local Devdopment body to approve finannJI assisuncl cannot adopt a middotrotlJ project vieV bCClttUSe it is 110t lV1fe Vhether subsequent tJ1plicati011S ill be 1n1cle for assist1nce to other Local Developn1ent bodies
22
COorcination of Actiuitics
C1gt-ordination
314 As part of their an11nat1011 and co111111unity development 1ctivitits all of the
bol1es part1culirlv LFADER groups and P1rtnersl11ps look for opportunities to
1ni iale and co-orclina1e acrivilies vhich 111iy be underlaken by a vide variety of
st1tutory rnmmun11y and voluntary groups Tlus work usually Licilitates the
provision of econo111ic and social benefits to the co111n1un1ty Typical exunples 1re
bull Organising nevorks of lone parenis
bull Pro1nnting tidy tovns
bull Organising second chancC cducuicgtn
Vihin Local Development hodics therLmiddot is often tc11sion between the priorny to be
given to their co-ordination role ver~us the direct delivery of services including
grants
315 Co-ordination frequently involves the co-operation of several different
organisations at different levels (StHc local government communitvvoluntary
se(tor and business) to ~chicve a con1111on objective middotrhrough their co-ordinarion
roli~ the bodies n1ay harness rhc porcntial of several organisarions to achieve an end1 which would not otherwise be achieved This role has been cited is contnbutmg to
the unique role of the Joell development bod1Lmiddots A good LXimple of this mshyore ination i~ set out in Case Study 3
316 The multiple funding ol this anglmg pro1ect is substint1ally differtnl from the
multiple funding shown 1n Case Study 2 In Cie Stuclv 3 thlt contributions of the
vanous bodies were agreed as part of an integrated plan
317 The co-existence of three significant types of boches (and the inherent
cluphcarion shovn in 1he previous section) places a particular onus on 111anagc111tmiddotn1
of the organisations oH both national and lcxal levels to co-ordintte service provision
Fig1re 32 illustrates for each of the bodiltS the dilftmiddotrcnt co-ordinarion structures in
phe
23
loco l Jc1eofgt11HJ 11 I11 ii iu I ioes
Case Study 3
Co-ordination of a tourism angling project
A LEADER group in an inland county sponsored a study of the tourism development
potential of the county Although the county had weak tourism infrastructure and
practically no angling facilities the study identified several tourism sub-sectors that
could be developed including angling
An initiative was undertaken by the LEADER group to co-ordinate the development of
angling in partnership with fourteen other bodies including Fisheries Boards ESB
Coillte Duchas Bord na M6na and several community development organisations and
angling groups The initiative consists of
bull the upgrading of eight lakes most of which are owned by State agencies and many
of which were overgrown or silted
bull construction of stiles paths etc and restocking the lakes with fish
bull grant support for accommodation providers in the lakes area
The total cost of the project was estimated at around pound05 million Some of these costs are borne by LEADER but most are borne by State agencies and the Tourism
Operational Programme 1994-1999
The LEADER group is involved with other organisations in marketing angling facilities
and the provision of training for the ongoing management of the lakes
Co-ordination at Local Level
318 Cot1n1y Strllcgy croups Vere es1hlimiddotmiddotd1ed in LICh cnu111y under OPLUl~J) O
L1ci[i[Je co-orclin11ion ~ind 111inin1isc cluplic1tinn in lie delivery of progrin1111es
middotrhe Groups provide i forun1 for forn1d conununicition Vithin etch councy and
hctCt11 counties incl cenlrtl policy 111akers_ vlen1lxrship of the Groups includes
the Chlt1irpersn11s of CEl~s Ptr1nerships ind lEAl)EH groups County middotrouri111
Con1n1i1tees Coun1y f11n1~ers incI represen111ives fron1 middotrourisn1 Spon and
Recnation
319 middotrhe cu-ordinttion of services 10 cliencs depends very heavily on cruss-1gtncy
rcpresenltlion incl illendance at 111cetings middotralgtle ~5 shovs 1ypictl Board
repre~enc11ion
24
Coo1middotrh11atio11 o lctiuillcs
Fi1ure 32 Monitoring and Coordination
InterdepartmentalOPLURD OPLEADER Evaluation Polley Committee Evaluation
_l Department of Department of
Enterprise Trade Tourism Sport and Employment and Recreation
ADM Ltd
Partnership Boards
County Strategy Groups
1~BBoards ------shy
Department of Agriculture and Food
LEADER Group Boards
Table 35 Typical Board representation
S~bullctor Represented CEBs LEADER Partnerships
Lcmiddotcal authority members almost complete
Statutory bodies Ernployers I Trade Unions I Farmers Community I Voluntary sector
SouCe Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General
25
ocu )e1Alop111e111 11ifi(lf1ccs
320 CEils ire represented on most IEADER groups incl many Pa11ncrsh1ps
Hovever 1n~1ny lEAl)ER groups and P~111nerships ire not represented on CEBs In
so111e bu1 not all cises vhere cross-board represenlation i lacking there is crossshy
agencymiddot rtpn=sentllion at sub-boird level instead such as evilullion co1n111iuees for
protects_ In nine c1s(s vhere then~ are con1n1on boundaries the san1e Board
1clm1nis1ers both a LEADER group incl Partnership In ciscs where there ire not
m11ch1ng bounclirics 11 1s usud for LEADER groups incl lu1ncrships to have
C01111ll011 UO~trd repreSCl1tatives
321 Agriculture incl Food require all lEADEH groups to specify how they intend
to co-ordinate their activiies Vith other bodies before agree111en1s 10 i111plen1en1 a
LEADER progr1111me are completed Each tgreement includes t clause to this effect
and dso requires IEADER groups to part1n1x11e in Coun1y Strategy Groups
322 The view of the Local Development bodies is 1h11 loctl knowledge is of
piran1oun1 in1po111nce for co-orclina1ing their ~1ctiviries Use is n1aclc of infonntl
contacts 10 ensure tha1 each organisHion is tvarc of Vhat others artgt doing middotrhere
is often no formal 1gree111ent berween Local Devclop111ent bodies H local level
regarding 1h~ lin1its betveen objtgtctives acrivities and clients Hovevcr
consideration should be given 10 drlving up a middotfittcn staten1ent Vhich VOtilcl set
out a broad fra111ework of agree111ent between Loctl Dcvelop111ent bodies A good
exmtple from County Meath is shown in Appendix F
323 from the beginning elected pol1ticd representation was absent fro111 IEADER
incl Partnership 13oards Mc111bers of local authonrics are represented on CEl3s but
not is of right on LEADER groups and Partnerships However local aurhonry
officials arc frequentlv on the boards of lEADEH groups incl Partnerships A process
his been undc1way to 1nclucle 111e111bers of local authonties on rhe Boards of
LEADER groups and Partnerships This process is now complete in the cise of
IEADER incl is d111ost rn111plete 1n the cise of Pirtnerships
GeograpJica ampm1ulmJbull ProJlem
324 The co-orclmation of activi11es it locd level is 111ade 111ore difficult by the lack
of coherence the way the boundmes of the Local Develop111ent bodies were
clr~lvn and because of overltpping houndanes vi1h srHucory bodies 1s 1 result
n1any iltx~d l)evclop111ent bodies 1nust liaise vi1h a nun1ber of orher Iocil
l)evelop111ent bodies Jnd srJn1cory organisations_ middotrt1is increases tl1e acln1inistra1ive
burden on Local Develop111ent bodies ancl 1mpecks rhcir ability to offer unifor111
service delive1y in their territorymiddot and to co-ordinate activities of other Local
Develop111ent bodies and Srate igencies
26
Coordi11atio11 Cf Actiuities
se Study 4
Bcbullundary problem in South County Dublin
The boundary of South Dublin CEB covers the same geographical area as that of South De blin County Council and South Dublin Area of Dublin Tourism In this area there are four Partnership companies
Ta laght Partnership wholly located in Dublin South Clondalkin Partnership wholly located in Dublin South KWCD Partnership divided between Dublin South and Dublin City Scuths1de Partnership divided between South Dublin and Dun
LaoghaireRathdown
Al~o the Dublin Rural LEADER Company covers part of South Dublin as well as Dun LagtghaireRathdown and Fingal Council areas The State service providers such as FlgtS Eastern Health Board (EHB) Department of Social Community and Family Affairs (D3CFA) and Enterprise Ireland do not have the same geographical areas as local auhont1es They are split up into regional areas and these regions impinge on South Dublin CEB as follows
FlgtS Dublin SouthWicklow region of FAS contains part of South Dublin while Dublin WesVKildare region of FAS caters for the rest of the South Dublin area
EHB Each of three regional areas of the EHB Dublin South Central South West and West impinge on the area of South Dublin CEB
D~middotCFA Dublin South region of DSCFA contains part of South Dublin and Dublin West region of DSCFA caters for the remainder
Enlerprise Ireland South Dublin 1s totally contained within Enterprise lrelandmiddots region of Dublin and Mid-East
32~i Agricuhure and Food ha~ poinced ou1 rhar coheren1 geogr~1pliical boundaries
would be contrarv to the bottom upmiddotmiddot approach of LEADER The initial EU proposal
for hl fo11hcommg LEADER lnillatilC stales middotmiddot11 would he desirable rhar rbe eligihle
areas do not coi11citle tuith notional acln1ii11strati1e ho111ularies nnr ufth cli_~ihle
zon$ 1111cler the 1nainstrec11n operations(~ the structural jltntlsmiddot
Co-ordination at National Level
32(1 An Interckpartmcntal Policy Committee for Local Delelopment was
estltulishcd m June 1993 under 1he auspices of 1he Department of the Ta01seach and
subequently reconltt1tuted in Ocwber 1997 under Tourism Span and Rccrea11on 1s
funmon is to oversee 111d make recommendations on local delelopment (Appendix
G shovs the conunitteemiddots renns of reference) fhe co1nn1itcee is chaired by the
Minster of State in Tourism Spo11 and Hecreation ind comprises represenwives of
27
loca I )e1eofJ111e11 f In it itlf ftls
i nu111her of Gov1rnn1ent lgtepart1nc11ts middotrhe ro1111ni11ee has contributed policy
n111eriil 10 1he post 2000 s11b1nission on the future of struc1ural funds ind v1s
involved in 1htmiddot develop1nent of 1ht Integrated Services Prnjec1middot
327 middotn1e co111n1i11et sees i1s fu1ure role is one of infon11ing its([f nf dcvclop111ents
cnh1ncing links Vith local develnp1n~n1 orgtnisuions 111d lt1rn1ng les-gtons fron1
piln1ing projet1s including 1htmiddot porenti~tl for n11instrl1n1ing successful projects
328 middotrhlre is a potential role for the con11nittee 10 get involved in soning out the
sys1t111smiddot in1clequ1cics ind to develop 1 strltcgic lttpproich to coun1ering 1he
neg1tive ispcmiddotcts or duplicuion lhc co111111ittee should consider developing 1n
1green1ent concerning the lin1its hitveen tile olgtjec1ives 1ctivities and clients of the
three types of bodies vhilt- laking account of the li111it1tions on the discretionar
nllure of lhe LE1l)EI Jgtrogran1n1c Vhich is an FU Initiative
329 Fruin 1 viluc for 1noney perspective ind bised on the 1buve 1nilysis the
follr)ving i1nprove111~111s ire desirlttble in the short tern1
bull 1hc cs1ablish111ent of coherent geogr1phical buuncL1rics
bull tn incretse in he forinal co-orclinllion of service provision
The Task Force Report on the Integration of Local Government and Local Development Systems
330 t Trsk Force which was esublished lo reporr on 1h~ 1n1egr111on of locd
govern111ent incl locil clevelopn1cn1 sys1en1s reportccl in August 1998 and its
reco111111end~11ions Vtre approved by C1nvern111cnt in Septen1ber 1998 1 middotrhe 11sk
1orce l-gt concerned to ckvclop 1 vision ~ind s1ra1egy vhich Voulcl encon1pass in
in integralecl IY (he oper11ions of loc1I governn1ent ind Local l)evelop1nent
bodies in order 10 significantly incre~1se 1heir effec1iveness
331 Tire Task Force conltrdercd 1111 Iris could besr be achieved 11 1hc counry rncl
cily level The cclllrrl role will be pL1yed by new Coun1y or City Dcvdopmenl
Boards (CDlb) which will be es1ablislred in each ciry incl cou111y locrl authority
The CDBs with memlJerslup drawn from four sltcrors (ie local governmcnl
co111111uni1y ~ind voluntary social partners and Slate agencies opcra1ing at local level)
ill clrnv up an agreed ~ind con1prehensive Coun1y or City Strategy for Econon1ic
Sociil ind Culturtl l)evelopn1cn1 It VtS 1greecl 11i~11 Jgtannerships or LEAl)EH groups
should cllal Vith clis1clvan1aged areis on an 1greecl basis 1nd 1hat con1111unlly
1)( 111ltgr(lc-d Wnncc~ lropU tla egtlabllshtd 011 a pilot btLgtiL ill f)rce111hcr 1998 ill 011r sltmiddotnmiddoto11S~) ltliltult(l11fa~1middotd arltbullas_ (JbjeLliltmiddot 1s 10 cr1-ordi11flle tbtbull i11p111 ofall S1a1C senlicegt
28
Coorrli11atio11 o Jcmiddotti111 ie------------------------------~---
developinent and -ciciJI incl11sion 111c1sl1re tho11lcl vl1ertmiddot possibll bl cleliVlrld bymiddot
gra~sroots bodies Further nmiddotcon1n1endatinns of the middotr1sk rorcc include
bull (Jl(lprise support func11un lo htbull vered in 1he CFBs Vith rrovision for the
involvement of other Local Dcvdoprncnt bodies such as LEADEH by ~1grec111ent
bull fu11ctional arl1- to coincidemiddot Villi co11n1y or city IHHJndaries or_ t[ sub-county
kmiddotvtmiddotL local elector~il ~treas
bull ~1 si11gle igency to bl nmiddotspt1nsihll for con1n11111i1y dlvclop1nlnl at suh-cuun1y
lclI (either the local tuthoritymiddots Arca Con1111ittee or in clc-ign1tecl
clisadv~1nt1ged 1rc1s groups -gtuch ts P111ntmiddotrJ1ips or LEAJ)ER groups)
I bull any future loctl ckv(loptntmiddotnt groups slloulltl have cou11ty or city councillors on
[heir Boards
An interdc1x1rtn1en1al i111ple1nent~1tio11 group h~ts hLcn fonncd to oversee thl in1plcnltmiddotn111ion of 1l1c middotr~1sk ilnce reco111111endarions
29
4 Operational Efficiency
41 This chapter considers the operational efficiency of the groups Operational
efficiency is concerned Vilh 111aking the best use of 1hc resources provided to
111axin1ise the ltmiddotvel of outputs achieved
42 middotrhe issues and evtluHion criteria arc
Issues Evaluation criteria
Targets and performance Quantification of targets bull Use of baseline data bull Achievement and review bull
Resource allocation and outturn Targets and outturns bull Allocation of resources to Localbull Development bodies
bull Grant cost per job
bull Cost of non-grant outputs
Deadweight and displacement Information on extent bull Effective procedures bull
Targets and Performance
43 OlLUHD contained a number of output md ac[Jv1ty t1rgets to IJe achieved
over the priod 199 middot 1999 A report issued in 1994 crnicised some of the tJrgets
in that they did not refer to previous performance In the absence of this middotbaseline
perform1nce cl11a it is not posstble to know how realistic or demanding these targets
are Extmples of the lick of baseline cl11a include information on new 1obs and new
businesses middotrhc report ilso ronsiclend 1ha1 oilier 11rgets Vere coo n1odcst in relation
10 hat v1s knovn lttbou1 perforn1ancc such as chc tirget for ncv businesses suppo11ed by P1rrnership vith reference to the perforn1ance undltr the original
PESP Partnerships
44 lhe n1ain OPLLRI) targt~ts and 1chievc111cncs against the targets are fhOvn in
Table 41 Most of the original targets were excccdccl bv 1998 rrnny by a wide
margin The only target that w1s quantified in th~ Operational lrogrunme for
LEDER as the creation of obs wluch was set H 4000 over the life of the
Programme Up to encl 1998 an overall job creation figure of 2700 (fulhime job
equivalents) was reponecl
45 Folloving the reco111n1endarions conrainecl in the 1nid-ten11 reviev revised
performance indicators and raised targets were adopted by the OPLURD Monitoring
Ex-a11( Appaiitil of Proposed local Dcmiddotvelop111e111 Progran1me pn1x1rltbulld on bfhalf of DC X11 ~)the SeflJices 11d11ilnltS Research Centrt liCD F11zpa1ncJ Associates a11d Kiert111 lcKeo1m1 lld Febn1ary 1994
30
Tatle 41 OPLURD targets to end-1999 and achievements to end-1998
-
Target
Now JObs
Nt~w businesses
Progression of unemployed to -full-lime jobs -part-time jobs
Number of adults asgtisted to access education
NL mber of children attending preventative education services
Existing businesses su Jported
Cl sterner contacts
=
CEBs
Original Targets
8000
2260
280 pa
20000 pa
Achievements
15500
3 110
2500 (1996-1998)
8700a (1998)
Partnerships
Original
Targets
6900
3640
12500 1500
60000
20400
30000 pa
Achievements
12800
12800
11400 2900
18500
35000
na
Note 8 Only contacts which fed to a provision of a service by the Boards to a client were recorded
Soure OPL URO and annual roports
cn111111i11ee in i-lay 1999 (ee ppendi ))_ middotrhcsc l~1rg~ts appear to he 111ore re~iliitic
having regard to perfonnance in the early ye~1rs of the Progra1nn1e
146 in the cise of ihDlH the mid-term rtmiddotnew notd that the 01 ind1cuors
_cured highly on relevance 1-lovever n1any ut the indicators verc so vague 1ha1
111caningful qu111tificlt1tion vould htmiddot aln1osr 1n1rx1ssible -rhlt reviev concluded that
the pcrforn1ance indicators dieI 1101 provide J sufficiently cltar basis on vhich groups
could debullelop con1n1on indicuor systen1s_ lhe nvit~V proposed a sys1en1 of
ptrf1nnance indicators flt1r discussiltgtn 11ncnchnent incI i111plen1en1a1ion imiddot11e
LEA)ER Morntonng Commince clccidccl that each LEADER group should prepare
i rt~middoti~t~cl t1rgtIS in respect of he indicators proposed in lhlt n1icl-1enn nviev (see
pptmiddotnclix E)_ Nu revised nationil targtli Vtrt agreed by the fmiddot1nnitorin_g Co1n1nittcc
or griculture Jnc1 Food
l
ocal JercoJ11rent 11itulfiteshy
Table 42 Expenditure targets 1994-1999 and outturns 1994-1998
Initiative OP Forecastbull
1994-1999
Revised
Forecast 1994-1999
Latest Forecastc
1994-1999
Outturn 1994-1998
poundm poundm poundm poundm CEBs 818 811 808 620d Partnerships 1047 1036 1083 706e
LEADER Groups 772 947 947 388
Notes a Updated for exchange rate changes and inflation as of May 1999 b Revised forecast is lhBI which has been most recently approved by the Monitonng
Committee ft refers only to expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds c Latest forecast is the most recent estimate by the relevant department of the most
likely outcome It refers only to expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds d Outturn only includes expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds (pound620ni)
Expenditure not co-financed by EU structural funds an1ounted to pound36 1m e Ourtum only includes expendifure co-financed by EU structural funds (pound706m)
Expenditure not co-financed by EU structural funds amount9d ro pound05m Source OPLURD LEADER OP annual reports
Resource Allocation and Outturn
47 Public e-pendi1ure 11rgets ind ou11urns ire shovn in middotrable 42
48 Fro111 the beginning it V1s the viev of Enterprise middotrr~1dL incl En1ployn1tnl thit
there IVlI nut sulliuenc EU funds under 011UHI) 10 support 1lte desired kbullel oldeg
t-pctHliturc by CE13s over 1he life of the Prngrunrnc_ ccorclingly CEB exrenditun
wis in ecess of the level co-finrnred by Ill funds rnd the b1l111n of U6 J million
wis provided bv the hclwquer It is ciltrr 1h11 EU funds rvrilrble for CElh under
011UIU) wrll be fully u11lised bv the encl of 1he lrogrrmme
49 A~ n1ost P1nntrships h1cl to go through J lcng1hy pnxtss of es11hlish1ncn1
incl planning in 19ltJ5 ind 1996 their cxpendiltirc Vas slov in rhuse ye~1rs tlovtver
expenditure 1ccclcr1Ctcl in 1997 and 1998 middotruurisn1 Spo11 ind Hecrellion and 1)11
expecc chH over the full progranllne period c-pencli1urc 1argc1s viii be n1et
410 E-pencli1u1-c under LE1J)fH Vts suhst1nti11ly Ix-In ttrget for rhc pcriocl
1995-1998 A fu11hcr sum of J18 million wrs rllocued to lEDEH liv the EU
Co111n1ission in 1996 fro111 an EU re-erve avai11hle for (on1111unity initiatives In order
to reach lht revised forec~1st expendi1ure in 1999 Voukl h1vc to be 1non 1han lVO
111cl 1 hilf ti111cs lite expenditure of 998 tmiddotlovever griculturc incl Food lXPLCls
1h1t ill alloc1tecl funds viii be spent by the encl of tiltmiddot Progr1n11nemiddot
11ltcor(111g trJ the 11AIJlR ()~ lt11 eliJihle ltpc11di111nmiddot 111ust lgtc co111tlffltlf 1~1 middot JtA f)IJ~ gn111h l~r tbc (IU
of fJrl-1 111Jc_bullr 15J-JY 11Ji~e 111r1111middot1 s 11111sf he Hiid rJ11f I~) llAJ)f( grrgtllJS lxfurc )l_1111c 2000
j2
( ))(rct f iu 11cf fi-c iei Ilt)middot-- middot---------------- shy
A1ocation of Resources to Local Development Bodies
411 Fnlerprise middotrr1clc and E1nployn1en1 inittdly alloctttmiddotd resources equdly to each
CEit middotrhc l)ltp1rtn1ent suhscquently 111nved to 1 1nore dtmiddotn11nd Jtmiddotd 1ppr()~1ch
h1nmiddothy allocations VeHild lgtt varied depending on 1hc relative llctmiddotds uf each aret
Ille c~1p1city of e1ch art lo successfully utilise eriterprimiddotbulle supports ind to crelle jobs
i ind the qud1ty nf thtmiddot cmiddotnterpnstmiddot pL1ns prepared hv each CEB
41 Al)middott placed 1dvcnistmiddot1nents in nevsptpers i11vi1i11g cnn1n1t1ni1y groups
(ou side Ille designated JrLIS of dis1dvintJgt being IUl)kcd Jfter hv Area-Based
P1nncrships) incl relevant n11ion1 organisations to ~11gt11ly for ()JgtLUHI) funding 33
con1n1unity groups ind 15 nitiontl urganisuion Vere sekCtld by t()1I for funding
41 middotrhe allocation of resources to Pirrnvrships hy Al)1l v~1s hiscd on cltt1ilcd
1nIlysis of the socioeconn1uic ch1ractlris1ic- of eJch tre~1 highliglning various
aSf)lt_cts of dtpriv11ion drlVll fro111 tlie 1991 ltensus of Population ()tiler rclcv1nt
v1riihlcs inclt1cll~d the qu~ditv of the pL111 tlttmiddot c1p1ci1y of htmiddot l1rtncrsliip ind the
1v1l1bility-of orher clevelop111ent resources to 1hc lrll such as IE1l)l-J or LiHB1N
4lbulli 1chmiddoter1istmiddot1nents Vere pL1cecl in 11Lmiddotvsp1rtmiddotrs innouncing lhe LEtl)lR lni1i1tivl
and inviting applicnions 1middot1ic~e VCrc assesstmiddotd by 1gricuhure and 1~nod Vith the
1ssi-bull1ance of an incltpcndenl consul11nt to es1ahlish tile txtent to vhich they 111lt~1 iii~
key ftatures of LEl)FH lhtmiddot rltsourctS middotere tllocatcd h~1ving regard to the quality
of the hu iness pl1n subniilllltL 1he population ind cl(gree of rurility of the 1rea and
the ~1vailalgtility of othtr sourcts uf ~lss1st1ncc fn1 Joctl ltkmiddotclop1ncn1 3i loc~d group-
Ver~ sclecled ind 2 SLctoral groups
Grint Cost per Job
4l~i middotr1iere arc specific f1c1ors vhich lin1i1 the usefulness of htmiddot gr1n1 cost per job
incli ~-tlnr in the con1cx1 of lltx11 devclop111cnt middotrhese include
bull (rear d1versil in the ni1urc of the 1ohs cre1ted ind 1he 111ethod of cc)un1ing
I hl111
bull No direct con1p1nson hetveen the VOrk invoVtltI in supporting job cna1ion 11
local level VIiii nationtl joll crcition agtncics
bull middotrile us1ain1bility of jobs 1n1y d1fft r frn111 11in-e crc1tltd by nuional igtncics
bull middotril(middot focu- un job cre1tinn iritmiddot vithin the three 1ypes nf lllt1clic
local Jevelopn1e11r fllifiariues
416 For CEils the number of jobs created is used is a performance meisure The
average gr1n1 cost per job creared vtriecl over the pericxJ under reviev as follovsn
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Number of jobs created 1958 3174 3589 3317 3487
Grant cost per 1ob created pound2535 pound4249 pound3763 pound3884 pound4206
The v1ri11ions from year 10 year miy be panly explained hv the fact 1h11 sometimes
1here is 1 riine t1g hetveen the gn111t expenditure ind 1he creition of thi relevant
jobs Over the period 1994middot97 the average grant cost per 1ob was Aj725 with the
lowest CEil be111g S2269 (Tipperary North) and the highest being gtfi683 (Leitrim)
Cost of Non-Grant Outputs
417 In add111011 to grmt aiding job crcll1011 md adminis1r11ion all of the bodies
~Ire involved in non-granr activities including
CEils
bull Producing enrcrprise plans and generJlly pro1noting in enterprise culurc
bull Busines~ infonnttion 1clvice counselling incl 1nentoring
bull ~ltn1gc111ent devetopn1en1 rraining
lartnersl1ips
bull Enterprise cre11ion and ckvelopment
bull Environ1nent ind infrtstrucrure projects
bull Provision of services to the unen1ployecl
bull Con1n1unity clevelop1ncnt
bull Co1nple1nentary ~incl prevcnt11ive educarion
LEADER groups bull tni1nation 1crivit1es
bull middot1-icl1nical assis11nce
Expenditure on these 1ctiv1tic~ is shovn in middot1middot1blL lt3
418 11blc 43 shovs the v1rying ex1cnt 10 vhich the clitlerenl locil l)cvelop111ent
lxgtdics trt involved in non-gr1n1 ou1pu1s_ Thlt CEB ind LEl)EH groups focus on
gr1nt is grtmiddotarcr th1n Panncrships vho focus on non-gr1nt activi1ies imiddothis is
cons1s1ltnt with tlic list of 1ctiv1ties 111 Tible 34
- 71Jt 111tmeratfJr is l1n11t~ paid 111 the cale11dt1r HCff 01u the de11011111uur1r 1~middot the lllfJloy111e11t ~ai11 Cllthic~( (1er IIitbull yor i11 the jln11middot 11111J rcce11ed jiTu111c1td uufuitl Jimiddotom (Lfgtsmiddot 11 1Jf1bull rbut
empluymc111flt_-e1middot1111h1middots1middotjir11r_ are 1g11ored
31
()fJert-111u1uil Fj)lcicJJ(l --middotmiddot-middotmiddot---------- shy
Table 43 Expenditure on non-grant outputs 1996 - 1997
1996 1997 1996 1997 poundm poundm of total of total
expenditure expenditure
CEBs 39 54 18 24 Pyentnershipsbull 51 136 56 72 LEADER groups 21 34 40 30
folal 11 1 224 31 42
Not~ a 7he figures oxclude Community Groups and selected National Organisations b Excludes selected sectoral groups
Sotrce Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller iJnd Auditor General see Appendix A
Duadweight and Displacement
419 l)ct(lveight refers to situation Vhcre 1 pro1nocer vould undertake 1he
buiness projtmiddotct in 111y evcn1 i_e_ Vitliotll 1 gr1nc or 1sistince fron1 ~1 Iocil
l)e-elorn1en1 body middot1l1e granting of funltls 10 dealthveiglH projects is an ineffic1tgtnt
and ineflec1ivt alloc11ion of resources Disrlacen1tmiddotn1 refers ro situations vhere 1he
golt1cL or ~ervicvs iOlcl by 1 grlttlllltISiiSled rroll10ler divert sales opporlunitiis fro111
other exisling busincssl-gt E111plor111ent c1n hl sin1iL1rlv divlrtecl In chese cases rhe
in1pac1 of thl funds allocHed is achieved at the exptmiddotnsc of other enterprises
420 Tltere is risk of deidweight and c1splacemcnt in Iii gr1nr ictlmiddotUv including
th11 It lltgtcal clevelopn1en1 level A nccnc study stated th~1t 1 ~
ie bate tao concerns uifb the s11ppo11s Or n1icro e111e1JJrse Jbe Jruhlen1 uf
clacue1ibt a11cl clisplaccbull111e11t is e11clc111ic in such Slf)jJ01ts eJHCial~v 1ohlre
sc1cral agencie ure to su1ne clerrecbull inuolultcl in tlishursing such suJfgtorts
The Operational llogrammls for 11--DEH 111d 011lJHD llotlt su1e thll dc1clwe1ght
1ncl clisplact1nent are to Ixmiddot 1voiclld
421 All cn1crprise project Lill into one of 1he folloving fo111 clllgorics
Deadweighl Yes Deadweight No
Displacement No Displacement No
Deadweighl Yes Deadweight No
DisplacementbullYes Displacement Yes
Vlt1tio11al 11ici11nbull11i P11onlies for the xbullnfJd 1000-JrxJG Fitzgltbullrald cmiddott al Fn11omic ond )o(middotial Reearch 1i111u1rmiddot -Hor(h 19Y)
ocu )etelo111u11 t 11 it it1 I ives
Of 1he four possible scenarios onlv one (wi1h no displaccmeni incl no cleaclweigh1)
yields potcn1iil net increises in outpu1 incon1e en1ploy111cnr and consu1nption 1hat
could Ix 111nbu1ible 10 l[ADEH or 011Ul(l) supporl From vil11e for lllClllC)
perspective ii is in1ponant tha1 1hcrc be good infonnation on the extent of
cle1clwe1gl11 and dispLicemem and dfcc1ive prcxeclures 10 deal wi1h 1hem
Deadweight
422 11 is cl1fficuli 10 111eas11re the ex1ent of clcaclweigh1 and no method c1n Ix
rcmicro1rded is provicling tn1~illy rcliallle es1in1~1les [)eichveight Vts exa111ined in the
111idmiddotltnn reviev of OJgtLUHIJ in rcspcct uf fin~1nci1l ~1ssistu1ct givtn 10 s1nall finns
by CEl3s Fron1 a s11nple of finns ~untycd over 40dego of thC pron101ltrs indic1ted thll
they would hivc es11blished the businesses w11hou1 CUl suppo11 A s111cly of micro
enterprises 1h1t fl~Ceivtcl grants under Local )evelop1nent initiitivcs 1nd other
progr11n1111s rcpo11ed deichveight of 45Yi
423 E111erpnse Tricle and F111ploy111en1 has irgued 1h11 1hese estim11cs of
ceJdeiglu are roo high ccorcling tu thl l)erart111e11t the viCS of proinoter~ irt
nor 1 reli1ble guide to cil11er lheir behiviuur or heir SllCLt-S lhe l)cp1nn1ltnt ~1-serts
1hll di CEBs seek 10 ivoicl cleiclwcigh1 However i1 J11s been no1ccl 1h11
rcsrondentsmiddot confidence rcgtrding their abil11y to sta11 i busines in the 1bsence of
i grant c111 he considered 1s 1n underesli111~1le
424 A siucly f 1hc Arca Allowincc Fn1erprise Scheme (AAES) which is
adniinisterecl by P1rrnerships suneyecl a sa111ple of pa111cip1nr- 1 11 Vts concludedbull
thit cleachveigl11 Vas in 1he range 40-50o_ Even alkJving for s1111pling risks the
thnt surbulley-gt t1ke11 1oge1her suggest thlt there is 1 consiclerihlt incidence of
cittciVCight
425 An cximrle of poten1iil cleiclweiglll involving IEADER funding is se1 ou1 in
Cise Study 5
11of11at1011 (~ 1liClO 111tt1pn4 S11pxn3 lcrni 1ltllicn10 d local fgtcbull1ymiddotfop1111bull11t Agc11c1e 11d11try 11a11atirJ11 11111 1111~11-t 1999- lluro (llfe1p11lt- that rcCcbulluetl prro11s fr(J11 1111e17nisc flflt11u_ (danis 1u1 Crrlllachf( t111d Sht11111rJ1t )c1elop111e1111tmiddotc1v111c1uld i111lw arl(hiiS
Set fj lJiAJhk 111iutitlt hmiddot1a11af11J1 r11ul llttmiddot(middotr1111111middot11rlatiu11 lcmiddotontcmiddotv CI ul 1)95
Stjl111plortd a11d tlw 011g (bulln11 l11e111plr~rrmiddotd A11 1al11alio11 (J 11w tlnf1 t1101ra11cc f11terprit Xhe11tc IFNC Co11s1il1a111s J-)7
-1)1 cr11bullrde1middot 1ba11hc prop()r1p11middotuncncl 11IFJ _-lated b(l biy 11011d hatcmiddot 1atmiddotc11 up c111plrJy1111J1rJbull1jshy1middot111101111i1 ~ 111J (J nmiddotfia1c n1lt1ict1orji1r thost 1141u M1ild (UT nLltrfllll dn11( 11 t1) ht1 01)11cd that IJc lllU(rillllf (CtlN n1t1middotJrom l(lllJtiy1111Jl ~r I 1r11gmiddotttrlll llt1fJIO)td 24Ci Ill tbc iRC middot111(~1) 11Yfdd he c1 lgttbulluer t-li11(lft ofdct1tl11eipIJ1 fur AAlS paiticipd11t tha11 the tfiJJlltlllgt q11ofcfl i 1 1ha1 suufbull_ Nou~middotzybullr_ lh1bull s11u~v J(jiJfld (fl that lbulle cht1roocns1il~ vf Amiddot115 KJrticipa11t (tmiddotducatio11 and dt1r(lI011 of 1111c111p()y111cmiddot11t) were lkl(rmiddotmiddot tba11 for thl frn~~-1en11 111u111ploycd uho dul 11ol fx1rtic1xflcgt II Atf)
y
Of)(rotional IJfcicbullnc-)-
ase Study 5
Potential deadweight situation
lr1 1999 a business person 1n a large provincial town decided to provide a bed and bmiddoteakfast establishment in a spacious house that she owned in the centre of the town She decided to focus on the upper end I business market and provide four en-suite rcbulloms She received assurances from several local businesses that they would be willing to refer clients to her Two local hotels also indicated that they would refer cverflow customers
Tie total investment required to refurbish the property fit out and supply furniture crockery and bed linen was esl1maled al pound88000 Loan approval was obtained from the bmk for renovations and the promoter applied to the local LEADER group for a grant
T 1e LEADER group estimated that pound44000 of the proposed expenditure would be
eligible for grant assistance and a grant of pound13000 was approved for the venture
T 1e pro1ect report prepared for the LEADER Board meeting did not include consideration of the possibility lhat the pro1ect might proceed without a grant In that regard the following faclors would have been relevant
bull the premises was located 1n the centre of a busy growing town bull the premises was owned by the promoter bull the owner was self-employed and operated a consultancy service from home bull based on 35 occupancy net cash now in lhe first year was forecast at pound8000 bull if no grant had been paid and the funds had been borrowed instead the estimated
surplus for the year would have been reduced by an increased interest charge of up to pound1300 which would not have substantially changed the potential Viability of
the business venture
426 Posible Vtys of 111i11i1111sing dlHhveigh1 in assisted projects include
bull Targeting financial abullsistancc on projects where the costs of entry to the business arc high relative to the resources available to the promoter So111e pro111nltIS have ve111 li1ni1cd financial resources for fxa111ple 1he vast
n1Jjori1r of Ptrtntrship l lien1s ~ire long-tenn unc1nploycd It is Vorth noting
thtt evtn Vhlt 1dequa1e privite resoune- are lmiddotaiL1hle it 1nty bt difficult
for so1ne Jlt)cal f)evelop1nent bodit~ given their job creation target~ 10 1urn
clumiddotll involve1nent in othlmiddotrvisl sound projects Indeed 1he viev Vts
tprcssed hy 0111e of thosL in1ervitmiddotvecl in the courst of the study 1h~ll fi11111cial
Sllppo11 for CJigihJt projects is often vieVCd hy prOtllltllers ~IS an cntiJe1ll(fl( and
this can 111akl it difficult for Loctl l)tvLlopn1en( ])(xlies to nfusc financial
1ssist1nce (() deathve1gh1 rru1ect
37
(JC( )Ct(()JHUJl 11itiati1es
bull Providing financial assistance by means of repayable grants loans or equity mthcr than non-repayable cash grants middotrhis should discourige reli1ncc on public funds by those entrepreneurs vho
do not need ii Vhiltgt ensuring that entrepnmiddotnctllS vho do need public finance
can alail of it Tltlte m1cl-tcrm evtluil1on of 011UIU) recommenclecl the
incre1sed llSC of loans and l(jUity rlttther thtfl grtf)i reron 1ly tile lndUSll)
Evtlua1ion Uni ncon11ncndccl thll all financial 1ssi-11nce provided uncler 1he
1egis of lEADEH ancl CEils should require 1 fm1neid return From earlv 1998
CfB- ind Pa11nerships hive been tmiddotn1pOVlrld by 1hc EU Con1rnis inn to issisl
projects hy 111c1ns of equity ind rcfuncLtblc 1icl In 199~ tlrnost ~05111 of CEB
assist1ncc (4oo) v1s provided in 1hc fonn of equity 111d refundthle ~1id
Entcrprisc middotrrack ind E1nploy111en1 intend 1h11 refundable forins of 1ssis1ance
Vil] he deployed incrc1nentdly 111 future Al)11 hJs tgllld vi1h P1r1ncrships
tllt clien1- should Vhtre prtctic~ilgtle nceiVl nmiddotfundable 1itl r11hcr th~111 grints
In 1ccurcl111ce wt1h EU regul1llons lEADEH groups ire precluded from
providing lotns or equity to enterprises
427 recent study reported thi1~
le ackn()toleclgc that n1icru e11te17Jrises 111a_v face capital constraints especialfr in the stcut uJdegfJhase but strongf)i s11_rges11hat the n1us1 ejecliue
uov Ju lf(lltress his fJOssible middotn1arkct _(ailunmiddot is Jbrough rJals an( eq1tif)
rather tba11 microran aicl 1Jt~~- uo11c 111inin1ise tbe r1~k ojmiddot creating a cleJenclcnl~) c11111 remiddot
428 It is clear [hll here is cope for n1uch greater use of rep1y~il)[c grin[S loans
ind equi1y 10 111inin1isl dtachveiglil incI such ustmiddot has 1hc 1ddccl 1dv1nt1ge 1h11
1ssistince c1n he providlcl n1ore econon1ic1lly 1 funds c1n bl recycled to 1ssis1
n1ore thtn one project Huvcvcr so111c incre~1se in ~1dn1ini-gttr11ion cos1s could be
expcc1ecl
429 An extre1ne fonn of ckichveiglH irises Vhtn public fin1nciil support is
supplied 10 1 project vhirh as cst1hlishecl and is oreruing in [he Jbsencc nf this
suppon CtSl Siucly 6 involving 1hc ArlJ Allovtnce Enterprise Schlllle illus1r1tes thi
11a11aH11t of 11ficro 111(tpn-lt SupjXJl1 Ao-o a11011til a11d lcx(I Jrbull1tmiddotlup111c1u 11~cmiddot11C11gtmiddot iu1111y tia11r1i(Jll 11it A11~1til CJlt-lt)
rJ1irJ1Ui lnnmiddott111cbull11f Jn-ru1fi(middoti f(lr tbe wnod 20(J-2(XX) Faz Ccrllfd lf t1I c()10111ic (JUI S(Jcial Nc_1middott1rr_h 11_f1ltrlt I-Ion)) JJlt-J
Sltmiddotj~F1111lo1ld o 1u he lh11g-T1middotr111 Ui1tmiddot111plo1middotetl- 1111 10i1atio11 of lbltmiddot Artbulla Alllt1flft 110middot 11tlJHi1e ScJ1111cbull 1HC Co1111raJ11middot 19lt)7
middotmiddot
38
Ojgteraliollal JJicie11lt_~1middot
ase Study 6
Funding the startup of an existing business
A fisherman was 1n receipt of Unemployment Assistance (UA) from the Department of
SJcial Community and Family Affairs (DSCFA) from 1979 to 1999 In September 1998 hi applied for support under the Area Allowance Enterpnse Scheme (AAES)
Uoder the terms of the scheme an applicant must be unemployed for at least a year
and this eligibility must be confirmed in writing on the application form by DSCFA The Praquortnership can subsequently approve the application and may provide minor financial support 1n addition to the main financial benefits provided by DSCFA 1e the receipt of full unemployment payments for a year and on a reducing scale for a further three years plus retention of secondary benefits
Abullcording to the application form the applicant had received a bank loan of pound18000 for the purchase of a boat with repayments commencing on 30 August 1998 In addition hf was the owner of fishing nets to a value of pound6000
Tt1e application form was certified by DSCFA 1n January 1999 to the effect that the applicant was eligible for AAES The certification did not explain
bull how the applicant managed to purchase a boat while on UA bull how he persuaded the bank to provide a loan or pound18000 bull how he was financing the business from August 1998 to January 1999 in particular
the boat repayments and insurance amounting to pound565 per month
Tt1e report prepared for the Partnership Board meeting stated that the applicant had with the knowledge of DSCFA been engaged 1n the fishing industry for the previous ten years on a part-time basis The Board approved the application
mcFA has made the following observations on this case
bull Following an investigation in 1988 the UA payment was terminated but reinstated under appeal with an assessment of net income at pound1250 from fishing per year The case was reviewed 1n 1993 and the net income per year was increased to pound1400 A further review was conducted in September 1998 (the month atter the boat was purchased) and the assessment of net income did not increase
bull It is very difficult to establish an accurate income for such fishermen as fish can be sold to tourists and restaurants for cash
bull The Department did not consider 1t necessary to check with the bank as to what if any security was provided for the loan
bull While failures occur in the scheme they do not cost the Department any more than if the client continued on UA
A[1M has pointed out that fishing comprises a very small proportion of AAES pa1ic1pants supported by Partnerships A recent review of Partnership business su1iports reported that fishing and Bed and Breakfast businesses do not provide a viable full-time 1ob and Area Allowance 1s not an appropriate support payment It also recommended that clearer guidelines should be issued regarding eligib1l1ty
Soure Partnership Business Supports and the Area Allowance Scheme Insights No 8 ADM 1999
J9
locaf f)ltueloJn1e11t fl1itiati1es
Case Study 7
Potential displacement situation
A business proposal was made to a CEB 1n 1998 The promoler wished to provide a food delivery service to factories on industrial estates ie sandwiches baps snacks elc The promoter recognised that there were several competitors Unlike the
competitors he proposed to provide the service via three refrigerated vending machines lhat would be reslocked regularly He applied for and was approved a capital grant of pound5500 by the CEB in December 1998
The project report prepared for lhe Board meeting dealt with the possibility of displacement by noling that lhe promoters service would be provided in a manner different from his compet11ors However the question arises if the project is successful how will its sales be achieved unless by the diversion of the expenditure of faclory employees from one service provider to another
Displacement
430 middotrhc only antlysis of clispL1ce1ncnt vas in respccl uf 11lS 1nd this shl)Vcd a
wide rmge of estimils Using a methodology devised bv Breen and Halpin the
consul11nts esti1111recl that 64oo of the business carried out by 1ES panicipants Vas
diver1cd fron1 other Irish fin11s and Iiiat ~i l1X1 of en1plny1llLl1I created in
thescentcrpriscs v1s at the expense of other enterprises middot1l1e consultants felt thtt the
Breen 111cl 1-ldpin methodology had limitations ancl tlut their estinutes of
clisplicc1nent Vere too high lJsing different 1ssu1nptions incl 1 different
mthodology they estim11ecl that 19 of employment created in AAES enterprises
Vts displacLcl fro1n other cn1erpriscs
431 Possible vays of n1ini111ising clispl1cen1ent include
bull CounsLlting pro1notcrs tovncb exports or cloincstic sectors supplied prltdom1n1111lv l)y import
bull ithholding 1ssis1ance fron1 projec1s in1encling 10 supply goods and stgtrviccs to the clon1es1ic 1111rke1 vhich are alrc1cly supplied by other busineSSlS
bull Providing financial tssisttnce by n1eans of rep1yibllt grants lo1ns ind cqui1y rathtr rhin non-repayable ct~h gr1nts
432 All LEADEH groups Partnerships and CEils are insrruned not to suppon
projects Vhich voulcl displace business fro1n other enterprises
433 CEl3s were advised early in 1999 10 focus heir efforts on thlt development of
n1anuf1cturing incl in1ern1tional services projects vhich viii have the pltgttential 10
clevclop in10 export-oriented finns hile not neglecting other eligible rrojects
(vi1ble non-clcaclveight non-displacc1nen1) outside these sec1ors Jgtirtnersl1ips have
40
()JCltflional Jffrienc)
agmiddoteed tht financid support should not be supplied to businsses 111 plentiful
supply such as hackneys couriers builcling contr1cpoundors Ix-cl and hre1kLi~t
operators vm sales and hairdrclaquors LEADER groups are advised to d11ect the11
Stlj)p(H1S tOvards innltgtva1ive pnijeLt~
4i4 There arc d1ffcrcmiddotnt views among Local Development bodies regarding what is
inmiddotoived in rtcognising diplacetntnt middotrhus -cHne Lltic~11 J)evelopn1en1 bodi1s
co1sider thtl if lhe existing co111peeitors to a project are located outside their county
or evtn their loc~1lity 1hen clisplacen1cn1 is not 1n issue
4s The 1111cl-1cnn reviews of LEADEH and OPLUHD made linlc reference to
displlcemcnt Howevmiddotcr the LEADEH mid-term review contended that displJcemcnt
vculd he 111ini111ised if LEAl)ER groups focused their f1nincial 1ssistance on
111rovative proiects Agnrnlture and Food intend that the final evalu111on of LEADEH
11 Viii includ ltSli111a1ion of tltmiddotachveigh1 and clispl1cen1ent effect
Be11e_ficit1 Dis1U1ce111e11t
436 II rhere are ~1ny circu111st~1nces in vhich ltlispl1ce111ent can be ignored thev
shltnild be identified For exunple it 111ay be possible to sustain the c~1se on sociJI
jus1 ice or equity grounds rhu specific groups such JS 1he lung-1ern1 t1nt111ployed
shcbullttld receivlt posi1ivlt cliscri111in~n1on elifJI at the cxfxnse ojotherjoh see~ctYi tOi1
111 lrgucd 1h1t onlt of the obwctives of Partnerships is to 1mprovmiddot( the potcnlld of
the long-tcnn unc111ployccl ind 1he socially ltXcludccl 10 gain cn1ploy111ltnl in lhlt
eccbullno1ny generally ind specifically 1n poundheir Ovn areas_ middotrhc inslrtion of particular
dis1dvant3ged groups into e111ploy1ncnt or a husine~s viii often have thL effec1 of
dis)Jcing a non-clis~1dvantaged person fron1 that 1oh oppo11unity Hcnvcver the
social giin makes the displJce111ent worthwhile
437 Given that CEBs cover the emire populallon incl that Partnlrships and
LEd)EH groups cover 540o and 6Joo respectively the exacpound circun1s11ncltS Vhen
clisplacemem 111ight be permincd for any Local Devdopmelll body should be
cluificd by the relevant Dep1rtmenis
(rnui11g (lUJ Sharing ()I r F111plr1y111e11t S1raUt_r (JfX 011 the lt1bltgt11r _bulllfariltf tgtlt1uu11cmiddotn1 of1111erpnmiddotc_ 7huC and 1111Joy111e11r Jn 19ltXgt
41
5 Assessment of Impact
51 Xhik the 1nc1sun111cnt of the 1chieven1ent of cconon1y 1nd efficiency is
ilnportan1 in the n1an1ge1nenl of the initiatives establishing their in1pact is of even
grci1er 11npnrtance J111pic1 assessn1enl is concerntd Vilh est1blishing the e-1cn1 10
which the local devdoprnent oJ1cc1Jns ire achievecl 1110 the wider contribution of
the initiatives 10 local cconon1ic and socitl developn1ent 11 is desirable thtt
appropri1te sys1tn1s to evaulle 1he 1chicve111ents of the iniliHives in n lttion co their
desired 11np1cts should IJt in place
52 Ille cllvcloprnent nf syste1ns to detennine 1he i1np1ct of the initiitivcs is not
easy middotrhlt clivlr~i1y of Jnc~il dcvelupn1ent objecrive~ n1e1ns thit it is unlikely thH 1ny
one 1ssessn1cn1 niethocl Otild he sufficient So1ne in1p1cts like cn1ploy1nent
crltJtiun can lx quintified Jnd 1chieven1ent can be n1unitorecl chrough che 111alysis
of nJev1n1 perfonnanct indic11ors_ Othcrs like rlttising the level of econo111ic activity
ctn be 1ssessecl 1hrough 1he usc of ccono111ic 1noclels using surroga1e 111e1sures of
irnpacl 1VL1ny of the socitl objeclives of 1he inili11ive are not susceptible to
n1e1sure1ne111 at di incl till i1111xu1 achieved Jre best detenninccl through surveys
of chtngts in local condilions a1 inclividu1I and con1nnir1i1y levels
S3 lhi ch1p1er consiclt~rs 1ppro1chcs co che 1sscss111en1 of i1npact under the
folJoving J1e1dings
Issues Subject
Quantitative assessments Baseline analysis bull bull Use of macroeconomic data
Qualitative assessments Assessing social impacts bull Case studies and international studies bull
Quantitative Assessments
54 lnfonnition on job creacion and the progression of long-tenn une1nployecl
persons 10 fuJI lirlle VOrk 1re rerorted for i[J these ypes Of 1gtltKJies (see middotr1ble 41
ind Append A) Vhile the figures tint hive been reported to end-1998 under
011URI) 1re well 1he1d of the tirgcts thit were set it is difficult to interpret these
resuhs in hrn1s of i111picl in lhe ibsence of bascline cl1t1
Baseline Analysis
55 B1selinc analysis would estiblish the performance of a representative group
of enterprises con1n1uni1y groups incl individu~1ls 1hat did not receive 1ssis11nce
under 1hc initiatives middotrhe rcrfonnancc of 1ssis1ecl entities incl individuils al counry
42
Assess1ne111 lt~ 111JOCI
or r111ional levtgtI could then he co1nparcd Vilh the 1xmiddotrfonnancl of middotn1ttchedmiddot nonshy
tssi ~1ed cnlitiii selected fro1n the repre~entltil group Si1nil1rly tile pcrlltlrn11ncl
of en1i1ies recltiving ditlenmiddotnt kinJ of ~1ssistance could also he antlysed to cletenninc
rel1 live ilnpac1
56 Baseline analysi~ can he pcrfonnld using 1nicroecono111ic d111 (da1a 1bou1
spcltific enterprises) or n1acrotcnnon1ic clat1 (1ggrLg11t~d dat1)_ middotrhc cl1t1 collection
proicduns -11 loc1l level hJve not heimiddotn 1dequatt to suppo11 this kind of ltinalysis
using 1nicrocconon1ic data 1ccordingly analysis against a baseline of non-1ssis1cd
cnlt-rprises co111n1unity groups ind individu1J- cHHlO( hl carried out
I Case Study on Unemployment using Macroeconomic Data
i 5 7 stuclv of the irnpact uf 011l RD on unemplovment ing census clata
(111a- rltgttgtcono111ic data) has hlttll c1rrild out under tile ~1egis of the ()PlUH)
P1oriloring ConHniuec So1nc rcsuhs of the study 1re su11H11arised in Cae Study H
58 middotrtiis finding fro111 ltase S1udy 8 dltgtcs nor nectgtssarily 111ean 11111 P~trtnerships trl
les effective in assisting une111ployed peorle 10 find vork 1s unc111ploycd ptorlt~
in P~ntncrship 1rc1s 111ay he 111on di_-adv~1nt1ged and find ii lllOll dillicull to 1ccess
e111(oy1ncn1 In addition 1he ralt of entry to une1nploy111lnt in Partnership 1reas
1nay he different frorn non-Jgt1r1nershir 1n~~1s 11lt)vevcr the data is inconclusive
I ~1hont tile level of ttlcclivcness of P~111nlr~liips in addressing Ltr1e111rloyn1cnL middotrhe
case s1udy highlights the co111plexity of in1pac1 analysis but also illustrates ils
i irnpbullgtrltnce in le~1cling lo a grlmiddotHer uncllrst1nd1ng of the resulls of progr~11n11H
aCllily More complex ltbta rnodels of the labour nurket at local level woulcl be
nccclecl for a svs1e111~11ic revicv of 1hc elTcctivenesi of Pannerships in tickling longshy
I 1ern~ llllt~n1plon1ent
59 It is of inlertst 10 e-an1inc the trends in the duration of uncn1ployn1ent in
I recent years imiddot~1hle 51 ihOVS thc nun1hers une111plnyecl ylmiddot1r on yctr in ont year
banltls up to 1l1nc years fron1 1994-1999 and the 11ne1nplcgtyn1ent retentugtn r1tcsmiddot
fro1r vtmiddotar to year i_e_ lhe proportion of those 11ne111ployed ho nLmiddot still unen1ploytCI I
one year li1er
I510 middotr1hle 51 shov- 1h1t signific1nt i111provlrnlnts in une111ploy111cnt rerintion
ralc~ htVl occurrLd in recent yetrs particularly for long-ten11 UllLlllploy1nen1 Strong
ecoron1ic grovth in 1lie period covered vould li1ve beltIl of prinH in1ponance in
1he reduction 111 long-1tmiddotrn1 l1ne111ploy111ent ihiJc the long-lerrn une1nployed ire thl
1111in rarge1 group for Partnerships thlse areas are not sep1raccly distinguished 1n
lhe analysis OutlOVS ro schen1es such 1s Co111111u11ity Fn1ployn1cnt could also he I
llllf)()flilll
43
olta JeueloJn1e111 11itioti1cs
Case study 8
Analysis of the impact of OPLURD on long-term unemployment using macrodata
A key part of the analysis was a comparison between the change in unemployment in Partnership areas from 1991-1996 with the corresponding change in non-Partnership
areas The comparison was based on the Census of Population for 1991and1996 The logic behind the comparison was that disadvantaged areas are at risk of falling behind
the general level of economic development unless there is a targeted intervention to ensure that the rising tide of economic growth flows into those areas Thus if the
decline m unemployment in Partnership areas is similar to that in Ireland as a whole
then at least the gap between affluent and poor areas has not widened and Partnerships may have contributed to some extent to this outcome
The consultants measured changes 1n the unemployment rate in two ways (i) by the percentage point (or absolute) change (ii) by the proportionate (or relative to 1991) change
They used a simple example to illustrate the difference between the two measures Assume that Area A has 90 unemployment rate and Area B has 20 unemployment
rate If the unemployment rate declines by 10 percentage points in both areas (the
same absolute change in the rate) the relative rate is quite different since Area A has declined by only 11 (relative to its starting rate) whereas Area B has deemed by 50
(relative to 1s starting rate) Both rates should be used together
The key data was summarised as follows
Unemployment rate
Area 1991 1996 Absolute Percent Percent Change initial rate Points Change Relative to Initial
Ireland 169 14 8 -21dego
Ratebull
-126
Partne1ship areas 256 230 -26 -100 (PESP only)
Non-Partnership 139 119 -20 -141 areas
Note 8 Change in unerriployment rate divided by the initial unemployment rate
The consultants commented that the unemployment rate in PESP Partnership areas
fell by a slightly greater absolute amount than either Ireland or non-Partnership areas but in relative terms they did worse - essentially because they had higher unemployment rates to begin with in 1991
Sourco A Report on the Impact of the Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development on Long- Term Unemployment Goodbody Economic Consultants et el October 1999
44
Assessnu11t q J11pact
Table 51 Duration of unemployment and retention rates 1994-1999
Ye
19 19 19 19 19 19
ar
94 95 96 97 98 99
Less than one year Number
151032 144283 146776 132398 130780 110446
--shy1-2 years 2-3 years 3+ years
Number Retention Number Retention
rate rate
Number
43697 39748 263 40875 283 38361 261 31719 240 28 194 216
27489 64154 26293 602 67955 25852 650 69667 24227 593 61870 18914 493 54448 14496 457 44940
NotB Retenrion rates are calculated as follows_ All of those who wero unemployed for 1-2 years in 1995 (39 748) wcro unernployed for less than one year in 1994 (151032) thus the unemployment retention rate is 263 (39 748+151032) CSO Live Register data
i Case Study on Business Formation using Macroeconomic Data
I 511 tucly of s11111l business forn1ation over ti111e 111ight be usecl to consider issues
middot such as lhe i111pact of lhl initi~Himiddotes on thtbull rice of n1anufacturing st1nups his i~
considered in Case Srudy 9
51~ C~rtater underst1nding is requirtcl of the n1ix of variables vhich n1ay be
responihle for the trends appann( in the data In a situ11ion vhere an unexpected 1 result is obt1inLmiddotd fron1 tile analysi~ C1s in Case Study 9) 11 Otild lgtt necessary to
refirc the analysit using 1111croecono111ic dala un1il the reasons for the trends
observed 1re clarified and the dilTcren1 contribution~ of lhe initiatives to sn1all 1
enterprise fonn~uion ere better understood
513 In order to use 111icrtgteconon1ic cLua 10 assess the in1p1ct of 1ht ini1ia1ivcs on1 n1anufacturing and intern~llional StTviccs it vould be necessJI) to integrate locil
clcvdopment suppo11 dlla from all the mitia11ves -Uh rhe Forfis and Enterprise
middotrr1de and E1nploy1ncn1 Bu~iness InforntHion Sygtt(Jll (BIS) Enterprise lrlttcle incl
Fmrlovment 1ntcncls to proceed with the 1nrcmiddotgra1ion of CEil data with the BIS (See
paragraphgt 2 2i-228) i 514 Enrerprise Tracie ancl Employment h1s commissioned a review 10 take place
in 11middote currenl year on the in1p1ct of CEUs vith particular reference 10 thlt ratlt of 1
bu~i1es~ fonnacion tnd 1he su~tlinability of the johs cre~Htmiddotcl
45
lucal JelJelo111unl l11i1ia11cs
Case Study 9
Use of macroeconomic data on business formation
In 1993 Enterprise Ireland stopped assisting manufacturing and international services firms with less than ten employees This role was transferred to CEBs The trend in the number of Irish-owned startups in manufacturing from 1987 to 1996 has been studied in an effort to detect the impact of economic growth on the rate of startups It might equally be used as a starting point to consider the impact of CEBs in this role
Startups in Irish-owned manufacturing 1987 to 1996bull
600
500
bullOO
300
200
100
0 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Year
The graph shows that the very rapid economic growth from 1993 (which period includes the emergence of the initiatives) did not result in an increased rate of manufacturing startups According to the quoted study The start-up performance 1s surprising The improvement m the economy over the years has not been accompanied by a corresponding growth in the number of manufacturing startupsmiddot
Note a Case study based on ~startups and Closures in Indigenous Manufactunmiddotng an Analysis of the CensCJS of Industrial Production 1986-1995 Irish Banking Review Autumn 1998 Anthony Foley and Teresa Hogan
Source Data Census of lndustna Production CSO
Qualitative Assessments
Assessing Social Impacts
515 Some irnpo11rn1 rnrcro clilt wts cs1rl3lrshecl by ADM reltting 10 middotc1ep1wa1ion
111clic11ors for l1nnership areas Bised on the 1991 Clnsus of Populttion ADM
co1npilecl indic1rors of cleprivuion for all Pannershlp areas domiddotn to l)istrict
Elcctor1l l)ivisiltgtn levc1 l)cprivJriun 1n1p- tre 1lso procluced middotrhe clcprivltlCion
indicators 1nclucled
46
bull educationtl a1tainn1en1
bull ltgtCcu1x11ional profile
bull lltxmiddotil labour n1arket characteris1ics
bull housing
FrOill 1hcse indicators a con1pusite deprivaiion index value Vas con1p11tcd for each
lartnersl11p area for 1991
516 Tlrrs exercr lras rectgtnilv bcrn repeated from tire results of the 1996 Census of lo1n1llli(gtn Fngtnl ~tn in1pac1 assess111en1 ptrspcctivtmiddot relilt1nce ltgtn these indicators
voulcl involve ~0111e li111itllions_ For lt1n1ple chc Census year- do not coincide Vith
Partnership 111ilcstones 111igruion can con1plicatc 1nalysis and [he d111 is not
definitive regltncling c1usality~~
51 ()espile these lin1ilalions analysis of the indicators of dtprivt1ion should
probullicle valuable inforn1ation rcg1rdi11g changes in 1pects of clt~pfiv1tion in different
Partnershq1 anas and should ilso Ltcilitatc con1p1rion ovtr 1i111e Vith nun
la11nersl11p areas lhe ltlmiddotailtbility of this infonnltllion shot1ld ftcilirarc furthCr
ittt111pts to consider the social in1p1c1s of tht~ initlHives
Case Studies and International Studies
5tf Whrle much hrs been wrr11en on tire rctrvrtres of Local Development bodies
chc tlcnt of 111atcrial spccifictlly covering the evtl1111ion of their i1np1c1 is very
li111i1ecl Several Partnerships have c1rried otH case srudil~middotM) to highlight hov issues
wen being trckled by different Partnerships ancl to promote best practice Case studies are undcrv1y tlso in n1lt1ny LLl)FH groups No case studies havtmiddot lgteen u ed
so L1r in tlic cnlcrprisc ind ioh crc1tion ~1rea for CEB ac1ivi1ies
519 A for111J E11ropean s1ucly v1s unck-rtiken of he rnle of p1nnerships in
proriuting sociil cohesion in ten fmiddot1t1nhcr Srarl~ of the EU co111prising ten nniond
rtpcrts (including lrel1ncl) and 1 synli1esis European rt~portjlbull middotrht study and repo11s
j middotltre bt-gtlltl prin1arily on rh1rty ctst tuclic (rhree fro111 etch middotten1ber St~lle) Vhich
looked 11 issues of reprtstnlalion ncgoliHion and alliance lgtuilcling in tile
devElop111ent of strategies and 1c1ion plans ind the vorking 111ethocls skills incl
I reso-_1rces aprlied lgty p~111nershirs
()her 11111101io11s arc rexnccl i11 fJrxr coptmiddot fJrgtCir i~ edttimiddotd l~r I) Pn11gle tf of Ook Tree )rt--
)11J111_ -~)9
_rKmiddottd 1art11c1ih1p~ middotI 5111n--11 511HIL1Y fur Sc)(middotial Cubl~011lt 11 Ccddcbull OJ1tc ( QOua 11h1lta1J11_- fvr w F11n1J1CJ11ltiJ111111111111umiddots1111d -111middotn1wt111 h1111ulrlf1011for1ie lm1ro1(mlW of itll~L tntl lliirk111~ Co11tl11io11s 19ltJ-
47
ocal Jevelop111e11t lnilit1tite_
520 1ihilc the rtpon included n1iny individual references to isol11cd cxirnpks of
1hc 1tll1x1c1 of panncrships Clllpincd rcstarch into 1he effecliveness of 1xnmerships
Vts not Vithin the score of the study middotrhcrc VIS also no 1ue1npt to con1p1re the
perfor1111nce of p1nncrsl1i1)s it nationil l(vel
521 The 1bsencc of specific tllaterial on the cvalL1a1ion of effectiveness of locd
clevelop111en1 bodies is panly clL1e 10 a lick of come~tuil clata 11 local level 10
L1cilita1e in~dysis A pri1n1ry ain1 of the bodies is to L1cilit1te thl locil achievtinent
of resuh~ incl to ltver1gc 1hc 1c1ivitics of local groups Assess1ncnt of effectiveness
of this kind of 1c1ivHy woulcl require that the role played by the lxxlies could he
isollltcl fruin ill oiher contribuiory f1ctors middot1middothis is difficult middotrtiere is 1 cletr need for
more data collernon llld 1hc clcvdop111ent of soual poltl) models which would
f1cili111e bcuer 1ns1gh1 by policy 1111kcrs imo the impact of the arnvities of local
clevdopment boclits
48
Jr
0 Ji~ )~ l ( imiddot
Appendices
~ gt
- _ middot-
---middotmiddot middot--shy ~--y- -~ -middot bull bull - bull __~
middot
middot
_ _~ -- middot ~
Appendix A Annual Cost and Outputs of Individual County Enterprise Boards Partnerships and LEADER Groups 1995-1997
(Jkistd on du1 ~upplicd by Dcp111111ents and ADJ1 Ltd Luc in 1998)
I
Summary of Expenditure on Local Development Programmes (1995-1997) Appendix A
1995 1996
pound000 of total expenditure
pound000 of total expenditure
CEBs
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
Total Expenditure
13485
1421
4895
19801
68dego
7dego
25
100
13503
3879
4284
21666
62
18dego
20
100
LEADER (1)
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
Total Expenditure
23
887
820
1730
2dego 51dego
47dego
100
1529
2350
1684
5563
28
42dego
30dego
100
PartnershipsCommunity Groups
and National Organisations (2)
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
I
-3 025
1532
66
34dego
-5161
5164
-SOoo
50
Total Expenditure 4557 100 10325 100
Aggregate expenditure figures shown in this table have been superseded by more up to date figures shown in Table 21 (1) Local Development groups accounted for 96 of LEADER expenditure in 1995 - 1997 and detailed analysis focused on lhis (2) Partnerships accounted for 84 of total expenditure for 1996 - 1997 and detailed analysis focused on this
1997
pound000
12884
5414
4437
22735
6226
3536
2015
11778
15579
7398
22977
0o of total expenditure
57dego 24dego
19dego
100
53
30
17dego
100
-68oo 32
100
County Enterprise Boards Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1995 Appendix A11
County Enterprise Board Administration
Expenditure pound000
Total Expenditure
pound000 Administration as 0o of
Total Expenditure
Grant Aid as 0o of
Total Expenditure
Non~rant Outputs as
of Total Expenditure
Tipperary South Riding 150 274 55dego 381 7oo
Corllt North 142 315 45dego 55dego Ooo Monaghan 143 375 38oo 621 QOo
Tipperary North County 122 353 35 57dego 8dego Meath 128 373 34oo 59oo 7dego
Louth 135 410 33dego 56dego 11 Ofo
Kildare 157 476 33 48 19dego Kerry 228 747 J 1Ofo 62 7 Limerick City 162 561 29dego 64oo 71
West Cork 142 498 29dego 65dego 6dego
Limerick County 209 714 29dego 63 Soo Westmeath 103 358 29dego 71dego Ooo Longford 95 335 28dego 68dego 4oo
Clare 169 635 27dego 68dego Soo Waterford County 106 396 27oo 73dego Ooo Cork City 150 543 27oo 671 6 Doneaal 124 460 27dego 68dego 5dego Fingal (Oubhn) 152 598 26dego 63dego 11
Mayo 155 651 24 72oo 4dego Waterford City 134 559 24dego 63 13dego Wicklow 127 558 23oo 70 7dego Ca now 149 654 23dego 72 5 South Corllt 187 844 22dego 71dego 7 Leitrim 147 671 22dego 67 11dego Cavan 122 564 22dego 65dego 3dego Laois 121 595 21dego 73 6dego South Dublin 143 670 21 70deg4 9dego Offaly 126 600 21deg4 63dego 16dego Dublin City 111 551 20deg4 67oo 13 Sligo 147 728 20deg4 73dego 7 Roscommon 111 597 19deg4 77 4dego Wexford 144 777 19dego 75deg4 6oo Kilkenny 1()0 637 16oo 84dego OOo
Galway County and City 140 950 15 83 2 Oun Laoghaire - Rathdown 82 743 110o 78oo 11 Oo
Miscellaneous (1) 30 30 Ooo QOo OOo
Total 4895 19801 25 68 7
(1) Refers to set up costs incurred on behatf of au Boards
County Enterprise Boards - Administration Costs as a Percmiddotentage of Total Expendifure --f996 Appendix A12
I _ - vuony c11u1tUllgttl ouaru
I Administration
I Total Expenditure Administration as 0o of Grant Aid as 0o of Non-grant Outputs as
Expenditure pound000 pound000 Total Expenditure Total Expenditure 0 0 of Total Expenditure
Cork North 119 417 29~o 63degshy 8degc -middot
113 28dego 56dego 16degoTipperarv North _counlv 404 -shy -Sliqo 118 457 26dego 50dego 24dego--Mealh 136 532 25~~ 53dego 22dego Laois 151 612 25dego I 59eo 16dego
Westmeath 120 500 24dego 55oo 21dego
Cork City 124 533 23dego 55dego 22oo Roscomn1on 120 536 22dego 61dego 17dego
Louth 133 620 21 Oo 57dego 22dego-Cavan 128 599 21dego 67degc 12dego
Clare 123 581 21Co 61dego 18dego
South Dublin 147 705 21 oo 56 23dego
Dublin City 139 668 21dego 49dego 30deg~
Kildare 128 625 20degh 41 lo 39o-shyTipperary South Riding 108 530 201 68dego 12oo
-Mavo 159 784 20dego 70oo 10dego
Carlow 117 582 20dego 67dego 13oo
West Cork 127 633 20dego 59dego 21
Longford 114 579 20dego 71dego 9dego -
Kerry 114 584 20oo 68deg~ 12oA
South Cork 125 645 19dego 58dego 23dego Limerick Cily 132 683 19oo 64oo 17dego
-Galway 122 631 190~ 69~o 12dego-Kilkenny 120 636 19dego 67dego 14dego
Offaly 117 628 19dego 62dego 19dego
Waterford County 105 563 19 66dego 15dego
Leitrim 121 665 18oo 64 18dego middot-
Oun Laoghairc bull Rathdown 116 648 18dego 57dego 25dego-
Fingal (Dublin) 117 656 18dego 56degc 26deg~ -Wexford 117 708 17oo 68dego 15dego
Wicklow 122 739 16 71 13dego
Donegal 119 757 16dego 65dego 19dego
Limerick County 120 810 15degc 68dego 17dego
Waterford City 118 800 15dego 75dego 10dego--Monaghan 75 616 12 74dego 14degc
Total 4284 21666 2011o 62dego I 18dego I
County Enterprise Boards Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A13
County Enterprise Board Administration Total Expenditure Administration as 0A of Grant Aid as 0o of Non-grant Outputs as
Expenditure pound000 pound000 Total Expenditure Total Expenditure deglo of Total Expenditure
Cork North 106 344 31dego 50dego 19dego
Clare 172 631 27dego 46dego 27oo---shyTieperary North County 116 448 26dego 38 36dego Waterford County 126 505 25dego 54dego 21dego Longford 121 498 24dego 60oo 16dego Wexford 156 647 24dego 56oo 20dego Wicklow 184 796 23dego 57dego 20dego Limerick Cilv 141 619 23oo 51dego 26dego
Mealh 170 751 22oo 52dego 26dego Offaly 113 505 22dego 53dego 25dego Kilkenny 121 545 22dego 48dego 30oo Donegal 94 428 22dego 42dego 35co
Leilrim 139 640 22dego 54dego 24dego------shy -Monaghan 118 556 21dego 57oo 22dego
Waterford City 164 788 21dego 60dego 19dego
Limenck County 147 708 21degk 53dego 26deg1 Louth 161 787 20dego 50dego 30dego
Mayo 122 602 20oo 53dego 27dego
Sligo 99 496 20dego 51 Ofo 29dego Tipperary South R1d1ng 120 619 19eo 60dego 21dego
Carlow 113 593 19dego 65dego 16dego Cork City 127 672 19dego 59 22dego
Weslm~ath 119 637 19dego 60dego 21dego South Cork 131 704 19dego 58dego 23dego
Laois 113 615 18dego 55dego 27 --Kildare 136 761 18 56dego 26dego Cavan 127 740 17dego 63dego 20 West Cork 87 513 17dego 57dego 26dego South Dublin 165 981 17dego 64dego 19dego Dun Laoghaire middot Rathdown 102 621 17dego 48dego 35dego Kerry 94 580 16dego 66 18dego
Roscommon 75 474 16dego 61 23dego Galway 110 835 13 64 23oo Fingal (Dublin) 117 902 13dego 62dego 25dego Dublin City 130 1 195 11 69 20
Total 4436 22735 19dego 57dego 24dego
---
I
LEADER A~minist_ration ~osts -~~ a Percentage of Total Expenditure -_ 1_995 __ Appendix A1 4
I Local Development Group
I
Laois Leader Rural Development Co Lid Cavan-Monaghan Rural Oevelopn1ent Co~rat1ve Soc~ely Ltd
Barrow-Norc-Suir Rural Developmentmiddot 62 81 771 QOo 23dego
Wicklow Rural Partnership Lid bull 26 38 70dego -I QOo 30dego
Westmeath Community Development Ltd
Longford Community Resources Lid -middot
-
8 11
-11 18
70degc
65
bull Oh
QOo
23dego
35dego middotmiddotshy
Mid-South Rural Roscommon Development Assoc1alion Ltd 9 14 63dego QOo 37dego
Rural Resource Development Lid bull 80 129 62degc Ooe 38dego
Meath Con1mumty Partnershrp Co Ltd
Meithcal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo
3
68
5 117
- 60dego
58dego
4dego
OOo
35eo
42dego
South West Mayo Development Co Galway Rural Development Co
54
8
94 middot-middotmiddot
15 58dego
56dego
1Oe
00o
41Co
44
Arigna Catchment Area Community Co 11 23 48dego 4dego 48
Western Rural Development Co Lld bull 28 58 48dego 00o 52oo
Offaly LEADER If Co Lid -middotmiddot
3 6 48~J QOo 52
IRD Duhallow Ltd bull -
Ballyhoura Development Ltd 60 74
131 163
46dego
45dego
OOo middotshy
OOo
54
55
West Limerick Resources Ltd
South Kerry Partnership Ltd bull
Waterford Development Partnership Lid
Tuatha Ch1arra1 Ltd
Word - Wexford Organisation for Rural Development
West Cork LEADER Group bull
Donegal Local Development Co Lid
-
10
29
34
6
51
57
8
- 23 66 76 14
125
160
22
44dego
44dego
44dego
42gtigt
41
35dego 340
3dego
00o
00o
6 1eo
00o
3eo
middotshy
53dege
56dego-56dego
52deg
58dego
65dego
63dego
-middotmiddotshy
Tipperary LEADER Group bull
Totalmiddot Local Development Groups
30 813
95
1584
32dego
51dego
00o
1dego -
68dego
48 -shy
middotshy
Acquisition of Skills
0 -
85 0 OCo 100dego
Other Collective Bodies
Technical Assistance
7
0
23 37
30 QOo
70dego
00o
00o
00dego
i Total Expenditure - LEADER Groups 820 1730 47dego 1dego 52dego
~-
--
Administration txpenditure
EOOO
3 81
Total AdministrationI I Expenditure as 0o of Total
EOOO Expenditurei
98dego
98 82deg~
3
Grant Aid as Non~rantI I I 0o of Total Outputs as of
Expenditure Total Expendituro
2dego 01 middot-shyQO 18dego
middotmiddotshy
bull These groups also existed under the Leader I in11ahve
LEADER Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A15
Total Administration Expenditure as 0o of Total
pound000 Expenditure
81dego56 lv-10Jbull
ro v 106 b1o
77 46dego 91 43dego
113 4 1 Ofo
226 39dego 92 38dego 90 38dego 67 38dego
100 36dego 230 36dego
JUmiddot~ 86 35dego
262 35dego 292 I 32dego 168 31dego 111 31dego 94 30dego- 29dego 65 I 29dego
289
85
29dego 182 27dego 258 25 194 24dego 198 23dego 165 22oo 141 22dego 285 22dego 271 21 249 20 185 19 94 19dego
5173 31
189 0dego 115 75o 86 0
5564 30dego
Grant Aid as 0o of Total
Expenditure
0 J _ 3dego 9dego bo 18dego 13dego
5dego 2dego
35dego 17dego
6dego
18dego 34o 44degc 29dega 26dego 28dego 50dego 19dego 47
5dego 55oo 20 50dego 46dego 42 36 50dego 40dego 20 25 29dego
0 25Vo
OOo
28
Non~rant
Outputs as 0o of Total Expenditure
19dego LO
~-
36dego 45dego 44o 41dego
48dego 57oo 6v-10 27dego 47dego 58dego 55vO 47 31dego 24oo 40dego 43 42dego 21 52dego 24dego 68dego 20dego 56dego 27dego 32dego 36dego 42 29 40dego 61dego 56dego 40dego
100o OOo
100o
42dego
Local Development Group
-Comhar lorrais (LEADER) Teoranta bull lounly ~ligo LlAurH t-artnersh1p co LIO r-cura1 uuo11n LtAUttlt vvmpany Lia ln1sh0Wen Community Development Co ltd middot Laois LEADER Rural Development Co Ltd comhdhail 011ea1n na hlireann South Kerry Partnership Ltd bull Rural Resources Develooment Ltd Blackwaler Region LEADER Co Ltd Meath Community Partnership Co Ltd LonQford Community Resources Ltd Galwav Rural Develooment Co Word-Wexford Organisation for Rural Developmenl
-Barrow-Nore-~uir tltura1 ueve1opment Lta_ Ariana Catchment Area Community Co bull Cavan-MonaQhan Rural Development Co-operative Society lid Me1theal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo Wicklow Rural Partnership Ltd bull Offaly LEADER II Co Ltd bull Doneoal Local Development Co Ltd Mid-South Rural Roscommon Developmenl Association Ltd Co Louth Rural Development Co Ltd Ballyhoura Development Ltd bull Kell-Kildare European LEADER II Teoranta IRD Duhallow ltd_ Tuatha Ch1arrai Lid -South West Mavo Oevelooment Co Westmeath Community Development ltd West Limerick Resources Ltd
-middot West Cork LEADER Groupmiddot Waterford Develooment Partnersh10 Ltd Western Rural Development Co Lid Tinnorarv LEADER Group bull East Cork Area Development Ltd Total - Local Development Groups
Acqu1s1t1on of Skills Uther Collective tsodies Technical Assistance
Total Expendituremiddot LEADER Groups
bull These groups also exisled under the Leader I initiative
Administration Expenditure
pound000
45
deg 64 35 - 47 88 35
25 37 83 60 31 91 94 53 35 28 25
19 84 49 64 46 45 37 31 61 58 49 36 17
1599
0 86
0
1684
---
--
----
----
I
I
LEADER _Admiri_istration_ Costs_as a Percentage_of TotalExpenditure bull 1997 Appendix A-16
Local Development GroupI I
Comhair lorrais (LEADER) Teoranta bull Co Sllqo LEADER Partnership Co Lid Rural Dublin LEADER Compant lid Wicklow Rural Partnershi~ Lid Rural Resource Development Lid Word-Wexford Orqani5allon for Rural Develo~ment Ltd Blackwater Reoion LEADER Co Lid Meath Communit~ Partnershi~ Co Ltd Laois LEADER Ru_ral Oevelooment Co Ltd IRD Ouhallow Ltd bull Oonal Local Oevelooment Co Ltd Kell-Kildare Eurooean LEADER II Teoranla Cavan-Monaghan Rural Oeveloement Co-o~rat1ve Socie_lv Ltd South Kerrv Partnersh10 Lid bull
I South Wesl Mavo Devetooment Co bull I Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo
Waterford Development Partnership Lid Galway Rural Developn-ent Co lnishowen Community Development Group bull Wesl Limerick Resources Ltd Co Louth Rural Dev~topment Co Ltd Comhdhail Oilea1n na hEireann West Cork LEADER Grouo bull Tuatha Ch1arra1 Ltd Westmeath Communitv Develoomenl Ltd Offalv LEADER II Co Ltd bull Ballyhoura Development Ltd East Cork Area Development Ltd Weslern Rural Development Co Ltd Mid-South Rural Roscommon Deveroomenl Assoc1at1on Ltd Longford Community Resources Ltd
Administration I Total Expenditure ExpenditureIpound000 pound000
43 I 96 83 48 52 89 91 46 -58 31 57 60 75
102 59 60
109 78 45 47 46 50 35
104 56 48 39 67
-- 27 83 32 35
Arigna Catchment Area Community Co I 43 middotmiddotmiddot shy
Tipperary LEADER Group 0 38 41Barrow-Nore-Suir RurEii Development bull
Total - local Develooment Grouos 1979
Other Collective Bodies 36 Technical Assistance 0
i Total Expenditure bull LEADER Groups 2015
234 140
186 365 373 204 260 156 293 314 399 568 335 341 626 458
middot-middot 264 277 275 309 221 658 367 314 259 455
Grant Aid as [ Nnn~r~ntAdministration as deglo of Total 0o of Total Expenditure Expenditure
45dego
36dego 34oo 28Co 24dego
24oo 22oo 22dego 20degtc 20oo 19dego 19dego 18degc 18degc 18dego 17dego 17degc 17degh 17 17 16dego 16dego 16dego 15dego 15 15dego 15o
189 I 14dego 592 I 14dego 252 290 414 441 561
11487
142 25dego 75 0 149 0 OOfo 100
11778 17dego 53dego JQOo I
13dego 12Jo 10dego
9oo 7dego
17dego
19dego
25dego 28dego 37dego so~lo
37oo 37dego 30oo 36Yv 40dego 54 45dego 59degn 55dego 61dego 64dego 64degh 56dego 34 49I 6QOo I 23dego 50dego I 34dego 64dego 55 50dego 55deg 55dego 60o 38oo 58dego 71 dego 56o 73dego 54dego 70dego 53dego
20dego 29dego 35oo 3_0 30dego 25dego 48dego 28dego 16degc 32dego 17dego 37dego 23dego 30
Outputs as oo of Total Expenditure I
36Co 39oo 38dego 35dego 26dego 39dego 41dego
48dego 44deg 40dego 27dego 36dego 23oA 27dego 21dego 19dego 19dego 27~o
Partnerships Community Groups and National Organisations Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A17
Partnership Administration Total Expenditure Expenditure pound000 pound000
KWCD Partnershii - -middot 128 128 lnishowen Partnersh10 Board 33 33-middot-Monaahan Partnershii Board 48 48 Lonoford Commumtv Resources ltd 40 40 Galwav Rural Oevelooment Co 39 39 Galwav C1tv Partnership 109 109
~Q_LEAOER Partnershii Co 50 50 Pairt1ocht Gaellacht Th1r Chonaill 48 48 Roscommon Countv Partncrshin 55 55 Pairt1ocht Chonamara 116 116 Cavan Partnershin 18 - 18_ Canal Communities Partnership 67 67 Brav Partnershio 115 115 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 49 50 Tra Li Partnershio 105 107 Waterford Area Partnershio 77 82 West Limerick Resources Ltd 74 82 Southside Partnershin 163 180 North-West KildareNorth Offalv (OAK) 125 139 Mavo bull 288 I 353 Wexford Area Partnershio 132 166 Doneaal Local Develoomenl Co 60 78 Leitnm Partnership 63 94 Clondalkin Partnershio Comoanv 176 305 South Kerrv bull 107 253 Blanchardstown Area Partnershin 208 495 Droaheda Partnershio Comoanv 136 337 Baltvfermot Partnershio 143 359 Cork Cilv bull 176 476 Dundalk bull 196 546 Finnlas bull 169 53 vvovforcl tn ntv prtnPrshio bull 126 501 n11hl1n lnOAr rjtv bull 14 539 T~ll ht bull 7 Ballvmun bull 103 529 Waterford Countv bull 42 227 Limerickmiddot 90 510 Northside Partnershio 125 761
Total Exoendituro - Partnerships 4071 9169
Communilv Grouos 710 773 National Oroanisations 383 383
Total 5164 10325
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) ~--
Administration as 0o Other Activities as 0o of Total Expenditure of Total Expenditure
100dego QOo
100dego QOo
100dego QOo
1QQ0o QOo
100deg QOo
100oo QOo
100oo 0dego 100dego QOo
100dego Ooo 100dego QOo
100middot QO(
1QQ 0o QDo
1QQDo 0dego 100dego OOo
98dego 2dego 94dego 6dego 91dego 9dego 91dego 9dego 90dego 10dego 82oo 18dego 80dego 20dego 77 23 67 33dego 58dego 42 42dego 58dego 42dego 58degc 40dego 69dego 40dego 60oo 37dego 63dego 36dego 64oo 3701 25dego 75degn 2i01 7t01Q TtOn 77deg 19dego 81dego 19dego 81dego 18oo a2deg10 16 84
44dego 56dego
92dego 8dego 100dego 0dego
50deg4 50dego
Partnerships Community Groups and National Organisations Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A 18
Partnership Administration
I Total Expenditure
--middot -shy -shy - --shy Expenditure pound000 - [000- shy
lnishowen Partnershio Board 137 272 Galwav C1tv PnrtnArsh1n 1e~ 35~
Mavo bull 274 580 Canal Commun1tv Partnersh10 122 267-W~~tmeath Communitv Develonmenl Ltd 98 216 Galwav Rural Oevelooment Co ~-
94 211 Monaahan Partnershio Board 100 238 Shoo LEAOEftigtartnersh1p C_o 155 385 Roscommon Counlv Partnershin 146 367 Cavan Partnersh10 72 184 Pa1rtiocht Chonamara 124 328- -LonQford Community Resources Lid 121 334 KWCO Partnershio 205 594 Pairtiocht Gaeltacht Thir Chonaill 99 302 Waterford Area Partnershin 175
middotshy 542 Blanchardstoln_ Area Partnersh1E 159 504 Oundalk bull 147 490 Leitrim Partnership 154 514 - -North West KildareNorth Offalv ltOAKl 122 414 Wexford Area Partnersh1R _ 125 427
_B~lymun bull 112 385 Brav Partnershio 151 526-Oonenal Local Develonment Co 104 371 Wexford Countv Partnershio bull 152 614
_sectQuth Kerrv bull 173 707 Cork Citymiddot 240 1 015 Tra Li Partnershio 122 519
_s1o_ndalk1n PartnershiQ ComQany 140 618 __lliJ_blin Inner C1ly bull 147 647
Tallaaht 173 775 Wesl Limerick Resources Ltd 57 256 F1nnlas bull 152 709 Walerford CountY bull --middot 54 261 Southside Partnershio 141 686 Ballyfcrmot Partnership 132 720 Droaheda Partnersh10 Comoanv 132 723--middot Limerickbull 121 803 Northside Partnershio bull 126 964 Set Un Casis - All Partnershins 28 28
Total Exoenditure bull Partnershios 5269 18858
Communitv Grouos 1 509 3499 National Oraan1salions 621 621
Total 7J98 22977
Administration as 0o Other Activities as 0o I- -middotshy of Total-Expenditure of Total Expenditure
51 oo 49dego-~ v u u-o
middotshy47dego 53dego 46dego 54dego 45lo 55oo-450o 55oo__ 42oo 58dego 40dego 60dego 40eo 60dego 39oo 61degi
38oo 62dego 36dego 64dego 34oo 66dego 33dego 67 32dego 68dego 32dego 68dego 30oo 70dego 30dego 70dego 29 71dego 29dego 71deg(0 29dego 71dego 29dego 71dego 28deg1gt 72dego 25dego 75oo 25dego 75 24dego 76dego-- shy24dego 76oo 23dego 77deg 23dego 77oo-shy22dego 78dego 22dego 78dego 21dego 79dego 2_1 dego 79deg 20dego 80dego 18 82 18 82dego 15 85dego 13dego 87dego
28dego 72
43dego 57=10 100dego OOo-shy32dego 68oo
i bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economrc and Social Progress (PESP)
County Enterprise Boards Grant Cost Per Job 1994-1997 (In Descending Order) Appendix A21
County Enterprise Board Expenditure on Grant Full Time Jobs Part Time Jobs Equivalent Jobs Aid 1994middot1997 pound000 1994-1997 (1) 1994-1997 (1) 1994-1997 (1)
Leitnm 1417 209 6 212 Westmeath 1012 154 0 154 Wexford 1575 280 37 299 Cork C1tv 1089 208 0 208 -Monaahan 1057 178 62 209 Waterford Counlv 1003 188 36 206-South Cork 1566 324 0 324 South Dublin 1753 362 6 365---TinnPrarv South R1dina 922 184 47 208 Limerick Citi 1197 273 10 278 Offalv 1137 243 74 280 Waterford City 1664 387 58 416 Mayo 1565 345 95 393 Limerick City 1512 362 60 392 Kllkennv 1325 320 55 348 DonPnal 1061 254 50 279 Finaal (Dublin) 1377 347 42 368 Wicklow 1538 333 170 418 Kiidare 1004 264 20 274
-Cork North 779 213 0 213
-Carlow 1435 309 169 394 -Cavan 1357 301 152 377 Clare 1 342 335 92 381 Kerrv 1432 288 238 407 Laois 1245 339 42 360 Louth 1045 280 46 303 Dublin Citv 1734 533 0 533
_
SliQo 1182 260 210 365 Oun LaoghaireRathdown 1323 408 3 410 Longford 1145 332 51 358 Roscommon 1208 315 133 382 West Cork 1063 361 21 372 Meath 980 350 23 362 Gatway County and City 2131 843 120 903 Tipperary North County 660 223 136 291
Total 44834 10905 2264 12037
Grant Cost per Job pound
6683 middot-shy6571 5278 5235 5057 4 867 4 834 4801 4444
4306 4061 3999 3988 3857 3812 3802 3743 3680 3666 3658 3647 3599 3522 3518 3459 3448 3254 3238 3231 3203 3 165 2 861 2711
2360 2269
3725
( 1) The jobs created in the year are computed by taking a head count of new jobs 1n enterprises receiving grant aid from CEBs The grant aid expended in the year may not be directly comparable with this as here may be a time rag between the expenditure and the creation of the relevant job but this should be minimised by taking an average over 4 years In computing the equivalent 1obs figure part-lime jobs are taken as 05 of a 1ob
County Enterprise Boards Non Grant Expenditure 1996 Appendix A31
r= middotshy
INPUTS OUTPUTS
I Cou~ty Enterpr_ise Boar_ct_ ~on-Grant - shy
0o of Total _Surveys __ Media _Networks __ ThirdLevel _Second Business - Mentor Activities Expenditure Events Colleges Level Counselling Support
pound000 Schools -
Kildare 241 39oo 1 0 4 3 15 380 40 middotshy
Dublin City 202 30oo 1 9 6 2 20 151 35 Fingal(Oubhn) 171 26dego 1 14 11 I 0 4 3 93 Oun LaoghaireRathdown 160 25oo 1 7 3 0 14 25 84
Sligo 108 24dego 0 68 0 1 3 250 30 - shySouth Cork 150 23dego 20 24 14 1 14 120 45 South Dublin 161 23dego 2 8 0 0 18 105 4
-middot Cork City 118 22dego 2 10 3 2 14 0 14
Loulh 137 22dego 7 3 2 1 6 40 15 Meath 116 22deg1~ 0 3 3 1 12 0 21 West Cork 135 21dego 0 130 2 0 10 174 10 Westmeath 106 21dego 0 0 0 0 17 0 14
Offaly 121 19dego 4 34 5 2 9 17 20 Donegal 144 19dego 1 4 0 1 8 216 46
-107 18oo 0 17 0 1 I 15 150 16
~ Clare
- middot----Leitrim 121 18oo 5 0 4 0 I 9 416 12
Roscommon 92 1Tlo 0 0 0 1 5 484 5 -Limerick City 7
I 17dego 0 2 0 5 5 0 6 Limerick County 137 17dego 1 25 1 0 13 102 7 Laois 101 16dego 0 4 0 0 14 54 bull 1
Tipperary North County 65 16dego 0 0 0 0 12 279 17
Wexford 107 15dego 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 Waterford County 85 15dego 0 2 0 1 0 69 4 Monaghan 86 14deg= 0 0 0 0 7 10 5 Kilkenny 88 14dego 0 16 0 I 0 12 I 19 I 10 Carlow 77 13dego 0 7 0 I 0 10 I 0 I 20 -Wicklow 96 13dego 1 12 0 0 9 70 14
Cavan 74 12oo 5 0 4 1 5 1394 i 31 Tipperary South Ridinq 65 12dego 0 0 3 0 10 80 25 Kerry 71 12dego 1 0 1 0 8 0 20
bullGalway County and City 75 I 12=10 1 2 37 3 12 72 3 Waterford City 82 10dego 0 1 0 1 20 108 33 Mayo 78 10oo 0 48 0 0 5 221 6 Longford 50 9dego 3 5 5 0 7 60 10
Cork North 36 8dego 0 0 0 0 0 340 0
Total 3879 18dego 57 455 108 27 352 5409 726
County Enterprise Boards Non Grant Expenditure 1997 Appendix A32
INPUTS OUTPUTS middotshy
County Enterprise Board Non-Grant bull1o of Total Surveys Media Networks Third Second Business Mentor Management Activities Expenditure Events Level Level Counselling Support Development
EOOO Colleges Schools Programme
Don~al 156 36dego 3 3 1 3 9 55 12 3 Tipperary Nor1h County 162 36dego 0 33 1 0 7 175 12 3 Oun laoghaireRathdown 219 35oo 2 20 6 4 24 240 67 2 Kilkenny 162 30oo 2 12 0 0 27 99 16 3 Louth 233 30 0 14 2 1 11 60 18 6 Sliao 144 29dego 1 7 2 2 7 246 26 6-Laois 167 27oo 0 127 2 0 13 100 6 4 Clare 171 27dego 1 37 12 1 15 97 31 6 Mavo 162 271 0 15 2 0 10 190 6 3 Limerick City 163 26dego 1 29 4 3 6 100 5 4 Kildare 198 26dego 0 24 4 0 15 190 46 6 Wesl Cork 133 26oo 1 271 2 0 10 152 2 4 Limerick County 183 26oo 1 55 12 3 8 194 35 6 Mealh 193 26oo 1 28 3 2 19 48 9 4 Offaly 127 25oo 1 53 6 0 8 59 35 5 Fingal (Dublin) 224 25dego 0 5 0 1 6 446 155 3 Leitrim 157 24oo 2 84 3 2 7 135 14 2 South Cork 164 23dego 0 14 85 1 16 627 15 6 Roscommon 109 23oo 1 27 3 0 11 50 8 4
Gatway County and City 190 23dego 0 5000 10 3 36 18 10 14
Co1lt Ci1V 150 22dego 1 10 5 2 B 1325 16 3 Monaghan 121 22dego 2 24 6 0 B 47 0 3 Tipperary South Riding 131 21 Ofo 1 25 3 0 11 672 20 3 Westmeath 132 21dego 1 3 0 0 29 6 10 4 Waterford Countv 104 21dego 3 32 2 1 21 156 7 3 Dublin City 245 21 oo 1 26 6 5 23 110 50 6 Wexford 131 20dego 1 17 0 0 17 55 16 2 Wicklow 159 20 0 44 0 0 6 32 9 3 Cavan 144 20dego 4 14 7 1 6 134 63 7
CorX North 66 19 1 10 5 2 16 1325 16 3 Waterford City 149 19oo 2 12 0 1 21 183 18 3 South Dublin 184 19dego 1 2 0 0 16 87 37 3 Kerry 104 18 1 324 0 0 12 115 B 2 LonQford 81 16oo 5 41 8 0 5 0 6 41 Carlow 95 16 1 110 1 1 10 228 50 2 Total 5414 24 42 6552 203 39 474 7756 854 182
LEADER Groups Non Grant Expenditure 1995-1997 (1) Appendix A33
Local Development Group
INPUTS
Non-Grant -Activities
pound000
As a 0o of Total--middot
Expenditure
Seminars Held-shy
OUTPUTS
Press I Other tApplications Releases Promotional -Approved-
Projects Referred Creation I Creation of Training Completed to Other of Newmiddot middot Community middotCourses
Actions Agencies Business Association
East Corllt Area Development Ltd 144 51dego 104 110 0 O 0 O 5 2 I O gt-M~e~a~th=C-o~m-m~u~n~i~ttv
0
middotP~a~rt~n-e-rs~h~o=C~o-L-td-----~--1-8-0--+-~5~1~0~---+--7~7-1--+---16-4---- 110 91 11 960 21 12 16
Word - Wexford Ornan1sat1on for Rural Oevetonment bull 351 48oo 0 0 0 0 t-c~innbulle~ra~~-L~e~a~d~er~Gro~u~o~middot~-~~~~~---r-~3~4~3----t-~4~8~o--o 24 7 4 191 45 10 15 13 22 f--~----=~~~~~~~~~+-----~+----~---~+---------l~~-----+-~~----~+-~--~--l~----~f-~300~+-~=-~+-~--~-+~-=~~
Kellmiddot Kildare Euronean Leader II TEO 268 46Yo 85 125 4 74 33 1 10 36 Blackwater Reo1on Leader Co_ Ltd -middot _136----+--4-6A~o------6--7_ __ _ __65------lt----4----I- --7-3__1_---3-1------22--+----3------lt--------1--~__2_4-----1 lnishowen Commumtv Develonment Groun bull 175 46dego 288 86 25 64 27 147 10 17 28 Laois Leader Rural Develonment Co Ltd 103 44dego 67 116 12 56 17 27 40 7 17 Tualha Chiarrai Ltd 244 42dego 239 25 10 168 82 66 24 6 39 West Cork Leader Groun middot 414 38~C -middot-+-~75----t--6-9-8----t----O--t----o-----t --~O-----t----O--t--~1~2_ _____o----shy 33
~c~o~S~h~go~L-ead-e~r~P~bull~rt--n-e--rs~h~ip~Co~~Lt~d--------+-----1~0~1--+-~3~7~~_ ___J3 6 6 73 21 14 20 17 5 Rural Dutgt11n Leader Comoanv Ltd 63 37dego 83 18 -~9--t----2~7--middot-+---6----+---~12-----t--~3---+--~7---+----5-Co_ Louth Rural Devclooment Co Ltd 137 37dego 139 56 18 39 5 23 5 2 11
gt-W~c~kl-o--w~R~u~r~a~I~P-art~n~bull~middot~sh~io~L--td---middot---------~1~4~3--+_~3~6~~-+---5~0~7____~1~12------ O 25 33 209 9 11 6 IRD Duhallow Lld bull ___2~middotbull-1-+-3_~V----t-~283------j--272--+----o-----1 85 40 144 11 37 1A
Rural Resource Dcvclooment ld__middot-------+--20502--+-C3057___-t-1=38~2o---t---5~0t----t--0905----t-----OO--- 0 0 6 9 14 Offalv Lead_~r II Co_ Ltd_middot 130 35oo 49 43 20 76 56 9 17 0 91
gt-S~ou--th~K~bull~Y~P~a~rt~n~bull~s~h~ip~L~t~d-middot________1__1_7~5--+-~34---~~middot--i---1~bull~85----+---1middotQ4_--+-----9--~--0-----+-----o--+----o---~-~2~0---+--3~0-----+--~3~6--1 Galwav Rural DevelgPment Co 126 33dego 38 12 0 147 21 130 19 6 39 Western Rural Devetoomenl Co Ltd 298 33dego 134 102 1 165 46 81 27 1 9 DonPnal L~cal Development Co Ltd 139 32 5 15 1 127 36 29 20 0 13 Lonaford ~ommun1lv Resources Ltd 118 31dego 15 57 7 97 46 22 3 2 5 Westmeath Communitv Develonmenl Ltd 149 30dego 254 50 15 165 60 20 17 5 __sect_____
l-Ba~ll~vlh~ou~ra~De~v-e~lo~rnm~e--n--t-Ll~d~_middot_________t--~2~7~3--+_~30~~~---t---64~-t--bull~8-----t----5--t----2~0~1--l--~8~2-----t--~8~0----+-~59----t---~bull~O---t ~5~2~-t Barrow-Nor~-Suir Rural Development bull -~2~4~7--+--~3~0~----+---3~5~0---__f----5_____15----l--~1~5~1---1C-----92-----t--~65-----t---2~0---t--~10-----t--~2~8-----t Comhair lorrais ILead~rl Teoranta bull 45 29dego o O _o__t------Co__t--_~o___-t-_--o_-+---co_ _____o--_-+_ __o-----t Wesl Limerick Resources 1 tn 126 29dego 69 104 3 103 1h 10 87 7 10 Comhdhail 01leain Na hEireann 64 27dego 41 32 0 124 hO 45 15 0 10
~_~ndegh~Wc~s~t~Mou_nDev~e~lo-nmbulln~t~n~middot------+--~1bullbull-+--2-bull-~-+---12----t--~~5-------0--l----1~middot4___+-_~5~8--t-----4~-+--~13---t------1--+--~3~3-~ Waterford Develooment Partnershio Ltd 209 26dego 56 0 0 95 35 35 34 7 46 Cavan-Monaghan Rural Development
l--C~o~-o~gtP~e~r=a~v~e~S=oc-e=t~y~L~tdo-middot---~-~----+-~2~2~7--+-C2~47o=---+-=2676~-t----11~7~---l----2~174__t---~36700---+----3~0~1--l----2~--+---20---+~--75__t-----2=2~--l Ariana Catchment Arca Community Co bull 121 23dego 21 7 23 105 39 4 5 0 O
f---M~~~h=~~F~o=r~b~a=rth~a--N~a=G~a~e~lt~a~c=ht~a~T~E~o=---~----r-~2=3~7----C2~3o=---+-~1773=----t--~150~--t--~o--t---~4700---+--1-5=7--+-~35~0~--+-~109----t--~2~1----+--~176--j
Mid-South Rural Roscommon Development Association Ltd 63 18 24 18 120 90 36 10 20 5 4
Total Expenditure - Local Development Groups 6227 34dego 7183 2879 730 I 3496 1514 2871 690 291 716
Acqu1s1t1on of skills i 274 Ooo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1-coc~e~c11=n~ca-1-a~s~s~s~ta-n~ce---------------=27~2~---l--0~0~~--t---Co~--t--~o--+--~o=---+-1--~o~-+---~o~-+----o--+------io~-t----o~--+-----io----+
Total Expenditure -LEADER Groups 6773 36dego 7183 2 879 730 3 496 1 514 2 871 (1) Expenditure for 1995-1997 is grouped together as only cumulative output statistics to 31December1997 were available at the time of preparing the report bull These groups also existed under the Leader I initiative
690 291 716
I
Partnerships Non Grant Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A34 middot-middot
INPUTS OUTPUTS
Partnership Name Non-Grant Activities As a 04 of Total Enterprise Services for Preventative Complementary pound000 Expenditure Support Unemployed Education Education
Norths1de Partnership bull 636 84dego 321 1885 520 443 Limerickbull 420 82dego 296 935 100 388 Waterford Counlv bull 184 81 oo 57 0 0 0
t--shy272 328Ballymun bull 426 81oo 401 82
Tallaght bull 466 77dego 496 - 957 143 29 Dublin Inner City bull 405 75dego 343 1651 50 59 Wexford County Partnership bull 375 75dego 138 0 17 272 Finalas bull 365 68oo 557 731 378 155 Dundalk bull 350 64dego 148 388 132 207 Co1lt Citymiddot 300 63dego 344 0 180 261 Ballyfermot Partnership 215 60dego 0 211 40 94 Drogheda Partnership Company 200 60dego 60 0 0 38 Blanchardstown Area Partnership 288 58dego 116 71 48 18 South Kerrv bull 146 58oo 90 212 399 265 Clondalkin Partnership Company 129 42oo 164 0 0 0 Le1tnm Partnership 31 33oo 23 184 0 56 Donegal Local Development Company 18 23dego 0 0 0 0 -IJYexford Area Partnership 34 20oo 14 0 0 13 Mayo 18o lo 181 10 34 North West KildareNorth Offaly 14 10 0 0 u 28 Southside Partnership 17 9dego 0 0 0 0 West Limencilt Resources Ltd 8 9dego 52 0 0 0 Waterford Area Partnershij)shy 5 6dego 49 14 0 5 Tra Li Partnership 2 2 u 0 0 0 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 0 QOo 0 0 0 0 LonQford Community Resources Ltd 0 Ooo 0 0 I 0 0-Pairtiocht Gaeltacht Th1r Chona1ll 0 0 0 0 0 0 lnishowen Partnership Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canal Commun1t1es Partnershrp 0 00o 0 0 0 0 Pairtiocht Chonamara 0 QOa 0 0 0 0 Gatway Rural Development Co 0 OOa 0 0 0 0 Sligo Leader Partnership Co 0 0 16 0 0 0 Roscommon County t-artnersh1p - u 0-1 u 0 u 0 Brav Partnership 0 01 0 0 0 0 Gatwav City Partnership 0 OOo 0 0 0 0 Cavan Partnership 0 00o 0 0 0 0 MonaQhan Partnership Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 KWCD Partnership 0 Ooo 0 0 0 0 Total Expenditure - Partnerships 5098 56dego 3739 7821 2107 2693
Commun1lv Grouas 63 8 0 0 0 0 National Oraanisalions 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 5161 50 3739 7821 2107 2693
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
Partnerships Non Grant Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A35
INPUTS OUTPUTS -
Partnership Non-Grant Activities As a 0o of Total Business Job Groups Preventative -shy -middot middot- -middot pound000 -middot - Expenditure -Start-Ups- shy Placements -shy Supportmiddot Education Projects
Northside Partnership bull I 838 87dego 503 438 28 15 I - -middot -middotmiddot - tCbullbull 602 isgt10 11b tiLj 31 16 I Dr()(lheda Partnership Co I 591 82dego 60 12 177 10 Ballyfermot Partnership 587 a2deg10 88 88 30 3
-middot Southside Partnership 546 80dego I 200 6 80 24 Waterford Counly bull 206 79dego 42 4 23 6 Fmglas bull 557 79dego 257 233 174 28 West limerick Resources Ltd 199 78degc 40 0 50 0 Tallaaht bull 602 78dego 309 646 51 7 Dublin Inner City bull 500 77dego 290 448 34 10 Clondalkin Partnership Conipany 478 77oo 225 562 63 7 Tra L1 Partnership 396 76deg1gt 80 20 67 6 -cork Citymiddot 775 76- 217 111 55 9 Soulh Kerry bull 533 75dego 135 150 61 middot51 -
Wexford County Partnership bull 462 75dego 170 63 31 0 Donegal Local Development Co 267 72dego 150 0 63 2 Bra~ Partnershi~ 375 71degu 71 0 14 Ballymun bull 274 71dego 70 402 50 10 Wexford Area ~artnership OUpound 71o 17U 4 5 18 -shyNorth vvest tildareNorth Offaly 292 71 Oo 56 0 8
I Leitrim Partnership 360 70deg1= 60 3 119 6 Dundalk bull 343 70~~ 71 64 50 10 Blanchardstown Area Partnership 345 68dego 170 97 29 13 Waterford Arca Partnership 367 68dego 37 6 55 1
middotshyPa1rtiocht Gaeltacht Thir Chona1ll 203 67deg~ 75 0 50 10 KWCD Partnership 389 66deg 15 0 0
- 4 middot-
Lonqford Commumtv Resources Ltd 212 64dego 85 4 19 5 middotmiddotshyPairt1ocht Chonamara 205 62 67 2 3 34
middotmiddot-Cavan Partnershio 112 61dego 90 1 49 6 Roscommon County Partnership 221 60degJ 120 0 38 6 -Sligo LeaCer Partnership Co 230 60dego 120 0 32 2 Monaghan Partnership Board 138 58dego 88 0 40 10 Galway Rural Development Company 116 55dego 101 0 51 2 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 118 55deg1= 0 0 20 2 -Canal Communities Partnersh10 145 54deg~ 0 0 16 6 Mavo bull 306 53dego 177 200 28 3 Galway City Partnership 180 50dego 113 0 35 12 lmshowen Partnership Board 134 49dego 60 0 42
Total Expenditure bull Partnerships 13589 72dego 4698 4192 1853 397
Commun1tv Grouos 1 990 57 0 0 0 0 Nalional Oraanisations 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 15579 68dego 4698 4192 1853 397
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
Appendix B Administration Cost Trends of Local Development Bodies
Number of CEBs within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs 1994-1997
Cost Band 1994 1995 1996 1997
ltpound50000 pound50-100000 pound100-150000
pound150-200000
gtpound200000
3 17
15 2
24
7
2
1
32
2
5
23 7
Total Administration Costs pound4_8m pound49m pound43m pound44m
Number of LEADER groups within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs 1995-1997
Cost Band 1995 1996 1997
ltpound50000 25 23 17
pound50-100000 9 11 14 pound100-150000 3
Total Administration Costs pound0Bm pound16m pound20m
Number of Partnerships within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs of Partnerships
Cost Band 1996 1997
ltpound50000 9 6 pound50-100000 7 19 pound100-150000 15 10 pound150-200000 5 10 gt pound200000 2 3
Total Administration Costs pound40m pound53m
11l)(lrJY 11 I
--
Appendix C Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development - Performance Indicators and Revised Targets
-
f 11~
iority Indicator
Jobs
1mber of of 1obs
Revised Targets (1994-1999) Original TargetUnits for total Operational Sub Sub
Programme 2Programme Programme 1
Jobs 15000 proved (for support grant assistance)
Nl1mber of new jobs erbullated not placed in Jobs and vacanc1es) Persons (N 81middot for Sub Pr gtgramme 1wjobs
bullgt provecr figure will mJke up the bulk of thbull i ~jobs created an1ounl) (N 02- for Sub Pr )gramme 2 this eq uates 10 new en terpriscs SUpported)
17000 (Sub Programme 1 8000 Sub Programme 2
1717516900
6900 Sub Programme 3 (Temple Bar) 2000 permanenl in service amp 5000 construction)
AjfJe11c1x CI
~ Priority Indicator
2 Enterprise creation and development
Grants to enterprise Value of grant allocations
Number of enterprises supported
Percentage of investment 1n enterprises provided by the Operational Programme
Provision of improved access for potential entrepreneurs to initial advice Number of firms receiving business advice
Percentage of grant aided firms whose promoters received other Operational Programme support advice consultancy mentoring
Management developm9nt Number of enlerprises participating in managemenl development programmes Number of managers participating in management developmenl programmes
3 Community Development Number of local groups financially assisted
4 Services for the unemployed Number of persons registered for assistance
Number of Long-Term Unemployed persons to benefil from Services for the
I Unemployed expressed as a
I Oo of total number of persons registered for assistance
Units Original Target for total Operational
Programme
pound
Enterprises 2260 new businesses and for Sub Programme 1
Persons and 3640 new and 960 existing for Sub Programme 2
Enterprises 6000 firms and
Persons
280 firmsEnterprises
Persons 500 per annum
No target set groups Local
Persons Caseload of 11 0000 (30000 1n 1995 and
20000 new cases per annum thereafter)
No targel set
Revised Targets (1994-1999)
Sub Sub Programme 1 Programme 2
i
pound16000000pound56020000
17 000 new and6050 new and 7000
existing 3750
existing
(Tolal 9800) (Tolal 24000)
39dego
3000010900
100dego83oo
6000
10000
700
57000 (40000 Local Employment
Scheme Partnerships and 17 000 Non- Local
Employment Scheme)
60dego
AfJXIUimiddot C2
---
Priority Indicator Units Original Target Revised Targets (1994-1999) for total Operational
Sub SubProgramme Programme 1 Programme 2
Progression Number bulllf persons progressing Persons 2500 per annum 16000 to full-time employment (1e placement in a job vacancy) Number of persons progressing Persons 300 per annum 5000 to part-lir le employment (ie placeme11t in a job vacancy) Number of persons assisted into Persons 17000 self-emplJyment (see 1 above) N~mber of persons assisted Persons 19000 under co1nplementary education and training Number of persons in continuing Persons 5000 per annum 2000
1 cducat1or1 Number c1f persons in work Persons 10000 per annum 1000 experience programmes Number Cbullf unemployed referred Persons 5000 onwards middot o other agencies
- -middot 5 ~ducation and Training Complementary education and training Number cmiddotf persons assisted Persons 12000 per annum 19000 under cornplementary education and traini l9
Provision of recognised ce~ificaticbulln Number cf participants ptovided Persons 60003500 with re~1nised certification
I 0o of part1 1pants provided with 30oo reltXJgniset certification
Training for trainers NuOiber ol persons benefiting Persons 1000 under actions tn the area of trai~1ng of trainers and teachers
I of partimiddotipants ptovided with recognise j certification
I 6 Preventive education Number of children attending Children 4080 per annum 44000 preventive education courses I youth serVices
7 lnfrasbucture and enVironmental measures Number o infrastructutal and 20 per annum 1000Protects 98 environmE ntal actions
Appendix C3
Original Target Revised Targets (1994-1999) Priority Indicator Units for total Operational Sub Sub
Programme Programme 1 Programme 2
8 Land development
Area of targeted land developed
Expenditure on developmenl of targeled land
Number of derelict sites eradicated
Number of villages assisted
Number of towns assisted
Number of conservation projects to be funded
9 Other
Entarprse culture Number of participants in activities to promote an enterprise culture 1n schools and colleges
Customer contacts Number of customer contacts with CEBs
Hectares
pound
Sites
Villages and projects
Towns and projects
Projects
Persons 62000
Customer 190000 Contacts
Appendix C 4
Appendix D Extract from Consolidated Reporting Guidelines - December 1997 The LEADER Operational Programme Performance Indicators and Revised Targets
Pe-rformance Indicators
Under the tenns nf the Opcr~llional Progr1111n1e e1ch group is rtmiddot4uired to set ck)vn
1~erforn11nce uHJic~1tors and targets vhitmiddoth it vdl ain1 10 ~1chilve in 1he
itn )le1ncntation of its hu~iness plan and against vh1ch its perfonnance Viii htmiddot
evllua1ed_ Follc)ving ~t rcvitv of the fonn ind contenl of 1hc originil incliclliVl
inclicHors1 cornincnt by the independent evduator and consuh1lion Vilh groups a
dc1111itivc range of perfon111nce inclicJtors llas nclv been prepared
E~11h (~roup is required to llltgtdify ils Busin1middotss Pl1n perforn1ance indicators in this
remiddotiscd forn1at for lmiddotte1sure B Ruril innovation 1neasures and insofar as it is possible
at 1his s1age to prep1re inltlil~ltors for middotleisure C middotrransni1ion~1I cu-operitiun for 1hv
period tnding 5 I l)ece111her 1999 PleJse note thlt 1leisure C does no[ relale to
teclmical suppo11 funding received from AEIDL
lh1 Ile st1te111cru of pcrfonn1ncl indicators -hould rLprcscnl a co111pnhensivc
stncnHmiddotnc of 1argets based on progress to ditc ind the i1nplc111entllio11 of 1he
huine~gt plmiddottll to )1 l)cc~1nbcr iltJ99 including thl acklitional 1ctivitics being
~upportcd vith the funding 11locItcd fron1 the -middotrcservtmiddotmiddotmiddot
imiddotht revised busintmiddot-s plan indicators should he con1plctccl ind rc1urnecl to Huril
De-elopmem Division lw ii _l1nua1v 1998
regress Viii he 1neasurecl 1gainst these t1rgcts by lllttns of the Lf)LJ rerurn~ incl the
quant1tat1ve incl qualitllivc reports outlirlltd in sections 3A jl3 incl 5C of 1hesc
guiklines
Ple1se note thal -hJcled areas ire for infon11a1ion only incl 11 lhis st1ge do nol
require indicators to be Stl All olhltr t1rge1s should ht inpulled in 1he 1ppropri1te
fickl- here rherc is no 1lmiddotlemiddotan1 ac1ivi1y tllSl rl zero
1[Jfx11rL IJ 1
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Animation and Capacity Building
ActivityOutput
Promotion
Number of seminarspublic meetingsworkshops organised to cover the following topics GeneralCommunity SpecialisedSectoral
Number of attendees al the above
Number of press releases articles published media interviews
Circulation of LEADER Newsletter Number issued Number per print run
Number of other promotional actions
Direct Animation Assistance I Technical Advice
Number of private individuals directly assistedadvised
Number of bodies directly assistedadvised GeneralCommunity Specialised Sectoral
Number of development strategiestplansmiddot arising from field work (Le_ not covered in ~other technical assistance beneath) including community plans
Co-ordination of Activities
Number of applications referred to other agencies
Impact
Enhanced Awareness of LEADER Services (Not for completion)
This will be measured by middot
The number of individuals contacting LEADER office
The number of groupsbusinesses contacting LEADER office
The number of applications from promoters
The number of projects promoted by LEADER Group itself
General Level of Local I Community Development
Activity (Not for completion)
This will be measured by middot
The number of applications successfully improved
The number of bodies assistedanimatedrestructured improved
Number of bodies established
More Efficient Use of Resources
(Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number of projects successfully referred to other agencies (i e funded)
i
------MeasL1re B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector ActivityOutput -
I
dministration Processing
Number of staff exclusively I assigned to administrative duties
(2 15 etc)
Number of staff exciusively assigned to animation duties (2 1 5 etc)
Number of Board meetings held
Number of hours worked on a I voluntary basis by Board
members
Number of project evaluation committees
I
Number of project evaluation committee meetings held I
Number of hours worked on a voluntary basis by pro1ect evaluation committee members
I Number of internal LEADER Group evaluation meetingssessionsreviews
I Number of external system auditsreviews (not including accounts)
Co-ordination of Activities I
Number or meetings with other LEADER Groups
I
Number of County Strategy Meetings attended
Number of other meetings with I public bodies
middot shy
Impact
Efficient Delivery of Service (Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number or applications received The number of applications
processed The number of applications approved The number of projects completed
More Efficient Use of Resources
(Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number of projects referred to other agencies (not including those that were referred after provision of animation assistancetechn1cal advice which 1s dealt with beneath)
Apprnd1x 0 3
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector ActivityOutput Impact
Technical Support Studies and Research Knowledge I Expertise Made Available to Potential
Number of studies plansaudits Promoters commissioned by LEADER (Not for completion) Group (not including field work carried This wlfl be measured by out by animators which is included above) The number of LEADER
projects emanating from studies Number of other auditsstudiesplans prototype The number of projects development commissioned by emanating from studies funded promoters amp funded by by other agencies LEADER
The number of bodies restructuredimproved
The number of bodies established
1ppc11cLy ) 4
----
--- --
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
I Sector Activity I Output Impact middot- ---shy
Training Provision of Training Courses Acquisition of Skills (Not for completion)
I Number of training courses commissionedundertaken by This will be measured by LEADER Group (not including animation activ1t1es The number of bodies outlined above) demonstrably LEADER StaffBoard restructuredimproved by GeneralCommunity Courses training provided to SpecialisedSectoral volunteersstaff
I
Number of attendees at the above The number of proiects emanating from training
I PROVISION OF TRAINING GRANTS The number of attendees who
were placed in employment as Number of Training Grants for a result of training
I courses commissioned by promoters and funded under LEADER (not including any of the above)
I GeneralCommunity Courses Spec1al1sedSectoral
Number of attendees at the above
Grant Provision Job CreationRecruitment Assistance I
Number of Employment Grants Employment created provided
I ~-
Afgtj)(11cLmiddot J 5
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Activity I OutputSector
Improvement of Existing Accommodation and
Tourist Amenities
Rural Tourism
Number of capital grants provided
Development of New Accommodation and
Tourist Amenities
Number of capital grants provided
Marketing
Number of marketing grants provided
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number accommodation facilities upgraded to Bord Faille standard
Number of additional beds available
Increased number of visitormiddot capacity
Add1t1ona1 tourist revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Sectoral Benefits
New entrants
Number of additional beds available
Increased number of visilor capacity
Additional revenue generated IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Improved Business Attributable to Marketing
Additional bed-nights arising from marketing strategy
Additional inquiries visits to tourist offices - domestic - overseas
Additional visits to tourist amenities Siles arising from marketing strategy
Number or new marketmg methods tourist packages initiated
Employment- (e g directly arising rrom marketing as opposed to capital grant aid eg as a result or brochures advertisements etc) Created I Sustained
-------
Meas1Jre B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Small Firms Craft Enterprise and Local Services
I
I
i
I
i
i
I
_
Activity I Output
Support for Existing Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Support for New Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Marllteting
Number of marketing grants provided
- -Impact
-Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with improved efficiencyadded value to products and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product ranges
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
I
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises established
New productsproduct ranges
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Greater Awarness of Enterprise Activity
Number of new (geographical) markets developed - within Ireland - within EU - non - EU
Increased sales (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
1J(11di- Igt 7
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Agricultural Forestry and Fishery Products
Activity I Output
Support for Existing Enterprises and Improving
Quality of Existing Products
Number of capital grants provided
Support for New Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Marketing
Number of marketing grants provided
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with improved efficiencyadded value to products and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product ranges
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Number of enterprises established
New productsproduct ranges
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Greater Awareness of Enterprise Activity
Number of new (geographical) markets developed - within Ireland - within EU - non - EU
Increased sales (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector Activity I Output Impact
Freservation of the Improving Awareness Increased Environmental Environment and Livin Awareness9
Conditions Number of capital grants Number of environmental provided plansaction groups established
(not including groupsplans arising from animation andor other technical support outlined above)
Number of entries for Tidy Towns Competition
Benefit to the Built I Cultural of Built I Social and Cultural
Protection I Enhancement Environment
Environment
Number of built sitesstructures provided Number of capital grants
protected or restored
Number of socialcultural events held
Employment created I sustained
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Benefit to the Natural of Natural Environment
Protection I Enhancement Environment
Number of natural sites protected provided Number of capital grants
Number of natural amenities restoredenhanced
Improved Managment of Activities I Alternative
Waste Management Waste I Availability of
Energies Alternative Energy
Number of capital grants Number of alternative energy provided providers established
Number of waste management initiatives implemented
Employment created I sustained
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
AJf)(itrlLmiddot J9
Measure C Transnational co-operation
Sector
Transnational Co~peration
Activity I Output
Grant Provision
GeneralCommunity SpecialisedSectoral Rural Tourism Small Firmscraftsenterprises AgricultureForestryFisheries Products EnvironmenVLiving Conditions Other
Number of Grants provided to final beneficiary (each category is exclusive)
Private Men Private Women Private Jointmiddot CommunityDevelopment Groups Business VoluntarySpecific Issue Groups Co-operatives LEADER Group Other Total
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with establishedimproved efficiency added value to producls and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product rangesnumber of new marketing methods tourist packages initiated
Number of new (geographical) markels developed - within Ireland -within EU - non-EU
Additional inquiries visits to tourist offices - domestic - overseas
Additional visits to tourist amenities sites arising from marlltetmg strategy
Additional bed-nights arising from marketing strategy
Increased sales Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Number of cultural links established
Number of local development strategies studies transferred shared
Number of environmental actions
Employment - created full-time all year fu11-time seasonal part-time all year part-time seasonal
Employment - sustained full-trme all year full-time seasonal part-time all year part-time seasonal
AfJJll1tll~Y )_ Q
Appendix E Matrix of Development Agencies in County Roscommon and the Services Provided (Produced by Roscommon County Enterprise Board)
---------~
c Q
~l agt-EUJ
Co Jnty Slrategy Group CoJnty Enterpnse BoHd
Anmiddotina Enterprise Fund
Lec1der 11
Pai tnersh1p Co ( --~--~---~--~--
Co-Jnty Council ---- middot---~---t--~--~~-~r ---~-~--~-~--~-~--~--~
lrel 3nd Wes ToLnsm
--~---~--~--~---middot -~----~----------~--
Tecgasc
An Bord Tr3cht31a
Forbairt ( ( (
10t Ireland I
FA
Bord Faille (
Bar1ksFinanc1al Insmiddot itulions I
Dcpartmenl of Social Welfare
Buiness Innovation Centre
European lnfc rmat1on Centre
AfJjJCJICfiY E l
Appendix F Framework of Agreement between County Meath CEB and County Meath LEADER II Group
MEMOHANDUM OF AGHEFMFNT
JelVtLll
The Meath County Fn1erpnse Board Ltd
and
Mca th Leader 11
Given he -i1n1brilics bl(lLll ccnnn ispeCls of the n1ni1 of bnth Counry Enterprise Hoard ind lc1dcr
IL ii b 11ceptcJ th11 i high ltkne of co-orxru1on is rcql1inJ to tbullns11n that dtmiddotserv1ng proiccis giin
n11xi1nl1111 txncfit fron1 he s11p1x111 1ncchanis11h avulihh V1tlun hoth orgu11-11in11s_ Vhdc s~ 11HL
division of rcsponsiliililics is possibl~ t outlined hcIO 11 1s ncogni cJ 11111 both groups need 10 1dop1
tn OJICll n(Xihh tpproteh IO the ltsk of f)TltJCCing ClllflCS 111J tppliCtliOllS
lc1dcr II -ill ha prin1a~middot n spon~ibilitv ill 11lc Couniy f()r lhc st1ppon of p1ojlmiddotCS f10111 the frgtllovi11~
sectors
bull Craft Enttrpnscs Cfor fin1nciil suppon ilh 1 li1n11cd fcxmiddotus on soft suppons)
bull Kurii Touris1n
bull Proicn- p1n1nnttd hy Co111111u11i1y CnH1P
bull Exploilition and M1rke1ing of lor1I agriculcur1I fcxxl for(siry tnd fishtnts products
bull Envuonn1tnl for ht follomiddotinJ mc1surcs middot
e Prtscrv1tion ind dcvlmiddotloprnenl of the existing 1rch11te1ur1I heriti(lbull ind bullillages
bull Suppo11 for n1hur1I Cfl111v1ty ind the pron1ot1un C1f cultur1I product- linked ith nir~d
ltlevelcip111ent
bull Prot~ctron rch1btli111ion ind explollllion of nuural rccurces (Oor1 fiunt srndl s1rc11ns
ccc) ind bncl~tpcs
bull Di1x1s1I 1nd fC()ding Clf ISie illdl1ding llSt or energy pnxluuion
ll1is i111plies th11 Le1ltler II tvill cngig1middot 111 p1--delmiddotlltipn1lmiddotnt 1ni11nins research tnd 1111rkc1ing ind he
prin11rily nspons1hlc for the c1pi1d invt~1111enl 1s-oci11ed Vith tht dcvcloprnent of vdue-iltld(d fotgtlt1
produce ind viii dso pronss rtqutsts for 1id for c1p1rd intslmeni ln1ploy111cnt grants 1111rktting
ind 111ining s11ppon- in lht 1hovl stcio1s
The County Enttrpnsc l3cgt1rltl tvill continu1 10 support f(bull1siliilicy cap1td ind (rnploy1ncnl projcd
l1id1 li1vt tilt c1p1lt ily ro gtntricc ernpkraquobull111tn1 v11h1n tll otlllmiddotr -ltmiddotciors Po1cnt1tl projects vhich 111cit
This rtquirvnicnc viii he rtfcrrtd to tteh otliLr in 1cltorltlincc Vitll tlus Agrtllllcnl
middot111t 1ltith Coun1y Enterprise Boird lld ind ilcalh Lealtlcr II arlmiddot lOn1n1incd to rn11ntaining open lines
nf cn111n1un1c11ton tn in1plcn1er1t the tcnn- of thi u11dirs11nd1ng ind alsn co111111ir 1h11 the Chief
Execu1ivltmiddot OfficLmiddotrs will n1eet hH1ndly on 1 111onclilmiddot li1sis to v11s111c cff1cilnt i1npllnhnt1tilgtn middot111i
AgretlllLnt tltgt co111inue 111 orxr11ion un11I _l_t Oeccn1her 19)7 ind viii Ix suh1cc1 10 rcvittmiddot by the
1cith County Enterprise Board 11cl 1n consult1t1011 Vith Lcidtr IL
101hi11g in chis A_irec1ntnt shtll he cltJntruccl 10 li111i1 DI tLStnu lhe _1in11D1y il1nu1011s 111d n1xr1titJns
of till 11lmiddot1th Coun1y Enttrprbc Bo1rd 11cl or lc1der II
Pn1lint B1ker Torn Clinton
Ch11rr111n Ch11n11111
middotlttth Coun1y Enlerprisc Boud Ltd Mc11h lc1dtr II
~ppcndrx I I
Appendix G Terms of Reference for Interdepartmental Policy Committee
Thn New Committees Role
The Role of the new Committee to be cl1Jired by Minister of ~late Finnel will Ix
shned by the Local Demiddotelopnlltnt Mind1Itmiddot given to Department of Tourism Sport
and lkcrca11on by the (jovcrnmenL Key items in that bndate which fall into the
Coumittees remit will mcluclc
A PronH)ticJn of tile integral(lt dcvelop111cnt of tl1e 111o~n dis~1dvantaged urban con1n1unitics hy ensuring that their needs are addresscd ()11 a priority ~incl
coordinated basis in conjunction vi1h 1rea Partnership lton1panie~ by all nlevanr public agencies
bull middot1l1is is regarded as the 1nost urgent priltgtrity
bull Tlw focus will be on developing the opti1ml approach to addressing
the needs of these areas
bull Special co-on linated all-out etfltJl1 in a nun1bcr ltgtf s1nall areas
j B Co-cgtrdination of Ioc~1l lgtcvcloprnent iniriatives and prcp~trnion for the
post - 1999 transition to an integrated Local Development ancl Local
Govcrnn1cnr systc1n
bull 1oc~d l)evelopn1enl IiaiS(gtn Jean1 issues
bull Adclnssing rclevan1 local clcvelopn1cnt issues raised in l3etter Loc~d
(overnnltnt - ~1 Prngra111111e fltgtr CJ1angc anU lh( recenlly ruhl1sliecl Hcport of the J)evcgtlu1ion Co111111ission
bull middotrhe en1phasis vlll ht ltgtn en~uring thal the posi11ve dcvelopn1ents and effective lltV V~l)S of VOrking resulting fro1n Local l)evelop111ent
and Partnership initiative~ arc preserved and strengthened in the
developnltlll nf i renevecl Loc1I Govern111ent
C The Oper1tiond Progrimmc for Locd Urb1n 111cl Rural Development
ancl its sh1pe post - 1lt)99
middot middotrhL 1nain tmiddottsks Vill be tltgt
bull Secure hl btmiddot~r co-ordinttion hltveen the various i111rle1nerHing
1ge11cie- l)ep111n1ents etc
r1jJjJlllriz~y G 7
bull Seek 10 ensure chat problcn1s incl issucs vhlch ~1rise il ~1 local level
ire n-ponclecl ro incl rcsolveltI
bull lclencify i1en1s tltgt be n11instrc1111ed in tern1s cgtf overall policy
bull Consider 1he ou1line of i new 011URJ) for the post - 1999 penocl
taking into ~1ccount the viC-middot of the Social Partncri
D Co-urclin11iun of (gtV(rltdl Govern1nent Policy on Local l)evekgtpn1ent
bull middotr1ie Jn1er-l)epan111ental Pt)licy Con11ni11ee on Loc~d J)evelopn1en1 Vill
be a key foru 111
bull Scctltgtrtl is-ues viii he considered fro111 1he perspective of
encouraging gre~ttcr cO-ltgtrdin~ttion and integr1tion of delivery of
services It local hvel
C
Table of Contents
Introduction
2 1cl1nin1stririve Efficitmiddotncy
3 Co-nrdinition of 1ctivilies
4 Operational Efficiency
17
30
42
Appendices
5
Page
Glossary
Summary of Findings
Local Development Initiatives
A Annual Costs 11lcl Outputs of lncl1viclu1l County Enterprise Bo1rcb le1cler
Groups rnd Jgte1rrnerships 1995 - 1997
B 1d1nini-tn1tion Cost middotrrLlld-gt of Local f)cvclop111cnt bodies
The Operational Progr1mme for lcx-al llrban and Rur11 Dlvdoprnent
ierfonnance lndica1ors and Hevised largc1s
I) h1re1c1 from Consol1CL1ed Reporting Guicldin~s - DecernbcT 1997
middotrhc lCader Opcrat1011al Progra1nn1c - Pcrfonnancc lndicuors and Rtmiddotvisecl middotrargels
E fturi of l)tveloprnlnl gencie- in county Ho-co1111non and thlt
Services Provided
f Fr1nwwork of AgnTnlltnt Bctween Coun1v Meath CEB and County Mea1h
leider 11 Group
G middotrcr111- nf Reference fltgtr lnc~rdcpa111ncntal Policy Co111111i1rcc
Glossary
AAES
tni1nation
lleneficwy
Bord M6ni
CEil
Coilhe
CSG
1)(1chas
DSCFA
Hfll
Enttmiddotrprise Ir~Ltncl
ESB
f L
Fisherivs llotrds
Forfis
1rca Allcnv~1nce Enterprise Schen1e Vhich is
idministered bv lannerships on behilf of DSCFA
From Jimrny 1999 this sch~nw is known is the llick
to Xork Enterprisc 1llov~1nce
middotrhc role of ani1nation is to i111prove the effec1iveness
of the con1111unity in loc1l develop111cn1
Project pro111oter or con1nu1n11y group in receipt of
fin1ncill suppo11
Stare sponsored body ni1n1ging and developing
pearlinds
County Enterprise Board
St~He sponsored body 1111n1ging public forests ind
nlatcd activities
Coun1y Strategy Groups Crc cs11blished under
OlLURI) to L1cili1a1e co-ordinHiun ind 111inirn1sc
duplication in the dtlivtry of progr1n111Hs ii county
level between the different irntiatives
1middot11e t-lerirage Service it the l)cpa11111ent of rts
f-kririge Gielucht ind rhe Islands
Depinmcnr of Sociil Community ind Fimily Affiirs
Easrern Heilth lloird
Sttle sponsored body issisling Irish co1np1nilts 10
increJse their sales expo11s JJHl e111ploy1nent
Electricity Supply Board
Europe1n U11io11
iition1l 1r~1ining and en1pluynHmiddotn1 1uthority
Sta111tory organisations cl11rged vitl1 responsibilicy for
the developnllnl ind protection or inland fisheries
Forf1s is the policy 1chbulliso1) and co-ordination ho1rd
for industrial developn1ent and sci middotnce and
technology
II) Ireland
Int grtlltd Slrvices lgtrojcct
llC
lncrreg II
lEI I)EJ( II
LE11DEH groups
ITU
11insrrea111ing
Mid-Term Evalua11on
~lonitoring Co1nn1itree
011UHD
lc1rnerships
1 State Ovncd coinpany vhich pro111ores invard
investn1ent
middotrhe Integrated Services 1gtrojec1 V1~ estiblishcd co coshy
onlinate tile inptHs of all slle services in four pilot areas of clisaclvan1age
lnterclepaHn1e11tal Policy Cltnnn1i1tee for LltgtCtl
Devdopmenr w1s est1blish1middotd in June 1995 and ns
function i-gt to Omiddotcrsce and n1ike reco11unenda1ions on
local devclopmelll
111 EU lnili~llive 10 develop cross hltgtrcler co-opcrllion
Jnd to help an1s ovcrcon1e prohle1u~ as-ociated Viti
being on 1ht Unionmiddots internal and externJI fronlitrs
incl to fill gap- in energy netvorks and provide
interconnections Vllh vider european nelvorks
liaisuns c111re actions cle clltJ1cofPen1en1 (e reco1101nie
rurole - 1 Co111111unity lnitiJlit for rurtl cl~veloptlHnr
covering rhc period 1994 to 199)
Companies est1blished undn IEADER 10 11nple111elll
llHmiddot progran1111e objectives
Long-tcrrn unc1nployecl
ProceS of tr1niferring successful pilol project- of an
innov~Hive nalure 10 n1iinline govtrnn1cnt clepart1nents
anti ~1gencies
1n independent evalualion rtq11ir(cl to be carried out
on any EU progrunn1e Vhich is five or n1ore years in
ltJper~1tion
Fsublished to mTrsec rhe operation of any EU progr~1111111e It con1ains reprtscn1arives of thlt EU
co1111nission govern1nent clepart111ents and progran1111e
in1pll~n1entors
Orerationcd lrogrJmme for Local Urban and Hurd
lkvelopmcnt 1994-1999
Area-lhsed lannersh1p Companies
le1ce 111d Heconcilurion
lESI
Pos1 2000 subrnission
Territorial Employment
Picts
Tourism Opcrationll
Progran1111c
Ul~HN ini1iuive
1n EU Initiative to reinforce progress Ovards a
pe1ccful ind stable society by incre1sing econo1nic
dcvelop1nc1H urban and rur~d regeneration
developing cross-lxJrdcmiddotr links incl con1lx111ing soci1l
exclusion
Progra1nn1e for Econo111ic and Social Progress
Suh1nissions nques1ed fro111 govern1ne111 depar11ntnts
other sr11e 1gcncics ind na1ionil 1x1nners on the
future use of structurII funds post 2000
An EU lrnti1tive to hdp the unemployed find 1obs 1n
dis1clv1n1aged areas
middotrhe opera11onal progra111111c for 1ouris111 devltlopnHnt
under tlw Community Support Framework 199i middot 1999
n EU Initiative the purpose of which is 10 1ddress
in 111 integrited tr urban sltxi1l exclusion by
building panncrship arr1ngcnHnrs bttvcen locil
1u1horitil and 01hcr loc1J structures
S1J1mmary middotrhis alue for 1nnney rcpo11 is cnnccrntd vi1h the oper~Hion during the period 1994shy1995middot of loc1J devllop1ntnt initiatives provided through (ounry Enterprise Boards (CEiis) Arc1-B1sed 11nnersh1r Comp1111es (i1rtncrshipsJ ind IEADER groups
CEiigt Wltre es11hished in every countv for thtmiddot p11rrose of promnlng locd emerprise incl econo1111c clev([op1nen1 middotrhcrc 1rc 3 CLBs vhich opcrltttc undtmiddotr agreen1en1
Villi the J)epart1ncn1 of Enterprise middotrrade and E111ploy1nen1
middotrhe purpose of Partnerships is to co1nlx11 unln1ployn1ent ~ind exclusion middotrhere ire
38 lannerships operalrng in 1re1s design11ed as disrdvrntagcd and a fu11her 33 Inell devtlopnumiddotnt gruups in non-dis1dv1nt1gecl 1n1s middotrhesc opertle under in inle1111ldi1ry con11x1ny vhich rt~purt~ to the Igtcp1rt11Hnt uf middotrouris111 Sprnl ind
Rccreilion
The LEADER grours were cstiblrshed under an EU In11io11ive to promote rur11 clevcmiddotlopnitmiddotnt 1ly suppCgtrting lltgtcal developnHtH groups middotrhere middottrl 5i lEAl)EH
groups opirH1ng undcr agrei1nc11t- vith the lJep1ru11ent of Agriculrurl ind Food
From 1994 10 1998 public funding totalling l208 million was providld lo these bodies of vhich pound-127 111illion middotIi pruvicled by 1hc EC Co111n1i~sion incl f~-1 111illion
by 1he Exchequer CEB-gt ~ind Pannirships an funded under the ()perationtl lrofra111111e Or Lltx-al Urlgtan and Hurorl [kvelop111en1 199lt1-1999 (OPUIHD) The UADER groups 1re funded under the LEAD EH Operational Programme 1994- 1999
middotr11e value for niuncy ex1111inttion looked H specific issues rel1ting to rhc
acln1inistr1tive ~ind opilJtiontl etliciincy of thlt thrt~t~ 1ypts of hoclies lht
1rra11gc111ents fo1 co ordination lgtlttvtmiddotcn rhe txxlies and approache~ 10 ltValutlion of
their i111p1ct
Administrative Efficiency
middotrhe divcrsily of 1c1ivi1ies ~ind different stages of developnicnr of the hodies li1111t chc~
exrc11 to Vhich cross con1parisons of achninistrHive efficiency c1n be 111acllt
drrinistc111011 expc11di111re hy all tlte hocl1es 111tallld S28 9 11ull1on 1n tlw pltn11d 1995 to 1middot)97 )uring 1hiI period thl ovcr~i11 rrcenl~tgi of ad1111ni~lration costs to total cxplncli111re declined subtantitlly fro1n 28Yo co 220u principilly bccaust n1any of chc bodies n1ovcd fron1 1 set up phase ICgt being fully operational Achninis1r1t1on expenditure as a ptTcc11t1ge of ltgtlal expcndi1un also varied bttVCltll individu1I hnclitmiddots clue to clitlere1Hes in the nalure of the aclimiddoti1ies undeniken For lX~ttnpk the level of 1cl1ninistr~1tive co-l~ middotoukl he influenced by lhe extent to Vhich
incli11idual bodies is~lll grant support or offer non-financial 1ssist1nce In generil Partnlrships have higher adn1in1strllion cost- nlHive to thlmiddot other hod1es for rhis reasc)n
middotrhe llodies are characterised hy -ubstintitl voluniarmiddotymiddot inputs at board and sulgtshycon1n1inee levels middotrhis is in kclping Vith hirncs-ing local knovledgc and tpenise ro ~1ch1eve con1n1on ob1ectivt~ Key staff VCrC inv1n1hly highly qualified and
rcso ircefuL
lhe develop1ncn1 of n1~1nagen1tmiddotnt inforn1ition _ys1c1ns has not been sari-Ltctorymiddot in
--- middot- --------------shy
ulttf I )(coJlllc1 II If ii itl f itL
that rhert is nn 1tJ1un111ic sharing of d111 11nnng loc1l dtVllop111en1 bodies ind lhe scope for effectiveness inilysis is t1111i1ed middotrhroughoul 1hlt pcritxl covered by lhL ex1111in11ion inforn1ation systt111s vl1icl1 include perfcn1111nce 111e1suns ind inclic1tors (cl n1cJniror etliciltncy incl ~tTectiveness htvL l)etmiddotn under tlevLmiddotlup111cn1 ind pr()grts is heing 1111cle in iddrc sing the deficiencilS
Co-ordination of Activities
The flexible approich 10 the i111ple111et11ition of local dewloprnnt policy rcmiddotstilts in consider1hhmiddot duplicition of the enlcrprislmiddot crvicts providld by thlt three types or hodils Vith 1pcc1 10 objlClies clients incl 1c1ivities middotro i lesser lXtLllt 1here is duplici11on of 1c1ivities concerned ilh coun1ering serious ecnno111ic incl sociil dis1clv1n1ige heciusl Pirtnerships t1rgct specific clitnl groups - the long-tcnn unemployed ind the soci11ly excludld In nine ctsc-s Pinnerships and lEADEH groups share i conunon 1111n1gc1nen1 board
Co-operilion 11nung 1hc hodies ind Villi othtr urginisalions (Stale local govern111tnl co111111unity ind volunttry st ctor incl bllllllSS) ~Jt loctl ltvel to 1chicve igreed objectives con1rib11tcs to the unique innovlit roll of 1hc Local l)evelor1nen1 initiitives
Suhsicly shopping can ltgtCltl1r IHrehy Lmiddotlitmiddotn1s can 1111xin1ise the public funding they rcciivi by tpplying for grillS frolll cliffcnn IJodieS (O 11ppOlt cliiferent elelllt~lllS Oi
their projccls middotrhis incvit1bly leicls lo cluplic11ion in 1d1ninistrllion Fonnil in1erdep1rr111en1il 1gree111en1s should Ix- cmiddotontmiddott1ded to define 1l1e li1ni1s bllVecn the ohrcc11ves clienls ind activities of thl three bodies ind si111ilir 1gree111en1s should he concluded It locil level middotrhese 1green1tmiddotn1 n1ight look for vays of n1ini1nising the id111inisr11ion of 111ultiple tpplicHions for funcling in 1 project
t cohestvlmiddot 1ppro1ch to th( intcgrition of locil govern1nen1 1nd loc~ll develorn1en1 V~ts set out in 1998 by tn in1erclep111n1ental middotrask Force J1nplen1cnt11ion of 1his rep(U1 is underv1y
Operational Efficiency
middotrh1middot 1111in 1ctivi1y ind outpul tirgcts ire being n1et but the absence of baseline perfnnnince d111middot llll1ns lltll ii is not knclvn hoV dc1111nding 1he original r1rgets Vere 1rising fron1 VOrk by the external cviluitors ro thl Oper1tional Progra1nn1es 1111ny nf the 11rge1s h1vc been rlisccl hv tile -loniroring (01nn1inees vhich oversee llH i1nplv111c111tlilt)n c)f rl1ltmiddot Progr11111ncs
1hile tlcn1en1s nf exptmiddotnditun (Pannltrships incl LEAJ)FH groups) Vere son1cvh1t behind tirget II the lttlcl of 1998 it is cxpec1ed by the lgtcp~1111nents 1h11 spcncling targlts viii he n1e1 by the encl of the Operational Progran1111es
Sludils indicHt lhH tht level of dcadvciglll (the tmiddotxrent to Vhich enterprises suppltgtrlt~cl unclir the Operational lrogr1111111es Ould be cst1hlished Vilhout gr1n1s) n11y be in the rangt 4(Yc1 10 50dego ()isplicen1en1 (the ex1cn1 to Vhich suppo11ed enterpri~cs clive11 stils ind en1ploy111en1 oppo11uni11es fro1n other Irish enterprises) 111iy he in the r1ngl 20 (Cl 400u Fron1 eirly l 99H CEBs and P111nerships have been tn1poverecl to Jss1s1 enterprise projects by n1eans of refuncl1ble Jid incl equily Use
ii
S1111111u11v
of thltse forms of id should he expndcd quickly in prelerencl 10 11011-repyJlt gracts 1s they can help to reduce cleHhveight 1nd dispL1ce111tnt and in addi11on 1re t 1111)1 econo1nictl use of public funds
Son1e inst1nces of clispk1cen1en1 providl social benefits vhich n11y outvcigh the
cost involved There is a need for n1orl cl1rity regarding the circu111s11nces in vhich
dispbccrncnr rn he perrnined
Assessment of Impact
lhe developn1en1 of sys1e1ns to 1ssess the in1pact of Local J)tgtvtgtlopn1en1 initkHives is not easy hec1use of 1he clibullersity of objccrives rhc tick of n1easurahility nf so111e
i111p1cts rlie tlJsence of clisagtregtled d1t1 n1odels rclcv1nt lo locil areas and the need for careful in1erpretHio11 of results
Quantitative Assessment
ltJu1n1itJtiC 1sessn1ent of the in11x1c1 of (gtcal l)evclopn1ent hodivs c1n bl carried our by exa1nining ch1nges in vari1ble such as long-tcnn 11ne1nploynHnl ind 1-n11middotrpri-e forn1arinn Studits to dare of thest v1riallles have yielded inlmiddotonclu-ive
rt~sults
rtpon on the i111p~1ct of OJgtLLHI) on ong-tenn ltnen1ployr11lrlt shnvs thtt fro111
1991 to 1996 unc111ploy111cnt in gtJrtntmiddotr~hipmiddotareas fell by roughly poundhe sa111t penentage as in non-P~n1nership ~treas
A111y~is of 11~11ional Live Hcgi~[er cla1a for 1he pc-riod CJ94-1998 indilates ~1 signifi(1n1 Lill in chc kwl of long-cerm unemployment hich b pat11cula1 focu of P~1r111erships bur the reduction n1ay h1ve 111ore 10 do vith 1he in1pact of tron~ 1middotconon1ic gn)vth poundh1n vid1 rhc effec1 of Local l)cvclop111cnt initiatives
A nmiddotiev of the nu1nber of n1anuL1c1uring s1ar1urs fru1n 1987-1996 siHJVS rhar 1he rapid econon1ic grcJvlh fro1n 1995 and the onstmiddott of thtmiddot Local l)evllop111ent iniri11ives did 101 result in an increisecl rate of 1111nuf1c1uring sta11ups
lntc~rnion of enterprise support incl perforn11nct da11 Jcross the Loctl l)evmiddot-lopn1cn1 inipoundiuives voulcl be required in order 10 est1hlish 1he underlying reasmiddot)llS for these rends
Quiitative Assessment
lkciled Census of Populicio11 d11 (1991 a11d 19)6) is available regrd1ng 1ndicacors of distdv1n11ge in Pirtnership 1n~1 hile rherc are lin11tuions inolved in int(-rpreti11g the cl1t1 fu11her ~1111lys1s ~houd facilitlle 1s~es1nen1 of lhl in1p1cr of the actimiddotities of 1111ncrhips
Jhe exlent of n1~11eri1J specificJJly covering 1hc evtlua1ion of i111pacl is very li111ited P1rt11crships hie CJrriecl our evcril cisc Situlies to cxplorL the in1ptrl of 1heir tcliililS ind 10 pro111ute 1-gtesr pr1c1ice (1~l srudies arc undervay also in ni1ny
lEA)EH groups l-lovtver there is i clt-1r nted for 111ore d111 lmiddotulllmiddotcrion and the
clevdopmenc of sonil policy rnocleb co prnvicle a hcncr ins1gl11 into che imp1cr of Loe~ I l)evelop111ent 1c1ivities
iii
bull
Local Development Initiatives
middot
- shy~~ ~~ltmiddot~-
middot
middot~
1 Introduction
Background to Local Development Initiatives
11 Since htbull ltarly 1)90 the (omiddoternn1tmiddotn1 middotill1 the support of 1hc European
lJnion (_lmiddotl) h1s introdutcd 1 nun1hvr of policy initiatives in suppo11 of hxil sltx-ioshy
eltcgtncgtnlilmiddot clcvelltlp1ncnt Tlteslt 1ni1i1timiddotcs stc111111cd fngt1n htmiddot pertcivcd L1ilt1re (Jf
cxiting pnlicicmiddots to _hirl lfllmiddot benefit ol 1middotcono111ic gnnmiddotth lmiddotquitahly tcrn-s local
ro11H1H1nililS ind 111Hn1g thl 111ore distdmiddot1n11gtmiddotd scctCJr of Irish iocitImiddot (~llltrtl to
1hc initiatives ts tliemiddot cn~11ion of lllcd lll1ployn1cn1 oppnnunititmiddot togetlitmiddotr Villi
llHISllrtmiddots to 11cklc cduc1tional distclvan11glmiddot tJlmiddotirltlflllltnlil cl1c1y ind ocial
lxclusion middotrhe IH~v pc ii icy alio n11rked 1 revers~1l fro111 the tr1ditio11al htmiddotgi111ony DI
central govltrnnitmiddotn1 by nmiddotcognising iht roll Vhich local cu11111111ni1amiddot c1n play in
the proctsi of lCltHlltunic trKI Sltgtc1al dtbull(lopn1enc
12 r pri11IJI) purpo--l of Incil J)evelop111lnl V1- co identify Jprropnllt Vays of
-tin1uLtting tll rllvvant luctl re-ources 111 suppo11 of Lllterpngti deth)pn1vn1 ind
tickling long-tern1 unernploy111ent hough llLttetL lhe-imiddot 1rt di-rinct uhjccliVLS 1nU
tlil vXtmiddotnr ro middothich they could htbull 1sotiatcd in operationd llllll- rc1111ined tn he
lthlished it that ti111e
13 IIH 1111in ekmiddotnlLllC ()f the llt appro1ch middotLlL
bull p1rtnersliip hllVtmiddotcn stitulory hu ines ind cD111nH1nity scctnrgt
bull dtmiddotmiddotulurinn to local bodies of lllltmiddotds idcntifiLation pL1nning to-ordi111Cio11 of
progr11111tltS dvlill of 1r111ova1it and ctmiddotriain other action tnd 111on11()ring
of progres
bull involvcrncnt of the eniirlt co111n1unity cspcciilly d1sHhmiddot1nt1gcd groups
bull 1dltl[Hilt1n cgtf a Jtili-li(middot ll)PH)tclt l1tbullrtbulll)y l(l)flCgtllliC 111d S(icmiddoti~1J dlVtbullhipnlcllt
VOllld OCClll (CllCUllellliy
13 middotrt1tmiddot Hhnini-rrililtlll (Jf Lo~middot1l J)tmiddotvlmiddotlopnHmiddotnr in Ireland is cl1ssi1111l1r legt 1ll11 in
oth1 middotr FlJ countriis in li1tl
bull lhltrl artbull i nu111lill of di1inc1 pn1gr1n1n1cs
bull there i strong centrd gullllllhllt 111d EU involve111tlll
bull 111middotv local 1d111ini-tr1t1vc s1n1c1111middotls -ere demiddoticcJ inderH1Hllnt ()r lXiring local
govlmiddotrn111cnt structu1
Ctmiddotrrril goven1111enl control- the hulk of public fininces At locil ltmiddotvel local
aulill gtril ilt~ ft 1 net ions h1 ve 1llen li111i1ed Ct ivering n11ttcrs such ts roads -1ni111ion
111d housing ihill 1hvonric1llv locil ~1u1lionl1tS co1dd lllgtgLmiddot in 111a11v uther ()cal
c lemiddot l le iJ Hnen t
hinmiddotling ~ygttlIll 111d ittthility 10 pursue ltl ignificull ltgtctl c1x11ion middotYtcn1_ 1 middotr1sk
oca Je1ehJ[J111e111 lnitiatiues
Force 1 esrtblish~cl by rhe Governn1tnl 1nadc i nu111her of rtco1n1ncnd1tions in 1
rcpon 111 August 1998 regarcl1ng the mtcgration of local dcvdopment with local
government These ere approved by the Government in September 1998 (sec
paragraphs 10 to 3 31)
Organisational and Management Arrangements
15 The tO main EU funded programmes providing suppon for Local
Development arc the Opernional Programme for Local Urban 1nd Hural
Devclormcnt (OlLUHD) ind 1he llADEH II lrogr1111111c These Opcrntional
lrog11mmcs were drafted by the Department of the Tao1sc1ch and 1hc Dep1rtmen1
of Agriculture and Food (Agricuhure 1nd Food) respectively within EU guidelines
incl 1grced Vith the EU Co1n111ission
16 Each sub-progr1111111e of 011UlI) and IEADER 11 is 1clm1nistc1nl locally by di1inc1 Local J)evelop1ncn1 bodilts middotrhis c11nin~1tion is concerned Vilh Lltx~il
l)evelop111en1 acrivilies 1cl1niniscercd by Coun1y Enlerprise Bltgtards and 1re1-Based
111111crship Companies under OlLURD and by LEADEl groups under LEADER II Hcspons1bili1y for rhee bodies coines under chi rc1nit of three scpar11lt Governn1en1
Dep111ments (sec 11gurc II)
Co1111ty pound11er[Jrise Boards
17 Crn1111y Enterprise lloirds ((Ells) were established 111 Oe1olier 1993 wnh the
tilll or fu tering incl f1cilitating che LCOll01l1iC dcvelopn1ent of local area~ Each CEB
Vts required 10 clrt1 up 1 Counry 1nccrprise Pltn incl its iccions incl prupo-als are
Figure 11 Main Departments and Local Development bodies
Enterprise Trade and
Employment
County Enterprise
Boards
Tourism Sport Government and Recreation Departments and Agriculture
and Area Intermediary and Food DevelopmenlCompany
Management Ltd
bull
Area-Based
Local LEADERPartnershipsDevelopment groupsCompanies and
Bodies community groups
1Jc To5k fmiddot(Jtmiddotccmiddot R(Xlrt u11 rbe 1tfpound7ratiu11 lt oc(lf (io1en1111e1u (11tf Local Jc1elo1me11t Srs1e111s bullbull~Ql( 19)i
2
---1tfrotluct1un
ha ed on 1hi plan middotrhertmiddot art 51 ltEBs in total covering county and urban local
~ll1hori1y 1rc1s Ftch (~EB h1s 1-i 111e1111Jer irHluding repngtStIltHivls of local
govltrnn1c11t public Stl or 1g~ncics hu1ntmiddots Lun1ing lradt union and co11111n1ni1y
inlTest
lH middotrhc CEBs provide 1 r1nge of enltrprigtt -upp()rt -ervices al local levt l eg
admiddot1 ic~ and coun~tlling hus1ncmiddot infonnaiion financial 1sis1ancc and 111an1gtIlllnc
dcmiddottlop11l(Jll middotrhtbull firgltl group- ~tre husinltsse- co11111nu1i1y groups individud
en rcprtJ1(lJrs 1nd -n1i[] enterprises cEBs tonk OVtf re-gtpon-ihililv frorll lhl fltgtrlller
Industrial i)tclop111cnt u1hori1y (ll)A) for the devt~lDpllhllt of 111anufac111ring and
inl =rna1iont gtervicc - finn~ Vilh ltmiddot s th111 ten en1ploycmiddotc In 1ddi1ion_ thtmiddoty is-u111cd
the l1tmiddot roll of pngt11101in~ 111 vnltTpriL culturt
l~1 J-ro111 1hc outet the i)tgtp1r1111lnt of Entcrprist middotrrade and F1nployn1cnt
( Enterpri-e middotrr1dtmiddot 111d L111ploynHmiddotn1) has been responsiblt for co-ord1n~Hing and
supcrvising the crBgt lniti11ly dec1~ions on grant payn1ent~ lo individual projecls
vtre vetted by hl f)t1gt1rt111enl 11ltgttVtL (~EBs Vere ccgtr1s1i1111cd as lin1ited liahili1y
l0111p1nies during iltJltJ) and ifl(I 1January 19CJ(i hive 111idc grtnt decisions
110 Stiffing accon1111ltJLlatiun and 01hcr expen es V(~1tmiddot ini1i1lly provided liy lhtmiddot
lul ii 1u1horitics on a recoupn1cnr lgtt~i and ah hough the CFBs anmiddot nov
inl orporatccl rntny havtmiddot coniinutd Viti lliis 1rrangen1cn1
111 Funding for ltt]is is co-fin111ctmiddotd by Elj _1ruc1urtl funds via suh-progra1111ne I
of 011UHD mcl hv the hchequlr
Ara-amp1setl lc1rt11erslJiJ (-tJn11c111ies
112 1ret-Bit~d 11rtntrhip co1np1nies ltPa11ncrship) vere originally c-tihlished
in 12 ~1rltmiddotmiddotas un 1 pilot hi~i in 1991 10 in1phnhnt an nca-hastmiddotd nmiddotspollgtt to longshy
tlrrn unen1pl(lyn1tlll under tile Progra111111e for Econoinic and Sul-i1I Progrltss (PESP)
_JH Partnerships havt hcen lSt1hlished (2() urhJn ind 1- rural) lo optrat in 55 areas
dtig11Htmiddotd by 1hc (~ovvnlllltlll i~ hling disidvan1~1gtd In 1cldi1ion lherc ire 55 C(lJllllH1nity dcmiddotLmiddotlop111ent groups in non-dtmiddotsig111ted arets middot1J1ch c1ny oul fu11ctior1s
i111iltr to tho~v uf 1he 11r111er-liips middotrile Boards of i)irectors of the co111panil-gt lll
drvn fror11 (1) 1he SlgtCiil p1nncr (ii l -ttle 1genc1tmiddots ind (iii) co111111unity ~ind
vc gt t1n1tr~- cHg111is1 tio11
tmiddot13 The function~ nf the P1rntrsliip art to preptre lnc1I dcmiddottlopn1t~n1 pl1n _ in
con~tdtalion vi1h otl1LI local groups incl hudicmiddots_ to lOLHlltf d1stdvan11gc in 1hcir
~trtts and tiltn lo hlmiddotl thlmiddot-c plans i111ptmiddotn1cmiddotn1td middotrile pl111 oullines the rangt of
socitl ind lmiddotcono111ic tSSlltS to ht addrtmiddot scd in lhimiddot l1rget trta and the ohjeclive to
Ill pursultd h1scd on tile resuh of ~1 ltgtcio-ccono111ic analysis of lhc iret middotrliLmiddot
intbulllllion i~ ro 1tLmiddotlcr11c lnlt11 eronoinic dltmiddotvltmiddotlorn1e1H increise frnrloynHmiddotnt ind
local Develop111e11t l11itiati1es
tickle cxclu~ion incl 1nargintlisa1ion resulting fro111 long-llflll une111ploy111ent vc1y
vide r1nge of 1ctivities i~ unde111ken including job pltCLlllCIH adull education
training con111n1ni1y clevelopn1lmiddotn1 cnviro1111H111tl projLCI~ and youth iniliHives
114 An indepenckn1 in1c1mcdia1y company wis eslahlished in 1992 in111ally under
1he aqigt of 1he Dep111men1of1he Tioisetch and subgtltltjlltgtnily from midmiddot 1997 1he
Depanmcn1 of Tourism Spon and lkcre11ion (Tourism Spon and Hecreuion) 10
oversee 1hc P1nnersllips ind Jocd devclopn1tnl groups middotrhe con1pany 1rca
i)(velopmet11 M1n1gemen1 Iid (ADM) is required 10 cv1lu11e plins from
Ptrlllt~r~hips corn111unity groups ind selecled organisHions lO 1J1ocatc resources in
1ccord1ncc Vilh the eviluation resul1s ind ro 111onitor LXpenditure incl perfon11~1nce
by btneficiarits Over lj(YtJ of funding is spent by tile lartncrsliips incl (he re1111inder
is spent by co1n1nuni1y gro11ps ind nHionil nrgani11ions
115 funding for P1rtnerships co1111nuni1y groups and eligible spending bv selected n11iond org1nisarions is co-fin1ncecl by ElJ s1n1ctural funds incl by the
Exchequer EU funding is provided uh-progrtmme 2 of 011uRD
LEADER
116 This EU lni1ia11vcmiddot for rural devdopmenl w1s origin1lly bunched 111 1991
(lEADloR 1) The obwrnw of 1hc progr11nme wis 10 ltS11lilish locli devdopmen1
1ction groups bullhich voulcl bt responsible for 1he in1plcn1cn11tion of business pl1ns
for heir areis lE1l)EH I v1s 1he subjecl of 111y firs value for 111oney exa111ini1ion
comple1ed 1n Decemhe1 1994 The ini1i111ve wis co111inued under 1he Oper11ional
lrog11mme for IEADER 11 covering ihe period 1994 10 1999 There tre 34 approved
1EADlR groups (is opposed IO 16 group in 1hc orig1nli progr111Hnc) These 11e
iu10110111011- lcg1l cntilies each conrrollecl by 1 boird 111d opeining under 111
igreen1en1 Vith the J)cp111111cnt of gricul1urc and Food (Agriculture incl Fuuclgt Jht-
l)epa1111Hmiddotn1 required th11 the bo1rds h1ve 1 1ripar1ite s1n1crure representative of 1he
con1111unity incl volunt1ry sec1ur luc1l Stite ~1gencies and the priv11t I con11ncrcitl
sector
117 Unlike 1he 01her lniti11ives covered in 1h1gt ex1111in11ion (which are csset11ilily
n11io11il policy initiHivc-) lEAl)EH i in EU lnitiitivl Vliich Va designed incl
Ln1nchccl by the turope~111 Co111111issio11 his 1ne1ns 1hi1 he in1plc111enlalio11 of
LEAJ)flt its 1in1ing ind opertting rules ~in de1ennined Ltrgel~middot Vithin 1ht EU
Co111n1i~sion 1uncling for rhe LEl)EH II lrogr1111n1e is co-financed fron1 ElJ
s1n1c111ioli f11nd the 1lADEH Opci1110111 lrogrunmc 1))4-1999 rnd by ihe
Exchequer
4
In 1roclzut1on
Sc1urces of Finance
118 The Fll Commission incl rhe Exchequer prolidccl funding for the 1niria11middotes inmiddot
the period 199i-199H follows
EU hchequer Toril
pound-111 t-111 ~-nl
CEils 465 516 98 I Parntrships 530 181 711
LEIDER groups 272 ILG 388
126 7 81) 208 0
Scope and objectives of the examination
1l) middotrhe cxa111in~1tion V~1s concerned only vi1h initiatives to pron1ott local
clebullclop111em rhrough Counrv Enrcrprisc Boards Ptrrnerships and LEADEH groups
Thue are 111anv orher ml[1nives for local devdopmcm such as URBAN Terrironal
E11l)loy1nent Picts Pe~tce ~incl Heconciiation 111d lnterreg II vhich ire outside the
scogtc of this ex~1111ina1ion
12middotJ Nei1her iJ)-1 nor the l1rtnershirs arv covered by 111y statutory value fcgt1 11101ey nn1i1 In the interest of producing i cohcivc report on locil l)lmiddotvclopn1cnt
ini1=11ivlts 1hey igreed that the exa111inuion ~hould he extended to chc111 middotrhcir coshy
OJX ration in 1liis resptmiddotlmiddot1 i~ icknovllmiddotclgecl
121 The overall objec11vcs of rhc c1n1inar1on w
bull ro ltVal11are rhc administrative effwncv ol rhc llltXlit (Chaprer 2)
bull lo asstmiddotss the extent of duplic~Hion and co-ordin1tion ~1rrangen1en1s ltCh1p1cr j)
bull to ev~dualc thl operHional efficiency of the bodies (Chipttr 4)
bull to coniidcr ho- tlii i1n1x1ct of 11ie holtl1e~ can hl asscmiddotssecl (Ch1p1cr 5)
1nr The p1opltJ-f of Illgt c_rrn11iiu111011 CFHgt lar111lmiddot-Ji1ps and 1eoJ(1middot grv11S uill IA Fccmiddoti-rlmiddotd l u lrJl(I
)c1lffJ[gtl11ltf hodico
5
loca l)evelojJ1ne1u 11itiatitCs
122 The main issues considered are
Issue Evaluation Criteria
Administrative efficiency Administration costs bull bull Human resources bull Adequacy of management
information systems
Co-ordination of activities Duplicationbull bull Co-ordination
Operational efficiency Targets and performance bull bull Resource allocation and outturn
bull Deadweight and displacement
Impact assessment Quantitative assessments bull bull Qualitative assessments
Methodology
123 Officials 111 the Depanmem of Amicroricuhure and Food the Dcpanmcnr of
Tourism Spoil and lkcrea11on 1he Department of Enlerprise Tracie and
Employmcm 111cl 1DM were interviewed Oua and pipcrs rcbting to targets cosl
and perfon11~1nce Vere ex11nined Analysis Vas carried out of cost and perfonnance
clua aria1ion in perfonnance ck1t1 vas used as a basis for selecting individual Loctl
Development bodies for funher examimtion
124 Selcc1ed CEl3s LEADEH groups and Partnerships were visi1ecl Helevant
personnel Vere intervi(Ld and individual rrojecls Vere visited Sevtrd CISC studies
Vtre identified during the co11rse of this vork and thc~c arc used in this rero11 to
illustr11i key i1SULS middotrhcy should not be ngarltled a1 rcpresentHivi of the cype of
pro1ee1s supponed hy the bodies
125 1Vleetings Vere held vith offici1Js fro1n the l)ep1nn1en1 of the E11viro11111ent
and Loctl Goern111ent ind Ille Co111ba1 lovlmiddotrty Agency lntervieVS look place Vith
the folJoving orga11is~11ions PlJtEmiddotr (Ille netvork of Arc~1-B1scd igtJnnerships)
Comhar IEADER 1u hiireann (tire network of 11ADEH groups) 1he ssociation of
Chief txecutives of Counly EnrcrprisC Bo1rcls (representing County Enlerprise
l3001rcls) the Irish 10111onal Orga1ma11on for 1he ncmployecl (INOU) he
Ken Cork iortb a1ul So111h )uhill CFJJs Trti li )011epal 11ihot1c11 a11d Northside art11lrh1J Fexford Ora11iflfio11 fur R11ral IJltbull1ltlup111c111 anti lao1bull tJ-1nHk Rural Dtbull1tlop111e111 Co Jd (IJ-ADJR ~rn11p) lv11sfonl Co1111111111i~~middot RrrJ1rCli Jd (1d S(J11rh lerry IAmiddottlIOJtllllll Part11crbip Jd (comhi11(c JHADERPart11c1~hip orxa11iatio11~j
6
J11frotll1 rI ion
Conf~r~nr~ of lkhg1ot1s 111 JrcmiddotLrnd (CORIJ vb Yvonne Murplrv lks~ardwr 111d Prof
J1111es A Walsh gtill Mrvnooth
)26 1n eternaJ exrerl IS lt ngagtbulld IO adviSl on the 1ncthodo(ogy of tht --Udy
and rlvtev the study findings_middot
7
2 Administrative Efficiency
21 Tlfrbull chtpter is concerned with the dliciencl of the CEils ltrtnergthips incl
llADER groups in iclminigtIenng locd Development ini111I11es loc1I Dcvdopment
is chirictltnsecl bv t 111uliplirny of object11es mcl ac11vi1ies The control of
achninisrrilive expendirure is 1chicvccl hy reference to stiffing levels pay rates tnd
1he re1sonablcness of 01her 1cl1ninistration expenses
22 Thlt clivers11y of 1he 1c1ivi11es of Local Development bodies ind 1he nexibili1y
in hov rhey set about 1chieving their objecrives li111it rhl extent to vhich cross
co111parisons of efficiency can btmiddot 111ade Neither unifonn perfonnanre inclicarors nor
co111111on infonnirion sysEc1ns on 1cl111inis1ruivc efficiency 1cross the ini1i1tivcs l1ave
been cle1middotcJopecl
23 The ptriocl covered in 1he chtpler is I994- I 998 indus1le However cle11ilecl
tndysrs ti indiviclutl Loctl Dltvelop111ent bodies ielel rel11es 10 I99i - 1997 II
should be noted thu local l)cvelop111ent bodies did 1101 co1nn1ence si1nultancously
incl 1h11 1he lime 11ken 10 esttblish indivicl11d local groups viriccl Accorclingly
expencli1ure in the early ye~trs rel~tles to the middotfullmiddot 1crivilics of i 111inority of groups
and the st111up plt1se of 111any lcgteal groups
24 middotrhe issues incl Calualion cri1t~ri1 used in thi chaptc1 are
Issue Evaluation Criteria
Administration costs Administration costs as a percentage bull of total expenditure
Human resources Extent of Board input bull Staff skills bull
Adequacy of management Data collecllon by Local Development bodies bull information systems Integration of data at national level bull
bull Reporting and monitoring
Administration Costs
25 The tottl 1111oun1 of expcncl1111rc incurred lw Local Develormcnt IJoclics m the
pen0ltI 1994 10 1998 was s208 mrll1on This is tntlysed in Ttble 2 I
26 middotrhc totil expenditure incurred can ht- categorised inro ad1ninisrration costs
vhich are the costs of running the relevant office-i and other exrenditurc Vhich is
cliviclecl IJeteen direct fin1nciil issis1ance 10 enterprise~ ~ind exp~ncliturc on
1ctivirics to incn1se enterprise avireness pro11101e con111n1ni1y dcvclop111cn1 or
redress clis~1dv1nt1ge
8
Atl111i11 ist rrttilt ~lie ic11c_ v
Ta~le 21 Expenditurebull by Local Development bodies 1994-1998
CEBs
P3rtnersh1ps
and other
LloADER Groups
Total
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
poundm poundm poundm poundm poundm
82 28
19 9 46
216 104
230 232
254 301
1 6 53 11 7 202
11 0 261 373 579 75 7
Norg a Expenditure relates to activities under OPLURD and LEADER II Some Local Development bodies also incur expenditure on other activities which arc not funded under OPLURD or LEADER and which are outside the scope of the examination Details for 1995-1997 are contained in Appendix A
b The total expenditure in the table includes Partnerships Community Groups and selected National Organisations
c Includes selected sectoral groups Annual reports of OPLURD and LEADER for 1998
Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total EJcpenditure
2i 1d1ninistra1ion costs 1 a perceniage of total expenditure in the period 1995 shy197 are shown in Tabk 2 L (There was link ad11uniscra11on pending in 1994)
2S dn1inistraliOn CDSIS IS J pcrcen1agt of tOtt[ eXJ1tl1citure decreaStcl uver the
period 199i 10 1997 for t~1ch iniriativtmiddot middotrhis JS clul n11inly co the face that it took
so1ne tin1c for rhe developnHnc groups 10 beco1ne opcrHional 1ncl hence 11n1ch of
the initial expenditure vas on adn1inistration rather thin activic1es This trend i~
1x111iculirly nocKeablc in che cise of LEADER groups md lirtnerships where
acl111inistrHion co1s 1s a percent1ge of tottl expencliture clroppecl sultilanli~11ly
middotrh1re Vere so1ne varialiuns betveen intlividt1al ltEls LFl)FH gnntps ind
Jgta1tnersl1ips middotr11ese ire considered belO Cfhe 1cl111inistration costs of Local
Deiclopnwn1 bodies are shown 111 Appendix B)
CltJUlllJmiddot E11te1prise Rltgttlrtls
29 1middot1icrc v(middotrc no great variations in rhc ad111inistruion costs incurred by che
CEl3s w11h lhe mqorill spending helWtCn pound 100000 and Jl )0000 per innum
1n1lysis of 1997 dat1 shc)Ytbullcl 1h~11 the adn1inistra1ion costs of n1ost CEBs V(n Vithin
1 ~1 r1nge of I ~Ai 10 25S~1 in rel~llion to tnttl expenditure The )ov~st Vas f)uhlin City
H J 1 with Cork Norch being che h1ghcsc ac 11 The level is scronglv mlluencecl IJy
the extent to vhich CFI3s are involved in the provision of gruus is chis increases the
9
local l)cuer4J11unt lnitiaflvcs
Table 22 Administration costs as a percentage of total expenditure
CEBs Partnershipsbull LEADER Groupsbull
Total
1995
poundm
49
15
08
72
Admin c
1996
poundm
43
41
16
100
istration osts
1997
poundm
44
53
20
11 7
Percentage of total expenditure
1995 1996 1997
25 20 19
34 44 28
51 31 17
28 28 22
Note B The figures exclude Community Groups and selected National Organisations b Excludes selected sectoral groups
Source Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General see Appendix A
level of overill expenditure In the c1sc of Cork North their mtin activities are
ini111~1tion incl the rrobullision of suppor1 such 1s counselling and training
wh1Chwould involve lowtr levels of expenditure rlm1 the supply of grant aJCI In the
case of other CFl3s such 1s Dublin City the focus was pnnnpally on the pronsion
of grtnl aid
Part11ersJips
210 P111nersh1ps generally spenl between l)0000 ind l200000 on adminisrruion
1n l997 with some excep11ons Mos 11rtnersl11ps which were esiiblished before
OPLURD had lower adminis1ru1on costs as a percentage of 1otal expenduure rhan
those wl11ch were srtnecl under OPIUlm In 1997 adminis1ra11on expenditure as a
perceniage of 1otil expencliture vas generally in the r1nge of 200u to 40Yo vith the
lowesl a 13 (in rhe case of i011hsidc in Dublin) 10 rhe highest m 51 (1n rhe
case of lnishovltn in J)o11cgal) il1ile 1c111al adn1inistration exptnditure vas si111il1r
in borh Partnerships expenditure on 1crivi1ies VIS significantly greater in Nonhside
as compared ro Donegil lnishowen which wis still in a scr up phase The riming
of projects locil rriorilies in the i1nple111ent1Cion of business rt~1n ind the nu1nbcr
of yltars the Jgtartner-hips have been operating have tn in1p1c1 on the adrninistritivc
cos1s percent1ge indicator
IEADER G10llJlt
211 LEADEH groups genenilly spenr lgtetween 50000 incl U00000 on
~1d1ninis1r1tion in 1997 Vith son1e exceptions In 1997 1dn1inis1rJtion expenditure ~1s
a percentage of 101al expenditure was generally in rhe r111gc 10 to 20 wuh the
lowest at 7 (in rhe c1SL of IJirrow-Nore-Suir) 10 rhe h1ghes1 ll 45 (in the case of
Comhm lorrais) While 1dminis1rarion expenditure wis simiLtr 111 borh LEADlR
10
Adn1i11istrati1cbull IJiciellcy
groups expendilurc on activities (including ~1nin1ation ind provision of grants) v1s
significanlly gnatcr in BarrO-Norc-Suir cor11p1red LO (cJJ11h1ir lnrr1is_ middotr1ierc llL 1
nuirtlltr of factors that can give rise to the variation uch a- hov Vt11 cst1blishcd
lhe sroup is local priorities in the in1ple111ent~1tion of the bu-iiness plan tilt tin1ing
of pro1ecis and 1hc lcnI of grant ml
Human Resources
21lt The loc1I charancr of each of he Local Devclopnw111 boclies mcl the nllure 1 ~incl diversity of thlir operHions n1ean thH thty h1vc l Sllbs11nti1I rolt of initiating
and co ordinating ac11vnies in co-operit1on ith 1 Viele v1ric1y of volunt~1ry and
stttutory org1nisu1ons (see Chapter 3) middotrhe achieve111t~n1 of their objectives is
I clepcndenl on _rhe avail~1hility of high quality plrsonn~I al Board tncl suh-co111111it1Ll
level and clecl1uted high ctl1bre s111f
Extent of Board Input I
2 B There 1s significant input it Boircl level for all of 1he bocl1es Arouncl 1wo 1hircb
of ( EBs operate sub-Boarcl co1111111nccs and half of these suigt-COlllllllllecs inclucle
1 111cn1lxmiddotr clravn fron1 1he local con1n1unit vho are nnt Boltncl clirector ~ middotrhis
invch-t~n1erH in 1octl l)evelopn1tnr bodies e1~tail~ a high dcgrLL of co111n1itn1en1 fro111
people vho are alrctdy active in their local co111111unitics
214 Pr1ctically ill Pirtnerships have suh-co1111111trecs on con1111unity ltlevelopnhmiddotnt=
I education and cnltrpri-e ~incl 111ost LEAl)EH microruups h~1ve -llh-co111111itte1middots on rurtl
touris111environnHn1 natural resources and s111all husinesscraftgt~erviccsr
Prermiddotaratory vork alllndince at 111cct1ngs ancl follov ur ~1ctivities pl1cc considerable
ti111c den1ands on Board and -ub-co111n1ittet 1ne1nbers l)uring chc exuninHion
I lt1bu11clan1 lViclence Vts found of the con1111itn1ent incl skill of Board n1en1lgters and
111en1htmiddotrs of suh-connniutes
Stciff Skills
215 A wide variety of skills is requirecl of 1cxal Developmem swff to match the
range of act1vitilmiddots 11ncle11~1ken middotrhis feature is ranicularly i111portan1 for LEAl)EH
I groL ps and P1rtnershirs clue to tht extent of their nmiddotn1i1 middotrhe staff nf Local
J)cvltmiddotlop111cnt bodies are highly qualified According co ~1 ncenl survey 5lVo of the
i-~~F ond Ihl lCgtfal Jr)(111 c111d RlflI )c11h1p111tllf PTT1JiHlllll1l f11ropca11 )(lt1a F111u Pro~ra1111111
1ttd11a1io11 Unll Apnl (JJJ
1)p(rt111011(1 fro~rc1111111e fnr IJAJ)FJ II (rJl11111111 11ilrcll1Utmiddot iI( Tlr11 R1bull1re11 Rtbullfx11 3re1uftu1 ((middott1rne1 middot (11t A ~(Jlt ialt3 199 7
II
(JC(l )e(lltJjJ11CI 11itiatiU(
CEOs of CEBs huld post-griduite que11ilkirion and funher 2()0 hive prima11middot
ckgrce In the cise of Partnerships 6()0o of 1nan1gers hold a post-gr1du~1te
qualificllion and a funher 24degAgt h1ve 1 pri1n1ry degret
216 flu rc-nurcefulnes- of Lltxil l)cmiddotelop111ent s11ff IS cvident during the course
of the eXltllllill1li01l
Adequacy of Management Information Systems
217 ht avaiL1bili1y of gncgtd 1111111ge111ent infonnation sys1e111s is 1 pnrequisitc fnr
cfficicnt icl1ninis1ration of the inititrives ind for ensuring thll rlllVLnt incl reli1hle
d1t1 is 1v1ilablc for pl1nning plrfonnince 111onitoring ind ev1luation An in-depth
rcvieV of the 1111n1ge1nen1 infon1111ion sysh111s in use Vas 1101 incl11dtd 1n the scope
of the ex1111ina1ion_ 1-lovever ce111in cltfic1cncics in the systen1s htmiddotc1111e app1rent
in discussions Vith officitls in 1hc locil f)evelnp111ent bodies ind during the
qu1n1i111ivt 1nil~middotsis vork
Data Collection by Local Development Bodies
218 E1ch of 1hc bodies opertllS scp1r11e co111pu1erisecl infonnttinn syste111s Vhirh
Vere ck~signtd by consuh1n1 under the aegis of lhe J)cpar1111cnts ind 1l)fmiddotI is
tppropnHe middotrhc pri1111ry purpose of 1hese syste1ns is 10 provide fredbtck on
ae11v1ties by eich Locd Development body ID the Dep1nme111s incl AD1vl The
syste111s should tlso provide 1111n~1ge111ent infor111a1ion for usc locally and facilitite
external evalunion 10vevtr the 1rge nun1bLmiddotr of local groups reponing 10
ditfercnt dtp1n111en1s posls pa11icul1r cJ11lltmiddotngLS tlaquoJr cL1t1 c~tpture
219 l)isc11ssions vitl1 ltgtfficials in the Local l)evelcgtprnent bodies visi1ed indicated
so1ne di~s11i-faction Villi ht kx1l use of systen1s in 1h11 they vere reg1rded as being
1101 user friendly or Vere perceivcd as not being fully suited 10 loc~tl 1ninage111cn1
needs_ In fi(I so111e locd f)evelopn1en1 bodicmiddots h1ve kepi lhltir origin1I syste111s in
11si O -upplc111lnl 1he infon1tttinn provided by the cen1r~1lly debullcloped systeni_ middotrhe
dillicultit~s havt heen recognised ind steps 1rt being t1ke11 011 1n ongoing b1is 10
encourage grc11cr loctl u-e of the C(ntrilly developed syste111~
220 Forn1al 1rr1ngc111en1s ire nor in place Vhich VOuld f1cilitlle nuo111a1ic sharing
of infon111tio11 Joctlly icross ill of rhe groups_ 1his is not possible due to 1he
1bsnce of 1 con1111011 clicnr identifier in the thrtt co111pu1cr sys1e111s_ So111c id-hoc
shiring of dtli such ts projerl tpplicition and 1pprov1ls occurs through rneetings
be1vccn bodies ind via County Str11cgy Groups lmiddotlovcver 1his is no subs1iru1e for
a systen111ic approich to dati sharing
12
Acl111i11 isrrari1e lli-c ieJtlmiddot_ v
22 l A middotide v1riery of perfonna11ce indicnors V1s dtveloped 1hrough discus~ions
w11li 1he external evilullor and with Local Development bodies (se~ Appendix C
mcl OJ LEADEH groups ind Partnersh1ps m 1x111irnlar undertake i wide range of
tctimiddot1 ities and con-lmiddotqucnly 1hcir co111pu1er sy-1en1s c1pture ~1 Viele range of data
middotrhi c111 plicc an tLessive burden on the sn1all 1d111inb1rilie st1ff 1n these bodies
perfonn~tnce 1ncasun111en1 systc111 Vhich focu~es nn 1n agreld StI of key indicuors lo tnco111plttS~ core tctivities and ou1purs and vhich reflect- key objectives
n1ighc be n1ore appropriattmiddot 1ny addicional inforn1uion require1nents could Ix
prltrlided Jess frlmiddotquently through for ex1111ple annual rtporting arrangc111cn1s
22~ 1middot11e fnltomiddoting issues Verlt also noced
bull The p11ori1ics of d1fferen1 loc1I Dcvelopmcnl lxKlies arc not 1den1ical even
Vithin 1hc sunc Local f)cvelopn1ent ini1ia1ive For exan1ple one Local l)evclopn1cnt lxxly 111ight prioritisl 1ss1stance to cl1stclvant1ged groups vhilc 1norher rnight priontise cnterprist clevelop1ncn1_ Exisling 1ne1st1rlll1cnt syste111s do not allov 11le perfon111ncc of chese tvo gruups co be realiticdly r111kecl and con11xircd
bull Measurement should cope w11h the fact that much of the pcrform1nce under
the ini1iat1ves is qualitative in nHure Exunplcmiddots include quil11y of tr~tining openness to disadvantaged groups and qu11i1y of relacionships Vith other
st1tu101) bodies Exiscing n1easunmiddotmiddot111Lllt systcn1s do not cuer for rhcsc 1spects
of perfo1111111ct
bull f)espice initiatieS to involve locd l)evelop111ent bodies in the specificuion of
perfonnancc indicators cxisling perfon111nce n1oni1oring is frequencly seen as son1cth1ng vhich is in1pltgtstcl on groups Vilh lillll direct bcncfi1 in lenns of
e11~1bling 1hltmiddotn1 to understand hov to in1prove 1hcir Ovn perfonnancc~
22 The apprrnd1 described in Case S1uclv I gi1bulls 1n 1nclic111on of 111~ prltp1ratory
Yor involved in developing svsce111s to cviluatc rhc efficiency and tgtfflttivencss of
1he bCKlies Governmenl Dep1rtmenLlt and Local Developmenl bocl1es might es1lt1bl1sh
10 middothat cxtenc this 1ppro~1ch could hl~ applied co rhc 1neasure111en1 and n1anagc1nent
of LDcil Dcvdopmenl periorrnrnc~ Thi 1s a prercquisi1e 10 es11blishing the clati
reqt-ire111ents Yllich should be -arisficd hy the inforn11til~n sys1c1ns in u~e by LocalI l)evmiddotlop111erH bodies Under clie exis1ing s~middotsren1s the inforniHion require111cnts for
detennining 1he extenc ro Vhich value for n1oney is htmiddoting obt1ined front expencli1ure
on lhe iniliatives arl nor 1dequarCly provided for middotrhe current inadequacies of the
inforn)Hion sys1e111i lin1it the scope for evaluation middotrhc middotlid-middotrenn Ev1lt111iuns of both
llA)FR and 011LRD have drawn a11e111ion lo 1his deficiency
Ilo1rc1er 11~-tf)FR groups produce wn11e11 c11u1i1a1ilmiddote repon llriccbull year~r 011d other local 1Je1eop111eu1 lltXlics olso 111c11de c111ai1a11n aJXCt of Jfrfon1u111ce u1 1b1middot1r n7xJt1s AJJ J(ls prod11t1bulld a sene bull of poundltlgt lt1dit- ubich nfhbullc1 q11all1a1inmiddot clfJtltmiddotr_~ of the uork of Parr11erships
J-rr an e(11ded disn1ss1nJ1 nr1 the (flk11e _p_- u_(Jt1j()r11111J1c(bull 111v11i1r1i11g 1middotce middot11F and 1111middot local Urlxo1 111d N11nil FJtnmiddotlopn1ltll lltJ8111n11111middot middot FuroJlllll Sulti(I F1111d lr(Jgn111111Jl 1alifioi1 fh1i1 April 1999
13
lnco l)erelop111enf 11itiati1es
Case Study 1
A benchmarking project
A transnational study funded by the EU is underway to develop benchmarks for pro1ects which seek to insert unemployed people into the labour market The main purpose of benchmarking is to enable organisations to improve their performance
Through a process of discussion and analysis involving the implementing organisations the key processes and desired outcomes are established An agreed set of quantifiable
indicators is developed to give a measure of performance under each key process and desired outcome Overall performance 1s denved by applying an agreed weighting formula to the 1ndiv1dual measures Data capture and performance reporting are
overseen by an independent third party
Graphical representations are produced showing the performance of each group for each key process and outcome Typically the performance of each group will be stronger in some respects than others and future action to improve performance can then ensue
Integration of Data at National Level
224 It is 1111port1nt th11 there should be ce111ral access to cltu to provtclc for a
sys1e1n11ic 1nd co111prchensivLmiddot cv1Jua1ion 1t nation1l level of tl1e efficicnc ind
cffectivcntmiddotss of lcxlttl develop111cnt 1cross the country In 1ddi1ion 1his vould
suppo11 co-01)er1tion ind co-ordina1ion across the bodies
225 Dllt lteld within Governtttent Depa11111enb and ADM is not tntegratecl at the
levtI of tile henefici~111 For exa1nple grant approvJJs to 111 enterprise gr1nt
pJyn1cn1- ~incl e1nploy111cnt 1re not associ1tcd vith 1 unique client identifier in
Enterprise middotrr1dt~ and E111ploy111en(s con1pu1er sys1e111 sin1ik1r veakncss exists in
Agriculture and Foocl and ADM This ctn reduce the scope for evaluttion For
cxainplc the JXrfonnancc of c1Hi1ics vhich obtain financial assis1ance cinno1 readily
be con1p1re(I Vilh 1hose vhich rlCcive 01her non-fin3nci1J supports
226 Whltn CEils were first cstablishccl Enterp11se Traut incl Ftttployment usecl a
cl11ilx1se inheri1ed fro1n 1he J)cpann1en1 of Fin1nce to record ce11~1in key datltI such
is grants piicl ancl ipprovecl on eich enterprise assisted by CEils In aclclition clati
on the Enterprise T11clc ancl Emplovmcnt Business lnfortttation Systettt (BIS) hdcl
grant and e1nploy1nent clua for all 1n1nufac1uring 1nd international services finns
middotr1ie opportunity v1s not taken of co111hining d1ta on the CEB clatal)ase vith its 011
BIS Subscquenllr EntcrpniL middotrrackmiddot incl E111ploy111Lmiddotn1 discontinued recording gran1
piyment cl1t1 on the CEB cL111base finally the coverage of the Forfis annual
etttploytttent survey (which 11pcl11es the BIS) was allowed to clittttnislt so that it no
14
longer allernrts lO include syste111aticillv -i111tll n11nuL1cturing tmiddotnterpriscs Vith less
1han 1en employees Agt a result 1he ibihty of En1erprise Trtcle incl Employmenl lo
1noni1or sn1all indus1ry perfunn~1nce and the cffec1ivencss of s1nall indusC1)
de clopn1cnt progr1111n1es l1as cmiddotonsicleralgtly eJkene(I
227 Enterprise middotrr1de incl Ernployn1tnt is H pr(S(nt agr(eing tcnns of reference
fur 1he es11hlish1ncnt of J sy-itcn1 tn L1cilitate chc inllgrition of CEl3 cL111 in10 1he Bl~
11 ii intended that ForL1s viii include CEB clien1- in its 1nnu1l c1nployn1tnt survey
In addition the l)epann1enl rl~1ns (O acquire a stacistical soft~tre p~1ckage to f1cilita1lt
udysis of CEil cL11a
228 middotrhcre is no nuional pltn to integrHt en1errrisc incl individual clien1 level dtta
fron1 CEl3s ith sin1il1r cLn1 fron1 lEAl)EH gruurs tnd Pannerships Agri(tilture incI
roud does not integrate 1nfonnation vhich is collecllmiddotd fron1 e1ch of 1htgt groups in10
nu onal systen1s and has no plans to do so Al)1 provides rltrltJrts 10 a n111nber of
f)epa111nen1 including Sociil ltollununity ind F11nily 1flairi Fnttrprise middotrr1de and
Fn1ployn1en1 and l~duca1ion and Science
1 229 In 1995 middotrmiddotouris1n Sport ind Hecrcation began 1 process of Stlling up a
I ClnlrJised rerfonnance lllOTlitoring systclll (P~middotIS) for OPJLiHJ) co1nprising ~1ggrega1e
output indicators for CEUs ind Partncrships9 Significin1 rlsources have been
demiddot01ed to developing this systtmiddot111 Pcrfonnance 1ndica1ors Verlt tin~1lly approved by
hlmiddot OPllif) Vtonitoring Con11ni11ee in Jl1y 1999 According lo middot1middotouris1n Srort and
Ht(reation this did not JJlov sufficienl 1in1e to consider extending the sys1e1n
frarnevork 10 provide for co1nplt1nson Vilh o(her rrogr11nn1es such as LEAl)Elt lmiddothe
c11rmiddotent posilion is tliH
bull P1nncrship rerforn11ncc dat~l fro111 I January 19lt)7 IS StJCcessfully taken into
the Jgt~1S l)Ha fron1 co11111n1nity ~ind special inttrcsc groups Vls taken inlo till
PMS for l 998
bull Performance dJla for 1998 from all of the CFlb has beltn rnlla1ed by South
Dublin CEB and taken mlltgt Ille PMS
Tht PMS is used to mon11or 1he levels of ae1ivi11es and outputs under 011UHD 11 JS
usel by thL ex1crn1I ev~tlua1or to assist middotrouris1n Sport and lh~crettion ~ind 1he
OfgtlURl) vlonilonng ConunittlL lO OVLf-itv the Progra1nn1e It is of li111itcd use for
efflCtivcnltSS analysis
23t) A funlicr ditficully is the allsenct of con11x1rison-gt vi1h son1c key h~tseline data
pricbullr to the es1ablishn1ent of ll1Lmiddot bodies for cxunrlt the r11e of nev firn1 fonnalion
and job cretlion 111 -111lt111 firins and 1he pL1cc1nent of long-lenn u11tn1ployecl
middotrourisin Sport and Hlcreation has co111111issionecl a ltudy of b1-cline da1a
15
oca J)e1euj111e11t 11ififlli1e
Reporting and Monitoring
231 Progress npo11s Jre produced every six 111on1hs by 1he lead l)ep1n111en1s for
consider1tion tnd approval lgty the reltv1n1 flonitoring Con1111i11ces Ex1ern1l
cmiddotvdu11ors VCrl eng1ged by middotrouris111 Spltgtn and Hecrea1ion and Agriculture and
rood for 011lHlD ancl lltDEll respcctilely ro produce evduarion rqions ancl 1hey
]11ve ~ilso produced 111id-ten11 rcvievs_ middotr111se repo11s iremiddot considered ll hilf-ye1rly
111ee1ings of 1he nlevint f1onitoring Co1n1nittees_ All Loc1l l)evelop111e111 bodies
prodt1ce 1nn11al rcpo11s ou1lining 1c1ivititS undenaktmiddotn 1oge1htr Vilh financial
s1He111ents 1~ required under the operHional progr11111ncs
232 Nerworking plays an irnponanr role for rhe bocl1s Borh lEtDEH groups and
Pu11Hr~hips have 1he bcncfit of personnel dedica1ed 10 org1nis1ng nelvork
acriv1ries The CEOs of rhe CUh also meer regularly
16
3 Co-ordination of Activities
31 middotrhtmiddot co-cistenrl of chtbull 1hrll types of hltxlics for local clevclop1nen1 lt1- given
rise to concern tlX)llt duplicttion and the Jack of co-ordinuion 1 middotrhe pltllentid for
cluplic1tion irises bcciu_c the bodies co111111e1Htd inderenck~nlly of each olhlr ind
s1ariccI 11 clitlercnt ti1nes lt1ve sin1ilar ubjemiddottives incl 11rglt ovcrl1pping p(gtpul~1tions
hivmiddot~ se1x1rItc local ad1n1nistr1lll strucrurls 1 rcpo11 to different lgtepa11n1enLi and ire
funded by different opltftlionil progr1111111es_ A a res11h there is 1 need 10 ln-gture
that there nl lttdtqulle 1rr1ngin1Lmiddotnts in pL1c1 to recluce the pnss1hility of cluplicltion
and to ensure that lhtrc is proper co-ordination betVten he ditlerenl bodies
32 Jhe iSSlllS of Jupllcl11on and co-urdinlliun can bl t~sc -lcl
bull bccwcen ch cl1ffllellC loctl Devclormenc boclicmiddots
bull belveen Local ()evelopn1ent hoclies and 01her agencies ~11ch is Enltrpri~tmiddot
lreL1nd 1ncl che l)lmiddot1x1111ntmiddotn1 of Suciil lt0111111un11y incl F1111ily tfL1ir-
1middothis ex1111ination is confined to duplication incl co-orclinat1on belVeen Local
n~vfiopmtell( bodies
33 In this chapter rhlmiddot i-sues of duplication and cn-ordinition are exanuntd under
evduition criteria ~1s shovn bclOmiddot
Issue Evaluation criteria
Du )lication Objectivesbull Clientsbull Activitiesbull Funding of projects bull
Comiddotordination Local level bull National level bull
IDulication
134 1 subst1nliil nu111her of lgencies c111 provide l0~11 l)evelopn1ent suppnrts in
I thl 1111e hgtc~d 1rc~J 1igure 31 fro111 lhe Suulh Vest illus1rites this
35 middotrhe natun of lhtmiddot inllillimiddottmiddots is 1hat lhlrc should be tltmiddotibiliry in str11egic
dlcigtiun n1ahing at locil level Vilhin brc)Jd p1ra11H[lfS lllch 1n sel oul 1n the
Operation1) Progr1111111es middotrhe si1nilari1ies igtelveen ohjectimiddotes clienL ind activilies i~
shltn11 in middotrabies 3_ I to 34 1re 1 result of thlst policies
17
loca )evelofn11enf lnifia11es
Figure 31 Local Development Supports in the South West
Tuartha Chiarrai Teo (Leader)
West Cor Enterprise Board
North Cork Enterprise
Board
Blackwater Resource Development (Leader)
m Car City Partnership
South Cork Enterprise Board
Cork URBAN
Note The following ADM funded community groups are indicated on the map by nun1bers
[] Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo [Z] Bantry Integrated Development Group
G1] East Cork Area Development Ltd ] Avondha Development Partnership fil IRO Duhalow Ltd
[sect] Sliabh Luachra Ltd [Z] Listowef Baronies Group Ltd
Objectives
36 All of 1he Lxxlics trt concerned illl locil econoinic develop1nlllt tnd h~1ve
i IJrief lo rn-ordin11e incl enlunce ex1s1ing suppo11s ii locd level Bo1h lEAl)EH
incl P111nersl1ip grltn1ps arc conccrntmiddotd V1th co1n111unity clcvelop1nent Vhile
P~1nn~rships ire explicitly focused on co1nlx1111ng socitl exclusion
Clients
37 1Ltny sin1il1ri1ies exist hetVeen 1he clitnls uf the lhllt types nf bodies hu1
there tre tlso in1pon1nt clifferenclS ihile CEHs deal Vilh business ickas fro1n any
individual or group thty do not specifically target dis1dv~11111gcd groups vhich are
1hc focus of P111nersh1ps lFAl)ER acliitics ire dirtctcd IOVllcls the loc1J
18
-------
I
Coorclination ojmiddot Acliuitiltgts
Table 31 Objectives
Objectives CEBs Partnerships LEADER
Fogtster development by Area planning Jc1b creation
Business supports Arumatton
C1)unter serious economic and social problems by Aisisting long-term unemployed 1n10 jobs Promoting adult educationtraining Aisisting community development Ericouraging provision of child support Integrate supports at local level
0
Table 32 Clients
Nature of Clients
Pcmiddotpulation coverage
G(bullograph1c coverage
Small Enterprises
Adult Learners
Joigt Seekers incl LongshyTelm Unemployed (LTU)
Ccmmunity Groups
Lone parents
Trc1vellers
Pe)ple with d1sabil1ties
Dirndvantaged youth
i==
CEBs Partnerships LEADER
100 61
100 Includes 13 complete counties and several
other disadvantaged areas
Almost complete in rural areas
(excludes part of cities of Dublin Cork Galway Limerick Waterford)
Note o denotes thor one Local Development body has chosen to pursue this objective
a This relates to designated areas covered by Area-Based Partnerships Soures Tables 3 1 amp 32 These tables were derived from the Operational Programme for LEADER
OPLURO and interviews with managers of Local Development bodies
19
lr1ca )e1eh11111e111 11i1iati1es
Table 33 Main development activities
Activity CEBs Partnerships LEADER
Draft development plans v v v Assess local plans 0 v v Carry out surveys of enterprises v v 0
Provide finance to enterprises v v v Provide advice to enterprises v v v Assist enterprises to access
consultancy support v 0 v Organisefund mentors for enterprises v v v Fund management development v Organisefund marketing initiatives v v Promote enterprise via meetings etc v v v Produce enterprise
brochuresbusiness guides v v v Promote enterprise 1n schools via
competitions training etc v v v Fund prov1s1on of tourism facilities v v Fund road signage Tidy towns v Fund artscultural festivals v v
Table 34 Main activities concerned with countering serious economic and social problems
Activity
Counsel long-term unemployed (lTU)
Carry out skills audit of LTUs
Establish network of L TUs
Organise fund education or
training courses Fund provision of education centres
Fund construction refurbishment
equipment of community resource
or activity centres Fund estate improvement
Fund communityyouth workers
Organise fund community fora
or networks Organise fund homework clubs
Fund youth act1vit1es
Fund play groups creches
CEBs Partnerships
v v v
LEADER
v v
v v
0
Note 0 denotes that not afl Local Development bodies have chosen to undertake these activities
Sources Tables 3_3 amp 34 These tables were derived from the Operational Programme for LEADER OPLURD and interviews with managers of Local Development bodies
20
Coor(i nation ojmiddot11 c I tu it ies
co111nunity in genertl ind local project pron1ottri lhile people vho tr( Slvcrely
socially or ((Cll)Olllically deprived IllJY r1r1iciplle in lEAl)l-f lllivitilS LEAl)EI his
no nmiddot1nit 1n spccifically targlting lhlSl groups In nine c1-es lEAlgtER ancl
P1dncrship Strviccs an dtbulllimiddotlncl by llHmiddot s11ne loc1I group
3~ LEAl)ER Jnd P111r1trships ltivc exten-iiC hut not co111plc1e popult11un
colrttge Jgt111nerships ind 1l)ivl-funcled con1nu1nity groups coVlI 1111ny of 1hc n1ure
conclmiddotn1r11ecl trltls of dis1dvin11ge l)lllt to lhe ficl 1h11 social dis1clvanragc is
spali11ly clis1rilH1ttmiddotd son1ltmiddot 1nmiddot1s of till cuuntry Vh(r( clis1dv1r111ge ex1sts arc nor
cobullbulltmiddotnmiddotd by P1rlnltrships or l)imiddotl-h1nded con1n1uni1v groups
A1tivities
39 It c111 igte gteen fro111 middotro1ble Jl 1hll 1hcre ecrraquoive duplicnion of
de1c]op111e11t tctivities 1crois 1he bodies Vith 1hnost tll of the 1c1ivitics lgteing
llndertlken by JI Je1-t tVO type~ of hodJtS [n inlLfilS Vith ht lllJntgtrs or the
Local l)evelorn1tnl bodies ii middotas indicated 1h~H Vhile thcv are lVtre of this
overl1p they rel~ on co-ordination n1ech1nis111s to ensure that re-ource- are nnl
Vl ~teeI
310 It c111 igte gtltmiddoten fro111 Table 34 1ha1 so111e overlip exisis lielween IEADER
gnurs ind P1nnerships Vith respec1 [o countering serious econo1nic ind soci1l
prcmiddotblv111- middotrills can irislt through i111pnmiddotc1stmiddot defini1ion ind inlerprtlUiun of the r~1nge
of crviltlS providld J-[oll(L the extenl of overlap 1n countering serious econo111ic
and Slgtcitl rroblcins is n111ch less 1han in 1he case of develor1nent activilies pa1tly because of th( 11rgct1ng of -plcific client groups hy P1rtnerships (the long-tenn
uncn1ployed ind the soc111ly ecludedJ
311 It should be no1ecl th~1t 1111ny other agencies or groups outside the scope of
1he exa1nin~nirln are ilso 1ctive II local level For cx1111pllt the Hosco111111on (JmiddotB
1ction Pl111 1997 - 1999 conttins a 111trrix uf dtmiddotvehgtp111ent agltncies incI servicis
pre vided in Coun(y Hosco111111on lhis i- shnmiddotn in ppendix E
F1J1nding of Projects
3 12 Situations can occur vhere pro111oters can 111axilnist thl funding they receive
b~middot applying for surport froo1 cJillenlll groups
W1hlre arc Poor 011s(hcd~ 711c Spali(I )11rih11lPll () r11e11r a11d DeJ11r11011 111 rlrt11d Urito1 1oa11 cl (J C0111ha1Ponrty1l~ltJ1C) 19lt)8
21
ocal Jeveloj1111c111 lniJ1atiUltS middot----- shy
Case Study 2
Subsidy shopping
A promoter had a turnover of pound80000 from an equestrian centre and language school In addition he was a farmer his spouse was a teacher and he had net assets of almost pound05 m1ll1on He wished to develop the equestrian centre and language school and provide accommodation on site for language students he applied to a CEB for financial assistance The estimated cost of the project was as follows
pound Accommodation costs 20000 Classrooms 10000 Indoor arena 22000 Outdoor arena 15000 Tennis court 10000
Total 77000
The CEB considered that financial support would be appropriate for certain nonshyaccommodationmiddot aspects of the project This comprised classrooms indoor arena and outdoor arena costing pound47000 and a grant of pound20000 was approved in May 1996 The Board considered that the promoter should fund all of the accommodation aspects (The Board had a policy of not assisting the provision of accommodation because this is a response to rather than a generator of demand)
In September 1996 the promoter applied to a LEADER group for a grant According to the grant application form the accommodation cost had risen to pound85000 (as against pound20000 in the CEB application) The LEADER group was aware of the financial support already provided by the CEB and the reasons why this level of support was given The LEADER Board approved a grant of pound17000 being 20 of the cost of the accommodation The project promoter was also approved for a marketing grant from LEADER of pound2750
Total capital grants approved for the project (pound37000) amounted to 26 of pro1ected capital expenditure (pound142000)
313 It has been po1n1ccl 011t (by Entlrpnse Trnclc ind Employment ind Tourism
Sport ~ind HecreJtion) 1hat this ct~e srudy gives little risemiddot fur concern 1~ the funcling
vas clinctecl tOv1rds different ele1nent of the projecr l-loCVer the fnlloving
efficiency difficulc1cs arise
bull aclcluionil middotsearchmiddot costs for cl1cnts who mikc mul11ple applicu1ons for ~1-isistance
bull ~1dditiontl tin1e ~pent by n1en1bers of Bo1rd incl evtluuion co1n1ni1tees and adn1inistrJrivc cosrs in Loc1I l)evelnpn1ent bodies
bull thC first Local Devdopment body to approve finannJI assisuncl cannot adopt a middotrotlJ project vieV bCClttUSe it is 110t lV1fe Vhether subsequent tJ1plicati011S ill be 1n1cle for assist1nce to other Local Developn1ent bodies
22
COorcination of Actiuitics
C1gt-ordination
314 As part of their an11nat1011 and co111111unity development 1ctivitits all of the
bol1es part1culirlv LFADER groups and P1rtnersl11ps look for opportunities to
1ni iale and co-orclina1e acrivilies vhich 111iy be underlaken by a vide variety of
st1tutory rnmmun11y and voluntary groups Tlus work usually Licilitates the
provision of econo111ic and social benefits to the co111n1un1ty Typical exunples 1re
bull Organising nevorks of lone parenis
bull Pro1nnting tidy tovns
bull Organising second chancC cducuicgtn
Vihin Local Development hodics therLmiddot is often tc11sion between the priorny to be
given to their co-ordination role ver~us the direct delivery of services including
grants
315 Co-ordination frequently involves the co-operation of several different
organisations at different levels (StHc local government communitvvoluntary
se(tor and business) to ~chicve a con1111on objective middotrhrough their co-ordinarion
roli~ the bodies n1ay harness rhc porcntial of several organisarions to achieve an end1 which would not otherwise be achieved This role has been cited is contnbutmg to
the unique role of the Joell development bod1Lmiddots A good LXimple of this mshyore ination i~ set out in Case Study 3
316 The multiple funding ol this anglmg pro1ect is substint1ally differtnl from the
multiple funding shown 1n Case Study 2 In Cie Stuclv 3 thlt contributions of the
vanous bodies were agreed as part of an integrated plan
317 The co-existence of three significant types of boches (and the inherent
cluphcarion shovn in 1he previous section) places a particular onus on 111anagc111tmiddotn1
of the organisations oH both national and lcxal levels to co-ordintte service provision
Fig1re 32 illustrates for each of the bodiltS the dilftmiddotrcnt co-ordinarion structures in
phe
23
loco l Jc1eofgt11HJ 11 I11 ii iu I ioes
Case Study 3
Co-ordination of a tourism angling project
A LEADER group in an inland county sponsored a study of the tourism development
potential of the county Although the county had weak tourism infrastructure and
practically no angling facilities the study identified several tourism sub-sectors that
could be developed including angling
An initiative was undertaken by the LEADER group to co-ordinate the development of
angling in partnership with fourteen other bodies including Fisheries Boards ESB
Coillte Duchas Bord na M6na and several community development organisations and
angling groups The initiative consists of
bull the upgrading of eight lakes most of which are owned by State agencies and many
of which were overgrown or silted
bull construction of stiles paths etc and restocking the lakes with fish
bull grant support for accommodation providers in the lakes area
The total cost of the project was estimated at around pound05 million Some of these costs are borne by LEADER but most are borne by State agencies and the Tourism
Operational Programme 1994-1999
The LEADER group is involved with other organisations in marketing angling facilities
and the provision of training for the ongoing management of the lakes
Co-ordination at Local Level
318 Cot1n1y Strllcgy croups Vere es1hlimiddotmiddotd1ed in LICh cnu111y under OPLUl~J) O
L1ci[i[Je co-orclin11ion ~ind 111inin1isc cluplic1tinn in lie delivery of progrin1111es
middotrhe Groups provide i forun1 for forn1d conununicition Vithin etch councy and
hctCt11 counties incl cenlrtl policy 111akers_ vlen1lxrship of the Groups includes
the Chlt1irpersn11s of CEl~s Ptr1nerships ind lEAl)EH groups County middotrouri111
Con1n1i1tees Coun1y f11n1~ers incI represen111ives fron1 middotrourisn1 Spon and
Recnation
319 middotrhe cu-ordinttion of services 10 cliencs depends very heavily on cruss-1gtncy
rcpresenltlion incl illendance at 111cetings middotralgtle ~5 shovs 1ypictl Board
repre~enc11ion
24
Coo1middotrh11atio11 o lctiuillcs
Fi1ure 32 Monitoring and Coordination
InterdepartmentalOPLURD OPLEADER Evaluation Polley Committee Evaluation
_l Department of Department of
Enterprise Trade Tourism Sport and Employment and Recreation
ADM Ltd
Partnership Boards
County Strategy Groups
1~BBoards ------shy
Department of Agriculture and Food
LEADER Group Boards
Table 35 Typical Board representation
S~bullctor Represented CEBs LEADER Partnerships
Lcmiddotcal authority members almost complete
Statutory bodies Ernployers I Trade Unions I Farmers Community I Voluntary sector
SouCe Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General
25
ocu )e1Alop111e111 11ifi(lf1ccs
320 CEils ire represented on most IEADER groups incl many Pa11ncrsh1ps
Hovever 1n~1ny lEAl)ER groups and P~111nerships ire not represented on CEBs In
so111e bu1 not all cises vhere cross-board represenlation i lacking there is crossshy
agencymiddot rtpn=sentllion at sub-boird level instead such as evilullion co1n111iuees for
protects_ In nine c1s(s vhere then~ are con1n1on boundaries the san1e Board
1clm1nis1ers both a LEADER group incl Partnership In ciscs where there ire not
m11ch1ng bounclirics 11 1s usud for LEADER groups incl lu1ncrships to have
C01111ll011 UO~trd repreSCl1tatives
321 Agriculture incl Food require all lEADEH groups to specify how they intend
to co-ordinate their activiies Vith other bodies before agree111en1s 10 i111plen1en1 a
LEADER progr1111me are completed Each tgreement includes t clause to this effect
and dso requires IEADER groups to part1n1x11e in Coun1y Strategy Groups
322 The view of the Local Development bodies is 1h11 loctl knowledge is of
piran1oun1 in1po111nce for co-orclina1ing their ~1ctiviries Use is n1aclc of infonntl
contacts 10 ensure tha1 each organisHion is tvarc of Vhat others artgt doing middotrhere
is often no formal 1gree111ent berween Local Devclop111ent bodies H local level
regarding 1h~ lin1its betveen objtgtctives acrivities and clients Hovevcr
consideration should be given 10 drlving up a middotfittcn staten1ent Vhich VOtilcl set
out a broad fra111ework of agree111ent between Loctl Dcvelop111ent bodies A good
exmtple from County Meath is shown in Appendix F
323 from the beginning elected pol1ticd representation was absent fro111 IEADER
incl Partnership 13oards Mc111bers of local authonrics are represented on CEl3s but
not is of right on LEADER groups and Partnerships However local aurhonry
officials arc frequentlv on the boards of lEADEH groups incl Partnerships A process
his been undc1way to 1nclucle 111e111bers of local authonties on rhe Boards of
LEADER groups and Partnerships This process is now complete in the cise of
IEADER incl is d111ost rn111plete 1n the cise of Pirtnerships
GeograpJica ampm1ulmJbull ProJlem
324 The co-orclmation of activi11es it locd level is 111ade 111ore difficult by the lack
of coherence the way the boundmes of the Local Develop111ent bodies were
clr~lvn and because of overltpping houndanes vi1h srHucory bodies 1s 1 result
n1any iltx~d l)evclop111ent bodies 1nust liaise vi1h a nun1ber of orher Iocil
l)evelop111ent bodies Jnd srJn1cory organisations_ middotrt1is increases tl1e acln1inistra1ive
burden on Local Develop111ent bodies ancl 1mpecks rhcir ability to offer unifor111
service delive1y in their territorymiddot and to co-ordinate activities of other Local
Develop111ent bodies and Srate igencies
26
Coordi11atio11 Cf Actiuities
se Study 4
Bcbullundary problem in South County Dublin
The boundary of South Dublin CEB covers the same geographical area as that of South De blin County Council and South Dublin Area of Dublin Tourism In this area there are four Partnership companies
Ta laght Partnership wholly located in Dublin South Clondalkin Partnership wholly located in Dublin South KWCD Partnership divided between Dublin South and Dublin City Scuths1de Partnership divided between South Dublin and Dun
LaoghaireRathdown
Al~o the Dublin Rural LEADER Company covers part of South Dublin as well as Dun LagtghaireRathdown and Fingal Council areas The State service providers such as FlgtS Eastern Health Board (EHB) Department of Social Community and Family Affairs (D3CFA) and Enterprise Ireland do not have the same geographical areas as local auhont1es They are split up into regional areas and these regions impinge on South Dublin CEB as follows
FlgtS Dublin SouthWicklow region of FAS contains part of South Dublin while Dublin WesVKildare region of FAS caters for the rest of the South Dublin area
EHB Each of three regional areas of the EHB Dublin South Central South West and West impinge on the area of South Dublin CEB
D~middotCFA Dublin South region of DSCFA contains part of South Dublin and Dublin West region of DSCFA caters for the remainder
Enlerprise Ireland South Dublin 1s totally contained within Enterprise lrelandmiddots region of Dublin and Mid-East
32~i Agricuhure and Food ha~ poinced ou1 rhar coheren1 geogr~1pliical boundaries
would be contrarv to the bottom upmiddotmiddot approach of LEADER The initial EU proposal
for hl fo11hcommg LEADER lnillatilC stales middotmiddot11 would he desirable rhar rbe eligihle
areas do not coi11citle tuith notional acln1ii11strati1e ho111ularies nnr ufth cli_~ihle
zon$ 1111cler the 1nainstrec11n operations(~ the structural jltntlsmiddot
Co-ordination at National Level
32(1 An Interckpartmcntal Policy Committee for Local Delelopment was
estltulishcd m June 1993 under 1he auspices of 1he Department of the Ta01seach and
subequently reconltt1tuted in Ocwber 1997 under Tourism Span and Rccrea11on 1s
funmon is to oversee 111d make recommendations on local delelopment (Appendix
G shovs the conunitteemiddots renns of reference) fhe co1nn1itcee is chaired by the
Minster of State in Tourism Spo11 and Hecreation ind comprises represenwives of
27
loca I )e1eofJ111e11 f In it itlf ftls
i nu111her of Gov1rnn1ent lgtepart1nc11ts middotrhe ro1111ni11ee has contributed policy
n111eriil 10 1he post 2000 s11b1nission on the future of struc1ural funds ind v1s
involved in 1htmiddot develop1nent of 1ht Integrated Services Prnjec1middot
327 middotn1e co111n1i11et sees i1s fu1ure role is one of infon11ing its([f nf dcvclop111ents
cnh1ncing links Vith local develnp1n~n1 orgtnisuions 111d lt1rn1ng les-gtons fron1
piln1ing projet1s including 1htmiddot porenti~tl for n11instrl1n1ing successful projects
328 middotrhlre is a potential role for the con11nittee 10 get involved in soning out the
sys1t111smiddot in1clequ1cics ind to develop 1 strltcgic lttpproich to coun1ering 1he
neg1tive ispcmiddotcts or duplicuion lhc co111111ittee should consider developing 1n
1green1ent concerning the lin1its hitveen tile olgtjec1ives 1ctivities and clients of the
three types of bodies vhilt- laking account of the li111it1tions on the discretionar
nllure of lhe LE1l)EI Jgtrogran1n1c Vhich is an FU Initiative
329 Fruin 1 viluc for 1noney perspective ind bised on the 1buve 1nilysis the
follr)ving i1nprove111~111s ire desirlttble in the short tern1
bull 1hc cs1ablish111ent of coherent geogr1phical buuncL1rics
bull tn incretse in he forinal co-orclinllion of service provision
The Task Force Report on the Integration of Local Government and Local Development Systems
330 t Trsk Force which was esublished lo reporr on 1h~ 1n1egr111on of locd
govern111ent incl locil clevelopn1cn1 sys1en1s reportccl in August 1998 and its
reco111111end~11ions Vtre approved by C1nvern111cnt in Septen1ber 1998 1 middotrhe 11sk
1orce l-gt concerned to ckvclop 1 vision ~ind s1ra1egy vhich Voulcl encon1pass in
in integralecl IY (he oper11ions of loc1I governn1ent ind Local l)evelop1nent
bodies in order 10 significantly incre~1se 1heir effec1iveness
331 Tire Task Force conltrdercd 1111 Iris could besr be achieved 11 1hc counry rncl
cily level The cclllrrl role will be pL1yed by new Coun1y or City Dcvdopmenl
Boards (CDlb) which will be es1ablislred in each ciry incl cou111y locrl authority
The CDBs with memlJerslup drawn from four sltcrors (ie local governmcnl
co111111uni1y ~ind voluntary social partners and Slate agencies opcra1ing at local level)
ill clrnv up an agreed ~ind con1prehensive Coun1y or City Strategy for Econon1ic
Sociil ind Culturtl l)evelopn1cn1 It VtS 1greecl 11i~11 Jgtannerships or LEAl)EH groups
should cllal Vith clis1clvan1aged areis on an 1greecl basis 1nd 1hat con1111unlly
1)( 111ltgr(lc-d Wnncc~ lropU tla egtlabllshtd 011 a pilot btLgtiL ill f)rce111hcr 1998 ill 011r sltmiddotnmiddoto11S~) ltliltult(l11fa~1middotd arltbullas_ (JbjeLliltmiddot 1s 10 cr1-ordi11flle tbtbull i11p111 ofall S1a1C senlicegt
28
Coorrli11atio11 o Jcmiddotti111 ie------------------------------~---
developinent and -ciciJI incl11sion 111c1sl1re tho11lcl vl1ertmiddot possibll bl cleliVlrld bymiddot
gra~sroots bodies Further nmiddotcon1n1endatinns of the middotr1sk rorcc include
bull (Jl(lprise support func11un lo htbull vered in 1he CFBs Vith rrovision for the
involvement of other Local Dcvdoprncnt bodies such as LEADEH by ~1grec111ent
bull fu11ctional arl1- to coincidemiddot Villi co11n1y or city IHHJndaries or_ t[ sub-county
kmiddotvtmiddotL local elector~il ~treas
bull ~1 si11gle igency to bl nmiddotspt1nsihll for con1n11111i1y dlvclop1nlnl at suh-cuun1y
lclI (either the local tuthoritymiddots Arca Con1111ittee or in clc-ign1tecl
clisadv~1nt1ged 1rc1s groups -gtuch ts P111ntmiddotrJ1ips or LEAJ)ER groups)
I bull any future loctl ckv(loptntmiddotnt groups slloulltl have cou11ty or city councillors on
[heir Boards
An interdc1x1rtn1en1al i111ple1nent~1tio11 group h~ts hLcn fonncd to oversee thl in1plcnltmiddotn111ion of 1l1c middotr~1sk ilnce reco111111endarions
29
4 Operational Efficiency
41 This chapter considers the operational efficiency of the groups Operational
efficiency is concerned Vilh 111aking the best use of 1hc resources provided to
111axin1ise the ltmiddotvel of outputs achieved
42 middotrhe issues and evtluHion criteria arc
Issues Evaluation criteria
Targets and performance Quantification of targets bull Use of baseline data bull Achievement and review bull
Resource allocation and outturn Targets and outturns bull Allocation of resources to Localbull Development bodies
bull Grant cost per job
bull Cost of non-grant outputs
Deadweight and displacement Information on extent bull Effective procedures bull
Targets and Performance
43 OlLUHD contained a number of output md ac[Jv1ty t1rgets to IJe achieved
over the priod 199 middot 1999 A report issued in 1994 crnicised some of the tJrgets
in that they did not refer to previous performance In the absence of this middotbaseline
perform1nce cl11a it is not posstble to know how realistic or demanding these targets
are Extmples of the lick of baseline cl11a include information on new 1obs and new
businesses middotrhc report ilso ronsiclend 1ha1 oilier 11rgets Vere coo n1odcst in relation
10 hat v1s knovn lttbou1 perforn1ancc such as chc tirget for ncv businesses suppo11ed by P1rrnership vith reference to the perforn1ance undltr the original
PESP Partnerships
44 lhe n1ain OPLLRI) targt~ts and 1chievc111cncs against the targets are fhOvn in
Table 41 Most of the original targets were excccdccl bv 1998 rrnny by a wide
margin The only target that w1s quantified in th~ Operational lrogrunme for
LEDER as the creation of obs wluch was set H 4000 over the life of the
Programme Up to encl 1998 an overall job creation figure of 2700 (fulhime job
equivalents) was reponecl
45 Folloving the reco111n1endarions conrainecl in the 1nid-ten11 reviev revised
performance indicators and raised targets were adopted by the OPLURD Monitoring
Ex-a11( Appaiitil of Proposed local Dcmiddotvelop111e111 Progran1me pn1x1rltbulld on bfhalf of DC X11 ~)the SeflJices 11d11ilnltS Research Centrt liCD F11zpa1ncJ Associates a11d Kiert111 lcKeo1m1 lld Febn1ary 1994
30
Tatle 41 OPLURD targets to end-1999 and achievements to end-1998
-
Target
Now JObs
Nt~w businesses
Progression of unemployed to -full-lime jobs -part-time jobs
Number of adults asgtisted to access education
NL mber of children attending preventative education services
Existing businesses su Jported
Cl sterner contacts
=
CEBs
Original Targets
8000
2260
280 pa
20000 pa
Achievements
15500
3 110
2500 (1996-1998)
8700a (1998)
Partnerships
Original
Targets
6900
3640
12500 1500
60000
20400
30000 pa
Achievements
12800
12800
11400 2900
18500
35000
na
Note 8 Only contacts which fed to a provision of a service by the Boards to a client were recorded
Soure OPL URO and annual roports
cn111111i11ee in i-lay 1999 (ee ppendi ))_ middotrhcsc l~1rg~ts appear to he 111ore re~iliitic
having regard to perfonnance in the early ye~1rs of the Progra1nn1e
146 in the cise of ihDlH the mid-term rtmiddotnew notd that the 01 ind1cuors
_cured highly on relevance 1-lovever n1any ut the indicators verc so vague 1ha1
111caningful qu111tificlt1tion vould htmiddot aln1osr 1n1rx1ssible -rhlt reviev concluded that
the pcrforn1ance indicators dieI 1101 provide J sufficiently cltar basis on vhich groups
could debullelop con1n1on indicuor systen1s_ lhe nvit~V proposed a sys1en1 of
ptrf1nnance indicators flt1r discussiltgtn 11ncnchnent incI i111plen1en1a1ion imiddot11e
LEA)ER Morntonng Commince clccidccl that each LEADER group should prepare
i rt~middoti~t~cl t1rgtIS in respect of he indicators proposed in lhlt n1icl-1enn nviev (see
pptmiddotnclix E)_ Nu revised nationil targtli Vtrt agreed by the fmiddot1nnitorin_g Co1n1nittcc
or griculture Jnc1 Food
l
ocal JercoJ11rent 11itulfiteshy
Table 42 Expenditure targets 1994-1999 and outturns 1994-1998
Initiative OP Forecastbull
1994-1999
Revised
Forecast 1994-1999
Latest Forecastc
1994-1999
Outturn 1994-1998
poundm poundm poundm poundm CEBs 818 811 808 620d Partnerships 1047 1036 1083 706e
LEADER Groups 772 947 947 388
Notes a Updated for exchange rate changes and inflation as of May 1999 b Revised forecast is lhBI which has been most recently approved by the Monitonng
Committee ft refers only to expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds c Latest forecast is the most recent estimate by the relevant department of the most
likely outcome It refers only to expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds d Outturn only includes expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds (pound620ni)
Expenditure not co-financed by EU structural funds an1ounted to pound36 1m e Ourtum only includes expendifure co-financed by EU structural funds (pound706m)
Expenditure not co-financed by EU structural funds amount9d ro pound05m Source OPLURD LEADER OP annual reports
Resource Allocation and Outturn
47 Public e-pendi1ure 11rgets ind ou11urns ire shovn in middotrable 42
48 Fro111 the beginning it V1s the viev of Enterprise middotrr~1dL incl En1ployn1tnl thit
there IVlI nut sulliuenc EU funds under 011UHI) 10 support 1lte desired kbullel oldeg
t-pctHliturc by CE13s over 1he life of the Prngrunrnc_ ccorclingly CEB exrenditun
wis in ecess of the level co-finrnred by Ill funds rnd the b1l111n of U6 J million
wis provided bv the hclwquer It is ciltrr 1h11 EU funds rvrilrble for CElh under
011UIU) wrll be fully u11lised bv the encl of 1he lrogrrmme
49 A~ n1ost P1nntrships h1cl to go through J lcng1hy pnxtss of es11hlish1ncn1
incl planning in 19ltJ5 ind 1996 their cxpendiltirc Vas slov in rhuse ye~1rs tlovtver
expenditure 1ccclcr1Ctcl in 1997 and 1998 middotruurisn1 Spo11 ind Hecrellion and 1)11
expecc chH over the full progranllne period c-pencli1urc 1argc1s viii be n1et
410 E-pencli1u1-c under LE1J)fH Vts suhst1nti11ly Ix-In ttrget for rhc pcriocl
1995-1998 A fu11hcr sum of J18 million wrs rllocued to lEDEH liv the EU
Co111n1ission in 1996 fro111 an EU re-erve avai11hle for (on1111unity initiatives In order
to reach lht revised forec~1st expendi1ure in 1999 Voukl h1vc to be 1non 1han lVO
111cl 1 hilf ti111cs lite expenditure of 998 tmiddotlovever griculturc incl Food lXPLCls
1h1t ill alloc1tecl funds viii be spent by the encl of tiltmiddot Progr1n11nemiddot
11ltcor(111g trJ the 11AIJlR ()~ lt11 eliJihle ltpc11di111nmiddot 111ust lgtc co111tlffltlf 1~1 middot JtA f)IJ~ gn111h l~r tbc (IU
of fJrl-1 111Jc_bullr 15J-JY 11Ji~e 111r1111middot1 s 11111sf he Hiid rJ11f I~) llAJ)f( grrgtllJS lxfurc )l_1111c 2000
j2
( ))(rct f iu 11cf fi-c iei Ilt)middot-- middot---------------- shy
A1ocation of Resources to Local Development Bodies
411 Fnlerprise middotrr1clc and E1nployn1en1 inittdly alloctttmiddotd resources equdly to each
CEit middotrhc l)ltp1rtn1ent suhscquently 111nved to 1 1nore dtmiddotn11nd Jtmiddotd 1ppr()~1ch
h1nmiddothy allocations VeHild lgtt varied depending on 1hc relative llctmiddotds uf each aret
Ille c~1p1city of e1ch art lo successfully utilise eriterprimiddotbulle supports ind to crelle jobs
i ind the qud1ty nf thtmiddot cmiddotnterpnstmiddot pL1ns prepared hv each CEB
41 Al)middott placed 1dvcnistmiddot1nents in nevsptpers i11vi1i11g cnn1n1t1ni1y groups
(ou side Ille designated JrLIS of dis1dvintJgt being IUl)kcd Jfter hv Area-Based
P1nncrships) incl relevant n11ion1 organisations to ~11gt11ly for ()JgtLUHI) funding 33
con1n1unity groups ind 15 nitiontl urganisuion Vere sekCtld by t()1I for funding
41 middotrhe allocation of resources to Pirrnvrships hy Al)1l v~1s hiscd on cltt1ilcd
1nIlysis of the socioeconn1uic ch1ractlris1ic- of eJch tre~1 highliglning various
aSf)lt_cts of dtpriv11ion drlVll fro111 tlie 1991 ltensus of Population ()tiler rclcv1nt
v1riihlcs inclt1cll~d the qu~ditv of the pL111 tlttmiddot c1p1ci1y of htmiddot l1rtncrsliip ind the
1v1l1bility-of orher clevelop111ent resources to 1hc lrll such as IE1l)l-J or LiHB1N
4lbulli 1chmiddoter1istmiddot1nents Vere pL1cecl in 11Lmiddotvsp1rtmiddotrs innouncing lhe LEtl)lR lni1i1tivl
and inviting applicnions 1middot1ic~e VCrc assesstmiddotd by 1gricuhure and 1~nod Vith the
1ssi-bull1ance of an incltpcndenl consul11nt to es1ahlish tile txtent to vhich they 111lt~1 iii~
key ftatures of LEl)FH lhtmiddot rltsourctS middotere tllocatcd h~1ving regard to the quality
of the hu iness pl1n subniilllltL 1he population ind cl(gree of rurility of the 1rea and
the ~1vailalgtility of othtr sourcts uf ~lss1st1ncc fn1 Joctl ltkmiddotclop1ncn1 3i loc~d group-
Ver~ sclecled ind 2 SLctoral groups
Grint Cost per Job
4l~i middotr1iere arc specific f1c1ors vhich lin1i1 the usefulness of htmiddot gr1n1 cost per job
incli ~-tlnr in the con1cx1 of lltx11 devclop111cnt middotrhese include
bull (rear d1versil in the ni1urc of the 1ohs cre1ted ind 1he 111ethod of cc)un1ing
I hl111
bull No direct con1p1nson hetveen the VOrk invoVtltI in supporting job cna1ion 11
local level VIiii nationtl joll crcition agtncics
bull middotrile us1ain1bility of jobs 1n1y d1fft r frn111 11in-e crc1tltd by nuional igtncics
bull middotril(middot focu- un job cre1tinn iritmiddot vithin the three 1ypes nf lllt1clic
local Jevelopn1e11r fllifiariues
416 For CEils the number of jobs created is used is a performance meisure The
average gr1n1 cost per job creared vtriecl over the pericxJ under reviev as follovsn
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Number of jobs created 1958 3174 3589 3317 3487
Grant cost per 1ob created pound2535 pound4249 pound3763 pound3884 pound4206
The v1ri11ions from year 10 year miy be panly explained hv the fact 1h11 sometimes
1here is 1 riine t1g hetveen the gn111t expenditure ind 1he creition of thi relevant
jobs Over the period 1994middot97 the average grant cost per 1ob was Aj725 with the
lowest CEil be111g S2269 (Tipperary North) and the highest being gtfi683 (Leitrim)
Cost of Non-Grant Outputs
417 In add111011 to grmt aiding job crcll1011 md adminis1r11ion all of the bodies
~Ire involved in non-granr activities including
CEils
bull Producing enrcrprise plans and generJlly pro1noting in enterprise culurc
bull Busines~ infonnttion 1clvice counselling incl 1nentoring
bull ~ltn1gc111ent devetopn1en1 rraining
lartnersl1ips
bull Enterprise cre11ion and ckvelopment
bull Environ1nent ind infrtstrucrure projects
bull Provision of services to the unen1ployecl
bull Con1n1unity clevelop1ncnt
bull Co1nple1nentary ~incl prevcnt11ive educarion
LEADER groups bull tni1nation 1crivit1es
bull middot1-icl1nical assis11nce
Expenditure on these 1ctiv1tic~ is shovn in middot1middot1blL lt3
418 11blc 43 shovs the v1rying ex1cnt 10 vhich the clitlerenl locil l)cvelop111ent
lxgtdics trt involved in non-gr1n1 ou1pu1s_ Thlt CEB ind LEl)EH groups focus on
gr1nt is grtmiddotarcr th1n Panncrships vho focus on non-gr1nt activi1ies imiddothis is
cons1s1ltnt with tlic list of 1ctiv1ties 111 Tible 34
- 71Jt 111tmeratfJr is l1n11t~ paid 111 the cale11dt1r HCff 01u the de11011111uur1r 1~middot the lllfJloy111e11t ~ai11 Cllthic~( (1er IIitbull yor i11 the jln11middot 11111J rcce11ed jiTu111c1td uufuitl Jimiddotom (Lfgtsmiddot 11 1Jf1bull rbut
empluymc111flt_-e1middot1111h1middots1middotjir11r_ are 1g11ored
31
()fJert-111u1uil Fj)lcicJJ(l --middotmiddot-middotmiddot---------- shy
Table 43 Expenditure on non-grant outputs 1996 - 1997
1996 1997 1996 1997 poundm poundm of total of total
expenditure expenditure
CEBs 39 54 18 24 Pyentnershipsbull 51 136 56 72 LEADER groups 21 34 40 30
folal 11 1 224 31 42
Not~ a 7he figures oxclude Community Groups and selected National Organisations b Excludes selected sectoral groups
Sotrce Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller iJnd Auditor General see Appendix A
Duadweight and Displacement
419 l)ct(lveight refers to situation Vhcre 1 pro1nocer vould undertake 1he
buiness projtmiddotct in 111y evcn1 i_e_ Vitliotll 1 gr1nc or 1sistince fron1 ~1 Iocil
l)e-elorn1en1 body middot1l1e granting of funltls 10 dealthveiglH projects is an ineffic1tgtnt
and ineflec1ivt alloc11ion of resources Disrlacen1tmiddotn1 refers ro situations vhere 1he
golt1cL or ~ervicvs iOlcl by 1 grlttlllltISiiSled rroll10ler divert sales opporlunitiis fro111
other exisling busincssl-gt E111plor111ent c1n hl sin1iL1rlv divlrtecl In chese cases rhe
in1pac1 of thl funds allocHed is achieved at the exptmiddotnsc of other enterprises
420 Tltere is risk of deidweight and c1splacemcnt in Iii gr1nr ictlmiddotUv including
th11 It lltgtcal clevelopn1en1 level A nccnc study stated th~1t 1 ~
ie bate tao concerns uifb the s11ppo11s Or n1icro e111e1JJrse Jbe Jruhlen1 uf
clacue1ibt a11cl clisplaccbull111e11t is e11clc111ic in such Slf)jJ01ts eJHCial~v 1ohlre
sc1cral agencie ure to su1ne clerrecbull inuolultcl in tlishursing such suJfgtorts
The Operational llogrammls for 11--DEH 111d 011lJHD llotlt su1e thll dc1clwe1ght
1ncl clisplact1nent are to Ixmiddot 1voiclld
421 All cn1crprise project Lill into one of 1he folloving fo111 clllgorics
Deadweighl Yes Deadweight No
Displacement No Displacement No
Deadweighl Yes Deadweight No
DisplacementbullYes Displacement Yes
Vlt1tio11al 11ici11nbull11i P11onlies for the xbullnfJd 1000-JrxJG Fitzgltbullrald cmiddott al Fn11omic ond )o(middotial Reearch 1i111u1rmiddot -Hor(h 19Y)
ocu )etelo111u11 t 11 it it1 I ives
Of 1he four possible scenarios onlv one (wi1h no displaccmeni incl no cleaclweigh1)
yields potcn1iil net increises in outpu1 incon1e en1ploy111cnr and consu1nption 1hat
could Ix 111nbu1ible 10 l[ADEH or 011Ul(l) supporl From vil11e for lllClllC)
perspective ii is in1ponant tha1 1hcrc be good infonnation on the extent of
cle1clwe1gl11 and dispLicemem and dfcc1ive prcxeclures 10 deal wi1h 1hem
Deadweight
422 11 is cl1fficuli 10 111eas11re the ex1ent of clcaclweigh1 and no method c1n Ix
rcmicro1rded is provicling tn1~illy rcliallle es1in1~1les [)eichveight Vts exa111ined in the
111idmiddotltnn reviev of OJgtLUHIJ in rcspcct uf fin~1nci1l ~1ssistu1ct givtn 10 s1nall finns
by CEl3s Fron1 a s11nple of finns ~untycd over 40dego of thC pron101ltrs indic1ted thll
they would hivc es11blished the businesses w11hou1 CUl suppo11 A s111cly of micro
enterprises 1h1t fl~Ceivtcl grants under Local )evelop1nent initiitivcs 1nd other
progr11n1111s rcpo11ed deichveight of 45Yi
423 E111erpnse Tricle and F111ploy111en1 has irgued 1h11 1hese estim11cs of
ceJdeiglu are roo high ccorcling tu thl l)erart111e11t the viCS of proinoter~ irt
nor 1 reli1ble guide to cil11er lheir behiviuur or heir SllCLt-S lhe l)cp1nn1ltnt ~1-serts
1hll di CEBs seek 10 ivoicl cleiclwcigh1 However i1 J11s been no1ccl 1h11
rcsrondentsmiddot confidence rcgtrding their abil11y to sta11 i busines in the 1bsence of
i grant c111 he considered 1s 1n underesli111~1le
424 A siucly f 1hc Arca Allowincc Fn1erprise Scheme (AAES) which is
adniinisterecl by P1rrnerships suneyecl a sa111ple of pa111cip1nr- 1 11 Vts concludedbull
thit cleachveigl11 Vas in 1he range 40-50o_ Even alkJving for s1111pling risks the
thnt surbulley-gt t1ke11 1oge1her suggest thlt there is 1 consiclerihlt incidence of
cittciVCight
425 An cximrle of poten1iil cleiclweiglll involving IEADER funding is se1 ou1 in
Cise Study 5
11of11at1011 (~ 1liClO 111tt1pn4 S11pxn3 lcrni 1ltllicn10 d local fgtcbull1ymiddotfop1111bull11t Agc11c1e 11d11try 11a11atirJ11 11111 1111~11-t 1999- lluro (llfe1p11lt- that rcCcbulluetl prro11s fr(J11 1111e17nisc flflt11u_ (danis 1u1 Crrlllachf( t111d Sht11111rJ1t )c1elop111e1111tmiddotc1v111c1uld i111lw arl(hiiS
Set fj lJiAJhk 111iutitlt hmiddot1a11af11J1 r11ul llttmiddot(middotr1111111middot11rlatiu11 lcmiddotontcmiddotv CI ul 1)95
Stjl111plortd a11d tlw 011g (bulln11 l11e111plr~rrmiddotd A11 1al11alio11 (J 11w tlnf1 t1101ra11cc f11terprit Xhe11tc IFNC Co11s1il1a111s J-)7
-1)1 cr11bullrde1middot 1ba11hc prop()r1p11middotuncncl 11IFJ _-lated b(l biy 11011d hatcmiddot 1atmiddotc11 up c111plrJy1111J1rJbull1jshy1middot111101111i1 ~ 111J (J nmiddotfia1c n1lt1ict1orji1r thost 1141u M1ild (UT nLltrfllll dn11( 11 t1) ht1 01)11cd that IJc lllU(rillllf (CtlN n1t1middotJrom l(lllJtiy1111Jl ~r I 1r11gmiddotttrlll llt1fJIO)td 24Ci Ill tbc iRC middot111(~1) 11Yfdd he c1 lgttbulluer t-li11(lft ofdct1tl11eipIJ1 fur AAlS paiticipd11t tha11 the tfiJJlltlllgt q11ofcfl i 1 1ha1 suufbull_ Nou~middotzybullr_ lh1bull s11u~v J(jiJfld (fl that lbulle cht1roocns1il~ vf Amiddot115 KJrticipa11t (tmiddotducatio11 and dt1r(lI011 of 1111c111p()y111cmiddot11t) were lkl(rmiddotmiddot tba11 for thl frn~~-1en11 111u111ploycd uho dul 11ol fx1rtic1xflcgt II Atf)
y
Of)(rotional IJfcicbullnc-)-
ase Study 5
Potential deadweight situation
lr1 1999 a business person 1n a large provincial town decided to provide a bed and bmiddoteakfast establishment in a spacious house that she owned in the centre of the town She decided to focus on the upper end I business market and provide four en-suite rcbulloms She received assurances from several local businesses that they would be willing to refer clients to her Two local hotels also indicated that they would refer cverflow customers
Tie total investment required to refurbish the property fit out and supply furniture crockery and bed linen was esl1maled al pound88000 Loan approval was obtained from the bmk for renovations and the promoter applied to the local LEADER group for a grant
T 1e LEADER group estimated that pound44000 of the proposed expenditure would be
eligible for grant assistance and a grant of pound13000 was approved for the venture
T 1e pro1ect report prepared for the LEADER Board meeting did not include consideration of the possibility lhat the pro1ect might proceed without a grant In that regard the following faclors would have been relevant
bull the premises was located 1n the centre of a busy growing town bull the premises was owned by the promoter bull the owner was self-employed and operated a consultancy service from home bull based on 35 occupancy net cash now in lhe first year was forecast at pound8000 bull if no grant had been paid and the funds had been borrowed instead the estimated
surplus for the year would have been reduced by an increased interest charge of up to pound1300 which would not have substantially changed the potential Viability of
the business venture
426 Posible Vtys of 111i11i1111sing dlHhveigh1 in assisted projects include
bull Targeting financial abullsistancc on projects where the costs of entry to the business arc high relative to the resources available to the promoter So111e pro111nltIS have ve111 li1ni1cd financial resources for fxa111ple 1he vast
n1Jjori1r of Ptrtntrship l lien1s ~ire long-tenn unc1nploycd It is Vorth noting
thtt evtn Vhlt 1dequa1e privite resoune- are lmiddotaiL1hle it 1nty bt difficult
for so1ne Jlt)cal f)evelop1nent bodit~ given their job creation target~ 10 1urn
clumiddotll involve1nent in othlmiddotrvisl sound projects Indeed 1he viev Vts
tprcssed hy 0111e of thosL in1ervitmiddotvecl in the courst of the study 1h~ll fi11111cial
Sllppo11 for CJigihJt projects is often vieVCd hy prOtllltllers ~IS an cntiJe1ll(fl( and
this can 111akl it difficult for Loctl l)tvLlopn1en( ])(xlies to nfusc financial
1ssist1nce (() deathve1gh1 rru1ect
37
(JC( )Ct(()JHUJl 11itiati1es
bull Providing financial assistance by means of repayable grants loans or equity mthcr than non-repayable cash grants middotrhis should discourige reli1ncc on public funds by those entrepreneurs vho
do not need ii Vhiltgt ensuring that entrepnmiddotnctllS vho do need public finance
can alail of it Tltlte m1cl-tcrm evtluil1on of 011UIU) recommenclecl the
incre1sed llSC of loans and l(jUity rlttther thtfl grtf)i reron 1ly tile lndUSll)
Evtlua1ion Uni ncon11ncndccl thll all financial 1ssi-11nce provided uncler 1he
1egis of lEADEH ancl CEils should require 1 fm1neid return From earlv 1998
CfB- ind Pa11nerships hive been tmiddotn1pOVlrld by 1hc EU Con1rnis inn to issisl
projects hy 111c1ns of equity ind rcfuncLtblc 1icl In 199~ tlrnost ~05111 of CEB
assist1ncc (4oo) v1s provided in 1hc fonn of equity 111d refundthle ~1id
Entcrprisc middotrrack ind E1nploy111en1 intend 1h11 refundable forins of 1ssis1ance
Vil] he deployed incrc1nentdly 111 future Al)11 hJs tgllld vi1h P1r1ncrships
tllt clien1- should Vhtre prtctic~ilgtle nceiVl nmiddotfundable 1itl r11hcr th~111 grints
In 1ccurcl111ce wt1h EU regul1llons lEADEH groups ire precluded from
providing lotns or equity to enterprises
427 recent study reported thi1~
le ackn()toleclgc that n1icru e11te17Jrises 111a_v face capital constraints especialfr in the stcut uJdegfJhase but strongf)i s11_rges11hat the n1us1 ejecliue
uov Ju lf(lltress his fJOssible middotn1arkct _(ailunmiddot is Jbrough rJals an( eq1tif)
rather tba11 microran aicl 1Jt~~- uo11c 111inin1ise tbe r1~k ojmiddot creating a cleJenclcnl~) c11111 remiddot
428 It is clear [hll here is cope for n1uch greater use of rep1y~il)[c grin[S loans
ind equi1y 10 111inin1isl dtachveiglil incI such ustmiddot has 1hc 1ddccl 1dv1nt1ge 1h11
1ssistince c1n he providlcl n1ore econon1ic1lly 1 funds c1n bl recycled to 1ssis1
n1ore thtn one project Huvcvcr so111c incre~1se in ~1dn1ini-gttr11ion cos1s could be
expcc1ecl
429 An extre1ne fonn of ckichveiglH irises Vhtn public fin1nciil support is
supplied 10 1 project vhirh as cst1hlishecl and is oreruing in [he Jbsencc nf this
suppon CtSl Siucly 6 involving 1hc ArlJ Allovtnce Enterprise Schlllle illus1r1tes thi
11a11aH11t of 11ficro 111(tpn-lt SupjXJl1 Ao-o a11011til a11d lcx(I Jrbull1tmiddotlup111c1u 11~cmiddot11C11gtmiddot iu1111y tia11r1i(Jll 11it A11~1til CJlt-lt)
rJ1irJ1Ui lnnmiddott111cbull11f Jn-ru1fi(middoti f(lr tbe wnod 20(J-2(XX) Faz Ccrllfd lf t1I c()10111ic (JUI S(Jcial Nc_1middott1rr_h 11_f1ltrlt I-Ion)) JJlt-J
Sltmiddotj~F1111lo1ld o 1u he lh11g-T1middotr111 Ui1tmiddot111plo1middotetl- 1111 10i1atio11 of lbltmiddot Artbulla Alllt1flft 110middot 11tlJHi1e ScJ1111cbull 1HC Co1111raJ11middot 19lt)7
middotmiddot
38
Ojgteraliollal JJicie11lt_~1middot
ase Study 6
Funding the startup of an existing business
A fisherman was 1n receipt of Unemployment Assistance (UA) from the Department of
SJcial Community and Family Affairs (DSCFA) from 1979 to 1999 In September 1998 hi applied for support under the Area Allowance Enterpnse Scheme (AAES)
Uoder the terms of the scheme an applicant must be unemployed for at least a year
and this eligibility must be confirmed in writing on the application form by DSCFA The Praquortnership can subsequently approve the application and may provide minor financial support 1n addition to the main financial benefits provided by DSCFA 1e the receipt of full unemployment payments for a year and on a reducing scale for a further three years plus retention of secondary benefits
Abullcording to the application form the applicant had received a bank loan of pound18000 for the purchase of a boat with repayments commencing on 30 August 1998 In addition hf was the owner of fishing nets to a value of pound6000
Tt1e application form was certified by DSCFA 1n January 1999 to the effect that the applicant was eligible for AAES The certification did not explain
bull how the applicant managed to purchase a boat while on UA bull how he persuaded the bank to provide a loan or pound18000 bull how he was financing the business from August 1998 to January 1999 in particular
the boat repayments and insurance amounting to pound565 per month
Tt1e report prepared for the Partnership Board meeting stated that the applicant had with the knowledge of DSCFA been engaged 1n the fishing industry for the previous ten years on a part-time basis The Board approved the application
mcFA has made the following observations on this case
bull Following an investigation in 1988 the UA payment was terminated but reinstated under appeal with an assessment of net income at pound1250 from fishing per year The case was reviewed 1n 1993 and the net income per year was increased to pound1400 A further review was conducted in September 1998 (the month atter the boat was purchased) and the assessment of net income did not increase
bull It is very difficult to establish an accurate income for such fishermen as fish can be sold to tourists and restaurants for cash
bull The Department did not consider 1t necessary to check with the bank as to what if any security was provided for the loan
bull While failures occur in the scheme they do not cost the Department any more than if the client continued on UA
A[1M has pointed out that fishing comprises a very small proportion of AAES pa1ic1pants supported by Partnerships A recent review of Partnership business su1iports reported that fishing and Bed and Breakfast businesses do not provide a viable full-time 1ob and Area Allowance 1s not an appropriate support payment It also recommended that clearer guidelines should be issued regarding eligib1l1ty
Soure Partnership Business Supports and the Area Allowance Scheme Insights No 8 ADM 1999
J9
locaf f)ltueloJn1e11t fl1itiati1es
Case Study 7
Potential displacement situation
A business proposal was made to a CEB 1n 1998 The promoler wished to provide a food delivery service to factories on industrial estates ie sandwiches baps snacks elc The promoter recognised that there were several competitors Unlike the
competitors he proposed to provide the service via three refrigerated vending machines lhat would be reslocked regularly He applied for and was approved a capital grant of pound5500 by the CEB in December 1998
The project report prepared for lhe Board meeting dealt with the possibility of displacement by noling that lhe promoters service would be provided in a manner different from his compet11ors However the question arises if the project is successful how will its sales be achieved unless by the diversion of the expenditure of faclory employees from one service provider to another
Displacement
430 middotrhc only antlysis of clispL1ce1ncnt vas in respccl uf 11lS 1nd this shl)Vcd a
wide rmge of estimils Using a methodology devised bv Breen and Halpin the
consul11nts esti1111recl that 64oo of the business carried out by 1ES panicipants Vas
diver1cd fron1 other Irish fin11s and Iiiat ~i l1X1 of en1plny1llLl1I created in
thescentcrpriscs v1s at the expense of other enterprises middot1l1e consultants felt thtt the
Breen 111cl 1-ldpin methodology had limitations ancl tlut their estinutes of
clisplicc1nent Vere too high lJsing different 1ssu1nptions incl 1 different
mthodology they estim11ecl that 19 of employment created in AAES enterprises
Vts displacLcl fro1n other cn1erpriscs
431 Possible vays of n1ini111ising clispl1cen1ent include
bull CounsLlting pro1notcrs tovncb exports or cloincstic sectors supplied prltdom1n1111lv l)y import
bull ithholding 1ssis1ance fron1 projec1s in1encling 10 supply goods and stgtrviccs to the clon1es1ic 1111rke1 vhich are alrc1cly supplied by other busineSSlS
bull Providing financial tssisttnce by n1eans of rep1yibllt grants lo1ns ind cqui1y rathtr rhin non-repayable ct~h gr1nts
432 All LEADEH groups Partnerships and CEils are insrruned not to suppon
projects Vhich voulcl displace business fro1n other enterprises
433 CEl3s were advised early in 1999 10 focus heir efforts on thlt development of
n1anuf1cturing incl in1ern1tional services projects vhich viii have the pltgttential 10
clevclop in10 export-oriented finns hile not neglecting other eligible rrojects
(vi1ble non-clcaclveight non-displacc1nen1) outside these sec1ors Jgtirtnersl1ips have
40
()JCltflional Jffrienc)
agmiddoteed tht financid support should not be supplied to businsses 111 plentiful
supply such as hackneys couriers builcling contr1cpoundors Ix-cl and hre1kLi~t
operators vm sales and hairdrclaquors LEADER groups are advised to d11ect the11
Stlj)p(H1S tOvards innltgtva1ive pnijeLt~
4i4 There arc d1ffcrcmiddotnt views among Local Development bodies regarding what is
inmiddotoived in rtcognising diplacetntnt middotrhus -cHne Lltic~11 J)evelopn1en1 bodi1s
co1sider thtl if lhe existing co111peeitors to a project are located outside their county
or evtn their loc~1lity 1hen clisplacen1cn1 is not 1n issue
4s The 1111cl-1cnn reviews of LEADEH and OPLUHD made linlc reference to
displlcemcnt Howevmiddotcr the LEADEH mid-term review contended that displJcemcnt
vculd he 111ini111ised if LEAl)ER groups focused their f1nincial 1ssistance on
111rovative proiects Agnrnlture and Food intend that the final evalu111on of LEADEH
11 Viii includ ltSli111a1ion of tltmiddotachveigh1 and clispl1cen1ent effect
Be11e_ficit1 Dis1U1ce111e11t
436 II rhere are ~1ny circu111st~1nces in vhich ltlispl1ce111ent can be ignored thev
shltnild be identified For exunple it 111ay be possible to sustain the c~1se on sociJI
jus1 ice or equity grounds rhu specific groups such JS 1he lung-1ern1 t1nt111ployed
shcbullttld receivlt posi1ivlt cliscri111in~n1on elifJI at the cxfxnse ojotherjoh see~ctYi tOi1
111 lrgucd 1h1t onlt of the obwctives of Partnerships is to 1mprovmiddot( the potcnlld of
the long-tcnn unc111ployccl ind 1he socially ltXcludccl 10 gain cn1ploy111ltnl in lhlt
eccbullno1ny generally ind specifically 1n poundheir Ovn areas_ middotrhc inslrtion of particular
dis1dvant3ged groups into e111ploy1ncnt or a husine~s viii often have thL effec1 of
dis)Jcing a non-clis~1dvantaged person fron1 that 1oh oppo11unity Hcnvcver the
social giin makes the displJce111ent worthwhile
437 Given that CEBs cover the emire populallon incl that Partnlrships and
LEd)EH groups cover 540o and 6Joo respectively the exacpound circun1s11ncltS Vhen
clisplacemem 111ight be permincd for any Local Devdopmelll body should be
cluificd by the relevant Dep1rtmenis
(rnui11g (lUJ Sharing ()I r F111plr1y111e11t S1raUt_r (JfX 011 the lt1bltgt11r _bulllfariltf tgtlt1uu11cmiddotn1 of1111erpnmiddotc_ 7huC and 1111Joy111e11r Jn 19ltXgt
41
5 Assessment of Impact
51 Xhik the 1nc1sun111cnt of the 1chieven1ent of cconon1y 1nd efficiency is
ilnportan1 in the n1an1ge1nenl of the initiatives establishing their in1pact is of even
grci1er 11npnrtance J111pic1 assessn1enl is concerntd Vilh est1blishing the e-1cn1 10
which the local devdoprnent oJ1cc1Jns ire achievecl 1110 the wider contribution of
the initiatives 10 local cconon1ic and socitl developn1ent 11 is desirable thtt
appropri1te sys1tn1s to evaulle 1he 1chicve111ents of the iniliHives in n lttion co their
desired 11np1cts should IJt in place
52 Ille cllvcloprnent nf syste1ns to detennine 1he i1np1ct of the initiitivcs is not
easy middotrhlt clivlr~i1y of Jnc~il dcvelupn1ent objecrive~ n1e1ns thit it is unlikely thH 1ny
one 1ssessn1cn1 niethocl Otild he sufficient So1ne in1p1cts like cn1ploy1nent
crltJtiun can lx quintified Jnd 1chieven1ent can be n1unitorecl chrough che 111alysis
of nJev1n1 perfonnanct indic11ors_ Othcrs like rlttising the level of econo111ic activity
ctn be 1ssessecl 1hrough 1he usc of ccono111ic 1noclels using surroga1e 111e1sures of
irnpacl 1VL1ny of the socitl objeclives of 1he inili11ive are not susceptible to
n1e1sure1ne111 at di incl till i1111xu1 achieved Jre best detenninccl through surveys
of chtngts in local condilions a1 inclividu1I and con1nnir1i1y levels
S3 lhi ch1p1er consiclt~rs 1ppro1chcs co che 1sscss111en1 of i1npact under the
folJoving J1e1dings
Issues Subject
Quantitative assessments Baseline analysis bull bull Use of macroeconomic data
Qualitative assessments Assessing social impacts bull Case studies and international studies bull
Quantitative Assessments
54 lnfonnition on job creacion and the progression of long-tenn une1nployecl
persons 10 fuJI lirlle VOrk 1re rerorted for i[J these ypes Of 1gtltKJies (see middotr1ble 41
ind Append A) Vhile the figures tint hive been reported to end-1998 under
011URI) 1re well 1he1d of the tirgcts thit were set it is difficult to interpret these
resuhs in hrn1s of i111picl in lhe ibsence of bascline cl1t1
Baseline Analysis
55 B1selinc analysis would estiblish the performance of a representative group
of enterprises con1n1uni1y groups incl individu~1ls 1hat did not receive 1ssis11nce
under 1hc initiatives middotrhe rcrfonnancc of 1ssis1ecl entities incl individuils al counry
42
Assess1ne111 lt~ 111JOCI
or r111ional levtgtI could then he co1nparcd Vilh the 1xmiddotrfonnancl of middotn1ttchedmiddot nonshy
tssi ~1ed cnlitiii selected fro1n the repre~entltil group Si1nil1rly tile pcrlltlrn11ncl
of en1i1ies recltiving ditlenmiddotnt kinJ of ~1ssistance could also he antlysed to cletenninc
rel1 live ilnpac1
56 Baseline analysi~ can he pcrfonnld using 1nicroecono111ic d111 (da1a 1bou1
spcltific enterprises) or n1acrotcnnon1ic clat1 (1ggrLg11t~d dat1)_ middotrhc cl1t1 collection
proicduns -11 loc1l level hJve not heimiddotn 1dequatt to suppo11 this kind of ltinalysis
using 1nicrocconon1ic data 1ccordingly analysis against a baseline of non-1ssis1cd
cnlt-rprises co111n1unity groups ind individu1J- cHHlO( hl carried out
I Case Study on Unemployment using Macroeconomic Data
i 5 7 stuclv of the irnpact uf 011l RD on unemplovment ing census clata
(111a- rltgttgtcono111ic data) has hlttll c1rrild out under tile ~1egis of the ()PlUH)
P1oriloring ConHniuec So1nc rcsuhs of the study 1re su11H11arised in Cae Study H
58 middotrtiis finding fro111 ltase S1udy 8 dltgtcs nor nectgtssarily 111ean 11111 P~trtnerships trl
les effective in assisting une111ployed peorle 10 find vork 1s unc111ploycd ptorlt~
in P~ntncrship 1rc1s 111ay he 111on di_-adv~1nt1ged and find ii lllOll dillicull to 1ccess
e111(oy1ncn1 In addition 1he ralt of entry to une1nploy111lnt in Partnership 1reas
1nay he different frorn non-Jgt1r1nershir 1n~~1s 11lt)vevcr the data is inconclusive
I ~1hont tile level of ttlcclivcness of P~111nlr~liips in addressing Ltr1e111rloyn1cnL middotrhe
case s1udy highlights the co111plexity of in1pac1 analysis but also illustrates ils
i irnpbullgtrltnce in le~1cling lo a grlmiddotHer uncllrst1nd1ng of the resulls of progr~11n11H
aCllily More complex ltbta rnodels of the labour nurket at local level woulcl be
nccclecl for a svs1e111~11ic revicv of 1hc elTcctivenesi of Pannerships in tickling longshy
I 1ern~ llllt~n1plon1ent
59 It is of inlertst 10 e-an1inc the trends in the duration of uncn1ployn1ent in
I recent years imiddot~1hle 51 ihOVS thc nun1hers une111plnyecl ylmiddot1r on yctr in ont year
banltls up to 1l1nc years fron1 1994-1999 and the 11ne1nplcgtyn1ent retentugtn r1tcsmiddot
fro1r vtmiddotar to year i_e_ lhe proportion of those 11ne111ployed ho nLmiddot still unen1ploytCI I
one year li1er
I510 middotr1hle 51 shov- 1h1t signific1nt i111provlrnlnts in une111ploy111cnt rerintion
ralc~ htVl occurrLd in recent yetrs particularly for long-ten11 UllLlllploy1nen1 Strong
ecoron1ic grovth in 1lie period covered vould li1ve beltIl of prinH in1ponance in
1he reduction 111 long-1tmiddotrn1 l1ne111ploy111ent ihiJc the long-lerrn une1nployed ire thl
1111in rarge1 group for Partnerships thlse areas are not sep1raccly distinguished 1n
lhe analysis OutlOVS ro schen1es such 1s Co111111u11ity Fn1ployn1cnt could also he I
llllf)()flilll
43
olta JeueloJn1e111 11itioti1cs
Case study 8
Analysis of the impact of OPLURD on long-term unemployment using macrodata
A key part of the analysis was a comparison between the change in unemployment in Partnership areas from 1991-1996 with the corresponding change in non-Partnership
areas The comparison was based on the Census of Population for 1991and1996 The logic behind the comparison was that disadvantaged areas are at risk of falling behind
the general level of economic development unless there is a targeted intervention to ensure that the rising tide of economic growth flows into those areas Thus if the
decline m unemployment in Partnership areas is similar to that in Ireland as a whole
then at least the gap between affluent and poor areas has not widened and Partnerships may have contributed to some extent to this outcome
The consultants measured changes 1n the unemployment rate in two ways (i) by the percentage point (or absolute) change (ii) by the proportionate (or relative to 1991) change
They used a simple example to illustrate the difference between the two measures Assume that Area A has 90 unemployment rate and Area B has 20 unemployment
rate If the unemployment rate declines by 10 percentage points in both areas (the
same absolute change in the rate) the relative rate is quite different since Area A has declined by only 11 (relative to its starting rate) whereas Area B has deemed by 50
(relative to 1s starting rate) Both rates should be used together
The key data was summarised as follows
Unemployment rate
Area 1991 1996 Absolute Percent Percent Change initial rate Points Change Relative to Initial
Ireland 169 14 8 -21dego
Ratebull
-126
Partne1ship areas 256 230 -26 -100 (PESP only)
Non-Partnership 139 119 -20 -141 areas
Note 8 Change in unerriployment rate divided by the initial unemployment rate
The consultants commented that the unemployment rate in PESP Partnership areas
fell by a slightly greater absolute amount than either Ireland or non-Partnership areas but in relative terms they did worse - essentially because they had higher unemployment rates to begin with in 1991
Sourco A Report on the Impact of the Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development on Long- Term Unemployment Goodbody Economic Consultants et el October 1999
44
Assessnu11t q J11pact
Table 51 Duration of unemployment and retention rates 1994-1999
Ye
19 19 19 19 19 19
ar
94 95 96 97 98 99
Less than one year Number
151032 144283 146776 132398 130780 110446
--shy1-2 years 2-3 years 3+ years
Number Retention Number Retention
rate rate
Number
43697 39748 263 40875 283 38361 261 31719 240 28 194 216
27489 64154 26293 602 67955 25852 650 69667 24227 593 61870 18914 493 54448 14496 457 44940
NotB Retenrion rates are calculated as follows_ All of those who wero unemployed for 1-2 years in 1995 (39 748) wcro unernployed for less than one year in 1994 (151032) thus the unemployment retention rate is 263 (39 748+151032) CSO Live Register data
i Case Study on Business Formation using Macroeconomic Data
I 511 tucly of s11111l business forn1ation over ti111e 111ight be usecl to consider issues
middot such as lhe i111pact of lhl initi~Himiddotes on thtbull rice of n1anufacturing st1nups his i~
considered in Case Srudy 9
51~ C~rtater underst1nding is requirtcl of the n1ix of variables vhich n1ay be
responihle for the trends appann( in the data In a situ11ion vhere an unexpected 1 result is obt1inLmiddotd fron1 tile analysi~ C1s in Case Study 9) 11 Otild lgtt necessary to
refirc the analysit using 1111croecono111ic dala un1il the reasons for the trends
observed 1re clarified and the dilTcren1 contribution~ of lhe initiatives to sn1all 1
enterprise fonn~uion ere better understood
513 In order to use 111icrtgteconon1ic cLua 10 assess the in1p1ct of 1ht ini1ia1ivcs on1 n1anufacturing and intern~llional StTviccs it vould be necessJI) to integrate locil
clcvdopment suppo11 dlla from all the mitia11ves -Uh rhe Forfis and Enterprise
middotrr1de and E1nploy1ncn1 Bu~iness InforntHion Sygtt(Jll (BIS) Enterprise lrlttcle incl
Fmrlovment 1ntcncls to proceed with the 1nrcmiddotgra1ion of CEil data with the BIS (See
paragraphgt 2 2i-228) i 514 Enrerprise Tracie ancl Employment h1s commissioned a review 10 take place
in 11middote currenl year on the in1p1ct of CEUs vith particular reference 10 thlt ratlt of 1
bu~i1es~ fonnacion tnd 1he su~tlinability of the johs cre~Htmiddotcl
45
lucal JelJelo111unl l11i1ia11cs
Case Study 9
Use of macroeconomic data on business formation
In 1993 Enterprise Ireland stopped assisting manufacturing and international services firms with less than ten employees This role was transferred to CEBs The trend in the number of Irish-owned startups in manufacturing from 1987 to 1996 has been studied in an effort to detect the impact of economic growth on the rate of startups It might equally be used as a starting point to consider the impact of CEBs in this role
Startups in Irish-owned manufacturing 1987 to 1996bull
600
500
bullOO
300
200
100
0 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Year
The graph shows that the very rapid economic growth from 1993 (which period includes the emergence of the initiatives) did not result in an increased rate of manufacturing startups According to the quoted study The start-up performance 1s surprising The improvement m the economy over the years has not been accompanied by a corresponding growth in the number of manufacturing startupsmiddot
Note a Case study based on ~startups and Closures in Indigenous Manufactunmiddotng an Analysis of the CensCJS of Industrial Production 1986-1995 Irish Banking Review Autumn 1998 Anthony Foley and Teresa Hogan
Source Data Census of lndustna Production CSO
Qualitative Assessments
Assessing Social Impacts
515 Some irnpo11rn1 rnrcro clilt wts cs1rl3lrshecl by ADM reltting 10 middotc1ep1wa1ion
111clic11ors for l1nnership areas Bised on the 1991 Clnsus of Populttion ADM
co1npilecl indic1rors of cleprivuion for all Pannershlp areas domiddotn to l)istrict
Elcctor1l l)ivisiltgtn levc1 l)cprivJriun 1n1p- tre 1lso procluced middotrhe clcprivltlCion
indicators 1nclucled
46
bull educationtl a1tainn1en1
bull ltgtCcu1x11ional profile
bull lltxmiddotil labour n1arket characteris1ics
bull housing
FrOill 1hcse indicators a con1pusite deprivaiion index value Vas con1p11tcd for each
lartnersl11p area for 1991
516 Tlrrs exercr lras rectgtnilv bcrn repeated from tire results of the 1996 Census of lo1n1llli(gtn Fngtnl ~tn in1pac1 assess111en1 ptrspcctivtmiddot relilt1nce ltgtn these indicators
voulcl involve ~0111e li111itllions_ For lt1n1ple chc Census year- do not coincide Vith
Partnership 111ilcstones 111igruion can con1plicatc 1nalysis and [he d111 is not
definitive regltncling c1usality~~
51 ()espile these lin1ilalions analysis of the indicators of dtprivt1ion should
probullicle valuable inforn1ation rcg1rdi11g changes in 1pects of clt~pfiv1tion in different
Partnershq1 anas and should ilso Ltcilitatc con1p1rion ovtr 1i111e Vith nun
la11nersl11p areas lhe ltlmiddotailtbility of this infonnltllion shot1ld ftcilirarc furthCr
ittt111pts to consider the social in1p1c1s of tht~ initlHives
Case Studies and International Studies
5tf Whrle much hrs been wrr11en on tire rctrvrtres of Local Development bodies
chc tlcnt of 111atcrial spccifictlly covering the evtl1111ion of their i1np1c1 is very
li111i1ecl Several Partnerships have c1rried otH case srudil~middotM) to highlight hov issues
wen being trckled by different Partnerships ancl to promote best practice Case studies are undcrv1y tlso in n1lt1ny LLl)FH groups No case studies havtmiddot lgteen u ed
so L1r in tlic cnlcrprisc ind ioh crc1tion ~1rea for CEB ac1ivi1ies
519 A for111J E11ropean s1ucly v1s unck-rtiken of he rnle of p1nnerships in
proriuting sociil cohesion in ten fmiddot1t1nhcr Srarl~ of the EU co111prising ten nniond
rtpcrts (including lrel1ncl) and 1 synli1esis European rt~portjlbull middotrht study and repo11s
j middotltre bt-gtlltl prin1arily on rh1rty ctst tuclic (rhree fro111 etch middotten1ber St~lle) Vhich
looked 11 issues of reprtstnlalion ncgoliHion and alliance lgtuilcling in tile
devElop111ent of strategies and 1c1ion plans ind the vorking 111ethocls skills incl
I reso-_1rces aprlied lgty p~111nershirs
()her 11111101io11s arc rexnccl i11 fJrxr coptmiddot fJrgtCir i~ edttimiddotd l~r I) Pn11gle tf of Ook Tree )rt--
)11J111_ -~)9
_rKmiddottd 1art11c1ih1p~ middotI 5111n--11 511HIL1Y fur Sc)(middotial Cubl~011lt 11 Ccddcbull OJ1tc ( QOua 11h1lta1J11_- fvr w F11n1J1CJ11ltiJ111111111111umiddots1111d -111middotn1wt111 h1111ulrlf1011for1ie lm1ro1(mlW of itll~L tntl lliirk111~ Co11tl11io11s 19ltJ-
47
ocal Jevelop111e11t lnilit1tite_
520 1ihilc the rtpon included n1iny individual references to isol11cd cxirnpks of
1hc 1tll1x1c1 of panncrships Clllpincd rcstarch into 1he effecliveness of 1xnmerships
Vts not Vithin the score of the study middotrhcrc VIS also no 1ue1npt to con1p1re the
perfor1111nce of p1nncrsl1i1)s it nationil l(vel
521 The 1bsencc of specific tllaterial on the cvalL1a1ion of effectiveness of locd
clevelop111en1 bodies is panly clL1e 10 a lick of come~tuil clata 11 local level 10
L1cilita1e in~dysis A pri1n1ry ain1 of the bodies is to L1cilit1te thl locil achievtinent
of resuh~ incl to ltver1gc 1hc 1c1ivitics of local groups Assess1ncnt of effectiveness
of this kind of 1c1ivHy woulcl require that the role played by the lxxlies could he
isollltcl fruin ill oiher contribuiory f1ctors middot1middothis is difficult middotrtiere is 1 cletr need for
more data collernon llld 1hc clcvdop111ent of soual poltl) models which would
f1cili111e bcuer 1ns1gh1 by policy 1111kcrs imo the impact of the arnvities of local
clevdopment boclits
48
Jr
0 Ji~ )~ l ( imiddot
Appendices
~ gt
- _ middot-
---middotmiddot middot--shy ~--y- -~ -middot bull bull - bull __~
middot
middot
_ _~ -- middot ~
Appendix A Annual Cost and Outputs of Individual County Enterprise Boards Partnerships and LEADER Groups 1995-1997
(Jkistd on du1 ~upplicd by Dcp111111ents and ADJ1 Ltd Luc in 1998)
I
Summary of Expenditure on Local Development Programmes (1995-1997) Appendix A
1995 1996
pound000 of total expenditure
pound000 of total expenditure
CEBs
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
Total Expenditure
13485
1421
4895
19801
68dego
7dego
25
100
13503
3879
4284
21666
62
18dego
20
100
LEADER (1)
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
Total Expenditure
23
887
820
1730
2dego 51dego
47dego
100
1529
2350
1684
5563
28
42dego
30dego
100
PartnershipsCommunity Groups
and National Organisations (2)
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
I
-3 025
1532
66
34dego
-5161
5164
-SOoo
50
Total Expenditure 4557 100 10325 100
Aggregate expenditure figures shown in this table have been superseded by more up to date figures shown in Table 21 (1) Local Development groups accounted for 96 of LEADER expenditure in 1995 - 1997 and detailed analysis focused on lhis (2) Partnerships accounted for 84 of total expenditure for 1996 - 1997 and detailed analysis focused on this
1997
pound000
12884
5414
4437
22735
6226
3536
2015
11778
15579
7398
22977
0o of total expenditure
57dego 24dego
19dego
100
53
30
17dego
100
-68oo 32
100
County Enterprise Boards Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1995 Appendix A11
County Enterprise Board Administration
Expenditure pound000
Total Expenditure
pound000 Administration as 0o of
Total Expenditure
Grant Aid as 0o of
Total Expenditure
Non~rant Outputs as
of Total Expenditure
Tipperary South Riding 150 274 55dego 381 7oo
Corllt North 142 315 45dego 55dego Ooo Monaghan 143 375 38oo 621 QOo
Tipperary North County 122 353 35 57dego 8dego Meath 128 373 34oo 59oo 7dego
Louth 135 410 33dego 56dego 11 Ofo
Kildare 157 476 33 48 19dego Kerry 228 747 J 1Ofo 62 7 Limerick City 162 561 29dego 64oo 71
West Cork 142 498 29dego 65dego 6dego
Limerick County 209 714 29dego 63 Soo Westmeath 103 358 29dego 71dego Ooo Longford 95 335 28dego 68dego 4oo
Clare 169 635 27dego 68dego Soo Waterford County 106 396 27oo 73dego Ooo Cork City 150 543 27oo 671 6 Doneaal 124 460 27dego 68dego 5dego Fingal (Oubhn) 152 598 26dego 63dego 11
Mayo 155 651 24 72oo 4dego Waterford City 134 559 24dego 63 13dego Wicklow 127 558 23oo 70 7dego Ca now 149 654 23dego 72 5 South Corllt 187 844 22dego 71dego 7 Leitrim 147 671 22dego 67 11dego Cavan 122 564 22dego 65dego 3dego Laois 121 595 21dego 73 6dego South Dublin 143 670 21 70deg4 9dego Offaly 126 600 21deg4 63dego 16dego Dublin City 111 551 20deg4 67oo 13 Sligo 147 728 20deg4 73dego 7 Roscommon 111 597 19deg4 77 4dego Wexford 144 777 19dego 75deg4 6oo Kilkenny 1()0 637 16oo 84dego OOo
Galway County and City 140 950 15 83 2 Oun Laoghaire - Rathdown 82 743 110o 78oo 11 Oo
Miscellaneous (1) 30 30 Ooo QOo OOo
Total 4895 19801 25 68 7
(1) Refers to set up costs incurred on behatf of au Boards
County Enterprise Boards - Administration Costs as a Percmiddotentage of Total Expendifure --f996 Appendix A12
I _ - vuony c11u1tUllgttl ouaru
I Administration
I Total Expenditure Administration as 0o of Grant Aid as 0o of Non-grant Outputs as
Expenditure pound000 pound000 Total Expenditure Total Expenditure 0 0 of Total Expenditure
Cork North 119 417 29~o 63degshy 8degc -middot
113 28dego 56dego 16degoTipperarv North _counlv 404 -shy -Sliqo 118 457 26dego 50dego 24dego--Mealh 136 532 25~~ 53dego 22dego Laois 151 612 25dego I 59eo 16dego
Westmeath 120 500 24dego 55oo 21dego
Cork City 124 533 23dego 55dego 22oo Roscomn1on 120 536 22dego 61dego 17dego
Louth 133 620 21 Oo 57dego 22dego-Cavan 128 599 21dego 67degc 12dego
Clare 123 581 21Co 61dego 18dego
South Dublin 147 705 21 oo 56 23dego
Dublin City 139 668 21dego 49dego 30deg~
Kildare 128 625 20degh 41 lo 39o-shyTipperary South Riding 108 530 201 68dego 12oo
-Mavo 159 784 20dego 70oo 10dego
Carlow 117 582 20dego 67dego 13oo
West Cork 127 633 20dego 59dego 21
Longford 114 579 20dego 71dego 9dego -
Kerry 114 584 20oo 68deg~ 12oA
South Cork 125 645 19dego 58dego 23dego Limerick Cily 132 683 19oo 64oo 17dego
-Galway 122 631 190~ 69~o 12dego-Kilkenny 120 636 19dego 67dego 14dego
Offaly 117 628 19dego 62dego 19dego
Waterford County 105 563 19 66dego 15dego
Leitrim 121 665 18oo 64 18dego middot-
Oun Laoghairc bull Rathdown 116 648 18dego 57dego 25dego-
Fingal (Dublin) 117 656 18dego 56degc 26deg~ -Wexford 117 708 17oo 68dego 15dego
Wicklow 122 739 16 71 13dego
Donegal 119 757 16dego 65dego 19dego
Limerick County 120 810 15degc 68dego 17dego
Waterford City 118 800 15dego 75dego 10dego--Monaghan 75 616 12 74dego 14degc
Total 4284 21666 2011o 62dego I 18dego I
County Enterprise Boards Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A13
County Enterprise Board Administration Total Expenditure Administration as 0A of Grant Aid as 0o of Non-grant Outputs as
Expenditure pound000 pound000 Total Expenditure Total Expenditure deglo of Total Expenditure
Cork North 106 344 31dego 50dego 19dego
Clare 172 631 27dego 46dego 27oo---shyTieperary North County 116 448 26dego 38 36dego Waterford County 126 505 25dego 54dego 21dego Longford 121 498 24dego 60oo 16dego Wexford 156 647 24dego 56oo 20dego Wicklow 184 796 23dego 57dego 20dego Limerick Cilv 141 619 23oo 51dego 26dego
Mealh 170 751 22oo 52dego 26dego Offaly 113 505 22dego 53dego 25dego Kilkenny 121 545 22dego 48dego 30oo Donegal 94 428 22dego 42dego 35co
Leilrim 139 640 22dego 54dego 24dego------shy -Monaghan 118 556 21dego 57oo 22dego
Waterford City 164 788 21dego 60dego 19dego
Limenck County 147 708 21degk 53dego 26deg1 Louth 161 787 20dego 50dego 30dego
Mayo 122 602 20oo 53dego 27dego
Sligo 99 496 20dego 51 Ofo 29dego Tipperary South R1d1ng 120 619 19eo 60dego 21dego
Carlow 113 593 19dego 65dego 16dego Cork City 127 672 19dego 59 22dego
Weslm~ath 119 637 19dego 60dego 21dego South Cork 131 704 19dego 58dego 23dego
Laois 113 615 18dego 55dego 27 --Kildare 136 761 18 56dego 26dego Cavan 127 740 17dego 63dego 20 West Cork 87 513 17dego 57dego 26dego South Dublin 165 981 17dego 64dego 19dego Dun Laoghaire middot Rathdown 102 621 17dego 48dego 35dego Kerry 94 580 16dego 66 18dego
Roscommon 75 474 16dego 61 23dego Galway 110 835 13 64 23oo Fingal (Dublin) 117 902 13dego 62dego 25dego Dublin City 130 1 195 11 69 20
Total 4436 22735 19dego 57dego 24dego
---
I
LEADER A~minist_ration ~osts -~~ a Percentage of Total Expenditure -_ 1_995 __ Appendix A1 4
I Local Development Group
I
Laois Leader Rural Development Co Lid Cavan-Monaghan Rural Oevelopn1ent Co~rat1ve Soc~ely Ltd
Barrow-Norc-Suir Rural Developmentmiddot 62 81 771 QOo 23dego
Wicklow Rural Partnership Lid bull 26 38 70dego -I QOo 30dego
Westmeath Community Development Ltd
Longford Community Resources Lid -middot
-
8 11
-11 18
70degc
65
bull Oh
QOo
23dego
35dego middotmiddotshy
Mid-South Rural Roscommon Development Assoc1alion Ltd 9 14 63dego QOo 37dego
Rural Resource Development Lid bull 80 129 62degc Ooe 38dego
Meath Con1mumty Partnershrp Co Ltd
Meithcal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo
3
68
5 117
- 60dego
58dego
4dego
OOo
35eo
42dego
South West Mayo Development Co Galway Rural Development Co
54
8
94 middot-middotmiddot
15 58dego
56dego
1Oe
00o
41Co
44
Arigna Catchment Area Community Co 11 23 48dego 4dego 48
Western Rural Development Co Lld bull 28 58 48dego 00o 52oo
Offaly LEADER If Co Lid -middotmiddot
3 6 48~J QOo 52
IRD Duhallow Ltd bull -
Ballyhoura Development Ltd 60 74
131 163
46dego
45dego
OOo middotshy
OOo
54
55
West Limerick Resources Ltd
South Kerry Partnership Ltd bull
Waterford Development Partnership Lid
Tuatha Ch1arra1 Ltd
Word - Wexford Organisation for Rural Development
West Cork LEADER Group bull
Donegal Local Development Co Lid
-
10
29
34
6
51
57
8
- 23 66 76 14
125
160
22
44dego
44dego
44dego
42gtigt
41
35dego 340
3dego
00o
00o
6 1eo
00o
3eo
middotshy
53dege
56dego-56dego
52deg
58dego
65dego
63dego
-middotmiddotshy
Tipperary LEADER Group bull
Totalmiddot Local Development Groups
30 813
95
1584
32dego
51dego
00o
1dego -
68dego
48 -shy
middotshy
Acquisition of Skills
0 -
85 0 OCo 100dego
Other Collective Bodies
Technical Assistance
7
0
23 37
30 QOo
70dego
00o
00o
00dego
i Total Expenditure - LEADER Groups 820 1730 47dego 1dego 52dego
~-
--
Administration txpenditure
EOOO
3 81
Total AdministrationI I Expenditure as 0o of Total
EOOO Expenditurei
98dego
98 82deg~
3
Grant Aid as Non~rantI I I 0o of Total Outputs as of
Expenditure Total Expendituro
2dego 01 middot-shyQO 18dego
middotmiddotshy
bull These groups also existed under the Leader I in11ahve
LEADER Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A15
Total Administration Expenditure as 0o of Total
pound000 Expenditure
81dego56 lv-10Jbull
ro v 106 b1o
77 46dego 91 43dego
113 4 1 Ofo
226 39dego 92 38dego 90 38dego 67 38dego
100 36dego 230 36dego
JUmiddot~ 86 35dego
262 35dego 292 I 32dego 168 31dego 111 31dego 94 30dego- 29dego 65 I 29dego
289
85
29dego 182 27dego 258 25 194 24dego 198 23dego 165 22oo 141 22dego 285 22dego 271 21 249 20 185 19 94 19dego
5173 31
189 0dego 115 75o 86 0
5564 30dego
Grant Aid as 0o of Total
Expenditure
0 J _ 3dego 9dego bo 18dego 13dego
5dego 2dego
35dego 17dego
6dego
18dego 34o 44degc 29dega 26dego 28dego 50dego 19dego 47
5dego 55oo 20 50dego 46dego 42 36 50dego 40dego 20 25 29dego
0 25Vo
OOo
28
Non~rant
Outputs as 0o of Total Expenditure
19dego LO
~-
36dego 45dego 44o 41dego
48dego 57oo 6v-10 27dego 47dego 58dego 55vO 47 31dego 24oo 40dego 43 42dego 21 52dego 24dego 68dego 20dego 56dego 27dego 32dego 36dego 42 29 40dego 61dego 56dego 40dego
100o OOo
100o
42dego
Local Development Group
-Comhar lorrais (LEADER) Teoranta bull lounly ~ligo LlAurH t-artnersh1p co LIO r-cura1 uuo11n LtAUttlt vvmpany Lia ln1sh0Wen Community Development Co ltd middot Laois LEADER Rural Development Co Ltd comhdhail 011ea1n na hlireann South Kerry Partnership Ltd bull Rural Resources Develooment Ltd Blackwaler Region LEADER Co Ltd Meath Community Partnership Co Ltd LonQford Community Resources Ltd Galwav Rural Develooment Co Word-Wexford Organisation for Rural Developmenl
-Barrow-Nore-~uir tltura1 ueve1opment Lta_ Ariana Catchment Area Community Co bull Cavan-MonaQhan Rural Development Co-operative Society lid Me1theal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo Wicklow Rural Partnership Ltd bull Offaly LEADER II Co Ltd bull Doneoal Local Development Co Ltd Mid-South Rural Roscommon Developmenl Association Ltd Co Louth Rural Development Co Ltd Ballyhoura Development Ltd bull Kell-Kildare European LEADER II Teoranta IRD Duhallow ltd_ Tuatha Ch1arrai Lid -South West Mavo Oevelooment Co Westmeath Community Development ltd West Limerick Resources Ltd
-middot West Cork LEADER Groupmiddot Waterford Develooment Partnersh10 Ltd Western Rural Development Co Lid Tinnorarv LEADER Group bull East Cork Area Development Ltd Total - Local Development Groups
Acqu1s1t1on of Skills Uther Collective tsodies Technical Assistance
Total Expendituremiddot LEADER Groups
bull These groups also exisled under the Leader I initiative
Administration Expenditure
pound000
45
deg 64 35 - 47 88 35
25 37 83 60 31 91 94 53 35 28 25
19 84 49 64 46 45 37 31 61 58 49 36 17
1599
0 86
0
1684
---
--
----
----
I
I
LEADER _Admiri_istration_ Costs_as a Percentage_of TotalExpenditure bull 1997 Appendix A-16
Local Development GroupI I
Comhair lorrais (LEADER) Teoranta bull Co Sllqo LEADER Partnership Co Lid Rural Dublin LEADER Compant lid Wicklow Rural Partnershi~ Lid Rural Resource Development Lid Word-Wexford Orqani5allon for Rural Develo~ment Ltd Blackwater Reoion LEADER Co Lid Meath Communit~ Partnershi~ Co Ltd Laois LEADER Ru_ral Oevelooment Co Ltd IRD Ouhallow Ltd bull Oonal Local Oevelooment Co Ltd Kell-Kildare Eurooean LEADER II Teoranla Cavan-Monaghan Rural Oeveloement Co-o~rat1ve Socie_lv Ltd South Kerrv Partnersh10 Lid bull
I South Wesl Mavo Devetooment Co bull I Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo
Waterford Development Partnership Lid Galway Rural Developn-ent Co lnishowen Community Development Group bull Wesl Limerick Resources Ltd Co Louth Rural Dev~topment Co Ltd Comhdhail Oilea1n na hEireann West Cork LEADER Grouo bull Tuatha Ch1arra1 Ltd Westmeath Communitv Develoomenl Ltd Offalv LEADER II Co Ltd bull Ballyhoura Development Ltd East Cork Area Development Ltd Weslern Rural Development Co Ltd Mid-South Rural Roscommon Deveroomenl Assoc1at1on Ltd Longford Community Resources Ltd
Administration I Total Expenditure ExpenditureIpound000 pound000
43 I 96 83 48 52 89 91 46 -58 31 57 60 75
102 59 60
109 78 45 47 46 50 35
104 56 48 39 67
-- 27 83 32 35
Arigna Catchment Area Community Co I 43 middotmiddotmiddot shy
Tipperary LEADER Group 0 38 41Barrow-Nore-Suir RurEii Development bull
Total - local Develooment Grouos 1979
Other Collective Bodies 36 Technical Assistance 0
i Total Expenditure bull LEADER Groups 2015
234 140
186 365 373 204 260 156 293 314 399 568 335 341 626 458
middot-middot 264 277 275 309 221 658 367 314 259 455
Grant Aid as [ Nnn~r~ntAdministration as deglo of Total 0o of Total Expenditure Expenditure
45dego
36dego 34oo 28Co 24dego
24oo 22oo 22dego 20degtc 20oo 19dego 19dego 18degc 18degc 18dego 17dego 17degc 17degh 17 17 16dego 16dego 16dego 15dego 15 15dego 15o
189 I 14dego 592 I 14dego 252 290 414 441 561
11487
142 25dego 75 0 149 0 OOfo 100
11778 17dego 53dego JQOo I
13dego 12Jo 10dego
9oo 7dego
17dego
19dego
25dego 28dego 37dego so~lo
37oo 37dego 30oo 36Yv 40dego 54 45dego 59degn 55dego 61dego 64dego 64degh 56dego 34 49I 6QOo I 23dego 50dego I 34dego 64dego 55 50dego 55deg 55dego 60o 38oo 58dego 71 dego 56o 73dego 54dego 70dego 53dego
20dego 29dego 35oo 3_0 30dego 25dego 48dego 28dego 16degc 32dego 17dego 37dego 23dego 30
Outputs as oo of Total Expenditure I
36Co 39oo 38dego 35dego 26dego 39dego 41dego
48dego 44deg 40dego 27dego 36dego 23oA 27dego 21dego 19dego 19dego 27~o
Partnerships Community Groups and National Organisations Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A17
Partnership Administration Total Expenditure Expenditure pound000 pound000
KWCD Partnershii - -middot 128 128 lnishowen Partnersh10 Board 33 33-middot-Monaahan Partnershii Board 48 48 Lonoford Commumtv Resources ltd 40 40 Galwav Rural Oevelooment Co 39 39 Galwav C1tv Partnership 109 109
~Q_LEAOER Partnershii Co 50 50 Pairt1ocht Gaellacht Th1r Chonaill 48 48 Roscommon Countv Partncrshin 55 55 Pairt1ocht Chonamara 116 116 Cavan Partnershin 18 - 18_ Canal Communities Partnership 67 67 Brav Partnershio 115 115 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 49 50 Tra Li Partnershio 105 107 Waterford Area Partnershio 77 82 West Limerick Resources Ltd 74 82 Southside Partnershin 163 180 North-West KildareNorth Offalv (OAK) 125 139 Mavo bull 288 I 353 Wexford Area Partnershio 132 166 Doneaal Local Develoomenl Co 60 78 Leitnm Partnership 63 94 Clondalkin Partnershio Comoanv 176 305 South Kerrv bull 107 253 Blanchardstown Area Partnershin 208 495 Droaheda Partnershio Comoanv 136 337 Baltvfermot Partnershio 143 359 Cork Cilv bull 176 476 Dundalk bull 196 546 Finnlas bull 169 53 vvovforcl tn ntv prtnPrshio bull 126 501 n11hl1n lnOAr rjtv bull 14 539 T~ll ht bull 7 Ballvmun bull 103 529 Waterford Countv bull 42 227 Limerickmiddot 90 510 Northside Partnershio 125 761
Total Exoendituro - Partnerships 4071 9169
Communilv Grouos 710 773 National Oroanisations 383 383
Total 5164 10325
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) ~--
Administration as 0o Other Activities as 0o of Total Expenditure of Total Expenditure
100dego QOo
100dego QOo
100dego QOo
1QQ0o QOo
100deg QOo
100oo QOo
100oo 0dego 100dego QOo
100dego Ooo 100dego QOo
100middot QO(
1QQ 0o QDo
1QQDo 0dego 100dego OOo
98dego 2dego 94dego 6dego 91dego 9dego 91dego 9dego 90dego 10dego 82oo 18dego 80dego 20dego 77 23 67 33dego 58dego 42 42dego 58dego 42dego 58degc 40dego 69dego 40dego 60oo 37dego 63dego 36dego 64oo 3701 25dego 75degn 2i01 7t01Q TtOn 77deg 19dego 81dego 19dego 81dego 18oo a2deg10 16 84
44dego 56dego
92dego 8dego 100dego 0dego
50deg4 50dego
Partnerships Community Groups and National Organisations Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A 18
Partnership Administration
I Total Expenditure
--middot -shy -shy - --shy Expenditure pound000 - [000- shy
lnishowen Partnershio Board 137 272 Galwav C1tv PnrtnArsh1n 1e~ 35~
Mavo bull 274 580 Canal Commun1tv Partnersh10 122 267-W~~tmeath Communitv Develonmenl Ltd 98 216 Galwav Rural Oevelooment Co ~-
94 211 Monaahan Partnershio Board 100 238 Shoo LEAOEftigtartnersh1p C_o 155 385 Roscommon Counlv Partnershin 146 367 Cavan Partnersh10 72 184 Pa1rtiocht Chonamara 124 328- -LonQford Community Resources Lid 121 334 KWCO Partnershio 205 594 Pairtiocht Gaeltacht Thir Chonaill 99 302 Waterford Area Partnershin 175
middotshy 542 Blanchardstoln_ Area Partnersh1E 159 504 Oundalk bull 147 490 Leitrim Partnership 154 514 - -North West KildareNorth Offalv ltOAKl 122 414 Wexford Area Partnersh1R _ 125 427
_B~lymun bull 112 385 Brav Partnershio 151 526-Oonenal Local Develonment Co 104 371 Wexford Countv Partnershio bull 152 614
_sectQuth Kerrv bull 173 707 Cork Citymiddot 240 1 015 Tra Li Partnershio 122 519
_s1o_ndalk1n PartnershiQ ComQany 140 618 __lliJ_blin Inner C1ly bull 147 647
Tallaaht 173 775 Wesl Limerick Resources Ltd 57 256 F1nnlas bull 152 709 Walerford CountY bull --middot 54 261 Southside Partnershio 141 686 Ballyfcrmot Partnership 132 720 Droaheda Partnersh10 Comoanv 132 723--middot Limerickbull 121 803 Northside Partnershio bull 126 964 Set Un Casis - All Partnershins 28 28
Total Exoenditure bull Partnershios 5269 18858
Communitv Grouos 1 509 3499 National Oraan1salions 621 621
Total 7J98 22977
Administration as 0o Other Activities as 0o I- -middotshy of Total-Expenditure of Total Expenditure
51 oo 49dego-~ v u u-o
middotshy47dego 53dego 46dego 54dego 45lo 55oo-450o 55oo__ 42oo 58dego 40dego 60dego 40eo 60dego 39oo 61degi
38oo 62dego 36dego 64dego 34oo 66dego 33dego 67 32dego 68dego 32dego 68dego 30oo 70dego 30dego 70dego 29 71dego 29dego 71deg(0 29dego 71dego 29dego 71dego 28deg1gt 72dego 25dego 75oo 25dego 75 24dego 76dego-- shy24dego 76oo 23dego 77deg 23dego 77oo-shy22dego 78dego 22dego 78dego 21dego 79dego 2_1 dego 79deg 20dego 80dego 18 82 18 82dego 15 85dego 13dego 87dego
28dego 72
43dego 57=10 100dego OOo-shy32dego 68oo
i bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economrc and Social Progress (PESP)
County Enterprise Boards Grant Cost Per Job 1994-1997 (In Descending Order) Appendix A21
County Enterprise Board Expenditure on Grant Full Time Jobs Part Time Jobs Equivalent Jobs Aid 1994middot1997 pound000 1994-1997 (1) 1994-1997 (1) 1994-1997 (1)
Leitnm 1417 209 6 212 Westmeath 1012 154 0 154 Wexford 1575 280 37 299 Cork C1tv 1089 208 0 208 -Monaahan 1057 178 62 209 Waterford Counlv 1003 188 36 206-South Cork 1566 324 0 324 South Dublin 1753 362 6 365---TinnPrarv South R1dina 922 184 47 208 Limerick Citi 1197 273 10 278 Offalv 1137 243 74 280 Waterford City 1664 387 58 416 Mayo 1565 345 95 393 Limerick City 1512 362 60 392 Kllkennv 1325 320 55 348 DonPnal 1061 254 50 279 Finaal (Dublin) 1377 347 42 368 Wicklow 1538 333 170 418 Kiidare 1004 264 20 274
-Cork North 779 213 0 213
-Carlow 1435 309 169 394 -Cavan 1357 301 152 377 Clare 1 342 335 92 381 Kerrv 1432 288 238 407 Laois 1245 339 42 360 Louth 1045 280 46 303 Dublin Citv 1734 533 0 533
_
SliQo 1182 260 210 365 Oun LaoghaireRathdown 1323 408 3 410 Longford 1145 332 51 358 Roscommon 1208 315 133 382 West Cork 1063 361 21 372 Meath 980 350 23 362 Gatway County and City 2131 843 120 903 Tipperary North County 660 223 136 291
Total 44834 10905 2264 12037
Grant Cost per Job pound
6683 middot-shy6571 5278 5235 5057 4 867 4 834 4801 4444
4306 4061 3999 3988 3857 3812 3802 3743 3680 3666 3658 3647 3599 3522 3518 3459 3448 3254 3238 3231 3203 3 165 2 861 2711
2360 2269
3725
( 1) The jobs created in the year are computed by taking a head count of new jobs 1n enterprises receiving grant aid from CEBs The grant aid expended in the year may not be directly comparable with this as here may be a time rag between the expenditure and the creation of the relevant job but this should be minimised by taking an average over 4 years In computing the equivalent 1obs figure part-lime jobs are taken as 05 of a 1ob
County Enterprise Boards Non Grant Expenditure 1996 Appendix A31
r= middotshy
INPUTS OUTPUTS
I Cou~ty Enterpr_ise Boar_ct_ ~on-Grant - shy
0o of Total _Surveys __ Media _Networks __ ThirdLevel _Second Business - Mentor Activities Expenditure Events Colleges Level Counselling Support
pound000 Schools -
Kildare 241 39oo 1 0 4 3 15 380 40 middotshy
Dublin City 202 30oo 1 9 6 2 20 151 35 Fingal(Oubhn) 171 26dego 1 14 11 I 0 4 3 93 Oun LaoghaireRathdown 160 25oo 1 7 3 0 14 25 84
Sligo 108 24dego 0 68 0 1 3 250 30 - shySouth Cork 150 23dego 20 24 14 1 14 120 45 South Dublin 161 23dego 2 8 0 0 18 105 4
-middot Cork City 118 22dego 2 10 3 2 14 0 14
Loulh 137 22dego 7 3 2 1 6 40 15 Meath 116 22deg1~ 0 3 3 1 12 0 21 West Cork 135 21dego 0 130 2 0 10 174 10 Westmeath 106 21dego 0 0 0 0 17 0 14
Offaly 121 19dego 4 34 5 2 9 17 20 Donegal 144 19dego 1 4 0 1 8 216 46
-107 18oo 0 17 0 1 I 15 150 16
~ Clare
- middot----Leitrim 121 18oo 5 0 4 0 I 9 416 12
Roscommon 92 1Tlo 0 0 0 1 5 484 5 -Limerick City 7
I 17dego 0 2 0 5 5 0 6 Limerick County 137 17dego 1 25 1 0 13 102 7 Laois 101 16dego 0 4 0 0 14 54 bull 1
Tipperary North County 65 16dego 0 0 0 0 12 279 17
Wexford 107 15dego 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 Waterford County 85 15dego 0 2 0 1 0 69 4 Monaghan 86 14deg= 0 0 0 0 7 10 5 Kilkenny 88 14dego 0 16 0 I 0 12 I 19 I 10 Carlow 77 13dego 0 7 0 I 0 10 I 0 I 20 -Wicklow 96 13dego 1 12 0 0 9 70 14
Cavan 74 12oo 5 0 4 1 5 1394 i 31 Tipperary South Ridinq 65 12dego 0 0 3 0 10 80 25 Kerry 71 12dego 1 0 1 0 8 0 20
bullGalway County and City 75 I 12=10 1 2 37 3 12 72 3 Waterford City 82 10dego 0 1 0 1 20 108 33 Mayo 78 10oo 0 48 0 0 5 221 6 Longford 50 9dego 3 5 5 0 7 60 10
Cork North 36 8dego 0 0 0 0 0 340 0
Total 3879 18dego 57 455 108 27 352 5409 726
County Enterprise Boards Non Grant Expenditure 1997 Appendix A32
INPUTS OUTPUTS middotshy
County Enterprise Board Non-Grant bull1o of Total Surveys Media Networks Third Second Business Mentor Management Activities Expenditure Events Level Level Counselling Support Development
EOOO Colleges Schools Programme
Don~al 156 36dego 3 3 1 3 9 55 12 3 Tipperary Nor1h County 162 36dego 0 33 1 0 7 175 12 3 Oun laoghaireRathdown 219 35oo 2 20 6 4 24 240 67 2 Kilkenny 162 30oo 2 12 0 0 27 99 16 3 Louth 233 30 0 14 2 1 11 60 18 6 Sliao 144 29dego 1 7 2 2 7 246 26 6-Laois 167 27oo 0 127 2 0 13 100 6 4 Clare 171 27dego 1 37 12 1 15 97 31 6 Mavo 162 271 0 15 2 0 10 190 6 3 Limerick City 163 26dego 1 29 4 3 6 100 5 4 Kildare 198 26dego 0 24 4 0 15 190 46 6 Wesl Cork 133 26oo 1 271 2 0 10 152 2 4 Limerick County 183 26oo 1 55 12 3 8 194 35 6 Mealh 193 26oo 1 28 3 2 19 48 9 4 Offaly 127 25oo 1 53 6 0 8 59 35 5 Fingal (Dublin) 224 25dego 0 5 0 1 6 446 155 3 Leitrim 157 24oo 2 84 3 2 7 135 14 2 South Cork 164 23dego 0 14 85 1 16 627 15 6 Roscommon 109 23oo 1 27 3 0 11 50 8 4
Gatway County and City 190 23dego 0 5000 10 3 36 18 10 14
Co1lt Ci1V 150 22dego 1 10 5 2 B 1325 16 3 Monaghan 121 22dego 2 24 6 0 B 47 0 3 Tipperary South Riding 131 21 Ofo 1 25 3 0 11 672 20 3 Westmeath 132 21dego 1 3 0 0 29 6 10 4 Waterford Countv 104 21dego 3 32 2 1 21 156 7 3 Dublin City 245 21 oo 1 26 6 5 23 110 50 6 Wexford 131 20dego 1 17 0 0 17 55 16 2 Wicklow 159 20 0 44 0 0 6 32 9 3 Cavan 144 20dego 4 14 7 1 6 134 63 7
CorX North 66 19 1 10 5 2 16 1325 16 3 Waterford City 149 19oo 2 12 0 1 21 183 18 3 South Dublin 184 19dego 1 2 0 0 16 87 37 3 Kerry 104 18 1 324 0 0 12 115 B 2 LonQford 81 16oo 5 41 8 0 5 0 6 41 Carlow 95 16 1 110 1 1 10 228 50 2 Total 5414 24 42 6552 203 39 474 7756 854 182
LEADER Groups Non Grant Expenditure 1995-1997 (1) Appendix A33
Local Development Group
INPUTS
Non-Grant -Activities
pound000
As a 0o of Total--middot
Expenditure
Seminars Held-shy
OUTPUTS
Press I Other tApplications Releases Promotional -Approved-
Projects Referred Creation I Creation of Training Completed to Other of Newmiddot middot Community middotCourses
Actions Agencies Business Association
East Corllt Area Development Ltd 144 51dego 104 110 0 O 0 O 5 2 I O gt-M~e~a~th=C-o~m-m~u~n~i~ttv
0
middotP~a~rt~n-e-rs~h~o=C~o-L-td-----~--1-8-0--+-~5~1~0~---+--7~7-1--+---16-4---- 110 91 11 960 21 12 16
Word - Wexford Ornan1sat1on for Rural Oevetonment bull 351 48oo 0 0 0 0 t-c~innbulle~ra~~-L~e~a~d~er~Gro~u~o~middot~-~~~~~---r-~3~4~3----t-~4~8~o--o 24 7 4 191 45 10 15 13 22 f--~----=~~~~~~~~~+-----~+----~---~+---------l~~-----+-~~----~+-~--~--l~----~f-~300~+-~=-~+-~--~-+~-=~~
Kellmiddot Kildare Euronean Leader II TEO 268 46Yo 85 125 4 74 33 1 10 36 Blackwater Reo1on Leader Co_ Ltd -middot _136----+--4-6A~o------6--7_ __ _ __65------lt----4----I- --7-3__1_---3-1------22--+----3------lt--------1--~__2_4-----1 lnishowen Commumtv Develonment Groun bull 175 46dego 288 86 25 64 27 147 10 17 28 Laois Leader Rural Develonment Co Ltd 103 44dego 67 116 12 56 17 27 40 7 17 Tualha Chiarrai Ltd 244 42dego 239 25 10 168 82 66 24 6 39 West Cork Leader Groun middot 414 38~C -middot-+-~75----t--6-9-8----t----O--t----o-----t --~O-----t----O--t--~1~2_ _____o----shy 33
~c~o~S~h~go~L-ead-e~r~P~bull~rt--n-e--rs~h~ip~Co~~Lt~d--------+-----1~0~1--+-~3~7~~_ ___J3 6 6 73 21 14 20 17 5 Rural Dutgt11n Leader Comoanv Ltd 63 37dego 83 18 -~9--t----2~7--middot-+---6----+---~12-----t--~3---+--~7---+----5-Co_ Louth Rural Devclooment Co Ltd 137 37dego 139 56 18 39 5 23 5 2 11
gt-W~c~kl-o--w~R~u~r~a~I~P-art~n~bull~middot~sh~io~L--td---middot---------~1~4~3--+_~3~6~~-+---5~0~7____~1~12------ O 25 33 209 9 11 6 IRD Duhallow Lld bull ___2~middotbull-1-+-3_~V----t-~283------j--272--+----o-----1 85 40 144 11 37 1A
Rural Resource Dcvclooment ld__middot-------+--20502--+-C3057___-t-1=38~2o---t---5~0t----t--0905----t-----OO--- 0 0 6 9 14 Offalv Lead_~r II Co_ Ltd_middot 130 35oo 49 43 20 76 56 9 17 0 91
gt-S~ou--th~K~bull~Y~P~a~rt~n~bull~s~h~ip~L~t~d-middot________1__1_7~5--+-~34---~~middot--i---1~bull~85----+---1middotQ4_--+-----9--~--0-----+-----o--+----o---~-~2~0---+--3~0-----+--~3~6--1 Galwav Rural DevelgPment Co 126 33dego 38 12 0 147 21 130 19 6 39 Western Rural Devetoomenl Co Ltd 298 33dego 134 102 1 165 46 81 27 1 9 DonPnal L~cal Development Co Ltd 139 32 5 15 1 127 36 29 20 0 13 Lonaford ~ommun1lv Resources Ltd 118 31dego 15 57 7 97 46 22 3 2 5 Westmeath Communitv Develonmenl Ltd 149 30dego 254 50 15 165 60 20 17 5 __sect_____
l-Ba~ll~vlh~ou~ra~De~v-e~lo~rnm~e--n--t-Ll~d~_middot_________t--~2~7~3--+_~30~~~---t---64~-t--bull~8-----t----5--t----2~0~1--l--~8~2-----t--~8~0----+-~59----t---~bull~O---t ~5~2~-t Barrow-Nor~-Suir Rural Development bull -~2~4~7--+--~3~0~----+---3~5~0---__f----5_____15----l--~1~5~1---1C-----92-----t--~65-----t---2~0---t--~10-----t--~2~8-----t Comhair lorrais ILead~rl Teoranta bull 45 29dego o O _o__t------Co__t--_~o___-t-_--o_-+---co_ _____o--_-+_ __o-----t Wesl Limerick Resources 1 tn 126 29dego 69 104 3 103 1h 10 87 7 10 Comhdhail 01leain Na hEireann 64 27dego 41 32 0 124 hO 45 15 0 10
~_~ndegh~Wc~s~t~Mou_nDev~e~lo-nmbulln~t~n~middot------+--~1bullbull-+--2-bull-~-+---12----t--~~5-------0--l----1~middot4___+-_~5~8--t-----4~-+--~13---t------1--+--~3~3-~ Waterford Develooment Partnershio Ltd 209 26dego 56 0 0 95 35 35 34 7 46 Cavan-Monaghan Rural Development
l--C~o~-o~gtP~e~r=a~v~e~S=oc-e=t~y~L~tdo-middot---~-~----+-~2~2~7--+-C2~47o=---+-=2676~-t----11~7~---l----2~174__t---~36700---+----3~0~1--l----2~--+---20---+~--75__t-----2=2~--l Ariana Catchment Arca Community Co bull 121 23dego 21 7 23 105 39 4 5 0 O
f---M~~~h=~~F~o=r~b~a=rth~a--N~a=G~a~e~lt~a~c=ht~a~T~E~o=---~----r-~2=3~7----C2~3o=---+-~1773=----t--~150~--t--~o--t---~4700---+--1-5=7--+-~35~0~--+-~109----t--~2~1----+--~176--j
Mid-South Rural Roscommon Development Association Ltd 63 18 24 18 120 90 36 10 20 5 4
Total Expenditure - Local Development Groups 6227 34dego 7183 2879 730 I 3496 1514 2871 690 291 716
Acqu1s1t1on of skills i 274 Ooo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1-coc~e~c11=n~ca-1-a~s~s~s~ta-n~ce---------------=27~2~---l--0~0~~--t---Co~--t--~o--+--~o=---+-1--~o~-+---~o~-+----o--+------io~-t----o~--+-----io----+
Total Expenditure -LEADER Groups 6773 36dego 7183 2 879 730 3 496 1 514 2 871 (1) Expenditure for 1995-1997 is grouped together as only cumulative output statistics to 31December1997 were available at the time of preparing the report bull These groups also existed under the Leader I initiative
690 291 716
I
Partnerships Non Grant Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A34 middot-middot
INPUTS OUTPUTS
Partnership Name Non-Grant Activities As a 04 of Total Enterprise Services for Preventative Complementary pound000 Expenditure Support Unemployed Education Education
Norths1de Partnership bull 636 84dego 321 1885 520 443 Limerickbull 420 82dego 296 935 100 388 Waterford Counlv bull 184 81 oo 57 0 0 0
t--shy272 328Ballymun bull 426 81oo 401 82
Tallaght bull 466 77dego 496 - 957 143 29 Dublin Inner City bull 405 75dego 343 1651 50 59 Wexford County Partnership bull 375 75dego 138 0 17 272 Finalas bull 365 68oo 557 731 378 155 Dundalk bull 350 64dego 148 388 132 207 Co1lt Citymiddot 300 63dego 344 0 180 261 Ballyfermot Partnership 215 60dego 0 211 40 94 Drogheda Partnership Company 200 60dego 60 0 0 38 Blanchardstown Area Partnership 288 58dego 116 71 48 18 South Kerrv bull 146 58oo 90 212 399 265 Clondalkin Partnership Company 129 42oo 164 0 0 0 Le1tnm Partnership 31 33oo 23 184 0 56 Donegal Local Development Company 18 23dego 0 0 0 0 -IJYexford Area Partnership 34 20oo 14 0 0 13 Mayo 18o lo 181 10 34 North West KildareNorth Offaly 14 10 0 0 u 28 Southside Partnership 17 9dego 0 0 0 0 West Limencilt Resources Ltd 8 9dego 52 0 0 0 Waterford Area Partnershij)shy 5 6dego 49 14 0 5 Tra Li Partnership 2 2 u 0 0 0 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 0 QOo 0 0 0 0 LonQford Community Resources Ltd 0 Ooo 0 0 I 0 0-Pairtiocht Gaeltacht Th1r Chona1ll 0 0 0 0 0 0 lnishowen Partnership Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canal Commun1t1es Partnershrp 0 00o 0 0 0 0 Pairtiocht Chonamara 0 QOa 0 0 0 0 Gatway Rural Development Co 0 OOa 0 0 0 0 Sligo Leader Partnership Co 0 0 16 0 0 0 Roscommon County t-artnersh1p - u 0-1 u 0 u 0 Brav Partnership 0 01 0 0 0 0 Gatwav City Partnership 0 OOo 0 0 0 0 Cavan Partnership 0 00o 0 0 0 0 MonaQhan Partnership Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 KWCD Partnership 0 Ooo 0 0 0 0 Total Expenditure - Partnerships 5098 56dego 3739 7821 2107 2693
Commun1lv Grouas 63 8 0 0 0 0 National Oraanisalions 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 5161 50 3739 7821 2107 2693
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
Partnerships Non Grant Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A35
INPUTS OUTPUTS -
Partnership Non-Grant Activities As a 0o of Total Business Job Groups Preventative -shy -middot middot- -middot pound000 -middot - Expenditure -Start-Ups- shy Placements -shy Supportmiddot Education Projects
Northside Partnership bull I 838 87dego 503 438 28 15 I - -middot -middotmiddot - tCbullbull 602 isgt10 11b tiLj 31 16 I Dr()(lheda Partnership Co I 591 82dego 60 12 177 10 Ballyfermot Partnership 587 a2deg10 88 88 30 3
-middot Southside Partnership 546 80dego I 200 6 80 24 Waterford Counly bull 206 79dego 42 4 23 6 Fmglas bull 557 79dego 257 233 174 28 West limerick Resources Ltd 199 78degc 40 0 50 0 Tallaaht bull 602 78dego 309 646 51 7 Dublin Inner City bull 500 77dego 290 448 34 10 Clondalkin Partnership Conipany 478 77oo 225 562 63 7 Tra L1 Partnership 396 76deg1gt 80 20 67 6 -cork Citymiddot 775 76- 217 111 55 9 Soulh Kerry bull 533 75dego 135 150 61 middot51 -
Wexford County Partnership bull 462 75dego 170 63 31 0 Donegal Local Development Co 267 72dego 150 0 63 2 Bra~ Partnershi~ 375 71degu 71 0 14 Ballymun bull 274 71dego 70 402 50 10 Wexford Area ~artnership OUpound 71o 17U 4 5 18 -shyNorth vvest tildareNorth Offaly 292 71 Oo 56 0 8
I Leitrim Partnership 360 70deg1= 60 3 119 6 Dundalk bull 343 70~~ 71 64 50 10 Blanchardstown Area Partnership 345 68dego 170 97 29 13 Waterford Arca Partnership 367 68dego 37 6 55 1
middotshyPa1rtiocht Gaeltacht Thir Chona1ll 203 67deg~ 75 0 50 10 KWCD Partnership 389 66deg 15 0 0
- 4 middot-
Lonqford Commumtv Resources Ltd 212 64dego 85 4 19 5 middotmiddotshyPairt1ocht Chonamara 205 62 67 2 3 34
middotmiddot-Cavan Partnershio 112 61dego 90 1 49 6 Roscommon County Partnership 221 60degJ 120 0 38 6 -Sligo LeaCer Partnership Co 230 60dego 120 0 32 2 Monaghan Partnership Board 138 58dego 88 0 40 10 Galway Rural Development Company 116 55dego 101 0 51 2 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 118 55deg1= 0 0 20 2 -Canal Communities Partnersh10 145 54deg~ 0 0 16 6 Mavo bull 306 53dego 177 200 28 3 Galway City Partnership 180 50dego 113 0 35 12 lmshowen Partnership Board 134 49dego 60 0 42
Total Expenditure bull Partnerships 13589 72dego 4698 4192 1853 397
Commun1tv Grouos 1 990 57 0 0 0 0 Nalional Oraanisations 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 15579 68dego 4698 4192 1853 397
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
Appendix B Administration Cost Trends of Local Development Bodies
Number of CEBs within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs 1994-1997
Cost Band 1994 1995 1996 1997
ltpound50000 pound50-100000 pound100-150000
pound150-200000
gtpound200000
3 17
15 2
24
7
2
1
32
2
5
23 7
Total Administration Costs pound4_8m pound49m pound43m pound44m
Number of LEADER groups within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs 1995-1997
Cost Band 1995 1996 1997
ltpound50000 25 23 17
pound50-100000 9 11 14 pound100-150000 3
Total Administration Costs pound0Bm pound16m pound20m
Number of Partnerships within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs of Partnerships
Cost Band 1996 1997
ltpound50000 9 6 pound50-100000 7 19 pound100-150000 15 10 pound150-200000 5 10 gt pound200000 2 3
Total Administration Costs pound40m pound53m
11l)(lrJY 11 I
--
Appendix C Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development - Performance Indicators and Revised Targets
-
f 11~
iority Indicator
Jobs
1mber of of 1obs
Revised Targets (1994-1999) Original TargetUnits for total Operational Sub Sub
Programme 2Programme Programme 1
Jobs 15000 proved (for support grant assistance)
Nl1mber of new jobs erbullated not placed in Jobs and vacanc1es) Persons (N 81middot for Sub Pr gtgramme 1wjobs
bullgt provecr figure will mJke up the bulk of thbull i ~jobs created an1ounl) (N 02- for Sub Pr )gramme 2 this eq uates 10 new en terpriscs SUpported)
17000 (Sub Programme 1 8000 Sub Programme 2
1717516900
6900 Sub Programme 3 (Temple Bar) 2000 permanenl in service amp 5000 construction)
AjfJe11c1x CI
~ Priority Indicator
2 Enterprise creation and development
Grants to enterprise Value of grant allocations
Number of enterprises supported
Percentage of investment 1n enterprises provided by the Operational Programme
Provision of improved access for potential entrepreneurs to initial advice Number of firms receiving business advice
Percentage of grant aided firms whose promoters received other Operational Programme support advice consultancy mentoring
Management developm9nt Number of enlerprises participating in managemenl development programmes Number of managers participating in management developmenl programmes
3 Community Development Number of local groups financially assisted
4 Services for the unemployed Number of persons registered for assistance
Number of Long-Term Unemployed persons to benefil from Services for the
I Unemployed expressed as a
I Oo of total number of persons registered for assistance
Units Original Target for total Operational
Programme
pound
Enterprises 2260 new businesses and for Sub Programme 1
Persons and 3640 new and 960 existing for Sub Programme 2
Enterprises 6000 firms and
Persons
280 firmsEnterprises
Persons 500 per annum
No target set groups Local
Persons Caseload of 11 0000 (30000 1n 1995 and
20000 new cases per annum thereafter)
No targel set
Revised Targets (1994-1999)
Sub Sub Programme 1 Programme 2
i
pound16000000pound56020000
17 000 new and6050 new and 7000
existing 3750
existing
(Tolal 9800) (Tolal 24000)
39dego
3000010900
100dego83oo
6000
10000
700
57000 (40000 Local Employment
Scheme Partnerships and 17 000 Non- Local
Employment Scheme)
60dego
AfJXIUimiddot C2
---
Priority Indicator Units Original Target Revised Targets (1994-1999) for total Operational
Sub SubProgramme Programme 1 Programme 2
Progression Number bulllf persons progressing Persons 2500 per annum 16000 to full-time employment (1e placement in a job vacancy) Number of persons progressing Persons 300 per annum 5000 to part-lir le employment (ie placeme11t in a job vacancy) Number of persons assisted into Persons 17000 self-emplJyment (see 1 above) N~mber of persons assisted Persons 19000 under co1nplementary education and training Number of persons in continuing Persons 5000 per annum 2000
1 cducat1or1 Number c1f persons in work Persons 10000 per annum 1000 experience programmes Number Cbullf unemployed referred Persons 5000 onwards middot o other agencies
- -middot 5 ~ducation and Training Complementary education and training Number cmiddotf persons assisted Persons 12000 per annum 19000 under cornplementary education and traini l9
Provision of recognised ce~ificaticbulln Number cf participants ptovided Persons 60003500 with re~1nised certification
I 0o of part1 1pants provided with 30oo reltXJgniset certification
Training for trainers NuOiber ol persons benefiting Persons 1000 under actions tn the area of trai~1ng of trainers and teachers
I of partimiddotipants ptovided with recognise j certification
I 6 Preventive education Number of children attending Children 4080 per annum 44000 preventive education courses I youth serVices
7 lnfrasbucture and enVironmental measures Number o infrastructutal and 20 per annum 1000Protects 98 environmE ntal actions
Appendix C3
Original Target Revised Targets (1994-1999) Priority Indicator Units for total Operational Sub Sub
Programme Programme 1 Programme 2
8 Land development
Area of targeted land developed
Expenditure on developmenl of targeled land
Number of derelict sites eradicated
Number of villages assisted
Number of towns assisted
Number of conservation projects to be funded
9 Other
Entarprse culture Number of participants in activities to promote an enterprise culture 1n schools and colleges
Customer contacts Number of customer contacts with CEBs
Hectares
pound
Sites
Villages and projects
Towns and projects
Projects
Persons 62000
Customer 190000 Contacts
Appendix C 4
Appendix D Extract from Consolidated Reporting Guidelines - December 1997 The LEADER Operational Programme Performance Indicators and Revised Targets
Pe-rformance Indicators
Under the tenns nf the Opcr~llional Progr1111n1e e1ch group is rtmiddot4uired to set ck)vn
1~erforn11nce uHJic~1tors and targets vhitmiddoth it vdl ain1 10 ~1chilve in 1he
itn )le1ncntation of its hu~iness plan and against vh1ch its perfonnance Viii htmiddot
evllua1ed_ Follc)ving ~t rcvitv of the fonn ind contenl of 1hc originil incliclliVl
inclicHors1 cornincnt by the independent evduator and consuh1lion Vilh groups a
dc1111itivc range of perfon111nce inclicJtors llas nclv been prepared
E~11h (~roup is required to llltgtdify ils Busin1middotss Pl1n perforn1ance indicators in this
remiddotiscd forn1at for lmiddotte1sure B Ruril innovation 1neasures and insofar as it is possible
at 1his s1age to prep1re inltlil~ltors for middotleisure C middotrransni1ion~1I cu-operitiun for 1hv
period tnding 5 I l)ece111her 1999 PleJse note thlt 1leisure C does no[ relale to
teclmical suppo11 funding received from AEIDL
lh1 Ile st1te111cru of pcrfonn1ncl indicators -hould rLprcscnl a co111pnhensivc
stncnHmiddotnc of 1argets based on progress to ditc ind the i1nplc111entllio11 of 1he
huine~gt plmiddottll to )1 l)cc~1nbcr iltJ99 including thl acklitional 1ctivitics being
~upportcd vith the funding 11locItcd fron1 the -middotrcservtmiddotmiddotmiddot
imiddotht revised busintmiddot-s plan indicators should he con1plctccl ind rc1urnecl to Huril
De-elopmem Division lw ii _l1nua1v 1998
regress Viii he 1neasurecl 1gainst these t1rgcts by lllttns of the Lf)LJ rerurn~ incl the
quant1tat1ve incl qualitllivc reports outlirlltd in sections 3A jl3 incl 5C of 1hesc
guiklines
Ple1se note thal -hJcled areas ire for infon11a1ion only incl 11 lhis st1ge do nol
require indicators to be Stl All olhltr t1rge1s should ht inpulled in 1he 1ppropri1te
fickl- here rherc is no 1lmiddotlemiddotan1 ac1ivi1y tllSl rl zero
1[Jfx11rL IJ 1
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Animation and Capacity Building
ActivityOutput
Promotion
Number of seminarspublic meetingsworkshops organised to cover the following topics GeneralCommunity SpecialisedSectoral
Number of attendees al the above
Number of press releases articles published media interviews
Circulation of LEADER Newsletter Number issued Number per print run
Number of other promotional actions
Direct Animation Assistance I Technical Advice
Number of private individuals directly assistedadvised
Number of bodies directly assistedadvised GeneralCommunity Specialised Sectoral
Number of development strategiestplansmiddot arising from field work (Le_ not covered in ~other technical assistance beneath) including community plans
Co-ordination of Activities
Number of applications referred to other agencies
Impact
Enhanced Awareness of LEADER Services (Not for completion)
This will be measured by middot
The number of individuals contacting LEADER office
The number of groupsbusinesses contacting LEADER office
The number of applications from promoters
The number of projects promoted by LEADER Group itself
General Level of Local I Community Development
Activity (Not for completion)
This will be measured by middot
The number of applications successfully improved
The number of bodies assistedanimatedrestructured improved
Number of bodies established
More Efficient Use of Resources
(Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number of projects successfully referred to other agencies (i e funded)
i
------MeasL1re B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector ActivityOutput -
I
dministration Processing
Number of staff exclusively I assigned to administrative duties
(2 15 etc)
Number of staff exciusively assigned to animation duties (2 1 5 etc)
Number of Board meetings held
Number of hours worked on a I voluntary basis by Board
members
Number of project evaluation committees
I
Number of project evaluation committee meetings held I
Number of hours worked on a voluntary basis by pro1ect evaluation committee members
I Number of internal LEADER Group evaluation meetingssessionsreviews
I Number of external system auditsreviews (not including accounts)
Co-ordination of Activities I
Number or meetings with other LEADER Groups
I
Number of County Strategy Meetings attended
Number of other meetings with I public bodies
middot shy
Impact
Efficient Delivery of Service (Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number or applications received The number of applications
processed The number of applications approved The number of projects completed
More Efficient Use of Resources
(Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number of projects referred to other agencies (not including those that were referred after provision of animation assistancetechn1cal advice which 1s dealt with beneath)
Apprnd1x 0 3
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector ActivityOutput Impact
Technical Support Studies and Research Knowledge I Expertise Made Available to Potential
Number of studies plansaudits Promoters commissioned by LEADER (Not for completion) Group (not including field work carried This wlfl be measured by out by animators which is included above) The number of LEADER
projects emanating from studies Number of other auditsstudiesplans prototype The number of projects development commissioned by emanating from studies funded promoters amp funded by by other agencies LEADER
The number of bodies restructuredimproved
The number of bodies established
1ppc11cLy ) 4
----
--- --
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
I Sector Activity I Output Impact middot- ---shy
Training Provision of Training Courses Acquisition of Skills (Not for completion)
I Number of training courses commissionedundertaken by This will be measured by LEADER Group (not including animation activ1t1es The number of bodies outlined above) demonstrably LEADER StaffBoard restructuredimproved by GeneralCommunity Courses training provided to SpecialisedSectoral volunteersstaff
I
Number of attendees at the above The number of proiects emanating from training
I PROVISION OF TRAINING GRANTS The number of attendees who
were placed in employment as Number of Training Grants for a result of training
I courses commissioned by promoters and funded under LEADER (not including any of the above)
I GeneralCommunity Courses Spec1al1sedSectoral
Number of attendees at the above
Grant Provision Job CreationRecruitment Assistance I
Number of Employment Grants Employment created provided
I ~-
Afgtj)(11cLmiddot J 5
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Activity I OutputSector
Improvement of Existing Accommodation and
Tourist Amenities
Rural Tourism
Number of capital grants provided
Development of New Accommodation and
Tourist Amenities
Number of capital grants provided
Marketing
Number of marketing grants provided
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number accommodation facilities upgraded to Bord Faille standard
Number of additional beds available
Increased number of visitormiddot capacity
Add1t1ona1 tourist revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Sectoral Benefits
New entrants
Number of additional beds available
Increased number of visilor capacity
Additional revenue generated IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Improved Business Attributable to Marketing
Additional bed-nights arising from marketing strategy
Additional inquiries visits to tourist offices - domestic - overseas
Additional visits to tourist amenities Siles arising from marketing strategy
Number or new marketmg methods tourist packages initiated
Employment- (e g directly arising rrom marketing as opposed to capital grant aid eg as a result or brochures advertisements etc) Created I Sustained
-------
Meas1Jre B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Small Firms Craft Enterprise and Local Services
I
I
i
I
i
i
I
_
Activity I Output
Support for Existing Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Support for New Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Marllteting
Number of marketing grants provided
- -Impact
-Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with improved efficiencyadded value to products and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product ranges
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
I
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises established
New productsproduct ranges
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Greater Awarness of Enterprise Activity
Number of new (geographical) markets developed - within Ireland - within EU - non - EU
Increased sales (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
1J(11di- Igt 7
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Agricultural Forestry and Fishery Products
Activity I Output
Support for Existing Enterprises and Improving
Quality of Existing Products
Number of capital grants provided
Support for New Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Marketing
Number of marketing grants provided
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with improved efficiencyadded value to products and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product ranges
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Number of enterprises established
New productsproduct ranges
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Greater Awareness of Enterprise Activity
Number of new (geographical) markets developed - within Ireland - within EU - non - EU
Increased sales (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector Activity I Output Impact
Freservation of the Improving Awareness Increased Environmental Environment and Livin Awareness9
Conditions Number of capital grants Number of environmental provided plansaction groups established
(not including groupsplans arising from animation andor other technical support outlined above)
Number of entries for Tidy Towns Competition
Benefit to the Built I Cultural of Built I Social and Cultural
Protection I Enhancement Environment
Environment
Number of built sitesstructures provided Number of capital grants
protected or restored
Number of socialcultural events held
Employment created I sustained
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Benefit to the Natural of Natural Environment
Protection I Enhancement Environment
Number of natural sites protected provided Number of capital grants
Number of natural amenities restoredenhanced
Improved Managment of Activities I Alternative
Waste Management Waste I Availability of
Energies Alternative Energy
Number of capital grants Number of alternative energy provided providers established
Number of waste management initiatives implemented
Employment created I sustained
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
AJf)(itrlLmiddot J9
Measure C Transnational co-operation
Sector
Transnational Co~peration
Activity I Output
Grant Provision
GeneralCommunity SpecialisedSectoral Rural Tourism Small Firmscraftsenterprises AgricultureForestryFisheries Products EnvironmenVLiving Conditions Other
Number of Grants provided to final beneficiary (each category is exclusive)
Private Men Private Women Private Jointmiddot CommunityDevelopment Groups Business VoluntarySpecific Issue Groups Co-operatives LEADER Group Other Total
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with establishedimproved efficiency added value to producls and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product rangesnumber of new marketing methods tourist packages initiated
Number of new (geographical) markels developed - within Ireland -within EU - non-EU
Additional inquiries visits to tourist offices - domestic - overseas
Additional visits to tourist amenities sites arising from marlltetmg strategy
Additional bed-nights arising from marketing strategy
Increased sales Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Number of cultural links established
Number of local development strategies studies transferred shared
Number of environmental actions
Employment - created full-time all year fu11-time seasonal part-time all year part-time seasonal
Employment - sustained full-trme all year full-time seasonal part-time all year part-time seasonal
AfJJll1tll~Y )_ Q
Appendix E Matrix of Development Agencies in County Roscommon and the Services Provided (Produced by Roscommon County Enterprise Board)
---------~
c Q
~l agt-EUJ
Co Jnty Slrategy Group CoJnty Enterpnse BoHd
Anmiddotina Enterprise Fund
Lec1der 11
Pai tnersh1p Co ( --~--~---~--~--
Co-Jnty Council ---- middot---~---t--~--~~-~r ---~-~--~-~--~-~--~--~
lrel 3nd Wes ToLnsm
--~---~--~--~---middot -~----~----------~--
Tecgasc
An Bord Tr3cht31a
Forbairt ( ( (
10t Ireland I
FA
Bord Faille (
Bar1ksFinanc1al Insmiddot itulions I
Dcpartmenl of Social Welfare
Buiness Innovation Centre
European lnfc rmat1on Centre
AfJjJCJICfiY E l
Appendix F Framework of Agreement between County Meath CEB and County Meath LEADER II Group
MEMOHANDUM OF AGHEFMFNT
JelVtLll
The Meath County Fn1erpnse Board Ltd
and
Mca th Leader 11
Given he -i1n1brilics bl(lLll ccnnn ispeCls of the n1ni1 of bnth Counry Enterprise Hoard ind lc1dcr
IL ii b 11ceptcJ th11 i high ltkne of co-orxru1on is rcql1inJ to tbullns11n that dtmiddotserv1ng proiccis giin
n11xi1nl1111 txncfit fron1 he s11p1x111 1ncchanis11h avulihh V1tlun hoth orgu11-11in11s_ Vhdc s~ 11HL
division of rcsponsiliililics is possibl~ t outlined hcIO 11 1s ncogni cJ 11111 both groups need 10 1dop1
tn OJICll n(Xihh tpproteh IO the ltsk of f)TltJCCing ClllflCS 111J tppliCtliOllS
lc1dcr II -ill ha prin1a~middot n spon~ibilitv ill 11lc Couniy f()r lhc st1ppon of p1ojlmiddotCS f10111 the frgtllovi11~
sectors
bull Craft Enttrpnscs Cfor fin1nciil suppon ilh 1 li1n11cd fcxmiddotus on soft suppons)
bull Kurii Touris1n
bull Proicn- p1n1nnttd hy Co111111u11i1y CnH1P
bull Exploilition and M1rke1ing of lor1I agriculcur1I fcxxl for(siry tnd fishtnts products
bull Envuonn1tnl for ht follomiddotinJ mc1surcs middot
e Prtscrv1tion ind dcvlmiddotloprnenl of the existing 1rch11te1ur1I heriti(lbull ind bullillages
bull Suppo11 for n1hur1I Cfl111v1ty ind the pron1ot1un C1f cultur1I product- linked ith nir~d
ltlevelcip111ent
bull Prot~ctron rch1btli111ion ind explollllion of nuural rccurces (Oor1 fiunt srndl s1rc11ns
ccc) ind bncl~tpcs
bull Di1x1s1I 1nd fC()ding Clf ISie illdl1ding llSt or energy pnxluuion
ll1is i111plies th11 Le1ltler II tvill cngig1middot 111 p1--delmiddotlltipn1lmiddotnt 1ni11nins research tnd 1111rkc1ing ind he
prin11rily nspons1hlc for the c1pi1d invt~1111enl 1s-oci11ed Vith tht dcvcloprnent of vdue-iltld(d fotgtlt1
produce ind viii dso pronss rtqutsts for 1id for c1p1rd intslmeni ln1ploy111cnt grants 1111rktting
ind 111ining s11ppon- in lht 1hovl stcio1s
The County Enttrpnsc l3cgt1rltl tvill continu1 10 support f(bull1siliilicy cap1td ind (rnploy1ncnl projcd
l1id1 li1vt tilt c1p1lt ily ro gtntricc ernpkraquobull111tn1 v11h1n tll otlllmiddotr -ltmiddotciors Po1cnt1tl projects vhich 111cit
This rtquirvnicnc viii he rtfcrrtd to tteh otliLr in 1cltorltlincc Vitll tlus Agrtllllcnl
middot111t 1ltith Coun1y Enterprise Boird lld ind ilcalh Lealtlcr II arlmiddot lOn1n1incd to rn11ntaining open lines
nf cn111n1un1c11ton tn in1plcn1er1t the tcnn- of thi u11dirs11nd1ng ind alsn co111111ir 1h11 the Chief
Execu1ivltmiddot OfficLmiddotrs will n1eet hH1ndly on 1 111onclilmiddot li1sis to v11s111c cff1cilnt i1npllnhnt1tilgtn middot111i
AgretlllLnt tltgt co111inue 111 orxr11ion un11I _l_t Oeccn1her 19)7 ind viii Ix suh1cc1 10 rcvittmiddot by the
1cith County Enterprise Board 11cl 1n consult1t1011 Vith Lcidtr IL
101hi11g in chis A_irec1ntnt shtll he cltJntruccl 10 li111i1 DI tLStnu lhe _1in11D1y il1nu1011s 111d n1xr1titJns
of till 11lmiddot1th Coun1y Enttrprbc Bo1rd 11cl or lc1der II
Pn1lint B1ker Torn Clinton
Ch11rr111n Ch11n11111
middotlttth Coun1y Enlerprisc Boud Ltd Mc11h lc1dtr II
~ppcndrx I I
Appendix G Terms of Reference for Interdepartmental Policy Committee
Thn New Committees Role
The Role of the new Committee to be cl1Jired by Minister of ~late Finnel will Ix
shned by the Local Demiddotelopnlltnt Mind1Itmiddot given to Department of Tourism Sport
and lkcrca11on by the (jovcrnmenL Key items in that bndate which fall into the
Coumittees remit will mcluclc
A PronH)ticJn of tile integral(lt dcvelop111cnt of tl1e 111o~n dis~1dvantaged urban con1n1unitics hy ensuring that their needs are addresscd ()11 a priority ~incl
coordinated basis in conjunction vi1h 1rea Partnership lton1panie~ by all nlevanr public agencies
bull middot1l1is is regarded as the 1nost urgent priltgtrity
bull Tlw focus will be on developing the opti1ml approach to addressing
the needs of these areas
bull Special co-on linated all-out etfltJl1 in a nun1bcr ltgtf s1nall areas
j B Co-cgtrdination of Ioc~1l lgtcvcloprnent iniriatives and prcp~trnion for the
post - 1999 transition to an integrated Local Development ancl Local
Govcrnn1cnr systc1n
bull 1oc~d l)evelopn1enl IiaiS(gtn Jean1 issues
bull Adclnssing rclevan1 local clcvelopn1cnt issues raised in l3etter Loc~d
(overnnltnt - ~1 Prngra111111e fltgtr CJ1angc anU lh( recenlly ruhl1sliecl Hcport of the J)evcgtlu1ion Co111111ission
bull middotrhe en1phasis vlll ht ltgtn en~uring thal the posi11ve dcvelopn1ents and effective lltV V~l)S of VOrking resulting fro1n Local l)evelop111ent
and Partnership initiative~ arc preserved and strengthened in the
developnltlll nf i renevecl Loc1I Govern111ent
C The Oper1tiond Progrimmc for Locd Urb1n 111cl Rural Development
ancl its sh1pe post - 1lt)99
middot middotrhL 1nain tmiddottsks Vill be tltgt
bull Secure hl btmiddot~r co-ordinttion hltveen the various i111rle1nerHing
1ge11cie- l)ep111n1ents etc
r1jJjJlllriz~y G 7
bull Seek 10 ensure chat problcn1s incl issucs vhlch ~1rise il ~1 local level
ire n-ponclecl ro incl rcsolveltI
bull lclencify i1en1s tltgt be n11instrc1111ed in tern1s cgtf overall policy
bull Consider 1he ou1line of i new 011URJ) for the post - 1999 penocl
taking into ~1ccount the viC-middot of the Social Partncri
D Co-urclin11iun of (gtV(rltdl Govern1nent Policy on Local l)evekgtpn1ent
bull middotr1ie Jn1er-l)epan111ental Pt)licy Con11ni11ee on Loc~d J)evelopn1en1 Vill
be a key foru 111
bull Scctltgtrtl is-ues viii he considered fro111 1he perspective of
encouraging gre~ttcr cO-ltgtrdin~ttion and integr1tion of delivery of
services It local hvel
Glossary
AAES
tni1nation
lleneficwy
Bord M6ni
CEil
Coilhe
CSG
1)(1chas
DSCFA
Hfll
Enttmiddotrprise Ir~Ltncl
ESB
f L
Fisherivs llotrds
Forfis
1rca Allcnv~1nce Enterprise Schen1e Vhich is
idministered bv lannerships on behilf of DSCFA
From Jimrny 1999 this sch~nw is known is the llick
to Xork Enterprisc 1llov~1nce
middotrhc role of ani1nation is to i111prove the effec1iveness
of the con1111unity in loc1l develop111cn1
Project pro111oter or con1nu1n11y group in receipt of
fin1ncill suppo11
Stare sponsored body ni1n1ging and developing
pearlinds
County Enterprise Board
St~He sponsored body 1111n1ging public forests ind
nlatcd activities
Coun1y Strategy Groups Crc cs11blished under
OlLURI) to L1cili1a1e co-ordinHiun ind 111inirn1sc
duplication in the dtlivtry of progr1n111Hs ii county
level between the different irntiatives
1middot11e t-lerirage Service it the l)cpa11111ent of rts
f-kririge Gielucht ind rhe Islands
Depinmcnr of Sociil Community ind Fimily Affiirs
Easrern Heilth lloird
Sttle sponsored body issisling Irish co1np1nilts 10
increJse their sales expo11s JJHl e111ploy1nent
Electricity Supply Board
Europe1n U11io11
iition1l 1r~1ining and en1pluynHmiddotn1 1uthority
Sta111tory organisations cl11rged vitl1 responsibilicy for
the developnllnl ind protection or inland fisheries
Forf1s is the policy 1chbulliso1) and co-ordination ho1rd
for industrial developn1ent and sci middotnce and
technology
II) Ireland
Int grtlltd Slrvices lgtrojcct
llC
lncrreg II
lEI I)EJ( II
LE11DEH groups
ITU
11insrrea111ing
Mid-Term Evalua11on
~lonitoring Co1nn1itree
011UHD
lc1rnerships
1 State Ovncd coinpany vhich pro111ores invard
investn1ent
middotrhe Integrated Services 1gtrojec1 V1~ estiblishcd co coshy
onlinate tile inptHs of all slle services in four pilot areas of clisaclvan1age
lnterclepaHn1e11tal Policy Cltnnn1i1tee for LltgtCtl
Devdopmenr w1s est1blish1middotd in June 1995 and ns
function i-gt to Omiddotcrsce and n1ike reco11unenda1ions on
local devclopmelll
111 EU lnili~llive 10 develop cross hltgtrcler co-opcrllion
Jnd to help an1s ovcrcon1e prohle1u~ as-ociated Viti
being on 1ht Unionmiddots internal and externJI fronlitrs
incl to fill gap- in energy netvorks and provide
interconnections Vllh vider european nelvorks
liaisuns c111re actions cle clltJ1cofPen1en1 (e reco1101nie
rurole - 1 Co111111unity lnitiJlit for rurtl cl~veloptlHnr
covering rhc period 1994 to 199)
Companies est1blished undn IEADER 10 11nple111elll
llHmiddot progran1111e objectives
Long-tcrrn unc1nployecl
ProceS of tr1niferring successful pilol project- of an
innov~Hive nalure 10 n1iinline govtrnn1cnt clepart1nents
anti ~1gencies
1n independent evalualion rtq11ir(cl to be carried out
on any EU progrunn1e Vhich is five or n1ore years in
ltJper~1tion
Fsublished to mTrsec rhe operation of any EU progr~1111111e It con1ains reprtscn1arives of thlt EU
co1111nission govern1nent clepart111ents and progran1111e
in1pll~n1entors
Orerationcd lrogrJmme for Local Urban and Hurd
lkvelopmcnt 1994-1999
Area-lhsed lannersh1p Companies
le1ce 111d Heconcilurion
lESI
Pos1 2000 subrnission
Territorial Employment
Picts
Tourism Opcrationll
Progran1111c
Ul~HN ini1iuive
1n EU Initiative to reinforce progress Ovards a
pe1ccful ind stable society by incre1sing econo1nic
dcvelop1nc1H urban and rur~d regeneration
developing cross-lxJrdcmiddotr links incl con1lx111ing soci1l
exclusion
Progra1nn1e for Econo111ic and Social Progress
Suh1nissions nques1ed fro111 govern1ne111 depar11ntnts
other sr11e 1gcncics ind na1ionil 1x1nners on the
future use of structurII funds post 2000
An EU lrnti1tive to hdp the unemployed find 1obs 1n
dis1clv1n1aged areas
middotrhe opera11onal progra111111c for 1ouris111 devltlopnHnt
under tlw Community Support Framework 199i middot 1999
n EU Initiative the purpose of which is 10 1ddress
in 111 integrited tr urban sltxi1l exclusion by
building panncrship arr1ngcnHnrs bttvcen locil
1u1horitil and 01hcr loc1J structures
S1J1mmary middotrhis alue for 1nnney rcpo11 is cnnccrntd vi1h the oper~Hion during the period 1994shy1995middot of loc1J devllop1ntnt initiatives provided through (ounry Enterprise Boards (CEiis) Arc1-B1sed 11nnersh1r Comp1111es (i1rtncrshipsJ ind IEADER groups
CEiigt Wltre es11hished in every countv for thtmiddot p11rrose of promnlng locd emerprise incl econo1111c clev([op1nen1 middotrhcrc 1rc 3 CLBs vhich opcrltttc undtmiddotr agreen1en1
Villi the J)epart1ncn1 of Enterprise middotrrade and E111ploy1nen1
middotrhe purpose of Partnerships is to co1nlx11 unln1ployn1ent ~ind exclusion middotrhere ire
38 lannerships operalrng in 1re1s design11ed as disrdvrntagcd and a fu11her 33 Inell devtlopnumiddotnt gruups in non-dis1dv1nt1gecl 1n1s middotrhesc opertle under in inle1111ldi1ry con11x1ny vhich rt~purt~ to the Igtcp1rt11Hnt uf middotrouris111 Sprnl ind
Rccreilion
The LEADER grours were cstiblrshed under an EU In11io11ive to promote rur11 clevcmiddotlopnitmiddotnt 1ly suppCgtrting lltgtcal developnHtH groups middotrhere middottrl 5i lEAl)EH
groups opirH1ng undcr agrei1nc11t- vith the lJep1ru11ent of Agriculrurl ind Food
From 1994 10 1998 public funding totalling l208 million was providld lo these bodies of vhich pound-127 111illion middotIi pruvicled by 1hc EC Co111n1i~sion incl f~-1 111illion
by 1he Exchequer CEB-gt ~ind Pannirships an funded under the ()perationtl lrofra111111e Or Lltx-al Urlgtan and Hurorl [kvelop111en1 199lt1-1999 (OPUIHD) The UADER groups 1re funded under the LEAD EH Operational Programme 1994- 1999
middotr11e value for niuncy ex1111inttion looked H specific issues rel1ting to rhc
acln1inistr1tive ~ind opilJtiontl etliciincy of thlt thrt~t~ 1ypts of hoclies lht
1rra11gc111ents fo1 co ordination lgtlttvtmiddotcn rhe txxlies and approache~ 10 ltValutlion of
their i111p1ct
Administrative Efficiency
middotrhe divcrsily of 1c1ivi1ies ~ind different stages of developnicnr of the hodies li1111t chc~
exrc11 to Vhich cross con1parisons of achninistrHive efficiency c1n be 111acllt
drrinistc111011 expc11di111re hy all tlte hocl1es 111tallld S28 9 11ull1on 1n tlw pltn11d 1995 to 1middot)97 )uring 1hiI period thl ovcr~i11 rrcenl~tgi of ad1111ni~lration costs to total cxplncli111re declined subtantitlly fro1n 28Yo co 220u principilly bccaust n1any of chc bodies n1ovcd fron1 1 set up phase ICgt being fully operational Achninis1r1t1on expenditure as a ptTcc11t1ge of ltgtlal expcndi1un also varied bttVCltll individu1I hnclitmiddots clue to clitlere1Hes in the nalure of the aclimiddoti1ies undeniken For lX~ttnpk the level of 1cl1ninistr~1tive co-l~ middotoukl he influenced by lhe extent to Vhich
incli11idual bodies is~lll grant support or offer non-financial 1ssist1nce In generil Partnlrships have higher adn1in1strllion cost- nlHive to thlmiddot other hod1es for rhis reasc)n
middotrhe llodies are characterised hy -ubstintitl voluniarmiddotymiddot inputs at board and sulgtshycon1n1inee levels middotrhis is in kclping Vith hirncs-ing local knovledgc and tpenise ro ~1ch1eve con1n1on ob1ectivt~ Key staff VCrC inv1n1hly highly qualified and
rcso ircefuL
lhe develop1ncn1 of n1~1nagen1tmiddotnt inforn1ition _ys1c1ns has not been sari-Ltctorymiddot in
--- middot- --------------shy
ulttf I )(coJlllc1 II If ii itl f itL
that rhert is nn 1tJ1un111ic sharing of d111 11nnng loc1l dtVllop111en1 bodies ind lhe scope for effectiveness inilysis is t1111i1ed middotrhroughoul 1hlt pcritxl covered by lhL ex1111in11ion inforn1ation systt111s vl1icl1 include perfcn1111nce 111e1suns ind inclic1tors (cl n1cJniror etliciltncy incl ~tTectiveness htvL l)etmiddotn under tlevLmiddotlup111cn1 ind pr()grts is heing 1111cle in iddrc sing the deficiencilS
Co-ordination of Activities
The flexible approich 10 the i111ple111et11ition of local dewloprnnt policy rcmiddotstilts in consider1hhmiddot duplicition of the enlcrprislmiddot crvicts providld by thlt three types or hodils Vith 1pcc1 10 objlClies clients incl 1c1ivities middotro i lesser lXtLllt 1here is duplici11on of 1c1ivities concerned ilh coun1ering serious ecnno111ic incl sociil dis1clv1n1ige heciusl Pirtnerships t1rgct specific clitnl groups - the long-tcnn unemployed ind the soci11ly excludld In nine ctsc-s Pinnerships and lEADEH groups share i conunon 1111n1gc1nen1 board
Co-operilion 11nung 1hc hodies ind Villi othtr urginisalions (Stale local govern111tnl co111111unity ind volunttry st ctor incl bllllllSS) ~Jt loctl ltvel to 1chicve igreed objectives con1rib11tcs to the unique innovlit roll of 1hc Local l)evelor1nen1 initiitives
Suhsicly shopping can ltgtCltl1r IHrehy Lmiddotlitmiddotn1s can 1111xin1ise the public funding they rcciivi by tpplying for grillS frolll cliffcnn IJodieS (O 11ppOlt cliiferent elelllt~lllS Oi
their projccls middotrhis incvit1bly leicls lo cluplic11ion in 1d1ninistrllion Fonnil in1erdep1rr111en1il 1gree111en1s should Ix- cmiddotontmiddott1ded to define 1l1e li1ni1s bllVecn the ohrcc11ves clienls ind activities of thl three bodies ind si111ilir 1gree111en1s should he concluded It locil level middotrhese 1green1tmiddotn1 n1ight look for vays of n1ini1nising the id111inisr11ion of 111ultiple tpplicHions for funcling in 1 project
t cohestvlmiddot 1ppro1ch to th( intcgrition of locil govern1nen1 1nd loc~ll develorn1en1 V~ts set out in 1998 by tn in1erclep111n1ental middotrask Force J1nplen1cnt11ion of 1his rep(U1 is underv1y
Operational Efficiency
middotrh1middot 1111in 1ctivi1y ind outpul tirgcts ire being n1et but the absence of baseline perfnnnince d111middot llll1ns lltll ii is not knclvn hoV dc1111nding 1he original r1rgets Vere 1rising fron1 VOrk by the external cviluitors ro thl Oper1tional Progra1nn1es 1111ny nf the 11rge1s h1vc been rlisccl hv tile -loniroring (01nn1inees vhich oversee llH i1nplv111c111tlilt)n c)f rl1ltmiddot Progr11111ncs
1hile tlcn1en1s nf exptmiddotnditun (Pannltrships incl LEAJ)FH groups) Vere son1cvh1t behind tirget II the lttlcl of 1998 it is cxpec1ed by the lgtcp~1111nents 1h11 spcncling targlts viii he n1e1 by the encl of the Operational Progran1111es
Sludils indicHt lhH tht level of dcadvciglll (the tmiddotxrent to Vhich enterprises suppltgtrlt~cl unclir the Operational lrogr1111111es Ould be cst1hlished Vilhout gr1n1s) n11y be in the rangt 4(Yc1 10 50dego ()isplicen1en1 (the ex1cn1 to Vhich suppo11ed enterpri~cs clive11 stils ind en1ploy111en1 oppo11uni11es fro1n other Irish enterprises) 111iy he in the r1ngl 20 (Cl 400u Fron1 eirly l 99H CEBs and P111nerships have been tn1poverecl to Jss1s1 enterprise projects by n1eans of refuncl1ble Jid incl equily Use
ii
S1111111u11v
of thltse forms of id should he expndcd quickly in prelerencl 10 11011-repyJlt gracts 1s they can help to reduce cleHhveight 1nd dispL1ce111tnt and in addi11on 1re t 1111)1 econo1nictl use of public funds
Son1e inst1nces of clispk1cen1en1 providl social benefits vhich n11y outvcigh the
cost involved There is a need for n1orl cl1rity regarding the circu111s11nces in vhich
dispbccrncnr rn he perrnined
Assessment of Impact
lhe developn1en1 of sys1e1ns to 1ssess the in1pact of Local J)tgtvtgtlopn1en1 initkHives is not easy hec1use of 1he clibullersity of objccrives rhc tick of n1easurahility nf so111e
i111p1cts rlie tlJsence of clisagtregtled d1t1 n1odels rclcv1nt lo locil areas and the need for careful in1erpretHio11 of results
Quantitative Assessment
ltJu1n1itJtiC 1sessn1ent of the in11x1c1 of (gtcal l)evclopn1ent hodivs c1n bl carried our by exa1nining ch1nges in vari1ble such as long-tcnn 11ne1nploynHnl ind 1-n11middotrpri-e forn1arinn Studits to dare of thest v1riallles have yielded inlmiddotonclu-ive
rt~sults
rtpon on the i111p~1ct of OJgtLLHI) on ong-tenn ltnen1ployr11lrlt shnvs thtt fro111
1991 to 1996 unc111ploy111cnt in gtJrtntmiddotr~hipmiddotareas fell by roughly poundhe sa111t penentage as in non-P~n1nership ~treas
A111y~is of 11~11ional Live Hcgi~[er cla1a for 1he pc-riod CJ94-1998 indilates ~1 signifi(1n1 Lill in chc kwl of long-cerm unemployment hich b pat11cula1 focu of P~1r111erships bur the reduction n1ay h1ve 111ore 10 do vith 1he in1pact of tron~ 1middotconon1ic gn)vth poundh1n vid1 rhc effec1 of Local l)cvclop111cnt initiatives
A nmiddotiev of the nu1nber of n1anuL1c1uring s1ar1urs fru1n 1987-1996 siHJVS rhar 1he rapid econon1ic grcJvlh fro1n 1995 and the onstmiddott of thtmiddot Local l)evllop111ent iniri11ives did 101 result in an increisecl rate of 1111nuf1c1uring sta11ups
lntc~rnion of enterprise support incl perforn11nct da11 Jcross the Loctl l)evmiddot-lopn1cn1 inipoundiuives voulcl be required in order 10 est1hlish 1he underlying reasmiddot)llS for these rends
Quiitative Assessment
lkciled Census of Populicio11 d11 (1991 a11d 19)6) is available regrd1ng 1ndicacors of distdv1n11ge in Pirtnership 1n~1 hile rherc are lin11tuions inolved in int(-rpreti11g the cl1t1 fu11her ~1111lys1s ~houd facilitlle 1s~es1nen1 of lhl in1p1cr of the actimiddotities of 1111ncrhips
Jhe exlent of n1~11eri1J specificJJly covering 1hc evtlua1ion of i111pacl is very li111ited P1rt11crships hie CJrriecl our evcril cisc Situlies to cxplorL the in1ptrl of 1heir tcliililS ind 10 pro111ute 1-gtesr pr1c1ice (1~l srudies arc undervay also in ni1ny
lEA)EH groups l-lovtver there is i clt-1r nted for 111ore d111 lmiddotulllmiddotcrion and the
clevdopmenc of sonil policy rnocleb co prnvicle a hcncr ins1gl11 into che imp1cr of Loe~ I l)evelop111ent 1c1ivities
iii
bull
Local Development Initiatives
middot
- shy~~ ~~ltmiddot~-
middot
middot~
1 Introduction
Background to Local Development Initiatives
11 Since htbull ltarly 1)90 the (omiddoternn1tmiddotn1 middotill1 the support of 1hc European
lJnion (_lmiddotl) h1s introdutcd 1 nun1hvr of policy initiatives in suppo11 of hxil sltx-ioshy
eltcgtncgtnlilmiddot clcvelltlp1ncnt Tlteslt 1ni1i1timiddotcs stc111111cd fngt1n htmiddot pertcivcd L1ilt1re (Jf
cxiting pnlicicmiddots to _hirl lfllmiddot benefit ol 1middotcono111ic gnnmiddotth lmiddotquitahly tcrn-s local
ro11H1H1nililS ind 111Hn1g thl 111ore distdmiddot1n11gtmiddotd scctCJr of Irish iocitImiddot (~llltrtl to
1hc initiatives ts tliemiddot cn~11ion of lllcd lll1ployn1cn1 oppnnunititmiddot togetlitmiddotr Villi
llHISllrtmiddots to 11cklc cduc1tional distclvan11glmiddot tJlmiddotirltlflllltnlil cl1c1y ind ocial
lxclusion middotrhe IH~v pc ii icy alio n11rked 1 revers~1l fro111 the tr1ditio11al htmiddotgi111ony DI
central govltrnnitmiddotn1 by nmiddotcognising iht roll Vhich local cu11111111ni1amiddot c1n play in
the proctsi of lCltHlltunic trKI Sltgtc1al dtbull(lopn1enc
12 r pri11IJI) purpo--l of Incil J)evelop111lnl V1- co identify Jprropnllt Vays of
-tin1uLtting tll rllvvant luctl re-ources 111 suppo11 of Lllterpngti deth)pn1vn1 ind
tickling long-tern1 unernploy111ent hough llLttetL lhe-imiddot 1rt di-rinct uhjccliVLS 1nU
tlil vXtmiddotnr ro middothich they could htbull 1sotiatcd in operationd llllll- rc1111ined tn he
lthlished it that ti111e
13 IIH 1111in ekmiddotnlLllC ()f the llt appro1ch middotLlL
bull p1rtnersliip hllVtmiddotcn stitulory hu ines ind cD111nH1nity scctnrgt
bull dtmiddotmiddotulurinn to local bodies of lllltmiddotds idcntifiLation pL1nning to-ordi111Cio11 of
progr11111tltS dvlill of 1r111ova1it and ctmiddotriain other action tnd 111on11()ring
of progres
bull involvcrncnt of the eniirlt co111n1unity cspcciilly d1sHhmiddot1nt1gcd groups
bull 1dltl[Hilt1n cgtf a Jtili-li(middot ll)PH)tclt l1tbullrtbulll)y l(l)flCgtllliC 111d S(icmiddoti~1J dlVtbullhipnlcllt
VOllld OCClll (CllCUllellliy
13 middotrt1tmiddot Hhnini-rrililtlll (Jf Lo~middot1l J)tmiddotvlmiddotlopnHmiddotnr in Ireland is cl1ssi1111l1r legt 1ll11 in
oth1 middotr FlJ countriis in li1tl
bull lhltrl artbull i nu111lill of di1inc1 pn1gr1n1n1cs
bull there i strong centrd gullllllhllt 111d EU involve111tlll
bull 111middotv local 1d111ini-tr1t1vc s1n1c1111middotls -ere demiddoticcJ inderH1Hllnt ()r lXiring local
govlmiddotrn111cnt structu1
Ctmiddotrrril goven1111enl control- the hulk of public fininces At locil ltmiddotvel local
aulill gtril ilt~ ft 1 net ions h1 ve 1llen li111i1ed Ct ivering n11ttcrs such ts roads -1ni111ion
111d housing ihill 1hvonric1llv locil ~1u1lionl1tS co1dd lllgtgLmiddot in 111a11v uther ()cal
c lemiddot l le iJ Hnen t
hinmiddotling ~ygttlIll 111d ittthility 10 pursue ltl ignificull ltgtctl c1x11ion middotYtcn1_ 1 middotr1sk
oca Je1ehJ[J111e111 lnitiatiues
Force 1 esrtblish~cl by rhe Governn1tnl 1nadc i nu111her of rtco1n1ncnd1tions in 1
rcpon 111 August 1998 regarcl1ng the mtcgration of local dcvdopment with local
government These ere approved by the Government in September 1998 (sec
paragraphs 10 to 3 31)
Organisational and Management Arrangements
15 The tO main EU funded programmes providing suppon for Local
Development arc the Opernional Programme for Local Urban 1nd Hural
Devclormcnt (OlLUHD) ind 1he llADEH II lrogr1111111c These Opcrntional
lrog11mmcs were drafted by the Department of the Tao1sc1ch and 1hc Dep1rtmen1
of Agriculture and Food (Agricuhure 1nd Food) respectively within EU guidelines
incl 1grced Vith the EU Co1n111ission
16 Each sub-progr1111111e of 011UlI) and IEADER 11 is 1clm1nistc1nl locally by di1inc1 Local J)evelop1ncn1 bodilts middotrhis c11nin~1tion is concerned Vilh Lltx~il
l)evelop111en1 acrivilies 1cl1niniscercd by Coun1y Enlerprise Bltgtards and 1re1-Based
111111crship Companies under OlLURD and by LEADEl groups under LEADER II Hcspons1bili1y for rhee bodies coines under chi rc1nit of three scpar11lt Governn1en1
Dep111ments (sec 11gurc II)
Co1111ty pound11er[Jrise Boards
17 Crn1111y Enterprise lloirds ((Ells) were established 111 Oe1olier 1993 wnh the
tilll or fu tering incl f1cilitating che LCOll01l1iC dcvelopn1ent of local area~ Each CEB
Vts required 10 clrt1 up 1 Counry 1nccrprise Pltn incl its iccions incl prupo-als are
Figure 11 Main Departments and Local Development bodies
Enterprise Trade and
Employment
County Enterprise
Boards
Tourism Sport Government and Recreation Departments and Agriculture
and Area Intermediary and Food DevelopmenlCompany
Management Ltd
bull
Area-Based
Local LEADERPartnershipsDevelopment groupsCompanies and
Bodies community groups
1Jc To5k fmiddot(Jtmiddotccmiddot R(Xlrt u11 rbe 1tfpound7ratiu11 lt oc(lf (io1en1111e1u (11tf Local Jc1elo1me11t Srs1e111s bullbull~Ql( 19)i
2
---1tfrotluct1un
ha ed on 1hi plan middotrhertmiddot art 51 ltEBs in total covering county and urban local
~ll1hori1y 1rc1s Ftch (~EB h1s 1-i 111e1111Jer irHluding repngtStIltHivls of local
govltrnn1c11t public Stl or 1g~ncics hu1ntmiddots Lun1ing lradt union and co11111n1ni1y
inlTest
lH middotrhc CEBs provide 1 r1nge of enltrprigtt -upp()rt -ervices al local levt l eg
admiddot1 ic~ and coun~tlling hus1ncmiddot infonnaiion financial 1sis1ancc and 111an1gtIlllnc
dcmiddottlop11l(Jll middotrhtbull firgltl group- ~tre husinltsse- co11111nu1i1y groups individud
en rcprtJ1(lJrs 1nd -n1i[] enterprises cEBs tonk OVtf re-gtpon-ihililv frorll lhl fltgtrlller
Industrial i)tclop111cnt u1hori1y (ll)A) for the devt~lDpllhllt of 111anufac111ring and
inl =rna1iont gtervicc - finn~ Vilh ltmiddot s th111 ten en1ploycmiddotc In 1ddi1ion_ thtmiddoty is-u111cd
the l1tmiddot roll of pngt11101in~ 111 vnltTpriL culturt
l~1 J-ro111 1hc outet the i)tgtp1r1111lnt of Entcrprist middotrrade and F1nployn1cnt
( Enterpri-e middotrr1dtmiddot 111d L111ploynHmiddotn1) has been responsiblt for co-ord1n~Hing and
supcrvising the crBgt lniti11ly dec1~ions on grant payn1ent~ lo individual projecls
vtre vetted by hl f)t1gt1rt111enl 11ltgttVtL (~EBs Vere ccgtr1s1i1111cd as lin1ited liahili1y
l0111p1nies during iltJltJ) and ifl(I 1January 19CJ(i hive 111idc grtnt decisions
110 Stiffing accon1111ltJLlatiun and 01hcr expen es V(~1tmiddot ini1i1lly provided liy lhtmiddot
lul ii 1u1horitics on a recoupn1cnr lgtt~i and ah hough the CFBs anmiddot nov
inl orporatccl rntny havtmiddot coniinutd Viti lliis 1rrangen1cn1
111 Funding for ltt]is is co-fin111ctmiddotd by Elj _1ruc1urtl funds via suh-progra1111ne I
of 011UHD mcl hv the hchequlr
Ara-amp1setl lc1rt11erslJiJ (-tJn11c111ies
112 1ret-Bit~d 11rtntrhip co1np1nies ltPa11ncrship) vere originally c-tihlished
in 12 ~1rltmiddotmiddotas un 1 pilot hi~i in 1991 10 in1phnhnt an nca-hastmiddotd nmiddotspollgtt to longshy
tlrrn unen1pl(lyn1tlll under tile Progra111111e for Econoinic and Sul-i1I Progrltss (PESP)
_JH Partnerships havt hcen lSt1hlished (2() urhJn ind 1- rural) lo optrat in 55 areas
dtig11Htmiddotd by 1hc (~ovvnlllltlll i~ hling disidvan1~1gtd In 1cldi1ion lherc ire 55 C(lJllllH1nity dcmiddotLmiddotlop111ent groups in non-dtmiddotsig111ted arets middot1J1ch c1ny oul fu11ctior1s
i111iltr to tho~v uf 1he 11r111er-liips middotrile Boards of i)irectors of the co111panil-gt lll
drvn fror11 (1) 1he SlgtCiil p1nncr (ii l -ttle 1genc1tmiddots ind (iii) co111111unity ~ind
vc gt t1n1tr~- cHg111is1 tio11
tmiddot13 The function~ nf the P1rntrsliip art to preptre lnc1I dcmiddottlopn1t~n1 pl1n _ in
con~tdtalion vi1h otl1LI local groups incl hudicmiddots_ to lOLHlltf d1stdvan11gc in 1hcir
~trtts and tiltn lo hlmiddotl thlmiddot-c plans i111ptmiddotn1cmiddotn1td middotrile pl111 oullines the rangt of
socitl ind lmiddotcono111ic tSSlltS to ht addrtmiddot scd in lhimiddot l1rget trta and the ohjeclive to
Ill pursultd h1scd on tile resuh of ~1 ltgtcio-ccono111ic analysis of lhc iret middotrliLmiddot
intbulllllion i~ ro 1tLmiddotlcr11c lnlt11 eronoinic dltmiddotvltmiddotlorn1e1H increise frnrloynHmiddotnt ind
local Develop111e11t l11itiati1es
tickle cxclu~ion incl 1nargintlisa1ion resulting fro111 long-llflll une111ploy111ent vc1y
vide r1nge of 1ctivities i~ unde111ken including job pltCLlllCIH adull education
training con111n1ni1y clevelopn1lmiddotn1 cnviro1111H111tl projLCI~ and youth iniliHives
114 An indepenckn1 in1c1mcdia1y company wis eslahlished in 1992 in111ally under
1he aqigt of 1he Dep111men1of1he Tioisetch and subgtltltjlltgtnily from midmiddot 1997 1he
Depanmcn1 of Tourism Spon and lkcre11ion (Tourism Spon and Hecreuion) 10
oversee 1hc P1nnersllips ind Jocd devclopn1tnl groups middotrhe con1pany 1rca
i)(velopmet11 M1n1gemen1 Iid (ADM) is required 10 cv1lu11e plins from
Ptrlllt~r~hips corn111unity groups ind selecled organisHions lO 1J1ocatc resources in
1ccord1ncc Vilh the eviluation resul1s ind ro 111onitor LXpenditure incl perfon11~1nce
by btneficiarits Over lj(YtJ of funding is spent by tile lartncrsliips incl (he re1111inder
is spent by co1n1nuni1y gro11ps ind nHionil nrgani11ions
115 funding for P1rtnerships co1111nuni1y groups and eligible spending bv selected n11iond org1nisarions is co-fin1ncecl by ElJ s1n1ctural funds incl by the
Exchequer EU funding is provided uh-progrtmme 2 of 011uRD
LEADER
116 This EU lni1ia11vcmiddot for rural devdopmenl w1s origin1lly bunched 111 1991
(lEADloR 1) The obwrnw of 1hc progr11nme wis 10 ltS11lilish locli devdopmen1
1ction groups bullhich voulcl bt responsible for 1he in1plcn1cn11tion of business pl1ns
for heir areis lE1l)EH I v1s 1he subjecl of 111y firs value for 111oney exa111ini1ion
comple1ed 1n Decemhe1 1994 The ini1i111ve wis co111inued under 1he Oper11ional
lrog11mme for IEADER 11 covering ihe period 1994 10 1999 There tre 34 approved
1EADlR groups (is opposed IO 16 group in 1hc orig1nli progr111Hnc) These 11e
iu10110111011- lcg1l cntilies each conrrollecl by 1 boird 111d opeining under 111
igreen1en1 Vith the J)cp111111cnt of gricul1urc and Food (Agriculture incl Fuuclgt Jht-
l)epa1111Hmiddotn1 required th11 the bo1rds h1ve 1 1ripar1ite s1n1crure representative of 1he
con1111unity incl volunt1ry sec1ur luc1l Stite ~1gencies and the priv11t I con11ncrcitl
sector
117 Unlike 1he 01her lniti11ives covered in 1h1gt ex1111in11ion (which are csset11ilily
n11io11il policy initiHivc-) lEAl)EH i in EU lnitiitivl Vliich Va designed incl
Ln1nchccl by the turope~111 Co111111issio11 his 1ne1ns 1hi1 he in1plc111enlalio11 of
LEAJ)flt its 1in1ing ind opertting rules ~in de1ennined Ltrgel~middot Vithin 1ht EU
Co111n1i~sion 1uncling for rhe LEl)EH II lrogr1111n1e is co-financed fron1 ElJ
s1n1c111ioli f11nd the 1lADEH Opci1110111 lrogrunmc 1))4-1999 rnd by ihe
Exchequer
4
In 1roclzut1on
Sc1urces of Finance
118 The Fll Commission incl rhe Exchequer prolidccl funding for the 1niria11middotes inmiddot
the period 199i-199H follows
EU hchequer Toril
pound-111 t-111 ~-nl
CEils 465 516 98 I Parntrships 530 181 711
LEIDER groups 272 ILG 388
126 7 81) 208 0
Scope and objectives of the examination
1l) middotrhe cxa111in~1tion V~1s concerned only vi1h initiatives to pron1ott local
clebullclop111em rhrough Counrv Enrcrprisc Boards Ptrrnerships and LEADEH groups
Thue are 111anv orher ml[1nives for local devdopmcm such as URBAN Terrironal
E11l)loy1nent Picts Pe~tce ~incl Heconciiation 111d lnterreg II vhich ire outside the
scogtc of this ex~1111ina1ion
12middotJ Nei1her iJ)-1 nor the l1rtnershirs arv covered by 111y statutory value fcgt1 11101ey nn1i1 In the interest of producing i cohcivc report on locil l)lmiddotvclopn1cnt
ini1=11ivlts 1hey igreed that the exa111inuion ~hould he extended to chc111 middotrhcir coshy
OJX ration in 1liis resptmiddotlmiddot1 i~ icknovllmiddotclgecl
121 The overall objec11vcs of rhc c1n1inar1on w
bull ro ltVal11are rhc administrative effwncv ol rhc llltXlit (Chaprer 2)
bull lo asstmiddotss the extent of duplic~Hion and co-ordin1tion ~1rrangen1en1s ltCh1p1cr j)
bull to ev~dualc thl operHional efficiency of the bodies (Chipttr 4)
bull to coniidcr ho- tlii i1n1x1ct of 11ie holtl1e~ can hl asscmiddotssecl (Ch1p1cr 5)
1nr The p1opltJ-f of Illgt c_rrn11iiu111011 CFHgt lar111lmiddot-Ji1ps and 1eoJ(1middot grv11S uill IA Fccmiddoti-rlmiddotd l u lrJl(I
)c1lffJ[gtl11ltf hodico
5
loca l)evelojJ1ne1u 11itiatitCs
122 The main issues considered are
Issue Evaluation Criteria
Administrative efficiency Administration costs bull bull Human resources bull Adequacy of management
information systems
Co-ordination of activities Duplicationbull bull Co-ordination
Operational efficiency Targets and performance bull bull Resource allocation and outturn
bull Deadweight and displacement
Impact assessment Quantitative assessments bull bull Qualitative assessments
Methodology
123 Officials 111 the Depanmem of Amicroricuhure and Food the Dcpanmcnr of
Tourism Spoil and lkcrea11on 1he Department of Enlerprise Tracie and
Employmcm 111cl 1DM were interviewed Oua and pipcrs rcbting to targets cosl
and perfon11~1nce Vere ex11nined Analysis Vas carried out of cost and perfonnance
clua aria1ion in perfonnance ck1t1 vas used as a basis for selecting individual Loctl
Development bodies for funher examimtion
124 Selcc1ed CEl3s LEADEH groups and Partnerships were visi1ecl Helevant
personnel Vere intervi(Ld and individual rrojecls Vere visited Sevtrd CISC studies
Vtre identified during the co11rse of this vork and thc~c arc used in this rero11 to
illustr11i key i1SULS middotrhcy should not be ngarltled a1 rcpresentHivi of the cype of
pro1ee1s supponed hy the bodies
125 1Vleetings Vere held vith offici1Js fro1n the l)ep1nn1en1 of the E11viro11111ent
and Loctl Goern111ent ind Ille Co111ba1 lovlmiddotrty Agency lntervieVS look place Vith
the folJoving orga11is~11ions PlJtEmiddotr (Ille netvork of Arc~1-B1scd igtJnnerships)
Comhar IEADER 1u hiireann (tire network of 11ADEH groups) 1he ssociation of
Chief txecutives of Counly EnrcrprisC Bo1rcls (representing County Enlerprise
l3001rcls) the Irish 10111onal Orga1ma11on for 1he ncmployecl (INOU) he
Ken Cork iortb a1ul So111h )uhill CFJJs Trti li )011epal 11ihot1c11 a11d Northside art11lrh1J Fexford Ora11iflfio11 fur R11ral IJltbull1ltlup111c111 anti lao1bull tJ-1nHk Rural Dtbull1tlop111e111 Co Jd (IJ-ADJR ~rn11p) lv11sfonl Co1111111111i~~middot RrrJ1rCli Jd (1d S(J11rh lerry IAmiddottlIOJtllllll Part11crbip Jd (comhi11(c JHADERPart11c1~hip orxa11iatio11~j
6
J11frotll1 rI ion
Conf~r~nr~ of lkhg1ot1s 111 JrcmiddotLrnd (CORIJ vb Yvonne Murplrv lks~ardwr 111d Prof
J1111es A Walsh gtill Mrvnooth
)26 1n eternaJ exrerl IS lt ngagtbulld IO adviSl on the 1ncthodo(ogy of tht --Udy
and rlvtev the study findings_middot
7
2 Administrative Efficiency
21 Tlfrbull chtpter is concerned with the dliciencl of the CEils ltrtnergthips incl
llADER groups in iclminigtIenng locd Development ini111I11es loc1I Dcvdopment
is chirictltnsecl bv t 111uliplirny of object11es mcl ac11vi1ies The control of
achninisrrilive expendirure is 1chicvccl hy reference to stiffing levels pay rates tnd
1he re1sonablcness of 01her 1cl1ninistration expenses
22 Thlt clivers11y of 1he 1c1ivi11es of Local Development bodies ind 1he nexibili1y
in hov rhey set about 1chieving their objecrives li111it rhl extent to vhich cross
co111parisons of efficiency can btmiddot 111ade Neither unifonn perfonnanre inclicarors nor
co111111on infonnirion sysEc1ns on 1cl111inis1ruivc efficiency 1cross the ini1i1tivcs l1ave
been cle1middotcJopecl
23 The ptriocl covered in 1he chtpler is I994- I 998 indus1le However cle11ilecl
tndysrs ti indiviclutl Loctl Dltvelop111ent bodies ielel rel11es 10 I99i - 1997 II
should be noted thu local l)cvelop111ent bodies did 1101 co1nn1ence si1nultancously
incl 1h11 1he lime 11ken 10 esttblish indivicl11d local groups viriccl Accorclingly
expencli1ure in the early ye~trs rel~tles to the middotfullmiddot 1crivilics of i 111inority of groups
and the st111up plt1se of 111any lcgteal groups
24 middotrhe issues incl Calualion cri1t~ri1 used in thi chaptc1 are
Issue Evaluation Criteria
Administration costs Administration costs as a percentage bull of total expenditure
Human resources Extent of Board input bull Staff skills bull
Adequacy of management Data collecllon by Local Development bodies bull information systems Integration of data at national level bull
bull Reporting and monitoring
Administration Costs
25 The tottl 1111oun1 of expcncl1111rc incurred lw Local Develormcnt IJoclics m the
pen0ltI 1994 10 1998 was s208 mrll1on This is tntlysed in Ttble 2 I
26 middotrhc totil expenditure incurred can ht- categorised inro ad1ninisrration costs
vhich are the costs of running the relevant office-i and other exrenditurc Vhich is
cliviclecl IJeteen direct fin1nciil issis1ance 10 enterprise~ ~ind exp~ncliturc on
1ctivirics to incn1se enterprise avireness pro11101e con111n1ni1y dcvclop111cn1 or
redress clis~1dv1nt1ge
8
Atl111i11 ist rrttilt ~lie ic11c_ v
Ta~le 21 Expenditurebull by Local Development bodies 1994-1998
CEBs
P3rtnersh1ps
and other
LloADER Groups
Total
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
poundm poundm poundm poundm poundm
82 28
19 9 46
216 104
230 232
254 301
1 6 53 11 7 202
11 0 261 373 579 75 7
Norg a Expenditure relates to activities under OPLURD and LEADER II Some Local Development bodies also incur expenditure on other activities which arc not funded under OPLURD or LEADER and which are outside the scope of the examination Details for 1995-1997 are contained in Appendix A
b The total expenditure in the table includes Partnerships Community Groups and selected National Organisations
c Includes selected sectoral groups Annual reports of OPLURD and LEADER for 1998
Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total EJcpenditure
2i 1d1ninistra1ion costs 1 a perceniage of total expenditure in the period 1995 shy197 are shown in Tabk 2 L (There was link ad11uniscra11on pending in 1994)
2S dn1inistraliOn CDSIS IS J pcrcen1agt of tOtt[ eXJ1tl1citure decreaStcl uver the
period 199i 10 1997 for t~1ch iniriativtmiddot middotrhis JS clul n11inly co the face that it took
so1ne tin1c for rhe developnHnc groups 10 beco1ne opcrHional 1ncl hence 11n1ch of
the initial expenditure vas on adn1inistration rather thin activic1es This trend i~
1x111iculirly nocKeablc in che cise of LEADER groups md lirtnerships where
acl111inistrHion co1s 1s a percent1ge of tottl expencliture clroppecl sultilanli~11ly
middotrh1re Vere so1ne varialiuns betveen intlividt1al ltEls LFl)FH gnntps ind
Jgta1tnersl1ips middotr11ese ire considered belO Cfhe 1cl111inistration costs of Local
Deiclopnwn1 bodies are shown 111 Appendix B)
CltJUlllJmiddot E11te1prise Rltgttlrtls
29 1middot1icrc v(middotrc no great variations in rhc ad111inistruion costs incurred by che
CEl3s w11h lhe mqorill spending helWtCn pound 100000 and Jl )0000 per innum
1n1lysis of 1997 dat1 shc)Ytbullcl 1h~11 the adn1inistra1ion costs of n1ost CEBs V(n Vithin
1 ~1 r1nge of I ~Ai 10 25S~1 in rel~llion to tnttl expenditure The )ov~st Vas f)uhlin City
H J 1 with Cork Norch being che h1ghcsc ac 11 The level is scronglv mlluencecl IJy
the extent to vhich CFI3s are involved in the provision of gruus is chis increases the
9
local l)cuer4J11unt lnitiaflvcs
Table 22 Administration costs as a percentage of total expenditure
CEBs Partnershipsbull LEADER Groupsbull
Total
1995
poundm
49
15
08
72
Admin c
1996
poundm
43
41
16
100
istration osts
1997
poundm
44
53
20
11 7
Percentage of total expenditure
1995 1996 1997
25 20 19
34 44 28
51 31 17
28 28 22
Note B The figures exclude Community Groups and selected National Organisations b Excludes selected sectoral groups
Source Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General see Appendix A
level of overill expenditure In the c1sc of Cork North their mtin activities are
ini111~1tion incl the rrobullision of suppor1 such 1s counselling and training
wh1Chwould involve lowtr levels of expenditure rlm1 the supply of grant aJCI In the
case of other CFl3s such 1s Dublin City the focus was pnnnpally on the pronsion
of grtnl aid
Part11ersJips
210 P111nersh1ps generally spenl between l)0000 ind l200000 on adminisrruion
1n l997 with some excep11ons Mos 11rtnersl11ps which were esiiblished before
OPLURD had lower adminis1ru1on costs as a percentage of 1otal expenduure rhan
those wl11ch were srtnecl under OPIUlm In 1997 adminis1ra11on expenditure as a
perceniage of 1otil expencliture vas generally in the r1nge of 200u to 40Yo vith the
lowesl a 13 (in rhe case of i011hsidc in Dublin) 10 rhe highest m 51 (1n rhe
case of lnishovltn in J)o11cgal) il1ile 1c111al adn1inistration exptnditure vas si111il1r
in borh Partnerships expenditure on 1crivi1ies VIS significantly greater in Nonhside
as compared ro Donegil lnishowen which wis still in a scr up phase The riming
of projects locil rriorilies in the i1nple111ent1Cion of business rt~1n ind the nu1nbcr
of yltars the Jgtartner-hips have been operating have tn in1p1c1 on the adrninistritivc
cos1s percent1ge indicator
IEADER G10llJlt
211 LEADEH groups genenilly spenr lgtetween 50000 incl U00000 on
~1d1ninis1r1tion in 1997 Vith son1e exceptions In 1997 1dn1inis1rJtion expenditure ~1s
a percentage of 101al expenditure was generally in rhe r111gc 10 to 20 wuh the
lowest at 7 (in rhe c1SL of IJirrow-Nore-Suir) 10 rhe h1ghes1 ll 45 (in the case of
Comhm lorrais) While 1dminis1rarion expenditure wis simiLtr 111 borh LEADlR
10
Adn1i11istrati1cbull IJiciellcy
groups expendilurc on activities (including ~1nin1ation ind provision of grants) v1s
significanlly gnatcr in BarrO-Norc-Suir cor11p1red LO (cJJ11h1ir lnrr1is_ middotr1ierc llL 1
nuirtlltr of factors that can give rise to the variation uch a- hov Vt11 cst1blishcd
lhe sroup is local priorities in the in1ple111ent~1tion of the bu-iiness plan tilt tin1ing
of pro1ecis and 1hc lcnI of grant ml
Human Resources
21lt The loc1I charancr of each of he Local Devclopnw111 boclies mcl the nllure 1 ~incl diversity of thlir operHions n1ean thH thty h1vc l Sllbs11nti1I rolt of initiating
and co ordinating ac11vnies in co-operit1on ith 1 Viele v1ric1y of volunt~1ry and
stttutory org1nisu1ons (see Chapter 3) middotrhe achieve111t~n1 of their objectives is
I clepcndenl on _rhe avail~1hility of high quality plrsonn~I al Board tncl suh-co111111it1Ll
level and clecl1uted high ctl1bre s111f
Extent of Board Input I
2 B There 1s significant input it Boircl level for all of 1he bocl1es Arouncl 1wo 1hircb
of ( EBs operate sub-Boarcl co1111111nccs and half of these suigt-COlllllllllecs inclucle
1 111cn1lxmiddotr clravn fron1 1he local con1n1unit vho are nnt Boltncl clirector ~ middotrhis
invch-t~n1erH in 1octl l)evelopn1tnr bodies e1~tail~ a high dcgrLL of co111n1itn1en1 fro111
people vho are alrctdy active in their local co111111unitics
214 Pr1ctically ill Pirtnerships have suh-co1111111trecs on con1111unity ltlevelopnhmiddotnt=
I education and cnltrpri-e ~incl 111ost LEAl)EH microruups h~1ve -llh-co111111itte1middots on rurtl
touris111environnHn1 natural resources and s111all husinesscraftgt~erviccsr
Prermiddotaratory vork alllndince at 111cct1ngs ancl follov ur ~1ctivities pl1cc considerable
ti111c den1ands on Board and -ub-co111n1ittet 1ne1nbers l)uring chc exuninHion
I lt1bu11clan1 lViclence Vts found of the con1111itn1ent incl skill of Board n1en1lgters and
111en1htmiddotrs of suh-connniutes
Stciff Skills
215 A wide variety of skills is requirecl of 1cxal Developmem swff to match the
range of act1vitilmiddots 11ncle11~1ken middotrhis feature is ranicularly i111portan1 for LEAl)EH
I groL ps and P1rtnershirs clue to tht extent of their nmiddotn1i1 middotrhe staff nf Local
J)cvltmiddotlop111cnt bodies are highly qualified According co ~1 ncenl survey 5lVo of the
i-~~F ond Ihl lCgtfal Jr)(111 c111d RlflI )c11h1p111tllf PTT1JiHlllll1l f11ropca11 )(lt1a F111u Pro~ra1111111
1ttd11a1io11 Unll Apnl (JJJ
1)p(rt111011(1 fro~rc1111111e fnr IJAJ)FJ II (rJl11111111 11ilrcll1Utmiddot iI( Tlr11 R1bull1re11 Rtbullfx11 3re1uftu1 ((middott1rne1 middot (11t A ~(Jlt ialt3 199 7
II
(JC(l )e(lltJjJ11CI 11itiatiU(
CEOs of CEBs huld post-griduite que11ilkirion and funher 2()0 hive prima11middot
ckgrce In the cise of Partnerships 6()0o of 1nan1gers hold a post-gr1du~1te
qualificllion and a funher 24degAgt h1ve 1 pri1n1ry degret
216 flu rc-nurcefulnes- of Lltxil l)cmiddotelop111ent s11ff IS cvident during the course
of the eXltllllill1li01l
Adequacy of Management Information Systems
217 ht avaiL1bili1y of gncgtd 1111111ge111ent infonnation sys1e111s is 1 pnrequisitc fnr
cfficicnt icl1ninis1ration of the inititrives ind for ensuring thll rlllVLnt incl reli1hle
d1t1 is 1v1ilablc for pl1nning plrfonnince 111onitoring ind ev1luation An in-depth
rcvieV of the 1111n1ge1nen1 infon1111ion sysh111s in use Vas 1101 incl11dtd 1n the scope
of the ex1111ina1ion_ 1-lovever ce111in cltfic1cncics in the systen1s htmiddotc1111e app1rent
in discussions Vith officitls in 1hc locil f)evelnp111ent bodies ind during the
qu1n1i111ivt 1nil~middotsis vork
Data Collection by Local Development Bodies
218 E1ch of 1hc bodies opertllS scp1r11e co111pu1erisecl infonnttinn syste111s Vhirh
Vere ck~signtd by consuh1n1 under the aegis of lhe J)cpar1111cnts ind 1l)fmiddotI is
tppropnHe middotrhc pri1111ry purpose of 1hese syste1ns is 10 provide fredbtck on
ae11v1ties by eich Locd Development body ID the Dep1nme111s incl AD1vl The
syste111s should tlso provide 1111n~1ge111ent infor111a1ion for usc locally and facilitite
external evalunion 10vevtr the 1rge nun1bLmiddotr of local groups reponing 10
ditfercnt dtp1n111en1s posls pa11icul1r cJ11lltmiddotngLS tlaquoJr cL1t1 c~tpture
219 l)isc11ssions vitl1 ltgtfficials in the Local l)evelcgtprnent bodies visi1ed indicated
so1ne di~s11i-faction Villi ht kx1l use of systen1s in 1h11 they vere reg1rded as being
1101 user friendly or Vere perceivcd as not being fully suited 10 loc~tl 1ninage111cn1
needs_ In fi(I so111e locd f)evelopn1en1 bodicmiddots h1ve kepi lhltir origin1I syste111s in
11si O -upplc111lnl 1he infon1tttinn provided by the cen1r~1lly debullcloped systeni_ middotrhe
dillicultit~s havt heen recognised ind steps 1rt being t1ke11 011 1n ongoing b1is 10
encourage grc11cr loctl u-e of the C(ntrilly developed syste111~
220 Forn1al 1rr1ngc111en1s ire nor in place Vhich VOuld f1cilitlle nuo111a1ic sharing
of infon111tio11 Joctlly icross ill of rhe groups_ 1his is not possible due to 1he
1bsnce of 1 con1111011 clicnr identifier in the thrtt co111pu1cr sys1e111s_ So111c id-hoc
shiring of dtli such ts projerl tpplicition and 1pprov1ls occurs through rneetings
be1vccn bodies ind via County Str11cgy Groups lmiddotlovcver 1his is no subs1iru1e for
a systen111ic approich to dati sharing
12
Acl111i11 isrrari1e lli-c ieJtlmiddot_ v
22 l A middotide v1riery of perfonna11ce indicnors V1s dtveloped 1hrough discus~ions
w11li 1he external evilullor and with Local Development bodies (se~ Appendix C
mcl OJ LEADEH groups ind Partnersh1ps m 1x111irnlar undertake i wide range of
tctimiddot1 ities and con-lmiddotqucnly 1hcir co111pu1er sy-1en1s c1pture ~1 Viele range of data
middotrhi c111 plicc an tLessive burden on the sn1all 1d111inb1rilie st1ff 1n these bodies
perfonn~tnce 1ncasun111en1 systc111 Vhich focu~es nn 1n agreld StI of key indicuors lo tnco111plttS~ core tctivities and ou1purs and vhich reflect- key objectives
n1ighc be n1ore appropriattmiddot 1ny addicional inforn1uion require1nents could Ix
prltrlided Jess frlmiddotquently through for ex1111ple annual rtporting arrangc111cn1s
22~ 1middot11e fnltomiddoting issues Verlt also noced
bull The p11ori1ics of d1fferen1 loc1I Dcvelopmcnl lxKlies arc not 1den1ical even
Vithin 1hc sunc Local f)cvelopn1ent ini1ia1ive For exan1ple one Local l)evclopn1cnt lxxly 111ight prioritisl 1ss1stance to cl1stclvant1ged groups vhilc 1norher rnight priontise cnterprist clevelop1ncn1_ Exisling 1ne1st1rlll1cnt syste111s do not allov 11le perfon111ncc of chese tvo gruups co be realiticdly r111kecl and con11xircd
bull Measurement should cope w11h the fact that much of the pcrform1nce under
the ini1iat1ves is qualitative in nHure Exunplcmiddots include quil11y of tr~tining openness to disadvantaged groups and qu11i1y of relacionships Vith other
st1tu101) bodies Exiscing n1easunmiddotmiddot111Lllt systcn1s do not cuer for rhcsc 1spects
of perfo1111111ct
bull f)espice initiatieS to involve locd l)evelop111ent bodies in the specificuion of
perfonnancc indicators cxisling perfon111nce n1oni1oring is frequencly seen as son1cth1ng vhich is in1pltgtstcl on groups Vilh lillll direct bcncfi1 in lenns of
e11~1bling 1hltmiddotn1 to understand hov to in1prove 1hcir Ovn perfonnancc~
22 The apprrnd1 described in Case S1uclv I gi1bulls 1n 1nclic111on of 111~ prltp1ratory
Yor involved in developing svsce111s to cviluatc rhc efficiency and tgtfflttivencss of
1he bCKlies Governmenl Dep1rtmenLlt and Local Developmenl bocl1es might es1lt1bl1sh
10 middothat cxtenc this 1ppro~1ch could hl~ applied co rhc 1neasure111en1 and n1anagc1nent
of LDcil Dcvdopmenl periorrnrnc~ Thi 1s a prercquisi1e 10 es11blishing the clati
reqt-ire111ents Yllich should be -arisficd hy the inforn11til~n sys1c1ns in u~e by LocalI l)evmiddotlop111erH bodies Under clie exis1ing s~middotsren1s the inforniHion require111cnts for
detennining 1he extenc ro Vhich value for n1oney is htmiddoting obt1ined front expencli1ure
on lhe iniliatives arl nor 1dequarCly provided for middotrhe current inadequacies of the
inforn)Hion sys1e111i lin1it the scope for evaluation middotrhc middotlid-middotrenn Ev1lt111iuns of both
llA)FR and 011LRD have drawn a11e111ion lo 1his deficiency
Ilo1rc1er 11~-tf)FR groups produce wn11e11 c11u1i1a1ilmiddote repon llriccbull year~r 011d other local 1Je1eop111eu1 lltXlics olso 111c11de c111ai1a11n aJXCt of Jfrfon1u111ce u1 1b1middot1r n7xJt1s AJJ J(ls prod11t1bulld a sene bull of poundltlgt lt1dit- ubich nfhbullc1 q11all1a1inmiddot clfJtltmiddotr_~ of the uork of Parr11erships
J-rr an e(11ded disn1ss1nJ1 nr1 the (flk11e _p_- u_(Jt1j()r11111J1c(bull 111v11i1r1i11g 1middotce middot11F and 1111middot local Urlxo1 111d N11nil FJtnmiddotlopn1ltll lltJ8111n11111middot middot FuroJlllll Sulti(I F1111d lr(Jgn111111Jl 1alifioi1 fh1i1 April 1999
13
lnco l)erelop111enf 11itiati1es
Case Study 1
A benchmarking project
A transnational study funded by the EU is underway to develop benchmarks for pro1ects which seek to insert unemployed people into the labour market The main purpose of benchmarking is to enable organisations to improve their performance
Through a process of discussion and analysis involving the implementing organisations the key processes and desired outcomes are established An agreed set of quantifiable
indicators is developed to give a measure of performance under each key process and desired outcome Overall performance 1s denved by applying an agreed weighting formula to the 1ndiv1dual measures Data capture and performance reporting are
overseen by an independent third party
Graphical representations are produced showing the performance of each group for each key process and outcome Typically the performance of each group will be stronger in some respects than others and future action to improve performance can then ensue
Integration of Data at National Level
224 It is 1111port1nt th11 there should be ce111ral access to cltu to provtclc for a
sys1e1n11ic 1nd co111prchensivLmiddot cv1Jua1ion 1t nation1l level of tl1e efficicnc ind
cffectivcntmiddotss of lcxlttl develop111cnt 1cross the country In 1ddi1ion 1his vould
suppo11 co-01)er1tion ind co-ordina1ion across the bodies
225 Dllt lteld within Governtttent Depa11111enb and ADM is not tntegratecl at the
levtI of tile henefici~111 For exa1nple grant approvJJs to 111 enterprise gr1nt
pJyn1cn1- ~incl e1nploy111cnt 1re not associ1tcd vith 1 unique client identifier in
Enterprise middotrr1dt~ and E111ploy111en(s con1pu1er sys1e111 sin1ik1r veakncss exists in
Agriculture and Foocl and ADM This ctn reduce the scope for evaluttion For
cxainplc the JXrfonnancc of c1Hi1ics vhich obtain financial assis1ance cinno1 readily
be con1p1re(I Vilh 1hose vhich rlCcive 01her non-fin3nci1J supports
226 Whltn CEils were first cstablishccl Enterp11se Traut incl Ftttployment usecl a
cl11ilx1se inheri1ed fro1n 1he J)cpann1en1 of Fin1nce to record ce11~1in key datltI such
is grants piicl ancl ipprovecl on eich enterprise assisted by CEils In aclclition clati
on the Enterprise T11clc ancl Emplovmcnt Business lnfortttation Systettt (BIS) hdcl
grant and e1nploy1nent clua for all 1n1nufac1uring 1nd international services finns
middotr1ie opportunity v1s not taken of co111hining d1ta on the CEB clatal)ase vith its 011
BIS Subscquenllr EntcrpniL middotrrackmiddot incl E111ploy111Lmiddotn1 discontinued recording gran1
piyment cl1t1 on the CEB cL111base finally the coverage of the Forfis annual
etttploytttent survey (which 11pcl11es the BIS) was allowed to clittttnislt so that it no
14
longer allernrts lO include syste111aticillv -i111tll n11nuL1cturing tmiddotnterpriscs Vith less
1han 1en employees Agt a result 1he ibihty of En1erprise Trtcle incl Employmenl lo
1noni1or sn1all indus1ry perfunn~1nce and the cffec1ivencss of s1nall indusC1)
de clopn1cnt progr1111n1es l1as cmiddotonsicleralgtly eJkene(I
227 Enterprise middotrr1de incl Ernployn1tnt is H pr(S(nt agr(eing tcnns of reference
fur 1he es11hlish1ncnt of J sy-itcn1 tn L1cilitate chc inllgrition of CEl3 cL111 in10 1he Bl~
11 ii intended that ForL1s viii include CEB clien1- in its 1nnu1l c1nployn1tnt survey
In addition the l)epann1enl rl~1ns (O acquire a stacistical soft~tre p~1ckage to f1cilita1lt
udysis of CEil cL11a
228 middotrhcre is no nuional pltn to integrHt en1errrisc incl individual clien1 level dtta
fron1 CEl3s ith sin1il1r cLn1 fron1 lEAl)EH gruurs tnd Pannerships Agri(tilture incI
roud does not integrate 1nfonnation vhich is collecllmiddotd fron1 e1ch of 1htgt groups in10
nu onal systen1s and has no plans to do so Al)1 provides rltrltJrts 10 a n111nber of
f)epa111nen1 including Sociil ltollununity ind F11nily 1flairi Fnttrprise middotrr1de and
Fn1ployn1en1 and l~duca1ion and Science
1 229 In 1995 middotrmiddotouris1n Sport ind Hecrcation began 1 process of Stlling up a
I ClnlrJised rerfonnance lllOTlitoring systclll (P~middotIS) for OPJLiHJ) co1nprising ~1ggrega1e
output indicators for CEUs ind Partncrships9 Significin1 rlsources have been
demiddot01ed to developing this systtmiddot111 Pcrfonnance 1ndica1ors Verlt tin~1lly approved by
hlmiddot OPllif) Vtonitoring Con11ni11ee in Jl1y 1999 According lo middot1middotouris1n Srort and
Ht(reation this did not JJlov sufficienl 1in1e to consider extending the sys1e1n
frarnevork 10 provide for co1nplt1nson Vilh o(her rrogr11nn1es such as LEAl)Elt lmiddothe
c11rmiddotent posilion is tliH
bull P1nncrship rerforn11ncc dat~l fro111 I January 19lt)7 IS StJCcessfully taken into
the Jgt~1S l)Ha fron1 co11111n1nity ~ind special inttrcsc groups Vls taken inlo till
PMS for l 998
bull Performance dJla for 1998 from all of the CFlb has beltn rnlla1ed by South
Dublin CEB and taken mlltgt Ille PMS
Tht PMS is used to mon11or 1he levels of ae1ivi11es and outputs under 011UHD 11 JS
usel by thL ex1crn1I ev~tlua1or to assist middotrouris1n Sport and lh~crettion ~ind 1he
OfgtlURl) vlonilonng ConunittlL lO OVLf-itv the Progra1nn1e It is of li111itcd use for
efflCtivcnltSS analysis
23t) A funlicr ditficully is the allsenct of con11x1rison-gt vi1h son1c key h~tseline data
pricbullr to the es1ablishn1ent of ll1Lmiddot bodies for cxunrlt the r11e of nev firn1 fonnalion
and job cretlion 111 -111lt111 firins and 1he pL1cc1nent of long-lenn u11tn1ployecl
middotrourisin Sport and Hlcreation has co111111issionecl a ltudy of b1-cline da1a
15
oca J)e1euj111e11t 11ififlli1e
Reporting and Monitoring
231 Progress npo11s Jre produced every six 111on1hs by 1he lead l)ep1n111en1s for
consider1tion tnd approval lgty the reltv1n1 flonitoring Con1111i11ces Ex1ern1l
cmiddotvdu11ors VCrl eng1ged by middotrouris111 Spltgtn and Hecrea1ion and Agriculture and
rood for 011lHlD ancl lltDEll respcctilely ro produce evduarion rqions ancl 1hey
]11ve ~ilso produced 111id-ten11 rcvievs_ middotr111se repo11s iremiddot considered ll hilf-ye1rly
111ee1ings of 1he nlevint f1onitoring Co1n1nittees_ All Loc1l l)evelop111e111 bodies
prodt1ce 1nn11al rcpo11s ou1lining 1c1ivititS undenaktmiddotn 1oge1htr Vilh financial
s1He111ents 1~ required under the operHional progr11111ncs
232 Nerworking plays an irnponanr role for rhe bocl1s Borh lEtDEH groups and
Pu11Hr~hips have 1he bcncfit of personnel dedica1ed 10 org1nis1ng nelvork
acriv1ries The CEOs of rhe CUh also meer regularly
16
3 Co-ordination of Activities
31 middotrhtmiddot co-cistenrl of chtbull 1hrll types of hltxlics for local clevclop1nen1 lt1- given
rise to concern tlX)llt duplicttion and the Jack of co-ordinuion 1 middotrhe pltllentid for
cluplic1tion irises bcciu_c the bodies co111111e1Htd inderenck~nlly of each olhlr ind
s1ariccI 11 clitlercnt ti1nes lt1ve sin1ilar ubjemiddottives incl 11rglt ovcrl1pping p(gtpul~1tions
hivmiddot~ se1x1rItc local ad1n1nistr1lll strucrurls 1 rcpo11 to different lgtepa11n1enLi and ire
funded by different opltftlionil progr1111111es_ A a res11h there is 1 need 10 ln-gture
that there nl lttdtqulle 1rr1ngin1Lmiddotnts in pL1c1 to recluce the pnss1hility of cluplicltion
and to ensure that lhtrc is proper co-ordination betVten he ditlerenl bodies
32 Jhe iSSlllS of Jupllcl11on and co-urdinlliun can bl t~sc -lcl
bull bccwcen ch cl1ffllellC loctl Devclormenc boclicmiddots
bull belveen Local ()evelopn1ent hoclies and 01her agencies ~11ch is Enltrpri~tmiddot
lreL1nd 1ncl che l)lmiddot1x1111ntmiddotn1 of Suciil lt0111111un11y incl F1111ily tfL1ir-
1middothis ex1111ination is confined to duplication incl co-orclinat1on belVeen Local
n~vfiopmtell( bodies
33 In this chapter rhlmiddot i-sues of duplication and cn-ordinition are exanuntd under
evduition criteria ~1s shovn bclOmiddot
Issue Evaluation criteria
Du )lication Objectivesbull Clientsbull Activitiesbull Funding of projects bull
Comiddotordination Local level bull National level bull
IDulication
134 1 subst1nliil nu111her of lgencies c111 provide l0~11 l)evelopn1ent suppnrts in
I thl 1111e hgtc~d 1rc~J 1igure 31 fro111 lhe Suulh Vest illus1rites this
35 middotrhe natun of lhtmiddot inllillimiddottmiddots is 1hat lhlrc should be tltmiddotibiliry in str11egic
dlcigtiun n1ahing at locil level Vilhin brc)Jd p1ra11H[lfS lllch 1n sel oul 1n the
Operation1) Progr1111111es middotrhe si1nilari1ies igtelveen ohjectimiddotes clienL ind activilies i~
shltn11 in middotrabies 3_ I to 34 1re 1 result of thlst policies
17
loca )evelofn11enf lnifia11es
Figure 31 Local Development Supports in the South West
Tuartha Chiarrai Teo (Leader)
West Cor Enterprise Board
North Cork Enterprise
Board
Blackwater Resource Development (Leader)
m Car City Partnership
South Cork Enterprise Board
Cork URBAN
Note The following ADM funded community groups are indicated on the map by nun1bers
[] Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo [Z] Bantry Integrated Development Group
G1] East Cork Area Development Ltd ] Avondha Development Partnership fil IRO Duhalow Ltd
[sect] Sliabh Luachra Ltd [Z] Listowef Baronies Group Ltd
Objectives
36 All of 1he Lxxlics trt concerned illl locil econoinic develop1nlllt tnd h~1ve
i IJrief lo rn-ordin11e incl enlunce ex1s1ing suppo11s ii locd level Bo1h lEAl)EH
incl P111nersl1ip grltn1ps arc conccrntmiddotd V1th co1n111unity clcvelop1nent Vhile
P~1nn~rships ire explicitly focused on co1nlx1111ng socitl exclusion
Clients
37 1Ltny sin1il1ri1ies exist hetVeen 1he clitnls uf the lhllt types nf bodies hu1
there tre tlso in1pon1nt clifferenclS ihile CEHs deal Vilh business ickas fro1n any
individual or group thty do not specifically target dis1dv~11111gcd groups vhich are
1hc focus of P111nersh1ps lFAl)ER acliitics ire dirtctcd IOVllcls the loc1J
18
-------
I
Coorclination ojmiddot Acliuitiltgts
Table 31 Objectives
Objectives CEBs Partnerships LEADER
Fogtster development by Area planning Jc1b creation
Business supports Arumatton
C1)unter serious economic and social problems by Aisisting long-term unemployed 1n10 jobs Promoting adult educationtraining Aisisting community development Ericouraging provision of child support Integrate supports at local level
0
Table 32 Clients
Nature of Clients
Pcmiddotpulation coverage
G(bullograph1c coverage
Small Enterprises
Adult Learners
Joigt Seekers incl LongshyTelm Unemployed (LTU)
Ccmmunity Groups
Lone parents
Trc1vellers
Pe)ple with d1sabil1ties
Dirndvantaged youth
i==
CEBs Partnerships LEADER
100 61
100 Includes 13 complete counties and several
other disadvantaged areas
Almost complete in rural areas
(excludes part of cities of Dublin Cork Galway Limerick Waterford)
Note o denotes thor one Local Development body has chosen to pursue this objective
a This relates to designated areas covered by Area-Based Partnerships Soures Tables 3 1 amp 32 These tables were derived from the Operational Programme for LEADER
OPLURO and interviews with managers of Local Development bodies
19
lr1ca )e1eh11111e111 11i1iati1es
Table 33 Main development activities
Activity CEBs Partnerships LEADER
Draft development plans v v v Assess local plans 0 v v Carry out surveys of enterprises v v 0
Provide finance to enterprises v v v Provide advice to enterprises v v v Assist enterprises to access
consultancy support v 0 v Organisefund mentors for enterprises v v v Fund management development v Organisefund marketing initiatives v v Promote enterprise via meetings etc v v v Produce enterprise
brochuresbusiness guides v v v Promote enterprise 1n schools via
competitions training etc v v v Fund prov1s1on of tourism facilities v v Fund road signage Tidy towns v Fund artscultural festivals v v
Table 34 Main activities concerned with countering serious economic and social problems
Activity
Counsel long-term unemployed (lTU)
Carry out skills audit of LTUs
Establish network of L TUs
Organise fund education or
training courses Fund provision of education centres
Fund construction refurbishment
equipment of community resource
or activity centres Fund estate improvement
Fund communityyouth workers
Organise fund community fora
or networks Organise fund homework clubs
Fund youth act1vit1es
Fund play groups creches
CEBs Partnerships
v v v
LEADER
v v
v v
0
Note 0 denotes that not afl Local Development bodies have chosen to undertake these activities
Sources Tables 3_3 amp 34 These tables were derived from the Operational Programme for LEADER OPLURD and interviews with managers of Local Development bodies
20
Coor(i nation ojmiddot11 c I tu it ies
co111nunity in genertl ind local project pron1ottri lhile people vho tr( Slvcrely
socially or ((Cll)Olllically deprived IllJY r1r1iciplle in lEAl)l-f lllivitilS LEAl)EI his
no nmiddot1nit 1n spccifically targlting lhlSl groups In nine c1-es lEAlgtER ancl
P1dncrship Strviccs an dtbulllimiddotlncl by llHmiddot s11ne loc1I group
3~ LEAl)ER Jnd P111r1trships ltivc exten-iiC hut not co111plc1e popult11un
colrttge Jgt111nerships ind 1l)ivl-funcled con1nu1nity groups coVlI 1111ny of 1hc n1ure
conclmiddotn1r11ecl trltls of dis1dvin11ge l)lllt to lhe ficl 1h11 social dis1clvanragc is
spali11ly clis1rilH1ttmiddotd son1ltmiddot 1nmiddot1s of till cuuntry Vh(r( clis1dv1r111ge ex1sts arc nor
cobullbulltmiddotnmiddotd by P1rlnltrships or l)imiddotl-h1nded con1n1uni1v groups
A1tivities
39 It c111 igte gteen fro111 middotro1ble Jl 1hll 1hcre ecrraquoive duplicnion of
de1c]op111e11t tctivities 1crois 1he bodies Vith 1hnost tll of the 1c1ivitics lgteing
llndertlken by JI Je1-t tVO type~ of hodJtS [n inlLfilS Vith ht lllJntgtrs or the
Local l)evelorn1tnl bodies ii middotas indicated 1h~H Vhile thcv are lVtre of this
overl1p they rel~ on co-ordination n1ech1nis111s to ensure that re-ource- are nnl
Vl ~teeI
310 It c111 igte gtltmiddoten fro111 Table 34 1ha1 so111e overlip exisis lielween IEADER
gnurs ind P1nnerships Vith respec1 [o countering serious econo1nic ind soci1l
prcmiddotblv111- middotrills can irislt through i111pnmiddotc1stmiddot defini1ion ind inlerprtlUiun of the r~1nge
of crviltlS providld J-[oll(L the extenl of overlap 1n countering serious econo111ic
and Slgtcitl rroblcins is n111ch less 1han in 1he case of develor1nent activilies pa1tly because of th( 11rgct1ng of -plcific client groups hy P1rtnerships (the long-tenn
uncn1ployed ind the soc111ly ecludedJ
311 It should be no1ecl th~1t 1111ny other agencies or groups outside the scope of
1he exa1nin~nirln are ilso 1ctive II local level For cx1111pllt the Hosco111111on (JmiddotB
1ction Pl111 1997 - 1999 conttins a 111trrix uf dtmiddotvehgtp111ent agltncies incI servicis
pre vided in Coun(y Hosco111111on lhis i- shnmiddotn in ppendix E
F1J1nding of Projects
3 12 Situations can occur vhere pro111oters can 111axilnist thl funding they receive
b~middot applying for surport froo1 cJillenlll groups
W1hlre arc Poor 011s(hcd~ 711c Spali(I )11rih11lPll () r11e11r a11d DeJ11r11011 111 rlrt11d Urito1 1oa11 cl (J C0111ha1Ponrty1l~ltJ1C) 19lt)8
21
ocal Jeveloj1111c111 lniJ1atiUltS middot----- shy
Case Study 2
Subsidy shopping
A promoter had a turnover of pound80000 from an equestrian centre and language school In addition he was a farmer his spouse was a teacher and he had net assets of almost pound05 m1ll1on He wished to develop the equestrian centre and language school and provide accommodation on site for language students he applied to a CEB for financial assistance The estimated cost of the project was as follows
pound Accommodation costs 20000 Classrooms 10000 Indoor arena 22000 Outdoor arena 15000 Tennis court 10000
Total 77000
The CEB considered that financial support would be appropriate for certain nonshyaccommodationmiddot aspects of the project This comprised classrooms indoor arena and outdoor arena costing pound47000 and a grant of pound20000 was approved in May 1996 The Board considered that the promoter should fund all of the accommodation aspects (The Board had a policy of not assisting the provision of accommodation because this is a response to rather than a generator of demand)
In September 1996 the promoter applied to a LEADER group for a grant According to the grant application form the accommodation cost had risen to pound85000 (as against pound20000 in the CEB application) The LEADER group was aware of the financial support already provided by the CEB and the reasons why this level of support was given The LEADER Board approved a grant of pound17000 being 20 of the cost of the accommodation The project promoter was also approved for a marketing grant from LEADER of pound2750
Total capital grants approved for the project (pound37000) amounted to 26 of pro1ected capital expenditure (pound142000)
313 It has been po1n1ccl 011t (by Entlrpnse Trnclc ind Employment ind Tourism
Sport ~ind HecreJtion) 1hat this ct~e srudy gives little risemiddot fur concern 1~ the funcling
vas clinctecl tOv1rds different ele1nent of the projecr l-loCVer the fnlloving
efficiency difficulc1cs arise
bull aclcluionil middotsearchmiddot costs for cl1cnts who mikc mul11ple applicu1ons for ~1-isistance
bull ~1dditiontl tin1e ~pent by n1en1bers of Bo1rd incl evtluuion co1n1ni1tees and adn1inistrJrivc cosrs in Loc1I l)evelnpn1ent bodies
bull thC first Local Devdopment body to approve finannJI assisuncl cannot adopt a middotrotlJ project vieV bCClttUSe it is 110t lV1fe Vhether subsequent tJ1plicati011S ill be 1n1cle for assist1nce to other Local Developn1ent bodies
22
COorcination of Actiuitics
C1gt-ordination
314 As part of their an11nat1011 and co111111unity development 1ctivitits all of the
bol1es part1culirlv LFADER groups and P1rtnersl11ps look for opportunities to
1ni iale and co-orclina1e acrivilies vhich 111iy be underlaken by a vide variety of
st1tutory rnmmun11y and voluntary groups Tlus work usually Licilitates the
provision of econo111ic and social benefits to the co111n1un1ty Typical exunples 1re
bull Organising nevorks of lone parenis
bull Pro1nnting tidy tovns
bull Organising second chancC cducuicgtn
Vihin Local Development hodics therLmiddot is often tc11sion between the priorny to be
given to their co-ordination role ver~us the direct delivery of services including
grants
315 Co-ordination frequently involves the co-operation of several different
organisations at different levels (StHc local government communitvvoluntary
se(tor and business) to ~chicve a con1111on objective middotrhrough their co-ordinarion
roli~ the bodies n1ay harness rhc porcntial of several organisarions to achieve an end1 which would not otherwise be achieved This role has been cited is contnbutmg to
the unique role of the Joell development bod1Lmiddots A good LXimple of this mshyore ination i~ set out in Case Study 3
316 The multiple funding ol this anglmg pro1ect is substint1ally differtnl from the
multiple funding shown 1n Case Study 2 In Cie Stuclv 3 thlt contributions of the
vanous bodies were agreed as part of an integrated plan
317 The co-existence of three significant types of boches (and the inherent
cluphcarion shovn in 1he previous section) places a particular onus on 111anagc111tmiddotn1
of the organisations oH both national and lcxal levels to co-ordintte service provision
Fig1re 32 illustrates for each of the bodiltS the dilftmiddotrcnt co-ordinarion structures in
phe
23
loco l Jc1eofgt11HJ 11 I11 ii iu I ioes
Case Study 3
Co-ordination of a tourism angling project
A LEADER group in an inland county sponsored a study of the tourism development
potential of the county Although the county had weak tourism infrastructure and
practically no angling facilities the study identified several tourism sub-sectors that
could be developed including angling
An initiative was undertaken by the LEADER group to co-ordinate the development of
angling in partnership with fourteen other bodies including Fisheries Boards ESB
Coillte Duchas Bord na M6na and several community development organisations and
angling groups The initiative consists of
bull the upgrading of eight lakes most of which are owned by State agencies and many
of which were overgrown or silted
bull construction of stiles paths etc and restocking the lakes with fish
bull grant support for accommodation providers in the lakes area
The total cost of the project was estimated at around pound05 million Some of these costs are borne by LEADER but most are borne by State agencies and the Tourism
Operational Programme 1994-1999
The LEADER group is involved with other organisations in marketing angling facilities
and the provision of training for the ongoing management of the lakes
Co-ordination at Local Level
318 Cot1n1y Strllcgy croups Vere es1hlimiddotmiddotd1ed in LICh cnu111y under OPLUl~J) O
L1ci[i[Je co-orclin11ion ~ind 111inin1isc cluplic1tinn in lie delivery of progrin1111es
middotrhe Groups provide i forun1 for forn1d conununicition Vithin etch councy and
hctCt11 counties incl cenlrtl policy 111akers_ vlen1lxrship of the Groups includes
the Chlt1irpersn11s of CEl~s Ptr1nerships ind lEAl)EH groups County middotrouri111
Con1n1i1tees Coun1y f11n1~ers incI represen111ives fron1 middotrourisn1 Spon and
Recnation
319 middotrhe cu-ordinttion of services 10 cliencs depends very heavily on cruss-1gtncy
rcpresenltlion incl illendance at 111cetings middotralgtle ~5 shovs 1ypictl Board
repre~enc11ion
24
Coo1middotrh11atio11 o lctiuillcs
Fi1ure 32 Monitoring and Coordination
InterdepartmentalOPLURD OPLEADER Evaluation Polley Committee Evaluation
_l Department of Department of
Enterprise Trade Tourism Sport and Employment and Recreation
ADM Ltd
Partnership Boards
County Strategy Groups
1~BBoards ------shy
Department of Agriculture and Food
LEADER Group Boards
Table 35 Typical Board representation
S~bullctor Represented CEBs LEADER Partnerships
Lcmiddotcal authority members almost complete
Statutory bodies Ernployers I Trade Unions I Farmers Community I Voluntary sector
SouCe Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General
25
ocu )e1Alop111e111 11ifi(lf1ccs
320 CEils ire represented on most IEADER groups incl many Pa11ncrsh1ps
Hovever 1n~1ny lEAl)ER groups and P~111nerships ire not represented on CEBs In
so111e bu1 not all cises vhere cross-board represenlation i lacking there is crossshy
agencymiddot rtpn=sentllion at sub-boird level instead such as evilullion co1n111iuees for
protects_ In nine c1s(s vhere then~ are con1n1on boundaries the san1e Board
1clm1nis1ers both a LEADER group incl Partnership In ciscs where there ire not
m11ch1ng bounclirics 11 1s usud for LEADER groups incl lu1ncrships to have
C01111ll011 UO~trd repreSCl1tatives
321 Agriculture incl Food require all lEADEH groups to specify how they intend
to co-ordinate their activiies Vith other bodies before agree111en1s 10 i111plen1en1 a
LEADER progr1111me are completed Each tgreement includes t clause to this effect
and dso requires IEADER groups to part1n1x11e in Coun1y Strategy Groups
322 The view of the Local Development bodies is 1h11 loctl knowledge is of
piran1oun1 in1po111nce for co-orclina1ing their ~1ctiviries Use is n1aclc of infonntl
contacts 10 ensure tha1 each organisHion is tvarc of Vhat others artgt doing middotrhere
is often no formal 1gree111ent berween Local Devclop111ent bodies H local level
regarding 1h~ lin1its betveen objtgtctives acrivities and clients Hovevcr
consideration should be given 10 drlving up a middotfittcn staten1ent Vhich VOtilcl set
out a broad fra111ework of agree111ent between Loctl Dcvelop111ent bodies A good
exmtple from County Meath is shown in Appendix F
323 from the beginning elected pol1ticd representation was absent fro111 IEADER
incl Partnership 13oards Mc111bers of local authonrics are represented on CEl3s but
not is of right on LEADER groups and Partnerships However local aurhonry
officials arc frequentlv on the boards of lEADEH groups incl Partnerships A process
his been undc1way to 1nclucle 111e111bers of local authonties on rhe Boards of
LEADER groups and Partnerships This process is now complete in the cise of
IEADER incl is d111ost rn111plete 1n the cise of Pirtnerships
GeograpJica ampm1ulmJbull ProJlem
324 The co-orclmation of activi11es it locd level is 111ade 111ore difficult by the lack
of coherence the way the boundmes of the Local Develop111ent bodies were
clr~lvn and because of overltpping houndanes vi1h srHucory bodies 1s 1 result
n1any iltx~d l)evclop111ent bodies 1nust liaise vi1h a nun1ber of orher Iocil
l)evelop111ent bodies Jnd srJn1cory organisations_ middotrt1is increases tl1e acln1inistra1ive
burden on Local Develop111ent bodies ancl 1mpecks rhcir ability to offer unifor111
service delive1y in their territorymiddot and to co-ordinate activities of other Local
Develop111ent bodies and Srate igencies
26
Coordi11atio11 Cf Actiuities
se Study 4
Bcbullundary problem in South County Dublin
The boundary of South Dublin CEB covers the same geographical area as that of South De blin County Council and South Dublin Area of Dublin Tourism In this area there are four Partnership companies
Ta laght Partnership wholly located in Dublin South Clondalkin Partnership wholly located in Dublin South KWCD Partnership divided between Dublin South and Dublin City Scuths1de Partnership divided between South Dublin and Dun
LaoghaireRathdown
Al~o the Dublin Rural LEADER Company covers part of South Dublin as well as Dun LagtghaireRathdown and Fingal Council areas The State service providers such as FlgtS Eastern Health Board (EHB) Department of Social Community and Family Affairs (D3CFA) and Enterprise Ireland do not have the same geographical areas as local auhont1es They are split up into regional areas and these regions impinge on South Dublin CEB as follows
FlgtS Dublin SouthWicklow region of FAS contains part of South Dublin while Dublin WesVKildare region of FAS caters for the rest of the South Dublin area
EHB Each of three regional areas of the EHB Dublin South Central South West and West impinge on the area of South Dublin CEB
D~middotCFA Dublin South region of DSCFA contains part of South Dublin and Dublin West region of DSCFA caters for the remainder
Enlerprise Ireland South Dublin 1s totally contained within Enterprise lrelandmiddots region of Dublin and Mid-East
32~i Agricuhure and Food ha~ poinced ou1 rhar coheren1 geogr~1pliical boundaries
would be contrarv to the bottom upmiddotmiddot approach of LEADER The initial EU proposal
for hl fo11hcommg LEADER lnillatilC stales middotmiddot11 would he desirable rhar rbe eligihle
areas do not coi11citle tuith notional acln1ii11strati1e ho111ularies nnr ufth cli_~ihle
zon$ 1111cler the 1nainstrec11n operations(~ the structural jltntlsmiddot
Co-ordination at National Level
32(1 An Interckpartmcntal Policy Committee for Local Delelopment was
estltulishcd m June 1993 under 1he auspices of 1he Department of the Ta01seach and
subequently reconltt1tuted in Ocwber 1997 under Tourism Span and Rccrea11on 1s
funmon is to oversee 111d make recommendations on local delelopment (Appendix
G shovs the conunitteemiddots renns of reference) fhe co1nn1itcee is chaired by the
Minster of State in Tourism Spo11 and Hecreation ind comprises represenwives of
27
loca I )e1eofJ111e11 f In it itlf ftls
i nu111her of Gov1rnn1ent lgtepart1nc11ts middotrhe ro1111ni11ee has contributed policy
n111eriil 10 1he post 2000 s11b1nission on the future of struc1ural funds ind v1s
involved in 1htmiddot develop1nent of 1ht Integrated Services Prnjec1middot
327 middotn1e co111n1i11et sees i1s fu1ure role is one of infon11ing its([f nf dcvclop111ents
cnh1ncing links Vith local develnp1n~n1 orgtnisuions 111d lt1rn1ng les-gtons fron1
piln1ing projet1s including 1htmiddot porenti~tl for n11instrl1n1ing successful projects
328 middotrhlre is a potential role for the con11nittee 10 get involved in soning out the
sys1t111smiddot in1clequ1cics ind to develop 1 strltcgic lttpproich to coun1ering 1he
neg1tive ispcmiddotcts or duplicuion lhc co111111ittee should consider developing 1n
1green1ent concerning the lin1its hitveen tile olgtjec1ives 1ctivities and clients of the
three types of bodies vhilt- laking account of the li111it1tions on the discretionar
nllure of lhe LE1l)EI Jgtrogran1n1c Vhich is an FU Initiative
329 Fruin 1 viluc for 1noney perspective ind bised on the 1buve 1nilysis the
follr)ving i1nprove111~111s ire desirlttble in the short tern1
bull 1hc cs1ablish111ent of coherent geogr1phical buuncL1rics
bull tn incretse in he forinal co-orclinllion of service provision
The Task Force Report on the Integration of Local Government and Local Development Systems
330 t Trsk Force which was esublished lo reporr on 1h~ 1n1egr111on of locd
govern111ent incl locil clevelopn1cn1 sys1en1s reportccl in August 1998 and its
reco111111end~11ions Vtre approved by C1nvern111cnt in Septen1ber 1998 1 middotrhe 11sk
1orce l-gt concerned to ckvclop 1 vision ~ind s1ra1egy vhich Voulcl encon1pass in
in integralecl IY (he oper11ions of loc1I governn1ent ind Local l)evelop1nent
bodies in order 10 significantly incre~1se 1heir effec1iveness
331 Tire Task Force conltrdercd 1111 Iris could besr be achieved 11 1hc counry rncl
cily level The cclllrrl role will be pL1yed by new Coun1y or City Dcvdopmenl
Boards (CDlb) which will be es1ablislred in each ciry incl cou111y locrl authority
The CDBs with memlJerslup drawn from four sltcrors (ie local governmcnl
co111111uni1y ~ind voluntary social partners and Slate agencies opcra1ing at local level)
ill clrnv up an agreed ~ind con1prehensive Coun1y or City Strategy for Econon1ic
Sociil ind Culturtl l)evelopn1cn1 It VtS 1greecl 11i~11 Jgtannerships or LEAl)EH groups
should cllal Vith clis1clvan1aged areis on an 1greecl basis 1nd 1hat con1111unlly
1)( 111ltgr(lc-d Wnncc~ lropU tla egtlabllshtd 011 a pilot btLgtiL ill f)rce111hcr 1998 ill 011r sltmiddotnmiddoto11S~) ltliltult(l11fa~1middotd arltbullas_ (JbjeLliltmiddot 1s 10 cr1-ordi11flle tbtbull i11p111 ofall S1a1C senlicegt
28
Coorrli11atio11 o Jcmiddotti111 ie------------------------------~---
developinent and -ciciJI incl11sion 111c1sl1re tho11lcl vl1ertmiddot possibll bl cleliVlrld bymiddot
gra~sroots bodies Further nmiddotcon1n1endatinns of the middotr1sk rorcc include
bull (Jl(lprise support func11un lo htbull vered in 1he CFBs Vith rrovision for the
involvement of other Local Dcvdoprncnt bodies such as LEADEH by ~1grec111ent
bull fu11ctional arl1- to coincidemiddot Villi co11n1y or city IHHJndaries or_ t[ sub-county
kmiddotvtmiddotL local elector~il ~treas
bull ~1 si11gle igency to bl nmiddotspt1nsihll for con1n11111i1y dlvclop1nlnl at suh-cuun1y
lclI (either the local tuthoritymiddots Arca Con1111ittee or in clc-ign1tecl
clisadv~1nt1ged 1rc1s groups -gtuch ts P111ntmiddotrJ1ips or LEAJ)ER groups)
I bull any future loctl ckv(loptntmiddotnt groups slloulltl have cou11ty or city councillors on
[heir Boards
An interdc1x1rtn1en1al i111ple1nent~1tio11 group h~ts hLcn fonncd to oversee thl in1plcnltmiddotn111ion of 1l1c middotr~1sk ilnce reco111111endarions
29
4 Operational Efficiency
41 This chapter considers the operational efficiency of the groups Operational
efficiency is concerned Vilh 111aking the best use of 1hc resources provided to
111axin1ise the ltmiddotvel of outputs achieved
42 middotrhe issues and evtluHion criteria arc
Issues Evaluation criteria
Targets and performance Quantification of targets bull Use of baseline data bull Achievement and review bull
Resource allocation and outturn Targets and outturns bull Allocation of resources to Localbull Development bodies
bull Grant cost per job
bull Cost of non-grant outputs
Deadweight and displacement Information on extent bull Effective procedures bull
Targets and Performance
43 OlLUHD contained a number of output md ac[Jv1ty t1rgets to IJe achieved
over the priod 199 middot 1999 A report issued in 1994 crnicised some of the tJrgets
in that they did not refer to previous performance In the absence of this middotbaseline
perform1nce cl11a it is not posstble to know how realistic or demanding these targets
are Extmples of the lick of baseline cl11a include information on new 1obs and new
businesses middotrhc report ilso ronsiclend 1ha1 oilier 11rgets Vere coo n1odcst in relation
10 hat v1s knovn lttbou1 perforn1ancc such as chc tirget for ncv businesses suppo11ed by P1rrnership vith reference to the perforn1ance undltr the original
PESP Partnerships
44 lhe n1ain OPLLRI) targt~ts and 1chievc111cncs against the targets are fhOvn in
Table 41 Most of the original targets were excccdccl bv 1998 rrnny by a wide
margin The only target that w1s quantified in th~ Operational lrogrunme for
LEDER as the creation of obs wluch was set H 4000 over the life of the
Programme Up to encl 1998 an overall job creation figure of 2700 (fulhime job
equivalents) was reponecl
45 Folloving the reco111n1endarions conrainecl in the 1nid-ten11 reviev revised
performance indicators and raised targets were adopted by the OPLURD Monitoring
Ex-a11( Appaiitil of Proposed local Dcmiddotvelop111e111 Progran1me pn1x1rltbulld on bfhalf of DC X11 ~)the SeflJices 11d11ilnltS Research Centrt liCD F11zpa1ncJ Associates a11d Kiert111 lcKeo1m1 lld Febn1ary 1994
30
Tatle 41 OPLURD targets to end-1999 and achievements to end-1998
-
Target
Now JObs
Nt~w businesses
Progression of unemployed to -full-lime jobs -part-time jobs
Number of adults asgtisted to access education
NL mber of children attending preventative education services
Existing businesses su Jported
Cl sterner contacts
=
CEBs
Original Targets
8000
2260
280 pa
20000 pa
Achievements
15500
3 110
2500 (1996-1998)
8700a (1998)
Partnerships
Original
Targets
6900
3640
12500 1500
60000
20400
30000 pa
Achievements
12800
12800
11400 2900
18500
35000
na
Note 8 Only contacts which fed to a provision of a service by the Boards to a client were recorded
Soure OPL URO and annual roports
cn111111i11ee in i-lay 1999 (ee ppendi ))_ middotrhcsc l~1rg~ts appear to he 111ore re~iliitic
having regard to perfonnance in the early ye~1rs of the Progra1nn1e
146 in the cise of ihDlH the mid-term rtmiddotnew notd that the 01 ind1cuors
_cured highly on relevance 1-lovever n1any ut the indicators verc so vague 1ha1
111caningful qu111tificlt1tion vould htmiddot aln1osr 1n1rx1ssible -rhlt reviev concluded that
the pcrforn1ance indicators dieI 1101 provide J sufficiently cltar basis on vhich groups
could debullelop con1n1on indicuor systen1s_ lhe nvit~V proposed a sys1en1 of
ptrf1nnance indicators flt1r discussiltgtn 11ncnchnent incI i111plen1en1a1ion imiddot11e
LEA)ER Morntonng Commince clccidccl that each LEADER group should prepare
i rt~middoti~t~cl t1rgtIS in respect of he indicators proposed in lhlt n1icl-1enn nviev (see
pptmiddotnclix E)_ Nu revised nationil targtli Vtrt agreed by the fmiddot1nnitorin_g Co1n1nittcc
or griculture Jnc1 Food
l
ocal JercoJ11rent 11itulfiteshy
Table 42 Expenditure targets 1994-1999 and outturns 1994-1998
Initiative OP Forecastbull
1994-1999
Revised
Forecast 1994-1999
Latest Forecastc
1994-1999
Outturn 1994-1998
poundm poundm poundm poundm CEBs 818 811 808 620d Partnerships 1047 1036 1083 706e
LEADER Groups 772 947 947 388
Notes a Updated for exchange rate changes and inflation as of May 1999 b Revised forecast is lhBI which has been most recently approved by the Monitonng
Committee ft refers only to expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds c Latest forecast is the most recent estimate by the relevant department of the most
likely outcome It refers only to expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds d Outturn only includes expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds (pound620ni)
Expenditure not co-financed by EU structural funds an1ounted to pound36 1m e Ourtum only includes expendifure co-financed by EU structural funds (pound706m)
Expenditure not co-financed by EU structural funds amount9d ro pound05m Source OPLURD LEADER OP annual reports
Resource Allocation and Outturn
47 Public e-pendi1ure 11rgets ind ou11urns ire shovn in middotrable 42
48 Fro111 the beginning it V1s the viev of Enterprise middotrr~1dL incl En1ployn1tnl thit
there IVlI nut sulliuenc EU funds under 011UHI) 10 support 1lte desired kbullel oldeg
t-pctHliturc by CE13s over 1he life of the Prngrunrnc_ ccorclingly CEB exrenditun
wis in ecess of the level co-finrnred by Ill funds rnd the b1l111n of U6 J million
wis provided bv the hclwquer It is ciltrr 1h11 EU funds rvrilrble for CElh under
011UIU) wrll be fully u11lised bv the encl of 1he lrogrrmme
49 A~ n1ost P1nntrships h1cl to go through J lcng1hy pnxtss of es11hlish1ncn1
incl planning in 19ltJ5 ind 1996 their cxpendiltirc Vas slov in rhuse ye~1rs tlovtver
expenditure 1ccclcr1Ctcl in 1997 and 1998 middotruurisn1 Spo11 ind Hecrellion and 1)11
expecc chH over the full progranllne period c-pencli1urc 1argc1s viii be n1et
410 E-pencli1u1-c under LE1J)fH Vts suhst1nti11ly Ix-In ttrget for rhc pcriocl
1995-1998 A fu11hcr sum of J18 million wrs rllocued to lEDEH liv the EU
Co111n1ission in 1996 fro111 an EU re-erve avai11hle for (on1111unity initiatives In order
to reach lht revised forec~1st expendi1ure in 1999 Voukl h1vc to be 1non 1han lVO
111cl 1 hilf ti111cs lite expenditure of 998 tmiddotlovever griculturc incl Food lXPLCls
1h1t ill alloc1tecl funds viii be spent by the encl of tiltmiddot Progr1n11nemiddot
11ltcor(111g trJ the 11AIJlR ()~ lt11 eliJihle ltpc11di111nmiddot 111ust lgtc co111tlffltlf 1~1 middot JtA f)IJ~ gn111h l~r tbc (IU
of fJrl-1 111Jc_bullr 15J-JY 11Ji~e 111r1111middot1 s 11111sf he Hiid rJ11f I~) llAJ)f( grrgtllJS lxfurc )l_1111c 2000
j2
( ))(rct f iu 11cf fi-c iei Ilt)middot-- middot---------------- shy
A1ocation of Resources to Local Development Bodies
411 Fnlerprise middotrr1clc and E1nployn1en1 inittdly alloctttmiddotd resources equdly to each
CEit middotrhc l)ltp1rtn1ent suhscquently 111nved to 1 1nore dtmiddotn11nd Jtmiddotd 1ppr()~1ch
h1nmiddothy allocations VeHild lgtt varied depending on 1hc relative llctmiddotds uf each aret
Ille c~1p1city of e1ch art lo successfully utilise eriterprimiddotbulle supports ind to crelle jobs
i ind the qud1ty nf thtmiddot cmiddotnterpnstmiddot pL1ns prepared hv each CEB
41 Al)middott placed 1dvcnistmiddot1nents in nevsptpers i11vi1i11g cnn1n1t1ni1y groups
(ou side Ille designated JrLIS of dis1dvintJgt being IUl)kcd Jfter hv Area-Based
P1nncrships) incl relevant n11ion1 organisations to ~11gt11ly for ()JgtLUHI) funding 33
con1n1unity groups ind 15 nitiontl urganisuion Vere sekCtld by t()1I for funding
41 middotrhe allocation of resources to Pirrnvrships hy Al)1l v~1s hiscd on cltt1ilcd
1nIlysis of the socioeconn1uic ch1ractlris1ic- of eJch tre~1 highliglning various
aSf)lt_cts of dtpriv11ion drlVll fro111 tlie 1991 ltensus of Population ()tiler rclcv1nt
v1riihlcs inclt1cll~d the qu~ditv of the pL111 tlttmiddot c1p1ci1y of htmiddot l1rtncrsliip ind the
1v1l1bility-of orher clevelop111ent resources to 1hc lrll such as IE1l)l-J or LiHB1N
4lbulli 1chmiddoter1istmiddot1nents Vere pL1cecl in 11Lmiddotvsp1rtmiddotrs innouncing lhe LEtl)lR lni1i1tivl
and inviting applicnions 1middot1ic~e VCrc assesstmiddotd by 1gricuhure and 1~nod Vith the
1ssi-bull1ance of an incltpcndenl consul11nt to es1ahlish tile txtent to vhich they 111lt~1 iii~
key ftatures of LEl)FH lhtmiddot rltsourctS middotere tllocatcd h~1ving regard to the quality
of the hu iness pl1n subniilllltL 1he population ind cl(gree of rurility of the 1rea and
the ~1vailalgtility of othtr sourcts uf ~lss1st1ncc fn1 Joctl ltkmiddotclop1ncn1 3i loc~d group-
Ver~ sclecled ind 2 SLctoral groups
Grint Cost per Job
4l~i middotr1iere arc specific f1c1ors vhich lin1i1 the usefulness of htmiddot gr1n1 cost per job
incli ~-tlnr in the con1cx1 of lltx11 devclop111cnt middotrhese include
bull (rear d1versil in the ni1urc of the 1ohs cre1ted ind 1he 111ethod of cc)un1ing
I hl111
bull No direct con1p1nson hetveen the VOrk invoVtltI in supporting job cna1ion 11
local level VIiii nationtl joll crcition agtncics
bull middotrile us1ain1bility of jobs 1n1y d1fft r frn111 11in-e crc1tltd by nuional igtncics
bull middotril(middot focu- un job cre1tinn iritmiddot vithin the three 1ypes nf lllt1clic
local Jevelopn1e11r fllifiariues
416 For CEils the number of jobs created is used is a performance meisure The
average gr1n1 cost per job creared vtriecl over the pericxJ under reviev as follovsn
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Number of jobs created 1958 3174 3589 3317 3487
Grant cost per 1ob created pound2535 pound4249 pound3763 pound3884 pound4206
The v1ri11ions from year 10 year miy be panly explained hv the fact 1h11 sometimes
1here is 1 riine t1g hetveen the gn111t expenditure ind 1he creition of thi relevant
jobs Over the period 1994middot97 the average grant cost per 1ob was Aj725 with the
lowest CEil be111g S2269 (Tipperary North) and the highest being gtfi683 (Leitrim)
Cost of Non-Grant Outputs
417 In add111011 to grmt aiding job crcll1011 md adminis1r11ion all of the bodies
~Ire involved in non-granr activities including
CEils
bull Producing enrcrprise plans and generJlly pro1noting in enterprise culurc
bull Busines~ infonnttion 1clvice counselling incl 1nentoring
bull ~ltn1gc111ent devetopn1en1 rraining
lartnersl1ips
bull Enterprise cre11ion and ckvelopment
bull Environ1nent ind infrtstrucrure projects
bull Provision of services to the unen1ployecl
bull Con1n1unity clevelop1ncnt
bull Co1nple1nentary ~incl prevcnt11ive educarion
LEADER groups bull tni1nation 1crivit1es
bull middot1-icl1nical assis11nce
Expenditure on these 1ctiv1tic~ is shovn in middot1middot1blL lt3
418 11blc 43 shovs the v1rying ex1cnt 10 vhich the clitlerenl locil l)cvelop111ent
lxgtdics trt involved in non-gr1n1 ou1pu1s_ Thlt CEB ind LEl)EH groups focus on
gr1nt is grtmiddotarcr th1n Panncrships vho focus on non-gr1nt activi1ies imiddothis is
cons1s1ltnt with tlic list of 1ctiv1ties 111 Tible 34
- 71Jt 111tmeratfJr is l1n11t~ paid 111 the cale11dt1r HCff 01u the de11011111uur1r 1~middot the lllfJloy111e11t ~ai11 Cllthic~( (1er IIitbull yor i11 the jln11middot 11111J rcce11ed jiTu111c1td uufuitl Jimiddotom (Lfgtsmiddot 11 1Jf1bull rbut
empluymc111flt_-e1middot1111h1middots1middotjir11r_ are 1g11ored
31
()fJert-111u1uil Fj)lcicJJ(l --middotmiddot-middotmiddot---------- shy
Table 43 Expenditure on non-grant outputs 1996 - 1997
1996 1997 1996 1997 poundm poundm of total of total
expenditure expenditure
CEBs 39 54 18 24 Pyentnershipsbull 51 136 56 72 LEADER groups 21 34 40 30
folal 11 1 224 31 42
Not~ a 7he figures oxclude Community Groups and selected National Organisations b Excludes selected sectoral groups
Sotrce Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller iJnd Auditor General see Appendix A
Duadweight and Displacement
419 l)ct(lveight refers to situation Vhcre 1 pro1nocer vould undertake 1he
buiness projtmiddotct in 111y evcn1 i_e_ Vitliotll 1 gr1nc or 1sistince fron1 ~1 Iocil
l)e-elorn1en1 body middot1l1e granting of funltls 10 dealthveiglH projects is an ineffic1tgtnt
and ineflec1ivt alloc11ion of resources Disrlacen1tmiddotn1 refers ro situations vhere 1he
golt1cL or ~ervicvs iOlcl by 1 grlttlllltISiiSled rroll10ler divert sales opporlunitiis fro111
other exisling busincssl-gt E111plor111ent c1n hl sin1iL1rlv divlrtecl In chese cases rhe
in1pac1 of thl funds allocHed is achieved at the exptmiddotnsc of other enterprises
420 Tltere is risk of deidweight and c1splacemcnt in Iii gr1nr ictlmiddotUv including
th11 It lltgtcal clevelopn1en1 level A nccnc study stated th~1t 1 ~
ie bate tao concerns uifb the s11ppo11s Or n1icro e111e1JJrse Jbe Jruhlen1 uf
clacue1ibt a11cl clisplaccbull111e11t is e11clc111ic in such Slf)jJ01ts eJHCial~v 1ohlre
sc1cral agencie ure to su1ne clerrecbull inuolultcl in tlishursing such suJfgtorts
The Operational llogrammls for 11--DEH 111d 011lJHD llotlt su1e thll dc1clwe1ght
1ncl clisplact1nent are to Ixmiddot 1voiclld
421 All cn1crprise project Lill into one of 1he folloving fo111 clllgorics
Deadweighl Yes Deadweight No
Displacement No Displacement No
Deadweighl Yes Deadweight No
DisplacementbullYes Displacement Yes
Vlt1tio11al 11ici11nbull11i P11onlies for the xbullnfJd 1000-JrxJG Fitzgltbullrald cmiddott al Fn11omic ond )o(middotial Reearch 1i111u1rmiddot -Hor(h 19Y)
ocu )etelo111u11 t 11 it it1 I ives
Of 1he four possible scenarios onlv one (wi1h no displaccmeni incl no cleaclweigh1)
yields potcn1iil net increises in outpu1 incon1e en1ploy111cnr and consu1nption 1hat
could Ix 111nbu1ible 10 l[ADEH or 011Ul(l) supporl From vil11e for lllClllC)
perspective ii is in1ponant tha1 1hcrc be good infonnation on the extent of
cle1clwe1gl11 and dispLicemem and dfcc1ive prcxeclures 10 deal wi1h 1hem
Deadweight
422 11 is cl1fficuli 10 111eas11re the ex1ent of clcaclweigh1 and no method c1n Ix
rcmicro1rded is provicling tn1~illy rcliallle es1in1~1les [)eichveight Vts exa111ined in the
111idmiddotltnn reviev of OJgtLUHIJ in rcspcct uf fin~1nci1l ~1ssistu1ct givtn 10 s1nall finns
by CEl3s Fron1 a s11nple of finns ~untycd over 40dego of thC pron101ltrs indic1ted thll
they would hivc es11blished the businesses w11hou1 CUl suppo11 A s111cly of micro
enterprises 1h1t fl~Ceivtcl grants under Local )evelop1nent initiitivcs 1nd other
progr11n1111s rcpo11ed deichveight of 45Yi
423 E111erpnse Tricle and F111ploy111en1 has irgued 1h11 1hese estim11cs of
ceJdeiglu are roo high ccorcling tu thl l)erart111e11t the viCS of proinoter~ irt
nor 1 reli1ble guide to cil11er lheir behiviuur or heir SllCLt-S lhe l)cp1nn1ltnt ~1-serts
1hll di CEBs seek 10 ivoicl cleiclwcigh1 However i1 J11s been no1ccl 1h11
rcsrondentsmiddot confidence rcgtrding their abil11y to sta11 i busines in the 1bsence of
i grant c111 he considered 1s 1n underesli111~1le
424 A siucly f 1hc Arca Allowincc Fn1erprise Scheme (AAES) which is
adniinisterecl by P1rrnerships suneyecl a sa111ple of pa111cip1nr- 1 11 Vts concludedbull
thit cleachveigl11 Vas in 1he range 40-50o_ Even alkJving for s1111pling risks the
thnt surbulley-gt t1ke11 1oge1her suggest thlt there is 1 consiclerihlt incidence of
cittciVCight
425 An cximrle of poten1iil cleiclweiglll involving IEADER funding is se1 ou1 in
Cise Study 5
11of11at1011 (~ 1liClO 111tt1pn4 S11pxn3 lcrni 1ltllicn10 d local fgtcbull1ymiddotfop1111bull11t Agc11c1e 11d11try 11a11atirJ11 11111 1111~11-t 1999- lluro (llfe1p11lt- that rcCcbulluetl prro11s fr(J11 1111e17nisc flflt11u_ (danis 1u1 Crrlllachf( t111d Sht11111rJ1t )c1elop111e1111tmiddotc1v111c1uld i111lw arl(hiiS
Set fj lJiAJhk 111iutitlt hmiddot1a11af11J1 r11ul llttmiddot(middotr1111111middot11rlatiu11 lcmiddotontcmiddotv CI ul 1)95
Stjl111plortd a11d tlw 011g (bulln11 l11e111plr~rrmiddotd A11 1al11alio11 (J 11w tlnf1 t1101ra11cc f11terprit Xhe11tc IFNC Co11s1il1a111s J-)7
-1)1 cr11bullrde1middot 1ba11hc prop()r1p11middotuncncl 11IFJ _-lated b(l biy 11011d hatcmiddot 1atmiddotc11 up c111plrJy1111J1rJbull1jshy1middot111101111i1 ~ 111J (J nmiddotfia1c n1lt1ict1orji1r thost 1141u M1ild (UT nLltrfllll dn11( 11 t1) ht1 01)11cd that IJc lllU(rillllf (CtlN n1t1middotJrom l(lllJtiy1111Jl ~r I 1r11gmiddotttrlll llt1fJIO)td 24Ci Ill tbc iRC middot111(~1) 11Yfdd he c1 lgttbulluer t-li11(lft ofdct1tl11eipIJ1 fur AAlS paiticipd11t tha11 the tfiJJlltlllgt q11ofcfl i 1 1ha1 suufbull_ Nou~middotzybullr_ lh1bull s11u~v J(jiJfld (fl that lbulle cht1roocns1il~ vf Amiddot115 KJrticipa11t (tmiddotducatio11 and dt1r(lI011 of 1111c111p()y111cmiddot11t) were lkl(rmiddotmiddot tba11 for thl frn~~-1en11 111u111ploycd uho dul 11ol fx1rtic1xflcgt II Atf)
y
Of)(rotional IJfcicbullnc-)-
ase Study 5
Potential deadweight situation
lr1 1999 a business person 1n a large provincial town decided to provide a bed and bmiddoteakfast establishment in a spacious house that she owned in the centre of the town She decided to focus on the upper end I business market and provide four en-suite rcbulloms She received assurances from several local businesses that they would be willing to refer clients to her Two local hotels also indicated that they would refer cverflow customers
Tie total investment required to refurbish the property fit out and supply furniture crockery and bed linen was esl1maled al pound88000 Loan approval was obtained from the bmk for renovations and the promoter applied to the local LEADER group for a grant
T 1e LEADER group estimated that pound44000 of the proposed expenditure would be
eligible for grant assistance and a grant of pound13000 was approved for the venture
T 1e pro1ect report prepared for the LEADER Board meeting did not include consideration of the possibility lhat the pro1ect might proceed without a grant In that regard the following faclors would have been relevant
bull the premises was located 1n the centre of a busy growing town bull the premises was owned by the promoter bull the owner was self-employed and operated a consultancy service from home bull based on 35 occupancy net cash now in lhe first year was forecast at pound8000 bull if no grant had been paid and the funds had been borrowed instead the estimated
surplus for the year would have been reduced by an increased interest charge of up to pound1300 which would not have substantially changed the potential Viability of
the business venture
426 Posible Vtys of 111i11i1111sing dlHhveigh1 in assisted projects include
bull Targeting financial abullsistancc on projects where the costs of entry to the business arc high relative to the resources available to the promoter So111e pro111nltIS have ve111 li1ni1cd financial resources for fxa111ple 1he vast
n1Jjori1r of Ptrtntrship l lien1s ~ire long-tenn unc1nploycd It is Vorth noting
thtt evtn Vhlt 1dequa1e privite resoune- are lmiddotaiL1hle it 1nty bt difficult
for so1ne Jlt)cal f)evelop1nent bodit~ given their job creation target~ 10 1urn
clumiddotll involve1nent in othlmiddotrvisl sound projects Indeed 1he viev Vts
tprcssed hy 0111e of thosL in1ervitmiddotvecl in the courst of the study 1h~ll fi11111cial
Sllppo11 for CJigihJt projects is often vieVCd hy prOtllltllers ~IS an cntiJe1ll(fl( and
this can 111akl it difficult for Loctl l)tvLlopn1en( ])(xlies to nfusc financial
1ssist1nce (() deathve1gh1 rru1ect
37
(JC( )Ct(()JHUJl 11itiati1es
bull Providing financial assistance by means of repayable grants loans or equity mthcr than non-repayable cash grants middotrhis should discourige reli1ncc on public funds by those entrepreneurs vho
do not need ii Vhiltgt ensuring that entrepnmiddotnctllS vho do need public finance
can alail of it Tltlte m1cl-tcrm evtluil1on of 011UIU) recommenclecl the
incre1sed llSC of loans and l(jUity rlttther thtfl grtf)i reron 1ly tile lndUSll)
Evtlua1ion Uni ncon11ncndccl thll all financial 1ssi-11nce provided uncler 1he
1egis of lEADEH ancl CEils should require 1 fm1neid return From earlv 1998
CfB- ind Pa11nerships hive been tmiddotn1pOVlrld by 1hc EU Con1rnis inn to issisl
projects hy 111c1ns of equity ind rcfuncLtblc 1icl In 199~ tlrnost ~05111 of CEB
assist1ncc (4oo) v1s provided in 1hc fonn of equity 111d refundthle ~1id
Entcrprisc middotrrack ind E1nploy111en1 intend 1h11 refundable forins of 1ssis1ance
Vil] he deployed incrc1nentdly 111 future Al)11 hJs tgllld vi1h P1r1ncrships
tllt clien1- should Vhtre prtctic~ilgtle nceiVl nmiddotfundable 1itl r11hcr th~111 grints
In 1ccurcl111ce wt1h EU regul1llons lEADEH groups ire precluded from
providing lotns or equity to enterprises
427 recent study reported thi1~
le ackn()toleclgc that n1icru e11te17Jrises 111a_v face capital constraints especialfr in the stcut uJdegfJhase but strongf)i s11_rges11hat the n1us1 ejecliue
uov Ju lf(lltress his fJOssible middotn1arkct _(ailunmiddot is Jbrough rJals an( eq1tif)
rather tba11 microran aicl 1Jt~~- uo11c 111inin1ise tbe r1~k ojmiddot creating a cleJenclcnl~) c11111 remiddot
428 It is clear [hll here is cope for n1uch greater use of rep1y~il)[c grin[S loans
ind equi1y 10 111inin1isl dtachveiglil incI such ustmiddot has 1hc 1ddccl 1dv1nt1ge 1h11
1ssistince c1n he providlcl n1ore econon1ic1lly 1 funds c1n bl recycled to 1ssis1
n1ore thtn one project Huvcvcr so111c incre~1se in ~1dn1ini-gttr11ion cos1s could be
expcc1ecl
429 An extre1ne fonn of ckichveiglH irises Vhtn public fin1nciil support is
supplied 10 1 project vhirh as cst1hlishecl and is oreruing in [he Jbsencc nf this
suppon CtSl Siucly 6 involving 1hc ArlJ Allovtnce Enterprise Schlllle illus1r1tes thi
11a11aH11t of 11ficro 111(tpn-lt SupjXJl1 Ao-o a11011til a11d lcx(I Jrbull1tmiddotlup111c1u 11~cmiddot11C11gtmiddot iu1111y tia11r1i(Jll 11it A11~1til CJlt-lt)
rJ1irJ1Ui lnnmiddott111cbull11f Jn-ru1fi(middoti f(lr tbe wnod 20(J-2(XX) Faz Ccrllfd lf t1I c()10111ic (JUI S(Jcial Nc_1middott1rr_h 11_f1ltrlt I-Ion)) JJlt-J
Sltmiddotj~F1111lo1ld o 1u he lh11g-T1middotr111 Ui1tmiddot111plo1middotetl- 1111 10i1atio11 of lbltmiddot Artbulla Alllt1flft 110middot 11tlJHi1e ScJ1111cbull 1HC Co1111raJ11middot 19lt)7
middotmiddot
38
Ojgteraliollal JJicie11lt_~1middot
ase Study 6
Funding the startup of an existing business
A fisherman was 1n receipt of Unemployment Assistance (UA) from the Department of
SJcial Community and Family Affairs (DSCFA) from 1979 to 1999 In September 1998 hi applied for support under the Area Allowance Enterpnse Scheme (AAES)
Uoder the terms of the scheme an applicant must be unemployed for at least a year
and this eligibility must be confirmed in writing on the application form by DSCFA The Praquortnership can subsequently approve the application and may provide minor financial support 1n addition to the main financial benefits provided by DSCFA 1e the receipt of full unemployment payments for a year and on a reducing scale for a further three years plus retention of secondary benefits
Abullcording to the application form the applicant had received a bank loan of pound18000 for the purchase of a boat with repayments commencing on 30 August 1998 In addition hf was the owner of fishing nets to a value of pound6000
Tt1e application form was certified by DSCFA 1n January 1999 to the effect that the applicant was eligible for AAES The certification did not explain
bull how the applicant managed to purchase a boat while on UA bull how he persuaded the bank to provide a loan or pound18000 bull how he was financing the business from August 1998 to January 1999 in particular
the boat repayments and insurance amounting to pound565 per month
Tt1e report prepared for the Partnership Board meeting stated that the applicant had with the knowledge of DSCFA been engaged 1n the fishing industry for the previous ten years on a part-time basis The Board approved the application
mcFA has made the following observations on this case
bull Following an investigation in 1988 the UA payment was terminated but reinstated under appeal with an assessment of net income at pound1250 from fishing per year The case was reviewed 1n 1993 and the net income per year was increased to pound1400 A further review was conducted in September 1998 (the month atter the boat was purchased) and the assessment of net income did not increase
bull It is very difficult to establish an accurate income for such fishermen as fish can be sold to tourists and restaurants for cash
bull The Department did not consider 1t necessary to check with the bank as to what if any security was provided for the loan
bull While failures occur in the scheme they do not cost the Department any more than if the client continued on UA
A[1M has pointed out that fishing comprises a very small proportion of AAES pa1ic1pants supported by Partnerships A recent review of Partnership business su1iports reported that fishing and Bed and Breakfast businesses do not provide a viable full-time 1ob and Area Allowance 1s not an appropriate support payment It also recommended that clearer guidelines should be issued regarding eligib1l1ty
Soure Partnership Business Supports and the Area Allowance Scheme Insights No 8 ADM 1999
J9
locaf f)ltueloJn1e11t fl1itiati1es
Case Study 7
Potential displacement situation
A business proposal was made to a CEB 1n 1998 The promoler wished to provide a food delivery service to factories on industrial estates ie sandwiches baps snacks elc The promoter recognised that there were several competitors Unlike the
competitors he proposed to provide the service via three refrigerated vending machines lhat would be reslocked regularly He applied for and was approved a capital grant of pound5500 by the CEB in December 1998
The project report prepared for lhe Board meeting dealt with the possibility of displacement by noling that lhe promoters service would be provided in a manner different from his compet11ors However the question arises if the project is successful how will its sales be achieved unless by the diversion of the expenditure of faclory employees from one service provider to another
Displacement
430 middotrhc only antlysis of clispL1ce1ncnt vas in respccl uf 11lS 1nd this shl)Vcd a
wide rmge of estimils Using a methodology devised bv Breen and Halpin the
consul11nts esti1111recl that 64oo of the business carried out by 1ES panicipants Vas
diver1cd fron1 other Irish fin11s and Iiiat ~i l1X1 of en1plny1llLl1I created in
thescentcrpriscs v1s at the expense of other enterprises middot1l1e consultants felt thtt the
Breen 111cl 1-ldpin methodology had limitations ancl tlut their estinutes of
clisplicc1nent Vere too high lJsing different 1ssu1nptions incl 1 different
mthodology they estim11ecl that 19 of employment created in AAES enterprises
Vts displacLcl fro1n other cn1erpriscs
431 Possible vays of n1ini111ising clispl1cen1ent include
bull CounsLlting pro1notcrs tovncb exports or cloincstic sectors supplied prltdom1n1111lv l)y import
bull ithholding 1ssis1ance fron1 projec1s in1encling 10 supply goods and stgtrviccs to the clon1es1ic 1111rke1 vhich are alrc1cly supplied by other busineSSlS
bull Providing financial tssisttnce by n1eans of rep1yibllt grants lo1ns ind cqui1y rathtr rhin non-repayable ct~h gr1nts
432 All LEADEH groups Partnerships and CEils are insrruned not to suppon
projects Vhich voulcl displace business fro1n other enterprises
433 CEl3s were advised early in 1999 10 focus heir efforts on thlt development of
n1anuf1cturing incl in1ern1tional services projects vhich viii have the pltgttential 10
clevclop in10 export-oriented finns hile not neglecting other eligible rrojects
(vi1ble non-clcaclveight non-displacc1nen1) outside these sec1ors Jgtirtnersl1ips have
40
()JCltflional Jffrienc)
agmiddoteed tht financid support should not be supplied to businsses 111 plentiful
supply such as hackneys couriers builcling contr1cpoundors Ix-cl and hre1kLi~t
operators vm sales and hairdrclaquors LEADER groups are advised to d11ect the11
Stlj)p(H1S tOvards innltgtva1ive pnijeLt~
4i4 There arc d1ffcrcmiddotnt views among Local Development bodies regarding what is
inmiddotoived in rtcognising diplacetntnt middotrhus -cHne Lltic~11 J)evelopn1en1 bodi1s
co1sider thtl if lhe existing co111peeitors to a project are located outside their county
or evtn their loc~1lity 1hen clisplacen1cn1 is not 1n issue
4s The 1111cl-1cnn reviews of LEADEH and OPLUHD made linlc reference to
displlcemcnt Howevmiddotcr the LEADEH mid-term review contended that displJcemcnt
vculd he 111ini111ised if LEAl)ER groups focused their f1nincial 1ssistance on
111rovative proiects Agnrnlture and Food intend that the final evalu111on of LEADEH
11 Viii includ ltSli111a1ion of tltmiddotachveigh1 and clispl1cen1ent effect
Be11e_ficit1 Dis1U1ce111e11t
436 II rhere are ~1ny circu111st~1nces in vhich ltlispl1ce111ent can be ignored thev
shltnild be identified For exunple it 111ay be possible to sustain the c~1se on sociJI
jus1 ice or equity grounds rhu specific groups such JS 1he lung-1ern1 t1nt111ployed
shcbullttld receivlt posi1ivlt cliscri111in~n1on elifJI at the cxfxnse ojotherjoh see~ctYi tOi1
111 lrgucd 1h1t onlt of the obwctives of Partnerships is to 1mprovmiddot( the potcnlld of
the long-tcnn unc111ployccl ind 1he socially ltXcludccl 10 gain cn1ploy111ltnl in lhlt
eccbullno1ny generally ind specifically 1n poundheir Ovn areas_ middotrhc inslrtion of particular
dis1dvant3ged groups into e111ploy1ncnt or a husine~s viii often have thL effec1 of
dis)Jcing a non-clis~1dvantaged person fron1 that 1oh oppo11unity Hcnvcver the
social giin makes the displJce111ent worthwhile
437 Given that CEBs cover the emire populallon incl that Partnlrships and
LEd)EH groups cover 540o and 6Joo respectively the exacpound circun1s11ncltS Vhen
clisplacemem 111ight be permincd for any Local Devdopmelll body should be
cluificd by the relevant Dep1rtmenis
(rnui11g (lUJ Sharing ()I r F111plr1y111e11t S1raUt_r (JfX 011 the lt1bltgt11r _bulllfariltf tgtlt1uu11cmiddotn1 of1111erpnmiddotc_ 7huC and 1111Joy111e11r Jn 19ltXgt
41
5 Assessment of Impact
51 Xhik the 1nc1sun111cnt of the 1chieven1ent of cconon1y 1nd efficiency is
ilnportan1 in the n1an1ge1nenl of the initiatives establishing their in1pact is of even
grci1er 11npnrtance J111pic1 assessn1enl is concerntd Vilh est1blishing the e-1cn1 10
which the local devdoprnent oJ1cc1Jns ire achievecl 1110 the wider contribution of
the initiatives 10 local cconon1ic and socitl developn1ent 11 is desirable thtt
appropri1te sys1tn1s to evaulle 1he 1chicve111ents of the iniliHives in n lttion co their
desired 11np1cts should IJt in place
52 Ille cllvcloprnent nf syste1ns to detennine 1he i1np1ct of the initiitivcs is not
easy middotrhlt clivlr~i1y of Jnc~il dcvelupn1ent objecrive~ n1e1ns thit it is unlikely thH 1ny
one 1ssessn1cn1 niethocl Otild he sufficient So1ne in1p1cts like cn1ploy1nent
crltJtiun can lx quintified Jnd 1chieven1ent can be n1unitorecl chrough che 111alysis
of nJev1n1 perfonnanct indic11ors_ Othcrs like rlttising the level of econo111ic activity
ctn be 1ssessecl 1hrough 1he usc of ccono111ic 1noclels using surroga1e 111e1sures of
irnpacl 1VL1ny of the socitl objeclives of 1he inili11ive are not susceptible to
n1e1sure1ne111 at di incl till i1111xu1 achieved Jre best detenninccl through surveys
of chtngts in local condilions a1 inclividu1I and con1nnir1i1y levels
S3 lhi ch1p1er consiclt~rs 1ppro1chcs co che 1sscss111en1 of i1npact under the
folJoving J1e1dings
Issues Subject
Quantitative assessments Baseline analysis bull bull Use of macroeconomic data
Qualitative assessments Assessing social impacts bull Case studies and international studies bull
Quantitative Assessments
54 lnfonnition on job creacion and the progression of long-tenn une1nployecl
persons 10 fuJI lirlle VOrk 1re rerorted for i[J these ypes Of 1gtltKJies (see middotr1ble 41
ind Append A) Vhile the figures tint hive been reported to end-1998 under
011URI) 1re well 1he1d of the tirgcts thit were set it is difficult to interpret these
resuhs in hrn1s of i111picl in lhe ibsence of bascline cl1t1
Baseline Analysis
55 B1selinc analysis would estiblish the performance of a representative group
of enterprises con1n1uni1y groups incl individu~1ls 1hat did not receive 1ssis11nce
under 1hc initiatives middotrhe rcrfonnancc of 1ssis1ecl entities incl individuils al counry
42
Assess1ne111 lt~ 111JOCI
or r111ional levtgtI could then he co1nparcd Vilh the 1xmiddotrfonnancl of middotn1ttchedmiddot nonshy
tssi ~1ed cnlitiii selected fro1n the repre~entltil group Si1nil1rly tile pcrlltlrn11ncl
of en1i1ies recltiving ditlenmiddotnt kinJ of ~1ssistance could also he antlysed to cletenninc
rel1 live ilnpac1
56 Baseline analysi~ can he pcrfonnld using 1nicroecono111ic d111 (da1a 1bou1
spcltific enterprises) or n1acrotcnnon1ic clat1 (1ggrLg11t~d dat1)_ middotrhc cl1t1 collection
proicduns -11 loc1l level hJve not heimiddotn 1dequatt to suppo11 this kind of ltinalysis
using 1nicrocconon1ic data 1ccordingly analysis against a baseline of non-1ssis1cd
cnlt-rprises co111n1unity groups ind individu1J- cHHlO( hl carried out
I Case Study on Unemployment using Macroeconomic Data
i 5 7 stuclv of the irnpact uf 011l RD on unemplovment ing census clata
(111a- rltgttgtcono111ic data) has hlttll c1rrild out under tile ~1egis of the ()PlUH)
P1oriloring ConHniuec So1nc rcsuhs of the study 1re su11H11arised in Cae Study H
58 middotrtiis finding fro111 ltase S1udy 8 dltgtcs nor nectgtssarily 111ean 11111 P~trtnerships trl
les effective in assisting une111ployed peorle 10 find vork 1s unc111ploycd ptorlt~
in P~ntncrship 1rc1s 111ay he 111on di_-adv~1nt1ged and find ii lllOll dillicull to 1ccess
e111(oy1ncn1 In addition 1he ralt of entry to une1nploy111lnt in Partnership 1reas
1nay he different frorn non-Jgt1r1nershir 1n~~1s 11lt)vevcr the data is inconclusive
I ~1hont tile level of ttlcclivcness of P~111nlr~liips in addressing Ltr1e111rloyn1cnL middotrhe
case s1udy highlights the co111plexity of in1pac1 analysis but also illustrates ils
i irnpbullgtrltnce in le~1cling lo a grlmiddotHer uncllrst1nd1ng of the resulls of progr~11n11H
aCllily More complex ltbta rnodels of the labour nurket at local level woulcl be
nccclecl for a svs1e111~11ic revicv of 1hc elTcctivenesi of Pannerships in tickling longshy
I 1ern~ llllt~n1plon1ent
59 It is of inlertst 10 e-an1inc the trends in the duration of uncn1ployn1ent in
I recent years imiddot~1hle 51 ihOVS thc nun1hers une111plnyecl ylmiddot1r on yctr in ont year
banltls up to 1l1nc years fron1 1994-1999 and the 11ne1nplcgtyn1ent retentugtn r1tcsmiddot
fro1r vtmiddotar to year i_e_ lhe proportion of those 11ne111ployed ho nLmiddot still unen1ploytCI I
one year li1er
I510 middotr1hle 51 shov- 1h1t signific1nt i111provlrnlnts in une111ploy111cnt rerintion
ralc~ htVl occurrLd in recent yetrs particularly for long-ten11 UllLlllploy1nen1 Strong
ecoron1ic grovth in 1lie period covered vould li1ve beltIl of prinH in1ponance in
1he reduction 111 long-1tmiddotrn1 l1ne111ploy111ent ihiJc the long-lerrn une1nployed ire thl
1111in rarge1 group for Partnerships thlse areas are not sep1raccly distinguished 1n
lhe analysis OutlOVS ro schen1es such 1s Co111111u11ity Fn1ployn1cnt could also he I
llllf)()flilll
43
olta JeueloJn1e111 11itioti1cs
Case study 8
Analysis of the impact of OPLURD on long-term unemployment using macrodata
A key part of the analysis was a comparison between the change in unemployment in Partnership areas from 1991-1996 with the corresponding change in non-Partnership
areas The comparison was based on the Census of Population for 1991and1996 The logic behind the comparison was that disadvantaged areas are at risk of falling behind
the general level of economic development unless there is a targeted intervention to ensure that the rising tide of economic growth flows into those areas Thus if the
decline m unemployment in Partnership areas is similar to that in Ireland as a whole
then at least the gap between affluent and poor areas has not widened and Partnerships may have contributed to some extent to this outcome
The consultants measured changes 1n the unemployment rate in two ways (i) by the percentage point (or absolute) change (ii) by the proportionate (or relative to 1991) change
They used a simple example to illustrate the difference between the two measures Assume that Area A has 90 unemployment rate and Area B has 20 unemployment
rate If the unemployment rate declines by 10 percentage points in both areas (the
same absolute change in the rate) the relative rate is quite different since Area A has declined by only 11 (relative to its starting rate) whereas Area B has deemed by 50
(relative to 1s starting rate) Both rates should be used together
The key data was summarised as follows
Unemployment rate
Area 1991 1996 Absolute Percent Percent Change initial rate Points Change Relative to Initial
Ireland 169 14 8 -21dego
Ratebull
-126
Partne1ship areas 256 230 -26 -100 (PESP only)
Non-Partnership 139 119 -20 -141 areas
Note 8 Change in unerriployment rate divided by the initial unemployment rate
The consultants commented that the unemployment rate in PESP Partnership areas
fell by a slightly greater absolute amount than either Ireland or non-Partnership areas but in relative terms they did worse - essentially because they had higher unemployment rates to begin with in 1991
Sourco A Report on the Impact of the Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development on Long- Term Unemployment Goodbody Economic Consultants et el October 1999
44
Assessnu11t q J11pact
Table 51 Duration of unemployment and retention rates 1994-1999
Ye
19 19 19 19 19 19
ar
94 95 96 97 98 99
Less than one year Number
151032 144283 146776 132398 130780 110446
--shy1-2 years 2-3 years 3+ years
Number Retention Number Retention
rate rate
Number
43697 39748 263 40875 283 38361 261 31719 240 28 194 216
27489 64154 26293 602 67955 25852 650 69667 24227 593 61870 18914 493 54448 14496 457 44940
NotB Retenrion rates are calculated as follows_ All of those who wero unemployed for 1-2 years in 1995 (39 748) wcro unernployed for less than one year in 1994 (151032) thus the unemployment retention rate is 263 (39 748+151032) CSO Live Register data
i Case Study on Business Formation using Macroeconomic Data
I 511 tucly of s11111l business forn1ation over ti111e 111ight be usecl to consider issues
middot such as lhe i111pact of lhl initi~Himiddotes on thtbull rice of n1anufacturing st1nups his i~
considered in Case Srudy 9
51~ C~rtater underst1nding is requirtcl of the n1ix of variables vhich n1ay be
responihle for the trends appann( in the data In a situ11ion vhere an unexpected 1 result is obt1inLmiddotd fron1 tile analysi~ C1s in Case Study 9) 11 Otild lgtt necessary to
refirc the analysit using 1111croecono111ic dala un1il the reasons for the trends
observed 1re clarified and the dilTcren1 contribution~ of lhe initiatives to sn1all 1
enterprise fonn~uion ere better understood
513 In order to use 111icrtgteconon1ic cLua 10 assess the in1p1ct of 1ht ini1ia1ivcs on1 n1anufacturing and intern~llional StTviccs it vould be necessJI) to integrate locil
clcvdopment suppo11 dlla from all the mitia11ves -Uh rhe Forfis and Enterprise
middotrr1de and E1nploy1ncn1 Bu~iness InforntHion Sygtt(Jll (BIS) Enterprise lrlttcle incl
Fmrlovment 1ntcncls to proceed with the 1nrcmiddotgra1ion of CEil data with the BIS (See
paragraphgt 2 2i-228) i 514 Enrerprise Tracie ancl Employment h1s commissioned a review 10 take place
in 11middote currenl year on the in1p1ct of CEUs vith particular reference 10 thlt ratlt of 1
bu~i1es~ fonnacion tnd 1he su~tlinability of the johs cre~Htmiddotcl
45
lucal JelJelo111unl l11i1ia11cs
Case Study 9
Use of macroeconomic data on business formation
In 1993 Enterprise Ireland stopped assisting manufacturing and international services firms with less than ten employees This role was transferred to CEBs The trend in the number of Irish-owned startups in manufacturing from 1987 to 1996 has been studied in an effort to detect the impact of economic growth on the rate of startups It might equally be used as a starting point to consider the impact of CEBs in this role
Startups in Irish-owned manufacturing 1987 to 1996bull
600
500
bullOO
300
200
100
0 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Year
The graph shows that the very rapid economic growth from 1993 (which period includes the emergence of the initiatives) did not result in an increased rate of manufacturing startups According to the quoted study The start-up performance 1s surprising The improvement m the economy over the years has not been accompanied by a corresponding growth in the number of manufacturing startupsmiddot
Note a Case study based on ~startups and Closures in Indigenous Manufactunmiddotng an Analysis of the CensCJS of Industrial Production 1986-1995 Irish Banking Review Autumn 1998 Anthony Foley and Teresa Hogan
Source Data Census of lndustna Production CSO
Qualitative Assessments
Assessing Social Impacts
515 Some irnpo11rn1 rnrcro clilt wts cs1rl3lrshecl by ADM reltting 10 middotc1ep1wa1ion
111clic11ors for l1nnership areas Bised on the 1991 Clnsus of Populttion ADM
co1npilecl indic1rors of cleprivuion for all Pannershlp areas domiddotn to l)istrict
Elcctor1l l)ivisiltgtn levc1 l)cprivJriun 1n1p- tre 1lso procluced middotrhe clcprivltlCion
indicators 1nclucled
46
bull educationtl a1tainn1en1
bull ltgtCcu1x11ional profile
bull lltxmiddotil labour n1arket characteris1ics
bull housing
FrOill 1hcse indicators a con1pusite deprivaiion index value Vas con1p11tcd for each
lartnersl11p area for 1991
516 Tlrrs exercr lras rectgtnilv bcrn repeated from tire results of the 1996 Census of lo1n1llli(gtn Fngtnl ~tn in1pac1 assess111en1 ptrspcctivtmiddot relilt1nce ltgtn these indicators
voulcl involve ~0111e li111itllions_ For lt1n1ple chc Census year- do not coincide Vith
Partnership 111ilcstones 111igruion can con1plicatc 1nalysis and [he d111 is not
definitive regltncling c1usality~~
51 ()espile these lin1ilalions analysis of the indicators of dtprivt1ion should
probullicle valuable inforn1ation rcg1rdi11g changes in 1pects of clt~pfiv1tion in different
Partnershq1 anas and should ilso Ltcilitatc con1p1rion ovtr 1i111e Vith nun
la11nersl11p areas lhe ltlmiddotailtbility of this infonnltllion shot1ld ftcilirarc furthCr
ittt111pts to consider the social in1p1c1s of tht~ initlHives
Case Studies and International Studies
5tf Whrle much hrs been wrr11en on tire rctrvrtres of Local Development bodies
chc tlcnt of 111atcrial spccifictlly covering the evtl1111ion of their i1np1c1 is very
li111i1ecl Several Partnerships have c1rried otH case srudil~middotM) to highlight hov issues
wen being trckled by different Partnerships ancl to promote best practice Case studies are undcrv1y tlso in n1lt1ny LLl)FH groups No case studies havtmiddot lgteen u ed
so L1r in tlic cnlcrprisc ind ioh crc1tion ~1rea for CEB ac1ivi1ies
519 A for111J E11ropean s1ucly v1s unck-rtiken of he rnle of p1nnerships in
proriuting sociil cohesion in ten fmiddot1t1nhcr Srarl~ of the EU co111prising ten nniond
rtpcrts (including lrel1ncl) and 1 synli1esis European rt~portjlbull middotrht study and repo11s
j middotltre bt-gtlltl prin1arily on rh1rty ctst tuclic (rhree fro111 etch middotten1ber St~lle) Vhich
looked 11 issues of reprtstnlalion ncgoliHion and alliance lgtuilcling in tile
devElop111ent of strategies and 1c1ion plans ind the vorking 111ethocls skills incl
I reso-_1rces aprlied lgty p~111nershirs
()her 11111101io11s arc rexnccl i11 fJrxr coptmiddot fJrgtCir i~ edttimiddotd l~r I) Pn11gle tf of Ook Tree )rt--
)11J111_ -~)9
_rKmiddottd 1art11c1ih1p~ middotI 5111n--11 511HIL1Y fur Sc)(middotial Cubl~011lt 11 Ccddcbull OJ1tc ( QOua 11h1lta1J11_- fvr w F11n1J1CJ11ltiJ111111111111umiddots1111d -111middotn1wt111 h1111ulrlf1011for1ie lm1ro1(mlW of itll~L tntl lliirk111~ Co11tl11io11s 19ltJ-
47
ocal Jevelop111e11t lnilit1tite_
520 1ihilc the rtpon included n1iny individual references to isol11cd cxirnpks of
1hc 1tll1x1c1 of panncrships Clllpincd rcstarch into 1he effecliveness of 1xnmerships
Vts not Vithin the score of the study middotrhcrc VIS also no 1ue1npt to con1p1re the
perfor1111nce of p1nncrsl1i1)s it nationil l(vel
521 The 1bsencc of specific tllaterial on the cvalL1a1ion of effectiveness of locd
clevelop111en1 bodies is panly clL1e 10 a lick of come~tuil clata 11 local level 10
L1cilita1e in~dysis A pri1n1ry ain1 of the bodies is to L1cilit1te thl locil achievtinent
of resuh~ incl to ltver1gc 1hc 1c1ivitics of local groups Assess1ncnt of effectiveness
of this kind of 1c1ivHy woulcl require that the role played by the lxxlies could he
isollltcl fruin ill oiher contribuiory f1ctors middot1middothis is difficult middotrtiere is 1 cletr need for
more data collernon llld 1hc clcvdop111ent of soual poltl) models which would
f1cili111e bcuer 1ns1gh1 by policy 1111kcrs imo the impact of the arnvities of local
clevdopment boclits
48
Jr
0 Ji~ )~ l ( imiddot
Appendices
~ gt
- _ middot-
---middotmiddot middot--shy ~--y- -~ -middot bull bull - bull __~
middot
middot
_ _~ -- middot ~
Appendix A Annual Cost and Outputs of Individual County Enterprise Boards Partnerships and LEADER Groups 1995-1997
(Jkistd on du1 ~upplicd by Dcp111111ents and ADJ1 Ltd Luc in 1998)
I
Summary of Expenditure on Local Development Programmes (1995-1997) Appendix A
1995 1996
pound000 of total expenditure
pound000 of total expenditure
CEBs
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
Total Expenditure
13485
1421
4895
19801
68dego
7dego
25
100
13503
3879
4284
21666
62
18dego
20
100
LEADER (1)
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
Total Expenditure
23
887
820
1730
2dego 51dego
47dego
100
1529
2350
1684
5563
28
42dego
30dego
100
PartnershipsCommunity Groups
and National Organisations (2)
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
I
-3 025
1532
66
34dego
-5161
5164
-SOoo
50
Total Expenditure 4557 100 10325 100
Aggregate expenditure figures shown in this table have been superseded by more up to date figures shown in Table 21 (1) Local Development groups accounted for 96 of LEADER expenditure in 1995 - 1997 and detailed analysis focused on lhis (2) Partnerships accounted for 84 of total expenditure for 1996 - 1997 and detailed analysis focused on this
1997
pound000
12884
5414
4437
22735
6226
3536
2015
11778
15579
7398
22977
0o of total expenditure
57dego 24dego
19dego
100
53
30
17dego
100
-68oo 32
100
County Enterprise Boards Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1995 Appendix A11
County Enterprise Board Administration
Expenditure pound000
Total Expenditure
pound000 Administration as 0o of
Total Expenditure
Grant Aid as 0o of
Total Expenditure
Non~rant Outputs as
of Total Expenditure
Tipperary South Riding 150 274 55dego 381 7oo
Corllt North 142 315 45dego 55dego Ooo Monaghan 143 375 38oo 621 QOo
Tipperary North County 122 353 35 57dego 8dego Meath 128 373 34oo 59oo 7dego
Louth 135 410 33dego 56dego 11 Ofo
Kildare 157 476 33 48 19dego Kerry 228 747 J 1Ofo 62 7 Limerick City 162 561 29dego 64oo 71
West Cork 142 498 29dego 65dego 6dego
Limerick County 209 714 29dego 63 Soo Westmeath 103 358 29dego 71dego Ooo Longford 95 335 28dego 68dego 4oo
Clare 169 635 27dego 68dego Soo Waterford County 106 396 27oo 73dego Ooo Cork City 150 543 27oo 671 6 Doneaal 124 460 27dego 68dego 5dego Fingal (Oubhn) 152 598 26dego 63dego 11
Mayo 155 651 24 72oo 4dego Waterford City 134 559 24dego 63 13dego Wicklow 127 558 23oo 70 7dego Ca now 149 654 23dego 72 5 South Corllt 187 844 22dego 71dego 7 Leitrim 147 671 22dego 67 11dego Cavan 122 564 22dego 65dego 3dego Laois 121 595 21dego 73 6dego South Dublin 143 670 21 70deg4 9dego Offaly 126 600 21deg4 63dego 16dego Dublin City 111 551 20deg4 67oo 13 Sligo 147 728 20deg4 73dego 7 Roscommon 111 597 19deg4 77 4dego Wexford 144 777 19dego 75deg4 6oo Kilkenny 1()0 637 16oo 84dego OOo
Galway County and City 140 950 15 83 2 Oun Laoghaire - Rathdown 82 743 110o 78oo 11 Oo
Miscellaneous (1) 30 30 Ooo QOo OOo
Total 4895 19801 25 68 7
(1) Refers to set up costs incurred on behatf of au Boards
County Enterprise Boards - Administration Costs as a Percmiddotentage of Total Expendifure --f996 Appendix A12
I _ - vuony c11u1tUllgttl ouaru
I Administration
I Total Expenditure Administration as 0o of Grant Aid as 0o of Non-grant Outputs as
Expenditure pound000 pound000 Total Expenditure Total Expenditure 0 0 of Total Expenditure
Cork North 119 417 29~o 63degshy 8degc -middot
113 28dego 56dego 16degoTipperarv North _counlv 404 -shy -Sliqo 118 457 26dego 50dego 24dego--Mealh 136 532 25~~ 53dego 22dego Laois 151 612 25dego I 59eo 16dego
Westmeath 120 500 24dego 55oo 21dego
Cork City 124 533 23dego 55dego 22oo Roscomn1on 120 536 22dego 61dego 17dego
Louth 133 620 21 Oo 57dego 22dego-Cavan 128 599 21dego 67degc 12dego
Clare 123 581 21Co 61dego 18dego
South Dublin 147 705 21 oo 56 23dego
Dublin City 139 668 21dego 49dego 30deg~
Kildare 128 625 20degh 41 lo 39o-shyTipperary South Riding 108 530 201 68dego 12oo
-Mavo 159 784 20dego 70oo 10dego
Carlow 117 582 20dego 67dego 13oo
West Cork 127 633 20dego 59dego 21
Longford 114 579 20dego 71dego 9dego -
Kerry 114 584 20oo 68deg~ 12oA
South Cork 125 645 19dego 58dego 23dego Limerick Cily 132 683 19oo 64oo 17dego
-Galway 122 631 190~ 69~o 12dego-Kilkenny 120 636 19dego 67dego 14dego
Offaly 117 628 19dego 62dego 19dego
Waterford County 105 563 19 66dego 15dego
Leitrim 121 665 18oo 64 18dego middot-
Oun Laoghairc bull Rathdown 116 648 18dego 57dego 25dego-
Fingal (Dublin) 117 656 18dego 56degc 26deg~ -Wexford 117 708 17oo 68dego 15dego
Wicklow 122 739 16 71 13dego
Donegal 119 757 16dego 65dego 19dego
Limerick County 120 810 15degc 68dego 17dego
Waterford City 118 800 15dego 75dego 10dego--Monaghan 75 616 12 74dego 14degc
Total 4284 21666 2011o 62dego I 18dego I
County Enterprise Boards Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A13
County Enterprise Board Administration Total Expenditure Administration as 0A of Grant Aid as 0o of Non-grant Outputs as
Expenditure pound000 pound000 Total Expenditure Total Expenditure deglo of Total Expenditure
Cork North 106 344 31dego 50dego 19dego
Clare 172 631 27dego 46dego 27oo---shyTieperary North County 116 448 26dego 38 36dego Waterford County 126 505 25dego 54dego 21dego Longford 121 498 24dego 60oo 16dego Wexford 156 647 24dego 56oo 20dego Wicklow 184 796 23dego 57dego 20dego Limerick Cilv 141 619 23oo 51dego 26dego
Mealh 170 751 22oo 52dego 26dego Offaly 113 505 22dego 53dego 25dego Kilkenny 121 545 22dego 48dego 30oo Donegal 94 428 22dego 42dego 35co
Leilrim 139 640 22dego 54dego 24dego------shy -Monaghan 118 556 21dego 57oo 22dego
Waterford City 164 788 21dego 60dego 19dego
Limenck County 147 708 21degk 53dego 26deg1 Louth 161 787 20dego 50dego 30dego
Mayo 122 602 20oo 53dego 27dego
Sligo 99 496 20dego 51 Ofo 29dego Tipperary South R1d1ng 120 619 19eo 60dego 21dego
Carlow 113 593 19dego 65dego 16dego Cork City 127 672 19dego 59 22dego
Weslm~ath 119 637 19dego 60dego 21dego South Cork 131 704 19dego 58dego 23dego
Laois 113 615 18dego 55dego 27 --Kildare 136 761 18 56dego 26dego Cavan 127 740 17dego 63dego 20 West Cork 87 513 17dego 57dego 26dego South Dublin 165 981 17dego 64dego 19dego Dun Laoghaire middot Rathdown 102 621 17dego 48dego 35dego Kerry 94 580 16dego 66 18dego
Roscommon 75 474 16dego 61 23dego Galway 110 835 13 64 23oo Fingal (Dublin) 117 902 13dego 62dego 25dego Dublin City 130 1 195 11 69 20
Total 4436 22735 19dego 57dego 24dego
---
I
LEADER A~minist_ration ~osts -~~ a Percentage of Total Expenditure -_ 1_995 __ Appendix A1 4
I Local Development Group
I
Laois Leader Rural Development Co Lid Cavan-Monaghan Rural Oevelopn1ent Co~rat1ve Soc~ely Ltd
Barrow-Norc-Suir Rural Developmentmiddot 62 81 771 QOo 23dego
Wicklow Rural Partnership Lid bull 26 38 70dego -I QOo 30dego
Westmeath Community Development Ltd
Longford Community Resources Lid -middot
-
8 11
-11 18
70degc
65
bull Oh
QOo
23dego
35dego middotmiddotshy
Mid-South Rural Roscommon Development Assoc1alion Ltd 9 14 63dego QOo 37dego
Rural Resource Development Lid bull 80 129 62degc Ooe 38dego
Meath Con1mumty Partnershrp Co Ltd
Meithcal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo
3
68
5 117
- 60dego
58dego
4dego
OOo
35eo
42dego
South West Mayo Development Co Galway Rural Development Co
54
8
94 middot-middotmiddot
15 58dego
56dego
1Oe
00o
41Co
44
Arigna Catchment Area Community Co 11 23 48dego 4dego 48
Western Rural Development Co Lld bull 28 58 48dego 00o 52oo
Offaly LEADER If Co Lid -middotmiddot
3 6 48~J QOo 52
IRD Duhallow Ltd bull -
Ballyhoura Development Ltd 60 74
131 163
46dego
45dego
OOo middotshy
OOo
54
55
West Limerick Resources Ltd
South Kerry Partnership Ltd bull
Waterford Development Partnership Lid
Tuatha Ch1arra1 Ltd
Word - Wexford Organisation for Rural Development
West Cork LEADER Group bull
Donegal Local Development Co Lid
-
10
29
34
6
51
57
8
- 23 66 76 14
125
160
22
44dego
44dego
44dego
42gtigt
41
35dego 340
3dego
00o
00o
6 1eo
00o
3eo
middotshy
53dege
56dego-56dego
52deg
58dego
65dego
63dego
-middotmiddotshy
Tipperary LEADER Group bull
Totalmiddot Local Development Groups
30 813
95
1584
32dego
51dego
00o
1dego -
68dego
48 -shy
middotshy
Acquisition of Skills
0 -
85 0 OCo 100dego
Other Collective Bodies
Technical Assistance
7
0
23 37
30 QOo
70dego
00o
00o
00dego
i Total Expenditure - LEADER Groups 820 1730 47dego 1dego 52dego
~-
--
Administration txpenditure
EOOO
3 81
Total AdministrationI I Expenditure as 0o of Total
EOOO Expenditurei
98dego
98 82deg~
3
Grant Aid as Non~rantI I I 0o of Total Outputs as of
Expenditure Total Expendituro
2dego 01 middot-shyQO 18dego
middotmiddotshy
bull These groups also existed under the Leader I in11ahve
LEADER Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A15
Total Administration Expenditure as 0o of Total
pound000 Expenditure
81dego56 lv-10Jbull
ro v 106 b1o
77 46dego 91 43dego
113 4 1 Ofo
226 39dego 92 38dego 90 38dego 67 38dego
100 36dego 230 36dego
JUmiddot~ 86 35dego
262 35dego 292 I 32dego 168 31dego 111 31dego 94 30dego- 29dego 65 I 29dego
289
85
29dego 182 27dego 258 25 194 24dego 198 23dego 165 22oo 141 22dego 285 22dego 271 21 249 20 185 19 94 19dego
5173 31
189 0dego 115 75o 86 0
5564 30dego
Grant Aid as 0o of Total
Expenditure
0 J _ 3dego 9dego bo 18dego 13dego
5dego 2dego
35dego 17dego
6dego
18dego 34o 44degc 29dega 26dego 28dego 50dego 19dego 47
5dego 55oo 20 50dego 46dego 42 36 50dego 40dego 20 25 29dego
0 25Vo
OOo
28
Non~rant
Outputs as 0o of Total Expenditure
19dego LO
~-
36dego 45dego 44o 41dego
48dego 57oo 6v-10 27dego 47dego 58dego 55vO 47 31dego 24oo 40dego 43 42dego 21 52dego 24dego 68dego 20dego 56dego 27dego 32dego 36dego 42 29 40dego 61dego 56dego 40dego
100o OOo
100o
42dego
Local Development Group
-Comhar lorrais (LEADER) Teoranta bull lounly ~ligo LlAurH t-artnersh1p co LIO r-cura1 uuo11n LtAUttlt vvmpany Lia ln1sh0Wen Community Development Co ltd middot Laois LEADER Rural Development Co Ltd comhdhail 011ea1n na hlireann South Kerry Partnership Ltd bull Rural Resources Develooment Ltd Blackwaler Region LEADER Co Ltd Meath Community Partnership Co Ltd LonQford Community Resources Ltd Galwav Rural Develooment Co Word-Wexford Organisation for Rural Developmenl
-Barrow-Nore-~uir tltura1 ueve1opment Lta_ Ariana Catchment Area Community Co bull Cavan-MonaQhan Rural Development Co-operative Society lid Me1theal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo Wicklow Rural Partnership Ltd bull Offaly LEADER II Co Ltd bull Doneoal Local Development Co Ltd Mid-South Rural Roscommon Developmenl Association Ltd Co Louth Rural Development Co Ltd Ballyhoura Development Ltd bull Kell-Kildare European LEADER II Teoranta IRD Duhallow ltd_ Tuatha Ch1arrai Lid -South West Mavo Oevelooment Co Westmeath Community Development ltd West Limerick Resources Ltd
-middot West Cork LEADER Groupmiddot Waterford Develooment Partnersh10 Ltd Western Rural Development Co Lid Tinnorarv LEADER Group bull East Cork Area Development Ltd Total - Local Development Groups
Acqu1s1t1on of Skills Uther Collective tsodies Technical Assistance
Total Expendituremiddot LEADER Groups
bull These groups also exisled under the Leader I initiative
Administration Expenditure
pound000
45
deg 64 35 - 47 88 35
25 37 83 60 31 91 94 53 35 28 25
19 84 49 64 46 45 37 31 61 58 49 36 17
1599
0 86
0
1684
---
--
----
----
I
I
LEADER _Admiri_istration_ Costs_as a Percentage_of TotalExpenditure bull 1997 Appendix A-16
Local Development GroupI I
Comhair lorrais (LEADER) Teoranta bull Co Sllqo LEADER Partnership Co Lid Rural Dublin LEADER Compant lid Wicklow Rural Partnershi~ Lid Rural Resource Development Lid Word-Wexford Orqani5allon for Rural Develo~ment Ltd Blackwater Reoion LEADER Co Lid Meath Communit~ Partnershi~ Co Ltd Laois LEADER Ru_ral Oevelooment Co Ltd IRD Ouhallow Ltd bull Oonal Local Oevelooment Co Ltd Kell-Kildare Eurooean LEADER II Teoranla Cavan-Monaghan Rural Oeveloement Co-o~rat1ve Socie_lv Ltd South Kerrv Partnersh10 Lid bull
I South Wesl Mavo Devetooment Co bull I Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo
Waterford Development Partnership Lid Galway Rural Developn-ent Co lnishowen Community Development Group bull Wesl Limerick Resources Ltd Co Louth Rural Dev~topment Co Ltd Comhdhail Oilea1n na hEireann West Cork LEADER Grouo bull Tuatha Ch1arra1 Ltd Westmeath Communitv Develoomenl Ltd Offalv LEADER II Co Ltd bull Ballyhoura Development Ltd East Cork Area Development Ltd Weslern Rural Development Co Ltd Mid-South Rural Roscommon Deveroomenl Assoc1at1on Ltd Longford Community Resources Ltd
Administration I Total Expenditure ExpenditureIpound000 pound000
43 I 96 83 48 52 89 91 46 -58 31 57 60 75
102 59 60
109 78 45 47 46 50 35
104 56 48 39 67
-- 27 83 32 35
Arigna Catchment Area Community Co I 43 middotmiddotmiddot shy
Tipperary LEADER Group 0 38 41Barrow-Nore-Suir RurEii Development bull
Total - local Develooment Grouos 1979
Other Collective Bodies 36 Technical Assistance 0
i Total Expenditure bull LEADER Groups 2015
234 140
186 365 373 204 260 156 293 314 399 568 335 341 626 458
middot-middot 264 277 275 309 221 658 367 314 259 455
Grant Aid as [ Nnn~r~ntAdministration as deglo of Total 0o of Total Expenditure Expenditure
45dego
36dego 34oo 28Co 24dego
24oo 22oo 22dego 20degtc 20oo 19dego 19dego 18degc 18degc 18dego 17dego 17degc 17degh 17 17 16dego 16dego 16dego 15dego 15 15dego 15o
189 I 14dego 592 I 14dego 252 290 414 441 561
11487
142 25dego 75 0 149 0 OOfo 100
11778 17dego 53dego JQOo I
13dego 12Jo 10dego
9oo 7dego
17dego
19dego
25dego 28dego 37dego so~lo
37oo 37dego 30oo 36Yv 40dego 54 45dego 59degn 55dego 61dego 64dego 64degh 56dego 34 49I 6QOo I 23dego 50dego I 34dego 64dego 55 50dego 55deg 55dego 60o 38oo 58dego 71 dego 56o 73dego 54dego 70dego 53dego
20dego 29dego 35oo 3_0 30dego 25dego 48dego 28dego 16degc 32dego 17dego 37dego 23dego 30
Outputs as oo of Total Expenditure I
36Co 39oo 38dego 35dego 26dego 39dego 41dego
48dego 44deg 40dego 27dego 36dego 23oA 27dego 21dego 19dego 19dego 27~o
Partnerships Community Groups and National Organisations Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A17
Partnership Administration Total Expenditure Expenditure pound000 pound000
KWCD Partnershii - -middot 128 128 lnishowen Partnersh10 Board 33 33-middot-Monaahan Partnershii Board 48 48 Lonoford Commumtv Resources ltd 40 40 Galwav Rural Oevelooment Co 39 39 Galwav C1tv Partnership 109 109
~Q_LEAOER Partnershii Co 50 50 Pairt1ocht Gaellacht Th1r Chonaill 48 48 Roscommon Countv Partncrshin 55 55 Pairt1ocht Chonamara 116 116 Cavan Partnershin 18 - 18_ Canal Communities Partnership 67 67 Brav Partnershio 115 115 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 49 50 Tra Li Partnershio 105 107 Waterford Area Partnershio 77 82 West Limerick Resources Ltd 74 82 Southside Partnershin 163 180 North-West KildareNorth Offalv (OAK) 125 139 Mavo bull 288 I 353 Wexford Area Partnershio 132 166 Doneaal Local Develoomenl Co 60 78 Leitnm Partnership 63 94 Clondalkin Partnershio Comoanv 176 305 South Kerrv bull 107 253 Blanchardstown Area Partnershin 208 495 Droaheda Partnershio Comoanv 136 337 Baltvfermot Partnershio 143 359 Cork Cilv bull 176 476 Dundalk bull 196 546 Finnlas bull 169 53 vvovforcl tn ntv prtnPrshio bull 126 501 n11hl1n lnOAr rjtv bull 14 539 T~ll ht bull 7 Ballvmun bull 103 529 Waterford Countv bull 42 227 Limerickmiddot 90 510 Northside Partnershio 125 761
Total Exoendituro - Partnerships 4071 9169
Communilv Grouos 710 773 National Oroanisations 383 383
Total 5164 10325
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) ~--
Administration as 0o Other Activities as 0o of Total Expenditure of Total Expenditure
100dego QOo
100dego QOo
100dego QOo
1QQ0o QOo
100deg QOo
100oo QOo
100oo 0dego 100dego QOo
100dego Ooo 100dego QOo
100middot QO(
1QQ 0o QDo
1QQDo 0dego 100dego OOo
98dego 2dego 94dego 6dego 91dego 9dego 91dego 9dego 90dego 10dego 82oo 18dego 80dego 20dego 77 23 67 33dego 58dego 42 42dego 58dego 42dego 58degc 40dego 69dego 40dego 60oo 37dego 63dego 36dego 64oo 3701 25dego 75degn 2i01 7t01Q TtOn 77deg 19dego 81dego 19dego 81dego 18oo a2deg10 16 84
44dego 56dego
92dego 8dego 100dego 0dego
50deg4 50dego
Partnerships Community Groups and National Organisations Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A 18
Partnership Administration
I Total Expenditure
--middot -shy -shy - --shy Expenditure pound000 - [000- shy
lnishowen Partnershio Board 137 272 Galwav C1tv PnrtnArsh1n 1e~ 35~
Mavo bull 274 580 Canal Commun1tv Partnersh10 122 267-W~~tmeath Communitv Develonmenl Ltd 98 216 Galwav Rural Oevelooment Co ~-
94 211 Monaahan Partnershio Board 100 238 Shoo LEAOEftigtartnersh1p C_o 155 385 Roscommon Counlv Partnershin 146 367 Cavan Partnersh10 72 184 Pa1rtiocht Chonamara 124 328- -LonQford Community Resources Lid 121 334 KWCO Partnershio 205 594 Pairtiocht Gaeltacht Thir Chonaill 99 302 Waterford Area Partnershin 175
middotshy 542 Blanchardstoln_ Area Partnersh1E 159 504 Oundalk bull 147 490 Leitrim Partnership 154 514 - -North West KildareNorth Offalv ltOAKl 122 414 Wexford Area Partnersh1R _ 125 427
_B~lymun bull 112 385 Brav Partnershio 151 526-Oonenal Local Develonment Co 104 371 Wexford Countv Partnershio bull 152 614
_sectQuth Kerrv bull 173 707 Cork Citymiddot 240 1 015 Tra Li Partnershio 122 519
_s1o_ndalk1n PartnershiQ ComQany 140 618 __lliJ_blin Inner C1ly bull 147 647
Tallaaht 173 775 Wesl Limerick Resources Ltd 57 256 F1nnlas bull 152 709 Walerford CountY bull --middot 54 261 Southside Partnershio 141 686 Ballyfcrmot Partnership 132 720 Droaheda Partnersh10 Comoanv 132 723--middot Limerickbull 121 803 Northside Partnershio bull 126 964 Set Un Casis - All Partnershins 28 28
Total Exoenditure bull Partnershios 5269 18858
Communitv Grouos 1 509 3499 National Oraan1salions 621 621
Total 7J98 22977
Administration as 0o Other Activities as 0o I- -middotshy of Total-Expenditure of Total Expenditure
51 oo 49dego-~ v u u-o
middotshy47dego 53dego 46dego 54dego 45lo 55oo-450o 55oo__ 42oo 58dego 40dego 60dego 40eo 60dego 39oo 61degi
38oo 62dego 36dego 64dego 34oo 66dego 33dego 67 32dego 68dego 32dego 68dego 30oo 70dego 30dego 70dego 29 71dego 29dego 71deg(0 29dego 71dego 29dego 71dego 28deg1gt 72dego 25dego 75oo 25dego 75 24dego 76dego-- shy24dego 76oo 23dego 77deg 23dego 77oo-shy22dego 78dego 22dego 78dego 21dego 79dego 2_1 dego 79deg 20dego 80dego 18 82 18 82dego 15 85dego 13dego 87dego
28dego 72
43dego 57=10 100dego OOo-shy32dego 68oo
i bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economrc and Social Progress (PESP)
County Enterprise Boards Grant Cost Per Job 1994-1997 (In Descending Order) Appendix A21
County Enterprise Board Expenditure on Grant Full Time Jobs Part Time Jobs Equivalent Jobs Aid 1994middot1997 pound000 1994-1997 (1) 1994-1997 (1) 1994-1997 (1)
Leitnm 1417 209 6 212 Westmeath 1012 154 0 154 Wexford 1575 280 37 299 Cork C1tv 1089 208 0 208 -Monaahan 1057 178 62 209 Waterford Counlv 1003 188 36 206-South Cork 1566 324 0 324 South Dublin 1753 362 6 365---TinnPrarv South R1dina 922 184 47 208 Limerick Citi 1197 273 10 278 Offalv 1137 243 74 280 Waterford City 1664 387 58 416 Mayo 1565 345 95 393 Limerick City 1512 362 60 392 Kllkennv 1325 320 55 348 DonPnal 1061 254 50 279 Finaal (Dublin) 1377 347 42 368 Wicklow 1538 333 170 418 Kiidare 1004 264 20 274
-Cork North 779 213 0 213
-Carlow 1435 309 169 394 -Cavan 1357 301 152 377 Clare 1 342 335 92 381 Kerrv 1432 288 238 407 Laois 1245 339 42 360 Louth 1045 280 46 303 Dublin Citv 1734 533 0 533
_
SliQo 1182 260 210 365 Oun LaoghaireRathdown 1323 408 3 410 Longford 1145 332 51 358 Roscommon 1208 315 133 382 West Cork 1063 361 21 372 Meath 980 350 23 362 Gatway County and City 2131 843 120 903 Tipperary North County 660 223 136 291
Total 44834 10905 2264 12037
Grant Cost per Job pound
6683 middot-shy6571 5278 5235 5057 4 867 4 834 4801 4444
4306 4061 3999 3988 3857 3812 3802 3743 3680 3666 3658 3647 3599 3522 3518 3459 3448 3254 3238 3231 3203 3 165 2 861 2711
2360 2269
3725
( 1) The jobs created in the year are computed by taking a head count of new jobs 1n enterprises receiving grant aid from CEBs The grant aid expended in the year may not be directly comparable with this as here may be a time rag between the expenditure and the creation of the relevant job but this should be minimised by taking an average over 4 years In computing the equivalent 1obs figure part-lime jobs are taken as 05 of a 1ob
County Enterprise Boards Non Grant Expenditure 1996 Appendix A31
r= middotshy
INPUTS OUTPUTS
I Cou~ty Enterpr_ise Boar_ct_ ~on-Grant - shy
0o of Total _Surveys __ Media _Networks __ ThirdLevel _Second Business - Mentor Activities Expenditure Events Colleges Level Counselling Support
pound000 Schools -
Kildare 241 39oo 1 0 4 3 15 380 40 middotshy
Dublin City 202 30oo 1 9 6 2 20 151 35 Fingal(Oubhn) 171 26dego 1 14 11 I 0 4 3 93 Oun LaoghaireRathdown 160 25oo 1 7 3 0 14 25 84
Sligo 108 24dego 0 68 0 1 3 250 30 - shySouth Cork 150 23dego 20 24 14 1 14 120 45 South Dublin 161 23dego 2 8 0 0 18 105 4
-middot Cork City 118 22dego 2 10 3 2 14 0 14
Loulh 137 22dego 7 3 2 1 6 40 15 Meath 116 22deg1~ 0 3 3 1 12 0 21 West Cork 135 21dego 0 130 2 0 10 174 10 Westmeath 106 21dego 0 0 0 0 17 0 14
Offaly 121 19dego 4 34 5 2 9 17 20 Donegal 144 19dego 1 4 0 1 8 216 46
-107 18oo 0 17 0 1 I 15 150 16
~ Clare
- middot----Leitrim 121 18oo 5 0 4 0 I 9 416 12
Roscommon 92 1Tlo 0 0 0 1 5 484 5 -Limerick City 7
I 17dego 0 2 0 5 5 0 6 Limerick County 137 17dego 1 25 1 0 13 102 7 Laois 101 16dego 0 4 0 0 14 54 bull 1
Tipperary North County 65 16dego 0 0 0 0 12 279 17
Wexford 107 15dego 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 Waterford County 85 15dego 0 2 0 1 0 69 4 Monaghan 86 14deg= 0 0 0 0 7 10 5 Kilkenny 88 14dego 0 16 0 I 0 12 I 19 I 10 Carlow 77 13dego 0 7 0 I 0 10 I 0 I 20 -Wicklow 96 13dego 1 12 0 0 9 70 14
Cavan 74 12oo 5 0 4 1 5 1394 i 31 Tipperary South Ridinq 65 12dego 0 0 3 0 10 80 25 Kerry 71 12dego 1 0 1 0 8 0 20
bullGalway County and City 75 I 12=10 1 2 37 3 12 72 3 Waterford City 82 10dego 0 1 0 1 20 108 33 Mayo 78 10oo 0 48 0 0 5 221 6 Longford 50 9dego 3 5 5 0 7 60 10
Cork North 36 8dego 0 0 0 0 0 340 0
Total 3879 18dego 57 455 108 27 352 5409 726
County Enterprise Boards Non Grant Expenditure 1997 Appendix A32
INPUTS OUTPUTS middotshy
County Enterprise Board Non-Grant bull1o of Total Surveys Media Networks Third Second Business Mentor Management Activities Expenditure Events Level Level Counselling Support Development
EOOO Colleges Schools Programme
Don~al 156 36dego 3 3 1 3 9 55 12 3 Tipperary Nor1h County 162 36dego 0 33 1 0 7 175 12 3 Oun laoghaireRathdown 219 35oo 2 20 6 4 24 240 67 2 Kilkenny 162 30oo 2 12 0 0 27 99 16 3 Louth 233 30 0 14 2 1 11 60 18 6 Sliao 144 29dego 1 7 2 2 7 246 26 6-Laois 167 27oo 0 127 2 0 13 100 6 4 Clare 171 27dego 1 37 12 1 15 97 31 6 Mavo 162 271 0 15 2 0 10 190 6 3 Limerick City 163 26dego 1 29 4 3 6 100 5 4 Kildare 198 26dego 0 24 4 0 15 190 46 6 Wesl Cork 133 26oo 1 271 2 0 10 152 2 4 Limerick County 183 26oo 1 55 12 3 8 194 35 6 Mealh 193 26oo 1 28 3 2 19 48 9 4 Offaly 127 25oo 1 53 6 0 8 59 35 5 Fingal (Dublin) 224 25dego 0 5 0 1 6 446 155 3 Leitrim 157 24oo 2 84 3 2 7 135 14 2 South Cork 164 23dego 0 14 85 1 16 627 15 6 Roscommon 109 23oo 1 27 3 0 11 50 8 4
Gatway County and City 190 23dego 0 5000 10 3 36 18 10 14
Co1lt Ci1V 150 22dego 1 10 5 2 B 1325 16 3 Monaghan 121 22dego 2 24 6 0 B 47 0 3 Tipperary South Riding 131 21 Ofo 1 25 3 0 11 672 20 3 Westmeath 132 21dego 1 3 0 0 29 6 10 4 Waterford Countv 104 21dego 3 32 2 1 21 156 7 3 Dublin City 245 21 oo 1 26 6 5 23 110 50 6 Wexford 131 20dego 1 17 0 0 17 55 16 2 Wicklow 159 20 0 44 0 0 6 32 9 3 Cavan 144 20dego 4 14 7 1 6 134 63 7
CorX North 66 19 1 10 5 2 16 1325 16 3 Waterford City 149 19oo 2 12 0 1 21 183 18 3 South Dublin 184 19dego 1 2 0 0 16 87 37 3 Kerry 104 18 1 324 0 0 12 115 B 2 LonQford 81 16oo 5 41 8 0 5 0 6 41 Carlow 95 16 1 110 1 1 10 228 50 2 Total 5414 24 42 6552 203 39 474 7756 854 182
LEADER Groups Non Grant Expenditure 1995-1997 (1) Appendix A33
Local Development Group
INPUTS
Non-Grant -Activities
pound000
As a 0o of Total--middot
Expenditure
Seminars Held-shy
OUTPUTS
Press I Other tApplications Releases Promotional -Approved-
Projects Referred Creation I Creation of Training Completed to Other of Newmiddot middot Community middotCourses
Actions Agencies Business Association
East Corllt Area Development Ltd 144 51dego 104 110 0 O 0 O 5 2 I O gt-M~e~a~th=C-o~m-m~u~n~i~ttv
0
middotP~a~rt~n-e-rs~h~o=C~o-L-td-----~--1-8-0--+-~5~1~0~---+--7~7-1--+---16-4---- 110 91 11 960 21 12 16
Word - Wexford Ornan1sat1on for Rural Oevetonment bull 351 48oo 0 0 0 0 t-c~innbulle~ra~~-L~e~a~d~er~Gro~u~o~middot~-~~~~~---r-~3~4~3----t-~4~8~o--o 24 7 4 191 45 10 15 13 22 f--~----=~~~~~~~~~+-----~+----~---~+---------l~~-----+-~~----~+-~--~--l~----~f-~300~+-~=-~+-~--~-+~-=~~
Kellmiddot Kildare Euronean Leader II TEO 268 46Yo 85 125 4 74 33 1 10 36 Blackwater Reo1on Leader Co_ Ltd -middot _136----+--4-6A~o------6--7_ __ _ __65------lt----4----I- --7-3__1_---3-1------22--+----3------lt--------1--~__2_4-----1 lnishowen Commumtv Develonment Groun bull 175 46dego 288 86 25 64 27 147 10 17 28 Laois Leader Rural Develonment Co Ltd 103 44dego 67 116 12 56 17 27 40 7 17 Tualha Chiarrai Ltd 244 42dego 239 25 10 168 82 66 24 6 39 West Cork Leader Groun middot 414 38~C -middot-+-~75----t--6-9-8----t----O--t----o-----t --~O-----t----O--t--~1~2_ _____o----shy 33
~c~o~S~h~go~L-ead-e~r~P~bull~rt--n-e--rs~h~ip~Co~~Lt~d--------+-----1~0~1--+-~3~7~~_ ___J3 6 6 73 21 14 20 17 5 Rural Dutgt11n Leader Comoanv Ltd 63 37dego 83 18 -~9--t----2~7--middot-+---6----+---~12-----t--~3---+--~7---+----5-Co_ Louth Rural Devclooment Co Ltd 137 37dego 139 56 18 39 5 23 5 2 11
gt-W~c~kl-o--w~R~u~r~a~I~P-art~n~bull~middot~sh~io~L--td---middot---------~1~4~3--+_~3~6~~-+---5~0~7____~1~12------ O 25 33 209 9 11 6 IRD Duhallow Lld bull ___2~middotbull-1-+-3_~V----t-~283------j--272--+----o-----1 85 40 144 11 37 1A
Rural Resource Dcvclooment ld__middot-------+--20502--+-C3057___-t-1=38~2o---t---5~0t----t--0905----t-----OO--- 0 0 6 9 14 Offalv Lead_~r II Co_ Ltd_middot 130 35oo 49 43 20 76 56 9 17 0 91
gt-S~ou--th~K~bull~Y~P~a~rt~n~bull~s~h~ip~L~t~d-middot________1__1_7~5--+-~34---~~middot--i---1~bull~85----+---1middotQ4_--+-----9--~--0-----+-----o--+----o---~-~2~0---+--3~0-----+--~3~6--1 Galwav Rural DevelgPment Co 126 33dego 38 12 0 147 21 130 19 6 39 Western Rural Devetoomenl Co Ltd 298 33dego 134 102 1 165 46 81 27 1 9 DonPnal L~cal Development Co Ltd 139 32 5 15 1 127 36 29 20 0 13 Lonaford ~ommun1lv Resources Ltd 118 31dego 15 57 7 97 46 22 3 2 5 Westmeath Communitv Develonmenl Ltd 149 30dego 254 50 15 165 60 20 17 5 __sect_____
l-Ba~ll~vlh~ou~ra~De~v-e~lo~rnm~e--n--t-Ll~d~_middot_________t--~2~7~3--+_~30~~~---t---64~-t--bull~8-----t----5--t----2~0~1--l--~8~2-----t--~8~0----+-~59----t---~bull~O---t ~5~2~-t Barrow-Nor~-Suir Rural Development bull -~2~4~7--+--~3~0~----+---3~5~0---__f----5_____15----l--~1~5~1---1C-----92-----t--~65-----t---2~0---t--~10-----t--~2~8-----t Comhair lorrais ILead~rl Teoranta bull 45 29dego o O _o__t------Co__t--_~o___-t-_--o_-+---co_ _____o--_-+_ __o-----t Wesl Limerick Resources 1 tn 126 29dego 69 104 3 103 1h 10 87 7 10 Comhdhail 01leain Na hEireann 64 27dego 41 32 0 124 hO 45 15 0 10
~_~ndegh~Wc~s~t~Mou_nDev~e~lo-nmbulln~t~n~middot------+--~1bullbull-+--2-bull-~-+---12----t--~~5-------0--l----1~middot4___+-_~5~8--t-----4~-+--~13---t------1--+--~3~3-~ Waterford Develooment Partnershio Ltd 209 26dego 56 0 0 95 35 35 34 7 46 Cavan-Monaghan Rural Development
l--C~o~-o~gtP~e~r=a~v~e~S=oc-e=t~y~L~tdo-middot---~-~----+-~2~2~7--+-C2~47o=---+-=2676~-t----11~7~---l----2~174__t---~36700---+----3~0~1--l----2~--+---20---+~--75__t-----2=2~--l Ariana Catchment Arca Community Co bull 121 23dego 21 7 23 105 39 4 5 0 O
f---M~~~h=~~F~o=r~b~a=rth~a--N~a=G~a~e~lt~a~c=ht~a~T~E~o=---~----r-~2=3~7----C2~3o=---+-~1773=----t--~150~--t--~o--t---~4700---+--1-5=7--+-~35~0~--+-~109----t--~2~1----+--~176--j
Mid-South Rural Roscommon Development Association Ltd 63 18 24 18 120 90 36 10 20 5 4
Total Expenditure - Local Development Groups 6227 34dego 7183 2879 730 I 3496 1514 2871 690 291 716
Acqu1s1t1on of skills i 274 Ooo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1-coc~e~c11=n~ca-1-a~s~s~s~ta-n~ce---------------=27~2~---l--0~0~~--t---Co~--t--~o--+--~o=---+-1--~o~-+---~o~-+----o--+------io~-t----o~--+-----io----+
Total Expenditure -LEADER Groups 6773 36dego 7183 2 879 730 3 496 1 514 2 871 (1) Expenditure for 1995-1997 is grouped together as only cumulative output statistics to 31December1997 were available at the time of preparing the report bull These groups also existed under the Leader I initiative
690 291 716
I
Partnerships Non Grant Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A34 middot-middot
INPUTS OUTPUTS
Partnership Name Non-Grant Activities As a 04 of Total Enterprise Services for Preventative Complementary pound000 Expenditure Support Unemployed Education Education
Norths1de Partnership bull 636 84dego 321 1885 520 443 Limerickbull 420 82dego 296 935 100 388 Waterford Counlv bull 184 81 oo 57 0 0 0
t--shy272 328Ballymun bull 426 81oo 401 82
Tallaght bull 466 77dego 496 - 957 143 29 Dublin Inner City bull 405 75dego 343 1651 50 59 Wexford County Partnership bull 375 75dego 138 0 17 272 Finalas bull 365 68oo 557 731 378 155 Dundalk bull 350 64dego 148 388 132 207 Co1lt Citymiddot 300 63dego 344 0 180 261 Ballyfermot Partnership 215 60dego 0 211 40 94 Drogheda Partnership Company 200 60dego 60 0 0 38 Blanchardstown Area Partnership 288 58dego 116 71 48 18 South Kerrv bull 146 58oo 90 212 399 265 Clondalkin Partnership Company 129 42oo 164 0 0 0 Le1tnm Partnership 31 33oo 23 184 0 56 Donegal Local Development Company 18 23dego 0 0 0 0 -IJYexford Area Partnership 34 20oo 14 0 0 13 Mayo 18o lo 181 10 34 North West KildareNorth Offaly 14 10 0 0 u 28 Southside Partnership 17 9dego 0 0 0 0 West Limencilt Resources Ltd 8 9dego 52 0 0 0 Waterford Area Partnershij)shy 5 6dego 49 14 0 5 Tra Li Partnership 2 2 u 0 0 0 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 0 QOo 0 0 0 0 LonQford Community Resources Ltd 0 Ooo 0 0 I 0 0-Pairtiocht Gaeltacht Th1r Chona1ll 0 0 0 0 0 0 lnishowen Partnership Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canal Commun1t1es Partnershrp 0 00o 0 0 0 0 Pairtiocht Chonamara 0 QOa 0 0 0 0 Gatway Rural Development Co 0 OOa 0 0 0 0 Sligo Leader Partnership Co 0 0 16 0 0 0 Roscommon County t-artnersh1p - u 0-1 u 0 u 0 Brav Partnership 0 01 0 0 0 0 Gatwav City Partnership 0 OOo 0 0 0 0 Cavan Partnership 0 00o 0 0 0 0 MonaQhan Partnership Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 KWCD Partnership 0 Ooo 0 0 0 0 Total Expenditure - Partnerships 5098 56dego 3739 7821 2107 2693
Commun1lv Grouas 63 8 0 0 0 0 National Oraanisalions 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 5161 50 3739 7821 2107 2693
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
Partnerships Non Grant Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A35
INPUTS OUTPUTS -
Partnership Non-Grant Activities As a 0o of Total Business Job Groups Preventative -shy -middot middot- -middot pound000 -middot - Expenditure -Start-Ups- shy Placements -shy Supportmiddot Education Projects
Northside Partnership bull I 838 87dego 503 438 28 15 I - -middot -middotmiddot - tCbullbull 602 isgt10 11b tiLj 31 16 I Dr()(lheda Partnership Co I 591 82dego 60 12 177 10 Ballyfermot Partnership 587 a2deg10 88 88 30 3
-middot Southside Partnership 546 80dego I 200 6 80 24 Waterford Counly bull 206 79dego 42 4 23 6 Fmglas bull 557 79dego 257 233 174 28 West limerick Resources Ltd 199 78degc 40 0 50 0 Tallaaht bull 602 78dego 309 646 51 7 Dublin Inner City bull 500 77dego 290 448 34 10 Clondalkin Partnership Conipany 478 77oo 225 562 63 7 Tra L1 Partnership 396 76deg1gt 80 20 67 6 -cork Citymiddot 775 76- 217 111 55 9 Soulh Kerry bull 533 75dego 135 150 61 middot51 -
Wexford County Partnership bull 462 75dego 170 63 31 0 Donegal Local Development Co 267 72dego 150 0 63 2 Bra~ Partnershi~ 375 71degu 71 0 14 Ballymun bull 274 71dego 70 402 50 10 Wexford Area ~artnership OUpound 71o 17U 4 5 18 -shyNorth vvest tildareNorth Offaly 292 71 Oo 56 0 8
I Leitrim Partnership 360 70deg1= 60 3 119 6 Dundalk bull 343 70~~ 71 64 50 10 Blanchardstown Area Partnership 345 68dego 170 97 29 13 Waterford Arca Partnership 367 68dego 37 6 55 1
middotshyPa1rtiocht Gaeltacht Thir Chona1ll 203 67deg~ 75 0 50 10 KWCD Partnership 389 66deg 15 0 0
- 4 middot-
Lonqford Commumtv Resources Ltd 212 64dego 85 4 19 5 middotmiddotshyPairt1ocht Chonamara 205 62 67 2 3 34
middotmiddot-Cavan Partnershio 112 61dego 90 1 49 6 Roscommon County Partnership 221 60degJ 120 0 38 6 -Sligo LeaCer Partnership Co 230 60dego 120 0 32 2 Monaghan Partnership Board 138 58dego 88 0 40 10 Galway Rural Development Company 116 55dego 101 0 51 2 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 118 55deg1= 0 0 20 2 -Canal Communities Partnersh10 145 54deg~ 0 0 16 6 Mavo bull 306 53dego 177 200 28 3 Galway City Partnership 180 50dego 113 0 35 12 lmshowen Partnership Board 134 49dego 60 0 42
Total Expenditure bull Partnerships 13589 72dego 4698 4192 1853 397
Commun1tv Grouos 1 990 57 0 0 0 0 Nalional Oraanisations 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 15579 68dego 4698 4192 1853 397
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
Appendix B Administration Cost Trends of Local Development Bodies
Number of CEBs within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs 1994-1997
Cost Band 1994 1995 1996 1997
ltpound50000 pound50-100000 pound100-150000
pound150-200000
gtpound200000
3 17
15 2
24
7
2
1
32
2
5
23 7
Total Administration Costs pound4_8m pound49m pound43m pound44m
Number of LEADER groups within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs 1995-1997
Cost Band 1995 1996 1997
ltpound50000 25 23 17
pound50-100000 9 11 14 pound100-150000 3
Total Administration Costs pound0Bm pound16m pound20m
Number of Partnerships within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs of Partnerships
Cost Band 1996 1997
ltpound50000 9 6 pound50-100000 7 19 pound100-150000 15 10 pound150-200000 5 10 gt pound200000 2 3
Total Administration Costs pound40m pound53m
11l)(lrJY 11 I
--
Appendix C Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development - Performance Indicators and Revised Targets
-
f 11~
iority Indicator
Jobs
1mber of of 1obs
Revised Targets (1994-1999) Original TargetUnits for total Operational Sub Sub
Programme 2Programme Programme 1
Jobs 15000 proved (for support grant assistance)
Nl1mber of new jobs erbullated not placed in Jobs and vacanc1es) Persons (N 81middot for Sub Pr gtgramme 1wjobs
bullgt provecr figure will mJke up the bulk of thbull i ~jobs created an1ounl) (N 02- for Sub Pr )gramme 2 this eq uates 10 new en terpriscs SUpported)
17000 (Sub Programme 1 8000 Sub Programme 2
1717516900
6900 Sub Programme 3 (Temple Bar) 2000 permanenl in service amp 5000 construction)
AjfJe11c1x CI
~ Priority Indicator
2 Enterprise creation and development
Grants to enterprise Value of grant allocations
Number of enterprises supported
Percentage of investment 1n enterprises provided by the Operational Programme
Provision of improved access for potential entrepreneurs to initial advice Number of firms receiving business advice
Percentage of grant aided firms whose promoters received other Operational Programme support advice consultancy mentoring
Management developm9nt Number of enlerprises participating in managemenl development programmes Number of managers participating in management developmenl programmes
3 Community Development Number of local groups financially assisted
4 Services for the unemployed Number of persons registered for assistance
Number of Long-Term Unemployed persons to benefil from Services for the
I Unemployed expressed as a
I Oo of total number of persons registered for assistance
Units Original Target for total Operational
Programme
pound
Enterprises 2260 new businesses and for Sub Programme 1
Persons and 3640 new and 960 existing for Sub Programme 2
Enterprises 6000 firms and
Persons
280 firmsEnterprises
Persons 500 per annum
No target set groups Local
Persons Caseload of 11 0000 (30000 1n 1995 and
20000 new cases per annum thereafter)
No targel set
Revised Targets (1994-1999)
Sub Sub Programme 1 Programme 2
i
pound16000000pound56020000
17 000 new and6050 new and 7000
existing 3750
existing
(Tolal 9800) (Tolal 24000)
39dego
3000010900
100dego83oo
6000
10000
700
57000 (40000 Local Employment
Scheme Partnerships and 17 000 Non- Local
Employment Scheme)
60dego
AfJXIUimiddot C2
---
Priority Indicator Units Original Target Revised Targets (1994-1999) for total Operational
Sub SubProgramme Programme 1 Programme 2
Progression Number bulllf persons progressing Persons 2500 per annum 16000 to full-time employment (1e placement in a job vacancy) Number of persons progressing Persons 300 per annum 5000 to part-lir le employment (ie placeme11t in a job vacancy) Number of persons assisted into Persons 17000 self-emplJyment (see 1 above) N~mber of persons assisted Persons 19000 under co1nplementary education and training Number of persons in continuing Persons 5000 per annum 2000
1 cducat1or1 Number c1f persons in work Persons 10000 per annum 1000 experience programmes Number Cbullf unemployed referred Persons 5000 onwards middot o other agencies
- -middot 5 ~ducation and Training Complementary education and training Number cmiddotf persons assisted Persons 12000 per annum 19000 under cornplementary education and traini l9
Provision of recognised ce~ificaticbulln Number cf participants ptovided Persons 60003500 with re~1nised certification
I 0o of part1 1pants provided with 30oo reltXJgniset certification
Training for trainers NuOiber ol persons benefiting Persons 1000 under actions tn the area of trai~1ng of trainers and teachers
I of partimiddotipants ptovided with recognise j certification
I 6 Preventive education Number of children attending Children 4080 per annum 44000 preventive education courses I youth serVices
7 lnfrasbucture and enVironmental measures Number o infrastructutal and 20 per annum 1000Protects 98 environmE ntal actions
Appendix C3
Original Target Revised Targets (1994-1999) Priority Indicator Units for total Operational Sub Sub
Programme Programme 1 Programme 2
8 Land development
Area of targeted land developed
Expenditure on developmenl of targeled land
Number of derelict sites eradicated
Number of villages assisted
Number of towns assisted
Number of conservation projects to be funded
9 Other
Entarprse culture Number of participants in activities to promote an enterprise culture 1n schools and colleges
Customer contacts Number of customer contacts with CEBs
Hectares
pound
Sites
Villages and projects
Towns and projects
Projects
Persons 62000
Customer 190000 Contacts
Appendix C 4
Appendix D Extract from Consolidated Reporting Guidelines - December 1997 The LEADER Operational Programme Performance Indicators and Revised Targets
Pe-rformance Indicators
Under the tenns nf the Opcr~llional Progr1111n1e e1ch group is rtmiddot4uired to set ck)vn
1~erforn11nce uHJic~1tors and targets vhitmiddoth it vdl ain1 10 ~1chilve in 1he
itn )le1ncntation of its hu~iness plan and against vh1ch its perfonnance Viii htmiddot
evllua1ed_ Follc)ving ~t rcvitv of the fonn ind contenl of 1hc originil incliclliVl
inclicHors1 cornincnt by the independent evduator and consuh1lion Vilh groups a
dc1111itivc range of perfon111nce inclicJtors llas nclv been prepared
E~11h (~roup is required to llltgtdify ils Busin1middotss Pl1n perforn1ance indicators in this
remiddotiscd forn1at for lmiddotte1sure B Ruril innovation 1neasures and insofar as it is possible
at 1his s1age to prep1re inltlil~ltors for middotleisure C middotrransni1ion~1I cu-operitiun for 1hv
period tnding 5 I l)ece111her 1999 PleJse note thlt 1leisure C does no[ relale to
teclmical suppo11 funding received from AEIDL
lh1 Ile st1te111cru of pcrfonn1ncl indicators -hould rLprcscnl a co111pnhensivc
stncnHmiddotnc of 1argets based on progress to ditc ind the i1nplc111entllio11 of 1he
huine~gt plmiddottll to )1 l)cc~1nbcr iltJ99 including thl acklitional 1ctivitics being
~upportcd vith the funding 11locItcd fron1 the -middotrcservtmiddotmiddotmiddot
imiddotht revised busintmiddot-s plan indicators should he con1plctccl ind rc1urnecl to Huril
De-elopmem Division lw ii _l1nua1v 1998
regress Viii he 1neasurecl 1gainst these t1rgcts by lllttns of the Lf)LJ rerurn~ incl the
quant1tat1ve incl qualitllivc reports outlirlltd in sections 3A jl3 incl 5C of 1hesc
guiklines
Ple1se note thal -hJcled areas ire for infon11a1ion only incl 11 lhis st1ge do nol
require indicators to be Stl All olhltr t1rge1s should ht inpulled in 1he 1ppropri1te
fickl- here rherc is no 1lmiddotlemiddotan1 ac1ivi1y tllSl rl zero
1[Jfx11rL IJ 1
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Animation and Capacity Building
ActivityOutput
Promotion
Number of seminarspublic meetingsworkshops organised to cover the following topics GeneralCommunity SpecialisedSectoral
Number of attendees al the above
Number of press releases articles published media interviews
Circulation of LEADER Newsletter Number issued Number per print run
Number of other promotional actions
Direct Animation Assistance I Technical Advice
Number of private individuals directly assistedadvised
Number of bodies directly assistedadvised GeneralCommunity Specialised Sectoral
Number of development strategiestplansmiddot arising from field work (Le_ not covered in ~other technical assistance beneath) including community plans
Co-ordination of Activities
Number of applications referred to other agencies
Impact
Enhanced Awareness of LEADER Services (Not for completion)
This will be measured by middot
The number of individuals contacting LEADER office
The number of groupsbusinesses contacting LEADER office
The number of applications from promoters
The number of projects promoted by LEADER Group itself
General Level of Local I Community Development
Activity (Not for completion)
This will be measured by middot
The number of applications successfully improved
The number of bodies assistedanimatedrestructured improved
Number of bodies established
More Efficient Use of Resources
(Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number of projects successfully referred to other agencies (i e funded)
i
------MeasL1re B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector ActivityOutput -
I
dministration Processing
Number of staff exclusively I assigned to administrative duties
(2 15 etc)
Number of staff exciusively assigned to animation duties (2 1 5 etc)
Number of Board meetings held
Number of hours worked on a I voluntary basis by Board
members
Number of project evaluation committees
I
Number of project evaluation committee meetings held I
Number of hours worked on a voluntary basis by pro1ect evaluation committee members
I Number of internal LEADER Group evaluation meetingssessionsreviews
I Number of external system auditsreviews (not including accounts)
Co-ordination of Activities I
Number or meetings with other LEADER Groups
I
Number of County Strategy Meetings attended
Number of other meetings with I public bodies
middot shy
Impact
Efficient Delivery of Service (Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number or applications received The number of applications
processed The number of applications approved The number of projects completed
More Efficient Use of Resources
(Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number of projects referred to other agencies (not including those that were referred after provision of animation assistancetechn1cal advice which 1s dealt with beneath)
Apprnd1x 0 3
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector ActivityOutput Impact
Technical Support Studies and Research Knowledge I Expertise Made Available to Potential
Number of studies plansaudits Promoters commissioned by LEADER (Not for completion) Group (not including field work carried This wlfl be measured by out by animators which is included above) The number of LEADER
projects emanating from studies Number of other auditsstudiesplans prototype The number of projects development commissioned by emanating from studies funded promoters amp funded by by other agencies LEADER
The number of bodies restructuredimproved
The number of bodies established
1ppc11cLy ) 4
----
--- --
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
I Sector Activity I Output Impact middot- ---shy
Training Provision of Training Courses Acquisition of Skills (Not for completion)
I Number of training courses commissionedundertaken by This will be measured by LEADER Group (not including animation activ1t1es The number of bodies outlined above) demonstrably LEADER StaffBoard restructuredimproved by GeneralCommunity Courses training provided to SpecialisedSectoral volunteersstaff
I
Number of attendees at the above The number of proiects emanating from training
I PROVISION OF TRAINING GRANTS The number of attendees who
were placed in employment as Number of Training Grants for a result of training
I courses commissioned by promoters and funded under LEADER (not including any of the above)
I GeneralCommunity Courses Spec1al1sedSectoral
Number of attendees at the above
Grant Provision Job CreationRecruitment Assistance I
Number of Employment Grants Employment created provided
I ~-
Afgtj)(11cLmiddot J 5
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Activity I OutputSector
Improvement of Existing Accommodation and
Tourist Amenities
Rural Tourism
Number of capital grants provided
Development of New Accommodation and
Tourist Amenities
Number of capital grants provided
Marketing
Number of marketing grants provided
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number accommodation facilities upgraded to Bord Faille standard
Number of additional beds available
Increased number of visitormiddot capacity
Add1t1ona1 tourist revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Sectoral Benefits
New entrants
Number of additional beds available
Increased number of visilor capacity
Additional revenue generated IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Improved Business Attributable to Marketing
Additional bed-nights arising from marketing strategy
Additional inquiries visits to tourist offices - domestic - overseas
Additional visits to tourist amenities Siles arising from marketing strategy
Number or new marketmg methods tourist packages initiated
Employment- (e g directly arising rrom marketing as opposed to capital grant aid eg as a result or brochures advertisements etc) Created I Sustained
-------
Meas1Jre B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Small Firms Craft Enterprise and Local Services
I
I
i
I
i
i
I
_
Activity I Output
Support for Existing Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Support for New Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Marllteting
Number of marketing grants provided
- -Impact
-Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with improved efficiencyadded value to products and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product ranges
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
I
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises established
New productsproduct ranges
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Greater Awarness of Enterprise Activity
Number of new (geographical) markets developed - within Ireland - within EU - non - EU
Increased sales (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
1J(11di- Igt 7
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Agricultural Forestry and Fishery Products
Activity I Output
Support for Existing Enterprises and Improving
Quality of Existing Products
Number of capital grants provided
Support for New Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Marketing
Number of marketing grants provided
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with improved efficiencyadded value to products and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product ranges
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Number of enterprises established
New productsproduct ranges
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Greater Awareness of Enterprise Activity
Number of new (geographical) markets developed - within Ireland - within EU - non - EU
Increased sales (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector Activity I Output Impact
Freservation of the Improving Awareness Increased Environmental Environment and Livin Awareness9
Conditions Number of capital grants Number of environmental provided plansaction groups established
(not including groupsplans arising from animation andor other technical support outlined above)
Number of entries for Tidy Towns Competition
Benefit to the Built I Cultural of Built I Social and Cultural
Protection I Enhancement Environment
Environment
Number of built sitesstructures provided Number of capital grants
protected or restored
Number of socialcultural events held
Employment created I sustained
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Benefit to the Natural of Natural Environment
Protection I Enhancement Environment
Number of natural sites protected provided Number of capital grants
Number of natural amenities restoredenhanced
Improved Managment of Activities I Alternative
Waste Management Waste I Availability of
Energies Alternative Energy
Number of capital grants Number of alternative energy provided providers established
Number of waste management initiatives implemented
Employment created I sustained
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
AJf)(itrlLmiddot J9
Measure C Transnational co-operation
Sector
Transnational Co~peration
Activity I Output
Grant Provision
GeneralCommunity SpecialisedSectoral Rural Tourism Small Firmscraftsenterprises AgricultureForestryFisheries Products EnvironmenVLiving Conditions Other
Number of Grants provided to final beneficiary (each category is exclusive)
Private Men Private Women Private Jointmiddot CommunityDevelopment Groups Business VoluntarySpecific Issue Groups Co-operatives LEADER Group Other Total
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with establishedimproved efficiency added value to producls and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product rangesnumber of new marketing methods tourist packages initiated
Number of new (geographical) markels developed - within Ireland -within EU - non-EU
Additional inquiries visits to tourist offices - domestic - overseas
Additional visits to tourist amenities sites arising from marlltetmg strategy
Additional bed-nights arising from marketing strategy
Increased sales Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Number of cultural links established
Number of local development strategies studies transferred shared
Number of environmental actions
Employment - created full-time all year fu11-time seasonal part-time all year part-time seasonal
Employment - sustained full-trme all year full-time seasonal part-time all year part-time seasonal
AfJJll1tll~Y )_ Q
Appendix E Matrix of Development Agencies in County Roscommon and the Services Provided (Produced by Roscommon County Enterprise Board)
---------~
c Q
~l agt-EUJ
Co Jnty Slrategy Group CoJnty Enterpnse BoHd
Anmiddotina Enterprise Fund
Lec1der 11
Pai tnersh1p Co ( --~--~---~--~--
Co-Jnty Council ---- middot---~---t--~--~~-~r ---~-~--~-~--~-~--~--~
lrel 3nd Wes ToLnsm
--~---~--~--~---middot -~----~----------~--
Tecgasc
An Bord Tr3cht31a
Forbairt ( ( (
10t Ireland I
FA
Bord Faille (
Bar1ksFinanc1al Insmiddot itulions I
Dcpartmenl of Social Welfare
Buiness Innovation Centre
European lnfc rmat1on Centre
AfJjJCJICfiY E l
Appendix F Framework of Agreement between County Meath CEB and County Meath LEADER II Group
MEMOHANDUM OF AGHEFMFNT
JelVtLll
The Meath County Fn1erpnse Board Ltd
and
Mca th Leader 11
Given he -i1n1brilics bl(lLll ccnnn ispeCls of the n1ni1 of bnth Counry Enterprise Hoard ind lc1dcr
IL ii b 11ceptcJ th11 i high ltkne of co-orxru1on is rcql1inJ to tbullns11n that dtmiddotserv1ng proiccis giin
n11xi1nl1111 txncfit fron1 he s11p1x111 1ncchanis11h avulihh V1tlun hoth orgu11-11in11s_ Vhdc s~ 11HL
division of rcsponsiliililics is possibl~ t outlined hcIO 11 1s ncogni cJ 11111 both groups need 10 1dop1
tn OJICll n(Xihh tpproteh IO the ltsk of f)TltJCCing ClllflCS 111J tppliCtliOllS
lc1dcr II -ill ha prin1a~middot n spon~ibilitv ill 11lc Couniy f()r lhc st1ppon of p1ojlmiddotCS f10111 the frgtllovi11~
sectors
bull Craft Enttrpnscs Cfor fin1nciil suppon ilh 1 li1n11cd fcxmiddotus on soft suppons)
bull Kurii Touris1n
bull Proicn- p1n1nnttd hy Co111111u11i1y CnH1P
bull Exploilition and M1rke1ing of lor1I agriculcur1I fcxxl for(siry tnd fishtnts products
bull Envuonn1tnl for ht follomiddotinJ mc1surcs middot
e Prtscrv1tion ind dcvlmiddotloprnenl of the existing 1rch11te1ur1I heriti(lbull ind bullillages
bull Suppo11 for n1hur1I Cfl111v1ty ind the pron1ot1un C1f cultur1I product- linked ith nir~d
ltlevelcip111ent
bull Prot~ctron rch1btli111ion ind explollllion of nuural rccurces (Oor1 fiunt srndl s1rc11ns
ccc) ind bncl~tpcs
bull Di1x1s1I 1nd fC()ding Clf ISie illdl1ding llSt or energy pnxluuion
ll1is i111plies th11 Le1ltler II tvill cngig1middot 111 p1--delmiddotlltipn1lmiddotnt 1ni11nins research tnd 1111rkc1ing ind he
prin11rily nspons1hlc for the c1pi1d invt~1111enl 1s-oci11ed Vith tht dcvcloprnent of vdue-iltld(d fotgtlt1
produce ind viii dso pronss rtqutsts for 1id for c1p1rd intslmeni ln1ploy111cnt grants 1111rktting
ind 111ining s11ppon- in lht 1hovl stcio1s
The County Enttrpnsc l3cgt1rltl tvill continu1 10 support f(bull1siliilicy cap1td ind (rnploy1ncnl projcd
l1id1 li1vt tilt c1p1lt ily ro gtntricc ernpkraquobull111tn1 v11h1n tll otlllmiddotr -ltmiddotciors Po1cnt1tl projects vhich 111cit
This rtquirvnicnc viii he rtfcrrtd to tteh otliLr in 1cltorltlincc Vitll tlus Agrtllllcnl
middot111t 1ltith Coun1y Enterprise Boird lld ind ilcalh Lealtlcr II arlmiddot lOn1n1incd to rn11ntaining open lines
nf cn111n1un1c11ton tn in1plcn1er1t the tcnn- of thi u11dirs11nd1ng ind alsn co111111ir 1h11 the Chief
Execu1ivltmiddot OfficLmiddotrs will n1eet hH1ndly on 1 111onclilmiddot li1sis to v11s111c cff1cilnt i1npllnhnt1tilgtn middot111i
AgretlllLnt tltgt co111inue 111 orxr11ion un11I _l_t Oeccn1her 19)7 ind viii Ix suh1cc1 10 rcvittmiddot by the
1cith County Enterprise Board 11cl 1n consult1t1011 Vith Lcidtr IL
101hi11g in chis A_irec1ntnt shtll he cltJntruccl 10 li111i1 DI tLStnu lhe _1in11D1y il1nu1011s 111d n1xr1titJns
of till 11lmiddot1th Coun1y Enttrprbc Bo1rd 11cl or lc1der II
Pn1lint B1ker Torn Clinton
Ch11rr111n Ch11n11111
middotlttth Coun1y Enlerprisc Boud Ltd Mc11h lc1dtr II
~ppcndrx I I
Appendix G Terms of Reference for Interdepartmental Policy Committee
Thn New Committees Role
The Role of the new Committee to be cl1Jired by Minister of ~late Finnel will Ix
shned by the Local Demiddotelopnlltnt Mind1Itmiddot given to Department of Tourism Sport
and lkcrca11on by the (jovcrnmenL Key items in that bndate which fall into the
Coumittees remit will mcluclc
A PronH)ticJn of tile integral(lt dcvelop111cnt of tl1e 111o~n dis~1dvantaged urban con1n1unitics hy ensuring that their needs are addresscd ()11 a priority ~incl
coordinated basis in conjunction vi1h 1rea Partnership lton1panie~ by all nlevanr public agencies
bull middot1l1is is regarded as the 1nost urgent priltgtrity
bull Tlw focus will be on developing the opti1ml approach to addressing
the needs of these areas
bull Special co-on linated all-out etfltJl1 in a nun1bcr ltgtf s1nall areas
j B Co-cgtrdination of Ioc~1l lgtcvcloprnent iniriatives and prcp~trnion for the
post - 1999 transition to an integrated Local Development ancl Local
Govcrnn1cnr systc1n
bull 1oc~d l)evelopn1enl IiaiS(gtn Jean1 issues
bull Adclnssing rclevan1 local clcvelopn1cnt issues raised in l3etter Loc~d
(overnnltnt - ~1 Prngra111111e fltgtr CJ1angc anU lh( recenlly ruhl1sliecl Hcport of the J)evcgtlu1ion Co111111ission
bull middotrhe en1phasis vlll ht ltgtn en~uring thal the posi11ve dcvelopn1ents and effective lltV V~l)S of VOrking resulting fro1n Local l)evelop111ent
and Partnership initiative~ arc preserved and strengthened in the
developnltlll nf i renevecl Loc1I Govern111ent
C The Oper1tiond Progrimmc for Locd Urb1n 111cl Rural Development
ancl its sh1pe post - 1lt)99
middot middotrhL 1nain tmiddottsks Vill be tltgt
bull Secure hl btmiddot~r co-ordinttion hltveen the various i111rle1nerHing
1ge11cie- l)ep111n1ents etc
r1jJjJlllriz~y G 7
bull Seek 10 ensure chat problcn1s incl issucs vhlch ~1rise il ~1 local level
ire n-ponclecl ro incl rcsolveltI
bull lclencify i1en1s tltgt be n11instrc1111ed in tern1s cgtf overall policy
bull Consider 1he ou1line of i new 011URJ) for the post - 1999 penocl
taking into ~1ccount the viC-middot of the Social Partncri
D Co-urclin11iun of (gtV(rltdl Govern1nent Policy on Local l)evekgtpn1ent
bull middotr1ie Jn1er-l)epan111ental Pt)licy Con11ni11ee on Loc~d J)evelopn1en1 Vill
be a key foru 111
bull Scctltgtrtl is-ues viii he considered fro111 1he perspective of
encouraging gre~ttcr cO-ltgtrdin~ttion and integr1tion of delivery of
services It local hvel
II) Ireland
Int grtlltd Slrvices lgtrojcct
llC
lncrreg II
lEI I)EJ( II
LE11DEH groups
ITU
11insrrea111ing
Mid-Term Evalua11on
~lonitoring Co1nn1itree
011UHD
lc1rnerships
1 State Ovncd coinpany vhich pro111ores invard
investn1ent
middotrhe Integrated Services 1gtrojec1 V1~ estiblishcd co coshy
onlinate tile inptHs of all slle services in four pilot areas of clisaclvan1age
lnterclepaHn1e11tal Policy Cltnnn1i1tee for LltgtCtl
Devdopmenr w1s est1blish1middotd in June 1995 and ns
function i-gt to Omiddotcrsce and n1ike reco11unenda1ions on
local devclopmelll
111 EU lnili~llive 10 develop cross hltgtrcler co-opcrllion
Jnd to help an1s ovcrcon1e prohle1u~ as-ociated Viti
being on 1ht Unionmiddots internal and externJI fronlitrs
incl to fill gap- in energy netvorks and provide
interconnections Vllh vider european nelvorks
liaisuns c111re actions cle clltJ1cofPen1en1 (e reco1101nie
rurole - 1 Co111111unity lnitiJlit for rurtl cl~veloptlHnr
covering rhc period 1994 to 199)
Companies est1blished undn IEADER 10 11nple111elll
llHmiddot progran1111e objectives
Long-tcrrn unc1nployecl
ProceS of tr1niferring successful pilol project- of an
innov~Hive nalure 10 n1iinline govtrnn1cnt clepart1nents
anti ~1gencies
1n independent evalualion rtq11ir(cl to be carried out
on any EU progrunn1e Vhich is five or n1ore years in
ltJper~1tion
Fsublished to mTrsec rhe operation of any EU progr~1111111e It con1ains reprtscn1arives of thlt EU
co1111nission govern1nent clepart111ents and progran1111e
in1pll~n1entors
Orerationcd lrogrJmme for Local Urban and Hurd
lkvelopmcnt 1994-1999
Area-lhsed lannersh1p Companies
le1ce 111d Heconcilurion
lESI
Pos1 2000 subrnission
Territorial Employment
Picts
Tourism Opcrationll
Progran1111c
Ul~HN ini1iuive
1n EU Initiative to reinforce progress Ovards a
pe1ccful ind stable society by incre1sing econo1nic
dcvelop1nc1H urban and rur~d regeneration
developing cross-lxJrdcmiddotr links incl con1lx111ing soci1l
exclusion
Progra1nn1e for Econo111ic and Social Progress
Suh1nissions nques1ed fro111 govern1ne111 depar11ntnts
other sr11e 1gcncics ind na1ionil 1x1nners on the
future use of structurII funds post 2000
An EU lrnti1tive to hdp the unemployed find 1obs 1n
dis1clv1n1aged areas
middotrhe opera11onal progra111111c for 1ouris111 devltlopnHnt
under tlw Community Support Framework 199i middot 1999
n EU Initiative the purpose of which is 10 1ddress
in 111 integrited tr urban sltxi1l exclusion by
building panncrship arr1ngcnHnrs bttvcen locil
1u1horitil and 01hcr loc1J structures
S1J1mmary middotrhis alue for 1nnney rcpo11 is cnnccrntd vi1h the oper~Hion during the period 1994shy1995middot of loc1J devllop1ntnt initiatives provided through (ounry Enterprise Boards (CEiis) Arc1-B1sed 11nnersh1r Comp1111es (i1rtncrshipsJ ind IEADER groups
CEiigt Wltre es11hished in every countv for thtmiddot p11rrose of promnlng locd emerprise incl econo1111c clev([op1nen1 middotrhcrc 1rc 3 CLBs vhich opcrltttc undtmiddotr agreen1en1
Villi the J)epart1ncn1 of Enterprise middotrrade and E111ploy1nen1
middotrhe purpose of Partnerships is to co1nlx11 unln1ployn1ent ~ind exclusion middotrhere ire
38 lannerships operalrng in 1re1s design11ed as disrdvrntagcd and a fu11her 33 Inell devtlopnumiddotnt gruups in non-dis1dv1nt1gecl 1n1s middotrhesc opertle under in inle1111ldi1ry con11x1ny vhich rt~purt~ to the Igtcp1rt11Hnt uf middotrouris111 Sprnl ind
Rccreilion
The LEADER grours were cstiblrshed under an EU In11io11ive to promote rur11 clevcmiddotlopnitmiddotnt 1ly suppCgtrting lltgtcal developnHtH groups middotrhere middottrl 5i lEAl)EH
groups opirH1ng undcr agrei1nc11t- vith the lJep1ru11ent of Agriculrurl ind Food
From 1994 10 1998 public funding totalling l208 million was providld lo these bodies of vhich pound-127 111illion middotIi pruvicled by 1hc EC Co111n1i~sion incl f~-1 111illion
by 1he Exchequer CEB-gt ~ind Pannirships an funded under the ()perationtl lrofra111111e Or Lltx-al Urlgtan and Hurorl [kvelop111en1 199lt1-1999 (OPUIHD) The UADER groups 1re funded under the LEAD EH Operational Programme 1994- 1999
middotr11e value for niuncy ex1111inttion looked H specific issues rel1ting to rhc
acln1inistr1tive ~ind opilJtiontl etliciincy of thlt thrt~t~ 1ypts of hoclies lht
1rra11gc111ents fo1 co ordination lgtlttvtmiddotcn rhe txxlies and approache~ 10 ltValutlion of
their i111p1ct
Administrative Efficiency
middotrhe divcrsily of 1c1ivi1ies ~ind different stages of developnicnr of the hodies li1111t chc~
exrc11 to Vhich cross con1parisons of achninistrHive efficiency c1n be 111acllt
drrinistc111011 expc11di111re hy all tlte hocl1es 111tallld S28 9 11ull1on 1n tlw pltn11d 1995 to 1middot)97 )uring 1hiI period thl ovcr~i11 rrcenl~tgi of ad1111ni~lration costs to total cxplncli111re declined subtantitlly fro1n 28Yo co 220u principilly bccaust n1any of chc bodies n1ovcd fron1 1 set up phase ICgt being fully operational Achninis1r1t1on expenditure as a ptTcc11t1ge of ltgtlal expcndi1un also varied bttVCltll individu1I hnclitmiddots clue to clitlere1Hes in the nalure of the aclimiddoti1ies undeniken For lX~ttnpk the level of 1cl1ninistr~1tive co-l~ middotoukl he influenced by lhe extent to Vhich
incli11idual bodies is~lll grant support or offer non-financial 1ssist1nce In generil Partnlrships have higher adn1in1strllion cost- nlHive to thlmiddot other hod1es for rhis reasc)n
middotrhe llodies are characterised hy -ubstintitl voluniarmiddotymiddot inputs at board and sulgtshycon1n1inee levels middotrhis is in kclping Vith hirncs-ing local knovledgc and tpenise ro ~1ch1eve con1n1on ob1ectivt~ Key staff VCrC inv1n1hly highly qualified and
rcso ircefuL
lhe develop1ncn1 of n1~1nagen1tmiddotnt inforn1ition _ys1c1ns has not been sari-Ltctorymiddot in
--- middot- --------------shy
ulttf I )(coJlllc1 II If ii itl f itL
that rhert is nn 1tJ1un111ic sharing of d111 11nnng loc1l dtVllop111en1 bodies ind lhe scope for effectiveness inilysis is t1111i1ed middotrhroughoul 1hlt pcritxl covered by lhL ex1111in11ion inforn1ation systt111s vl1icl1 include perfcn1111nce 111e1suns ind inclic1tors (cl n1cJniror etliciltncy incl ~tTectiveness htvL l)etmiddotn under tlevLmiddotlup111cn1 ind pr()grts is heing 1111cle in iddrc sing the deficiencilS
Co-ordination of Activities
The flexible approich 10 the i111ple111et11ition of local dewloprnnt policy rcmiddotstilts in consider1hhmiddot duplicition of the enlcrprislmiddot crvicts providld by thlt three types or hodils Vith 1pcc1 10 objlClies clients incl 1c1ivities middotro i lesser lXtLllt 1here is duplici11on of 1c1ivities concerned ilh coun1ering serious ecnno111ic incl sociil dis1clv1n1ige heciusl Pirtnerships t1rgct specific clitnl groups - the long-tcnn unemployed ind the soci11ly excludld In nine ctsc-s Pinnerships and lEADEH groups share i conunon 1111n1gc1nen1 board
Co-operilion 11nung 1hc hodies ind Villi othtr urginisalions (Stale local govern111tnl co111111unity ind volunttry st ctor incl bllllllSS) ~Jt loctl ltvel to 1chicve igreed objectives con1rib11tcs to the unique innovlit roll of 1hc Local l)evelor1nen1 initiitives
Suhsicly shopping can ltgtCltl1r IHrehy Lmiddotlitmiddotn1s can 1111xin1ise the public funding they rcciivi by tpplying for grillS frolll cliffcnn IJodieS (O 11ppOlt cliiferent elelllt~lllS Oi
their projccls middotrhis incvit1bly leicls lo cluplic11ion in 1d1ninistrllion Fonnil in1erdep1rr111en1il 1gree111en1s should Ix- cmiddotontmiddott1ded to define 1l1e li1ni1s bllVecn the ohrcc11ves clienls ind activities of thl three bodies ind si111ilir 1gree111en1s should he concluded It locil level middotrhese 1green1tmiddotn1 n1ight look for vays of n1ini1nising the id111inisr11ion of 111ultiple tpplicHions for funcling in 1 project
t cohestvlmiddot 1ppro1ch to th( intcgrition of locil govern1nen1 1nd loc~ll develorn1en1 V~ts set out in 1998 by tn in1erclep111n1ental middotrask Force J1nplen1cnt11ion of 1his rep(U1 is underv1y
Operational Efficiency
middotrh1middot 1111in 1ctivi1y ind outpul tirgcts ire being n1et but the absence of baseline perfnnnince d111middot llll1ns lltll ii is not knclvn hoV dc1111nding 1he original r1rgets Vere 1rising fron1 VOrk by the external cviluitors ro thl Oper1tional Progra1nn1es 1111ny nf the 11rge1s h1vc been rlisccl hv tile -loniroring (01nn1inees vhich oversee llH i1nplv111c111tlilt)n c)f rl1ltmiddot Progr11111ncs
1hile tlcn1en1s nf exptmiddotnditun (Pannltrships incl LEAJ)FH groups) Vere son1cvh1t behind tirget II the lttlcl of 1998 it is cxpec1ed by the lgtcp~1111nents 1h11 spcncling targlts viii he n1e1 by the encl of the Operational Progran1111es
Sludils indicHt lhH tht level of dcadvciglll (the tmiddotxrent to Vhich enterprises suppltgtrlt~cl unclir the Operational lrogr1111111es Ould be cst1hlished Vilhout gr1n1s) n11y be in the rangt 4(Yc1 10 50dego ()isplicen1en1 (the ex1cn1 to Vhich suppo11ed enterpri~cs clive11 stils ind en1ploy111en1 oppo11uni11es fro1n other Irish enterprises) 111iy he in the r1ngl 20 (Cl 400u Fron1 eirly l 99H CEBs and P111nerships have been tn1poverecl to Jss1s1 enterprise projects by n1eans of refuncl1ble Jid incl equily Use
ii
S1111111u11v
of thltse forms of id should he expndcd quickly in prelerencl 10 11011-repyJlt gracts 1s they can help to reduce cleHhveight 1nd dispL1ce111tnt and in addi11on 1re t 1111)1 econo1nictl use of public funds
Son1e inst1nces of clispk1cen1en1 providl social benefits vhich n11y outvcigh the
cost involved There is a need for n1orl cl1rity regarding the circu111s11nces in vhich
dispbccrncnr rn he perrnined
Assessment of Impact
lhe developn1en1 of sys1e1ns to 1ssess the in1pact of Local J)tgtvtgtlopn1en1 initkHives is not easy hec1use of 1he clibullersity of objccrives rhc tick of n1easurahility nf so111e
i111p1cts rlie tlJsence of clisagtregtled d1t1 n1odels rclcv1nt lo locil areas and the need for careful in1erpretHio11 of results
Quantitative Assessment
ltJu1n1itJtiC 1sessn1ent of the in11x1c1 of (gtcal l)evclopn1ent hodivs c1n bl carried our by exa1nining ch1nges in vari1ble such as long-tcnn 11ne1nploynHnl ind 1-n11middotrpri-e forn1arinn Studits to dare of thest v1riallles have yielded inlmiddotonclu-ive
rt~sults
rtpon on the i111p~1ct of OJgtLLHI) on ong-tenn ltnen1ployr11lrlt shnvs thtt fro111
1991 to 1996 unc111ploy111cnt in gtJrtntmiddotr~hipmiddotareas fell by roughly poundhe sa111t penentage as in non-P~n1nership ~treas
A111y~is of 11~11ional Live Hcgi~[er cla1a for 1he pc-riod CJ94-1998 indilates ~1 signifi(1n1 Lill in chc kwl of long-cerm unemployment hich b pat11cula1 focu of P~1r111erships bur the reduction n1ay h1ve 111ore 10 do vith 1he in1pact of tron~ 1middotconon1ic gn)vth poundh1n vid1 rhc effec1 of Local l)cvclop111cnt initiatives
A nmiddotiev of the nu1nber of n1anuL1c1uring s1ar1urs fru1n 1987-1996 siHJVS rhar 1he rapid econon1ic grcJvlh fro1n 1995 and the onstmiddott of thtmiddot Local l)evllop111ent iniri11ives did 101 result in an increisecl rate of 1111nuf1c1uring sta11ups
lntc~rnion of enterprise support incl perforn11nct da11 Jcross the Loctl l)evmiddot-lopn1cn1 inipoundiuives voulcl be required in order 10 est1hlish 1he underlying reasmiddot)llS for these rends
Quiitative Assessment
lkciled Census of Populicio11 d11 (1991 a11d 19)6) is available regrd1ng 1ndicacors of distdv1n11ge in Pirtnership 1n~1 hile rherc are lin11tuions inolved in int(-rpreti11g the cl1t1 fu11her ~1111lys1s ~houd facilitlle 1s~es1nen1 of lhl in1p1cr of the actimiddotities of 1111ncrhips
Jhe exlent of n1~11eri1J specificJJly covering 1hc evtlua1ion of i111pacl is very li111ited P1rt11crships hie CJrriecl our evcril cisc Situlies to cxplorL the in1ptrl of 1heir tcliililS ind 10 pro111ute 1-gtesr pr1c1ice (1~l srudies arc undervay also in ni1ny
lEA)EH groups l-lovtver there is i clt-1r nted for 111ore d111 lmiddotulllmiddotcrion and the
clevdopmenc of sonil policy rnocleb co prnvicle a hcncr ins1gl11 into che imp1cr of Loe~ I l)evelop111ent 1c1ivities
iii
bull
Local Development Initiatives
middot
- shy~~ ~~ltmiddot~-
middot
middot~
1 Introduction
Background to Local Development Initiatives
11 Since htbull ltarly 1)90 the (omiddoternn1tmiddotn1 middotill1 the support of 1hc European
lJnion (_lmiddotl) h1s introdutcd 1 nun1hvr of policy initiatives in suppo11 of hxil sltx-ioshy
eltcgtncgtnlilmiddot clcvelltlp1ncnt Tlteslt 1ni1i1timiddotcs stc111111cd fngt1n htmiddot pertcivcd L1ilt1re (Jf
cxiting pnlicicmiddots to _hirl lfllmiddot benefit ol 1middotcono111ic gnnmiddotth lmiddotquitahly tcrn-s local
ro11H1H1nililS ind 111Hn1g thl 111ore distdmiddot1n11gtmiddotd scctCJr of Irish iocitImiddot (~llltrtl to
1hc initiatives ts tliemiddot cn~11ion of lllcd lll1ployn1cn1 oppnnunititmiddot togetlitmiddotr Villi
llHISllrtmiddots to 11cklc cduc1tional distclvan11glmiddot tJlmiddotirltlflllltnlil cl1c1y ind ocial
lxclusion middotrhe IH~v pc ii icy alio n11rked 1 revers~1l fro111 the tr1ditio11al htmiddotgi111ony DI
central govltrnnitmiddotn1 by nmiddotcognising iht roll Vhich local cu11111111ni1amiddot c1n play in
the proctsi of lCltHlltunic trKI Sltgtc1al dtbull(lopn1enc
12 r pri11IJI) purpo--l of Incil J)evelop111lnl V1- co identify Jprropnllt Vays of
-tin1uLtting tll rllvvant luctl re-ources 111 suppo11 of Lllterpngti deth)pn1vn1 ind
tickling long-tern1 unernploy111ent hough llLttetL lhe-imiddot 1rt di-rinct uhjccliVLS 1nU
tlil vXtmiddotnr ro middothich they could htbull 1sotiatcd in operationd llllll- rc1111ined tn he
lthlished it that ti111e
13 IIH 1111in ekmiddotnlLllC ()f the llt appro1ch middotLlL
bull p1rtnersliip hllVtmiddotcn stitulory hu ines ind cD111nH1nity scctnrgt
bull dtmiddotmiddotulurinn to local bodies of lllltmiddotds idcntifiLation pL1nning to-ordi111Cio11 of
progr11111tltS dvlill of 1r111ova1it and ctmiddotriain other action tnd 111on11()ring
of progres
bull involvcrncnt of the eniirlt co111n1unity cspcciilly d1sHhmiddot1nt1gcd groups
bull 1dltl[Hilt1n cgtf a Jtili-li(middot ll)PH)tclt l1tbullrtbulll)y l(l)flCgtllliC 111d S(icmiddoti~1J dlVtbullhipnlcllt
VOllld OCClll (CllCUllellliy
13 middotrt1tmiddot Hhnini-rrililtlll (Jf Lo~middot1l J)tmiddotvlmiddotlopnHmiddotnr in Ireland is cl1ssi1111l1r legt 1ll11 in
oth1 middotr FlJ countriis in li1tl
bull lhltrl artbull i nu111lill of di1inc1 pn1gr1n1n1cs
bull there i strong centrd gullllllhllt 111d EU involve111tlll
bull 111middotv local 1d111ini-tr1t1vc s1n1c1111middotls -ere demiddoticcJ inderH1Hllnt ()r lXiring local
govlmiddotrn111cnt structu1
Ctmiddotrrril goven1111enl control- the hulk of public fininces At locil ltmiddotvel local
aulill gtril ilt~ ft 1 net ions h1 ve 1llen li111i1ed Ct ivering n11ttcrs such ts roads -1ni111ion
111d housing ihill 1hvonric1llv locil ~1u1lionl1tS co1dd lllgtgLmiddot in 111a11v uther ()cal
c lemiddot l le iJ Hnen t
hinmiddotling ~ygttlIll 111d ittthility 10 pursue ltl ignificull ltgtctl c1x11ion middotYtcn1_ 1 middotr1sk
oca Je1ehJ[J111e111 lnitiatiues
Force 1 esrtblish~cl by rhe Governn1tnl 1nadc i nu111her of rtco1n1ncnd1tions in 1
rcpon 111 August 1998 regarcl1ng the mtcgration of local dcvdopment with local
government These ere approved by the Government in September 1998 (sec
paragraphs 10 to 3 31)
Organisational and Management Arrangements
15 The tO main EU funded programmes providing suppon for Local
Development arc the Opernional Programme for Local Urban 1nd Hural
Devclormcnt (OlLUHD) ind 1he llADEH II lrogr1111111c These Opcrntional
lrog11mmcs were drafted by the Department of the Tao1sc1ch and 1hc Dep1rtmen1
of Agriculture and Food (Agricuhure 1nd Food) respectively within EU guidelines
incl 1grced Vith the EU Co1n111ission
16 Each sub-progr1111111e of 011UlI) and IEADER 11 is 1clm1nistc1nl locally by di1inc1 Local J)evelop1ncn1 bodilts middotrhis c11nin~1tion is concerned Vilh Lltx~il
l)evelop111en1 acrivilies 1cl1niniscercd by Coun1y Enlerprise Bltgtards and 1re1-Based
111111crship Companies under OlLURD and by LEADEl groups under LEADER II Hcspons1bili1y for rhee bodies coines under chi rc1nit of three scpar11lt Governn1en1
Dep111ments (sec 11gurc II)
Co1111ty pound11er[Jrise Boards
17 Crn1111y Enterprise lloirds ((Ells) were established 111 Oe1olier 1993 wnh the
tilll or fu tering incl f1cilitating che LCOll01l1iC dcvelopn1ent of local area~ Each CEB
Vts required 10 clrt1 up 1 Counry 1nccrprise Pltn incl its iccions incl prupo-als are
Figure 11 Main Departments and Local Development bodies
Enterprise Trade and
Employment
County Enterprise
Boards
Tourism Sport Government and Recreation Departments and Agriculture
and Area Intermediary and Food DevelopmenlCompany
Management Ltd
bull
Area-Based
Local LEADERPartnershipsDevelopment groupsCompanies and
Bodies community groups
1Jc To5k fmiddot(Jtmiddotccmiddot R(Xlrt u11 rbe 1tfpound7ratiu11 lt oc(lf (io1en1111e1u (11tf Local Jc1elo1me11t Srs1e111s bullbull~Ql( 19)i
2
---1tfrotluct1un
ha ed on 1hi plan middotrhertmiddot art 51 ltEBs in total covering county and urban local
~ll1hori1y 1rc1s Ftch (~EB h1s 1-i 111e1111Jer irHluding repngtStIltHivls of local
govltrnn1c11t public Stl or 1g~ncics hu1ntmiddots Lun1ing lradt union and co11111n1ni1y
inlTest
lH middotrhc CEBs provide 1 r1nge of enltrprigtt -upp()rt -ervices al local levt l eg
admiddot1 ic~ and coun~tlling hus1ncmiddot infonnaiion financial 1sis1ancc and 111an1gtIlllnc
dcmiddottlop11l(Jll middotrhtbull firgltl group- ~tre husinltsse- co11111nu1i1y groups individud
en rcprtJ1(lJrs 1nd -n1i[] enterprises cEBs tonk OVtf re-gtpon-ihililv frorll lhl fltgtrlller
Industrial i)tclop111cnt u1hori1y (ll)A) for the devt~lDpllhllt of 111anufac111ring and
inl =rna1iont gtervicc - finn~ Vilh ltmiddot s th111 ten en1ploycmiddotc In 1ddi1ion_ thtmiddoty is-u111cd
the l1tmiddot roll of pngt11101in~ 111 vnltTpriL culturt
l~1 J-ro111 1hc outet the i)tgtp1r1111lnt of Entcrprist middotrrade and F1nployn1cnt
( Enterpri-e middotrr1dtmiddot 111d L111ploynHmiddotn1) has been responsiblt for co-ord1n~Hing and
supcrvising the crBgt lniti11ly dec1~ions on grant payn1ent~ lo individual projecls
vtre vetted by hl f)t1gt1rt111enl 11ltgttVtL (~EBs Vere ccgtr1s1i1111cd as lin1ited liahili1y
l0111p1nies during iltJltJ) and ifl(I 1January 19CJ(i hive 111idc grtnt decisions
110 Stiffing accon1111ltJLlatiun and 01hcr expen es V(~1tmiddot ini1i1lly provided liy lhtmiddot
lul ii 1u1horitics on a recoupn1cnr lgtt~i and ah hough the CFBs anmiddot nov
inl orporatccl rntny havtmiddot coniinutd Viti lliis 1rrangen1cn1
111 Funding for ltt]is is co-fin111ctmiddotd by Elj _1ruc1urtl funds via suh-progra1111ne I
of 011UHD mcl hv the hchequlr
Ara-amp1setl lc1rt11erslJiJ (-tJn11c111ies
112 1ret-Bit~d 11rtntrhip co1np1nies ltPa11ncrship) vere originally c-tihlished
in 12 ~1rltmiddotmiddotas un 1 pilot hi~i in 1991 10 in1phnhnt an nca-hastmiddotd nmiddotspollgtt to longshy
tlrrn unen1pl(lyn1tlll under tile Progra111111e for Econoinic and Sul-i1I Progrltss (PESP)
_JH Partnerships havt hcen lSt1hlished (2() urhJn ind 1- rural) lo optrat in 55 areas
dtig11Htmiddotd by 1hc (~ovvnlllltlll i~ hling disidvan1~1gtd In 1cldi1ion lherc ire 55 C(lJllllH1nity dcmiddotLmiddotlop111ent groups in non-dtmiddotsig111ted arets middot1J1ch c1ny oul fu11ctior1s
i111iltr to tho~v uf 1he 11r111er-liips middotrile Boards of i)irectors of the co111panil-gt lll
drvn fror11 (1) 1he SlgtCiil p1nncr (ii l -ttle 1genc1tmiddots ind (iii) co111111unity ~ind
vc gt t1n1tr~- cHg111is1 tio11
tmiddot13 The function~ nf the P1rntrsliip art to preptre lnc1I dcmiddottlopn1t~n1 pl1n _ in
con~tdtalion vi1h otl1LI local groups incl hudicmiddots_ to lOLHlltf d1stdvan11gc in 1hcir
~trtts and tiltn lo hlmiddotl thlmiddot-c plans i111ptmiddotn1cmiddotn1td middotrile pl111 oullines the rangt of
socitl ind lmiddotcono111ic tSSlltS to ht addrtmiddot scd in lhimiddot l1rget trta and the ohjeclive to
Ill pursultd h1scd on tile resuh of ~1 ltgtcio-ccono111ic analysis of lhc iret middotrliLmiddot
intbulllllion i~ ro 1tLmiddotlcr11c lnlt11 eronoinic dltmiddotvltmiddotlorn1e1H increise frnrloynHmiddotnt ind
local Develop111e11t l11itiati1es
tickle cxclu~ion incl 1nargintlisa1ion resulting fro111 long-llflll une111ploy111ent vc1y
vide r1nge of 1ctivities i~ unde111ken including job pltCLlllCIH adull education
training con111n1ni1y clevelopn1lmiddotn1 cnviro1111H111tl projLCI~ and youth iniliHives
114 An indepenckn1 in1c1mcdia1y company wis eslahlished in 1992 in111ally under
1he aqigt of 1he Dep111men1of1he Tioisetch and subgtltltjlltgtnily from midmiddot 1997 1he
Depanmcn1 of Tourism Spon and lkcre11ion (Tourism Spon and Hecreuion) 10
oversee 1hc P1nnersllips ind Jocd devclopn1tnl groups middotrhe con1pany 1rca
i)(velopmet11 M1n1gemen1 Iid (ADM) is required 10 cv1lu11e plins from
Ptrlllt~r~hips corn111unity groups ind selecled organisHions lO 1J1ocatc resources in
1ccord1ncc Vilh the eviluation resul1s ind ro 111onitor LXpenditure incl perfon11~1nce
by btneficiarits Over lj(YtJ of funding is spent by tile lartncrsliips incl (he re1111inder
is spent by co1n1nuni1y gro11ps ind nHionil nrgani11ions
115 funding for P1rtnerships co1111nuni1y groups and eligible spending bv selected n11iond org1nisarions is co-fin1ncecl by ElJ s1n1ctural funds incl by the
Exchequer EU funding is provided uh-progrtmme 2 of 011uRD
LEADER
116 This EU lni1ia11vcmiddot for rural devdopmenl w1s origin1lly bunched 111 1991
(lEADloR 1) The obwrnw of 1hc progr11nme wis 10 ltS11lilish locli devdopmen1
1ction groups bullhich voulcl bt responsible for 1he in1plcn1cn11tion of business pl1ns
for heir areis lE1l)EH I v1s 1he subjecl of 111y firs value for 111oney exa111ini1ion
comple1ed 1n Decemhe1 1994 The ini1i111ve wis co111inued under 1he Oper11ional
lrog11mme for IEADER 11 covering ihe period 1994 10 1999 There tre 34 approved
1EADlR groups (is opposed IO 16 group in 1hc orig1nli progr111Hnc) These 11e
iu10110111011- lcg1l cntilies each conrrollecl by 1 boird 111d opeining under 111
igreen1en1 Vith the J)cp111111cnt of gricul1urc and Food (Agriculture incl Fuuclgt Jht-
l)epa1111Hmiddotn1 required th11 the bo1rds h1ve 1 1ripar1ite s1n1crure representative of 1he
con1111unity incl volunt1ry sec1ur luc1l Stite ~1gencies and the priv11t I con11ncrcitl
sector
117 Unlike 1he 01her lniti11ives covered in 1h1gt ex1111in11ion (which are csset11ilily
n11io11il policy initiHivc-) lEAl)EH i in EU lnitiitivl Vliich Va designed incl
Ln1nchccl by the turope~111 Co111111issio11 his 1ne1ns 1hi1 he in1plc111enlalio11 of
LEAJ)flt its 1in1ing ind opertting rules ~in de1ennined Ltrgel~middot Vithin 1ht EU
Co111n1i~sion 1uncling for rhe LEl)EH II lrogr1111n1e is co-financed fron1 ElJ
s1n1c111ioli f11nd the 1lADEH Opci1110111 lrogrunmc 1))4-1999 rnd by ihe
Exchequer
4
In 1roclzut1on
Sc1urces of Finance
118 The Fll Commission incl rhe Exchequer prolidccl funding for the 1niria11middotes inmiddot
the period 199i-199H follows
EU hchequer Toril
pound-111 t-111 ~-nl
CEils 465 516 98 I Parntrships 530 181 711
LEIDER groups 272 ILG 388
126 7 81) 208 0
Scope and objectives of the examination
1l) middotrhe cxa111in~1tion V~1s concerned only vi1h initiatives to pron1ott local
clebullclop111em rhrough Counrv Enrcrprisc Boards Ptrrnerships and LEADEH groups
Thue are 111anv orher ml[1nives for local devdopmcm such as URBAN Terrironal
E11l)loy1nent Picts Pe~tce ~incl Heconciiation 111d lnterreg II vhich ire outside the
scogtc of this ex~1111ina1ion
12middotJ Nei1her iJ)-1 nor the l1rtnershirs arv covered by 111y statutory value fcgt1 11101ey nn1i1 In the interest of producing i cohcivc report on locil l)lmiddotvclopn1cnt
ini1=11ivlts 1hey igreed that the exa111inuion ~hould he extended to chc111 middotrhcir coshy
OJX ration in 1liis resptmiddotlmiddot1 i~ icknovllmiddotclgecl
121 The overall objec11vcs of rhc c1n1inar1on w
bull ro ltVal11are rhc administrative effwncv ol rhc llltXlit (Chaprer 2)
bull lo asstmiddotss the extent of duplic~Hion and co-ordin1tion ~1rrangen1en1s ltCh1p1cr j)
bull to ev~dualc thl operHional efficiency of the bodies (Chipttr 4)
bull to coniidcr ho- tlii i1n1x1ct of 11ie holtl1e~ can hl asscmiddotssecl (Ch1p1cr 5)
1nr The p1opltJ-f of Illgt c_rrn11iiu111011 CFHgt lar111lmiddot-Ji1ps and 1eoJ(1middot grv11S uill IA Fccmiddoti-rlmiddotd l u lrJl(I
)c1lffJ[gtl11ltf hodico
5
loca l)evelojJ1ne1u 11itiatitCs
122 The main issues considered are
Issue Evaluation Criteria
Administrative efficiency Administration costs bull bull Human resources bull Adequacy of management
information systems
Co-ordination of activities Duplicationbull bull Co-ordination
Operational efficiency Targets and performance bull bull Resource allocation and outturn
bull Deadweight and displacement
Impact assessment Quantitative assessments bull bull Qualitative assessments
Methodology
123 Officials 111 the Depanmem of Amicroricuhure and Food the Dcpanmcnr of
Tourism Spoil and lkcrea11on 1he Department of Enlerprise Tracie and
Employmcm 111cl 1DM were interviewed Oua and pipcrs rcbting to targets cosl
and perfon11~1nce Vere ex11nined Analysis Vas carried out of cost and perfonnance
clua aria1ion in perfonnance ck1t1 vas used as a basis for selecting individual Loctl
Development bodies for funher examimtion
124 Selcc1ed CEl3s LEADEH groups and Partnerships were visi1ecl Helevant
personnel Vere intervi(Ld and individual rrojecls Vere visited Sevtrd CISC studies
Vtre identified during the co11rse of this vork and thc~c arc used in this rero11 to
illustr11i key i1SULS middotrhcy should not be ngarltled a1 rcpresentHivi of the cype of
pro1ee1s supponed hy the bodies
125 1Vleetings Vere held vith offici1Js fro1n the l)ep1nn1en1 of the E11viro11111ent
and Loctl Goern111ent ind Ille Co111ba1 lovlmiddotrty Agency lntervieVS look place Vith
the folJoving orga11is~11ions PlJtEmiddotr (Ille netvork of Arc~1-B1scd igtJnnerships)
Comhar IEADER 1u hiireann (tire network of 11ADEH groups) 1he ssociation of
Chief txecutives of Counly EnrcrprisC Bo1rcls (representing County Enlerprise
l3001rcls) the Irish 10111onal Orga1ma11on for 1he ncmployecl (INOU) he
Ken Cork iortb a1ul So111h )uhill CFJJs Trti li )011epal 11ihot1c11 a11d Northside art11lrh1J Fexford Ora11iflfio11 fur R11ral IJltbull1ltlup111c111 anti lao1bull tJ-1nHk Rural Dtbull1tlop111e111 Co Jd (IJ-ADJR ~rn11p) lv11sfonl Co1111111111i~~middot RrrJ1rCli Jd (1d S(J11rh lerry IAmiddottlIOJtllllll Part11crbip Jd (comhi11(c JHADERPart11c1~hip orxa11iatio11~j
6
J11frotll1 rI ion
Conf~r~nr~ of lkhg1ot1s 111 JrcmiddotLrnd (CORIJ vb Yvonne Murplrv lks~ardwr 111d Prof
J1111es A Walsh gtill Mrvnooth
)26 1n eternaJ exrerl IS lt ngagtbulld IO adviSl on the 1ncthodo(ogy of tht --Udy
and rlvtev the study findings_middot
7
2 Administrative Efficiency
21 Tlfrbull chtpter is concerned with the dliciencl of the CEils ltrtnergthips incl
llADER groups in iclminigtIenng locd Development ini111I11es loc1I Dcvdopment
is chirictltnsecl bv t 111uliplirny of object11es mcl ac11vi1ies The control of
achninisrrilive expendirure is 1chicvccl hy reference to stiffing levels pay rates tnd
1he re1sonablcness of 01her 1cl1ninistration expenses
22 Thlt clivers11y of 1he 1c1ivi11es of Local Development bodies ind 1he nexibili1y
in hov rhey set about 1chieving their objecrives li111it rhl extent to vhich cross
co111parisons of efficiency can btmiddot 111ade Neither unifonn perfonnanre inclicarors nor
co111111on infonnirion sysEc1ns on 1cl111inis1ruivc efficiency 1cross the ini1i1tivcs l1ave
been cle1middotcJopecl
23 The ptriocl covered in 1he chtpler is I994- I 998 indus1le However cle11ilecl
tndysrs ti indiviclutl Loctl Dltvelop111ent bodies ielel rel11es 10 I99i - 1997 II
should be noted thu local l)cvelop111ent bodies did 1101 co1nn1ence si1nultancously
incl 1h11 1he lime 11ken 10 esttblish indivicl11d local groups viriccl Accorclingly
expencli1ure in the early ye~trs rel~tles to the middotfullmiddot 1crivilics of i 111inority of groups
and the st111up plt1se of 111any lcgteal groups
24 middotrhe issues incl Calualion cri1t~ri1 used in thi chaptc1 are
Issue Evaluation Criteria
Administration costs Administration costs as a percentage bull of total expenditure
Human resources Extent of Board input bull Staff skills bull
Adequacy of management Data collecllon by Local Development bodies bull information systems Integration of data at national level bull
bull Reporting and monitoring
Administration Costs
25 The tottl 1111oun1 of expcncl1111rc incurred lw Local Develormcnt IJoclics m the
pen0ltI 1994 10 1998 was s208 mrll1on This is tntlysed in Ttble 2 I
26 middotrhc totil expenditure incurred can ht- categorised inro ad1ninisrration costs
vhich are the costs of running the relevant office-i and other exrenditurc Vhich is
cliviclecl IJeteen direct fin1nciil issis1ance 10 enterprise~ ~ind exp~ncliturc on
1ctivirics to incn1se enterprise avireness pro11101e con111n1ni1y dcvclop111cn1 or
redress clis~1dv1nt1ge
8
Atl111i11 ist rrttilt ~lie ic11c_ v
Ta~le 21 Expenditurebull by Local Development bodies 1994-1998
CEBs
P3rtnersh1ps
and other
LloADER Groups
Total
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
poundm poundm poundm poundm poundm
82 28
19 9 46
216 104
230 232
254 301
1 6 53 11 7 202
11 0 261 373 579 75 7
Norg a Expenditure relates to activities under OPLURD and LEADER II Some Local Development bodies also incur expenditure on other activities which arc not funded under OPLURD or LEADER and which are outside the scope of the examination Details for 1995-1997 are contained in Appendix A
b The total expenditure in the table includes Partnerships Community Groups and selected National Organisations
c Includes selected sectoral groups Annual reports of OPLURD and LEADER for 1998
Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total EJcpenditure
2i 1d1ninistra1ion costs 1 a perceniage of total expenditure in the period 1995 shy197 are shown in Tabk 2 L (There was link ad11uniscra11on pending in 1994)
2S dn1inistraliOn CDSIS IS J pcrcen1agt of tOtt[ eXJ1tl1citure decreaStcl uver the
period 199i 10 1997 for t~1ch iniriativtmiddot middotrhis JS clul n11inly co the face that it took
so1ne tin1c for rhe developnHnc groups 10 beco1ne opcrHional 1ncl hence 11n1ch of
the initial expenditure vas on adn1inistration rather thin activic1es This trend i~
1x111iculirly nocKeablc in che cise of LEADER groups md lirtnerships where
acl111inistrHion co1s 1s a percent1ge of tottl expencliture clroppecl sultilanli~11ly
middotrh1re Vere so1ne varialiuns betveen intlividt1al ltEls LFl)FH gnntps ind
Jgta1tnersl1ips middotr11ese ire considered belO Cfhe 1cl111inistration costs of Local
Deiclopnwn1 bodies are shown 111 Appendix B)
CltJUlllJmiddot E11te1prise Rltgttlrtls
29 1middot1icrc v(middotrc no great variations in rhc ad111inistruion costs incurred by che
CEl3s w11h lhe mqorill spending helWtCn pound 100000 and Jl )0000 per innum
1n1lysis of 1997 dat1 shc)Ytbullcl 1h~11 the adn1inistra1ion costs of n1ost CEBs V(n Vithin
1 ~1 r1nge of I ~Ai 10 25S~1 in rel~llion to tnttl expenditure The )ov~st Vas f)uhlin City
H J 1 with Cork Norch being che h1ghcsc ac 11 The level is scronglv mlluencecl IJy
the extent to vhich CFI3s are involved in the provision of gruus is chis increases the
9
local l)cuer4J11unt lnitiaflvcs
Table 22 Administration costs as a percentage of total expenditure
CEBs Partnershipsbull LEADER Groupsbull
Total
1995
poundm
49
15
08
72
Admin c
1996
poundm
43
41
16
100
istration osts
1997
poundm
44
53
20
11 7
Percentage of total expenditure
1995 1996 1997
25 20 19
34 44 28
51 31 17
28 28 22
Note B The figures exclude Community Groups and selected National Organisations b Excludes selected sectoral groups
Source Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General see Appendix A
level of overill expenditure In the c1sc of Cork North their mtin activities are
ini111~1tion incl the rrobullision of suppor1 such 1s counselling and training
wh1Chwould involve lowtr levels of expenditure rlm1 the supply of grant aJCI In the
case of other CFl3s such 1s Dublin City the focus was pnnnpally on the pronsion
of grtnl aid
Part11ersJips
210 P111nersh1ps generally spenl between l)0000 ind l200000 on adminisrruion
1n l997 with some excep11ons Mos 11rtnersl11ps which were esiiblished before
OPLURD had lower adminis1ru1on costs as a percentage of 1otal expenduure rhan
those wl11ch were srtnecl under OPIUlm In 1997 adminis1ra11on expenditure as a
perceniage of 1otil expencliture vas generally in the r1nge of 200u to 40Yo vith the
lowesl a 13 (in rhe case of i011hsidc in Dublin) 10 rhe highest m 51 (1n rhe
case of lnishovltn in J)o11cgal) il1ile 1c111al adn1inistration exptnditure vas si111il1r
in borh Partnerships expenditure on 1crivi1ies VIS significantly greater in Nonhside
as compared ro Donegil lnishowen which wis still in a scr up phase The riming
of projects locil rriorilies in the i1nple111ent1Cion of business rt~1n ind the nu1nbcr
of yltars the Jgtartner-hips have been operating have tn in1p1c1 on the adrninistritivc
cos1s percent1ge indicator
IEADER G10llJlt
211 LEADEH groups genenilly spenr lgtetween 50000 incl U00000 on
~1d1ninis1r1tion in 1997 Vith son1e exceptions In 1997 1dn1inis1rJtion expenditure ~1s
a percentage of 101al expenditure was generally in rhe r111gc 10 to 20 wuh the
lowest at 7 (in rhe c1SL of IJirrow-Nore-Suir) 10 rhe h1ghes1 ll 45 (in the case of
Comhm lorrais) While 1dminis1rarion expenditure wis simiLtr 111 borh LEADlR
10
Adn1i11istrati1cbull IJiciellcy
groups expendilurc on activities (including ~1nin1ation ind provision of grants) v1s
significanlly gnatcr in BarrO-Norc-Suir cor11p1red LO (cJJ11h1ir lnrr1is_ middotr1ierc llL 1
nuirtlltr of factors that can give rise to the variation uch a- hov Vt11 cst1blishcd
lhe sroup is local priorities in the in1ple111ent~1tion of the bu-iiness plan tilt tin1ing
of pro1ecis and 1hc lcnI of grant ml
Human Resources
21lt The loc1I charancr of each of he Local Devclopnw111 boclies mcl the nllure 1 ~incl diversity of thlir operHions n1ean thH thty h1vc l Sllbs11nti1I rolt of initiating
and co ordinating ac11vnies in co-operit1on ith 1 Viele v1ric1y of volunt~1ry and
stttutory org1nisu1ons (see Chapter 3) middotrhe achieve111t~n1 of their objectives is
I clepcndenl on _rhe avail~1hility of high quality plrsonn~I al Board tncl suh-co111111it1Ll
level and clecl1uted high ctl1bre s111f
Extent of Board Input I
2 B There 1s significant input it Boircl level for all of 1he bocl1es Arouncl 1wo 1hircb
of ( EBs operate sub-Boarcl co1111111nccs and half of these suigt-COlllllllllecs inclucle
1 111cn1lxmiddotr clravn fron1 1he local con1n1unit vho are nnt Boltncl clirector ~ middotrhis
invch-t~n1erH in 1octl l)evelopn1tnr bodies e1~tail~ a high dcgrLL of co111n1itn1en1 fro111
people vho are alrctdy active in their local co111111unitics
214 Pr1ctically ill Pirtnerships have suh-co1111111trecs on con1111unity ltlevelopnhmiddotnt=
I education and cnltrpri-e ~incl 111ost LEAl)EH microruups h~1ve -llh-co111111itte1middots on rurtl
touris111environnHn1 natural resources and s111all husinesscraftgt~erviccsr
Prermiddotaratory vork alllndince at 111cct1ngs ancl follov ur ~1ctivities pl1cc considerable
ti111c den1ands on Board and -ub-co111n1ittet 1ne1nbers l)uring chc exuninHion
I lt1bu11clan1 lViclence Vts found of the con1111itn1ent incl skill of Board n1en1lgters and
111en1htmiddotrs of suh-connniutes
Stciff Skills
215 A wide variety of skills is requirecl of 1cxal Developmem swff to match the
range of act1vitilmiddots 11ncle11~1ken middotrhis feature is ranicularly i111portan1 for LEAl)EH
I groL ps and P1rtnershirs clue to tht extent of their nmiddotn1i1 middotrhe staff nf Local
J)cvltmiddotlop111cnt bodies are highly qualified According co ~1 ncenl survey 5lVo of the
i-~~F ond Ihl lCgtfal Jr)(111 c111d RlflI )c11h1p111tllf PTT1JiHlllll1l f11ropca11 )(lt1a F111u Pro~ra1111111
1ttd11a1io11 Unll Apnl (JJJ
1)p(rt111011(1 fro~rc1111111e fnr IJAJ)FJ II (rJl11111111 11ilrcll1Utmiddot iI( Tlr11 R1bull1re11 Rtbullfx11 3re1uftu1 ((middott1rne1 middot (11t A ~(Jlt ialt3 199 7
II
(JC(l )e(lltJjJ11CI 11itiatiU(
CEOs of CEBs huld post-griduite que11ilkirion and funher 2()0 hive prima11middot
ckgrce In the cise of Partnerships 6()0o of 1nan1gers hold a post-gr1du~1te
qualificllion and a funher 24degAgt h1ve 1 pri1n1ry degret
216 flu rc-nurcefulnes- of Lltxil l)cmiddotelop111ent s11ff IS cvident during the course
of the eXltllllill1li01l
Adequacy of Management Information Systems
217 ht avaiL1bili1y of gncgtd 1111111ge111ent infonnation sys1e111s is 1 pnrequisitc fnr
cfficicnt icl1ninis1ration of the inititrives ind for ensuring thll rlllVLnt incl reli1hle
d1t1 is 1v1ilablc for pl1nning plrfonnince 111onitoring ind ev1luation An in-depth
rcvieV of the 1111n1ge1nen1 infon1111ion sysh111s in use Vas 1101 incl11dtd 1n the scope
of the ex1111ina1ion_ 1-lovever ce111in cltfic1cncics in the systen1s htmiddotc1111e app1rent
in discussions Vith officitls in 1hc locil f)evelnp111ent bodies ind during the
qu1n1i111ivt 1nil~middotsis vork
Data Collection by Local Development Bodies
218 E1ch of 1hc bodies opertllS scp1r11e co111pu1erisecl infonnttinn syste111s Vhirh
Vere ck~signtd by consuh1n1 under the aegis of lhe J)cpar1111cnts ind 1l)fmiddotI is
tppropnHe middotrhc pri1111ry purpose of 1hese syste1ns is 10 provide fredbtck on
ae11v1ties by eich Locd Development body ID the Dep1nme111s incl AD1vl The
syste111s should tlso provide 1111n~1ge111ent infor111a1ion for usc locally and facilitite
external evalunion 10vevtr the 1rge nun1bLmiddotr of local groups reponing 10
ditfercnt dtp1n111en1s posls pa11icul1r cJ11lltmiddotngLS tlaquoJr cL1t1 c~tpture
219 l)isc11ssions vitl1 ltgtfficials in the Local l)evelcgtprnent bodies visi1ed indicated
so1ne di~s11i-faction Villi ht kx1l use of systen1s in 1h11 they vere reg1rded as being
1101 user friendly or Vere perceivcd as not being fully suited 10 loc~tl 1ninage111cn1
needs_ In fi(I so111e locd f)evelopn1en1 bodicmiddots h1ve kepi lhltir origin1I syste111s in
11si O -upplc111lnl 1he infon1tttinn provided by the cen1r~1lly debullcloped systeni_ middotrhe
dillicultit~s havt heen recognised ind steps 1rt being t1ke11 011 1n ongoing b1is 10
encourage grc11cr loctl u-e of the C(ntrilly developed syste111~
220 Forn1al 1rr1ngc111en1s ire nor in place Vhich VOuld f1cilitlle nuo111a1ic sharing
of infon111tio11 Joctlly icross ill of rhe groups_ 1his is not possible due to 1he
1bsnce of 1 con1111011 clicnr identifier in the thrtt co111pu1cr sys1e111s_ So111c id-hoc
shiring of dtli such ts projerl tpplicition and 1pprov1ls occurs through rneetings
be1vccn bodies ind via County Str11cgy Groups lmiddotlovcver 1his is no subs1iru1e for
a systen111ic approich to dati sharing
12
Acl111i11 isrrari1e lli-c ieJtlmiddot_ v
22 l A middotide v1riery of perfonna11ce indicnors V1s dtveloped 1hrough discus~ions
w11li 1he external evilullor and with Local Development bodies (se~ Appendix C
mcl OJ LEADEH groups ind Partnersh1ps m 1x111irnlar undertake i wide range of
tctimiddot1 ities and con-lmiddotqucnly 1hcir co111pu1er sy-1en1s c1pture ~1 Viele range of data
middotrhi c111 plicc an tLessive burden on the sn1all 1d111inb1rilie st1ff 1n these bodies
perfonn~tnce 1ncasun111en1 systc111 Vhich focu~es nn 1n agreld StI of key indicuors lo tnco111plttS~ core tctivities and ou1purs and vhich reflect- key objectives
n1ighc be n1ore appropriattmiddot 1ny addicional inforn1uion require1nents could Ix
prltrlided Jess frlmiddotquently through for ex1111ple annual rtporting arrangc111cn1s
22~ 1middot11e fnltomiddoting issues Verlt also noced
bull The p11ori1ics of d1fferen1 loc1I Dcvelopmcnl lxKlies arc not 1den1ical even
Vithin 1hc sunc Local f)cvelopn1ent ini1ia1ive For exan1ple one Local l)evclopn1cnt lxxly 111ight prioritisl 1ss1stance to cl1stclvant1ged groups vhilc 1norher rnight priontise cnterprist clevelop1ncn1_ Exisling 1ne1st1rlll1cnt syste111s do not allov 11le perfon111ncc of chese tvo gruups co be realiticdly r111kecl and con11xircd
bull Measurement should cope w11h the fact that much of the pcrform1nce under
the ini1iat1ves is qualitative in nHure Exunplcmiddots include quil11y of tr~tining openness to disadvantaged groups and qu11i1y of relacionships Vith other
st1tu101) bodies Exiscing n1easunmiddotmiddot111Lllt systcn1s do not cuer for rhcsc 1spects
of perfo1111111ct
bull f)espice initiatieS to involve locd l)evelop111ent bodies in the specificuion of
perfonnancc indicators cxisling perfon111nce n1oni1oring is frequencly seen as son1cth1ng vhich is in1pltgtstcl on groups Vilh lillll direct bcncfi1 in lenns of
e11~1bling 1hltmiddotn1 to understand hov to in1prove 1hcir Ovn perfonnancc~
22 The apprrnd1 described in Case S1uclv I gi1bulls 1n 1nclic111on of 111~ prltp1ratory
Yor involved in developing svsce111s to cviluatc rhc efficiency and tgtfflttivencss of
1he bCKlies Governmenl Dep1rtmenLlt and Local Developmenl bocl1es might es1lt1bl1sh
10 middothat cxtenc this 1ppro~1ch could hl~ applied co rhc 1neasure111en1 and n1anagc1nent
of LDcil Dcvdopmenl periorrnrnc~ Thi 1s a prercquisi1e 10 es11blishing the clati
reqt-ire111ents Yllich should be -arisficd hy the inforn11til~n sys1c1ns in u~e by LocalI l)evmiddotlop111erH bodies Under clie exis1ing s~middotsren1s the inforniHion require111cnts for
detennining 1he extenc ro Vhich value for n1oney is htmiddoting obt1ined front expencli1ure
on lhe iniliatives arl nor 1dequarCly provided for middotrhe current inadequacies of the
inforn)Hion sys1e111i lin1it the scope for evaluation middotrhc middotlid-middotrenn Ev1lt111iuns of both
llA)FR and 011LRD have drawn a11e111ion lo 1his deficiency
Ilo1rc1er 11~-tf)FR groups produce wn11e11 c11u1i1a1ilmiddote repon llriccbull year~r 011d other local 1Je1eop111eu1 lltXlics olso 111c11de c111ai1a11n aJXCt of Jfrfon1u111ce u1 1b1middot1r n7xJt1s AJJ J(ls prod11t1bulld a sene bull of poundltlgt lt1dit- ubich nfhbullc1 q11all1a1inmiddot clfJtltmiddotr_~ of the uork of Parr11erships
J-rr an e(11ded disn1ss1nJ1 nr1 the (flk11e _p_- u_(Jt1j()r11111J1c(bull 111v11i1r1i11g 1middotce middot11F and 1111middot local Urlxo1 111d N11nil FJtnmiddotlopn1ltll lltJ8111n11111middot middot FuroJlllll Sulti(I F1111d lr(Jgn111111Jl 1alifioi1 fh1i1 April 1999
13
lnco l)erelop111enf 11itiati1es
Case Study 1
A benchmarking project
A transnational study funded by the EU is underway to develop benchmarks for pro1ects which seek to insert unemployed people into the labour market The main purpose of benchmarking is to enable organisations to improve their performance
Through a process of discussion and analysis involving the implementing organisations the key processes and desired outcomes are established An agreed set of quantifiable
indicators is developed to give a measure of performance under each key process and desired outcome Overall performance 1s denved by applying an agreed weighting formula to the 1ndiv1dual measures Data capture and performance reporting are
overseen by an independent third party
Graphical representations are produced showing the performance of each group for each key process and outcome Typically the performance of each group will be stronger in some respects than others and future action to improve performance can then ensue
Integration of Data at National Level
224 It is 1111port1nt th11 there should be ce111ral access to cltu to provtclc for a
sys1e1n11ic 1nd co111prchensivLmiddot cv1Jua1ion 1t nation1l level of tl1e efficicnc ind
cffectivcntmiddotss of lcxlttl develop111cnt 1cross the country In 1ddi1ion 1his vould
suppo11 co-01)er1tion ind co-ordina1ion across the bodies
225 Dllt lteld within Governtttent Depa11111enb and ADM is not tntegratecl at the
levtI of tile henefici~111 For exa1nple grant approvJJs to 111 enterprise gr1nt
pJyn1cn1- ~incl e1nploy111cnt 1re not associ1tcd vith 1 unique client identifier in
Enterprise middotrr1dt~ and E111ploy111en(s con1pu1er sys1e111 sin1ik1r veakncss exists in
Agriculture and Foocl and ADM This ctn reduce the scope for evaluttion For
cxainplc the JXrfonnancc of c1Hi1ics vhich obtain financial assis1ance cinno1 readily
be con1p1re(I Vilh 1hose vhich rlCcive 01her non-fin3nci1J supports
226 Whltn CEils were first cstablishccl Enterp11se Traut incl Ftttployment usecl a
cl11ilx1se inheri1ed fro1n 1he J)cpann1en1 of Fin1nce to record ce11~1in key datltI such
is grants piicl ancl ipprovecl on eich enterprise assisted by CEils In aclclition clati
on the Enterprise T11clc ancl Emplovmcnt Business lnfortttation Systettt (BIS) hdcl
grant and e1nploy1nent clua for all 1n1nufac1uring 1nd international services finns
middotr1ie opportunity v1s not taken of co111hining d1ta on the CEB clatal)ase vith its 011
BIS Subscquenllr EntcrpniL middotrrackmiddot incl E111ploy111Lmiddotn1 discontinued recording gran1
piyment cl1t1 on the CEB cL111base finally the coverage of the Forfis annual
etttploytttent survey (which 11pcl11es the BIS) was allowed to clittttnislt so that it no
14
longer allernrts lO include syste111aticillv -i111tll n11nuL1cturing tmiddotnterpriscs Vith less
1han 1en employees Agt a result 1he ibihty of En1erprise Trtcle incl Employmenl lo
1noni1or sn1all indus1ry perfunn~1nce and the cffec1ivencss of s1nall indusC1)
de clopn1cnt progr1111n1es l1as cmiddotonsicleralgtly eJkene(I
227 Enterprise middotrr1de incl Ernployn1tnt is H pr(S(nt agr(eing tcnns of reference
fur 1he es11hlish1ncnt of J sy-itcn1 tn L1cilitate chc inllgrition of CEl3 cL111 in10 1he Bl~
11 ii intended that ForL1s viii include CEB clien1- in its 1nnu1l c1nployn1tnt survey
In addition the l)epann1enl rl~1ns (O acquire a stacistical soft~tre p~1ckage to f1cilita1lt
udysis of CEil cL11a
228 middotrhcre is no nuional pltn to integrHt en1errrisc incl individual clien1 level dtta
fron1 CEl3s ith sin1il1r cLn1 fron1 lEAl)EH gruurs tnd Pannerships Agri(tilture incI
roud does not integrate 1nfonnation vhich is collecllmiddotd fron1 e1ch of 1htgt groups in10
nu onal systen1s and has no plans to do so Al)1 provides rltrltJrts 10 a n111nber of
f)epa111nen1 including Sociil ltollununity ind F11nily 1flairi Fnttrprise middotrr1de and
Fn1ployn1en1 and l~duca1ion and Science
1 229 In 1995 middotrmiddotouris1n Sport ind Hecrcation began 1 process of Stlling up a
I ClnlrJised rerfonnance lllOTlitoring systclll (P~middotIS) for OPJLiHJ) co1nprising ~1ggrega1e
output indicators for CEUs ind Partncrships9 Significin1 rlsources have been
demiddot01ed to developing this systtmiddot111 Pcrfonnance 1ndica1ors Verlt tin~1lly approved by
hlmiddot OPllif) Vtonitoring Con11ni11ee in Jl1y 1999 According lo middot1middotouris1n Srort and
Ht(reation this did not JJlov sufficienl 1in1e to consider extending the sys1e1n
frarnevork 10 provide for co1nplt1nson Vilh o(her rrogr11nn1es such as LEAl)Elt lmiddothe
c11rmiddotent posilion is tliH
bull P1nncrship rerforn11ncc dat~l fro111 I January 19lt)7 IS StJCcessfully taken into
the Jgt~1S l)Ha fron1 co11111n1nity ~ind special inttrcsc groups Vls taken inlo till
PMS for l 998
bull Performance dJla for 1998 from all of the CFlb has beltn rnlla1ed by South
Dublin CEB and taken mlltgt Ille PMS
Tht PMS is used to mon11or 1he levels of ae1ivi11es and outputs under 011UHD 11 JS
usel by thL ex1crn1I ev~tlua1or to assist middotrouris1n Sport and lh~crettion ~ind 1he
OfgtlURl) vlonilonng ConunittlL lO OVLf-itv the Progra1nn1e It is of li111itcd use for
efflCtivcnltSS analysis
23t) A funlicr ditficully is the allsenct of con11x1rison-gt vi1h son1c key h~tseline data
pricbullr to the es1ablishn1ent of ll1Lmiddot bodies for cxunrlt the r11e of nev firn1 fonnalion
and job cretlion 111 -111lt111 firins and 1he pL1cc1nent of long-lenn u11tn1ployecl
middotrourisin Sport and Hlcreation has co111111issionecl a ltudy of b1-cline da1a
15
oca J)e1euj111e11t 11ififlli1e
Reporting and Monitoring
231 Progress npo11s Jre produced every six 111on1hs by 1he lead l)ep1n111en1s for
consider1tion tnd approval lgty the reltv1n1 flonitoring Con1111i11ces Ex1ern1l
cmiddotvdu11ors VCrl eng1ged by middotrouris111 Spltgtn and Hecrea1ion and Agriculture and
rood for 011lHlD ancl lltDEll respcctilely ro produce evduarion rqions ancl 1hey
]11ve ~ilso produced 111id-ten11 rcvievs_ middotr111se repo11s iremiddot considered ll hilf-ye1rly
111ee1ings of 1he nlevint f1onitoring Co1n1nittees_ All Loc1l l)evelop111e111 bodies
prodt1ce 1nn11al rcpo11s ou1lining 1c1ivititS undenaktmiddotn 1oge1htr Vilh financial
s1He111ents 1~ required under the operHional progr11111ncs
232 Nerworking plays an irnponanr role for rhe bocl1s Borh lEtDEH groups and
Pu11Hr~hips have 1he bcncfit of personnel dedica1ed 10 org1nis1ng nelvork
acriv1ries The CEOs of rhe CUh also meer regularly
16
3 Co-ordination of Activities
31 middotrhtmiddot co-cistenrl of chtbull 1hrll types of hltxlics for local clevclop1nen1 lt1- given
rise to concern tlX)llt duplicttion and the Jack of co-ordinuion 1 middotrhe pltllentid for
cluplic1tion irises bcciu_c the bodies co111111e1Htd inderenck~nlly of each olhlr ind
s1ariccI 11 clitlercnt ti1nes lt1ve sin1ilar ubjemiddottives incl 11rglt ovcrl1pping p(gtpul~1tions
hivmiddot~ se1x1rItc local ad1n1nistr1lll strucrurls 1 rcpo11 to different lgtepa11n1enLi and ire
funded by different opltftlionil progr1111111es_ A a res11h there is 1 need 10 ln-gture
that there nl lttdtqulle 1rr1ngin1Lmiddotnts in pL1c1 to recluce the pnss1hility of cluplicltion
and to ensure that lhtrc is proper co-ordination betVten he ditlerenl bodies
32 Jhe iSSlllS of Jupllcl11on and co-urdinlliun can bl t~sc -lcl
bull bccwcen ch cl1ffllellC loctl Devclormenc boclicmiddots
bull belveen Local ()evelopn1ent hoclies and 01her agencies ~11ch is Enltrpri~tmiddot
lreL1nd 1ncl che l)lmiddot1x1111ntmiddotn1 of Suciil lt0111111un11y incl F1111ily tfL1ir-
1middothis ex1111ination is confined to duplication incl co-orclinat1on belVeen Local
n~vfiopmtell( bodies
33 In this chapter rhlmiddot i-sues of duplication and cn-ordinition are exanuntd under
evduition criteria ~1s shovn bclOmiddot
Issue Evaluation criteria
Du )lication Objectivesbull Clientsbull Activitiesbull Funding of projects bull
Comiddotordination Local level bull National level bull
IDulication
134 1 subst1nliil nu111her of lgencies c111 provide l0~11 l)evelopn1ent suppnrts in
I thl 1111e hgtc~d 1rc~J 1igure 31 fro111 lhe Suulh Vest illus1rites this
35 middotrhe natun of lhtmiddot inllillimiddottmiddots is 1hat lhlrc should be tltmiddotibiliry in str11egic
dlcigtiun n1ahing at locil level Vilhin brc)Jd p1ra11H[lfS lllch 1n sel oul 1n the
Operation1) Progr1111111es middotrhe si1nilari1ies igtelveen ohjectimiddotes clienL ind activilies i~
shltn11 in middotrabies 3_ I to 34 1re 1 result of thlst policies
17
loca )evelofn11enf lnifia11es
Figure 31 Local Development Supports in the South West
Tuartha Chiarrai Teo (Leader)
West Cor Enterprise Board
North Cork Enterprise
Board
Blackwater Resource Development (Leader)
m Car City Partnership
South Cork Enterprise Board
Cork URBAN
Note The following ADM funded community groups are indicated on the map by nun1bers
[] Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo [Z] Bantry Integrated Development Group
G1] East Cork Area Development Ltd ] Avondha Development Partnership fil IRO Duhalow Ltd
[sect] Sliabh Luachra Ltd [Z] Listowef Baronies Group Ltd
Objectives
36 All of 1he Lxxlics trt concerned illl locil econoinic develop1nlllt tnd h~1ve
i IJrief lo rn-ordin11e incl enlunce ex1s1ing suppo11s ii locd level Bo1h lEAl)EH
incl P111nersl1ip grltn1ps arc conccrntmiddotd V1th co1n111unity clcvelop1nent Vhile
P~1nn~rships ire explicitly focused on co1nlx1111ng socitl exclusion
Clients
37 1Ltny sin1il1ri1ies exist hetVeen 1he clitnls uf the lhllt types nf bodies hu1
there tre tlso in1pon1nt clifferenclS ihile CEHs deal Vilh business ickas fro1n any
individual or group thty do not specifically target dis1dv~11111gcd groups vhich are
1hc focus of P111nersh1ps lFAl)ER acliitics ire dirtctcd IOVllcls the loc1J
18
-------
I
Coorclination ojmiddot Acliuitiltgts
Table 31 Objectives
Objectives CEBs Partnerships LEADER
Fogtster development by Area planning Jc1b creation
Business supports Arumatton
C1)unter serious economic and social problems by Aisisting long-term unemployed 1n10 jobs Promoting adult educationtraining Aisisting community development Ericouraging provision of child support Integrate supports at local level
0
Table 32 Clients
Nature of Clients
Pcmiddotpulation coverage
G(bullograph1c coverage
Small Enterprises
Adult Learners
Joigt Seekers incl LongshyTelm Unemployed (LTU)
Ccmmunity Groups
Lone parents
Trc1vellers
Pe)ple with d1sabil1ties
Dirndvantaged youth
i==
CEBs Partnerships LEADER
100 61
100 Includes 13 complete counties and several
other disadvantaged areas
Almost complete in rural areas
(excludes part of cities of Dublin Cork Galway Limerick Waterford)
Note o denotes thor one Local Development body has chosen to pursue this objective
a This relates to designated areas covered by Area-Based Partnerships Soures Tables 3 1 amp 32 These tables were derived from the Operational Programme for LEADER
OPLURO and interviews with managers of Local Development bodies
19
lr1ca )e1eh11111e111 11i1iati1es
Table 33 Main development activities
Activity CEBs Partnerships LEADER
Draft development plans v v v Assess local plans 0 v v Carry out surveys of enterprises v v 0
Provide finance to enterprises v v v Provide advice to enterprises v v v Assist enterprises to access
consultancy support v 0 v Organisefund mentors for enterprises v v v Fund management development v Organisefund marketing initiatives v v Promote enterprise via meetings etc v v v Produce enterprise
brochuresbusiness guides v v v Promote enterprise 1n schools via
competitions training etc v v v Fund prov1s1on of tourism facilities v v Fund road signage Tidy towns v Fund artscultural festivals v v
Table 34 Main activities concerned with countering serious economic and social problems
Activity
Counsel long-term unemployed (lTU)
Carry out skills audit of LTUs
Establish network of L TUs
Organise fund education or
training courses Fund provision of education centres
Fund construction refurbishment
equipment of community resource
or activity centres Fund estate improvement
Fund communityyouth workers
Organise fund community fora
or networks Organise fund homework clubs
Fund youth act1vit1es
Fund play groups creches
CEBs Partnerships
v v v
LEADER
v v
v v
0
Note 0 denotes that not afl Local Development bodies have chosen to undertake these activities
Sources Tables 3_3 amp 34 These tables were derived from the Operational Programme for LEADER OPLURD and interviews with managers of Local Development bodies
20
Coor(i nation ojmiddot11 c I tu it ies
co111nunity in genertl ind local project pron1ottri lhile people vho tr( Slvcrely
socially or ((Cll)Olllically deprived IllJY r1r1iciplle in lEAl)l-f lllivitilS LEAl)EI his
no nmiddot1nit 1n spccifically targlting lhlSl groups In nine c1-es lEAlgtER ancl
P1dncrship Strviccs an dtbulllimiddotlncl by llHmiddot s11ne loc1I group
3~ LEAl)ER Jnd P111r1trships ltivc exten-iiC hut not co111plc1e popult11un
colrttge Jgt111nerships ind 1l)ivl-funcled con1nu1nity groups coVlI 1111ny of 1hc n1ure
conclmiddotn1r11ecl trltls of dis1dvin11ge l)lllt to lhe ficl 1h11 social dis1clvanragc is
spali11ly clis1rilH1ttmiddotd son1ltmiddot 1nmiddot1s of till cuuntry Vh(r( clis1dv1r111ge ex1sts arc nor
cobullbulltmiddotnmiddotd by P1rlnltrships or l)imiddotl-h1nded con1n1uni1v groups
A1tivities
39 It c111 igte gteen fro111 middotro1ble Jl 1hll 1hcre ecrraquoive duplicnion of
de1c]op111e11t tctivities 1crois 1he bodies Vith 1hnost tll of the 1c1ivitics lgteing
llndertlken by JI Je1-t tVO type~ of hodJtS [n inlLfilS Vith ht lllJntgtrs or the
Local l)evelorn1tnl bodies ii middotas indicated 1h~H Vhile thcv are lVtre of this
overl1p they rel~ on co-ordination n1ech1nis111s to ensure that re-ource- are nnl
Vl ~teeI
310 It c111 igte gtltmiddoten fro111 Table 34 1ha1 so111e overlip exisis lielween IEADER
gnurs ind P1nnerships Vith respec1 [o countering serious econo1nic ind soci1l
prcmiddotblv111- middotrills can irislt through i111pnmiddotc1stmiddot defini1ion ind inlerprtlUiun of the r~1nge
of crviltlS providld J-[oll(L the extenl of overlap 1n countering serious econo111ic
and Slgtcitl rroblcins is n111ch less 1han in 1he case of develor1nent activilies pa1tly because of th( 11rgct1ng of -plcific client groups hy P1rtnerships (the long-tenn
uncn1ployed ind the soc111ly ecludedJ
311 It should be no1ecl th~1t 1111ny other agencies or groups outside the scope of
1he exa1nin~nirln are ilso 1ctive II local level For cx1111pllt the Hosco111111on (JmiddotB
1ction Pl111 1997 - 1999 conttins a 111trrix uf dtmiddotvehgtp111ent agltncies incI servicis
pre vided in Coun(y Hosco111111on lhis i- shnmiddotn in ppendix E
F1J1nding of Projects
3 12 Situations can occur vhere pro111oters can 111axilnist thl funding they receive
b~middot applying for surport froo1 cJillenlll groups
W1hlre arc Poor 011s(hcd~ 711c Spali(I )11rih11lPll () r11e11r a11d DeJ11r11011 111 rlrt11d Urito1 1oa11 cl (J C0111ha1Ponrty1l~ltJ1C) 19lt)8
21
ocal Jeveloj1111c111 lniJ1atiUltS middot----- shy
Case Study 2
Subsidy shopping
A promoter had a turnover of pound80000 from an equestrian centre and language school In addition he was a farmer his spouse was a teacher and he had net assets of almost pound05 m1ll1on He wished to develop the equestrian centre and language school and provide accommodation on site for language students he applied to a CEB for financial assistance The estimated cost of the project was as follows
pound Accommodation costs 20000 Classrooms 10000 Indoor arena 22000 Outdoor arena 15000 Tennis court 10000
Total 77000
The CEB considered that financial support would be appropriate for certain nonshyaccommodationmiddot aspects of the project This comprised classrooms indoor arena and outdoor arena costing pound47000 and a grant of pound20000 was approved in May 1996 The Board considered that the promoter should fund all of the accommodation aspects (The Board had a policy of not assisting the provision of accommodation because this is a response to rather than a generator of demand)
In September 1996 the promoter applied to a LEADER group for a grant According to the grant application form the accommodation cost had risen to pound85000 (as against pound20000 in the CEB application) The LEADER group was aware of the financial support already provided by the CEB and the reasons why this level of support was given The LEADER Board approved a grant of pound17000 being 20 of the cost of the accommodation The project promoter was also approved for a marketing grant from LEADER of pound2750
Total capital grants approved for the project (pound37000) amounted to 26 of pro1ected capital expenditure (pound142000)
313 It has been po1n1ccl 011t (by Entlrpnse Trnclc ind Employment ind Tourism
Sport ~ind HecreJtion) 1hat this ct~e srudy gives little risemiddot fur concern 1~ the funcling
vas clinctecl tOv1rds different ele1nent of the projecr l-loCVer the fnlloving
efficiency difficulc1cs arise
bull aclcluionil middotsearchmiddot costs for cl1cnts who mikc mul11ple applicu1ons for ~1-isistance
bull ~1dditiontl tin1e ~pent by n1en1bers of Bo1rd incl evtluuion co1n1ni1tees and adn1inistrJrivc cosrs in Loc1I l)evelnpn1ent bodies
bull thC first Local Devdopment body to approve finannJI assisuncl cannot adopt a middotrotlJ project vieV bCClttUSe it is 110t lV1fe Vhether subsequent tJ1plicati011S ill be 1n1cle for assist1nce to other Local Developn1ent bodies
22
COorcination of Actiuitics
C1gt-ordination
314 As part of their an11nat1011 and co111111unity development 1ctivitits all of the
bol1es part1culirlv LFADER groups and P1rtnersl11ps look for opportunities to
1ni iale and co-orclina1e acrivilies vhich 111iy be underlaken by a vide variety of
st1tutory rnmmun11y and voluntary groups Tlus work usually Licilitates the
provision of econo111ic and social benefits to the co111n1un1ty Typical exunples 1re
bull Organising nevorks of lone parenis
bull Pro1nnting tidy tovns
bull Organising second chancC cducuicgtn
Vihin Local Development hodics therLmiddot is often tc11sion between the priorny to be
given to their co-ordination role ver~us the direct delivery of services including
grants
315 Co-ordination frequently involves the co-operation of several different
organisations at different levels (StHc local government communitvvoluntary
se(tor and business) to ~chicve a con1111on objective middotrhrough their co-ordinarion
roli~ the bodies n1ay harness rhc porcntial of several organisarions to achieve an end1 which would not otherwise be achieved This role has been cited is contnbutmg to
the unique role of the Joell development bod1Lmiddots A good LXimple of this mshyore ination i~ set out in Case Study 3
316 The multiple funding ol this anglmg pro1ect is substint1ally differtnl from the
multiple funding shown 1n Case Study 2 In Cie Stuclv 3 thlt contributions of the
vanous bodies were agreed as part of an integrated plan
317 The co-existence of three significant types of boches (and the inherent
cluphcarion shovn in 1he previous section) places a particular onus on 111anagc111tmiddotn1
of the organisations oH both national and lcxal levels to co-ordintte service provision
Fig1re 32 illustrates for each of the bodiltS the dilftmiddotrcnt co-ordinarion structures in
phe
23
loco l Jc1eofgt11HJ 11 I11 ii iu I ioes
Case Study 3
Co-ordination of a tourism angling project
A LEADER group in an inland county sponsored a study of the tourism development
potential of the county Although the county had weak tourism infrastructure and
practically no angling facilities the study identified several tourism sub-sectors that
could be developed including angling
An initiative was undertaken by the LEADER group to co-ordinate the development of
angling in partnership with fourteen other bodies including Fisheries Boards ESB
Coillte Duchas Bord na M6na and several community development organisations and
angling groups The initiative consists of
bull the upgrading of eight lakes most of which are owned by State agencies and many
of which were overgrown or silted
bull construction of stiles paths etc and restocking the lakes with fish
bull grant support for accommodation providers in the lakes area
The total cost of the project was estimated at around pound05 million Some of these costs are borne by LEADER but most are borne by State agencies and the Tourism
Operational Programme 1994-1999
The LEADER group is involved with other organisations in marketing angling facilities
and the provision of training for the ongoing management of the lakes
Co-ordination at Local Level
318 Cot1n1y Strllcgy croups Vere es1hlimiddotmiddotd1ed in LICh cnu111y under OPLUl~J) O
L1ci[i[Je co-orclin11ion ~ind 111inin1isc cluplic1tinn in lie delivery of progrin1111es
middotrhe Groups provide i forun1 for forn1d conununicition Vithin etch councy and
hctCt11 counties incl cenlrtl policy 111akers_ vlen1lxrship of the Groups includes
the Chlt1irpersn11s of CEl~s Ptr1nerships ind lEAl)EH groups County middotrouri111
Con1n1i1tees Coun1y f11n1~ers incI represen111ives fron1 middotrourisn1 Spon and
Recnation
319 middotrhe cu-ordinttion of services 10 cliencs depends very heavily on cruss-1gtncy
rcpresenltlion incl illendance at 111cetings middotralgtle ~5 shovs 1ypictl Board
repre~enc11ion
24
Coo1middotrh11atio11 o lctiuillcs
Fi1ure 32 Monitoring and Coordination
InterdepartmentalOPLURD OPLEADER Evaluation Polley Committee Evaluation
_l Department of Department of
Enterprise Trade Tourism Sport and Employment and Recreation
ADM Ltd
Partnership Boards
County Strategy Groups
1~BBoards ------shy
Department of Agriculture and Food
LEADER Group Boards
Table 35 Typical Board representation
S~bullctor Represented CEBs LEADER Partnerships
Lcmiddotcal authority members almost complete
Statutory bodies Ernployers I Trade Unions I Farmers Community I Voluntary sector
SouCe Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General
25
ocu )e1Alop111e111 11ifi(lf1ccs
320 CEils ire represented on most IEADER groups incl many Pa11ncrsh1ps
Hovever 1n~1ny lEAl)ER groups and P~111nerships ire not represented on CEBs In
so111e bu1 not all cises vhere cross-board represenlation i lacking there is crossshy
agencymiddot rtpn=sentllion at sub-boird level instead such as evilullion co1n111iuees for
protects_ In nine c1s(s vhere then~ are con1n1on boundaries the san1e Board
1clm1nis1ers both a LEADER group incl Partnership In ciscs where there ire not
m11ch1ng bounclirics 11 1s usud for LEADER groups incl lu1ncrships to have
C01111ll011 UO~trd repreSCl1tatives
321 Agriculture incl Food require all lEADEH groups to specify how they intend
to co-ordinate their activiies Vith other bodies before agree111en1s 10 i111plen1en1 a
LEADER progr1111me are completed Each tgreement includes t clause to this effect
and dso requires IEADER groups to part1n1x11e in Coun1y Strategy Groups
322 The view of the Local Development bodies is 1h11 loctl knowledge is of
piran1oun1 in1po111nce for co-orclina1ing their ~1ctiviries Use is n1aclc of infonntl
contacts 10 ensure tha1 each organisHion is tvarc of Vhat others artgt doing middotrhere
is often no formal 1gree111ent berween Local Devclop111ent bodies H local level
regarding 1h~ lin1its betveen objtgtctives acrivities and clients Hovevcr
consideration should be given 10 drlving up a middotfittcn staten1ent Vhich VOtilcl set
out a broad fra111ework of agree111ent between Loctl Dcvelop111ent bodies A good
exmtple from County Meath is shown in Appendix F
323 from the beginning elected pol1ticd representation was absent fro111 IEADER
incl Partnership 13oards Mc111bers of local authonrics are represented on CEl3s but
not is of right on LEADER groups and Partnerships However local aurhonry
officials arc frequentlv on the boards of lEADEH groups incl Partnerships A process
his been undc1way to 1nclucle 111e111bers of local authonties on rhe Boards of
LEADER groups and Partnerships This process is now complete in the cise of
IEADER incl is d111ost rn111plete 1n the cise of Pirtnerships
GeograpJica ampm1ulmJbull ProJlem
324 The co-orclmation of activi11es it locd level is 111ade 111ore difficult by the lack
of coherence the way the boundmes of the Local Develop111ent bodies were
clr~lvn and because of overltpping houndanes vi1h srHucory bodies 1s 1 result
n1any iltx~d l)evclop111ent bodies 1nust liaise vi1h a nun1ber of orher Iocil
l)evelop111ent bodies Jnd srJn1cory organisations_ middotrt1is increases tl1e acln1inistra1ive
burden on Local Develop111ent bodies ancl 1mpecks rhcir ability to offer unifor111
service delive1y in their territorymiddot and to co-ordinate activities of other Local
Develop111ent bodies and Srate igencies
26
Coordi11atio11 Cf Actiuities
se Study 4
Bcbullundary problem in South County Dublin
The boundary of South Dublin CEB covers the same geographical area as that of South De blin County Council and South Dublin Area of Dublin Tourism In this area there are four Partnership companies
Ta laght Partnership wholly located in Dublin South Clondalkin Partnership wholly located in Dublin South KWCD Partnership divided between Dublin South and Dublin City Scuths1de Partnership divided between South Dublin and Dun
LaoghaireRathdown
Al~o the Dublin Rural LEADER Company covers part of South Dublin as well as Dun LagtghaireRathdown and Fingal Council areas The State service providers such as FlgtS Eastern Health Board (EHB) Department of Social Community and Family Affairs (D3CFA) and Enterprise Ireland do not have the same geographical areas as local auhont1es They are split up into regional areas and these regions impinge on South Dublin CEB as follows
FlgtS Dublin SouthWicklow region of FAS contains part of South Dublin while Dublin WesVKildare region of FAS caters for the rest of the South Dublin area
EHB Each of three regional areas of the EHB Dublin South Central South West and West impinge on the area of South Dublin CEB
D~middotCFA Dublin South region of DSCFA contains part of South Dublin and Dublin West region of DSCFA caters for the remainder
Enlerprise Ireland South Dublin 1s totally contained within Enterprise lrelandmiddots region of Dublin and Mid-East
32~i Agricuhure and Food ha~ poinced ou1 rhar coheren1 geogr~1pliical boundaries
would be contrarv to the bottom upmiddotmiddot approach of LEADER The initial EU proposal
for hl fo11hcommg LEADER lnillatilC stales middotmiddot11 would he desirable rhar rbe eligihle
areas do not coi11citle tuith notional acln1ii11strati1e ho111ularies nnr ufth cli_~ihle
zon$ 1111cler the 1nainstrec11n operations(~ the structural jltntlsmiddot
Co-ordination at National Level
32(1 An Interckpartmcntal Policy Committee for Local Delelopment was
estltulishcd m June 1993 under 1he auspices of 1he Department of the Ta01seach and
subequently reconltt1tuted in Ocwber 1997 under Tourism Span and Rccrea11on 1s
funmon is to oversee 111d make recommendations on local delelopment (Appendix
G shovs the conunitteemiddots renns of reference) fhe co1nn1itcee is chaired by the
Minster of State in Tourism Spo11 and Hecreation ind comprises represenwives of
27
loca I )e1eofJ111e11 f In it itlf ftls
i nu111her of Gov1rnn1ent lgtepart1nc11ts middotrhe ro1111ni11ee has contributed policy
n111eriil 10 1he post 2000 s11b1nission on the future of struc1ural funds ind v1s
involved in 1htmiddot develop1nent of 1ht Integrated Services Prnjec1middot
327 middotn1e co111n1i11et sees i1s fu1ure role is one of infon11ing its([f nf dcvclop111ents
cnh1ncing links Vith local develnp1n~n1 orgtnisuions 111d lt1rn1ng les-gtons fron1
piln1ing projet1s including 1htmiddot porenti~tl for n11instrl1n1ing successful projects
328 middotrhlre is a potential role for the con11nittee 10 get involved in soning out the
sys1t111smiddot in1clequ1cics ind to develop 1 strltcgic lttpproich to coun1ering 1he
neg1tive ispcmiddotcts or duplicuion lhc co111111ittee should consider developing 1n
1green1ent concerning the lin1its hitveen tile olgtjec1ives 1ctivities and clients of the
three types of bodies vhilt- laking account of the li111it1tions on the discretionar
nllure of lhe LE1l)EI Jgtrogran1n1c Vhich is an FU Initiative
329 Fruin 1 viluc for 1noney perspective ind bised on the 1buve 1nilysis the
follr)ving i1nprove111~111s ire desirlttble in the short tern1
bull 1hc cs1ablish111ent of coherent geogr1phical buuncL1rics
bull tn incretse in he forinal co-orclinllion of service provision
The Task Force Report on the Integration of Local Government and Local Development Systems
330 t Trsk Force which was esublished lo reporr on 1h~ 1n1egr111on of locd
govern111ent incl locil clevelopn1cn1 sys1en1s reportccl in August 1998 and its
reco111111end~11ions Vtre approved by C1nvern111cnt in Septen1ber 1998 1 middotrhe 11sk
1orce l-gt concerned to ckvclop 1 vision ~ind s1ra1egy vhich Voulcl encon1pass in
in integralecl IY (he oper11ions of loc1I governn1ent ind Local l)evelop1nent
bodies in order 10 significantly incre~1se 1heir effec1iveness
331 Tire Task Force conltrdercd 1111 Iris could besr be achieved 11 1hc counry rncl
cily level The cclllrrl role will be pL1yed by new Coun1y or City Dcvdopmenl
Boards (CDlb) which will be es1ablislred in each ciry incl cou111y locrl authority
The CDBs with memlJerslup drawn from four sltcrors (ie local governmcnl
co111111uni1y ~ind voluntary social partners and Slate agencies opcra1ing at local level)
ill clrnv up an agreed ~ind con1prehensive Coun1y or City Strategy for Econon1ic
Sociil ind Culturtl l)evelopn1cn1 It VtS 1greecl 11i~11 Jgtannerships or LEAl)EH groups
should cllal Vith clis1clvan1aged areis on an 1greecl basis 1nd 1hat con1111unlly
1)( 111ltgr(lc-d Wnncc~ lropU tla egtlabllshtd 011 a pilot btLgtiL ill f)rce111hcr 1998 ill 011r sltmiddotnmiddoto11S~) ltliltult(l11fa~1middotd arltbullas_ (JbjeLliltmiddot 1s 10 cr1-ordi11flle tbtbull i11p111 ofall S1a1C senlicegt
28
Coorrli11atio11 o Jcmiddotti111 ie------------------------------~---
developinent and -ciciJI incl11sion 111c1sl1re tho11lcl vl1ertmiddot possibll bl cleliVlrld bymiddot
gra~sroots bodies Further nmiddotcon1n1endatinns of the middotr1sk rorcc include
bull (Jl(lprise support func11un lo htbull vered in 1he CFBs Vith rrovision for the
involvement of other Local Dcvdoprncnt bodies such as LEADEH by ~1grec111ent
bull fu11ctional arl1- to coincidemiddot Villi co11n1y or city IHHJndaries or_ t[ sub-county
kmiddotvtmiddotL local elector~il ~treas
bull ~1 si11gle igency to bl nmiddotspt1nsihll for con1n11111i1y dlvclop1nlnl at suh-cuun1y
lclI (either the local tuthoritymiddots Arca Con1111ittee or in clc-ign1tecl
clisadv~1nt1ged 1rc1s groups -gtuch ts P111ntmiddotrJ1ips or LEAJ)ER groups)
I bull any future loctl ckv(loptntmiddotnt groups slloulltl have cou11ty or city councillors on
[heir Boards
An interdc1x1rtn1en1al i111ple1nent~1tio11 group h~ts hLcn fonncd to oversee thl in1plcnltmiddotn111ion of 1l1c middotr~1sk ilnce reco111111endarions
29
4 Operational Efficiency
41 This chapter considers the operational efficiency of the groups Operational
efficiency is concerned Vilh 111aking the best use of 1hc resources provided to
111axin1ise the ltmiddotvel of outputs achieved
42 middotrhe issues and evtluHion criteria arc
Issues Evaluation criteria
Targets and performance Quantification of targets bull Use of baseline data bull Achievement and review bull
Resource allocation and outturn Targets and outturns bull Allocation of resources to Localbull Development bodies
bull Grant cost per job
bull Cost of non-grant outputs
Deadweight and displacement Information on extent bull Effective procedures bull
Targets and Performance
43 OlLUHD contained a number of output md ac[Jv1ty t1rgets to IJe achieved
over the priod 199 middot 1999 A report issued in 1994 crnicised some of the tJrgets
in that they did not refer to previous performance In the absence of this middotbaseline
perform1nce cl11a it is not posstble to know how realistic or demanding these targets
are Extmples of the lick of baseline cl11a include information on new 1obs and new
businesses middotrhc report ilso ronsiclend 1ha1 oilier 11rgets Vere coo n1odcst in relation
10 hat v1s knovn lttbou1 perforn1ancc such as chc tirget for ncv businesses suppo11ed by P1rrnership vith reference to the perforn1ance undltr the original
PESP Partnerships
44 lhe n1ain OPLLRI) targt~ts and 1chievc111cncs against the targets are fhOvn in
Table 41 Most of the original targets were excccdccl bv 1998 rrnny by a wide
margin The only target that w1s quantified in th~ Operational lrogrunme for
LEDER as the creation of obs wluch was set H 4000 over the life of the
Programme Up to encl 1998 an overall job creation figure of 2700 (fulhime job
equivalents) was reponecl
45 Folloving the reco111n1endarions conrainecl in the 1nid-ten11 reviev revised
performance indicators and raised targets were adopted by the OPLURD Monitoring
Ex-a11( Appaiitil of Proposed local Dcmiddotvelop111e111 Progran1me pn1x1rltbulld on bfhalf of DC X11 ~)the SeflJices 11d11ilnltS Research Centrt liCD F11zpa1ncJ Associates a11d Kiert111 lcKeo1m1 lld Febn1ary 1994
30
Tatle 41 OPLURD targets to end-1999 and achievements to end-1998
-
Target
Now JObs
Nt~w businesses
Progression of unemployed to -full-lime jobs -part-time jobs
Number of adults asgtisted to access education
NL mber of children attending preventative education services
Existing businesses su Jported
Cl sterner contacts
=
CEBs
Original Targets
8000
2260
280 pa
20000 pa
Achievements
15500
3 110
2500 (1996-1998)
8700a (1998)
Partnerships
Original
Targets
6900
3640
12500 1500
60000
20400
30000 pa
Achievements
12800
12800
11400 2900
18500
35000
na
Note 8 Only contacts which fed to a provision of a service by the Boards to a client were recorded
Soure OPL URO and annual roports
cn111111i11ee in i-lay 1999 (ee ppendi ))_ middotrhcsc l~1rg~ts appear to he 111ore re~iliitic
having regard to perfonnance in the early ye~1rs of the Progra1nn1e
146 in the cise of ihDlH the mid-term rtmiddotnew notd that the 01 ind1cuors
_cured highly on relevance 1-lovever n1any ut the indicators verc so vague 1ha1
111caningful qu111tificlt1tion vould htmiddot aln1osr 1n1rx1ssible -rhlt reviev concluded that
the pcrforn1ance indicators dieI 1101 provide J sufficiently cltar basis on vhich groups
could debullelop con1n1on indicuor systen1s_ lhe nvit~V proposed a sys1en1 of
ptrf1nnance indicators flt1r discussiltgtn 11ncnchnent incI i111plen1en1a1ion imiddot11e
LEA)ER Morntonng Commince clccidccl that each LEADER group should prepare
i rt~middoti~t~cl t1rgtIS in respect of he indicators proposed in lhlt n1icl-1enn nviev (see
pptmiddotnclix E)_ Nu revised nationil targtli Vtrt agreed by the fmiddot1nnitorin_g Co1n1nittcc
or griculture Jnc1 Food
l
ocal JercoJ11rent 11itulfiteshy
Table 42 Expenditure targets 1994-1999 and outturns 1994-1998
Initiative OP Forecastbull
1994-1999
Revised
Forecast 1994-1999
Latest Forecastc
1994-1999
Outturn 1994-1998
poundm poundm poundm poundm CEBs 818 811 808 620d Partnerships 1047 1036 1083 706e
LEADER Groups 772 947 947 388
Notes a Updated for exchange rate changes and inflation as of May 1999 b Revised forecast is lhBI which has been most recently approved by the Monitonng
Committee ft refers only to expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds c Latest forecast is the most recent estimate by the relevant department of the most
likely outcome It refers only to expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds d Outturn only includes expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds (pound620ni)
Expenditure not co-financed by EU structural funds an1ounted to pound36 1m e Ourtum only includes expendifure co-financed by EU structural funds (pound706m)
Expenditure not co-financed by EU structural funds amount9d ro pound05m Source OPLURD LEADER OP annual reports
Resource Allocation and Outturn
47 Public e-pendi1ure 11rgets ind ou11urns ire shovn in middotrable 42
48 Fro111 the beginning it V1s the viev of Enterprise middotrr~1dL incl En1ployn1tnl thit
there IVlI nut sulliuenc EU funds under 011UHI) 10 support 1lte desired kbullel oldeg
t-pctHliturc by CE13s over 1he life of the Prngrunrnc_ ccorclingly CEB exrenditun
wis in ecess of the level co-finrnred by Ill funds rnd the b1l111n of U6 J million
wis provided bv the hclwquer It is ciltrr 1h11 EU funds rvrilrble for CElh under
011UIU) wrll be fully u11lised bv the encl of 1he lrogrrmme
49 A~ n1ost P1nntrships h1cl to go through J lcng1hy pnxtss of es11hlish1ncn1
incl planning in 19ltJ5 ind 1996 their cxpendiltirc Vas slov in rhuse ye~1rs tlovtver
expenditure 1ccclcr1Ctcl in 1997 and 1998 middotruurisn1 Spo11 ind Hecrellion and 1)11
expecc chH over the full progranllne period c-pencli1urc 1argc1s viii be n1et
410 E-pencli1u1-c under LE1J)fH Vts suhst1nti11ly Ix-In ttrget for rhc pcriocl
1995-1998 A fu11hcr sum of J18 million wrs rllocued to lEDEH liv the EU
Co111n1ission in 1996 fro111 an EU re-erve avai11hle for (on1111unity initiatives In order
to reach lht revised forec~1st expendi1ure in 1999 Voukl h1vc to be 1non 1han lVO
111cl 1 hilf ti111cs lite expenditure of 998 tmiddotlovever griculturc incl Food lXPLCls
1h1t ill alloc1tecl funds viii be spent by the encl of tiltmiddot Progr1n11nemiddot
11ltcor(111g trJ the 11AIJlR ()~ lt11 eliJihle ltpc11di111nmiddot 111ust lgtc co111tlffltlf 1~1 middot JtA f)IJ~ gn111h l~r tbc (IU
of fJrl-1 111Jc_bullr 15J-JY 11Ji~e 111r1111middot1 s 11111sf he Hiid rJ11f I~) llAJ)f( grrgtllJS lxfurc )l_1111c 2000
j2
( ))(rct f iu 11cf fi-c iei Ilt)middot-- middot---------------- shy
A1ocation of Resources to Local Development Bodies
411 Fnlerprise middotrr1clc and E1nployn1en1 inittdly alloctttmiddotd resources equdly to each
CEit middotrhc l)ltp1rtn1ent suhscquently 111nved to 1 1nore dtmiddotn11nd Jtmiddotd 1ppr()~1ch
h1nmiddothy allocations VeHild lgtt varied depending on 1hc relative llctmiddotds uf each aret
Ille c~1p1city of e1ch art lo successfully utilise eriterprimiddotbulle supports ind to crelle jobs
i ind the qud1ty nf thtmiddot cmiddotnterpnstmiddot pL1ns prepared hv each CEB
41 Al)middott placed 1dvcnistmiddot1nents in nevsptpers i11vi1i11g cnn1n1t1ni1y groups
(ou side Ille designated JrLIS of dis1dvintJgt being IUl)kcd Jfter hv Area-Based
P1nncrships) incl relevant n11ion1 organisations to ~11gt11ly for ()JgtLUHI) funding 33
con1n1unity groups ind 15 nitiontl urganisuion Vere sekCtld by t()1I for funding
41 middotrhe allocation of resources to Pirrnvrships hy Al)1l v~1s hiscd on cltt1ilcd
1nIlysis of the socioeconn1uic ch1ractlris1ic- of eJch tre~1 highliglning various
aSf)lt_cts of dtpriv11ion drlVll fro111 tlie 1991 ltensus of Population ()tiler rclcv1nt
v1riihlcs inclt1cll~d the qu~ditv of the pL111 tlttmiddot c1p1ci1y of htmiddot l1rtncrsliip ind the
1v1l1bility-of orher clevelop111ent resources to 1hc lrll such as IE1l)l-J or LiHB1N
4lbulli 1chmiddoter1istmiddot1nents Vere pL1cecl in 11Lmiddotvsp1rtmiddotrs innouncing lhe LEtl)lR lni1i1tivl
and inviting applicnions 1middot1ic~e VCrc assesstmiddotd by 1gricuhure and 1~nod Vith the
1ssi-bull1ance of an incltpcndenl consul11nt to es1ahlish tile txtent to vhich they 111lt~1 iii~
key ftatures of LEl)FH lhtmiddot rltsourctS middotere tllocatcd h~1ving regard to the quality
of the hu iness pl1n subniilllltL 1he population ind cl(gree of rurility of the 1rea and
the ~1vailalgtility of othtr sourcts uf ~lss1st1ncc fn1 Joctl ltkmiddotclop1ncn1 3i loc~d group-
Ver~ sclecled ind 2 SLctoral groups
Grint Cost per Job
4l~i middotr1iere arc specific f1c1ors vhich lin1i1 the usefulness of htmiddot gr1n1 cost per job
incli ~-tlnr in the con1cx1 of lltx11 devclop111cnt middotrhese include
bull (rear d1versil in the ni1urc of the 1ohs cre1ted ind 1he 111ethod of cc)un1ing
I hl111
bull No direct con1p1nson hetveen the VOrk invoVtltI in supporting job cna1ion 11
local level VIiii nationtl joll crcition agtncics
bull middotrile us1ain1bility of jobs 1n1y d1fft r frn111 11in-e crc1tltd by nuional igtncics
bull middotril(middot focu- un job cre1tinn iritmiddot vithin the three 1ypes nf lllt1clic
local Jevelopn1e11r fllifiariues
416 For CEils the number of jobs created is used is a performance meisure The
average gr1n1 cost per job creared vtriecl over the pericxJ under reviev as follovsn
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Number of jobs created 1958 3174 3589 3317 3487
Grant cost per 1ob created pound2535 pound4249 pound3763 pound3884 pound4206
The v1ri11ions from year 10 year miy be panly explained hv the fact 1h11 sometimes
1here is 1 riine t1g hetveen the gn111t expenditure ind 1he creition of thi relevant
jobs Over the period 1994middot97 the average grant cost per 1ob was Aj725 with the
lowest CEil be111g S2269 (Tipperary North) and the highest being gtfi683 (Leitrim)
Cost of Non-Grant Outputs
417 In add111011 to grmt aiding job crcll1011 md adminis1r11ion all of the bodies
~Ire involved in non-granr activities including
CEils
bull Producing enrcrprise plans and generJlly pro1noting in enterprise culurc
bull Busines~ infonnttion 1clvice counselling incl 1nentoring
bull ~ltn1gc111ent devetopn1en1 rraining
lartnersl1ips
bull Enterprise cre11ion and ckvelopment
bull Environ1nent ind infrtstrucrure projects
bull Provision of services to the unen1ployecl
bull Con1n1unity clevelop1ncnt
bull Co1nple1nentary ~incl prevcnt11ive educarion
LEADER groups bull tni1nation 1crivit1es
bull middot1-icl1nical assis11nce
Expenditure on these 1ctiv1tic~ is shovn in middot1middot1blL lt3
418 11blc 43 shovs the v1rying ex1cnt 10 vhich the clitlerenl locil l)cvelop111ent
lxgtdics trt involved in non-gr1n1 ou1pu1s_ Thlt CEB ind LEl)EH groups focus on
gr1nt is grtmiddotarcr th1n Panncrships vho focus on non-gr1nt activi1ies imiddothis is
cons1s1ltnt with tlic list of 1ctiv1ties 111 Tible 34
- 71Jt 111tmeratfJr is l1n11t~ paid 111 the cale11dt1r HCff 01u the de11011111uur1r 1~middot the lllfJloy111e11t ~ai11 Cllthic~( (1er IIitbull yor i11 the jln11middot 11111J rcce11ed jiTu111c1td uufuitl Jimiddotom (Lfgtsmiddot 11 1Jf1bull rbut
empluymc111flt_-e1middot1111h1middots1middotjir11r_ are 1g11ored
31
()fJert-111u1uil Fj)lcicJJ(l --middotmiddot-middotmiddot---------- shy
Table 43 Expenditure on non-grant outputs 1996 - 1997
1996 1997 1996 1997 poundm poundm of total of total
expenditure expenditure
CEBs 39 54 18 24 Pyentnershipsbull 51 136 56 72 LEADER groups 21 34 40 30
folal 11 1 224 31 42
Not~ a 7he figures oxclude Community Groups and selected National Organisations b Excludes selected sectoral groups
Sotrce Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller iJnd Auditor General see Appendix A
Duadweight and Displacement
419 l)ct(lveight refers to situation Vhcre 1 pro1nocer vould undertake 1he
buiness projtmiddotct in 111y evcn1 i_e_ Vitliotll 1 gr1nc or 1sistince fron1 ~1 Iocil
l)e-elorn1en1 body middot1l1e granting of funltls 10 dealthveiglH projects is an ineffic1tgtnt
and ineflec1ivt alloc11ion of resources Disrlacen1tmiddotn1 refers ro situations vhere 1he
golt1cL or ~ervicvs iOlcl by 1 grlttlllltISiiSled rroll10ler divert sales opporlunitiis fro111
other exisling busincssl-gt E111plor111ent c1n hl sin1iL1rlv divlrtecl In chese cases rhe
in1pac1 of thl funds allocHed is achieved at the exptmiddotnsc of other enterprises
420 Tltere is risk of deidweight and c1splacemcnt in Iii gr1nr ictlmiddotUv including
th11 It lltgtcal clevelopn1en1 level A nccnc study stated th~1t 1 ~
ie bate tao concerns uifb the s11ppo11s Or n1icro e111e1JJrse Jbe Jruhlen1 uf
clacue1ibt a11cl clisplaccbull111e11t is e11clc111ic in such Slf)jJ01ts eJHCial~v 1ohlre
sc1cral agencie ure to su1ne clerrecbull inuolultcl in tlishursing such suJfgtorts
The Operational llogrammls for 11--DEH 111d 011lJHD llotlt su1e thll dc1clwe1ght
1ncl clisplact1nent are to Ixmiddot 1voiclld
421 All cn1crprise project Lill into one of 1he folloving fo111 clllgorics
Deadweighl Yes Deadweight No
Displacement No Displacement No
Deadweighl Yes Deadweight No
DisplacementbullYes Displacement Yes
Vlt1tio11al 11ici11nbull11i P11onlies for the xbullnfJd 1000-JrxJG Fitzgltbullrald cmiddott al Fn11omic ond )o(middotial Reearch 1i111u1rmiddot -Hor(h 19Y)
ocu )etelo111u11 t 11 it it1 I ives
Of 1he four possible scenarios onlv one (wi1h no displaccmeni incl no cleaclweigh1)
yields potcn1iil net increises in outpu1 incon1e en1ploy111cnr and consu1nption 1hat
could Ix 111nbu1ible 10 l[ADEH or 011Ul(l) supporl From vil11e for lllClllC)
perspective ii is in1ponant tha1 1hcrc be good infonnation on the extent of
cle1clwe1gl11 and dispLicemem and dfcc1ive prcxeclures 10 deal wi1h 1hem
Deadweight
422 11 is cl1fficuli 10 111eas11re the ex1ent of clcaclweigh1 and no method c1n Ix
rcmicro1rded is provicling tn1~illy rcliallle es1in1~1les [)eichveight Vts exa111ined in the
111idmiddotltnn reviev of OJgtLUHIJ in rcspcct uf fin~1nci1l ~1ssistu1ct givtn 10 s1nall finns
by CEl3s Fron1 a s11nple of finns ~untycd over 40dego of thC pron101ltrs indic1ted thll
they would hivc es11blished the businesses w11hou1 CUl suppo11 A s111cly of micro
enterprises 1h1t fl~Ceivtcl grants under Local )evelop1nent initiitivcs 1nd other
progr11n1111s rcpo11ed deichveight of 45Yi
423 E111erpnse Tricle and F111ploy111en1 has irgued 1h11 1hese estim11cs of
ceJdeiglu are roo high ccorcling tu thl l)erart111e11t the viCS of proinoter~ irt
nor 1 reli1ble guide to cil11er lheir behiviuur or heir SllCLt-S lhe l)cp1nn1ltnt ~1-serts
1hll di CEBs seek 10 ivoicl cleiclwcigh1 However i1 J11s been no1ccl 1h11
rcsrondentsmiddot confidence rcgtrding their abil11y to sta11 i busines in the 1bsence of
i grant c111 he considered 1s 1n underesli111~1le
424 A siucly f 1hc Arca Allowincc Fn1erprise Scheme (AAES) which is
adniinisterecl by P1rrnerships suneyecl a sa111ple of pa111cip1nr- 1 11 Vts concludedbull
thit cleachveigl11 Vas in 1he range 40-50o_ Even alkJving for s1111pling risks the
thnt surbulley-gt t1ke11 1oge1her suggest thlt there is 1 consiclerihlt incidence of
cittciVCight
425 An cximrle of poten1iil cleiclweiglll involving IEADER funding is se1 ou1 in
Cise Study 5
11of11at1011 (~ 1liClO 111tt1pn4 S11pxn3 lcrni 1ltllicn10 d local fgtcbull1ymiddotfop1111bull11t Agc11c1e 11d11try 11a11atirJ11 11111 1111~11-t 1999- lluro (llfe1p11lt- that rcCcbulluetl prro11s fr(J11 1111e17nisc flflt11u_ (danis 1u1 Crrlllachf( t111d Sht11111rJ1t )c1elop111e1111tmiddotc1v111c1uld i111lw arl(hiiS
Set fj lJiAJhk 111iutitlt hmiddot1a11af11J1 r11ul llttmiddot(middotr1111111middot11rlatiu11 lcmiddotontcmiddotv CI ul 1)95
Stjl111plortd a11d tlw 011g (bulln11 l11e111plr~rrmiddotd A11 1al11alio11 (J 11w tlnf1 t1101ra11cc f11terprit Xhe11tc IFNC Co11s1il1a111s J-)7
-1)1 cr11bullrde1middot 1ba11hc prop()r1p11middotuncncl 11IFJ _-lated b(l biy 11011d hatcmiddot 1atmiddotc11 up c111plrJy1111J1rJbull1jshy1middot111101111i1 ~ 111J (J nmiddotfia1c n1lt1ict1orji1r thost 1141u M1ild (UT nLltrfllll dn11( 11 t1) ht1 01)11cd that IJc lllU(rillllf (CtlN n1t1middotJrom l(lllJtiy1111Jl ~r I 1r11gmiddotttrlll llt1fJIO)td 24Ci Ill tbc iRC middot111(~1) 11Yfdd he c1 lgttbulluer t-li11(lft ofdct1tl11eipIJ1 fur AAlS paiticipd11t tha11 the tfiJJlltlllgt q11ofcfl i 1 1ha1 suufbull_ Nou~middotzybullr_ lh1bull s11u~v J(jiJfld (fl that lbulle cht1roocns1il~ vf Amiddot115 KJrticipa11t (tmiddotducatio11 and dt1r(lI011 of 1111c111p()y111cmiddot11t) were lkl(rmiddotmiddot tba11 for thl frn~~-1en11 111u111ploycd uho dul 11ol fx1rtic1xflcgt II Atf)
y
Of)(rotional IJfcicbullnc-)-
ase Study 5
Potential deadweight situation
lr1 1999 a business person 1n a large provincial town decided to provide a bed and bmiddoteakfast establishment in a spacious house that she owned in the centre of the town She decided to focus on the upper end I business market and provide four en-suite rcbulloms She received assurances from several local businesses that they would be willing to refer clients to her Two local hotels also indicated that they would refer cverflow customers
Tie total investment required to refurbish the property fit out and supply furniture crockery and bed linen was esl1maled al pound88000 Loan approval was obtained from the bmk for renovations and the promoter applied to the local LEADER group for a grant
T 1e LEADER group estimated that pound44000 of the proposed expenditure would be
eligible for grant assistance and a grant of pound13000 was approved for the venture
T 1e pro1ect report prepared for the LEADER Board meeting did not include consideration of the possibility lhat the pro1ect might proceed without a grant In that regard the following faclors would have been relevant
bull the premises was located 1n the centre of a busy growing town bull the premises was owned by the promoter bull the owner was self-employed and operated a consultancy service from home bull based on 35 occupancy net cash now in lhe first year was forecast at pound8000 bull if no grant had been paid and the funds had been borrowed instead the estimated
surplus for the year would have been reduced by an increased interest charge of up to pound1300 which would not have substantially changed the potential Viability of
the business venture
426 Posible Vtys of 111i11i1111sing dlHhveigh1 in assisted projects include
bull Targeting financial abullsistancc on projects where the costs of entry to the business arc high relative to the resources available to the promoter So111e pro111nltIS have ve111 li1ni1cd financial resources for fxa111ple 1he vast
n1Jjori1r of Ptrtntrship l lien1s ~ire long-tenn unc1nploycd It is Vorth noting
thtt evtn Vhlt 1dequa1e privite resoune- are lmiddotaiL1hle it 1nty bt difficult
for so1ne Jlt)cal f)evelop1nent bodit~ given their job creation target~ 10 1urn
clumiddotll involve1nent in othlmiddotrvisl sound projects Indeed 1he viev Vts
tprcssed hy 0111e of thosL in1ervitmiddotvecl in the courst of the study 1h~ll fi11111cial
Sllppo11 for CJigihJt projects is often vieVCd hy prOtllltllers ~IS an cntiJe1ll(fl( and
this can 111akl it difficult for Loctl l)tvLlopn1en( ])(xlies to nfusc financial
1ssist1nce (() deathve1gh1 rru1ect
37
(JC( )Ct(()JHUJl 11itiati1es
bull Providing financial assistance by means of repayable grants loans or equity mthcr than non-repayable cash grants middotrhis should discourige reli1ncc on public funds by those entrepreneurs vho
do not need ii Vhiltgt ensuring that entrepnmiddotnctllS vho do need public finance
can alail of it Tltlte m1cl-tcrm evtluil1on of 011UIU) recommenclecl the
incre1sed llSC of loans and l(jUity rlttther thtfl grtf)i reron 1ly tile lndUSll)
Evtlua1ion Uni ncon11ncndccl thll all financial 1ssi-11nce provided uncler 1he
1egis of lEADEH ancl CEils should require 1 fm1neid return From earlv 1998
CfB- ind Pa11nerships hive been tmiddotn1pOVlrld by 1hc EU Con1rnis inn to issisl
projects hy 111c1ns of equity ind rcfuncLtblc 1icl In 199~ tlrnost ~05111 of CEB
assist1ncc (4oo) v1s provided in 1hc fonn of equity 111d refundthle ~1id
Entcrprisc middotrrack ind E1nploy111en1 intend 1h11 refundable forins of 1ssis1ance
Vil] he deployed incrc1nentdly 111 future Al)11 hJs tgllld vi1h P1r1ncrships
tllt clien1- should Vhtre prtctic~ilgtle nceiVl nmiddotfundable 1itl r11hcr th~111 grints
In 1ccurcl111ce wt1h EU regul1llons lEADEH groups ire precluded from
providing lotns or equity to enterprises
427 recent study reported thi1~
le ackn()toleclgc that n1icru e11te17Jrises 111a_v face capital constraints especialfr in the stcut uJdegfJhase but strongf)i s11_rges11hat the n1us1 ejecliue
uov Ju lf(lltress his fJOssible middotn1arkct _(ailunmiddot is Jbrough rJals an( eq1tif)
rather tba11 microran aicl 1Jt~~- uo11c 111inin1ise tbe r1~k ojmiddot creating a cleJenclcnl~) c11111 remiddot
428 It is clear [hll here is cope for n1uch greater use of rep1y~il)[c grin[S loans
ind equi1y 10 111inin1isl dtachveiglil incI such ustmiddot has 1hc 1ddccl 1dv1nt1ge 1h11
1ssistince c1n he providlcl n1ore econon1ic1lly 1 funds c1n bl recycled to 1ssis1
n1ore thtn one project Huvcvcr so111c incre~1se in ~1dn1ini-gttr11ion cos1s could be
expcc1ecl
429 An extre1ne fonn of ckichveiglH irises Vhtn public fin1nciil support is
supplied 10 1 project vhirh as cst1hlishecl and is oreruing in [he Jbsencc nf this
suppon CtSl Siucly 6 involving 1hc ArlJ Allovtnce Enterprise Schlllle illus1r1tes thi
11a11aH11t of 11ficro 111(tpn-lt SupjXJl1 Ao-o a11011til a11d lcx(I Jrbull1tmiddotlup111c1u 11~cmiddot11C11gtmiddot iu1111y tia11r1i(Jll 11it A11~1til CJlt-lt)
rJ1irJ1Ui lnnmiddott111cbull11f Jn-ru1fi(middoti f(lr tbe wnod 20(J-2(XX) Faz Ccrllfd lf t1I c()10111ic (JUI S(Jcial Nc_1middott1rr_h 11_f1ltrlt I-Ion)) JJlt-J
Sltmiddotj~F1111lo1ld o 1u he lh11g-T1middotr111 Ui1tmiddot111plo1middotetl- 1111 10i1atio11 of lbltmiddot Artbulla Alllt1flft 110middot 11tlJHi1e ScJ1111cbull 1HC Co1111raJ11middot 19lt)7
middotmiddot
38
Ojgteraliollal JJicie11lt_~1middot
ase Study 6
Funding the startup of an existing business
A fisherman was 1n receipt of Unemployment Assistance (UA) from the Department of
SJcial Community and Family Affairs (DSCFA) from 1979 to 1999 In September 1998 hi applied for support under the Area Allowance Enterpnse Scheme (AAES)
Uoder the terms of the scheme an applicant must be unemployed for at least a year
and this eligibility must be confirmed in writing on the application form by DSCFA The Praquortnership can subsequently approve the application and may provide minor financial support 1n addition to the main financial benefits provided by DSCFA 1e the receipt of full unemployment payments for a year and on a reducing scale for a further three years plus retention of secondary benefits
Abullcording to the application form the applicant had received a bank loan of pound18000 for the purchase of a boat with repayments commencing on 30 August 1998 In addition hf was the owner of fishing nets to a value of pound6000
Tt1e application form was certified by DSCFA 1n January 1999 to the effect that the applicant was eligible for AAES The certification did not explain
bull how the applicant managed to purchase a boat while on UA bull how he persuaded the bank to provide a loan or pound18000 bull how he was financing the business from August 1998 to January 1999 in particular
the boat repayments and insurance amounting to pound565 per month
Tt1e report prepared for the Partnership Board meeting stated that the applicant had with the knowledge of DSCFA been engaged 1n the fishing industry for the previous ten years on a part-time basis The Board approved the application
mcFA has made the following observations on this case
bull Following an investigation in 1988 the UA payment was terminated but reinstated under appeal with an assessment of net income at pound1250 from fishing per year The case was reviewed 1n 1993 and the net income per year was increased to pound1400 A further review was conducted in September 1998 (the month atter the boat was purchased) and the assessment of net income did not increase
bull It is very difficult to establish an accurate income for such fishermen as fish can be sold to tourists and restaurants for cash
bull The Department did not consider 1t necessary to check with the bank as to what if any security was provided for the loan
bull While failures occur in the scheme they do not cost the Department any more than if the client continued on UA
A[1M has pointed out that fishing comprises a very small proportion of AAES pa1ic1pants supported by Partnerships A recent review of Partnership business su1iports reported that fishing and Bed and Breakfast businesses do not provide a viable full-time 1ob and Area Allowance 1s not an appropriate support payment It also recommended that clearer guidelines should be issued regarding eligib1l1ty
Soure Partnership Business Supports and the Area Allowance Scheme Insights No 8 ADM 1999
J9
locaf f)ltueloJn1e11t fl1itiati1es
Case Study 7
Potential displacement situation
A business proposal was made to a CEB 1n 1998 The promoler wished to provide a food delivery service to factories on industrial estates ie sandwiches baps snacks elc The promoter recognised that there were several competitors Unlike the
competitors he proposed to provide the service via three refrigerated vending machines lhat would be reslocked regularly He applied for and was approved a capital grant of pound5500 by the CEB in December 1998
The project report prepared for lhe Board meeting dealt with the possibility of displacement by noling that lhe promoters service would be provided in a manner different from his compet11ors However the question arises if the project is successful how will its sales be achieved unless by the diversion of the expenditure of faclory employees from one service provider to another
Displacement
430 middotrhc only antlysis of clispL1ce1ncnt vas in respccl uf 11lS 1nd this shl)Vcd a
wide rmge of estimils Using a methodology devised bv Breen and Halpin the
consul11nts esti1111recl that 64oo of the business carried out by 1ES panicipants Vas
diver1cd fron1 other Irish fin11s and Iiiat ~i l1X1 of en1plny1llLl1I created in
thescentcrpriscs v1s at the expense of other enterprises middot1l1e consultants felt thtt the
Breen 111cl 1-ldpin methodology had limitations ancl tlut their estinutes of
clisplicc1nent Vere too high lJsing different 1ssu1nptions incl 1 different
mthodology they estim11ecl that 19 of employment created in AAES enterprises
Vts displacLcl fro1n other cn1erpriscs
431 Possible vays of n1ini111ising clispl1cen1ent include
bull CounsLlting pro1notcrs tovncb exports or cloincstic sectors supplied prltdom1n1111lv l)y import
bull ithholding 1ssis1ance fron1 projec1s in1encling 10 supply goods and stgtrviccs to the clon1es1ic 1111rke1 vhich are alrc1cly supplied by other busineSSlS
bull Providing financial tssisttnce by n1eans of rep1yibllt grants lo1ns ind cqui1y rathtr rhin non-repayable ct~h gr1nts
432 All LEADEH groups Partnerships and CEils are insrruned not to suppon
projects Vhich voulcl displace business fro1n other enterprises
433 CEl3s were advised early in 1999 10 focus heir efforts on thlt development of
n1anuf1cturing incl in1ern1tional services projects vhich viii have the pltgttential 10
clevclop in10 export-oriented finns hile not neglecting other eligible rrojects
(vi1ble non-clcaclveight non-displacc1nen1) outside these sec1ors Jgtirtnersl1ips have
40
()JCltflional Jffrienc)
agmiddoteed tht financid support should not be supplied to businsses 111 plentiful
supply such as hackneys couriers builcling contr1cpoundors Ix-cl and hre1kLi~t
operators vm sales and hairdrclaquors LEADER groups are advised to d11ect the11
Stlj)p(H1S tOvards innltgtva1ive pnijeLt~
4i4 There arc d1ffcrcmiddotnt views among Local Development bodies regarding what is
inmiddotoived in rtcognising diplacetntnt middotrhus -cHne Lltic~11 J)evelopn1en1 bodi1s
co1sider thtl if lhe existing co111peeitors to a project are located outside their county
or evtn their loc~1lity 1hen clisplacen1cn1 is not 1n issue
4s The 1111cl-1cnn reviews of LEADEH and OPLUHD made linlc reference to
displlcemcnt Howevmiddotcr the LEADEH mid-term review contended that displJcemcnt
vculd he 111ini111ised if LEAl)ER groups focused their f1nincial 1ssistance on
111rovative proiects Agnrnlture and Food intend that the final evalu111on of LEADEH
11 Viii includ ltSli111a1ion of tltmiddotachveigh1 and clispl1cen1ent effect
Be11e_ficit1 Dis1U1ce111e11t
436 II rhere are ~1ny circu111st~1nces in vhich ltlispl1ce111ent can be ignored thev
shltnild be identified For exunple it 111ay be possible to sustain the c~1se on sociJI
jus1 ice or equity grounds rhu specific groups such JS 1he lung-1ern1 t1nt111ployed
shcbullttld receivlt posi1ivlt cliscri111in~n1on elifJI at the cxfxnse ojotherjoh see~ctYi tOi1
111 lrgucd 1h1t onlt of the obwctives of Partnerships is to 1mprovmiddot( the potcnlld of
the long-tcnn unc111ployccl ind 1he socially ltXcludccl 10 gain cn1ploy111ltnl in lhlt
eccbullno1ny generally ind specifically 1n poundheir Ovn areas_ middotrhc inslrtion of particular
dis1dvant3ged groups into e111ploy1ncnt or a husine~s viii often have thL effec1 of
dis)Jcing a non-clis~1dvantaged person fron1 that 1oh oppo11unity Hcnvcver the
social giin makes the displJce111ent worthwhile
437 Given that CEBs cover the emire populallon incl that Partnlrships and
LEd)EH groups cover 540o and 6Joo respectively the exacpound circun1s11ncltS Vhen
clisplacemem 111ight be permincd for any Local Devdopmelll body should be
cluificd by the relevant Dep1rtmenis
(rnui11g (lUJ Sharing ()I r F111plr1y111e11t S1raUt_r (JfX 011 the lt1bltgt11r _bulllfariltf tgtlt1uu11cmiddotn1 of1111erpnmiddotc_ 7huC and 1111Joy111e11r Jn 19ltXgt
41
5 Assessment of Impact
51 Xhik the 1nc1sun111cnt of the 1chieven1ent of cconon1y 1nd efficiency is
ilnportan1 in the n1an1ge1nenl of the initiatives establishing their in1pact is of even
grci1er 11npnrtance J111pic1 assessn1enl is concerntd Vilh est1blishing the e-1cn1 10
which the local devdoprnent oJ1cc1Jns ire achievecl 1110 the wider contribution of
the initiatives 10 local cconon1ic and socitl developn1ent 11 is desirable thtt
appropri1te sys1tn1s to evaulle 1he 1chicve111ents of the iniliHives in n lttion co their
desired 11np1cts should IJt in place
52 Ille cllvcloprnent nf syste1ns to detennine 1he i1np1ct of the initiitivcs is not
easy middotrhlt clivlr~i1y of Jnc~il dcvelupn1ent objecrive~ n1e1ns thit it is unlikely thH 1ny
one 1ssessn1cn1 niethocl Otild he sufficient So1ne in1p1cts like cn1ploy1nent
crltJtiun can lx quintified Jnd 1chieven1ent can be n1unitorecl chrough che 111alysis
of nJev1n1 perfonnanct indic11ors_ Othcrs like rlttising the level of econo111ic activity
ctn be 1ssessecl 1hrough 1he usc of ccono111ic 1noclels using surroga1e 111e1sures of
irnpacl 1VL1ny of the socitl objeclives of 1he inili11ive are not susceptible to
n1e1sure1ne111 at di incl till i1111xu1 achieved Jre best detenninccl through surveys
of chtngts in local condilions a1 inclividu1I and con1nnir1i1y levels
S3 lhi ch1p1er consiclt~rs 1ppro1chcs co che 1sscss111en1 of i1npact under the
folJoving J1e1dings
Issues Subject
Quantitative assessments Baseline analysis bull bull Use of macroeconomic data
Qualitative assessments Assessing social impacts bull Case studies and international studies bull
Quantitative Assessments
54 lnfonnition on job creacion and the progression of long-tenn une1nployecl
persons 10 fuJI lirlle VOrk 1re rerorted for i[J these ypes Of 1gtltKJies (see middotr1ble 41
ind Append A) Vhile the figures tint hive been reported to end-1998 under
011URI) 1re well 1he1d of the tirgcts thit were set it is difficult to interpret these
resuhs in hrn1s of i111picl in lhe ibsence of bascline cl1t1
Baseline Analysis
55 B1selinc analysis would estiblish the performance of a representative group
of enterprises con1n1uni1y groups incl individu~1ls 1hat did not receive 1ssis11nce
under 1hc initiatives middotrhe rcrfonnancc of 1ssis1ecl entities incl individuils al counry
42
Assess1ne111 lt~ 111JOCI
or r111ional levtgtI could then he co1nparcd Vilh the 1xmiddotrfonnancl of middotn1ttchedmiddot nonshy
tssi ~1ed cnlitiii selected fro1n the repre~entltil group Si1nil1rly tile pcrlltlrn11ncl
of en1i1ies recltiving ditlenmiddotnt kinJ of ~1ssistance could also he antlysed to cletenninc
rel1 live ilnpac1
56 Baseline analysi~ can he pcrfonnld using 1nicroecono111ic d111 (da1a 1bou1
spcltific enterprises) or n1acrotcnnon1ic clat1 (1ggrLg11t~d dat1)_ middotrhc cl1t1 collection
proicduns -11 loc1l level hJve not heimiddotn 1dequatt to suppo11 this kind of ltinalysis
using 1nicrocconon1ic data 1ccordingly analysis against a baseline of non-1ssis1cd
cnlt-rprises co111n1unity groups ind individu1J- cHHlO( hl carried out
I Case Study on Unemployment using Macroeconomic Data
i 5 7 stuclv of the irnpact uf 011l RD on unemplovment ing census clata
(111a- rltgttgtcono111ic data) has hlttll c1rrild out under tile ~1egis of the ()PlUH)
P1oriloring ConHniuec So1nc rcsuhs of the study 1re su11H11arised in Cae Study H
58 middotrtiis finding fro111 ltase S1udy 8 dltgtcs nor nectgtssarily 111ean 11111 P~trtnerships trl
les effective in assisting une111ployed peorle 10 find vork 1s unc111ploycd ptorlt~
in P~ntncrship 1rc1s 111ay he 111on di_-adv~1nt1ged and find ii lllOll dillicull to 1ccess
e111(oy1ncn1 In addition 1he ralt of entry to une1nploy111lnt in Partnership 1reas
1nay he different frorn non-Jgt1r1nershir 1n~~1s 11lt)vevcr the data is inconclusive
I ~1hont tile level of ttlcclivcness of P~111nlr~liips in addressing Ltr1e111rloyn1cnL middotrhe
case s1udy highlights the co111plexity of in1pac1 analysis but also illustrates ils
i irnpbullgtrltnce in le~1cling lo a grlmiddotHer uncllrst1nd1ng of the resulls of progr~11n11H
aCllily More complex ltbta rnodels of the labour nurket at local level woulcl be
nccclecl for a svs1e111~11ic revicv of 1hc elTcctivenesi of Pannerships in tickling longshy
I 1ern~ llllt~n1plon1ent
59 It is of inlertst 10 e-an1inc the trends in the duration of uncn1ployn1ent in
I recent years imiddot~1hle 51 ihOVS thc nun1hers une111plnyecl ylmiddot1r on yctr in ont year
banltls up to 1l1nc years fron1 1994-1999 and the 11ne1nplcgtyn1ent retentugtn r1tcsmiddot
fro1r vtmiddotar to year i_e_ lhe proportion of those 11ne111ployed ho nLmiddot still unen1ploytCI I
one year li1er
I510 middotr1hle 51 shov- 1h1t signific1nt i111provlrnlnts in une111ploy111cnt rerintion
ralc~ htVl occurrLd in recent yetrs particularly for long-ten11 UllLlllploy1nen1 Strong
ecoron1ic grovth in 1lie period covered vould li1ve beltIl of prinH in1ponance in
1he reduction 111 long-1tmiddotrn1 l1ne111ploy111ent ihiJc the long-lerrn une1nployed ire thl
1111in rarge1 group for Partnerships thlse areas are not sep1raccly distinguished 1n
lhe analysis OutlOVS ro schen1es such 1s Co111111u11ity Fn1ployn1cnt could also he I
llllf)()flilll
43
olta JeueloJn1e111 11itioti1cs
Case study 8
Analysis of the impact of OPLURD on long-term unemployment using macrodata
A key part of the analysis was a comparison between the change in unemployment in Partnership areas from 1991-1996 with the corresponding change in non-Partnership
areas The comparison was based on the Census of Population for 1991and1996 The logic behind the comparison was that disadvantaged areas are at risk of falling behind
the general level of economic development unless there is a targeted intervention to ensure that the rising tide of economic growth flows into those areas Thus if the
decline m unemployment in Partnership areas is similar to that in Ireland as a whole
then at least the gap between affluent and poor areas has not widened and Partnerships may have contributed to some extent to this outcome
The consultants measured changes 1n the unemployment rate in two ways (i) by the percentage point (or absolute) change (ii) by the proportionate (or relative to 1991) change
They used a simple example to illustrate the difference between the two measures Assume that Area A has 90 unemployment rate and Area B has 20 unemployment
rate If the unemployment rate declines by 10 percentage points in both areas (the
same absolute change in the rate) the relative rate is quite different since Area A has declined by only 11 (relative to its starting rate) whereas Area B has deemed by 50
(relative to 1s starting rate) Both rates should be used together
The key data was summarised as follows
Unemployment rate
Area 1991 1996 Absolute Percent Percent Change initial rate Points Change Relative to Initial
Ireland 169 14 8 -21dego
Ratebull
-126
Partne1ship areas 256 230 -26 -100 (PESP only)
Non-Partnership 139 119 -20 -141 areas
Note 8 Change in unerriployment rate divided by the initial unemployment rate
The consultants commented that the unemployment rate in PESP Partnership areas
fell by a slightly greater absolute amount than either Ireland or non-Partnership areas but in relative terms they did worse - essentially because they had higher unemployment rates to begin with in 1991
Sourco A Report on the Impact of the Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development on Long- Term Unemployment Goodbody Economic Consultants et el October 1999
44
Assessnu11t q J11pact
Table 51 Duration of unemployment and retention rates 1994-1999
Ye
19 19 19 19 19 19
ar
94 95 96 97 98 99
Less than one year Number
151032 144283 146776 132398 130780 110446
--shy1-2 years 2-3 years 3+ years
Number Retention Number Retention
rate rate
Number
43697 39748 263 40875 283 38361 261 31719 240 28 194 216
27489 64154 26293 602 67955 25852 650 69667 24227 593 61870 18914 493 54448 14496 457 44940
NotB Retenrion rates are calculated as follows_ All of those who wero unemployed for 1-2 years in 1995 (39 748) wcro unernployed for less than one year in 1994 (151032) thus the unemployment retention rate is 263 (39 748+151032) CSO Live Register data
i Case Study on Business Formation using Macroeconomic Data
I 511 tucly of s11111l business forn1ation over ti111e 111ight be usecl to consider issues
middot such as lhe i111pact of lhl initi~Himiddotes on thtbull rice of n1anufacturing st1nups his i~
considered in Case Srudy 9
51~ C~rtater underst1nding is requirtcl of the n1ix of variables vhich n1ay be
responihle for the trends appann( in the data In a situ11ion vhere an unexpected 1 result is obt1inLmiddotd fron1 tile analysi~ C1s in Case Study 9) 11 Otild lgtt necessary to
refirc the analysit using 1111croecono111ic dala un1il the reasons for the trends
observed 1re clarified and the dilTcren1 contribution~ of lhe initiatives to sn1all 1
enterprise fonn~uion ere better understood
513 In order to use 111icrtgteconon1ic cLua 10 assess the in1p1ct of 1ht ini1ia1ivcs on1 n1anufacturing and intern~llional StTviccs it vould be necessJI) to integrate locil
clcvdopment suppo11 dlla from all the mitia11ves -Uh rhe Forfis and Enterprise
middotrr1de and E1nploy1ncn1 Bu~iness InforntHion Sygtt(Jll (BIS) Enterprise lrlttcle incl
Fmrlovment 1ntcncls to proceed with the 1nrcmiddotgra1ion of CEil data with the BIS (See
paragraphgt 2 2i-228) i 514 Enrerprise Tracie ancl Employment h1s commissioned a review 10 take place
in 11middote currenl year on the in1p1ct of CEUs vith particular reference 10 thlt ratlt of 1
bu~i1es~ fonnacion tnd 1he su~tlinability of the johs cre~Htmiddotcl
45
lucal JelJelo111unl l11i1ia11cs
Case Study 9
Use of macroeconomic data on business formation
In 1993 Enterprise Ireland stopped assisting manufacturing and international services firms with less than ten employees This role was transferred to CEBs The trend in the number of Irish-owned startups in manufacturing from 1987 to 1996 has been studied in an effort to detect the impact of economic growth on the rate of startups It might equally be used as a starting point to consider the impact of CEBs in this role
Startups in Irish-owned manufacturing 1987 to 1996bull
600
500
bullOO
300
200
100
0 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Year
The graph shows that the very rapid economic growth from 1993 (which period includes the emergence of the initiatives) did not result in an increased rate of manufacturing startups According to the quoted study The start-up performance 1s surprising The improvement m the economy over the years has not been accompanied by a corresponding growth in the number of manufacturing startupsmiddot
Note a Case study based on ~startups and Closures in Indigenous Manufactunmiddotng an Analysis of the CensCJS of Industrial Production 1986-1995 Irish Banking Review Autumn 1998 Anthony Foley and Teresa Hogan
Source Data Census of lndustna Production CSO
Qualitative Assessments
Assessing Social Impacts
515 Some irnpo11rn1 rnrcro clilt wts cs1rl3lrshecl by ADM reltting 10 middotc1ep1wa1ion
111clic11ors for l1nnership areas Bised on the 1991 Clnsus of Populttion ADM
co1npilecl indic1rors of cleprivuion for all Pannershlp areas domiddotn to l)istrict
Elcctor1l l)ivisiltgtn levc1 l)cprivJriun 1n1p- tre 1lso procluced middotrhe clcprivltlCion
indicators 1nclucled
46
bull educationtl a1tainn1en1
bull ltgtCcu1x11ional profile
bull lltxmiddotil labour n1arket characteris1ics
bull housing
FrOill 1hcse indicators a con1pusite deprivaiion index value Vas con1p11tcd for each
lartnersl11p area for 1991
516 Tlrrs exercr lras rectgtnilv bcrn repeated from tire results of the 1996 Census of lo1n1llli(gtn Fngtnl ~tn in1pac1 assess111en1 ptrspcctivtmiddot relilt1nce ltgtn these indicators
voulcl involve ~0111e li111itllions_ For lt1n1ple chc Census year- do not coincide Vith
Partnership 111ilcstones 111igruion can con1plicatc 1nalysis and [he d111 is not
definitive regltncling c1usality~~
51 ()espile these lin1ilalions analysis of the indicators of dtprivt1ion should
probullicle valuable inforn1ation rcg1rdi11g changes in 1pects of clt~pfiv1tion in different
Partnershq1 anas and should ilso Ltcilitatc con1p1rion ovtr 1i111e Vith nun
la11nersl11p areas lhe ltlmiddotailtbility of this infonnltllion shot1ld ftcilirarc furthCr
ittt111pts to consider the social in1p1c1s of tht~ initlHives
Case Studies and International Studies
5tf Whrle much hrs been wrr11en on tire rctrvrtres of Local Development bodies
chc tlcnt of 111atcrial spccifictlly covering the evtl1111ion of their i1np1c1 is very
li111i1ecl Several Partnerships have c1rried otH case srudil~middotM) to highlight hov issues
wen being trckled by different Partnerships ancl to promote best practice Case studies are undcrv1y tlso in n1lt1ny LLl)FH groups No case studies havtmiddot lgteen u ed
so L1r in tlic cnlcrprisc ind ioh crc1tion ~1rea for CEB ac1ivi1ies
519 A for111J E11ropean s1ucly v1s unck-rtiken of he rnle of p1nnerships in
proriuting sociil cohesion in ten fmiddot1t1nhcr Srarl~ of the EU co111prising ten nniond
rtpcrts (including lrel1ncl) and 1 synli1esis European rt~portjlbull middotrht study and repo11s
j middotltre bt-gtlltl prin1arily on rh1rty ctst tuclic (rhree fro111 etch middotten1ber St~lle) Vhich
looked 11 issues of reprtstnlalion ncgoliHion and alliance lgtuilcling in tile
devElop111ent of strategies and 1c1ion plans ind the vorking 111ethocls skills incl
I reso-_1rces aprlied lgty p~111nershirs
()her 11111101io11s arc rexnccl i11 fJrxr coptmiddot fJrgtCir i~ edttimiddotd l~r I) Pn11gle tf of Ook Tree )rt--
)11J111_ -~)9
_rKmiddottd 1art11c1ih1p~ middotI 5111n--11 511HIL1Y fur Sc)(middotial Cubl~011lt 11 Ccddcbull OJ1tc ( QOua 11h1lta1J11_- fvr w F11n1J1CJ11ltiJ111111111111umiddots1111d -111middotn1wt111 h1111ulrlf1011for1ie lm1ro1(mlW of itll~L tntl lliirk111~ Co11tl11io11s 19ltJ-
47
ocal Jevelop111e11t lnilit1tite_
520 1ihilc the rtpon included n1iny individual references to isol11cd cxirnpks of
1hc 1tll1x1c1 of panncrships Clllpincd rcstarch into 1he effecliveness of 1xnmerships
Vts not Vithin the score of the study middotrhcrc VIS also no 1ue1npt to con1p1re the
perfor1111nce of p1nncrsl1i1)s it nationil l(vel
521 The 1bsencc of specific tllaterial on the cvalL1a1ion of effectiveness of locd
clevelop111en1 bodies is panly clL1e 10 a lick of come~tuil clata 11 local level 10
L1cilita1e in~dysis A pri1n1ry ain1 of the bodies is to L1cilit1te thl locil achievtinent
of resuh~ incl to ltver1gc 1hc 1c1ivitics of local groups Assess1ncnt of effectiveness
of this kind of 1c1ivHy woulcl require that the role played by the lxxlies could he
isollltcl fruin ill oiher contribuiory f1ctors middot1middothis is difficult middotrtiere is 1 cletr need for
more data collernon llld 1hc clcvdop111ent of soual poltl) models which would
f1cili111e bcuer 1ns1gh1 by policy 1111kcrs imo the impact of the arnvities of local
clevdopment boclits
48
Jr
0 Ji~ )~ l ( imiddot
Appendices
~ gt
- _ middot-
---middotmiddot middot--shy ~--y- -~ -middot bull bull - bull __~
middot
middot
_ _~ -- middot ~
Appendix A Annual Cost and Outputs of Individual County Enterprise Boards Partnerships and LEADER Groups 1995-1997
(Jkistd on du1 ~upplicd by Dcp111111ents and ADJ1 Ltd Luc in 1998)
I
Summary of Expenditure on Local Development Programmes (1995-1997) Appendix A
1995 1996
pound000 of total expenditure
pound000 of total expenditure
CEBs
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
Total Expenditure
13485
1421
4895
19801
68dego
7dego
25
100
13503
3879
4284
21666
62
18dego
20
100
LEADER (1)
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
Total Expenditure
23
887
820
1730
2dego 51dego
47dego
100
1529
2350
1684
5563
28
42dego
30dego
100
PartnershipsCommunity Groups
and National Organisations (2)
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
I
-3 025
1532
66
34dego
-5161
5164
-SOoo
50
Total Expenditure 4557 100 10325 100
Aggregate expenditure figures shown in this table have been superseded by more up to date figures shown in Table 21 (1) Local Development groups accounted for 96 of LEADER expenditure in 1995 - 1997 and detailed analysis focused on lhis (2) Partnerships accounted for 84 of total expenditure for 1996 - 1997 and detailed analysis focused on this
1997
pound000
12884
5414
4437
22735
6226
3536
2015
11778
15579
7398
22977
0o of total expenditure
57dego 24dego
19dego
100
53
30
17dego
100
-68oo 32
100
County Enterprise Boards Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1995 Appendix A11
County Enterprise Board Administration
Expenditure pound000
Total Expenditure
pound000 Administration as 0o of
Total Expenditure
Grant Aid as 0o of
Total Expenditure
Non~rant Outputs as
of Total Expenditure
Tipperary South Riding 150 274 55dego 381 7oo
Corllt North 142 315 45dego 55dego Ooo Monaghan 143 375 38oo 621 QOo
Tipperary North County 122 353 35 57dego 8dego Meath 128 373 34oo 59oo 7dego
Louth 135 410 33dego 56dego 11 Ofo
Kildare 157 476 33 48 19dego Kerry 228 747 J 1Ofo 62 7 Limerick City 162 561 29dego 64oo 71
West Cork 142 498 29dego 65dego 6dego
Limerick County 209 714 29dego 63 Soo Westmeath 103 358 29dego 71dego Ooo Longford 95 335 28dego 68dego 4oo
Clare 169 635 27dego 68dego Soo Waterford County 106 396 27oo 73dego Ooo Cork City 150 543 27oo 671 6 Doneaal 124 460 27dego 68dego 5dego Fingal (Oubhn) 152 598 26dego 63dego 11
Mayo 155 651 24 72oo 4dego Waterford City 134 559 24dego 63 13dego Wicklow 127 558 23oo 70 7dego Ca now 149 654 23dego 72 5 South Corllt 187 844 22dego 71dego 7 Leitrim 147 671 22dego 67 11dego Cavan 122 564 22dego 65dego 3dego Laois 121 595 21dego 73 6dego South Dublin 143 670 21 70deg4 9dego Offaly 126 600 21deg4 63dego 16dego Dublin City 111 551 20deg4 67oo 13 Sligo 147 728 20deg4 73dego 7 Roscommon 111 597 19deg4 77 4dego Wexford 144 777 19dego 75deg4 6oo Kilkenny 1()0 637 16oo 84dego OOo
Galway County and City 140 950 15 83 2 Oun Laoghaire - Rathdown 82 743 110o 78oo 11 Oo
Miscellaneous (1) 30 30 Ooo QOo OOo
Total 4895 19801 25 68 7
(1) Refers to set up costs incurred on behatf of au Boards
County Enterprise Boards - Administration Costs as a Percmiddotentage of Total Expendifure --f996 Appendix A12
I _ - vuony c11u1tUllgttl ouaru
I Administration
I Total Expenditure Administration as 0o of Grant Aid as 0o of Non-grant Outputs as
Expenditure pound000 pound000 Total Expenditure Total Expenditure 0 0 of Total Expenditure
Cork North 119 417 29~o 63degshy 8degc -middot
113 28dego 56dego 16degoTipperarv North _counlv 404 -shy -Sliqo 118 457 26dego 50dego 24dego--Mealh 136 532 25~~ 53dego 22dego Laois 151 612 25dego I 59eo 16dego
Westmeath 120 500 24dego 55oo 21dego
Cork City 124 533 23dego 55dego 22oo Roscomn1on 120 536 22dego 61dego 17dego
Louth 133 620 21 Oo 57dego 22dego-Cavan 128 599 21dego 67degc 12dego
Clare 123 581 21Co 61dego 18dego
South Dublin 147 705 21 oo 56 23dego
Dublin City 139 668 21dego 49dego 30deg~
Kildare 128 625 20degh 41 lo 39o-shyTipperary South Riding 108 530 201 68dego 12oo
-Mavo 159 784 20dego 70oo 10dego
Carlow 117 582 20dego 67dego 13oo
West Cork 127 633 20dego 59dego 21
Longford 114 579 20dego 71dego 9dego -
Kerry 114 584 20oo 68deg~ 12oA
South Cork 125 645 19dego 58dego 23dego Limerick Cily 132 683 19oo 64oo 17dego
-Galway 122 631 190~ 69~o 12dego-Kilkenny 120 636 19dego 67dego 14dego
Offaly 117 628 19dego 62dego 19dego
Waterford County 105 563 19 66dego 15dego
Leitrim 121 665 18oo 64 18dego middot-
Oun Laoghairc bull Rathdown 116 648 18dego 57dego 25dego-
Fingal (Dublin) 117 656 18dego 56degc 26deg~ -Wexford 117 708 17oo 68dego 15dego
Wicklow 122 739 16 71 13dego
Donegal 119 757 16dego 65dego 19dego
Limerick County 120 810 15degc 68dego 17dego
Waterford City 118 800 15dego 75dego 10dego--Monaghan 75 616 12 74dego 14degc
Total 4284 21666 2011o 62dego I 18dego I
County Enterprise Boards Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A13
County Enterprise Board Administration Total Expenditure Administration as 0A of Grant Aid as 0o of Non-grant Outputs as
Expenditure pound000 pound000 Total Expenditure Total Expenditure deglo of Total Expenditure
Cork North 106 344 31dego 50dego 19dego
Clare 172 631 27dego 46dego 27oo---shyTieperary North County 116 448 26dego 38 36dego Waterford County 126 505 25dego 54dego 21dego Longford 121 498 24dego 60oo 16dego Wexford 156 647 24dego 56oo 20dego Wicklow 184 796 23dego 57dego 20dego Limerick Cilv 141 619 23oo 51dego 26dego
Mealh 170 751 22oo 52dego 26dego Offaly 113 505 22dego 53dego 25dego Kilkenny 121 545 22dego 48dego 30oo Donegal 94 428 22dego 42dego 35co
Leilrim 139 640 22dego 54dego 24dego------shy -Monaghan 118 556 21dego 57oo 22dego
Waterford City 164 788 21dego 60dego 19dego
Limenck County 147 708 21degk 53dego 26deg1 Louth 161 787 20dego 50dego 30dego
Mayo 122 602 20oo 53dego 27dego
Sligo 99 496 20dego 51 Ofo 29dego Tipperary South R1d1ng 120 619 19eo 60dego 21dego
Carlow 113 593 19dego 65dego 16dego Cork City 127 672 19dego 59 22dego
Weslm~ath 119 637 19dego 60dego 21dego South Cork 131 704 19dego 58dego 23dego
Laois 113 615 18dego 55dego 27 --Kildare 136 761 18 56dego 26dego Cavan 127 740 17dego 63dego 20 West Cork 87 513 17dego 57dego 26dego South Dublin 165 981 17dego 64dego 19dego Dun Laoghaire middot Rathdown 102 621 17dego 48dego 35dego Kerry 94 580 16dego 66 18dego
Roscommon 75 474 16dego 61 23dego Galway 110 835 13 64 23oo Fingal (Dublin) 117 902 13dego 62dego 25dego Dublin City 130 1 195 11 69 20
Total 4436 22735 19dego 57dego 24dego
---
I
LEADER A~minist_ration ~osts -~~ a Percentage of Total Expenditure -_ 1_995 __ Appendix A1 4
I Local Development Group
I
Laois Leader Rural Development Co Lid Cavan-Monaghan Rural Oevelopn1ent Co~rat1ve Soc~ely Ltd
Barrow-Norc-Suir Rural Developmentmiddot 62 81 771 QOo 23dego
Wicklow Rural Partnership Lid bull 26 38 70dego -I QOo 30dego
Westmeath Community Development Ltd
Longford Community Resources Lid -middot
-
8 11
-11 18
70degc
65
bull Oh
QOo
23dego
35dego middotmiddotshy
Mid-South Rural Roscommon Development Assoc1alion Ltd 9 14 63dego QOo 37dego
Rural Resource Development Lid bull 80 129 62degc Ooe 38dego
Meath Con1mumty Partnershrp Co Ltd
Meithcal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo
3
68
5 117
- 60dego
58dego
4dego
OOo
35eo
42dego
South West Mayo Development Co Galway Rural Development Co
54
8
94 middot-middotmiddot
15 58dego
56dego
1Oe
00o
41Co
44
Arigna Catchment Area Community Co 11 23 48dego 4dego 48
Western Rural Development Co Lld bull 28 58 48dego 00o 52oo
Offaly LEADER If Co Lid -middotmiddot
3 6 48~J QOo 52
IRD Duhallow Ltd bull -
Ballyhoura Development Ltd 60 74
131 163
46dego
45dego
OOo middotshy
OOo
54
55
West Limerick Resources Ltd
South Kerry Partnership Ltd bull
Waterford Development Partnership Lid
Tuatha Ch1arra1 Ltd
Word - Wexford Organisation for Rural Development
West Cork LEADER Group bull
Donegal Local Development Co Lid
-
10
29
34
6
51
57
8
- 23 66 76 14
125
160
22
44dego
44dego
44dego
42gtigt
41
35dego 340
3dego
00o
00o
6 1eo
00o
3eo
middotshy
53dege
56dego-56dego
52deg
58dego
65dego
63dego
-middotmiddotshy
Tipperary LEADER Group bull
Totalmiddot Local Development Groups
30 813
95
1584
32dego
51dego
00o
1dego -
68dego
48 -shy
middotshy
Acquisition of Skills
0 -
85 0 OCo 100dego
Other Collective Bodies
Technical Assistance
7
0
23 37
30 QOo
70dego
00o
00o
00dego
i Total Expenditure - LEADER Groups 820 1730 47dego 1dego 52dego
~-
--
Administration txpenditure
EOOO
3 81
Total AdministrationI I Expenditure as 0o of Total
EOOO Expenditurei
98dego
98 82deg~
3
Grant Aid as Non~rantI I I 0o of Total Outputs as of
Expenditure Total Expendituro
2dego 01 middot-shyQO 18dego
middotmiddotshy
bull These groups also existed under the Leader I in11ahve
LEADER Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A15
Total Administration Expenditure as 0o of Total
pound000 Expenditure
81dego56 lv-10Jbull
ro v 106 b1o
77 46dego 91 43dego
113 4 1 Ofo
226 39dego 92 38dego 90 38dego 67 38dego
100 36dego 230 36dego
JUmiddot~ 86 35dego
262 35dego 292 I 32dego 168 31dego 111 31dego 94 30dego- 29dego 65 I 29dego
289
85
29dego 182 27dego 258 25 194 24dego 198 23dego 165 22oo 141 22dego 285 22dego 271 21 249 20 185 19 94 19dego
5173 31
189 0dego 115 75o 86 0
5564 30dego
Grant Aid as 0o of Total
Expenditure
0 J _ 3dego 9dego bo 18dego 13dego
5dego 2dego
35dego 17dego
6dego
18dego 34o 44degc 29dega 26dego 28dego 50dego 19dego 47
5dego 55oo 20 50dego 46dego 42 36 50dego 40dego 20 25 29dego
0 25Vo
OOo
28
Non~rant
Outputs as 0o of Total Expenditure
19dego LO
~-
36dego 45dego 44o 41dego
48dego 57oo 6v-10 27dego 47dego 58dego 55vO 47 31dego 24oo 40dego 43 42dego 21 52dego 24dego 68dego 20dego 56dego 27dego 32dego 36dego 42 29 40dego 61dego 56dego 40dego
100o OOo
100o
42dego
Local Development Group
-Comhar lorrais (LEADER) Teoranta bull lounly ~ligo LlAurH t-artnersh1p co LIO r-cura1 uuo11n LtAUttlt vvmpany Lia ln1sh0Wen Community Development Co ltd middot Laois LEADER Rural Development Co Ltd comhdhail 011ea1n na hlireann South Kerry Partnership Ltd bull Rural Resources Develooment Ltd Blackwaler Region LEADER Co Ltd Meath Community Partnership Co Ltd LonQford Community Resources Ltd Galwav Rural Develooment Co Word-Wexford Organisation for Rural Developmenl
-Barrow-Nore-~uir tltura1 ueve1opment Lta_ Ariana Catchment Area Community Co bull Cavan-MonaQhan Rural Development Co-operative Society lid Me1theal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo Wicklow Rural Partnership Ltd bull Offaly LEADER II Co Ltd bull Doneoal Local Development Co Ltd Mid-South Rural Roscommon Developmenl Association Ltd Co Louth Rural Development Co Ltd Ballyhoura Development Ltd bull Kell-Kildare European LEADER II Teoranta IRD Duhallow ltd_ Tuatha Ch1arrai Lid -South West Mavo Oevelooment Co Westmeath Community Development ltd West Limerick Resources Ltd
-middot West Cork LEADER Groupmiddot Waterford Develooment Partnersh10 Ltd Western Rural Development Co Lid Tinnorarv LEADER Group bull East Cork Area Development Ltd Total - Local Development Groups
Acqu1s1t1on of Skills Uther Collective tsodies Technical Assistance
Total Expendituremiddot LEADER Groups
bull These groups also exisled under the Leader I initiative
Administration Expenditure
pound000
45
deg 64 35 - 47 88 35
25 37 83 60 31 91 94 53 35 28 25
19 84 49 64 46 45 37 31 61 58 49 36 17
1599
0 86
0
1684
---
--
----
----
I
I
LEADER _Admiri_istration_ Costs_as a Percentage_of TotalExpenditure bull 1997 Appendix A-16
Local Development GroupI I
Comhair lorrais (LEADER) Teoranta bull Co Sllqo LEADER Partnership Co Lid Rural Dublin LEADER Compant lid Wicklow Rural Partnershi~ Lid Rural Resource Development Lid Word-Wexford Orqani5allon for Rural Develo~ment Ltd Blackwater Reoion LEADER Co Lid Meath Communit~ Partnershi~ Co Ltd Laois LEADER Ru_ral Oevelooment Co Ltd IRD Ouhallow Ltd bull Oonal Local Oevelooment Co Ltd Kell-Kildare Eurooean LEADER II Teoranla Cavan-Monaghan Rural Oeveloement Co-o~rat1ve Socie_lv Ltd South Kerrv Partnersh10 Lid bull
I South Wesl Mavo Devetooment Co bull I Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo
Waterford Development Partnership Lid Galway Rural Developn-ent Co lnishowen Community Development Group bull Wesl Limerick Resources Ltd Co Louth Rural Dev~topment Co Ltd Comhdhail Oilea1n na hEireann West Cork LEADER Grouo bull Tuatha Ch1arra1 Ltd Westmeath Communitv Develoomenl Ltd Offalv LEADER II Co Ltd bull Ballyhoura Development Ltd East Cork Area Development Ltd Weslern Rural Development Co Ltd Mid-South Rural Roscommon Deveroomenl Assoc1at1on Ltd Longford Community Resources Ltd
Administration I Total Expenditure ExpenditureIpound000 pound000
43 I 96 83 48 52 89 91 46 -58 31 57 60 75
102 59 60
109 78 45 47 46 50 35
104 56 48 39 67
-- 27 83 32 35
Arigna Catchment Area Community Co I 43 middotmiddotmiddot shy
Tipperary LEADER Group 0 38 41Barrow-Nore-Suir RurEii Development bull
Total - local Develooment Grouos 1979
Other Collective Bodies 36 Technical Assistance 0
i Total Expenditure bull LEADER Groups 2015
234 140
186 365 373 204 260 156 293 314 399 568 335 341 626 458
middot-middot 264 277 275 309 221 658 367 314 259 455
Grant Aid as [ Nnn~r~ntAdministration as deglo of Total 0o of Total Expenditure Expenditure
45dego
36dego 34oo 28Co 24dego
24oo 22oo 22dego 20degtc 20oo 19dego 19dego 18degc 18degc 18dego 17dego 17degc 17degh 17 17 16dego 16dego 16dego 15dego 15 15dego 15o
189 I 14dego 592 I 14dego 252 290 414 441 561
11487
142 25dego 75 0 149 0 OOfo 100
11778 17dego 53dego JQOo I
13dego 12Jo 10dego
9oo 7dego
17dego
19dego
25dego 28dego 37dego so~lo
37oo 37dego 30oo 36Yv 40dego 54 45dego 59degn 55dego 61dego 64dego 64degh 56dego 34 49I 6QOo I 23dego 50dego I 34dego 64dego 55 50dego 55deg 55dego 60o 38oo 58dego 71 dego 56o 73dego 54dego 70dego 53dego
20dego 29dego 35oo 3_0 30dego 25dego 48dego 28dego 16degc 32dego 17dego 37dego 23dego 30
Outputs as oo of Total Expenditure I
36Co 39oo 38dego 35dego 26dego 39dego 41dego
48dego 44deg 40dego 27dego 36dego 23oA 27dego 21dego 19dego 19dego 27~o
Partnerships Community Groups and National Organisations Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A17
Partnership Administration Total Expenditure Expenditure pound000 pound000
KWCD Partnershii - -middot 128 128 lnishowen Partnersh10 Board 33 33-middot-Monaahan Partnershii Board 48 48 Lonoford Commumtv Resources ltd 40 40 Galwav Rural Oevelooment Co 39 39 Galwav C1tv Partnership 109 109
~Q_LEAOER Partnershii Co 50 50 Pairt1ocht Gaellacht Th1r Chonaill 48 48 Roscommon Countv Partncrshin 55 55 Pairt1ocht Chonamara 116 116 Cavan Partnershin 18 - 18_ Canal Communities Partnership 67 67 Brav Partnershio 115 115 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 49 50 Tra Li Partnershio 105 107 Waterford Area Partnershio 77 82 West Limerick Resources Ltd 74 82 Southside Partnershin 163 180 North-West KildareNorth Offalv (OAK) 125 139 Mavo bull 288 I 353 Wexford Area Partnershio 132 166 Doneaal Local Develoomenl Co 60 78 Leitnm Partnership 63 94 Clondalkin Partnershio Comoanv 176 305 South Kerrv bull 107 253 Blanchardstown Area Partnershin 208 495 Droaheda Partnershio Comoanv 136 337 Baltvfermot Partnershio 143 359 Cork Cilv bull 176 476 Dundalk bull 196 546 Finnlas bull 169 53 vvovforcl tn ntv prtnPrshio bull 126 501 n11hl1n lnOAr rjtv bull 14 539 T~ll ht bull 7 Ballvmun bull 103 529 Waterford Countv bull 42 227 Limerickmiddot 90 510 Northside Partnershio 125 761
Total Exoendituro - Partnerships 4071 9169
Communilv Grouos 710 773 National Oroanisations 383 383
Total 5164 10325
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) ~--
Administration as 0o Other Activities as 0o of Total Expenditure of Total Expenditure
100dego QOo
100dego QOo
100dego QOo
1QQ0o QOo
100deg QOo
100oo QOo
100oo 0dego 100dego QOo
100dego Ooo 100dego QOo
100middot QO(
1QQ 0o QDo
1QQDo 0dego 100dego OOo
98dego 2dego 94dego 6dego 91dego 9dego 91dego 9dego 90dego 10dego 82oo 18dego 80dego 20dego 77 23 67 33dego 58dego 42 42dego 58dego 42dego 58degc 40dego 69dego 40dego 60oo 37dego 63dego 36dego 64oo 3701 25dego 75degn 2i01 7t01Q TtOn 77deg 19dego 81dego 19dego 81dego 18oo a2deg10 16 84
44dego 56dego
92dego 8dego 100dego 0dego
50deg4 50dego
Partnerships Community Groups and National Organisations Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A 18
Partnership Administration
I Total Expenditure
--middot -shy -shy - --shy Expenditure pound000 - [000- shy
lnishowen Partnershio Board 137 272 Galwav C1tv PnrtnArsh1n 1e~ 35~
Mavo bull 274 580 Canal Commun1tv Partnersh10 122 267-W~~tmeath Communitv Develonmenl Ltd 98 216 Galwav Rural Oevelooment Co ~-
94 211 Monaahan Partnershio Board 100 238 Shoo LEAOEftigtartnersh1p C_o 155 385 Roscommon Counlv Partnershin 146 367 Cavan Partnersh10 72 184 Pa1rtiocht Chonamara 124 328- -LonQford Community Resources Lid 121 334 KWCO Partnershio 205 594 Pairtiocht Gaeltacht Thir Chonaill 99 302 Waterford Area Partnershin 175
middotshy 542 Blanchardstoln_ Area Partnersh1E 159 504 Oundalk bull 147 490 Leitrim Partnership 154 514 - -North West KildareNorth Offalv ltOAKl 122 414 Wexford Area Partnersh1R _ 125 427
_B~lymun bull 112 385 Brav Partnershio 151 526-Oonenal Local Develonment Co 104 371 Wexford Countv Partnershio bull 152 614
_sectQuth Kerrv bull 173 707 Cork Citymiddot 240 1 015 Tra Li Partnershio 122 519
_s1o_ndalk1n PartnershiQ ComQany 140 618 __lliJ_blin Inner C1ly bull 147 647
Tallaaht 173 775 Wesl Limerick Resources Ltd 57 256 F1nnlas bull 152 709 Walerford CountY bull --middot 54 261 Southside Partnershio 141 686 Ballyfcrmot Partnership 132 720 Droaheda Partnersh10 Comoanv 132 723--middot Limerickbull 121 803 Northside Partnershio bull 126 964 Set Un Casis - All Partnershins 28 28
Total Exoenditure bull Partnershios 5269 18858
Communitv Grouos 1 509 3499 National Oraan1salions 621 621
Total 7J98 22977
Administration as 0o Other Activities as 0o I- -middotshy of Total-Expenditure of Total Expenditure
51 oo 49dego-~ v u u-o
middotshy47dego 53dego 46dego 54dego 45lo 55oo-450o 55oo__ 42oo 58dego 40dego 60dego 40eo 60dego 39oo 61degi
38oo 62dego 36dego 64dego 34oo 66dego 33dego 67 32dego 68dego 32dego 68dego 30oo 70dego 30dego 70dego 29 71dego 29dego 71deg(0 29dego 71dego 29dego 71dego 28deg1gt 72dego 25dego 75oo 25dego 75 24dego 76dego-- shy24dego 76oo 23dego 77deg 23dego 77oo-shy22dego 78dego 22dego 78dego 21dego 79dego 2_1 dego 79deg 20dego 80dego 18 82 18 82dego 15 85dego 13dego 87dego
28dego 72
43dego 57=10 100dego OOo-shy32dego 68oo
i bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economrc and Social Progress (PESP)
County Enterprise Boards Grant Cost Per Job 1994-1997 (In Descending Order) Appendix A21
County Enterprise Board Expenditure on Grant Full Time Jobs Part Time Jobs Equivalent Jobs Aid 1994middot1997 pound000 1994-1997 (1) 1994-1997 (1) 1994-1997 (1)
Leitnm 1417 209 6 212 Westmeath 1012 154 0 154 Wexford 1575 280 37 299 Cork C1tv 1089 208 0 208 -Monaahan 1057 178 62 209 Waterford Counlv 1003 188 36 206-South Cork 1566 324 0 324 South Dublin 1753 362 6 365---TinnPrarv South R1dina 922 184 47 208 Limerick Citi 1197 273 10 278 Offalv 1137 243 74 280 Waterford City 1664 387 58 416 Mayo 1565 345 95 393 Limerick City 1512 362 60 392 Kllkennv 1325 320 55 348 DonPnal 1061 254 50 279 Finaal (Dublin) 1377 347 42 368 Wicklow 1538 333 170 418 Kiidare 1004 264 20 274
-Cork North 779 213 0 213
-Carlow 1435 309 169 394 -Cavan 1357 301 152 377 Clare 1 342 335 92 381 Kerrv 1432 288 238 407 Laois 1245 339 42 360 Louth 1045 280 46 303 Dublin Citv 1734 533 0 533
_
SliQo 1182 260 210 365 Oun LaoghaireRathdown 1323 408 3 410 Longford 1145 332 51 358 Roscommon 1208 315 133 382 West Cork 1063 361 21 372 Meath 980 350 23 362 Gatway County and City 2131 843 120 903 Tipperary North County 660 223 136 291
Total 44834 10905 2264 12037
Grant Cost per Job pound
6683 middot-shy6571 5278 5235 5057 4 867 4 834 4801 4444
4306 4061 3999 3988 3857 3812 3802 3743 3680 3666 3658 3647 3599 3522 3518 3459 3448 3254 3238 3231 3203 3 165 2 861 2711
2360 2269
3725
( 1) The jobs created in the year are computed by taking a head count of new jobs 1n enterprises receiving grant aid from CEBs The grant aid expended in the year may not be directly comparable with this as here may be a time rag between the expenditure and the creation of the relevant job but this should be minimised by taking an average over 4 years In computing the equivalent 1obs figure part-lime jobs are taken as 05 of a 1ob
County Enterprise Boards Non Grant Expenditure 1996 Appendix A31
r= middotshy
INPUTS OUTPUTS
I Cou~ty Enterpr_ise Boar_ct_ ~on-Grant - shy
0o of Total _Surveys __ Media _Networks __ ThirdLevel _Second Business - Mentor Activities Expenditure Events Colleges Level Counselling Support
pound000 Schools -
Kildare 241 39oo 1 0 4 3 15 380 40 middotshy
Dublin City 202 30oo 1 9 6 2 20 151 35 Fingal(Oubhn) 171 26dego 1 14 11 I 0 4 3 93 Oun LaoghaireRathdown 160 25oo 1 7 3 0 14 25 84
Sligo 108 24dego 0 68 0 1 3 250 30 - shySouth Cork 150 23dego 20 24 14 1 14 120 45 South Dublin 161 23dego 2 8 0 0 18 105 4
-middot Cork City 118 22dego 2 10 3 2 14 0 14
Loulh 137 22dego 7 3 2 1 6 40 15 Meath 116 22deg1~ 0 3 3 1 12 0 21 West Cork 135 21dego 0 130 2 0 10 174 10 Westmeath 106 21dego 0 0 0 0 17 0 14
Offaly 121 19dego 4 34 5 2 9 17 20 Donegal 144 19dego 1 4 0 1 8 216 46
-107 18oo 0 17 0 1 I 15 150 16
~ Clare
- middot----Leitrim 121 18oo 5 0 4 0 I 9 416 12
Roscommon 92 1Tlo 0 0 0 1 5 484 5 -Limerick City 7
I 17dego 0 2 0 5 5 0 6 Limerick County 137 17dego 1 25 1 0 13 102 7 Laois 101 16dego 0 4 0 0 14 54 bull 1
Tipperary North County 65 16dego 0 0 0 0 12 279 17
Wexford 107 15dego 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 Waterford County 85 15dego 0 2 0 1 0 69 4 Monaghan 86 14deg= 0 0 0 0 7 10 5 Kilkenny 88 14dego 0 16 0 I 0 12 I 19 I 10 Carlow 77 13dego 0 7 0 I 0 10 I 0 I 20 -Wicklow 96 13dego 1 12 0 0 9 70 14
Cavan 74 12oo 5 0 4 1 5 1394 i 31 Tipperary South Ridinq 65 12dego 0 0 3 0 10 80 25 Kerry 71 12dego 1 0 1 0 8 0 20
bullGalway County and City 75 I 12=10 1 2 37 3 12 72 3 Waterford City 82 10dego 0 1 0 1 20 108 33 Mayo 78 10oo 0 48 0 0 5 221 6 Longford 50 9dego 3 5 5 0 7 60 10
Cork North 36 8dego 0 0 0 0 0 340 0
Total 3879 18dego 57 455 108 27 352 5409 726
County Enterprise Boards Non Grant Expenditure 1997 Appendix A32
INPUTS OUTPUTS middotshy
County Enterprise Board Non-Grant bull1o of Total Surveys Media Networks Third Second Business Mentor Management Activities Expenditure Events Level Level Counselling Support Development
EOOO Colleges Schools Programme
Don~al 156 36dego 3 3 1 3 9 55 12 3 Tipperary Nor1h County 162 36dego 0 33 1 0 7 175 12 3 Oun laoghaireRathdown 219 35oo 2 20 6 4 24 240 67 2 Kilkenny 162 30oo 2 12 0 0 27 99 16 3 Louth 233 30 0 14 2 1 11 60 18 6 Sliao 144 29dego 1 7 2 2 7 246 26 6-Laois 167 27oo 0 127 2 0 13 100 6 4 Clare 171 27dego 1 37 12 1 15 97 31 6 Mavo 162 271 0 15 2 0 10 190 6 3 Limerick City 163 26dego 1 29 4 3 6 100 5 4 Kildare 198 26dego 0 24 4 0 15 190 46 6 Wesl Cork 133 26oo 1 271 2 0 10 152 2 4 Limerick County 183 26oo 1 55 12 3 8 194 35 6 Mealh 193 26oo 1 28 3 2 19 48 9 4 Offaly 127 25oo 1 53 6 0 8 59 35 5 Fingal (Dublin) 224 25dego 0 5 0 1 6 446 155 3 Leitrim 157 24oo 2 84 3 2 7 135 14 2 South Cork 164 23dego 0 14 85 1 16 627 15 6 Roscommon 109 23oo 1 27 3 0 11 50 8 4
Gatway County and City 190 23dego 0 5000 10 3 36 18 10 14
Co1lt Ci1V 150 22dego 1 10 5 2 B 1325 16 3 Monaghan 121 22dego 2 24 6 0 B 47 0 3 Tipperary South Riding 131 21 Ofo 1 25 3 0 11 672 20 3 Westmeath 132 21dego 1 3 0 0 29 6 10 4 Waterford Countv 104 21dego 3 32 2 1 21 156 7 3 Dublin City 245 21 oo 1 26 6 5 23 110 50 6 Wexford 131 20dego 1 17 0 0 17 55 16 2 Wicklow 159 20 0 44 0 0 6 32 9 3 Cavan 144 20dego 4 14 7 1 6 134 63 7
CorX North 66 19 1 10 5 2 16 1325 16 3 Waterford City 149 19oo 2 12 0 1 21 183 18 3 South Dublin 184 19dego 1 2 0 0 16 87 37 3 Kerry 104 18 1 324 0 0 12 115 B 2 LonQford 81 16oo 5 41 8 0 5 0 6 41 Carlow 95 16 1 110 1 1 10 228 50 2 Total 5414 24 42 6552 203 39 474 7756 854 182
LEADER Groups Non Grant Expenditure 1995-1997 (1) Appendix A33
Local Development Group
INPUTS
Non-Grant -Activities
pound000
As a 0o of Total--middot
Expenditure
Seminars Held-shy
OUTPUTS
Press I Other tApplications Releases Promotional -Approved-
Projects Referred Creation I Creation of Training Completed to Other of Newmiddot middot Community middotCourses
Actions Agencies Business Association
East Corllt Area Development Ltd 144 51dego 104 110 0 O 0 O 5 2 I O gt-M~e~a~th=C-o~m-m~u~n~i~ttv
0
middotP~a~rt~n-e-rs~h~o=C~o-L-td-----~--1-8-0--+-~5~1~0~---+--7~7-1--+---16-4---- 110 91 11 960 21 12 16
Word - Wexford Ornan1sat1on for Rural Oevetonment bull 351 48oo 0 0 0 0 t-c~innbulle~ra~~-L~e~a~d~er~Gro~u~o~middot~-~~~~~---r-~3~4~3----t-~4~8~o--o 24 7 4 191 45 10 15 13 22 f--~----=~~~~~~~~~+-----~+----~---~+---------l~~-----+-~~----~+-~--~--l~----~f-~300~+-~=-~+-~--~-+~-=~~
Kellmiddot Kildare Euronean Leader II TEO 268 46Yo 85 125 4 74 33 1 10 36 Blackwater Reo1on Leader Co_ Ltd -middot _136----+--4-6A~o------6--7_ __ _ __65------lt----4----I- --7-3__1_---3-1------22--+----3------lt--------1--~__2_4-----1 lnishowen Commumtv Develonment Groun bull 175 46dego 288 86 25 64 27 147 10 17 28 Laois Leader Rural Develonment Co Ltd 103 44dego 67 116 12 56 17 27 40 7 17 Tualha Chiarrai Ltd 244 42dego 239 25 10 168 82 66 24 6 39 West Cork Leader Groun middot 414 38~C -middot-+-~75----t--6-9-8----t----O--t----o-----t --~O-----t----O--t--~1~2_ _____o----shy 33
~c~o~S~h~go~L-ead-e~r~P~bull~rt--n-e--rs~h~ip~Co~~Lt~d--------+-----1~0~1--+-~3~7~~_ ___J3 6 6 73 21 14 20 17 5 Rural Dutgt11n Leader Comoanv Ltd 63 37dego 83 18 -~9--t----2~7--middot-+---6----+---~12-----t--~3---+--~7---+----5-Co_ Louth Rural Devclooment Co Ltd 137 37dego 139 56 18 39 5 23 5 2 11
gt-W~c~kl-o--w~R~u~r~a~I~P-art~n~bull~middot~sh~io~L--td---middot---------~1~4~3--+_~3~6~~-+---5~0~7____~1~12------ O 25 33 209 9 11 6 IRD Duhallow Lld bull ___2~middotbull-1-+-3_~V----t-~283------j--272--+----o-----1 85 40 144 11 37 1A
Rural Resource Dcvclooment ld__middot-------+--20502--+-C3057___-t-1=38~2o---t---5~0t----t--0905----t-----OO--- 0 0 6 9 14 Offalv Lead_~r II Co_ Ltd_middot 130 35oo 49 43 20 76 56 9 17 0 91
gt-S~ou--th~K~bull~Y~P~a~rt~n~bull~s~h~ip~L~t~d-middot________1__1_7~5--+-~34---~~middot--i---1~bull~85----+---1middotQ4_--+-----9--~--0-----+-----o--+----o---~-~2~0---+--3~0-----+--~3~6--1 Galwav Rural DevelgPment Co 126 33dego 38 12 0 147 21 130 19 6 39 Western Rural Devetoomenl Co Ltd 298 33dego 134 102 1 165 46 81 27 1 9 DonPnal L~cal Development Co Ltd 139 32 5 15 1 127 36 29 20 0 13 Lonaford ~ommun1lv Resources Ltd 118 31dego 15 57 7 97 46 22 3 2 5 Westmeath Communitv Develonmenl Ltd 149 30dego 254 50 15 165 60 20 17 5 __sect_____
l-Ba~ll~vlh~ou~ra~De~v-e~lo~rnm~e--n--t-Ll~d~_middot_________t--~2~7~3--+_~30~~~---t---64~-t--bull~8-----t----5--t----2~0~1--l--~8~2-----t--~8~0----+-~59----t---~bull~O---t ~5~2~-t Barrow-Nor~-Suir Rural Development bull -~2~4~7--+--~3~0~----+---3~5~0---__f----5_____15----l--~1~5~1---1C-----92-----t--~65-----t---2~0---t--~10-----t--~2~8-----t Comhair lorrais ILead~rl Teoranta bull 45 29dego o O _o__t------Co__t--_~o___-t-_--o_-+---co_ _____o--_-+_ __o-----t Wesl Limerick Resources 1 tn 126 29dego 69 104 3 103 1h 10 87 7 10 Comhdhail 01leain Na hEireann 64 27dego 41 32 0 124 hO 45 15 0 10
~_~ndegh~Wc~s~t~Mou_nDev~e~lo-nmbulln~t~n~middot------+--~1bullbull-+--2-bull-~-+---12----t--~~5-------0--l----1~middot4___+-_~5~8--t-----4~-+--~13---t------1--+--~3~3-~ Waterford Develooment Partnershio Ltd 209 26dego 56 0 0 95 35 35 34 7 46 Cavan-Monaghan Rural Development
l--C~o~-o~gtP~e~r=a~v~e~S=oc-e=t~y~L~tdo-middot---~-~----+-~2~2~7--+-C2~47o=---+-=2676~-t----11~7~---l----2~174__t---~36700---+----3~0~1--l----2~--+---20---+~--75__t-----2=2~--l Ariana Catchment Arca Community Co bull 121 23dego 21 7 23 105 39 4 5 0 O
f---M~~~h=~~F~o=r~b~a=rth~a--N~a=G~a~e~lt~a~c=ht~a~T~E~o=---~----r-~2=3~7----C2~3o=---+-~1773=----t--~150~--t--~o--t---~4700---+--1-5=7--+-~35~0~--+-~109----t--~2~1----+--~176--j
Mid-South Rural Roscommon Development Association Ltd 63 18 24 18 120 90 36 10 20 5 4
Total Expenditure - Local Development Groups 6227 34dego 7183 2879 730 I 3496 1514 2871 690 291 716
Acqu1s1t1on of skills i 274 Ooo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1-coc~e~c11=n~ca-1-a~s~s~s~ta-n~ce---------------=27~2~---l--0~0~~--t---Co~--t--~o--+--~o=---+-1--~o~-+---~o~-+----o--+------io~-t----o~--+-----io----+
Total Expenditure -LEADER Groups 6773 36dego 7183 2 879 730 3 496 1 514 2 871 (1) Expenditure for 1995-1997 is grouped together as only cumulative output statistics to 31December1997 were available at the time of preparing the report bull These groups also existed under the Leader I initiative
690 291 716
I
Partnerships Non Grant Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A34 middot-middot
INPUTS OUTPUTS
Partnership Name Non-Grant Activities As a 04 of Total Enterprise Services for Preventative Complementary pound000 Expenditure Support Unemployed Education Education
Norths1de Partnership bull 636 84dego 321 1885 520 443 Limerickbull 420 82dego 296 935 100 388 Waterford Counlv bull 184 81 oo 57 0 0 0
t--shy272 328Ballymun bull 426 81oo 401 82
Tallaght bull 466 77dego 496 - 957 143 29 Dublin Inner City bull 405 75dego 343 1651 50 59 Wexford County Partnership bull 375 75dego 138 0 17 272 Finalas bull 365 68oo 557 731 378 155 Dundalk bull 350 64dego 148 388 132 207 Co1lt Citymiddot 300 63dego 344 0 180 261 Ballyfermot Partnership 215 60dego 0 211 40 94 Drogheda Partnership Company 200 60dego 60 0 0 38 Blanchardstown Area Partnership 288 58dego 116 71 48 18 South Kerrv bull 146 58oo 90 212 399 265 Clondalkin Partnership Company 129 42oo 164 0 0 0 Le1tnm Partnership 31 33oo 23 184 0 56 Donegal Local Development Company 18 23dego 0 0 0 0 -IJYexford Area Partnership 34 20oo 14 0 0 13 Mayo 18o lo 181 10 34 North West KildareNorth Offaly 14 10 0 0 u 28 Southside Partnership 17 9dego 0 0 0 0 West Limencilt Resources Ltd 8 9dego 52 0 0 0 Waterford Area Partnershij)shy 5 6dego 49 14 0 5 Tra Li Partnership 2 2 u 0 0 0 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 0 QOo 0 0 0 0 LonQford Community Resources Ltd 0 Ooo 0 0 I 0 0-Pairtiocht Gaeltacht Th1r Chona1ll 0 0 0 0 0 0 lnishowen Partnership Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canal Commun1t1es Partnershrp 0 00o 0 0 0 0 Pairtiocht Chonamara 0 QOa 0 0 0 0 Gatway Rural Development Co 0 OOa 0 0 0 0 Sligo Leader Partnership Co 0 0 16 0 0 0 Roscommon County t-artnersh1p - u 0-1 u 0 u 0 Brav Partnership 0 01 0 0 0 0 Gatwav City Partnership 0 OOo 0 0 0 0 Cavan Partnership 0 00o 0 0 0 0 MonaQhan Partnership Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 KWCD Partnership 0 Ooo 0 0 0 0 Total Expenditure - Partnerships 5098 56dego 3739 7821 2107 2693
Commun1lv Grouas 63 8 0 0 0 0 National Oraanisalions 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 5161 50 3739 7821 2107 2693
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
Partnerships Non Grant Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A35
INPUTS OUTPUTS -
Partnership Non-Grant Activities As a 0o of Total Business Job Groups Preventative -shy -middot middot- -middot pound000 -middot - Expenditure -Start-Ups- shy Placements -shy Supportmiddot Education Projects
Northside Partnership bull I 838 87dego 503 438 28 15 I - -middot -middotmiddot - tCbullbull 602 isgt10 11b tiLj 31 16 I Dr()(lheda Partnership Co I 591 82dego 60 12 177 10 Ballyfermot Partnership 587 a2deg10 88 88 30 3
-middot Southside Partnership 546 80dego I 200 6 80 24 Waterford Counly bull 206 79dego 42 4 23 6 Fmglas bull 557 79dego 257 233 174 28 West limerick Resources Ltd 199 78degc 40 0 50 0 Tallaaht bull 602 78dego 309 646 51 7 Dublin Inner City bull 500 77dego 290 448 34 10 Clondalkin Partnership Conipany 478 77oo 225 562 63 7 Tra L1 Partnership 396 76deg1gt 80 20 67 6 -cork Citymiddot 775 76- 217 111 55 9 Soulh Kerry bull 533 75dego 135 150 61 middot51 -
Wexford County Partnership bull 462 75dego 170 63 31 0 Donegal Local Development Co 267 72dego 150 0 63 2 Bra~ Partnershi~ 375 71degu 71 0 14 Ballymun bull 274 71dego 70 402 50 10 Wexford Area ~artnership OUpound 71o 17U 4 5 18 -shyNorth vvest tildareNorth Offaly 292 71 Oo 56 0 8
I Leitrim Partnership 360 70deg1= 60 3 119 6 Dundalk bull 343 70~~ 71 64 50 10 Blanchardstown Area Partnership 345 68dego 170 97 29 13 Waterford Arca Partnership 367 68dego 37 6 55 1
middotshyPa1rtiocht Gaeltacht Thir Chona1ll 203 67deg~ 75 0 50 10 KWCD Partnership 389 66deg 15 0 0
- 4 middot-
Lonqford Commumtv Resources Ltd 212 64dego 85 4 19 5 middotmiddotshyPairt1ocht Chonamara 205 62 67 2 3 34
middotmiddot-Cavan Partnershio 112 61dego 90 1 49 6 Roscommon County Partnership 221 60degJ 120 0 38 6 -Sligo LeaCer Partnership Co 230 60dego 120 0 32 2 Monaghan Partnership Board 138 58dego 88 0 40 10 Galway Rural Development Company 116 55dego 101 0 51 2 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 118 55deg1= 0 0 20 2 -Canal Communities Partnersh10 145 54deg~ 0 0 16 6 Mavo bull 306 53dego 177 200 28 3 Galway City Partnership 180 50dego 113 0 35 12 lmshowen Partnership Board 134 49dego 60 0 42
Total Expenditure bull Partnerships 13589 72dego 4698 4192 1853 397
Commun1tv Grouos 1 990 57 0 0 0 0 Nalional Oraanisations 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 15579 68dego 4698 4192 1853 397
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
Appendix B Administration Cost Trends of Local Development Bodies
Number of CEBs within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs 1994-1997
Cost Band 1994 1995 1996 1997
ltpound50000 pound50-100000 pound100-150000
pound150-200000
gtpound200000
3 17
15 2
24
7
2
1
32
2
5
23 7
Total Administration Costs pound4_8m pound49m pound43m pound44m
Number of LEADER groups within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs 1995-1997
Cost Band 1995 1996 1997
ltpound50000 25 23 17
pound50-100000 9 11 14 pound100-150000 3
Total Administration Costs pound0Bm pound16m pound20m
Number of Partnerships within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs of Partnerships
Cost Band 1996 1997
ltpound50000 9 6 pound50-100000 7 19 pound100-150000 15 10 pound150-200000 5 10 gt pound200000 2 3
Total Administration Costs pound40m pound53m
11l)(lrJY 11 I
--
Appendix C Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development - Performance Indicators and Revised Targets
-
f 11~
iority Indicator
Jobs
1mber of of 1obs
Revised Targets (1994-1999) Original TargetUnits for total Operational Sub Sub
Programme 2Programme Programme 1
Jobs 15000 proved (for support grant assistance)
Nl1mber of new jobs erbullated not placed in Jobs and vacanc1es) Persons (N 81middot for Sub Pr gtgramme 1wjobs
bullgt provecr figure will mJke up the bulk of thbull i ~jobs created an1ounl) (N 02- for Sub Pr )gramme 2 this eq uates 10 new en terpriscs SUpported)
17000 (Sub Programme 1 8000 Sub Programme 2
1717516900
6900 Sub Programme 3 (Temple Bar) 2000 permanenl in service amp 5000 construction)
AjfJe11c1x CI
~ Priority Indicator
2 Enterprise creation and development
Grants to enterprise Value of grant allocations
Number of enterprises supported
Percentage of investment 1n enterprises provided by the Operational Programme
Provision of improved access for potential entrepreneurs to initial advice Number of firms receiving business advice
Percentage of grant aided firms whose promoters received other Operational Programme support advice consultancy mentoring
Management developm9nt Number of enlerprises participating in managemenl development programmes Number of managers participating in management developmenl programmes
3 Community Development Number of local groups financially assisted
4 Services for the unemployed Number of persons registered for assistance
Number of Long-Term Unemployed persons to benefil from Services for the
I Unemployed expressed as a
I Oo of total number of persons registered for assistance
Units Original Target for total Operational
Programme
pound
Enterprises 2260 new businesses and for Sub Programme 1
Persons and 3640 new and 960 existing for Sub Programme 2
Enterprises 6000 firms and
Persons
280 firmsEnterprises
Persons 500 per annum
No target set groups Local
Persons Caseload of 11 0000 (30000 1n 1995 and
20000 new cases per annum thereafter)
No targel set
Revised Targets (1994-1999)
Sub Sub Programme 1 Programme 2
i
pound16000000pound56020000
17 000 new and6050 new and 7000
existing 3750
existing
(Tolal 9800) (Tolal 24000)
39dego
3000010900
100dego83oo
6000
10000
700
57000 (40000 Local Employment
Scheme Partnerships and 17 000 Non- Local
Employment Scheme)
60dego
AfJXIUimiddot C2
---
Priority Indicator Units Original Target Revised Targets (1994-1999) for total Operational
Sub SubProgramme Programme 1 Programme 2
Progression Number bulllf persons progressing Persons 2500 per annum 16000 to full-time employment (1e placement in a job vacancy) Number of persons progressing Persons 300 per annum 5000 to part-lir le employment (ie placeme11t in a job vacancy) Number of persons assisted into Persons 17000 self-emplJyment (see 1 above) N~mber of persons assisted Persons 19000 under co1nplementary education and training Number of persons in continuing Persons 5000 per annum 2000
1 cducat1or1 Number c1f persons in work Persons 10000 per annum 1000 experience programmes Number Cbullf unemployed referred Persons 5000 onwards middot o other agencies
- -middot 5 ~ducation and Training Complementary education and training Number cmiddotf persons assisted Persons 12000 per annum 19000 under cornplementary education and traini l9
Provision of recognised ce~ificaticbulln Number cf participants ptovided Persons 60003500 with re~1nised certification
I 0o of part1 1pants provided with 30oo reltXJgniset certification
Training for trainers NuOiber ol persons benefiting Persons 1000 under actions tn the area of trai~1ng of trainers and teachers
I of partimiddotipants ptovided with recognise j certification
I 6 Preventive education Number of children attending Children 4080 per annum 44000 preventive education courses I youth serVices
7 lnfrasbucture and enVironmental measures Number o infrastructutal and 20 per annum 1000Protects 98 environmE ntal actions
Appendix C3
Original Target Revised Targets (1994-1999) Priority Indicator Units for total Operational Sub Sub
Programme Programme 1 Programme 2
8 Land development
Area of targeted land developed
Expenditure on developmenl of targeled land
Number of derelict sites eradicated
Number of villages assisted
Number of towns assisted
Number of conservation projects to be funded
9 Other
Entarprse culture Number of participants in activities to promote an enterprise culture 1n schools and colleges
Customer contacts Number of customer contacts with CEBs
Hectares
pound
Sites
Villages and projects
Towns and projects
Projects
Persons 62000
Customer 190000 Contacts
Appendix C 4
Appendix D Extract from Consolidated Reporting Guidelines - December 1997 The LEADER Operational Programme Performance Indicators and Revised Targets
Pe-rformance Indicators
Under the tenns nf the Opcr~llional Progr1111n1e e1ch group is rtmiddot4uired to set ck)vn
1~erforn11nce uHJic~1tors and targets vhitmiddoth it vdl ain1 10 ~1chilve in 1he
itn )le1ncntation of its hu~iness plan and against vh1ch its perfonnance Viii htmiddot
evllua1ed_ Follc)ving ~t rcvitv of the fonn ind contenl of 1hc originil incliclliVl
inclicHors1 cornincnt by the independent evduator and consuh1lion Vilh groups a
dc1111itivc range of perfon111nce inclicJtors llas nclv been prepared
E~11h (~roup is required to llltgtdify ils Busin1middotss Pl1n perforn1ance indicators in this
remiddotiscd forn1at for lmiddotte1sure B Ruril innovation 1neasures and insofar as it is possible
at 1his s1age to prep1re inltlil~ltors for middotleisure C middotrransni1ion~1I cu-operitiun for 1hv
period tnding 5 I l)ece111her 1999 PleJse note thlt 1leisure C does no[ relale to
teclmical suppo11 funding received from AEIDL
lh1 Ile st1te111cru of pcrfonn1ncl indicators -hould rLprcscnl a co111pnhensivc
stncnHmiddotnc of 1argets based on progress to ditc ind the i1nplc111entllio11 of 1he
huine~gt plmiddottll to )1 l)cc~1nbcr iltJ99 including thl acklitional 1ctivitics being
~upportcd vith the funding 11locItcd fron1 the -middotrcservtmiddotmiddotmiddot
imiddotht revised busintmiddot-s plan indicators should he con1plctccl ind rc1urnecl to Huril
De-elopmem Division lw ii _l1nua1v 1998
regress Viii he 1neasurecl 1gainst these t1rgcts by lllttns of the Lf)LJ rerurn~ incl the
quant1tat1ve incl qualitllivc reports outlirlltd in sections 3A jl3 incl 5C of 1hesc
guiklines
Ple1se note thal -hJcled areas ire for infon11a1ion only incl 11 lhis st1ge do nol
require indicators to be Stl All olhltr t1rge1s should ht inpulled in 1he 1ppropri1te
fickl- here rherc is no 1lmiddotlemiddotan1 ac1ivi1y tllSl rl zero
1[Jfx11rL IJ 1
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Animation and Capacity Building
ActivityOutput
Promotion
Number of seminarspublic meetingsworkshops organised to cover the following topics GeneralCommunity SpecialisedSectoral
Number of attendees al the above
Number of press releases articles published media interviews
Circulation of LEADER Newsletter Number issued Number per print run
Number of other promotional actions
Direct Animation Assistance I Technical Advice
Number of private individuals directly assistedadvised
Number of bodies directly assistedadvised GeneralCommunity Specialised Sectoral
Number of development strategiestplansmiddot arising from field work (Le_ not covered in ~other technical assistance beneath) including community plans
Co-ordination of Activities
Number of applications referred to other agencies
Impact
Enhanced Awareness of LEADER Services (Not for completion)
This will be measured by middot
The number of individuals contacting LEADER office
The number of groupsbusinesses contacting LEADER office
The number of applications from promoters
The number of projects promoted by LEADER Group itself
General Level of Local I Community Development
Activity (Not for completion)
This will be measured by middot
The number of applications successfully improved
The number of bodies assistedanimatedrestructured improved
Number of bodies established
More Efficient Use of Resources
(Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number of projects successfully referred to other agencies (i e funded)
i
------MeasL1re B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector ActivityOutput -
I
dministration Processing
Number of staff exclusively I assigned to administrative duties
(2 15 etc)
Number of staff exciusively assigned to animation duties (2 1 5 etc)
Number of Board meetings held
Number of hours worked on a I voluntary basis by Board
members
Number of project evaluation committees
I
Number of project evaluation committee meetings held I
Number of hours worked on a voluntary basis by pro1ect evaluation committee members
I Number of internal LEADER Group evaluation meetingssessionsreviews
I Number of external system auditsreviews (not including accounts)
Co-ordination of Activities I
Number or meetings with other LEADER Groups
I
Number of County Strategy Meetings attended
Number of other meetings with I public bodies
middot shy
Impact
Efficient Delivery of Service (Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number or applications received The number of applications
processed The number of applications approved The number of projects completed
More Efficient Use of Resources
(Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number of projects referred to other agencies (not including those that were referred after provision of animation assistancetechn1cal advice which 1s dealt with beneath)
Apprnd1x 0 3
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector ActivityOutput Impact
Technical Support Studies and Research Knowledge I Expertise Made Available to Potential
Number of studies plansaudits Promoters commissioned by LEADER (Not for completion) Group (not including field work carried This wlfl be measured by out by animators which is included above) The number of LEADER
projects emanating from studies Number of other auditsstudiesplans prototype The number of projects development commissioned by emanating from studies funded promoters amp funded by by other agencies LEADER
The number of bodies restructuredimproved
The number of bodies established
1ppc11cLy ) 4
----
--- --
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
I Sector Activity I Output Impact middot- ---shy
Training Provision of Training Courses Acquisition of Skills (Not for completion)
I Number of training courses commissionedundertaken by This will be measured by LEADER Group (not including animation activ1t1es The number of bodies outlined above) demonstrably LEADER StaffBoard restructuredimproved by GeneralCommunity Courses training provided to SpecialisedSectoral volunteersstaff
I
Number of attendees at the above The number of proiects emanating from training
I PROVISION OF TRAINING GRANTS The number of attendees who
were placed in employment as Number of Training Grants for a result of training
I courses commissioned by promoters and funded under LEADER (not including any of the above)
I GeneralCommunity Courses Spec1al1sedSectoral
Number of attendees at the above
Grant Provision Job CreationRecruitment Assistance I
Number of Employment Grants Employment created provided
I ~-
Afgtj)(11cLmiddot J 5
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Activity I OutputSector
Improvement of Existing Accommodation and
Tourist Amenities
Rural Tourism
Number of capital grants provided
Development of New Accommodation and
Tourist Amenities
Number of capital grants provided
Marketing
Number of marketing grants provided
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number accommodation facilities upgraded to Bord Faille standard
Number of additional beds available
Increased number of visitormiddot capacity
Add1t1ona1 tourist revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Sectoral Benefits
New entrants
Number of additional beds available
Increased number of visilor capacity
Additional revenue generated IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Improved Business Attributable to Marketing
Additional bed-nights arising from marketing strategy
Additional inquiries visits to tourist offices - domestic - overseas
Additional visits to tourist amenities Siles arising from marketing strategy
Number or new marketmg methods tourist packages initiated
Employment- (e g directly arising rrom marketing as opposed to capital grant aid eg as a result or brochures advertisements etc) Created I Sustained
-------
Meas1Jre B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Small Firms Craft Enterprise and Local Services
I
I
i
I
i
i
I
_
Activity I Output
Support for Existing Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Support for New Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Marllteting
Number of marketing grants provided
- -Impact
-Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with improved efficiencyadded value to products and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product ranges
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
I
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises established
New productsproduct ranges
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Greater Awarness of Enterprise Activity
Number of new (geographical) markets developed - within Ireland - within EU - non - EU
Increased sales (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
1J(11di- Igt 7
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Agricultural Forestry and Fishery Products
Activity I Output
Support for Existing Enterprises and Improving
Quality of Existing Products
Number of capital grants provided
Support for New Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Marketing
Number of marketing grants provided
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with improved efficiencyadded value to products and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product ranges
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Number of enterprises established
New productsproduct ranges
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Greater Awareness of Enterprise Activity
Number of new (geographical) markets developed - within Ireland - within EU - non - EU
Increased sales (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector Activity I Output Impact
Freservation of the Improving Awareness Increased Environmental Environment and Livin Awareness9
Conditions Number of capital grants Number of environmental provided plansaction groups established
(not including groupsplans arising from animation andor other technical support outlined above)
Number of entries for Tidy Towns Competition
Benefit to the Built I Cultural of Built I Social and Cultural
Protection I Enhancement Environment
Environment
Number of built sitesstructures provided Number of capital grants
protected or restored
Number of socialcultural events held
Employment created I sustained
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Benefit to the Natural of Natural Environment
Protection I Enhancement Environment
Number of natural sites protected provided Number of capital grants
Number of natural amenities restoredenhanced
Improved Managment of Activities I Alternative
Waste Management Waste I Availability of
Energies Alternative Energy
Number of capital grants Number of alternative energy provided providers established
Number of waste management initiatives implemented
Employment created I sustained
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
AJf)(itrlLmiddot J9
Measure C Transnational co-operation
Sector
Transnational Co~peration
Activity I Output
Grant Provision
GeneralCommunity SpecialisedSectoral Rural Tourism Small Firmscraftsenterprises AgricultureForestryFisheries Products EnvironmenVLiving Conditions Other
Number of Grants provided to final beneficiary (each category is exclusive)
Private Men Private Women Private Jointmiddot CommunityDevelopment Groups Business VoluntarySpecific Issue Groups Co-operatives LEADER Group Other Total
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with establishedimproved efficiency added value to producls and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product rangesnumber of new marketing methods tourist packages initiated
Number of new (geographical) markels developed - within Ireland -within EU - non-EU
Additional inquiries visits to tourist offices - domestic - overseas
Additional visits to tourist amenities sites arising from marlltetmg strategy
Additional bed-nights arising from marketing strategy
Increased sales Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Number of cultural links established
Number of local development strategies studies transferred shared
Number of environmental actions
Employment - created full-time all year fu11-time seasonal part-time all year part-time seasonal
Employment - sustained full-trme all year full-time seasonal part-time all year part-time seasonal
AfJJll1tll~Y )_ Q
Appendix E Matrix of Development Agencies in County Roscommon and the Services Provided (Produced by Roscommon County Enterprise Board)
---------~
c Q
~l agt-EUJ
Co Jnty Slrategy Group CoJnty Enterpnse BoHd
Anmiddotina Enterprise Fund
Lec1der 11
Pai tnersh1p Co ( --~--~---~--~--
Co-Jnty Council ---- middot---~---t--~--~~-~r ---~-~--~-~--~-~--~--~
lrel 3nd Wes ToLnsm
--~---~--~--~---middot -~----~----------~--
Tecgasc
An Bord Tr3cht31a
Forbairt ( ( (
10t Ireland I
FA
Bord Faille (
Bar1ksFinanc1al Insmiddot itulions I
Dcpartmenl of Social Welfare
Buiness Innovation Centre
European lnfc rmat1on Centre
AfJjJCJICfiY E l
Appendix F Framework of Agreement between County Meath CEB and County Meath LEADER II Group
MEMOHANDUM OF AGHEFMFNT
JelVtLll
The Meath County Fn1erpnse Board Ltd
and
Mca th Leader 11
Given he -i1n1brilics bl(lLll ccnnn ispeCls of the n1ni1 of bnth Counry Enterprise Hoard ind lc1dcr
IL ii b 11ceptcJ th11 i high ltkne of co-orxru1on is rcql1inJ to tbullns11n that dtmiddotserv1ng proiccis giin
n11xi1nl1111 txncfit fron1 he s11p1x111 1ncchanis11h avulihh V1tlun hoth orgu11-11in11s_ Vhdc s~ 11HL
division of rcsponsiliililics is possibl~ t outlined hcIO 11 1s ncogni cJ 11111 both groups need 10 1dop1
tn OJICll n(Xihh tpproteh IO the ltsk of f)TltJCCing ClllflCS 111J tppliCtliOllS
lc1dcr II -ill ha prin1a~middot n spon~ibilitv ill 11lc Couniy f()r lhc st1ppon of p1ojlmiddotCS f10111 the frgtllovi11~
sectors
bull Craft Enttrpnscs Cfor fin1nciil suppon ilh 1 li1n11cd fcxmiddotus on soft suppons)
bull Kurii Touris1n
bull Proicn- p1n1nnttd hy Co111111u11i1y CnH1P
bull Exploilition and M1rke1ing of lor1I agriculcur1I fcxxl for(siry tnd fishtnts products
bull Envuonn1tnl for ht follomiddotinJ mc1surcs middot
e Prtscrv1tion ind dcvlmiddotloprnenl of the existing 1rch11te1ur1I heriti(lbull ind bullillages
bull Suppo11 for n1hur1I Cfl111v1ty ind the pron1ot1un C1f cultur1I product- linked ith nir~d
ltlevelcip111ent
bull Prot~ctron rch1btli111ion ind explollllion of nuural rccurces (Oor1 fiunt srndl s1rc11ns
ccc) ind bncl~tpcs
bull Di1x1s1I 1nd fC()ding Clf ISie illdl1ding llSt or energy pnxluuion
ll1is i111plies th11 Le1ltler II tvill cngig1middot 111 p1--delmiddotlltipn1lmiddotnt 1ni11nins research tnd 1111rkc1ing ind he
prin11rily nspons1hlc for the c1pi1d invt~1111enl 1s-oci11ed Vith tht dcvcloprnent of vdue-iltld(d fotgtlt1
produce ind viii dso pronss rtqutsts for 1id for c1p1rd intslmeni ln1ploy111cnt grants 1111rktting
ind 111ining s11ppon- in lht 1hovl stcio1s
The County Enttrpnsc l3cgt1rltl tvill continu1 10 support f(bull1siliilicy cap1td ind (rnploy1ncnl projcd
l1id1 li1vt tilt c1p1lt ily ro gtntricc ernpkraquobull111tn1 v11h1n tll otlllmiddotr -ltmiddotciors Po1cnt1tl projects vhich 111cit
This rtquirvnicnc viii he rtfcrrtd to tteh otliLr in 1cltorltlincc Vitll tlus Agrtllllcnl
middot111t 1ltith Coun1y Enterprise Boird lld ind ilcalh Lealtlcr II arlmiddot lOn1n1incd to rn11ntaining open lines
nf cn111n1un1c11ton tn in1plcn1er1t the tcnn- of thi u11dirs11nd1ng ind alsn co111111ir 1h11 the Chief
Execu1ivltmiddot OfficLmiddotrs will n1eet hH1ndly on 1 111onclilmiddot li1sis to v11s111c cff1cilnt i1npllnhnt1tilgtn middot111i
AgretlllLnt tltgt co111inue 111 orxr11ion un11I _l_t Oeccn1her 19)7 ind viii Ix suh1cc1 10 rcvittmiddot by the
1cith County Enterprise Board 11cl 1n consult1t1011 Vith Lcidtr IL
101hi11g in chis A_irec1ntnt shtll he cltJntruccl 10 li111i1 DI tLStnu lhe _1in11D1y il1nu1011s 111d n1xr1titJns
of till 11lmiddot1th Coun1y Enttrprbc Bo1rd 11cl or lc1der II
Pn1lint B1ker Torn Clinton
Ch11rr111n Ch11n11111
middotlttth Coun1y Enlerprisc Boud Ltd Mc11h lc1dtr II
~ppcndrx I I
Appendix G Terms of Reference for Interdepartmental Policy Committee
Thn New Committees Role
The Role of the new Committee to be cl1Jired by Minister of ~late Finnel will Ix
shned by the Local Demiddotelopnlltnt Mind1Itmiddot given to Department of Tourism Sport
and lkcrca11on by the (jovcrnmenL Key items in that bndate which fall into the
Coumittees remit will mcluclc
A PronH)ticJn of tile integral(lt dcvelop111cnt of tl1e 111o~n dis~1dvantaged urban con1n1unitics hy ensuring that their needs are addresscd ()11 a priority ~incl
coordinated basis in conjunction vi1h 1rea Partnership lton1panie~ by all nlevanr public agencies
bull middot1l1is is regarded as the 1nost urgent priltgtrity
bull Tlw focus will be on developing the opti1ml approach to addressing
the needs of these areas
bull Special co-on linated all-out etfltJl1 in a nun1bcr ltgtf s1nall areas
j B Co-cgtrdination of Ioc~1l lgtcvcloprnent iniriatives and prcp~trnion for the
post - 1999 transition to an integrated Local Development ancl Local
Govcrnn1cnr systc1n
bull 1oc~d l)evelopn1enl IiaiS(gtn Jean1 issues
bull Adclnssing rclevan1 local clcvelopn1cnt issues raised in l3etter Loc~d
(overnnltnt - ~1 Prngra111111e fltgtr CJ1angc anU lh( recenlly ruhl1sliecl Hcport of the J)evcgtlu1ion Co111111ission
bull middotrhe en1phasis vlll ht ltgtn en~uring thal the posi11ve dcvelopn1ents and effective lltV V~l)S of VOrking resulting fro1n Local l)evelop111ent
and Partnership initiative~ arc preserved and strengthened in the
developnltlll nf i renevecl Loc1I Govern111ent
C The Oper1tiond Progrimmc for Locd Urb1n 111cl Rural Development
ancl its sh1pe post - 1lt)99
middot middotrhL 1nain tmiddottsks Vill be tltgt
bull Secure hl btmiddot~r co-ordinttion hltveen the various i111rle1nerHing
1ge11cie- l)ep111n1ents etc
r1jJjJlllriz~y G 7
bull Seek 10 ensure chat problcn1s incl issucs vhlch ~1rise il ~1 local level
ire n-ponclecl ro incl rcsolveltI
bull lclencify i1en1s tltgt be n11instrc1111ed in tern1s cgtf overall policy
bull Consider 1he ou1line of i new 011URJ) for the post - 1999 penocl
taking into ~1ccount the viC-middot of the Social Partncri
D Co-urclin11iun of (gtV(rltdl Govern1nent Policy on Local l)evekgtpn1ent
bull middotr1ie Jn1er-l)epan111ental Pt)licy Con11ni11ee on Loc~d J)evelopn1en1 Vill
be a key foru 111
bull Scctltgtrtl is-ues viii he considered fro111 1he perspective of
encouraging gre~ttcr cO-ltgtrdin~ttion and integr1tion of delivery of
services It local hvel
le1ce 111d Heconcilurion
lESI
Pos1 2000 subrnission
Territorial Employment
Picts
Tourism Opcrationll
Progran1111c
Ul~HN ini1iuive
1n EU Initiative to reinforce progress Ovards a
pe1ccful ind stable society by incre1sing econo1nic
dcvelop1nc1H urban and rur~d regeneration
developing cross-lxJrdcmiddotr links incl con1lx111ing soci1l
exclusion
Progra1nn1e for Econo111ic and Social Progress
Suh1nissions nques1ed fro111 govern1ne111 depar11ntnts
other sr11e 1gcncics ind na1ionil 1x1nners on the
future use of structurII funds post 2000
An EU lrnti1tive to hdp the unemployed find 1obs 1n
dis1clv1n1aged areas
middotrhe opera11onal progra111111c for 1ouris111 devltlopnHnt
under tlw Community Support Framework 199i middot 1999
n EU Initiative the purpose of which is 10 1ddress
in 111 integrited tr urban sltxi1l exclusion by
building panncrship arr1ngcnHnrs bttvcen locil
1u1horitil and 01hcr loc1J structures
S1J1mmary middotrhis alue for 1nnney rcpo11 is cnnccrntd vi1h the oper~Hion during the period 1994shy1995middot of loc1J devllop1ntnt initiatives provided through (ounry Enterprise Boards (CEiis) Arc1-B1sed 11nnersh1r Comp1111es (i1rtncrshipsJ ind IEADER groups
CEiigt Wltre es11hished in every countv for thtmiddot p11rrose of promnlng locd emerprise incl econo1111c clev([op1nen1 middotrhcrc 1rc 3 CLBs vhich opcrltttc undtmiddotr agreen1en1
Villi the J)epart1ncn1 of Enterprise middotrrade and E111ploy1nen1
middotrhe purpose of Partnerships is to co1nlx11 unln1ployn1ent ~ind exclusion middotrhere ire
38 lannerships operalrng in 1re1s design11ed as disrdvrntagcd and a fu11her 33 Inell devtlopnumiddotnt gruups in non-dis1dv1nt1gecl 1n1s middotrhesc opertle under in inle1111ldi1ry con11x1ny vhich rt~purt~ to the Igtcp1rt11Hnt uf middotrouris111 Sprnl ind
Rccreilion
The LEADER grours were cstiblrshed under an EU In11io11ive to promote rur11 clevcmiddotlopnitmiddotnt 1ly suppCgtrting lltgtcal developnHtH groups middotrhere middottrl 5i lEAl)EH
groups opirH1ng undcr agrei1nc11t- vith the lJep1ru11ent of Agriculrurl ind Food
From 1994 10 1998 public funding totalling l208 million was providld lo these bodies of vhich pound-127 111illion middotIi pruvicled by 1hc EC Co111n1i~sion incl f~-1 111illion
by 1he Exchequer CEB-gt ~ind Pannirships an funded under the ()perationtl lrofra111111e Or Lltx-al Urlgtan and Hurorl [kvelop111en1 199lt1-1999 (OPUIHD) The UADER groups 1re funded under the LEAD EH Operational Programme 1994- 1999
middotr11e value for niuncy ex1111inttion looked H specific issues rel1ting to rhc
acln1inistr1tive ~ind opilJtiontl etliciincy of thlt thrt~t~ 1ypts of hoclies lht
1rra11gc111ents fo1 co ordination lgtlttvtmiddotcn rhe txxlies and approache~ 10 ltValutlion of
their i111p1ct
Administrative Efficiency
middotrhe divcrsily of 1c1ivi1ies ~ind different stages of developnicnr of the hodies li1111t chc~
exrc11 to Vhich cross con1parisons of achninistrHive efficiency c1n be 111acllt
drrinistc111011 expc11di111re hy all tlte hocl1es 111tallld S28 9 11ull1on 1n tlw pltn11d 1995 to 1middot)97 )uring 1hiI period thl ovcr~i11 rrcenl~tgi of ad1111ni~lration costs to total cxplncli111re declined subtantitlly fro1n 28Yo co 220u principilly bccaust n1any of chc bodies n1ovcd fron1 1 set up phase ICgt being fully operational Achninis1r1t1on expenditure as a ptTcc11t1ge of ltgtlal expcndi1un also varied bttVCltll individu1I hnclitmiddots clue to clitlere1Hes in the nalure of the aclimiddoti1ies undeniken For lX~ttnpk the level of 1cl1ninistr~1tive co-l~ middotoukl he influenced by lhe extent to Vhich
incli11idual bodies is~lll grant support or offer non-financial 1ssist1nce In generil Partnlrships have higher adn1in1strllion cost- nlHive to thlmiddot other hod1es for rhis reasc)n
middotrhe llodies are characterised hy -ubstintitl voluniarmiddotymiddot inputs at board and sulgtshycon1n1inee levels middotrhis is in kclping Vith hirncs-ing local knovledgc and tpenise ro ~1ch1eve con1n1on ob1ectivt~ Key staff VCrC inv1n1hly highly qualified and
rcso ircefuL
lhe develop1ncn1 of n1~1nagen1tmiddotnt inforn1ition _ys1c1ns has not been sari-Ltctorymiddot in
--- middot- --------------shy
ulttf I )(coJlllc1 II If ii itl f itL
that rhert is nn 1tJ1un111ic sharing of d111 11nnng loc1l dtVllop111en1 bodies ind lhe scope for effectiveness inilysis is t1111i1ed middotrhroughoul 1hlt pcritxl covered by lhL ex1111in11ion inforn1ation systt111s vl1icl1 include perfcn1111nce 111e1suns ind inclic1tors (cl n1cJniror etliciltncy incl ~tTectiveness htvL l)etmiddotn under tlevLmiddotlup111cn1 ind pr()grts is heing 1111cle in iddrc sing the deficiencilS
Co-ordination of Activities
The flexible approich 10 the i111ple111et11ition of local dewloprnnt policy rcmiddotstilts in consider1hhmiddot duplicition of the enlcrprislmiddot crvicts providld by thlt three types or hodils Vith 1pcc1 10 objlClies clients incl 1c1ivities middotro i lesser lXtLllt 1here is duplici11on of 1c1ivities concerned ilh coun1ering serious ecnno111ic incl sociil dis1clv1n1ige heciusl Pirtnerships t1rgct specific clitnl groups - the long-tcnn unemployed ind the soci11ly excludld In nine ctsc-s Pinnerships and lEADEH groups share i conunon 1111n1gc1nen1 board
Co-operilion 11nung 1hc hodies ind Villi othtr urginisalions (Stale local govern111tnl co111111unity ind volunttry st ctor incl bllllllSS) ~Jt loctl ltvel to 1chicve igreed objectives con1rib11tcs to the unique innovlit roll of 1hc Local l)evelor1nen1 initiitives
Suhsicly shopping can ltgtCltl1r IHrehy Lmiddotlitmiddotn1s can 1111xin1ise the public funding they rcciivi by tpplying for grillS frolll cliffcnn IJodieS (O 11ppOlt cliiferent elelllt~lllS Oi
their projccls middotrhis incvit1bly leicls lo cluplic11ion in 1d1ninistrllion Fonnil in1erdep1rr111en1il 1gree111en1s should Ix- cmiddotontmiddott1ded to define 1l1e li1ni1s bllVecn the ohrcc11ves clienls ind activities of thl three bodies ind si111ilir 1gree111en1s should he concluded It locil level middotrhese 1green1tmiddotn1 n1ight look for vays of n1ini1nising the id111inisr11ion of 111ultiple tpplicHions for funcling in 1 project
t cohestvlmiddot 1ppro1ch to th( intcgrition of locil govern1nen1 1nd loc~ll develorn1en1 V~ts set out in 1998 by tn in1erclep111n1ental middotrask Force J1nplen1cnt11ion of 1his rep(U1 is underv1y
Operational Efficiency
middotrh1middot 1111in 1ctivi1y ind outpul tirgcts ire being n1et but the absence of baseline perfnnnince d111middot llll1ns lltll ii is not knclvn hoV dc1111nding 1he original r1rgets Vere 1rising fron1 VOrk by the external cviluitors ro thl Oper1tional Progra1nn1es 1111ny nf the 11rge1s h1vc been rlisccl hv tile -loniroring (01nn1inees vhich oversee llH i1nplv111c111tlilt)n c)f rl1ltmiddot Progr11111ncs
1hile tlcn1en1s nf exptmiddotnditun (Pannltrships incl LEAJ)FH groups) Vere son1cvh1t behind tirget II the lttlcl of 1998 it is cxpec1ed by the lgtcp~1111nents 1h11 spcncling targlts viii he n1e1 by the encl of the Operational Progran1111es
Sludils indicHt lhH tht level of dcadvciglll (the tmiddotxrent to Vhich enterprises suppltgtrlt~cl unclir the Operational lrogr1111111es Ould be cst1hlished Vilhout gr1n1s) n11y be in the rangt 4(Yc1 10 50dego ()isplicen1en1 (the ex1cn1 to Vhich suppo11ed enterpri~cs clive11 stils ind en1ploy111en1 oppo11uni11es fro1n other Irish enterprises) 111iy he in the r1ngl 20 (Cl 400u Fron1 eirly l 99H CEBs and P111nerships have been tn1poverecl to Jss1s1 enterprise projects by n1eans of refuncl1ble Jid incl equily Use
ii
S1111111u11v
of thltse forms of id should he expndcd quickly in prelerencl 10 11011-repyJlt gracts 1s they can help to reduce cleHhveight 1nd dispL1ce111tnt and in addi11on 1re t 1111)1 econo1nictl use of public funds
Son1e inst1nces of clispk1cen1en1 providl social benefits vhich n11y outvcigh the
cost involved There is a need for n1orl cl1rity regarding the circu111s11nces in vhich
dispbccrncnr rn he perrnined
Assessment of Impact
lhe developn1en1 of sys1e1ns to 1ssess the in1pact of Local J)tgtvtgtlopn1en1 initkHives is not easy hec1use of 1he clibullersity of objccrives rhc tick of n1easurahility nf so111e
i111p1cts rlie tlJsence of clisagtregtled d1t1 n1odels rclcv1nt lo locil areas and the need for careful in1erpretHio11 of results
Quantitative Assessment
ltJu1n1itJtiC 1sessn1ent of the in11x1c1 of (gtcal l)evclopn1ent hodivs c1n bl carried our by exa1nining ch1nges in vari1ble such as long-tcnn 11ne1nploynHnl ind 1-n11middotrpri-e forn1arinn Studits to dare of thest v1riallles have yielded inlmiddotonclu-ive
rt~sults
rtpon on the i111p~1ct of OJgtLLHI) on ong-tenn ltnen1ployr11lrlt shnvs thtt fro111
1991 to 1996 unc111ploy111cnt in gtJrtntmiddotr~hipmiddotareas fell by roughly poundhe sa111t penentage as in non-P~n1nership ~treas
A111y~is of 11~11ional Live Hcgi~[er cla1a for 1he pc-riod CJ94-1998 indilates ~1 signifi(1n1 Lill in chc kwl of long-cerm unemployment hich b pat11cula1 focu of P~1r111erships bur the reduction n1ay h1ve 111ore 10 do vith 1he in1pact of tron~ 1middotconon1ic gn)vth poundh1n vid1 rhc effec1 of Local l)cvclop111cnt initiatives
A nmiddotiev of the nu1nber of n1anuL1c1uring s1ar1urs fru1n 1987-1996 siHJVS rhar 1he rapid econon1ic grcJvlh fro1n 1995 and the onstmiddott of thtmiddot Local l)evllop111ent iniri11ives did 101 result in an increisecl rate of 1111nuf1c1uring sta11ups
lntc~rnion of enterprise support incl perforn11nct da11 Jcross the Loctl l)evmiddot-lopn1cn1 inipoundiuives voulcl be required in order 10 est1hlish 1he underlying reasmiddot)llS for these rends
Quiitative Assessment
lkciled Census of Populicio11 d11 (1991 a11d 19)6) is available regrd1ng 1ndicacors of distdv1n11ge in Pirtnership 1n~1 hile rherc are lin11tuions inolved in int(-rpreti11g the cl1t1 fu11her ~1111lys1s ~houd facilitlle 1s~es1nen1 of lhl in1p1cr of the actimiddotities of 1111ncrhips
Jhe exlent of n1~11eri1J specificJJly covering 1hc evtlua1ion of i111pacl is very li111ited P1rt11crships hie CJrriecl our evcril cisc Situlies to cxplorL the in1ptrl of 1heir tcliililS ind 10 pro111ute 1-gtesr pr1c1ice (1~l srudies arc undervay also in ni1ny
lEA)EH groups l-lovtver there is i clt-1r nted for 111ore d111 lmiddotulllmiddotcrion and the
clevdopmenc of sonil policy rnocleb co prnvicle a hcncr ins1gl11 into che imp1cr of Loe~ I l)evelop111ent 1c1ivities
iii
bull
Local Development Initiatives
middot
- shy~~ ~~ltmiddot~-
middot
middot~
1 Introduction
Background to Local Development Initiatives
11 Since htbull ltarly 1)90 the (omiddoternn1tmiddotn1 middotill1 the support of 1hc European
lJnion (_lmiddotl) h1s introdutcd 1 nun1hvr of policy initiatives in suppo11 of hxil sltx-ioshy
eltcgtncgtnlilmiddot clcvelltlp1ncnt Tlteslt 1ni1i1timiddotcs stc111111cd fngt1n htmiddot pertcivcd L1ilt1re (Jf
cxiting pnlicicmiddots to _hirl lfllmiddot benefit ol 1middotcono111ic gnnmiddotth lmiddotquitahly tcrn-s local
ro11H1H1nililS ind 111Hn1g thl 111ore distdmiddot1n11gtmiddotd scctCJr of Irish iocitImiddot (~llltrtl to
1hc initiatives ts tliemiddot cn~11ion of lllcd lll1ployn1cn1 oppnnunititmiddot togetlitmiddotr Villi
llHISllrtmiddots to 11cklc cduc1tional distclvan11glmiddot tJlmiddotirltlflllltnlil cl1c1y ind ocial
lxclusion middotrhe IH~v pc ii icy alio n11rked 1 revers~1l fro111 the tr1ditio11al htmiddotgi111ony DI
central govltrnnitmiddotn1 by nmiddotcognising iht roll Vhich local cu11111111ni1amiddot c1n play in
the proctsi of lCltHlltunic trKI Sltgtc1al dtbull(lopn1enc
12 r pri11IJI) purpo--l of Incil J)evelop111lnl V1- co identify Jprropnllt Vays of
-tin1uLtting tll rllvvant luctl re-ources 111 suppo11 of Lllterpngti deth)pn1vn1 ind
tickling long-tern1 unernploy111ent hough llLttetL lhe-imiddot 1rt di-rinct uhjccliVLS 1nU
tlil vXtmiddotnr ro middothich they could htbull 1sotiatcd in operationd llllll- rc1111ined tn he
lthlished it that ti111e
13 IIH 1111in ekmiddotnlLllC ()f the llt appro1ch middotLlL
bull p1rtnersliip hllVtmiddotcn stitulory hu ines ind cD111nH1nity scctnrgt
bull dtmiddotmiddotulurinn to local bodies of lllltmiddotds idcntifiLation pL1nning to-ordi111Cio11 of
progr11111tltS dvlill of 1r111ova1it and ctmiddotriain other action tnd 111on11()ring
of progres
bull involvcrncnt of the eniirlt co111n1unity cspcciilly d1sHhmiddot1nt1gcd groups
bull 1dltl[Hilt1n cgtf a Jtili-li(middot ll)PH)tclt l1tbullrtbulll)y l(l)flCgtllliC 111d S(icmiddoti~1J dlVtbullhipnlcllt
VOllld OCClll (CllCUllellliy
13 middotrt1tmiddot Hhnini-rrililtlll (Jf Lo~middot1l J)tmiddotvlmiddotlopnHmiddotnr in Ireland is cl1ssi1111l1r legt 1ll11 in
oth1 middotr FlJ countriis in li1tl
bull lhltrl artbull i nu111lill of di1inc1 pn1gr1n1n1cs
bull there i strong centrd gullllllhllt 111d EU involve111tlll
bull 111middotv local 1d111ini-tr1t1vc s1n1c1111middotls -ere demiddoticcJ inderH1Hllnt ()r lXiring local
govlmiddotrn111cnt structu1
Ctmiddotrrril goven1111enl control- the hulk of public fininces At locil ltmiddotvel local
aulill gtril ilt~ ft 1 net ions h1 ve 1llen li111i1ed Ct ivering n11ttcrs such ts roads -1ni111ion
111d housing ihill 1hvonric1llv locil ~1u1lionl1tS co1dd lllgtgLmiddot in 111a11v uther ()cal
c lemiddot l le iJ Hnen t
hinmiddotling ~ygttlIll 111d ittthility 10 pursue ltl ignificull ltgtctl c1x11ion middotYtcn1_ 1 middotr1sk
oca Je1ehJ[J111e111 lnitiatiues
Force 1 esrtblish~cl by rhe Governn1tnl 1nadc i nu111her of rtco1n1ncnd1tions in 1
rcpon 111 August 1998 regarcl1ng the mtcgration of local dcvdopment with local
government These ere approved by the Government in September 1998 (sec
paragraphs 10 to 3 31)
Organisational and Management Arrangements
15 The tO main EU funded programmes providing suppon for Local
Development arc the Opernional Programme for Local Urban 1nd Hural
Devclormcnt (OlLUHD) ind 1he llADEH II lrogr1111111c These Opcrntional
lrog11mmcs were drafted by the Department of the Tao1sc1ch and 1hc Dep1rtmen1
of Agriculture and Food (Agricuhure 1nd Food) respectively within EU guidelines
incl 1grced Vith the EU Co1n111ission
16 Each sub-progr1111111e of 011UlI) and IEADER 11 is 1clm1nistc1nl locally by di1inc1 Local J)evelop1ncn1 bodilts middotrhis c11nin~1tion is concerned Vilh Lltx~il
l)evelop111en1 acrivilies 1cl1niniscercd by Coun1y Enlerprise Bltgtards and 1re1-Based
111111crship Companies under OlLURD and by LEADEl groups under LEADER II Hcspons1bili1y for rhee bodies coines under chi rc1nit of three scpar11lt Governn1en1
Dep111ments (sec 11gurc II)
Co1111ty pound11er[Jrise Boards
17 Crn1111y Enterprise lloirds ((Ells) were established 111 Oe1olier 1993 wnh the
tilll or fu tering incl f1cilitating che LCOll01l1iC dcvelopn1ent of local area~ Each CEB
Vts required 10 clrt1 up 1 Counry 1nccrprise Pltn incl its iccions incl prupo-als are
Figure 11 Main Departments and Local Development bodies
Enterprise Trade and
Employment
County Enterprise
Boards
Tourism Sport Government and Recreation Departments and Agriculture
and Area Intermediary and Food DevelopmenlCompany
Management Ltd
bull
Area-Based
Local LEADERPartnershipsDevelopment groupsCompanies and
Bodies community groups
1Jc To5k fmiddot(Jtmiddotccmiddot R(Xlrt u11 rbe 1tfpound7ratiu11 lt oc(lf (io1en1111e1u (11tf Local Jc1elo1me11t Srs1e111s bullbull~Ql( 19)i
2
---1tfrotluct1un
ha ed on 1hi plan middotrhertmiddot art 51 ltEBs in total covering county and urban local
~ll1hori1y 1rc1s Ftch (~EB h1s 1-i 111e1111Jer irHluding repngtStIltHivls of local
govltrnn1c11t public Stl or 1g~ncics hu1ntmiddots Lun1ing lradt union and co11111n1ni1y
inlTest
lH middotrhc CEBs provide 1 r1nge of enltrprigtt -upp()rt -ervices al local levt l eg
admiddot1 ic~ and coun~tlling hus1ncmiddot infonnaiion financial 1sis1ancc and 111an1gtIlllnc
dcmiddottlop11l(Jll middotrhtbull firgltl group- ~tre husinltsse- co11111nu1i1y groups individud
en rcprtJ1(lJrs 1nd -n1i[] enterprises cEBs tonk OVtf re-gtpon-ihililv frorll lhl fltgtrlller
Industrial i)tclop111cnt u1hori1y (ll)A) for the devt~lDpllhllt of 111anufac111ring and
inl =rna1iont gtervicc - finn~ Vilh ltmiddot s th111 ten en1ploycmiddotc In 1ddi1ion_ thtmiddoty is-u111cd
the l1tmiddot roll of pngt11101in~ 111 vnltTpriL culturt
l~1 J-ro111 1hc outet the i)tgtp1r1111lnt of Entcrprist middotrrade and F1nployn1cnt
( Enterpri-e middotrr1dtmiddot 111d L111ploynHmiddotn1) has been responsiblt for co-ord1n~Hing and
supcrvising the crBgt lniti11ly dec1~ions on grant payn1ent~ lo individual projecls
vtre vetted by hl f)t1gt1rt111enl 11ltgttVtL (~EBs Vere ccgtr1s1i1111cd as lin1ited liahili1y
l0111p1nies during iltJltJ) and ifl(I 1January 19CJ(i hive 111idc grtnt decisions
110 Stiffing accon1111ltJLlatiun and 01hcr expen es V(~1tmiddot ini1i1lly provided liy lhtmiddot
lul ii 1u1horitics on a recoupn1cnr lgtt~i and ah hough the CFBs anmiddot nov
inl orporatccl rntny havtmiddot coniinutd Viti lliis 1rrangen1cn1
111 Funding for ltt]is is co-fin111ctmiddotd by Elj _1ruc1urtl funds via suh-progra1111ne I
of 011UHD mcl hv the hchequlr
Ara-amp1setl lc1rt11erslJiJ (-tJn11c111ies
112 1ret-Bit~d 11rtntrhip co1np1nies ltPa11ncrship) vere originally c-tihlished
in 12 ~1rltmiddotmiddotas un 1 pilot hi~i in 1991 10 in1phnhnt an nca-hastmiddotd nmiddotspollgtt to longshy
tlrrn unen1pl(lyn1tlll under tile Progra111111e for Econoinic and Sul-i1I Progrltss (PESP)
_JH Partnerships havt hcen lSt1hlished (2() urhJn ind 1- rural) lo optrat in 55 areas
dtig11Htmiddotd by 1hc (~ovvnlllltlll i~ hling disidvan1~1gtd In 1cldi1ion lherc ire 55 C(lJllllH1nity dcmiddotLmiddotlop111ent groups in non-dtmiddotsig111ted arets middot1J1ch c1ny oul fu11ctior1s
i111iltr to tho~v uf 1he 11r111er-liips middotrile Boards of i)irectors of the co111panil-gt lll
drvn fror11 (1) 1he SlgtCiil p1nncr (ii l -ttle 1genc1tmiddots ind (iii) co111111unity ~ind
vc gt t1n1tr~- cHg111is1 tio11
tmiddot13 The function~ nf the P1rntrsliip art to preptre lnc1I dcmiddottlopn1t~n1 pl1n _ in
con~tdtalion vi1h otl1LI local groups incl hudicmiddots_ to lOLHlltf d1stdvan11gc in 1hcir
~trtts and tiltn lo hlmiddotl thlmiddot-c plans i111ptmiddotn1cmiddotn1td middotrile pl111 oullines the rangt of
socitl ind lmiddotcono111ic tSSlltS to ht addrtmiddot scd in lhimiddot l1rget trta and the ohjeclive to
Ill pursultd h1scd on tile resuh of ~1 ltgtcio-ccono111ic analysis of lhc iret middotrliLmiddot
intbulllllion i~ ro 1tLmiddotlcr11c lnlt11 eronoinic dltmiddotvltmiddotlorn1e1H increise frnrloynHmiddotnt ind
local Develop111e11t l11itiati1es
tickle cxclu~ion incl 1nargintlisa1ion resulting fro111 long-llflll une111ploy111ent vc1y
vide r1nge of 1ctivities i~ unde111ken including job pltCLlllCIH adull education
training con111n1ni1y clevelopn1lmiddotn1 cnviro1111H111tl projLCI~ and youth iniliHives
114 An indepenckn1 in1c1mcdia1y company wis eslahlished in 1992 in111ally under
1he aqigt of 1he Dep111men1of1he Tioisetch and subgtltltjlltgtnily from midmiddot 1997 1he
Depanmcn1 of Tourism Spon and lkcre11ion (Tourism Spon and Hecreuion) 10
oversee 1hc P1nnersllips ind Jocd devclopn1tnl groups middotrhe con1pany 1rca
i)(velopmet11 M1n1gemen1 Iid (ADM) is required 10 cv1lu11e plins from
Ptrlllt~r~hips corn111unity groups ind selecled organisHions lO 1J1ocatc resources in
1ccord1ncc Vilh the eviluation resul1s ind ro 111onitor LXpenditure incl perfon11~1nce
by btneficiarits Over lj(YtJ of funding is spent by tile lartncrsliips incl (he re1111inder
is spent by co1n1nuni1y gro11ps ind nHionil nrgani11ions
115 funding for P1rtnerships co1111nuni1y groups and eligible spending bv selected n11iond org1nisarions is co-fin1ncecl by ElJ s1n1ctural funds incl by the
Exchequer EU funding is provided uh-progrtmme 2 of 011uRD
LEADER
116 This EU lni1ia11vcmiddot for rural devdopmenl w1s origin1lly bunched 111 1991
(lEADloR 1) The obwrnw of 1hc progr11nme wis 10 ltS11lilish locli devdopmen1
1ction groups bullhich voulcl bt responsible for 1he in1plcn1cn11tion of business pl1ns
for heir areis lE1l)EH I v1s 1he subjecl of 111y firs value for 111oney exa111ini1ion
comple1ed 1n Decemhe1 1994 The ini1i111ve wis co111inued under 1he Oper11ional
lrog11mme for IEADER 11 covering ihe period 1994 10 1999 There tre 34 approved
1EADlR groups (is opposed IO 16 group in 1hc orig1nli progr111Hnc) These 11e
iu10110111011- lcg1l cntilies each conrrollecl by 1 boird 111d opeining under 111
igreen1en1 Vith the J)cp111111cnt of gricul1urc and Food (Agriculture incl Fuuclgt Jht-
l)epa1111Hmiddotn1 required th11 the bo1rds h1ve 1 1ripar1ite s1n1crure representative of 1he
con1111unity incl volunt1ry sec1ur luc1l Stite ~1gencies and the priv11t I con11ncrcitl
sector
117 Unlike 1he 01her lniti11ives covered in 1h1gt ex1111in11ion (which are csset11ilily
n11io11il policy initiHivc-) lEAl)EH i in EU lnitiitivl Vliich Va designed incl
Ln1nchccl by the turope~111 Co111111issio11 his 1ne1ns 1hi1 he in1plc111enlalio11 of
LEAJ)flt its 1in1ing ind opertting rules ~in de1ennined Ltrgel~middot Vithin 1ht EU
Co111n1i~sion 1uncling for rhe LEl)EH II lrogr1111n1e is co-financed fron1 ElJ
s1n1c111ioli f11nd the 1lADEH Opci1110111 lrogrunmc 1))4-1999 rnd by ihe
Exchequer
4
In 1roclzut1on
Sc1urces of Finance
118 The Fll Commission incl rhe Exchequer prolidccl funding for the 1niria11middotes inmiddot
the period 199i-199H follows
EU hchequer Toril
pound-111 t-111 ~-nl
CEils 465 516 98 I Parntrships 530 181 711
LEIDER groups 272 ILG 388
126 7 81) 208 0
Scope and objectives of the examination
1l) middotrhe cxa111in~1tion V~1s concerned only vi1h initiatives to pron1ott local
clebullclop111em rhrough Counrv Enrcrprisc Boards Ptrrnerships and LEADEH groups
Thue are 111anv orher ml[1nives for local devdopmcm such as URBAN Terrironal
E11l)loy1nent Picts Pe~tce ~incl Heconciiation 111d lnterreg II vhich ire outside the
scogtc of this ex~1111ina1ion
12middotJ Nei1her iJ)-1 nor the l1rtnershirs arv covered by 111y statutory value fcgt1 11101ey nn1i1 In the interest of producing i cohcivc report on locil l)lmiddotvclopn1cnt
ini1=11ivlts 1hey igreed that the exa111inuion ~hould he extended to chc111 middotrhcir coshy
OJX ration in 1liis resptmiddotlmiddot1 i~ icknovllmiddotclgecl
121 The overall objec11vcs of rhc c1n1inar1on w
bull ro ltVal11are rhc administrative effwncv ol rhc llltXlit (Chaprer 2)
bull lo asstmiddotss the extent of duplic~Hion and co-ordin1tion ~1rrangen1en1s ltCh1p1cr j)
bull to ev~dualc thl operHional efficiency of the bodies (Chipttr 4)
bull to coniidcr ho- tlii i1n1x1ct of 11ie holtl1e~ can hl asscmiddotssecl (Ch1p1cr 5)
1nr The p1opltJ-f of Illgt c_rrn11iiu111011 CFHgt lar111lmiddot-Ji1ps and 1eoJ(1middot grv11S uill IA Fccmiddoti-rlmiddotd l u lrJl(I
)c1lffJ[gtl11ltf hodico
5
loca l)evelojJ1ne1u 11itiatitCs
122 The main issues considered are
Issue Evaluation Criteria
Administrative efficiency Administration costs bull bull Human resources bull Adequacy of management
information systems
Co-ordination of activities Duplicationbull bull Co-ordination
Operational efficiency Targets and performance bull bull Resource allocation and outturn
bull Deadweight and displacement
Impact assessment Quantitative assessments bull bull Qualitative assessments
Methodology
123 Officials 111 the Depanmem of Amicroricuhure and Food the Dcpanmcnr of
Tourism Spoil and lkcrea11on 1he Department of Enlerprise Tracie and
Employmcm 111cl 1DM were interviewed Oua and pipcrs rcbting to targets cosl
and perfon11~1nce Vere ex11nined Analysis Vas carried out of cost and perfonnance
clua aria1ion in perfonnance ck1t1 vas used as a basis for selecting individual Loctl
Development bodies for funher examimtion
124 Selcc1ed CEl3s LEADEH groups and Partnerships were visi1ecl Helevant
personnel Vere intervi(Ld and individual rrojecls Vere visited Sevtrd CISC studies
Vtre identified during the co11rse of this vork and thc~c arc used in this rero11 to
illustr11i key i1SULS middotrhcy should not be ngarltled a1 rcpresentHivi of the cype of
pro1ee1s supponed hy the bodies
125 1Vleetings Vere held vith offici1Js fro1n the l)ep1nn1en1 of the E11viro11111ent
and Loctl Goern111ent ind Ille Co111ba1 lovlmiddotrty Agency lntervieVS look place Vith
the folJoving orga11is~11ions PlJtEmiddotr (Ille netvork of Arc~1-B1scd igtJnnerships)
Comhar IEADER 1u hiireann (tire network of 11ADEH groups) 1he ssociation of
Chief txecutives of Counly EnrcrprisC Bo1rcls (representing County Enlerprise
l3001rcls) the Irish 10111onal Orga1ma11on for 1he ncmployecl (INOU) he
Ken Cork iortb a1ul So111h )uhill CFJJs Trti li )011epal 11ihot1c11 a11d Northside art11lrh1J Fexford Ora11iflfio11 fur R11ral IJltbull1ltlup111c111 anti lao1bull tJ-1nHk Rural Dtbull1tlop111e111 Co Jd (IJ-ADJR ~rn11p) lv11sfonl Co1111111111i~~middot RrrJ1rCli Jd (1d S(J11rh lerry IAmiddottlIOJtllllll Part11crbip Jd (comhi11(c JHADERPart11c1~hip orxa11iatio11~j
6
J11frotll1 rI ion
Conf~r~nr~ of lkhg1ot1s 111 JrcmiddotLrnd (CORIJ vb Yvonne Murplrv lks~ardwr 111d Prof
J1111es A Walsh gtill Mrvnooth
)26 1n eternaJ exrerl IS lt ngagtbulld IO adviSl on the 1ncthodo(ogy of tht --Udy
and rlvtev the study findings_middot
7
2 Administrative Efficiency
21 Tlfrbull chtpter is concerned with the dliciencl of the CEils ltrtnergthips incl
llADER groups in iclminigtIenng locd Development ini111I11es loc1I Dcvdopment
is chirictltnsecl bv t 111uliplirny of object11es mcl ac11vi1ies The control of
achninisrrilive expendirure is 1chicvccl hy reference to stiffing levels pay rates tnd
1he re1sonablcness of 01her 1cl1ninistration expenses
22 Thlt clivers11y of 1he 1c1ivi11es of Local Development bodies ind 1he nexibili1y
in hov rhey set about 1chieving their objecrives li111it rhl extent to vhich cross
co111parisons of efficiency can btmiddot 111ade Neither unifonn perfonnanre inclicarors nor
co111111on infonnirion sysEc1ns on 1cl111inis1ruivc efficiency 1cross the ini1i1tivcs l1ave
been cle1middotcJopecl
23 The ptriocl covered in 1he chtpler is I994- I 998 indus1le However cle11ilecl
tndysrs ti indiviclutl Loctl Dltvelop111ent bodies ielel rel11es 10 I99i - 1997 II
should be noted thu local l)cvelop111ent bodies did 1101 co1nn1ence si1nultancously
incl 1h11 1he lime 11ken 10 esttblish indivicl11d local groups viriccl Accorclingly
expencli1ure in the early ye~trs rel~tles to the middotfullmiddot 1crivilics of i 111inority of groups
and the st111up plt1se of 111any lcgteal groups
24 middotrhe issues incl Calualion cri1t~ri1 used in thi chaptc1 are
Issue Evaluation Criteria
Administration costs Administration costs as a percentage bull of total expenditure
Human resources Extent of Board input bull Staff skills bull
Adequacy of management Data collecllon by Local Development bodies bull information systems Integration of data at national level bull
bull Reporting and monitoring
Administration Costs
25 The tottl 1111oun1 of expcncl1111rc incurred lw Local Develormcnt IJoclics m the
pen0ltI 1994 10 1998 was s208 mrll1on This is tntlysed in Ttble 2 I
26 middotrhc totil expenditure incurred can ht- categorised inro ad1ninisrration costs
vhich are the costs of running the relevant office-i and other exrenditurc Vhich is
cliviclecl IJeteen direct fin1nciil issis1ance 10 enterprise~ ~ind exp~ncliturc on
1ctivirics to incn1se enterprise avireness pro11101e con111n1ni1y dcvclop111cn1 or
redress clis~1dv1nt1ge
8
Atl111i11 ist rrttilt ~lie ic11c_ v
Ta~le 21 Expenditurebull by Local Development bodies 1994-1998
CEBs
P3rtnersh1ps
and other
LloADER Groups
Total
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
poundm poundm poundm poundm poundm
82 28
19 9 46
216 104
230 232
254 301
1 6 53 11 7 202
11 0 261 373 579 75 7
Norg a Expenditure relates to activities under OPLURD and LEADER II Some Local Development bodies also incur expenditure on other activities which arc not funded under OPLURD or LEADER and which are outside the scope of the examination Details for 1995-1997 are contained in Appendix A
b The total expenditure in the table includes Partnerships Community Groups and selected National Organisations
c Includes selected sectoral groups Annual reports of OPLURD and LEADER for 1998
Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total EJcpenditure
2i 1d1ninistra1ion costs 1 a perceniage of total expenditure in the period 1995 shy197 are shown in Tabk 2 L (There was link ad11uniscra11on pending in 1994)
2S dn1inistraliOn CDSIS IS J pcrcen1agt of tOtt[ eXJ1tl1citure decreaStcl uver the
period 199i 10 1997 for t~1ch iniriativtmiddot middotrhis JS clul n11inly co the face that it took
so1ne tin1c for rhe developnHnc groups 10 beco1ne opcrHional 1ncl hence 11n1ch of
the initial expenditure vas on adn1inistration rather thin activic1es This trend i~
1x111iculirly nocKeablc in che cise of LEADER groups md lirtnerships where
acl111inistrHion co1s 1s a percent1ge of tottl expencliture clroppecl sultilanli~11ly
middotrh1re Vere so1ne varialiuns betveen intlividt1al ltEls LFl)FH gnntps ind
Jgta1tnersl1ips middotr11ese ire considered belO Cfhe 1cl111inistration costs of Local
Deiclopnwn1 bodies are shown 111 Appendix B)
CltJUlllJmiddot E11te1prise Rltgttlrtls
29 1middot1icrc v(middotrc no great variations in rhc ad111inistruion costs incurred by che
CEl3s w11h lhe mqorill spending helWtCn pound 100000 and Jl )0000 per innum
1n1lysis of 1997 dat1 shc)Ytbullcl 1h~11 the adn1inistra1ion costs of n1ost CEBs V(n Vithin
1 ~1 r1nge of I ~Ai 10 25S~1 in rel~llion to tnttl expenditure The )ov~st Vas f)uhlin City
H J 1 with Cork Norch being che h1ghcsc ac 11 The level is scronglv mlluencecl IJy
the extent to vhich CFI3s are involved in the provision of gruus is chis increases the
9
local l)cuer4J11unt lnitiaflvcs
Table 22 Administration costs as a percentage of total expenditure
CEBs Partnershipsbull LEADER Groupsbull
Total
1995
poundm
49
15
08
72
Admin c
1996
poundm
43
41
16
100
istration osts
1997
poundm
44
53
20
11 7
Percentage of total expenditure
1995 1996 1997
25 20 19
34 44 28
51 31 17
28 28 22
Note B The figures exclude Community Groups and selected National Organisations b Excludes selected sectoral groups
Source Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General see Appendix A
level of overill expenditure In the c1sc of Cork North their mtin activities are
ini111~1tion incl the rrobullision of suppor1 such 1s counselling and training
wh1Chwould involve lowtr levels of expenditure rlm1 the supply of grant aJCI In the
case of other CFl3s such 1s Dublin City the focus was pnnnpally on the pronsion
of grtnl aid
Part11ersJips
210 P111nersh1ps generally spenl between l)0000 ind l200000 on adminisrruion
1n l997 with some excep11ons Mos 11rtnersl11ps which were esiiblished before
OPLURD had lower adminis1ru1on costs as a percentage of 1otal expenduure rhan
those wl11ch were srtnecl under OPIUlm In 1997 adminis1ra11on expenditure as a
perceniage of 1otil expencliture vas generally in the r1nge of 200u to 40Yo vith the
lowesl a 13 (in rhe case of i011hsidc in Dublin) 10 rhe highest m 51 (1n rhe
case of lnishovltn in J)o11cgal) il1ile 1c111al adn1inistration exptnditure vas si111il1r
in borh Partnerships expenditure on 1crivi1ies VIS significantly greater in Nonhside
as compared ro Donegil lnishowen which wis still in a scr up phase The riming
of projects locil rriorilies in the i1nple111ent1Cion of business rt~1n ind the nu1nbcr
of yltars the Jgtartner-hips have been operating have tn in1p1c1 on the adrninistritivc
cos1s percent1ge indicator
IEADER G10llJlt
211 LEADEH groups genenilly spenr lgtetween 50000 incl U00000 on
~1d1ninis1r1tion in 1997 Vith son1e exceptions In 1997 1dn1inis1rJtion expenditure ~1s
a percentage of 101al expenditure was generally in rhe r111gc 10 to 20 wuh the
lowest at 7 (in rhe c1SL of IJirrow-Nore-Suir) 10 rhe h1ghes1 ll 45 (in the case of
Comhm lorrais) While 1dminis1rarion expenditure wis simiLtr 111 borh LEADlR
10
Adn1i11istrati1cbull IJiciellcy
groups expendilurc on activities (including ~1nin1ation ind provision of grants) v1s
significanlly gnatcr in BarrO-Norc-Suir cor11p1red LO (cJJ11h1ir lnrr1is_ middotr1ierc llL 1
nuirtlltr of factors that can give rise to the variation uch a- hov Vt11 cst1blishcd
lhe sroup is local priorities in the in1ple111ent~1tion of the bu-iiness plan tilt tin1ing
of pro1ecis and 1hc lcnI of grant ml
Human Resources
21lt The loc1I charancr of each of he Local Devclopnw111 boclies mcl the nllure 1 ~incl diversity of thlir operHions n1ean thH thty h1vc l Sllbs11nti1I rolt of initiating
and co ordinating ac11vnies in co-operit1on ith 1 Viele v1ric1y of volunt~1ry and
stttutory org1nisu1ons (see Chapter 3) middotrhe achieve111t~n1 of their objectives is
I clepcndenl on _rhe avail~1hility of high quality plrsonn~I al Board tncl suh-co111111it1Ll
level and clecl1uted high ctl1bre s111f
Extent of Board Input I
2 B There 1s significant input it Boircl level for all of 1he bocl1es Arouncl 1wo 1hircb
of ( EBs operate sub-Boarcl co1111111nccs and half of these suigt-COlllllllllecs inclucle
1 111cn1lxmiddotr clravn fron1 1he local con1n1unit vho are nnt Boltncl clirector ~ middotrhis
invch-t~n1erH in 1octl l)evelopn1tnr bodies e1~tail~ a high dcgrLL of co111n1itn1en1 fro111
people vho are alrctdy active in their local co111111unitics
214 Pr1ctically ill Pirtnerships have suh-co1111111trecs on con1111unity ltlevelopnhmiddotnt=
I education and cnltrpri-e ~incl 111ost LEAl)EH microruups h~1ve -llh-co111111itte1middots on rurtl
touris111environnHn1 natural resources and s111all husinesscraftgt~erviccsr
Prermiddotaratory vork alllndince at 111cct1ngs ancl follov ur ~1ctivities pl1cc considerable
ti111c den1ands on Board and -ub-co111n1ittet 1ne1nbers l)uring chc exuninHion
I lt1bu11clan1 lViclence Vts found of the con1111itn1ent incl skill of Board n1en1lgters and
111en1htmiddotrs of suh-connniutes
Stciff Skills
215 A wide variety of skills is requirecl of 1cxal Developmem swff to match the
range of act1vitilmiddots 11ncle11~1ken middotrhis feature is ranicularly i111portan1 for LEAl)EH
I groL ps and P1rtnershirs clue to tht extent of their nmiddotn1i1 middotrhe staff nf Local
J)cvltmiddotlop111cnt bodies are highly qualified According co ~1 ncenl survey 5lVo of the
i-~~F ond Ihl lCgtfal Jr)(111 c111d RlflI )c11h1p111tllf PTT1JiHlllll1l f11ropca11 )(lt1a F111u Pro~ra1111111
1ttd11a1io11 Unll Apnl (JJJ
1)p(rt111011(1 fro~rc1111111e fnr IJAJ)FJ II (rJl11111111 11ilrcll1Utmiddot iI( Tlr11 R1bull1re11 Rtbullfx11 3re1uftu1 ((middott1rne1 middot (11t A ~(Jlt ialt3 199 7
II
(JC(l )e(lltJjJ11CI 11itiatiU(
CEOs of CEBs huld post-griduite que11ilkirion and funher 2()0 hive prima11middot
ckgrce In the cise of Partnerships 6()0o of 1nan1gers hold a post-gr1du~1te
qualificllion and a funher 24degAgt h1ve 1 pri1n1ry degret
216 flu rc-nurcefulnes- of Lltxil l)cmiddotelop111ent s11ff IS cvident during the course
of the eXltllllill1li01l
Adequacy of Management Information Systems
217 ht avaiL1bili1y of gncgtd 1111111ge111ent infonnation sys1e111s is 1 pnrequisitc fnr
cfficicnt icl1ninis1ration of the inititrives ind for ensuring thll rlllVLnt incl reli1hle
d1t1 is 1v1ilablc for pl1nning plrfonnince 111onitoring ind ev1luation An in-depth
rcvieV of the 1111n1ge1nen1 infon1111ion sysh111s in use Vas 1101 incl11dtd 1n the scope
of the ex1111ina1ion_ 1-lovever ce111in cltfic1cncics in the systen1s htmiddotc1111e app1rent
in discussions Vith officitls in 1hc locil f)evelnp111ent bodies ind during the
qu1n1i111ivt 1nil~middotsis vork
Data Collection by Local Development Bodies
218 E1ch of 1hc bodies opertllS scp1r11e co111pu1erisecl infonnttinn syste111s Vhirh
Vere ck~signtd by consuh1n1 under the aegis of lhe J)cpar1111cnts ind 1l)fmiddotI is
tppropnHe middotrhc pri1111ry purpose of 1hese syste1ns is 10 provide fredbtck on
ae11v1ties by eich Locd Development body ID the Dep1nme111s incl AD1vl The
syste111s should tlso provide 1111n~1ge111ent infor111a1ion for usc locally and facilitite
external evalunion 10vevtr the 1rge nun1bLmiddotr of local groups reponing 10
ditfercnt dtp1n111en1s posls pa11icul1r cJ11lltmiddotngLS tlaquoJr cL1t1 c~tpture
219 l)isc11ssions vitl1 ltgtfficials in the Local l)evelcgtprnent bodies visi1ed indicated
so1ne di~s11i-faction Villi ht kx1l use of systen1s in 1h11 they vere reg1rded as being
1101 user friendly or Vere perceivcd as not being fully suited 10 loc~tl 1ninage111cn1
needs_ In fi(I so111e locd f)evelopn1en1 bodicmiddots h1ve kepi lhltir origin1I syste111s in
11si O -upplc111lnl 1he infon1tttinn provided by the cen1r~1lly debullcloped systeni_ middotrhe
dillicultit~s havt heen recognised ind steps 1rt being t1ke11 011 1n ongoing b1is 10
encourage grc11cr loctl u-e of the C(ntrilly developed syste111~
220 Forn1al 1rr1ngc111en1s ire nor in place Vhich VOuld f1cilitlle nuo111a1ic sharing
of infon111tio11 Joctlly icross ill of rhe groups_ 1his is not possible due to 1he
1bsnce of 1 con1111011 clicnr identifier in the thrtt co111pu1cr sys1e111s_ So111c id-hoc
shiring of dtli such ts projerl tpplicition and 1pprov1ls occurs through rneetings
be1vccn bodies ind via County Str11cgy Groups lmiddotlovcver 1his is no subs1iru1e for
a systen111ic approich to dati sharing
12
Acl111i11 isrrari1e lli-c ieJtlmiddot_ v
22 l A middotide v1riery of perfonna11ce indicnors V1s dtveloped 1hrough discus~ions
w11li 1he external evilullor and with Local Development bodies (se~ Appendix C
mcl OJ LEADEH groups ind Partnersh1ps m 1x111irnlar undertake i wide range of
tctimiddot1 ities and con-lmiddotqucnly 1hcir co111pu1er sy-1en1s c1pture ~1 Viele range of data
middotrhi c111 plicc an tLessive burden on the sn1all 1d111inb1rilie st1ff 1n these bodies
perfonn~tnce 1ncasun111en1 systc111 Vhich focu~es nn 1n agreld StI of key indicuors lo tnco111plttS~ core tctivities and ou1purs and vhich reflect- key objectives
n1ighc be n1ore appropriattmiddot 1ny addicional inforn1uion require1nents could Ix
prltrlided Jess frlmiddotquently through for ex1111ple annual rtporting arrangc111cn1s
22~ 1middot11e fnltomiddoting issues Verlt also noced
bull The p11ori1ics of d1fferen1 loc1I Dcvelopmcnl lxKlies arc not 1den1ical even
Vithin 1hc sunc Local f)cvelopn1ent ini1ia1ive For exan1ple one Local l)evclopn1cnt lxxly 111ight prioritisl 1ss1stance to cl1stclvant1ged groups vhilc 1norher rnight priontise cnterprist clevelop1ncn1_ Exisling 1ne1st1rlll1cnt syste111s do not allov 11le perfon111ncc of chese tvo gruups co be realiticdly r111kecl and con11xircd
bull Measurement should cope w11h the fact that much of the pcrform1nce under
the ini1iat1ves is qualitative in nHure Exunplcmiddots include quil11y of tr~tining openness to disadvantaged groups and qu11i1y of relacionships Vith other
st1tu101) bodies Exiscing n1easunmiddotmiddot111Lllt systcn1s do not cuer for rhcsc 1spects
of perfo1111111ct
bull f)espice initiatieS to involve locd l)evelop111ent bodies in the specificuion of
perfonnancc indicators cxisling perfon111nce n1oni1oring is frequencly seen as son1cth1ng vhich is in1pltgtstcl on groups Vilh lillll direct bcncfi1 in lenns of
e11~1bling 1hltmiddotn1 to understand hov to in1prove 1hcir Ovn perfonnancc~
22 The apprrnd1 described in Case S1uclv I gi1bulls 1n 1nclic111on of 111~ prltp1ratory
Yor involved in developing svsce111s to cviluatc rhc efficiency and tgtfflttivencss of
1he bCKlies Governmenl Dep1rtmenLlt and Local Developmenl bocl1es might es1lt1bl1sh
10 middothat cxtenc this 1ppro~1ch could hl~ applied co rhc 1neasure111en1 and n1anagc1nent
of LDcil Dcvdopmenl periorrnrnc~ Thi 1s a prercquisi1e 10 es11blishing the clati
reqt-ire111ents Yllich should be -arisficd hy the inforn11til~n sys1c1ns in u~e by LocalI l)evmiddotlop111erH bodies Under clie exis1ing s~middotsren1s the inforniHion require111cnts for
detennining 1he extenc ro Vhich value for n1oney is htmiddoting obt1ined front expencli1ure
on lhe iniliatives arl nor 1dequarCly provided for middotrhe current inadequacies of the
inforn)Hion sys1e111i lin1it the scope for evaluation middotrhc middotlid-middotrenn Ev1lt111iuns of both
llA)FR and 011LRD have drawn a11e111ion lo 1his deficiency
Ilo1rc1er 11~-tf)FR groups produce wn11e11 c11u1i1a1ilmiddote repon llriccbull year~r 011d other local 1Je1eop111eu1 lltXlics olso 111c11de c111ai1a11n aJXCt of Jfrfon1u111ce u1 1b1middot1r n7xJt1s AJJ J(ls prod11t1bulld a sene bull of poundltlgt lt1dit- ubich nfhbullc1 q11all1a1inmiddot clfJtltmiddotr_~ of the uork of Parr11erships
J-rr an e(11ded disn1ss1nJ1 nr1 the (flk11e _p_- u_(Jt1j()r11111J1c(bull 111v11i1r1i11g 1middotce middot11F and 1111middot local Urlxo1 111d N11nil FJtnmiddotlopn1ltll lltJ8111n11111middot middot FuroJlllll Sulti(I F1111d lr(Jgn111111Jl 1alifioi1 fh1i1 April 1999
13
lnco l)erelop111enf 11itiati1es
Case Study 1
A benchmarking project
A transnational study funded by the EU is underway to develop benchmarks for pro1ects which seek to insert unemployed people into the labour market The main purpose of benchmarking is to enable organisations to improve their performance
Through a process of discussion and analysis involving the implementing organisations the key processes and desired outcomes are established An agreed set of quantifiable
indicators is developed to give a measure of performance under each key process and desired outcome Overall performance 1s denved by applying an agreed weighting formula to the 1ndiv1dual measures Data capture and performance reporting are
overseen by an independent third party
Graphical representations are produced showing the performance of each group for each key process and outcome Typically the performance of each group will be stronger in some respects than others and future action to improve performance can then ensue
Integration of Data at National Level
224 It is 1111port1nt th11 there should be ce111ral access to cltu to provtclc for a
sys1e1n11ic 1nd co111prchensivLmiddot cv1Jua1ion 1t nation1l level of tl1e efficicnc ind
cffectivcntmiddotss of lcxlttl develop111cnt 1cross the country In 1ddi1ion 1his vould
suppo11 co-01)er1tion ind co-ordina1ion across the bodies
225 Dllt lteld within Governtttent Depa11111enb and ADM is not tntegratecl at the
levtI of tile henefici~111 For exa1nple grant approvJJs to 111 enterprise gr1nt
pJyn1cn1- ~incl e1nploy111cnt 1re not associ1tcd vith 1 unique client identifier in
Enterprise middotrr1dt~ and E111ploy111en(s con1pu1er sys1e111 sin1ik1r veakncss exists in
Agriculture and Foocl and ADM This ctn reduce the scope for evaluttion For
cxainplc the JXrfonnancc of c1Hi1ics vhich obtain financial assis1ance cinno1 readily
be con1p1re(I Vilh 1hose vhich rlCcive 01her non-fin3nci1J supports
226 Whltn CEils were first cstablishccl Enterp11se Traut incl Ftttployment usecl a
cl11ilx1se inheri1ed fro1n 1he J)cpann1en1 of Fin1nce to record ce11~1in key datltI such
is grants piicl ancl ipprovecl on eich enterprise assisted by CEils In aclclition clati
on the Enterprise T11clc ancl Emplovmcnt Business lnfortttation Systettt (BIS) hdcl
grant and e1nploy1nent clua for all 1n1nufac1uring 1nd international services finns
middotr1ie opportunity v1s not taken of co111hining d1ta on the CEB clatal)ase vith its 011
BIS Subscquenllr EntcrpniL middotrrackmiddot incl E111ploy111Lmiddotn1 discontinued recording gran1
piyment cl1t1 on the CEB cL111base finally the coverage of the Forfis annual
etttploytttent survey (which 11pcl11es the BIS) was allowed to clittttnislt so that it no
14
longer allernrts lO include syste111aticillv -i111tll n11nuL1cturing tmiddotnterpriscs Vith less
1han 1en employees Agt a result 1he ibihty of En1erprise Trtcle incl Employmenl lo
1noni1or sn1all indus1ry perfunn~1nce and the cffec1ivencss of s1nall indusC1)
de clopn1cnt progr1111n1es l1as cmiddotonsicleralgtly eJkene(I
227 Enterprise middotrr1de incl Ernployn1tnt is H pr(S(nt agr(eing tcnns of reference
fur 1he es11hlish1ncnt of J sy-itcn1 tn L1cilitate chc inllgrition of CEl3 cL111 in10 1he Bl~
11 ii intended that ForL1s viii include CEB clien1- in its 1nnu1l c1nployn1tnt survey
In addition the l)epann1enl rl~1ns (O acquire a stacistical soft~tre p~1ckage to f1cilita1lt
udysis of CEil cL11a
228 middotrhcre is no nuional pltn to integrHt en1errrisc incl individual clien1 level dtta
fron1 CEl3s ith sin1il1r cLn1 fron1 lEAl)EH gruurs tnd Pannerships Agri(tilture incI
roud does not integrate 1nfonnation vhich is collecllmiddotd fron1 e1ch of 1htgt groups in10
nu onal systen1s and has no plans to do so Al)1 provides rltrltJrts 10 a n111nber of
f)epa111nen1 including Sociil ltollununity ind F11nily 1flairi Fnttrprise middotrr1de and
Fn1ployn1en1 and l~duca1ion and Science
1 229 In 1995 middotrmiddotouris1n Sport ind Hecrcation began 1 process of Stlling up a
I ClnlrJised rerfonnance lllOTlitoring systclll (P~middotIS) for OPJLiHJ) co1nprising ~1ggrega1e
output indicators for CEUs ind Partncrships9 Significin1 rlsources have been
demiddot01ed to developing this systtmiddot111 Pcrfonnance 1ndica1ors Verlt tin~1lly approved by
hlmiddot OPllif) Vtonitoring Con11ni11ee in Jl1y 1999 According lo middot1middotouris1n Srort and
Ht(reation this did not JJlov sufficienl 1in1e to consider extending the sys1e1n
frarnevork 10 provide for co1nplt1nson Vilh o(her rrogr11nn1es such as LEAl)Elt lmiddothe
c11rmiddotent posilion is tliH
bull P1nncrship rerforn11ncc dat~l fro111 I January 19lt)7 IS StJCcessfully taken into
the Jgt~1S l)Ha fron1 co11111n1nity ~ind special inttrcsc groups Vls taken inlo till
PMS for l 998
bull Performance dJla for 1998 from all of the CFlb has beltn rnlla1ed by South
Dublin CEB and taken mlltgt Ille PMS
Tht PMS is used to mon11or 1he levels of ae1ivi11es and outputs under 011UHD 11 JS
usel by thL ex1crn1I ev~tlua1or to assist middotrouris1n Sport and lh~crettion ~ind 1he
OfgtlURl) vlonilonng ConunittlL lO OVLf-itv the Progra1nn1e It is of li111itcd use for
efflCtivcnltSS analysis
23t) A funlicr ditficully is the allsenct of con11x1rison-gt vi1h son1c key h~tseline data
pricbullr to the es1ablishn1ent of ll1Lmiddot bodies for cxunrlt the r11e of nev firn1 fonnalion
and job cretlion 111 -111lt111 firins and 1he pL1cc1nent of long-lenn u11tn1ployecl
middotrourisin Sport and Hlcreation has co111111issionecl a ltudy of b1-cline da1a
15
oca J)e1euj111e11t 11ififlli1e
Reporting and Monitoring
231 Progress npo11s Jre produced every six 111on1hs by 1he lead l)ep1n111en1s for
consider1tion tnd approval lgty the reltv1n1 flonitoring Con1111i11ces Ex1ern1l
cmiddotvdu11ors VCrl eng1ged by middotrouris111 Spltgtn and Hecrea1ion and Agriculture and
rood for 011lHlD ancl lltDEll respcctilely ro produce evduarion rqions ancl 1hey
]11ve ~ilso produced 111id-ten11 rcvievs_ middotr111se repo11s iremiddot considered ll hilf-ye1rly
111ee1ings of 1he nlevint f1onitoring Co1n1nittees_ All Loc1l l)evelop111e111 bodies
prodt1ce 1nn11al rcpo11s ou1lining 1c1ivititS undenaktmiddotn 1oge1htr Vilh financial
s1He111ents 1~ required under the operHional progr11111ncs
232 Nerworking plays an irnponanr role for rhe bocl1s Borh lEtDEH groups and
Pu11Hr~hips have 1he bcncfit of personnel dedica1ed 10 org1nis1ng nelvork
acriv1ries The CEOs of rhe CUh also meer regularly
16
3 Co-ordination of Activities
31 middotrhtmiddot co-cistenrl of chtbull 1hrll types of hltxlics for local clevclop1nen1 lt1- given
rise to concern tlX)llt duplicttion and the Jack of co-ordinuion 1 middotrhe pltllentid for
cluplic1tion irises bcciu_c the bodies co111111e1Htd inderenck~nlly of each olhlr ind
s1ariccI 11 clitlercnt ti1nes lt1ve sin1ilar ubjemiddottives incl 11rglt ovcrl1pping p(gtpul~1tions
hivmiddot~ se1x1rItc local ad1n1nistr1lll strucrurls 1 rcpo11 to different lgtepa11n1enLi and ire
funded by different opltftlionil progr1111111es_ A a res11h there is 1 need 10 ln-gture
that there nl lttdtqulle 1rr1ngin1Lmiddotnts in pL1c1 to recluce the pnss1hility of cluplicltion
and to ensure that lhtrc is proper co-ordination betVten he ditlerenl bodies
32 Jhe iSSlllS of Jupllcl11on and co-urdinlliun can bl t~sc -lcl
bull bccwcen ch cl1ffllellC loctl Devclormenc boclicmiddots
bull belveen Local ()evelopn1ent hoclies and 01her agencies ~11ch is Enltrpri~tmiddot
lreL1nd 1ncl che l)lmiddot1x1111ntmiddotn1 of Suciil lt0111111un11y incl F1111ily tfL1ir-
1middothis ex1111ination is confined to duplication incl co-orclinat1on belVeen Local
n~vfiopmtell( bodies
33 In this chapter rhlmiddot i-sues of duplication and cn-ordinition are exanuntd under
evduition criteria ~1s shovn bclOmiddot
Issue Evaluation criteria
Du )lication Objectivesbull Clientsbull Activitiesbull Funding of projects bull
Comiddotordination Local level bull National level bull
IDulication
134 1 subst1nliil nu111her of lgencies c111 provide l0~11 l)evelopn1ent suppnrts in
I thl 1111e hgtc~d 1rc~J 1igure 31 fro111 lhe Suulh Vest illus1rites this
35 middotrhe natun of lhtmiddot inllillimiddottmiddots is 1hat lhlrc should be tltmiddotibiliry in str11egic
dlcigtiun n1ahing at locil level Vilhin brc)Jd p1ra11H[lfS lllch 1n sel oul 1n the
Operation1) Progr1111111es middotrhe si1nilari1ies igtelveen ohjectimiddotes clienL ind activilies i~
shltn11 in middotrabies 3_ I to 34 1re 1 result of thlst policies
17
loca )evelofn11enf lnifia11es
Figure 31 Local Development Supports in the South West
Tuartha Chiarrai Teo (Leader)
West Cor Enterprise Board
North Cork Enterprise
Board
Blackwater Resource Development (Leader)
m Car City Partnership
South Cork Enterprise Board
Cork URBAN
Note The following ADM funded community groups are indicated on the map by nun1bers
[] Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo [Z] Bantry Integrated Development Group
G1] East Cork Area Development Ltd ] Avondha Development Partnership fil IRO Duhalow Ltd
[sect] Sliabh Luachra Ltd [Z] Listowef Baronies Group Ltd
Objectives
36 All of 1he Lxxlics trt concerned illl locil econoinic develop1nlllt tnd h~1ve
i IJrief lo rn-ordin11e incl enlunce ex1s1ing suppo11s ii locd level Bo1h lEAl)EH
incl P111nersl1ip grltn1ps arc conccrntmiddotd V1th co1n111unity clcvelop1nent Vhile
P~1nn~rships ire explicitly focused on co1nlx1111ng socitl exclusion
Clients
37 1Ltny sin1il1ri1ies exist hetVeen 1he clitnls uf the lhllt types nf bodies hu1
there tre tlso in1pon1nt clifferenclS ihile CEHs deal Vilh business ickas fro1n any
individual or group thty do not specifically target dis1dv~11111gcd groups vhich are
1hc focus of P111nersh1ps lFAl)ER acliitics ire dirtctcd IOVllcls the loc1J
18
-------
I
Coorclination ojmiddot Acliuitiltgts
Table 31 Objectives
Objectives CEBs Partnerships LEADER
Fogtster development by Area planning Jc1b creation
Business supports Arumatton
C1)unter serious economic and social problems by Aisisting long-term unemployed 1n10 jobs Promoting adult educationtraining Aisisting community development Ericouraging provision of child support Integrate supports at local level
0
Table 32 Clients
Nature of Clients
Pcmiddotpulation coverage
G(bullograph1c coverage
Small Enterprises
Adult Learners
Joigt Seekers incl LongshyTelm Unemployed (LTU)
Ccmmunity Groups
Lone parents
Trc1vellers
Pe)ple with d1sabil1ties
Dirndvantaged youth
i==
CEBs Partnerships LEADER
100 61
100 Includes 13 complete counties and several
other disadvantaged areas
Almost complete in rural areas
(excludes part of cities of Dublin Cork Galway Limerick Waterford)
Note o denotes thor one Local Development body has chosen to pursue this objective
a This relates to designated areas covered by Area-Based Partnerships Soures Tables 3 1 amp 32 These tables were derived from the Operational Programme for LEADER
OPLURO and interviews with managers of Local Development bodies
19
lr1ca )e1eh11111e111 11i1iati1es
Table 33 Main development activities
Activity CEBs Partnerships LEADER
Draft development plans v v v Assess local plans 0 v v Carry out surveys of enterprises v v 0
Provide finance to enterprises v v v Provide advice to enterprises v v v Assist enterprises to access
consultancy support v 0 v Organisefund mentors for enterprises v v v Fund management development v Organisefund marketing initiatives v v Promote enterprise via meetings etc v v v Produce enterprise
brochuresbusiness guides v v v Promote enterprise 1n schools via
competitions training etc v v v Fund prov1s1on of tourism facilities v v Fund road signage Tidy towns v Fund artscultural festivals v v
Table 34 Main activities concerned with countering serious economic and social problems
Activity
Counsel long-term unemployed (lTU)
Carry out skills audit of LTUs
Establish network of L TUs
Organise fund education or
training courses Fund provision of education centres
Fund construction refurbishment
equipment of community resource
or activity centres Fund estate improvement
Fund communityyouth workers
Organise fund community fora
or networks Organise fund homework clubs
Fund youth act1vit1es
Fund play groups creches
CEBs Partnerships
v v v
LEADER
v v
v v
0
Note 0 denotes that not afl Local Development bodies have chosen to undertake these activities
Sources Tables 3_3 amp 34 These tables were derived from the Operational Programme for LEADER OPLURD and interviews with managers of Local Development bodies
20
Coor(i nation ojmiddot11 c I tu it ies
co111nunity in genertl ind local project pron1ottri lhile people vho tr( Slvcrely
socially or ((Cll)Olllically deprived IllJY r1r1iciplle in lEAl)l-f lllivitilS LEAl)EI his
no nmiddot1nit 1n spccifically targlting lhlSl groups In nine c1-es lEAlgtER ancl
P1dncrship Strviccs an dtbulllimiddotlncl by llHmiddot s11ne loc1I group
3~ LEAl)ER Jnd P111r1trships ltivc exten-iiC hut not co111plc1e popult11un
colrttge Jgt111nerships ind 1l)ivl-funcled con1nu1nity groups coVlI 1111ny of 1hc n1ure
conclmiddotn1r11ecl trltls of dis1dvin11ge l)lllt to lhe ficl 1h11 social dis1clvanragc is
spali11ly clis1rilH1ttmiddotd son1ltmiddot 1nmiddot1s of till cuuntry Vh(r( clis1dv1r111ge ex1sts arc nor
cobullbulltmiddotnmiddotd by P1rlnltrships or l)imiddotl-h1nded con1n1uni1v groups
A1tivities
39 It c111 igte gteen fro111 middotro1ble Jl 1hll 1hcre ecrraquoive duplicnion of
de1c]op111e11t tctivities 1crois 1he bodies Vith 1hnost tll of the 1c1ivitics lgteing
llndertlken by JI Je1-t tVO type~ of hodJtS [n inlLfilS Vith ht lllJntgtrs or the
Local l)evelorn1tnl bodies ii middotas indicated 1h~H Vhile thcv are lVtre of this
overl1p they rel~ on co-ordination n1ech1nis111s to ensure that re-ource- are nnl
Vl ~teeI
310 It c111 igte gtltmiddoten fro111 Table 34 1ha1 so111e overlip exisis lielween IEADER
gnurs ind P1nnerships Vith respec1 [o countering serious econo1nic ind soci1l
prcmiddotblv111- middotrills can irislt through i111pnmiddotc1stmiddot defini1ion ind inlerprtlUiun of the r~1nge
of crviltlS providld J-[oll(L the extenl of overlap 1n countering serious econo111ic
and Slgtcitl rroblcins is n111ch less 1han in 1he case of develor1nent activilies pa1tly because of th( 11rgct1ng of -plcific client groups hy P1rtnerships (the long-tenn
uncn1ployed ind the soc111ly ecludedJ
311 It should be no1ecl th~1t 1111ny other agencies or groups outside the scope of
1he exa1nin~nirln are ilso 1ctive II local level For cx1111pllt the Hosco111111on (JmiddotB
1ction Pl111 1997 - 1999 conttins a 111trrix uf dtmiddotvehgtp111ent agltncies incI servicis
pre vided in Coun(y Hosco111111on lhis i- shnmiddotn in ppendix E
F1J1nding of Projects
3 12 Situations can occur vhere pro111oters can 111axilnist thl funding they receive
b~middot applying for surport froo1 cJillenlll groups
W1hlre arc Poor 011s(hcd~ 711c Spali(I )11rih11lPll () r11e11r a11d DeJ11r11011 111 rlrt11d Urito1 1oa11 cl (J C0111ha1Ponrty1l~ltJ1C) 19lt)8
21
ocal Jeveloj1111c111 lniJ1atiUltS middot----- shy
Case Study 2
Subsidy shopping
A promoter had a turnover of pound80000 from an equestrian centre and language school In addition he was a farmer his spouse was a teacher and he had net assets of almost pound05 m1ll1on He wished to develop the equestrian centre and language school and provide accommodation on site for language students he applied to a CEB for financial assistance The estimated cost of the project was as follows
pound Accommodation costs 20000 Classrooms 10000 Indoor arena 22000 Outdoor arena 15000 Tennis court 10000
Total 77000
The CEB considered that financial support would be appropriate for certain nonshyaccommodationmiddot aspects of the project This comprised classrooms indoor arena and outdoor arena costing pound47000 and a grant of pound20000 was approved in May 1996 The Board considered that the promoter should fund all of the accommodation aspects (The Board had a policy of not assisting the provision of accommodation because this is a response to rather than a generator of demand)
In September 1996 the promoter applied to a LEADER group for a grant According to the grant application form the accommodation cost had risen to pound85000 (as against pound20000 in the CEB application) The LEADER group was aware of the financial support already provided by the CEB and the reasons why this level of support was given The LEADER Board approved a grant of pound17000 being 20 of the cost of the accommodation The project promoter was also approved for a marketing grant from LEADER of pound2750
Total capital grants approved for the project (pound37000) amounted to 26 of pro1ected capital expenditure (pound142000)
313 It has been po1n1ccl 011t (by Entlrpnse Trnclc ind Employment ind Tourism
Sport ~ind HecreJtion) 1hat this ct~e srudy gives little risemiddot fur concern 1~ the funcling
vas clinctecl tOv1rds different ele1nent of the projecr l-loCVer the fnlloving
efficiency difficulc1cs arise
bull aclcluionil middotsearchmiddot costs for cl1cnts who mikc mul11ple applicu1ons for ~1-isistance
bull ~1dditiontl tin1e ~pent by n1en1bers of Bo1rd incl evtluuion co1n1ni1tees and adn1inistrJrivc cosrs in Loc1I l)evelnpn1ent bodies
bull thC first Local Devdopment body to approve finannJI assisuncl cannot adopt a middotrotlJ project vieV bCClttUSe it is 110t lV1fe Vhether subsequent tJ1plicati011S ill be 1n1cle for assist1nce to other Local Developn1ent bodies
22
COorcination of Actiuitics
C1gt-ordination
314 As part of their an11nat1011 and co111111unity development 1ctivitits all of the
bol1es part1culirlv LFADER groups and P1rtnersl11ps look for opportunities to
1ni iale and co-orclina1e acrivilies vhich 111iy be underlaken by a vide variety of
st1tutory rnmmun11y and voluntary groups Tlus work usually Licilitates the
provision of econo111ic and social benefits to the co111n1un1ty Typical exunples 1re
bull Organising nevorks of lone parenis
bull Pro1nnting tidy tovns
bull Organising second chancC cducuicgtn
Vihin Local Development hodics therLmiddot is often tc11sion between the priorny to be
given to their co-ordination role ver~us the direct delivery of services including
grants
315 Co-ordination frequently involves the co-operation of several different
organisations at different levels (StHc local government communitvvoluntary
se(tor and business) to ~chicve a con1111on objective middotrhrough their co-ordinarion
roli~ the bodies n1ay harness rhc porcntial of several organisarions to achieve an end1 which would not otherwise be achieved This role has been cited is contnbutmg to
the unique role of the Joell development bod1Lmiddots A good LXimple of this mshyore ination i~ set out in Case Study 3
316 The multiple funding ol this anglmg pro1ect is substint1ally differtnl from the
multiple funding shown 1n Case Study 2 In Cie Stuclv 3 thlt contributions of the
vanous bodies were agreed as part of an integrated plan
317 The co-existence of three significant types of boches (and the inherent
cluphcarion shovn in 1he previous section) places a particular onus on 111anagc111tmiddotn1
of the organisations oH both national and lcxal levels to co-ordintte service provision
Fig1re 32 illustrates for each of the bodiltS the dilftmiddotrcnt co-ordinarion structures in
phe
23
loco l Jc1eofgt11HJ 11 I11 ii iu I ioes
Case Study 3
Co-ordination of a tourism angling project
A LEADER group in an inland county sponsored a study of the tourism development
potential of the county Although the county had weak tourism infrastructure and
practically no angling facilities the study identified several tourism sub-sectors that
could be developed including angling
An initiative was undertaken by the LEADER group to co-ordinate the development of
angling in partnership with fourteen other bodies including Fisheries Boards ESB
Coillte Duchas Bord na M6na and several community development organisations and
angling groups The initiative consists of
bull the upgrading of eight lakes most of which are owned by State agencies and many
of which were overgrown or silted
bull construction of stiles paths etc and restocking the lakes with fish
bull grant support for accommodation providers in the lakes area
The total cost of the project was estimated at around pound05 million Some of these costs are borne by LEADER but most are borne by State agencies and the Tourism
Operational Programme 1994-1999
The LEADER group is involved with other organisations in marketing angling facilities
and the provision of training for the ongoing management of the lakes
Co-ordination at Local Level
318 Cot1n1y Strllcgy croups Vere es1hlimiddotmiddotd1ed in LICh cnu111y under OPLUl~J) O
L1ci[i[Je co-orclin11ion ~ind 111inin1isc cluplic1tinn in lie delivery of progrin1111es
middotrhe Groups provide i forun1 for forn1d conununicition Vithin etch councy and
hctCt11 counties incl cenlrtl policy 111akers_ vlen1lxrship of the Groups includes
the Chlt1irpersn11s of CEl~s Ptr1nerships ind lEAl)EH groups County middotrouri111
Con1n1i1tees Coun1y f11n1~ers incI represen111ives fron1 middotrourisn1 Spon and
Recnation
319 middotrhe cu-ordinttion of services 10 cliencs depends very heavily on cruss-1gtncy
rcpresenltlion incl illendance at 111cetings middotralgtle ~5 shovs 1ypictl Board
repre~enc11ion
24
Coo1middotrh11atio11 o lctiuillcs
Fi1ure 32 Monitoring and Coordination
InterdepartmentalOPLURD OPLEADER Evaluation Polley Committee Evaluation
_l Department of Department of
Enterprise Trade Tourism Sport and Employment and Recreation
ADM Ltd
Partnership Boards
County Strategy Groups
1~BBoards ------shy
Department of Agriculture and Food
LEADER Group Boards
Table 35 Typical Board representation
S~bullctor Represented CEBs LEADER Partnerships
Lcmiddotcal authority members almost complete
Statutory bodies Ernployers I Trade Unions I Farmers Community I Voluntary sector
SouCe Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General
25
ocu )e1Alop111e111 11ifi(lf1ccs
320 CEils ire represented on most IEADER groups incl many Pa11ncrsh1ps
Hovever 1n~1ny lEAl)ER groups and P~111nerships ire not represented on CEBs In
so111e bu1 not all cises vhere cross-board represenlation i lacking there is crossshy
agencymiddot rtpn=sentllion at sub-boird level instead such as evilullion co1n111iuees for
protects_ In nine c1s(s vhere then~ are con1n1on boundaries the san1e Board
1clm1nis1ers both a LEADER group incl Partnership In ciscs where there ire not
m11ch1ng bounclirics 11 1s usud for LEADER groups incl lu1ncrships to have
C01111ll011 UO~trd repreSCl1tatives
321 Agriculture incl Food require all lEADEH groups to specify how they intend
to co-ordinate their activiies Vith other bodies before agree111en1s 10 i111plen1en1 a
LEADER progr1111me are completed Each tgreement includes t clause to this effect
and dso requires IEADER groups to part1n1x11e in Coun1y Strategy Groups
322 The view of the Local Development bodies is 1h11 loctl knowledge is of
piran1oun1 in1po111nce for co-orclina1ing their ~1ctiviries Use is n1aclc of infonntl
contacts 10 ensure tha1 each organisHion is tvarc of Vhat others artgt doing middotrhere
is often no formal 1gree111ent berween Local Devclop111ent bodies H local level
regarding 1h~ lin1its betveen objtgtctives acrivities and clients Hovevcr
consideration should be given 10 drlving up a middotfittcn staten1ent Vhich VOtilcl set
out a broad fra111ework of agree111ent between Loctl Dcvelop111ent bodies A good
exmtple from County Meath is shown in Appendix F
323 from the beginning elected pol1ticd representation was absent fro111 IEADER
incl Partnership 13oards Mc111bers of local authonrics are represented on CEl3s but
not is of right on LEADER groups and Partnerships However local aurhonry
officials arc frequentlv on the boards of lEADEH groups incl Partnerships A process
his been undc1way to 1nclucle 111e111bers of local authonties on rhe Boards of
LEADER groups and Partnerships This process is now complete in the cise of
IEADER incl is d111ost rn111plete 1n the cise of Pirtnerships
GeograpJica ampm1ulmJbull ProJlem
324 The co-orclmation of activi11es it locd level is 111ade 111ore difficult by the lack
of coherence the way the boundmes of the Local Develop111ent bodies were
clr~lvn and because of overltpping houndanes vi1h srHucory bodies 1s 1 result
n1any iltx~d l)evclop111ent bodies 1nust liaise vi1h a nun1ber of orher Iocil
l)evelop111ent bodies Jnd srJn1cory organisations_ middotrt1is increases tl1e acln1inistra1ive
burden on Local Develop111ent bodies ancl 1mpecks rhcir ability to offer unifor111
service delive1y in their territorymiddot and to co-ordinate activities of other Local
Develop111ent bodies and Srate igencies
26
Coordi11atio11 Cf Actiuities
se Study 4
Bcbullundary problem in South County Dublin
The boundary of South Dublin CEB covers the same geographical area as that of South De blin County Council and South Dublin Area of Dublin Tourism In this area there are four Partnership companies
Ta laght Partnership wholly located in Dublin South Clondalkin Partnership wholly located in Dublin South KWCD Partnership divided between Dublin South and Dublin City Scuths1de Partnership divided between South Dublin and Dun
LaoghaireRathdown
Al~o the Dublin Rural LEADER Company covers part of South Dublin as well as Dun LagtghaireRathdown and Fingal Council areas The State service providers such as FlgtS Eastern Health Board (EHB) Department of Social Community and Family Affairs (D3CFA) and Enterprise Ireland do not have the same geographical areas as local auhont1es They are split up into regional areas and these regions impinge on South Dublin CEB as follows
FlgtS Dublin SouthWicklow region of FAS contains part of South Dublin while Dublin WesVKildare region of FAS caters for the rest of the South Dublin area
EHB Each of three regional areas of the EHB Dublin South Central South West and West impinge on the area of South Dublin CEB
D~middotCFA Dublin South region of DSCFA contains part of South Dublin and Dublin West region of DSCFA caters for the remainder
Enlerprise Ireland South Dublin 1s totally contained within Enterprise lrelandmiddots region of Dublin and Mid-East
32~i Agricuhure and Food ha~ poinced ou1 rhar coheren1 geogr~1pliical boundaries
would be contrarv to the bottom upmiddotmiddot approach of LEADER The initial EU proposal
for hl fo11hcommg LEADER lnillatilC stales middotmiddot11 would he desirable rhar rbe eligihle
areas do not coi11citle tuith notional acln1ii11strati1e ho111ularies nnr ufth cli_~ihle
zon$ 1111cler the 1nainstrec11n operations(~ the structural jltntlsmiddot
Co-ordination at National Level
32(1 An Interckpartmcntal Policy Committee for Local Delelopment was
estltulishcd m June 1993 under 1he auspices of 1he Department of the Ta01seach and
subequently reconltt1tuted in Ocwber 1997 under Tourism Span and Rccrea11on 1s
funmon is to oversee 111d make recommendations on local delelopment (Appendix
G shovs the conunitteemiddots renns of reference) fhe co1nn1itcee is chaired by the
Minster of State in Tourism Spo11 and Hecreation ind comprises represenwives of
27
loca I )e1eofJ111e11 f In it itlf ftls
i nu111her of Gov1rnn1ent lgtepart1nc11ts middotrhe ro1111ni11ee has contributed policy
n111eriil 10 1he post 2000 s11b1nission on the future of struc1ural funds ind v1s
involved in 1htmiddot develop1nent of 1ht Integrated Services Prnjec1middot
327 middotn1e co111n1i11et sees i1s fu1ure role is one of infon11ing its([f nf dcvclop111ents
cnh1ncing links Vith local develnp1n~n1 orgtnisuions 111d lt1rn1ng les-gtons fron1
piln1ing projet1s including 1htmiddot porenti~tl for n11instrl1n1ing successful projects
328 middotrhlre is a potential role for the con11nittee 10 get involved in soning out the
sys1t111smiddot in1clequ1cics ind to develop 1 strltcgic lttpproich to coun1ering 1he
neg1tive ispcmiddotcts or duplicuion lhc co111111ittee should consider developing 1n
1green1ent concerning the lin1its hitveen tile olgtjec1ives 1ctivities and clients of the
three types of bodies vhilt- laking account of the li111it1tions on the discretionar
nllure of lhe LE1l)EI Jgtrogran1n1c Vhich is an FU Initiative
329 Fruin 1 viluc for 1noney perspective ind bised on the 1buve 1nilysis the
follr)ving i1nprove111~111s ire desirlttble in the short tern1
bull 1hc cs1ablish111ent of coherent geogr1phical buuncL1rics
bull tn incretse in he forinal co-orclinllion of service provision
The Task Force Report on the Integration of Local Government and Local Development Systems
330 t Trsk Force which was esublished lo reporr on 1h~ 1n1egr111on of locd
govern111ent incl locil clevelopn1cn1 sys1en1s reportccl in August 1998 and its
reco111111end~11ions Vtre approved by C1nvern111cnt in Septen1ber 1998 1 middotrhe 11sk
1orce l-gt concerned to ckvclop 1 vision ~ind s1ra1egy vhich Voulcl encon1pass in
in integralecl IY (he oper11ions of loc1I governn1ent ind Local l)evelop1nent
bodies in order 10 significantly incre~1se 1heir effec1iveness
331 Tire Task Force conltrdercd 1111 Iris could besr be achieved 11 1hc counry rncl
cily level The cclllrrl role will be pL1yed by new Coun1y or City Dcvdopmenl
Boards (CDlb) which will be es1ablislred in each ciry incl cou111y locrl authority
The CDBs with memlJerslup drawn from four sltcrors (ie local governmcnl
co111111uni1y ~ind voluntary social partners and Slate agencies opcra1ing at local level)
ill clrnv up an agreed ~ind con1prehensive Coun1y or City Strategy for Econon1ic
Sociil ind Culturtl l)evelopn1cn1 It VtS 1greecl 11i~11 Jgtannerships or LEAl)EH groups
should cllal Vith clis1clvan1aged areis on an 1greecl basis 1nd 1hat con1111unlly
1)( 111ltgr(lc-d Wnncc~ lropU tla egtlabllshtd 011 a pilot btLgtiL ill f)rce111hcr 1998 ill 011r sltmiddotnmiddoto11S~) ltliltult(l11fa~1middotd arltbullas_ (JbjeLliltmiddot 1s 10 cr1-ordi11flle tbtbull i11p111 ofall S1a1C senlicegt
28
Coorrli11atio11 o Jcmiddotti111 ie------------------------------~---
developinent and -ciciJI incl11sion 111c1sl1re tho11lcl vl1ertmiddot possibll bl cleliVlrld bymiddot
gra~sroots bodies Further nmiddotcon1n1endatinns of the middotr1sk rorcc include
bull (Jl(lprise support func11un lo htbull vered in 1he CFBs Vith rrovision for the
involvement of other Local Dcvdoprncnt bodies such as LEADEH by ~1grec111ent
bull fu11ctional arl1- to coincidemiddot Villi co11n1y or city IHHJndaries or_ t[ sub-county
kmiddotvtmiddotL local elector~il ~treas
bull ~1 si11gle igency to bl nmiddotspt1nsihll for con1n11111i1y dlvclop1nlnl at suh-cuun1y
lclI (either the local tuthoritymiddots Arca Con1111ittee or in clc-ign1tecl
clisadv~1nt1ged 1rc1s groups -gtuch ts P111ntmiddotrJ1ips or LEAJ)ER groups)
I bull any future loctl ckv(loptntmiddotnt groups slloulltl have cou11ty or city councillors on
[heir Boards
An interdc1x1rtn1en1al i111ple1nent~1tio11 group h~ts hLcn fonncd to oversee thl in1plcnltmiddotn111ion of 1l1c middotr~1sk ilnce reco111111endarions
29
4 Operational Efficiency
41 This chapter considers the operational efficiency of the groups Operational
efficiency is concerned Vilh 111aking the best use of 1hc resources provided to
111axin1ise the ltmiddotvel of outputs achieved
42 middotrhe issues and evtluHion criteria arc
Issues Evaluation criteria
Targets and performance Quantification of targets bull Use of baseline data bull Achievement and review bull
Resource allocation and outturn Targets and outturns bull Allocation of resources to Localbull Development bodies
bull Grant cost per job
bull Cost of non-grant outputs
Deadweight and displacement Information on extent bull Effective procedures bull
Targets and Performance
43 OlLUHD contained a number of output md ac[Jv1ty t1rgets to IJe achieved
over the priod 199 middot 1999 A report issued in 1994 crnicised some of the tJrgets
in that they did not refer to previous performance In the absence of this middotbaseline
perform1nce cl11a it is not posstble to know how realistic or demanding these targets
are Extmples of the lick of baseline cl11a include information on new 1obs and new
businesses middotrhc report ilso ronsiclend 1ha1 oilier 11rgets Vere coo n1odcst in relation
10 hat v1s knovn lttbou1 perforn1ancc such as chc tirget for ncv businesses suppo11ed by P1rrnership vith reference to the perforn1ance undltr the original
PESP Partnerships
44 lhe n1ain OPLLRI) targt~ts and 1chievc111cncs against the targets are fhOvn in
Table 41 Most of the original targets were excccdccl bv 1998 rrnny by a wide
margin The only target that w1s quantified in th~ Operational lrogrunme for
LEDER as the creation of obs wluch was set H 4000 over the life of the
Programme Up to encl 1998 an overall job creation figure of 2700 (fulhime job
equivalents) was reponecl
45 Folloving the reco111n1endarions conrainecl in the 1nid-ten11 reviev revised
performance indicators and raised targets were adopted by the OPLURD Monitoring
Ex-a11( Appaiitil of Proposed local Dcmiddotvelop111e111 Progran1me pn1x1rltbulld on bfhalf of DC X11 ~)the SeflJices 11d11ilnltS Research Centrt liCD F11zpa1ncJ Associates a11d Kiert111 lcKeo1m1 lld Febn1ary 1994
30
Tatle 41 OPLURD targets to end-1999 and achievements to end-1998
-
Target
Now JObs
Nt~w businesses
Progression of unemployed to -full-lime jobs -part-time jobs
Number of adults asgtisted to access education
NL mber of children attending preventative education services
Existing businesses su Jported
Cl sterner contacts
=
CEBs
Original Targets
8000
2260
280 pa
20000 pa
Achievements
15500
3 110
2500 (1996-1998)
8700a (1998)
Partnerships
Original
Targets
6900
3640
12500 1500
60000
20400
30000 pa
Achievements
12800
12800
11400 2900
18500
35000
na
Note 8 Only contacts which fed to a provision of a service by the Boards to a client were recorded
Soure OPL URO and annual roports
cn111111i11ee in i-lay 1999 (ee ppendi ))_ middotrhcsc l~1rg~ts appear to he 111ore re~iliitic
having regard to perfonnance in the early ye~1rs of the Progra1nn1e
146 in the cise of ihDlH the mid-term rtmiddotnew notd that the 01 ind1cuors
_cured highly on relevance 1-lovever n1any ut the indicators verc so vague 1ha1
111caningful qu111tificlt1tion vould htmiddot aln1osr 1n1rx1ssible -rhlt reviev concluded that
the pcrforn1ance indicators dieI 1101 provide J sufficiently cltar basis on vhich groups
could debullelop con1n1on indicuor systen1s_ lhe nvit~V proposed a sys1en1 of
ptrf1nnance indicators flt1r discussiltgtn 11ncnchnent incI i111plen1en1a1ion imiddot11e
LEA)ER Morntonng Commince clccidccl that each LEADER group should prepare
i rt~middoti~t~cl t1rgtIS in respect of he indicators proposed in lhlt n1icl-1enn nviev (see
pptmiddotnclix E)_ Nu revised nationil targtli Vtrt agreed by the fmiddot1nnitorin_g Co1n1nittcc
or griculture Jnc1 Food
l
ocal JercoJ11rent 11itulfiteshy
Table 42 Expenditure targets 1994-1999 and outturns 1994-1998
Initiative OP Forecastbull
1994-1999
Revised
Forecast 1994-1999
Latest Forecastc
1994-1999
Outturn 1994-1998
poundm poundm poundm poundm CEBs 818 811 808 620d Partnerships 1047 1036 1083 706e
LEADER Groups 772 947 947 388
Notes a Updated for exchange rate changes and inflation as of May 1999 b Revised forecast is lhBI which has been most recently approved by the Monitonng
Committee ft refers only to expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds c Latest forecast is the most recent estimate by the relevant department of the most
likely outcome It refers only to expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds d Outturn only includes expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds (pound620ni)
Expenditure not co-financed by EU structural funds an1ounted to pound36 1m e Ourtum only includes expendifure co-financed by EU structural funds (pound706m)
Expenditure not co-financed by EU structural funds amount9d ro pound05m Source OPLURD LEADER OP annual reports
Resource Allocation and Outturn
47 Public e-pendi1ure 11rgets ind ou11urns ire shovn in middotrable 42
48 Fro111 the beginning it V1s the viev of Enterprise middotrr~1dL incl En1ployn1tnl thit
there IVlI nut sulliuenc EU funds under 011UHI) 10 support 1lte desired kbullel oldeg
t-pctHliturc by CE13s over 1he life of the Prngrunrnc_ ccorclingly CEB exrenditun
wis in ecess of the level co-finrnred by Ill funds rnd the b1l111n of U6 J million
wis provided bv the hclwquer It is ciltrr 1h11 EU funds rvrilrble for CElh under
011UIU) wrll be fully u11lised bv the encl of 1he lrogrrmme
49 A~ n1ost P1nntrships h1cl to go through J lcng1hy pnxtss of es11hlish1ncn1
incl planning in 19ltJ5 ind 1996 their cxpendiltirc Vas slov in rhuse ye~1rs tlovtver
expenditure 1ccclcr1Ctcl in 1997 and 1998 middotruurisn1 Spo11 ind Hecrellion and 1)11
expecc chH over the full progranllne period c-pencli1urc 1argc1s viii be n1et
410 E-pencli1u1-c under LE1J)fH Vts suhst1nti11ly Ix-In ttrget for rhc pcriocl
1995-1998 A fu11hcr sum of J18 million wrs rllocued to lEDEH liv the EU
Co111n1ission in 1996 fro111 an EU re-erve avai11hle for (on1111unity initiatives In order
to reach lht revised forec~1st expendi1ure in 1999 Voukl h1vc to be 1non 1han lVO
111cl 1 hilf ti111cs lite expenditure of 998 tmiddotlovever griculturc incl Food lXPLCls
1h1t ill alloc1tecl funds viii be spent by the encl of tiltmiddot Progr1n11nemiddot
11ltcor(111g trJ the 11AIJlR ()~ lt11 eliJihle ltpc11di111nmiddot 111ust lgtc co111tlffltlf 1~1 middot JtA f)IJ~ gn111h l~r tbc (IU
of fJrl-1 111Jc_bullr 15J-JY 11Ji~e 111r1111middot1 s 11111sf he Hiid rJ11f I~) llAJ)f( grrgtllJS lxfurc )l_1111c 2000
j2
( ))(rct f iu 11cf fi-c iei Ilt)middot-- middot---------------- shy
A1ocation of Resources to Local Development Bodies
411 Fnlerprise middotrr1clc and E1nployn1en1 inittdly alloctttmiddotd resources equdly to each
CEit middotrhc l)ltp1rtn1ent suhscquently 111nved to 1 1nore dtmiddotn11nd Jtmiddotd 1ppr()~1ch
h1nmiddothy allocations VeHild lgtt varied depending on 1hc relative llctmiddotds uf each aret
Ille c~1p1city of e1ch art lo successfully utilise eriterprimiddotbulle supports ind to crelle jobs
i ind the qud1ty nf thtmiddot cmiddotnterpnstmiddot pL1ns prepared hv each CEB
41 Al)middott placed 1dvcnistmiddot1nents in nevsptpers i11vi1i11g cnn1n1t1ni1y groups
(ou side Ille designated JrLIS of dis1dvintJgt being IUl)kcd Jfter hv Area-Based
P1nncrships) incl relevant n11ion1 organisations to ~11gt11ly for ()JgtLUHI) funding 33
con1n1unity groups ind 15 nitiontl urganisuion Vere sekCtld by t()1I for funding
41 middotrhe allocation of resources to Pirrnvrships hy Al)1l v~1s hiscd on cltt1ilcd
1nIlysis of the socioeconn1uic ch1ractlris1ic- of eJch tre~1 highliglning various
aSf)lt_cts of dtpriv11ion drlVll fro111 tlie 1991 ltensus of Population ()tiler rclcv1nt
v1riihlcs inclt1cll~d the qu~ditv of the pL111 tlttmiddot c1p1ci1y of htmiddot l1rtncrsliip ind the
1v1l1bility-of orher clevelop111ent resources to 1hc lrll such as IE1l)l-J or LiHB1N
4lbulli 1chmiddoter1istmiddot1nents Vere pL1cecl in 11Lmiddotvsp1rtmiddotrs innouncing lhe LEtl)lR lni1i1tivl
and inviting applicnions 1middot1ic~e VCrc assesstmiddotd by 1gricuhure and 1~nod Vith the
1ssi-bull1ance of an incltpcndenl consul11nt to es1ahlish tile txtent to vhich they 111lt~1 iii~
key ftatures of LEl)FH lhtmiddot rltsourctS middotere tllocatcd h~1ving regard to the quality
of the hu iness pl1n subniilllltL 1he population ind cl(gree of rurility of the 1rea and
the ~1vailalgtility of othtr sourcts uf ~lss1st1ncc fn1 Joctl ltkmiddotclop1ncn1 3i loc~d group-
Ver~ sclecled ind 2 SLctoral groups
Grint Cost per Job
4l~i middotr1iere arc specific f1c1ors vhich lin1i1 the usefulness of htmiddot gr1n1 cost per job
incli ~-tlnr in the con1cx1 of lltx11 devclop111cnt middotrhese include
bull (rear d1versil in the ni1urc of the 1ohs cre1ted ind 1he 111ethod of cc)un1ing
I hl111
bull No direct con1p1nson hetveen the VOrk invoVtltI in supporting job cna1ion 11
local level VIiii nationtl joll crcition agtncics
bull middotrile us1ain1bility of jobs 1n1y d1fft r frn111 11in-e crc1tltd by nuional igtncics
bull middotril(middot focu- un job cre1tinn iritmiddot vithin the three 1ypes nf lllt1clic
local Jevelopn1e11r fllifiariues
416 For CEils the number of jobs created is used is a performance meisure The
average gr1n1 cost per job creared vtriecl over the pericxJ under reviev as follovsn
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Number of jobs created 1958 3174 3589 3317 3487
Grant cost per 1ob created pound2535 pound4249 pound3763 pound3884 pound4206
The v1ri11ions from year 10 year miy be panly explained hv the fact 1h11 sometimes
1here is 1 riine t1g hetveen the gn111t expenditure ind 1he creition of thi relevant
jobs Over the period 1994middot97 the average grant cost per 1ob was Aj725 with the
lowest CEil be111g S2269 (Tipperary North) and the highest being gtfi683 (Leitrim)
Cost of Non-Grant Outputs
417 In add111011 to grmt aiding job crcll1011 md adminis1r11ion all of the bodies
~Ire involved in non-granr activities including
CEils
bull Producing enrcrprise plans and generJlly pro1noting in enterprise culurc
bull Busines~ infonnttion 1clvice counselling incl 1nentoring
bull ~ltn1gc111ent devetopn1en1 rraining
lartnersl1ips
bull Enterprise cre11ion and ckvelopment
bull Environ1nent ind infrtstrucrure projects
bull Provision of services to the unen1ployecl
bull Con1n1unity clevelop1ncnt
bull Co1nple1nentary ~incl prevcnt11ive educarion
LEADER groups bull tni1nation 1crivit1es
bull middot1-icl1nical assis11nce
Expenditure on these 1ctiv1tic~ is shovn in middot1middot1blL lt3
418 11blc 43 shovs the v1rying ex1cnt 10 vhich the clitlerenl locil l)cvelop111ent
lxgtdics trt involved in non-gr1n1 ou1pu1s_ Thlt CEB ind LEl)EH groups focus on
gr1nt is grtmiddotarcr th1n Panncrships vho focus on non-gr1nt activi1ies imiddothis is
cons1s1ltnt with tlic list of 1ctiv1ties 111 Tible 34
- 71Jt 111tmeratfJr is l1n11t~ paid 111 the cale11dt1r HCff 01u the de11011111uur1r 1~middot the lllfJloy111e11t ~ai11 Cllthic~( (1er IIitbull yor i11 the jln11middot 11111J rcce11ed jiTu111c1td uufuitl Jimiddotom (Lfgtsmiddot 11 1Jf1bull rbut
empluymc111flt_-e1middot1111h1middots1middotjir11r_ are 1g11ored
31
()fJert-111u1uil Fj)lcicJJ(l --middotmiddot-middotmiddot---------- shy
Table 43 Expenditure on non-grant outputs 1996 - 1997
1996 1997 1996 1997 poundm poundm of total of total
expenditure expenditure
CEBs 39 54 18 24 Pyentnershipsbull 51 136 56 72 LEADER groups 21 34 40 30
folal 11 1 224 31 42
Not~ a 7he figures oxclude Community Groups and selected National Organisations b Excludes selected sectoral groups
Sotrce Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller iJnd Auditor General see Appendix A
Duadweight and Displacement
419 l)ct(lveight refers to situation Vhcre 1 pro1nocer vould undertake 1he
buiness projtmiddotct in 111y evcn1 i_e_ Vitliotll 1 gr1nc or 1sistince fron1 ~1 Iocil
l)e-elorn1en1 body middot1l1e granting of funltls 10 dealthveiglH projects is an ineffic1tgtnt
and ineflec1ivt alloc11ion of resources Disrlacen1tmiddotn1 refers ro situations vhere 1he
golt1cL or ~ervicvs iOlcl by 1 grlttlllltISiiSled rroll10ler divert sales opporlunitiis fro111
other exisling busincssl-gt E111plor111ent c1n hl sin1iL1rlv divlrtecl In chese cases rhe
in1pac1 of thl funds allocHed is achieved at the exptmiddotnsc of other enterprises
420 Tltere is risk of deidweight and c1splacemcnt in Iii gr1nr ictlmiddotUv including
th11 It lltgtcal clevelopn1en1 level A nccnc study stated th~1t 1 ~
ie bate tao concerns uifb the s11ppo11s Or n1icro e111e1JJrse Jbe Jruhlen1 uf
clacue1ibt a11cl clisplaccbull111e11t is e11clc111ic in such Slf)jJ01ts eJHCial~v 1ohlre
sc1cral agencie ure to su1ne clerrecbull inuolultcl in tlishursing such suJfgtorts
The Operational llogrammls for 11--DEH 111d 011lJHD llotlt su1e thll dc1clwe1ght
1ncl clisplact1nent are to Ixmiddot 1voiclld
421 All cn1crprise project Lill into one of 1he folloving fo111 clllgorics
Deadweighl Yes Deadweight No
Displacement No Displacement No
Deadweighl Yes Deadweight No
DisplacementbullYes Displacement Yes
Vlt1tio11al 11ici11nbull11i P11onlies for the xbullnfJd 1000-JrxJG Fitzgltbullrald cmiddott al Fn11omic ond )o(middotial Reearch 1i111u1rmiddot -Hor(h 19Y)
ocu )etelo111u11 t 11 it it1 I ives
Of 1he four possible scenarios onlv one (wi1h no displaccmeni incl no cleaclweigh1)
yields potcn1iil net increises in outpu1 incon1e en1ploy111cnr and consu1nption 1hat
could Ix 111nbu1ible 10 l[ADEH or 011Ul(l) supporl From vil11e for lllClllC)
perspective ii is in1ponant tha1 1hcrc be good infonnation on the extent of
cle1clwe1gl11 and dispLicemem and dfcc1ive prcxeclures 10 deal wi1h 1hem
Deadweight
422 11 is cl1fficuli 10 111eas11re the ex1ent of clcaclweigh1 and no method c1n Ix
rcmicro1rded is provicling tn1~illy rcliallle es1in1~1les [)eichveight Vts exa111ined in the
111idmiddotltnn reviev of OJgtLUHIJ in rcspcct uf fin~1nci1l ~1ssistu1ct givtn 10 s1nall finns
by CEl3s Fron1 a s11nple of finns ~untycd over 40dego of thC pron101ltrs indic1ted thll
they would hivc es11blished the businesses w11hou1 CUl suppo11 A s111cly of micro
enterprises 1h1t fl~Ceivtcl grants under Local )evelop1nent initiitivcs 1nd other
progr11n1111s rcpo11ed deichveight of 45Yi
423 E111erpnse Tricle and F111ploy111en1 has irgued 1h11 1hese estim11cs of
ceJdeiglu are roo high ccorcling tu thl l)erart111e11t the viCS of proinoter~ irt
nor 1 reli1ble guide to cil11er lheir behiviuur or heir SllCLt-S lhe l)cp1nn1ltnt ~1-serts
1hll di CEBs seek 10 ivoicl cleiclwcigh1 However i1 J11s been no1ccl 1h11
rcsrondentsmiddot confidence rcgtrding their abil11y to sta11 i busines in the 1bsence of
i grant c111 he considered 1s 1n underesli111~1le
424 A siucly f 1hc Arca Allowincc Fn1erprise Scheme (AAES) which is
adniinisterecl by P1rrnerships suneyecl a sa111ple of pa111cip1nr- 1 11 Vts concludedbull
thit cleachveigl11 Vas in 1he range 40-50o_ Even alkJving for s1111pling risks the
thnt surbulley-gt t1ke11 1oge1her suggest thlt there is 1 consiclerihlt incidence of
cittciVCight
425 An cximrle of poten1iil cleiclweiglll involving IEADER funding is se1 ou1 in
Cise Study 5
11of11at1011 (~ 1liClO 111tt1pn4 S11pxn3 lcrni 1ltllicn10 d local fgtcbull1ymiddotfop1111bull11t Agc11c1e 11d11try 11a11atirJ11 11111 1111~11-t 1999- lluro (llfe1p11lt- that rcCcbulluetl prro11s fr(J11 1111e17nisc flflt11u_ (danis 1u1 Crrlllachf( t111d Sht11111rJ1t )c1elop111e1111tmiddotc1v111c1uld i111lw arl(hiiS
Set fj lJiAJhk 111iutitlt hmiddot1a11af11J1 r11ul llttmiddot(middotr1111111middot11rlatiu11 lcmiddotontcmiddotv CI ul 1)95
Stjl111plortd a11d tlw 011g (bulln11 l11e111plr~rrmiddotd A11 1al11alio11 (J 11w tlnf1 t1101ra11cc f11terprit Xhe11tc IFNC Co11s1il1a111s J-)7
-1)1 cr11bullrde1middot 1ba11hc prop()r1p11middotuncncl 11IFJ _-lated b(l biy 11011d hatcmiddot 1atmiddotc11 up c111plrJy1111J1rJbull1jshy1middot111101111i1 ~ 111J (J nmiddotfia1c n1lt1ict1orji1r thost 1141u M1ild (UT nLltrfllll dn11( 11 t1) ht1 01)11cd that IJc lllU(rillllf (CtlN n1t1middotJrom l(lllJtiy1111Jl ~r I 1r11gmiddotttrlll llt1fJIO)td 24Ci Ill tbc iRC middot111(~1) 11Yfdd he c1 lgttbulluer t-li11(lft ofdct1tl11eipIJ1 fur AAlS paiticipd11t tha11 the tfiJJlltlllgt q11ofcfl i 1 1ha1 suufbull_ Nou~middotzybullr_ lh1bull s11u~v J(jiJfld (fl that lbulle cht1roocns1il~ vf Amiddot115 KJrticipa11t (tmiddotducatio11 and dt1r(lI011 of 1111c111p()y111cmiddot11t) were lkl(rmiddotmiddot tba11 for thl frn~~-1en11 111u111ploycd uho dul 11ol fx1rtic1xflcgt II Atf)
y
Of)(rotional IJfcicbullnc-)-
ase Study 5
Potential deadweight situation
lr1 1999 a business person 1n a large provincial town decided to provide a bed and bmiddoteakfast establishment in a spacious house that she owned in the centre of the town She decided to focus on the upper end I business market and provide four en-suite rcbulloms She received assurances from several local businesses that they would be willing to refer clients to her Two local hotels also indicated that they would refer cverflow customers
Tie total investment required to refurbish the property fit out and supply furniture crockery and bed linen was esl1maled al pound88000 Loan approval was obtained from the bmk for renovations and the promoter applied to the local LEADER group for a grant
T 1e LEADER group estimated that pound44000 of the proposed expenditure would be
eligible for grant assistance and a grant of pound13000 was approved for the venture
T 1e pro1ect report prepared for the LEADER Board meeting did not include consideration of the possibility lhat the pro1ect might proceed without a grant In that regard the following faclors would have been relevant
bull the premises was located 1n the centre of a busy growing town bull the premises was owned by the promoter bull the owner was self-employed and operated a consultancy service from home bull based on 35 occupancy net cash now in lhe first year was forecast at pound8000 bull if no grant had been paid and the funds had been borrowed instead the estimated
surplus for the year would have been reduced by an increased interest charge of up to pound1300 which would not have substantially changed the potential Viability of
the business venture
426 Posible Vtys of 111i11i1111sing dlHhveigh1 in assisted projects include
bull Targeting financial abullsistancc on projects where the costs of entry to the business arc high relative to the resources available to the promoter So111e pro111nltIS have ve111 li1ni1cd financial resources for fxa111ple 1he vast
n1Jjori1r of Ptrtntrship l lien1s ~ire long-tenn unc1nploycd It is Vorth noting
thtt evtn Vhlt 1dequa1e privite resoune- are lmiddotaiL1hle it 1nty bt difficult
for so1ne Jlt)cal f)evelop1nent bodit~ given their job creation target~ 10 1urn
clumiddotll involve1nent in othlmiddotrvisl sound projects Indeed 1he viev Vts
tprcssed hy 0111e of thosL in1ervitmiddotvecl in the courst of the study 1h~ll fi11111cial
Sllppo11 for CJigihJt projects is often vieVCd hy prOtllltllers ~IS an cntiJe1ll(fl( and
this can 111akl it difficult for Loctl l)tvLlopn1en( ])(xlies to nfusc financial
1ssist1nce (() deathve1gh1 rru1ect
37
(JC( )Ct(()JHUJl 11itiati1es
bull Providing financial assistance by means of repayable grants loans or equity mthcr than non-repayable cash grants middotrhis should discourige reli1ncc on public funds by those entrepreneurs vho
do not need ii Vhiltgt ensuring that entrepnmiddotnctllS vho do need public finance
can alail of it Tltlte m1cl-tcrm evtluil1on of 011UIU) recommenclecl the
incre1sed llSC of loans and l(jUity rlttther thtfl grtf)i reron 1ly tile lndUSll)
Evtlua1ion Uni ncon11ncndccl thll all financial 1ssi-11nce provided uncler 1he
1egis of lEADEH ancl CEils should require 1 fm1neid return From earlv 1998
CfB- ind Pa11nerships hive been tmiddotn1pOVlrld by 1hc EU Con1rnis inn to issisl
projects hy 111c1ns of equity ind rcfuncLtblc 1icl In 199~ tlrnost ~05111 of CEB
assist1ncc (4oo) v1s provided in 1hc fonn of equity 111d refundthle ~1id
Entcrprisc middotrrack ind E1nploy111en1 intend 1h11 refundable forins of 1ssis1ance
Vil] he deployed incrc1nentdly 111 future Al)11 hJs tgllld vi1h P1r1ncrships
tllt clien1- should Vhtre prtctic~ilgtle nceiVl nmiddotfundable 1itl r11hcr th~111 grints
In 1ccurcl111ce wt1h EU regul1llons lEADEH groups ire precluded from
providing lotns or equity to enterprises
427 recent study reported thi1~
le ackn()toleclgc that n1icru e11te17Jrises 111a_v face capital constraints especialfr in the stcut uJdegfJhase but strongf)i s11_rges11hat the n1us1 ejecliue
uov Ju lf(lltress his fJOssible middotn1arkct _(ailunmiddot is Jbrough rJals an( eq1tif)
rather tba11 microran aicl 1Jt~~- uo11c 111inin1ise tbe r1~k ojmiddot creating a cleJenclcnl~) c11111 remiddot
428 It is clear [hll here is cope for n1uch greater use of rep1y~il)[c grin[S loans
ind equi1y 10 111inin1isl dtachveiglil incI such ustmiddot has 1hc 1ddccl 1dv1nt1ge 1h11
1ssistince c1n he providlcl n1ore econon1ic1lly 1 funds c1n bl recycled to 1ssis1
n1ore thtn one project Huvcvcr so111c incre~1se in ~1dn1ini-gttr11ion cos1s could be
expcc1ecl
429 An extre1ne fonn of ckichveiglH irises Vhtn public fin1nciil support is
supplied 10 1 project vhirh as cst1hlishecl and is oreruing in [he Jbsencc nf this
suppon CtSl Siucly 6 involving 1hc ArlJ Allovtnce Enterprise Schlllle illus1r1tes thi
11a11aH11t of 11ficro 111(tpn-lt SupjXJl1 Ao-o a11011til a11d lcx(I Jrbull1tmiddotlup111c1u 11~cmiddot11C11gtmiddot iu1111y tia11r1i(Jll 11it A11~1til CJlt-lt)
rJ1irJ1Ui lnnmiddott111cbull11f Jn-ru1fi(middoti f(lr tbe wnod 20(J-2(XX) Faz Ccrllfd lf t1I c()10111ic (JUI S(Jcial Nc_1middott1rr_h 11_f1ltrlt I-Ion)) JJlt-J
Sltmiddotj~F1111lo1ld o 1u he lh11g-T1middotr111 Ui1tmiddot111plo1middotetl- 1111 10i1atio11 of lbltmiddot Artbulla Alllt1flft 110middot 11tlJHi1e ScJ1111cbull 1HC Co1111raJ11middot 19lt)7
middotmiddot
38
Ojgteraliollal JJicie11lt_~1middot
ase Study 6
Funding the startup of an existing business
A fisherman was 1n receipt of Unemployment Assistance (UA) from the Department of
SJcial Community and Family Affairs (DSCFA) from 1979 to 1999 In September 1998 hi applied for support under the Area Allowance Enterpnse Scheme (AAES)
Uoder the terms of the scheme an applicant must be unemployed for at least a year
and this eligibility must be confirmed in writing on the application form by DSCFA The Praquortnership can subsequently approve the application and may provide minor financial support 1n addition to the main financial benefits provided by DSCFA 1e the receipt of full unemployment payments for a year and on a reducing scale for a further three years plus retention of secondary benefits
Abullcording to the application form the applicant had received a bank loan of pound18000 for the purchase of a boat with repayments commencing on 30 August 1998 In addition hf was the owner of fishing nets to a value of pound6000
Tt1e application form was certified by DSCFA 1n January 1999 to the effect that the applicant was eligible for AAES The certification did not explain
bull how the applicant managed to purchase a boat while on UA bull how he persuaded the bank to provide a loan or pound18000 bull how he was financing the business from August 1998 to January 1999 in particular
the boat repayments and insurance amounting to pound565 per month
Tt1e report prepared for the Partnership Board meeting stated that the applicant had with the knowledge of DSCFA been engaged 1n the fishing industry for the previous ten years on a part-time basis The Board approved the application
mcFA has made the following observations on this case
bull Following an investigation in 1988 the UA payment was terminated but reinstated under appeal with an assessment of net income at pound1250 from fishing per year The case was reviewed 1n 1993 and the net income per year was increased to pound1400 A further review was conducted in September 1998 (the month atter the boat was purchased) and the assessment of net income did not increase
bull It is very difficult to establish an accurate income for such fishermen as fish can be sold to tourists and restaurants for cash
bull The Department did not consider 1t necessary to check with the bank as to what if any security was provided for the loan
bull While failures occur in the scheme they do not cost the Department any more than if the client continued on UA
A[1M has pointed out that fishing comprises a very small proportion of AAES pa1ic1pants supported by Partnerships A recent review of Partnership business su1iports reported that fishing and Bed and Breakfast businesses do not provide a viable full-time 1ob and Area Allowance 1s not an appropriate support payment It also recommended that clearer guidelines should be issued regarding eligib1l1ty
Soure Partnership Business Supports and the Area Allowance Scheme Insights No 8 ADM 1999
J9
locaf f)ltueloJn1e11t fl1itiati1es
Case Study 7
Potential displacement situation
A business proposal was made to a CEB 1n 1998 The promoler wished to provide a food delivery service to factories on industrial estates ie sandwiches baps snacks elc The promoter recognised that there were several competitors Unlike the
competitors he proposed to provide the service via three refrigerated vending machines lhat would be reslocked regularly He applied for and was approved a capital grant of pound5500 by the CEB in December 1998
The project report prepared for lhe Board meeting dealt with the possibility of displacement by noling that lhe promoters service would be provided in a manner different from his compet11ors However the question arises if the project is successful how will its sales be achieved unless by the diversion of the expenditure of faclory employees from one service provider to another
Displacement
430 middotrhc only antlysis of clispL1ce1ncnt vas in respccl uf 11lS 1nd this shl)Vcd a
wide rmge of estimils Using a methodology devised bv Breen and Halpin the
consul11nts esti1111recl that 64oo of the business carried out by 1ES panicipants Vas
diver1cd fron1 other Irish fin11s and Iiiat ~i l1X1 of en1plny1llLl1I created in
thescentcrpriscs v1s at the expense of other enterprises middot1l1e consultants felt thtt the
Breen 111cl 1-ldpin methodology had limitations ancl tlut their estinutes of
clisplicc1nent Vere too high lJsing different 1ssu1nptions incl 1 different
mthodology they estim11ecl that 19 of employment created in AAES enterprises
Vts displacLcl fro1n other cn1erpriscs
431 Possible vays of n1ini111ising clispl1cen1ent include
bull CounsLlting pro1notcrs tovncb exports or cloincstic sectors supplied prltdom1n1111lv l)y import
bull ithholding 1ssis1ance fron1 projec1s in1encling 10 supply goods and stgtrviccs to the clon1es1ic 1111rke1 vhich are alrc1cly supplied by other busineSSlS
bull Providing financial tssisttnce by n1eans of rep1yibllt grants lo1ns ind cqui1y rathtr rhin non-repayable ct~h gr1nts
432 All LEADEH groups Partnerships and CEils are insrruned not to suppon
projects Vhich voulcl displace business fro1n other enterprises
433 CEl3s were advised early in 1999 10 focus heir efforts on thlt development of
n1anuf1cturing incl in1ern1tional services projects vhich viii have the pltgttential 10
clevclop in10 export-oriented finns hile not neglecting other eligible rrojects
(vi1ble non-clcaclveight non-displacc1nen1) outside these sec1ors Jgtirtnersl1ips have
40
()JCltflional Jffrienc)
agmiddoteed tht financid support should not be supplied to businsses 111 plentiful
supply such as hackneys couriers builcling contr1cpoundors Ix-cl and hre1kLi~t
operators vm sales and hairdrclaquors LEADER groups are advised to d11ect the11
Stlj)p(H1S tOvards innltgtva1ive pnijeLt~
4i4 There arc d1ffcrcmiddotnt views among Local Development bodies regarding what is
inmiddotoived in rtcognising diplacetntnt middotrhus -cHne Lltic~11 J)evelopn1en1 bodi1s
co1sider thtl if lhe existing co111peeitors to a project are located outside their county
or evtn their loc~1lity 1hen clisplacen1cn1 is not 1n issue
4s The 1111cl-1cnn reviews of LEADEH and OPLUHD made linlc reference to
displlcemcnt Howevmiddotcr the LEADEH mid-term review contended that displJcemcnt
vculd he 111ini111ised if LEAl)ER groups focused their f1nincial 1ssistance on
111rovative proiects Agnrnlture and Food intend that the final evalu111on of LEADEH
11 Viii includ ltSli111a1ion of tltmiddotachveigh1 and clispl1cen1ent effect
Be11e_ficit1 Dis1U1ce111e11t
436 II rhere are ~1ny circu111st~1nces in vhich ltlispl1ce111ent can be ignored thev
shltnild be identified For exunple it 111ay be possible to sustain the c~1se on sociJI
jus1 ice or equity grounds rhu specific groups such JS 1he lung-1ern1 t1nt111ployed
shcbullttld receivlt posi1ivlt cliscri111in~n1on elifJI at the cxfxnse ojotherjoh see~ctYi tOi1
111 lrgucd 1h1t onlt of the obwctives of Partnerships is to 1mprovmiddot( the potcnlld of
the long-tcnn unc111ployccl ind 1he socially ltXcludccl 10 gain cn1ploy111ltnl in lhlt
eccbullno1ny generally ind specifically 1n poundheir Ovn areas_ middotrhc inslrtion of particular
dis1dvant3ged groups into e111ploy1ncnt or a husine~s viii often have thL effec1 of
dis)Jcing a non-clis~1dvantaged person fron1 that 1oh oppo11unity Hcnvcver the
social giin makes the displJce111ent worthwhile
437 Given that CEBs cover the emire populallon incl that Partnlrships and
LEd)EH groups cover 540o and 6Joo respectively the exacpound circun1s11ncltS Vhen
clisplacemem 111ight be permincd for any Local Devdopmelll body should be
cluificd by the relevant Dep1rtmenis
(rnui11g (lUJ Sharing ()I r F111plr1y111e11t S1raUt_r (JfX 011 the lt1bltgt11r _bulllfariltf tgtlt1uu11cmiddotn1 of1111erpnmiddotc_ 7huC and 1111Joy111e11r Jn 19ltXgt
41
5 Assessment of Impact
51 Xhik the 1nc1sun111cnt of the 1chieven1ent of cconon1y 1nd efficiency is
ilnportan1 in the n1an1ge1nenl of the initiatives establishing their in1pact is of even
grci1er 11npnrtance J111pic1 assessn1enl is concerntd Vilh est1blishing the e-1cn1 10
which the local devdoprnent oJ1cc1Jns ire achievecl 1110 the wider contribution of
the initiatives 10 local cconon1ic and socitl developn1ent 11 is desirable thtt
appropri1te sys1tn1s to evaulle 1he 1chicve111ents of the iniliHives in n lttion co their
desired 11np1cts should IJt in place
52 Ille cllvcloprnent nf syste1ns to detennine 1he i1np1ct of the initiitivcs is not
easy middotrhlt clivlr~i1y of Jnc~il dcvelupn1ent objecrive~ n1e1ns thit it is unlikely thH 1ny
one 1ssessn1cn1 niethocl Otild he sufficient So1ne in1p1cts like cn1ploy1nent
crltJtiun can lx quintified Jnd 1chieven1ent can be n1unitorecl chrough che 111alysis
of nJev1n1 perfonnanct indic11ors_ Othcrs like rlttising the level of econo111ic activity
ctn be 1ssessecl 1hrough 1he usc of ccono111ic 1noclels using surroga1e 111e1sures of
irnpacl 1VL1ny of the socitl objeclives of 1he inili11ive are not susceptible to
n1e1sure1ne111 at di incl till i1111xu1 achieved Jre best detenninccl through surveys
of chtngts in local condilions a1 inclividu1I and con1nnir1i1y levels
S3 lhi ch1p1er consiclt~rs 1ppro1chcs co che 1sscss111en1 of i1npact under the
folJoving J1e1dings
Issues Subject
Quantitative assessments Baseline analysis bull bull Use of macroeconomic data
Qualitative assessments Assessing social impacts bull Case studies and international studies bull
Quantitative Assessments
54 lnfonnition on job creacion and the progression of long-tenn une1nployecl
persons 10 fuJI lirlle VOrk 1re rerorted for i[J these ypes Of 1gtltKJies (see middotr1ble 41
ind Append A) Vhile the figures tint hive been reported to end-1998 under
011URI) 1re well 1he1d of the tirgcts thit were set it is difficult to interpret these
resuhs in hrn1s of i111picl in lhe ibsence of bascline cl1t1
Baseline Analysis
55 B1selinc analysis would estiblish the performance of a representative group
of enterprises con1n1uni1y groups incl individu~1ls 1hat did not receive 1ssis11nce
under 1hc initiatives middotrhe rcrfonnancc of 1ssis1ecl entities incl individuils al counry
42
Assess1ne111 lt~ 111JOCI
or r111ional levtgtI could then he co1nparcd Vilh the 1xmiddotrfonnancl of middotn1ttchedmiddot nonshy
tssi ~1ed cnlitiii selected fro1n the repre~entltil group Si1nil1rly tile pcrlltlrn11ncl
of en1i1ies recltiving ditlenmiddotnt kinJ of ~1ssistance could also he antlysed to cletenninc
rel1 live ilnpac1
56 Baseline analysi~ can he pcrfonnld using 1nicroecono111ic d111 (da1a 1bou1
spcltific enterprises) or n1acrotcnnon1ic clat1 (1ggrLg11t~d dat1)_ middotrhc cl1t1 collection
proicduns -11 loc1l level hJve not heimiddotn 1dequatt to suppo11 this kind of ltinalysis
using 1nicrocconon1ic data 1ccordingly analysis against a baseline of non-1ssis1cd
cnlt-rprises co111n1unity groups ind individu1J- cHHlO( hl carried out
I Case Study on Unemployment using Macroeconomic Data
i 5 7 stuclv of the irnpact uf 011l RD on unemplovment ing census clata
(111a- rltgttgtcono111ic data) has hlttll c1rrild out under tile ~1egis of the ()PlUH)
P1oriloring ConHniuec So1nc rcsuhs of the study 1re su11H11arised in Cae Study H
58 middotrtiis finding fro111 ltase S1udy 8 dltgtcs nor nectgtssarily 111ean 11111 P~trtnerships trl
les effective in assisting une111ployed peorle 10 find vork 1s unc111ploycd ptorlt~
in P~ntncrship 1rc1s 111ay he 111on di_-adv~1nt1ged and find ii lllOll dillicull to 1ccess
e111(oy1ncn1 In addition 1he ralt of entry to une1nploy111lnt in Partnership 1reas
1nay he different frorn non-Jgt1r1nershir 1n~~1s 11lt)vevcr the data is inconclusive
I ~1hont tile level of ttlcclivcness of P~111nlr~liips in addressing Ltr1e111rloyn1cnL middotrhe
case s1udy highlights the co111plexity of in1pac1 analysis but also illustrates ils
i irnpbullgtrltnce in le~1cling lo a grlmiddotHer uncllrst1nd1ng of the resulls of progr~11n11H
aCllily More complex ltbta rnodels of the labour nurket at local level woulcl be
nccclecl for a svs1e111~11ic revicv of 1hc elTcctivenesi of Pannerships in tickling longshy
I 1ern~ llllt~n1plon1ent
59 It is of inlertst 10 e-an1inc the trends in the duration of uncn1ployn1ent in
I recent years imiddot~1hle 51 ihOVS thc nun1hers une111plnyecl ylmiddot1r on yctr in ont year
banltls up to 1l1nc years fron1 1994-1999 and the 11ne1nplcgtyn1ent retentugtn r1tcsmiddot
fro1r vtmiddotar to year i_e_ lhe proportion of those 11ne111ployed ho nLmiddot still unen1ploytCI I
one year li1er
I510 middotr1hle 51 shov- 1h1t signific1nt i111provlrnlnts in une111ploy111cnt rerintion
ralc~ htVl occurrLd in recent yetrs particularly for long-ten11 UllLlllploy1nen1 Strong
ecoron1ic grovth in 1lie period covered vould li1ve beltIl of prinH in1ponance in
1he reduction 111 long-1tmiddotrn1 l1ne111ploy111ent ihiJc the long-lerrn une1nployed ire thl
1111in rarge1 group for Partnerships thlse areas are not sep1raccly distinguished 1n
lhe analysis OutlOVS ro schen1es such 1s Co111111u11ity Fn1ployn1cnt could also he I
llllf)()flilll
43
olta JeueloJn1e111 11itioti1cs
Case study 8
Analysis of the impact of OPLURD on long-term unemployment using macrodata
A key part of the analysis was a comparison between the change in unemployment in Partnership areas from 1991-1996 with the corresponding change in non-Partnership
areas The comparison was based on the Census of Population for 1991and1996 The logic behind the comparison was that disadvantaged areas are at risk of falling behind
the general level of economic development unless there is a targeted intervention to ensure that the rising tide of economic growth flows into those areas Thus if the
decline m unemployment in Partnership areas is similar to that in Ireland as a whole
then at least the gap between affluent and poor areas has not widened and Partnerships may have contributed to some extent to this outcome
The consultants measured changes 1n the unemployment rate in two ways (i) by the percentage point (or absolute) change (ii) by the proportionate (or relative to 1991) change
They used a simple example to illustrate the difference between the two measures Assume that Area A has 90 unemployment rate and Area B has 20 unemployment
rate If the unemployment rate declines by 10 percentage points in both areas (the
same absolute change in the rate) the relative rate is quite different since Area A has declined by only 11 (relative to its starting rate) whereas Area B has deemed by 50
(relative to 1s starting rate) Both rates should be used together
The key data was summarised as follows
Unemployment rate
Area 1991 1996 Absolute Percent Percent Change initial rate Points Change Relative to Initial
Ireland 169 14 8 -21dego
Ratebull
-126
Partne1ship areas 256 230 -26 -100 (PESP only)
Non-Partnership 139 119 -20 -141 areas
Note 8 Change in unerriployment rate divided by the initial unemployment rate
The consultants commented that the unemployment rate in PESP Partnership areas
fell by a slightly greater absolute amount than either Ireland or non-Partnership areas but in relative terms they did worse - essentially because they had higher unemployment rates to begin with in 1991
Sourco A Report on the Impact of the Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development on Long- Term Unemployment Goodbody Economic Consultants et el October 1999
44
Assessnu11t q J11pact
Table 51 Duration of unemployment and retention rates 1994-1999
Ye
19 19 19 19 19 19
ar
94 95 96 97 98 99
Less than one year Number
151032 144283 146776 132398 130780 110446
--shy1-2 years 2-3 years 3+ years
Number Retention Number Retention
rate rate
Number
43697 39748 263 40875 283 38361 261 31719 240 28 194 216
27489 64154 26293 602 67955 25852 650 69667 24227 593 61870 18914 493 54448 14496 457 44940
NotB Retenrion rates are calculated as follows_ All of those who wero unemployed for 1-2 years in 1995 (39 748) wcro unernployed for less than one year in 1994 (151032) thus the unemployment retention rate is 263 (39 748+151032) CSO Live Register data
i Case Study on Business Formation using Macroeconomic Data
I 511 tucly of s11111l business forn1ation over ti111e 111ight be usecl to consider issues
middot such as lhe i111pact of lhl initi~Himiddotes on thtbull rice of n1anufacturing st1nups his i~
considered in Case Srudy 9
51~ C~rtater underst1nding is requirtcl of the n1ix of variables vhich n1ay be
responihle for the trends appann( in the data In a situ11ion vhere an unexpected 1 result is obt1inLmiddotd fron1 tile analysi~ C1s in Case Study 9) 11 Otild lgtt necessary to
refirc the analysit using 1111croecono111ic dala un1il the reasons for the trends
observed 1re clarified and the dilTcren1 contribution~ of lhe initiatives to sn1all 1
enterprise fonn~uion ere better understood
513 In order to use 111icrtgteconon1ic cLua 10 assess the in1p1ct of 1ht ini1ia1ivcs on1 n1anufacturing and intern~llional StTviccs it vould be necessJI) to integrate locil
clcvdopment suppo11 dlla from all the mitia11ves -Uh rhe Forfis and Enterprise
middotrr1de and E1nploy1ncn1 Bu~iness InforntHion Sygtt(Jll (BIS) Enterprise lrlttcle incl
Fmrlovment 1ntcncls to proceed with the 1nrcmiddotgra1ion of CEil data with the BIS (See
paragraphgt 2 2i-228) i 514 Enrerprise Tracie ancl Employment h1s commissioned a review 10 take place
in 11middote currenl year on the in1p1ct of CEUs vith particular reference 10 thlt ratlt of 1
bu~i1es~ fonnacion tnd 1he su~tlinability of the johs cre~Htmiddotcl
45
lucal JelJelo111unl l11i1ia11cs
Case Study 9
Use of macroeconomic data on business formation
In 1993 Enterprise Ireland stopped assisting manufacturing and international services firms with less than ten employees This role was transferred to CEBs The trend in the number of Irish-owned startups in manufacturing from 1987 to 1996 has been studied in an effort to detect the impact of economic growth on the rate of startups It might equally be used as a starting point to consider the impact of CEBs in this role
Startups in Irish-owned manufacturing 1987 to 1996bull
600
500
bullOO
300
200
100
0 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Year
The graph shows that the very rapid economic growth from 1993 (which period includes the emergence of the initiatives) did not result in an increased rate of manufacturing startups According to the quoted study The start-up performance 1s surprising The improvement m the economy over the years has not been accompanied by a corresponding growth in the number of manufacturing startupsmiddot
Note a Case study based on ~startups and Closures in Indigenous Manufactunmiddotng an Analysis of the CensCJS of Industrial Production 1986-1995 Irish Banking Review Autumn 1998 Anthony Foley and Teresa Hogan
Source Data Census of lndustna Production CSO
Qualitative Assessments
Assessing Social Impacts
515 Some irnpo11rn1 rnrcro clilt wts cs1rl3lrshecl by ADM reltting 10 middotc1ep1wa1ion
111clic11ors for l1nnership areas Bised on the 1991 Clnsus of Populttion ADM
co1npilecl indic1rors of cleprivuion for all Pannershlp areas domiddotn to l)istrict
Elcctor1l l)ivisiltgtn levc1 l)cprivJriun 1n1p- tre 1lso procluced middotrhe clcprivltlCion
indicators 1nclucled
46
bull educationtl a1tainn1en1
bull ltgtCcu1x11ional profile
bull lltxmiddotil labour n1arket characteris1ics
bull housing
FrOill 1hcse indicators a con1pusite deprivaiion index value Vas con1p11tcd for each
lartnersl11p area for 1991
516 Tlrrs exercr lras rectgtnilv bcrn repeated from tire results of the 1996 Census of lo1n1llli(gtn Fngtnl ~tn in1pac1 assess111en1 ptrspcctivtmiddot relilt1nce ltgtn these indicators
voulcl involve ~0111e li111itllions_ For lt1n1ple chc Census year- do not coincide Vith
Partnership 111ilcstones 111igruion can con1plicatc 1nalysis and [he d111 is not
definitive regltncling c1usality~~
51 ()espile these lin1ilalions analysis of the indicators of dtprivt1ion should
probullicle valuable inforn1ation rcg1rdi11g changes in 1pects of clt~pfiv1tion in different
Partnershq1 anas and should ilso Ltcilitatc con1p1rion ovtr 1i111e Vith nun
la11nersl11p areas lhe ltlmiddotailtbility of this infonnltllion shot1ld ftcilirarc furthCr
ittt111pts to consider the social in1p1c1s of tht~ initlHives
Case Studies and International Studies
5tf Whrle much hrs been wrr11en on tire rctrvrtres of Local Development bodies
chc tlcnt of 111atcrial spccifictlly covering the evtl1111ion of their i1np1c1 is very
li111i1ecl Several Partnerships have c1rried otH case srudil~middotM) to highlight hov issues
wen being trckled by different Partnerships ancl to promote best practice Case studies are undcrv1y tlso in n1lt1ny LLl)FH groups No case studies havtmiddot lgteen u ed
so L1r in tlic cnlcrprisc ind ioh crc1tion ~1rea for CEB ac1ivi1ies
519 A for111J E11ropean s1ucly v1s unck-rtiken of he rnle of p1nnerships in
proriuting sociil cohesion in ten fmiddot1t1nhcr Srarl~ of the EU co111prising ten nniond
rtpcrts (including lrel1ncl) and 1 synli1esis European rt~portjlbull middotrht study and repo11s
j middotltre bt-gtlltl prin1arily on rh1rty ctst tuclic (rhree fro111 etch middotten1ber St~lle) Vhich
looked 11 issues of reprtstnlalion ncgoliHion and alliance lgtuilcling in tile
devElop111ent of strategies and 1c1ion plans ind the vorking 111ethocls skills incl
I reso-_1rces aprlied lgty p~111nershirs
()her 11111101io11s arc rexnccl i11 fJrxr coptmiddot fJrgtCir i~ edttimiddotd l~r I) Pn11gle tf of Ook Tree )rt--
)11J111_ -~)9
_rKmiddottd 1art11c1ih1p~ middotI 5111n--11 511HIL1Y fur Sc)(middotial Cubl~011lt 11 Ccddcbull OJ1tc ( QOua 11h1lta1J11_- fvr w F11n1J1CJ11ltiJ111111111111umiddots1111d -111middotn1wt111 h1111ulrlf1011for1ie lm1ro1(mlW of itll~L tntl lliirk111~ Co11tl11io11s 19ltJ-
47
ocal Jevelop111e11t lnilit1tite_
520 1ihilc the rtpon included n1iny individual references to isol11cd cxirnpks of
1hc 1tll1x1c1 of panncrships Clllpincd rcstarch into 1he effecliveness of 1xnmerships
Vts not Vithin the score of the study middotrhcrc VIS also no 1ue1npt to con1p1re the
perfor1111nce of p1nncrsl1i1)s it nationil l(vel
521 The 1bsencc of specific tllaterial on the cvalL1a1ion of effectiveness of locd
clevelop111en1 bodies is panly clL1e 10 a lick of come~tuil clata 11 local level 10
L1cilita1e in~dysis A pri1n1ry ain1 of the bodies is to L1cilit1te thl locil achievtinent
of resuh~ incl to ltver1gc 1hc 1c1ivitics of local groups Assess1ncnt of effectiveness
of this kind of 1c1ivHy woulcl require that the role played by the lxxlies could he
isollltcl fruin ill oiher contribuiory f1ctors middot1middothis is difficult middotrtiere is 1 cletr need for
more data collernon llld 1hc clcvdop111ent of soual poltl) models which would
f1cili111e bcuer 1ns1gh1 by policy 1111kcrs imo the impact of the arnvities of local
clevdopment boclits
48
Jr
0 Ji~ )~ l ( imiddot
Appendices
~ gt
- _ middot-
---middotmiddot middot--shy ~--y- -~ -middot bull bull - bull __~
middot
middot
_ _~ -- middot ~
Appendix A Annual Cost and Outputs of Individual County Enterprise Boards Partnerships and LEADER Groups 1995-1997
(Jkistd on du1 ~upplicd by Dcp111111ents and ADJ1 Ltd Luc in 1998)
I
Summary of Expenditure on Local Development Programmes (1995-1997) Appendix A
1995 1996
pound000 of total expenditure
pound000 of total expenditure
CEBs
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
Total Expenditure
13485
1421
4895
19801
68dego
7dego
25
100
13503
3879
4284
21666
62
18dego
20
100
LEADER (1)
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
Total Expenditure
23
887
820
1730
2dego 51dego
47dego
100
1529
2350
1684
5563
28
42dego
30dego
100
PartnershipsCommunity Groups
and National Organisations (2)
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
I
-3 025
1532
66
34dego
-5161
5164
-SOoo
50
Total Expenditure 4557 100 10325 100
Aggregate expenditure figures shown in this table have been superseded by more up to date figures shown in Table 21 (1) Local Development groups accounted for 96 of LEADER expenditure in 1995 - 1997 and detailed analysis focused on lhis (2) Partnerships accounted for 84 of total expenditure for 1996 - 1997 and detailed analysis focused on this
1997
pound000
12884
5414
4437
22735
6226
3536
2015
11778
15579
7398
22977
0o of total expenditure
57dego 24dego
19dego
100
53
30
17dego
100
-68oo 32
100
County Enterprise Boards Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1995 Appendix A11
County Enterprise Board Administration
Expenditure pound000
Total Expenditure
pound000 Administration as 0o of
Total Expenditure
Grant Aid as 0o of
Total Expenditure
Non~rant Outputs as
of Total Expenditure
Tipperary South Riding 150 274 55dego 381 7oo
Corllt North 142 315 45dego 55dego Ooo Monaghan 143 375 38oo 621 QOo
Tipperary North County 122 353 35 57dego 8dego Meath 128 373 34oo 59oo 7dego
Louth 135 410 33dego 56dego 11 Ofo
Kildare 157 476 33 48 19dego Kerry 228 747 J 1Ofo 62 7 Limerick City 162 561 29dego 64oo 71
West Cork 142 498 29dego 65dego 6dego
Limerick County 209 714 29dego 63 Soo Westmeath 103 358 29dego 71dego Ooo Longford 95 335 28dego 68dego 4oo
Clare 169 635 27dego 68dego Soo Waterford County 106 396 27oo 73dego Ooo Cork City 150 543 27oo 671 6 Doneaal 124 460 27dego 68dego 5dego Fingal (Oubhn) 152 598 26dego 63dego 11
Mayo 155 651 24 72oo 4dego Waterford City 134 559 24dego 63 13dego Wicklow 127 558 23oo 70 7dego Ca now 149 654 23dego 72 5 South Corllt 187 844 22dego 71dego 7 Leitrim 147 671 22dego 67 11dego Cavan 122 564 22dego 65dego 3dego Laois 121 595 21dego 73 6dego South Dublin 143 670 21 70deg4 9dego Offaly 126 600 21deg4 63dego 16dego Dublin City 111 551 20deg4 67oo 13 Sligo 147 728 20deg4 73dego 7 Roscommon 111 597 19deg4 77 4dego Wexford 144 777 19dego 75deg4 6oo Kilkenny 1()0 637 16oo 84dego OOo
Galway County and City 140 950 15 83 2 Oun Laoghaire - Rathdown 82 743 110o 78oo 11 Oo
Miscellaneous (1) 30 30 Ooo QOo OOo
Total 4895 19801 25 68 7
(1) Refers to set up costs incurred on behatf of au Boards
County Enterprise Boards - Administration Costs as a Percmiddotentage of Total Expendifure --f996 Appendix A12
I _ - vuony c11u1tUllgttl ouaru
I Administration
I Total Expenditure Administration as 0o of Grant Aid as 0o of Non-grant Outputs as
Expenditure pound000 pound000 Total Expenditure Total Expenditure 0 0 of Total Expenditure
Cork North 119 417 29~o 63degshy 8degc -middot
113 28dego 56dego 16degoTipperarv North _counlv 404 -shy -Sliqo 118 457 26dego 50dego 24dego--Mealh 136 532 25~~ 53dego 22dego Laois 151 612 25dego I 59eo 16dego
Westmeath 120 500 24dego 55oo 21dego
Cork City 124 533 23dego 55dego 22oo Roscomn1on 120 536 22dego 61dego 17dego
Louth 133 620 21 Oo 57dego 22dego-Cavan 128 599 21dego 67degc 12dego
Clare 123 581 21Co 61dego 18dego
South Dublin 147 705 21 oo 56 23dego
Dublin City 139 668 21dego 49dego 30deg~
Kildare 128 625 20degh 41 lo 39o-shyTipperary South Riding 108 530 201 68dego 12oo
-Mavo 159 784 20dego 70oo 10dego
Carlow 117 582 20dego 67dego 13oo
West Cork 127 633 20dego 59dego 21
Longford 114 579 20dego 71dego 9dego -
Kerry 114 584 20oo 68deg~ 12oA
South Cork 125 645 19dego 58dego 23dego Limerick Cily 132 683 19oo 64oo 17dego
-Galway 122 631 190~ 69~o 12dego-Kilkenny 120 636 19dego 67dego 14dego
Offaly 117 628 19dego 62dego 19dego
Waterford County 105 563 19 66dego 15dego
Leitrim 121 665 18oo 64 18dego middot-
Oun Laoghairc bull Rathdown 116 648 18dego 57dego 25dego-
Fingal (Dublin) 117 656 18dego 56degc 26deg~ -Wexford 117 708 17oo 68dego 15dego
Wicklow 122 739 16 71 13dego
Donegal 119 757 16dego 65dego 19dego
Limerick County 120 810 15degc 68dego 17dego
Waterford City 118 800 15dego 75dego 10dego--Monaghan 75 616 12 74dego 14degc
Total 4284 21666 2011o 62dego I 18dego I
County Enterprise Boards Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A13
County Enterprise Board Administration Total Expenditure Administration as 0A of Grant Aid as 0o of Non-grant Outputs as
Expenditure pound000 pound000 Total Expenditure Total Expenditure deglo of Total Expenditure
Cork North 106 344 31dego 50dego 19dego
Clare 172 631 27dego 46dego 27oo---shyTieperary North County 116 448 26dego 38 36dego Waterford County 126 505 25dego 54dego 21dego Longford 121 498 24dego 60oo 16dego Wexford 156 647 24dego 56oo 20dego Wicklow 184 796 23dego 57dego 20dego Limerick Cilv 141 619 23oo 51dego 26dego
Mealh 170 751 22oo 52dego 26dego Offaly 113 505 22dego 53dego 25dego Kilkenny 121 545 22dego 48dego 30oo Donegal 94 428 22dego 42dego 35co
Leilrim 139 640 22dego 54dego 24dego------shy -Monaghan 118 556 21dego 57oo 22dego
Waterford City 164 788 21dego 60dego 19dego
Limenck County 147 708 21degk 53dego 26deg1 Louth 161 787 20dego 50dego 30dego
Mayo 122 602 20oo 53dego 27dego
Sligo 99 496 20dego 51 Ofo 29dego Tipperary South R1d1ng 120 619 19eo 60dego 21dego
Carlow 113 593 19dego 65dego 16dego Cork City 127 672 19dego 59 22dego
Weslm~ath 119 637 19dego 60dego 21dego South Cork 131 704 19dego 58dego 23dego
Laois 113 615 18dego 55dego 27 --Kildare 136 761 18 56dego 26dego Cavan 127 740 17dego 63dego 20 West Cork 87 513 17dego 57dego 26dego South Dublin 165 981 17dego 64dego 19dego Dun Laoghaire middot Rathdown 102 621 17dego 48dego 35dego Kerry 94 580 16dego 66 18dego
Roscommon 75 474 16dego 61 23dego Galway 110 835 13 64 23oo Fingal (Dublin) 117 902 13dego 62dego 25dego Dublin City 130 1 195 11 69 20
Total 4436 22735 19dego 57dego 24dego
---
I
LEADER A~minist_ration ~osts -~~ a Percentage of Total Expenditure -_ 1_995 __ Appendix A1 4
I Local Development Group
I
Laois Leader Rural Development Co Lid Cavan-Monaghan Rural Oevelopn1ent Co~rat1ve Soc~ely Ltd
Barrow-Norc-Suir Rural Developmentmiddot 62 81 771 QOo 23dego
Wicklow Rural Partnership Lid bull 26 38 70dego -I QOo 30dego
Westmeath Community Development Ltd
Longford Community Resources Lid -middot
-
8 11
-11 18
70degc
65
bull Oh
QOo
23dego
35dego middotmiddotshy
Mid-South Rural Roscommon Development Assoc1alion Ltd 9 14 63dego QOo 37dego
Rural Resource Development Lid bull 80 129 62degc Ooe 38dego
Meath Con1mumty Partnershrp Co Ltd
Meithcal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo
3
68
5 117
- 60dego
58dego
4dego
OOo
35eo
42dego
South West Mayo Development Co Galway Rural Development Co
54
8
94 middot-middotmiddot
15 58dego
56dego
1Oe
00o
41Co
44
Arigna Catchment Area Community Co 11 23 48dego 4dego 48
Western Rural Development Co Lld bull 28 58 48dego 00o 52oo
Offaly LEADER If Co Lid -middotmiddot
3 6 48~J QOo 52
IRD Duhallow Ltd bull -
Ballyhoura Development Ltd 60 74
131 163
46dego
45dego
OOo middotshy
OOo
54
55
West Limerick Resources Ltd
South Kerry Partnership Ltd bull
Waterford Development Partnership Lid
Tuatha Ch1arra1 Ltd
Word - Wexford Organisation for Rural Development
West Cork LEADER Group bull
Donegal Local Development Co Lid
-
10
29
34
6
51
57
8
- 23 66 76 14
125
160
22
44dego
44dego
44dego
42gtigt
41
35dego 340
3dego
00o
00o
6 1eo
00o
3eo
middotshy
53dege
56dego-56dego
52deg
58dego
65dego
63dego
-middotmiddotshy
Tipperary LEADER Group bull
Totalmiddot Local Development Groups
30 813
95
1584
32dego
51dego
00o
1dego -
68dego
48 -shy
middotshy
Acquisition of Skills
0 -
85 0 OCo 100dego
Other Collective Bodies
Technical Assistance
7
0
23 37
30 QOo
70dego
00o
00o
00dego
i Total Expenditure - LEADER Groups 820 1730 47dego 1dego 52dego
~-
--
Administration txpenditure
EOOO
3 81
Total AdministrationI I Expenditure as 0o of Total
EOOO Expenditurei
98dego
98 82deg~
3
Grant Aid as Non~rantI I I 0o of Total Outputs as of
Expenditure Total Expendituro
2dego 01 middot-shyQO 18dego
middotmiddotshy
bull These groups also existed under the Leader I in11ahve
LEADER Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A15
Total Administration Expenditure as 0o of Total
pound000 Expenditure
81dego56 lv-10Jbull
ro v 106 b1o
77 46dego 91 43dego
113 4 1 Ofo
226 39dego 92 38dego 90 38dego 67 38dego
100 36dego 230 36dego
JUmiddot~ 86 35dego
262 35dego 292 I 32dego 168 31dego 111 31dego 94 30dego- 29dego 65 I 29dego
289
85
29dego 182 27dego 258 25 194 24dego 198 23dego 165 22oo 141 22dego 285 22dego 271 21 249 20 185 19 94 19dego
5173 31
189 0dego 115 75o 86 0
5564 30dego
Grant Aid as 0o of Total
Expenditure
0 J _ 3dego 9dego bo 18dego 13dego
5dego 2dego
35dego 17dego
6dego
18dego 34o 44degc 29dega 26dego 28dego 50dego 19dego 47
5dego 55oo 20 50dego 46dego 42 36 50dego 40dego 20 25 29dego
0 25Vo
OOo
28
Non~rant
Outputs as 0o of Total Expenditure
19dego LO
~-
36dego 45dego 44o 41dego
48dego 57oo 6v-10 27dego 47dego 58dego 55vO 47 31dego 24oo 40dego 43 42dego 21 52dego 24dego 68dego 20dego 56dego 27dego 32dego 36dego 42 29 40dego 61dego 56dego 40dego
100o OOo
100o
42dego
Local Development Group
-Comhar lorrais (LEADER) Teoranta bull lounly ~ligo LlAurH t-artnersh1p co LIO r-cura1 uuo11n LtAUttlt vvmpany Lia ln1sh0Wen Community Development Co ltd middot Laois LEADER Rural Development Co Ltd comhdhail 011ea1n na hlireann South Kerry Partnership Ltd bull Rural Resources Develooment Ltd Blackwaler Region LEADER Co Ltd Meath Community Partnership Co Ltd LonQford Community Resources Ltd Galwav Rural Develooment Co Word-Wexford Organisation for Rural Developmenl
-Barrow-Nore-~uir tltura1 ueve1opment Lta_ Ariana Catchment Area Community Co bull Cavan-MonaQhan Rural Development Co-operative Society lid Me1theal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo Wicklow Rural Partnership Ltd bull Offaly LEADER II Co Ltd bull Doneoal Local Development Co Ltd Mid-South Rural Roscommon Developmenl Association Ltd Co Louth Rural Development Co Ltd Ballyhoura Development Ltd bull Kell-Kildare European LEADER II Teoranta IRD Duhallow ltd_ Tuatha Ch1arrai Lid -South West Mavo Oevelooment Co Westmeath Community Development ltd West Limerick Resources Ltd
-middot West Cork LEADER Groupmiddot Waterford Develooment Partnersh10 Ltd Western Rural Development Co Lid Tinnorarv LEADER Group bull East Cork Area Development Ltd Total - Local Development Groups
Acqu1s1t1on of Skills Uther Collective tsodies Technical Assistance
Total Expendituremiddot LEADER Groups
bull These groups also exisled under the Leader I initiative
Administration Expenditure
pound000
45
deg 64 35 - 47 88 35
25 37 83 60 31 91 94 53 35 28 25
19 84 49 64 46 45 37 31 61 58 49 36 17
1599
0 86
0
1684
---
--
----
----
I
I
LEADER _Admiri_istration_ Costs_as a Percentage_of TotalExpenditure bull 1997 Appendix A-16
Local Development GroupI I
Comhair lorrais (LEADER) Teoranta bull Co Sllqo LEADER Partnership Co Lid Rural Dublin LEADER Compant lid Wicklow Rural Partnershi~ Lid Rural Resource Development Lid Word-Wexford Orqani5allon for Rural Develo~ment Ltd Blackwater Reoion LEADER Co Lid Meath Communit~ Partnershi~ Co Ltd Laois LEADER Ru_ral Oevelooment Co Ltd IRD Ouhallow Ltd bull Oonal Local Oevelooment Co Ltd Kell-Kildare Eurooean LEADER II Teoranla Cavan-Monaghan Rural Oeveloement Co-o~rat1ve Socie_lv Ltd South Kerrv Partnersh10 Lid bull
I South Wesl Mavo Devetooment Co bull I Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo
Waterford Development Partnership Lid Galway Rural Developn-ent Co lnishowen Community Development Group bull Wesl Limerick Resources Ltd Co Louth Rural Dev~topment Co Ltd Comhdhail Oilea1n na hEireann West Cork LEADER Grouo bull Tuatha Ch1arra1 Ltd Westmeath Communitv Develoomenl Ltd Offalv LEADER II Co Ltd bull Ballyhoura Development Ltd East Cork Area Development Ltd Weslern Rural Development Co Ltd Mid-South Rural Roscommon Deveroomenl Assoc1at1on Ltd Longford Community Resources Ltd
Administration I Total Expenditure ExpenditureIpound000 pound000
43 I 96 83 48 52 89 91 46 -58 31 57 60 75
102 59 60
109 78 45 47 46 50 35
104 56 48 39 67
-- 27 83 32 35
Arigna Catchment Area Community Co I 43 middotmiddotmiddot shy
Tipperary LEADER Group 0 38 41Barrow-Nore-Suir RurEii Development bull
Total - local Develooment Grouos 1979
Other Collective Bodies 36 Technical Assistance 0
i Total Expenditure bull LEADER Groups 2015
234 140
186 365 373 204 260 156 293 314 399 568 335 341 626 458
middot-middot 264 277 275 309 221 658 367 314 259 455
Grant Aid as [ Nnn~r~ntAdministration as deglo of Total 0o of Total Expenditure Expenditure
45dego
36dego 34oo 28Co 24dego
24oo 22oo 22dego 20degtc 20oo 19dego 19dego 18degc 18degc 18dego 17dego 17degc 17degh 17 17 16dego 16dego 16dego 15dego 15 15dego 15o
189 I 14dego 592 I 14dego 252 290 414 441 561
11487
142 25dego 75 0 149 0 OOfo 100
11778 17dego 53dego JQOo I
13dego 12Jo 10dego
9oo 7dego
17dego
19dego
25dego 28dego 37dego so~lo
37oo 37dego 30oo 36Yv 40dego 54 45dego 59degn 55dego 61dego 64dego 64degh 56dego 34 49I 6QOo I 23dego 50dego I 34dego 64dego 55 50dego 55deg 55dego 60o 38oo 58dego 71 dego 56o 73dego 54dego 70dego 53dego
20dego 29dego 35oo 3_0 30dego 25dego 48dego 28dego 16degc 32dego 17dego 37dego 23dego 30
Outputs as oo of Total Expenditure I
36Co 39oo 38dego 35dego 26dego 39dego 41dego
48dego 44deg 40dego 27dego 36dego 23oA 27dego 21dego 19dego 19dego 27~o
Partnerships Community Groups and National Organisations Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A17
Partnership Administration Total Expenditure Expenditure pound000 pound000
KWCD Partnershii - -middot 128 128 lnishowen Partnersh10 Board 33 33-middot-Monaahan Partnershii Board 48 48 Lonoford Commumtv Resources ltd 40 40 Galwav Rural Oevelooment Co 39 39 Galwav C1tv Partnership 109 109
~Q_LEAOER Partnershii Co 50 50 Pairt1ocht Gaellacht Th1r Chonaill 48 48 Roscommon Countv Partncrshin 55 55 Pairt1ocht Chonamara 116 116 Cavan Partnershin 18 - 18_ Canal Communities Partnership 67 67 Brav Partnershio 115 115 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 49 50 Tra Li Partnershio 105 107 Waterford Area Partnershio 77 82 West Limerick Resources Ltd 74 82 Southside Partnershin 163 180 North-West KildareNorth Offalv (OAK) 125 139 Mavo bull 288 I 353 Wexford Area Partnershio 132 166 Doneaal Local Develoomenl Co 60 78 Leitnm Partnership 63 94 Clondalkin Partnershio Comoanv 176 305 South Kerrv bull 107 253 Blanchardstown Area Partnershin 208 495 Droaheda Partnershio Comoanv 136 337 Baltvfermot Partnershio 143 359 Cork Cilv bull 176 476 Dundalk bull 196 546 Finnlas bull 169 53 vvovforcl tn ntv prtnPrshio bull 126 501 n11hl1n lnOAr rjtv bull 14 539 T~ll ht bull 7 Ballvmun bull 103 529 Waterford Countv bull 42 227 Limerickmiddot 90 510 Northside Partnershio 125 761
Total Exoendituro - Partnerships 4071 9169
Communilv Grouos 710 773 National Oroanisations 383 383
Total 5164 10325
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) ~--
Administration as 0o Other Activities as 0o of Total Expenditure of Total Expenditure
100dego QOo
100dego QOo
100dego QOo
1QQ0o QOo
100deg QOo
100oo QOo
100oo 0dego 100dego QOo
100dego Ooo 100dego QOo
100middot QO(
1QQ 0o QDo
1QQDo 0dego 100dego OOo
98dego 2dego 94dego 6dego 91dego 9dego 91dego 9dego 90dego 10dego 82oo 18dego 80dego 20dego 77 23 67 33dego 58dego 42 42dego 58dego 42dego 58degc 40dego 69dego 40dego 60oo 37dego 63dego 36dego 64oo 3701 25dego 75degn 2i01 7t01Q TtOn 77deg 19dego 81dego 19dego 81dego 18oo a2deg10 16 84
44dego 56dego
92dego 8dego 100dego 0dego
50deg4 50dego
Partnerships Community Groups and National Organisations Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A 18
Partnership Administration
I Total Expenditure
--middot -shy -shy - --shy Expenditure pound000 - [000- shy
lnishowen Partnershio Board 137 272 Galwav C1tv PnrtnArsh1n 1e~ 35~
Mavo bull 274 580 Canal Commun1tv Partnersh10 122 267-W~~tmeath Communitv Develonmenl Ltd 98 216 Galwav Rural Oevelooment Co ~-
94 211 Monaahan Partnershio Board 100 238 Shoo LEAOEftigtartnersh1p C_o 155 385 Roscommon Counlv Partnershin 146 367 Cavan Partnersh10 72 184 Pa1rtiocht Chonamara 124 328- -LonQford Community Resources Lid 121 334 KWCO Partnershio 205 594 Pairtiocht Gaeltacht Thir Chonaill 99 302 Waterford Area Partnershin 175
middotshy 542 Blanchardstoln_ Area Partnersh1E 159 504 Oundalk bull 147 490 Leitrim Partnership 154 514 - -North West KildareNorth Offalv ltOAKl 122 414 Wexford Area Partnersh1R _ 125 427
_B~lymun bull 112 385 Brav Partnershio 151 526-Oonenal Local Develonment Co 104 371 Wexford Countv Partnershio bull 152 614
_sectQuth Kerrv bull 173 707 Cork Citymiddot 240 1 015 Tra Li Partnershio 122 519
_s1o_ndalk1n PartnershiQ ComQany 140 618 __lliJ_blin Inner C1ly bull 147 647
Tallaaht 173 775 Wesl Limerick Resources Ltd 57 256 F1nnlas bull 152 709 Walerford CountY bull --middot 54 261 Southside Partnershio 141 686 Ballyfcrmot Partnership 132 720 Droaheda Partnersh10 Comoanv 132 723--middot Limerickbull 121 803 Northside Partnershio bull 126 964 Set Un Casis - All Partnershins 28 28
Total Exoenditure bull Partnershios 5269 18858
Communitv Grouos 1 509 3499 National Oraan1salions 621 621
Total 7J98 22977
Administration as 0o Other Activities as 0o I- -middotshy of Total-Expenditure of Total Expenditure
51 oo 49dego-~ v u u-o
middotshy47dego 53dego 46dego 54dego 45lo 55oo-450o 55oo__ 42oo 58dego 40dego 60dego 40eo 60dego 39oo 61degi
38oo 62dego 36dego 64dego 34oo 66dego 33dego 67 32dego 68dego 32dego 68dego 30oo 70dego 30dego 70dego 29 71dego 29dego 71deg(0 29dego 71dego 29dego 71dego 28deg1gt 72dego 25dego 75oo 25dego 75 24dego 76dego-- shy24dego 76oo 23dego 77deg 23dego 77oo-shy22dego 78dego 22dego 78dego 21dego 79dego 2_1 dego 79deg 20dego 80dego 18 82 18 82dego 15 85dego 13dego 87dego
28dego 72
43dego 57=10 100dego OOo-shy32dego 68oo
i bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economrc and Social Progress (PESP)
County Enterprise Boards Grant Cost Per Job 1994-1997 (In Descending Order) Appendix A21
County Enterprise Board Expenditure on Grant Full Time Jobs Part Time Jobs Equivalent Jobs Aid 1994middot1997 pound000 1994-1997 (1) 1994-1997 (1) 1994-1997 (1)
Leitnm 1417 209 6 212 Westmeath 1012 154 0 154 Wexford 1575 280 37 299 Cork C1tv 1089 208 0 208 -Monaahan 1057 178 62 209 Waterford Counlv 1003 188 36 206-South Cork 1566 324 0 324 South Dublin 1753 362 6 365---TinnPrarv South R1dina 922 184 47 208 Limerick Citi 1197 273 10 278 Offalv 1137 243 74 280 Waterford City 1664 387 58 416 Mayo 1565 345 95 393 Limerick City 1512 362 60 392 Kllkennv 1325 320 55 348 DonPnal 1061 254 50 279 Finaal (Dublin) 1377 347 42 368 Wicklow 1538 333 170 418 Kiidare 1004 264 20 274
-Cork North 779 213 0 213
-Carlow 1435 309 169 394 -Cavan 1357 301 152 377 Clare 1 342 335 92 381 Kerrv 1432 288 238 407 Laois 1245 339 42 360 Louth 1045 280 46 303 Dublin Citv 1734 533 0 533
_
SliQo 1182 260 210 365 Oun LaoghaireRathdown 1323 408 3 410 Longford 1145 332 51 358 Roscommon 1208 315 133 382 West Cork 1063 361 21 372 Meath 980 350 23 362 Gatway County and City 2131 843 120 903 Tipperary North County 660 223 136 291
Total 44834 10905 2264 12037
Grant Cost per Job pound
6683 middot-shy6571 5278 5235 5057 4 867 4 834 4801 4444
4306 4061 3999 3988 3857 3812 3802 3743 3680 3666 3658 3647 3599 3522 3518 3459 3448 3254 3238 3231 3203 3 165 2 861 2711
2360 2269
3725
( 1) The jobs created in the year are computed by taking a head count of new jobs 1n enterprises receiving grant aid from CEBs The grant aid expended in the year may not be directly comparable with this as here may be a time rag between the expenditure and the creation of the relevant job but this should be minimised by taking an average over 4 years In computing the equivalent 1obs figure part-lime jobs are taken as 05 of a 1ob
County Enterprise Boards Non Grant Expenditure 1996 Appendix A31
r= middotshy
INPUTS OUTPUTS
I Cou~ty Enterpr_ise Boar_ct_ ~on-Grant - shy
0o of Total _Surveys __ Media _Networks __ ThirdLevel _Second Business - Mentor Activities Expenditure Events Colleges Level Counselling Support
pound000 Schools -
Kildare 241 39oo 1 0 4 3 15 380 40 middotshy
Dublin City 202 30oo 1 9 6 2 20 151 35 Fingal(Oubhn) 171 26dego 1 14 11 I 0 4 3 93 Oun LaoghaireRathdown 160 25oo 1 7 3 0 14 25 84
Sligo 108 24dego 0 68 0 1 3 250 30 - shySouth Cork 150 23dego 20 24 14 1 14 120 45 South Dublin 161 23dego 2 8 0 0 18 105 4
-middot Cork City 118 22dego 2 10 3 2 14 0 14
Loulh 137 22dego 7 3 2 1 6 40 15 Meath 116 22deg1~ 0 3 3 1 12 0 21 West Cork 135 21dego 0 130 2 0 10 174 10 Westmeath 106 21dego 0 0 0 0 17 0 14
Offaly 121 19dego 4 34 5 2 9 17 20 Donegal 144 19dego 1 4 0 1 8 216 46
-107 18oo 0 17 0 1 I 15 150 16
~ Clare
- middot----Leitrim 121 18oo 5 0 4 0 I 9 416 12
Roscommon 92 1Tlo 0 0 0 1 5 484 5 -Limerick City 7
I 17dego 0 2 0 5 5 0 6 Limerick County 137 17dego 1 25 1 0 13 102 7 Laois 101 16dego 0 4 0 0 14 54 bull 1
Tipperary North County 65 16dego 0 0 0 0 12 279 17
Wexford 107 15dego 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 Waterford County 85 15dego 0 2 0 1 0 69 4 Monaghan 86 14deg= 0 0 0 0 7 10 5 Kilkenny 88 14dego 0 16 0 I 0 12 I 19 I 10 Carlow 77 13dego 0 7 0 I 0 10 I 0 I 20 -Wicklow 96 13dego 1 12 0 0 9 70 14
Cavan 74 12oo 5 0 4 1 5 1394 i 31 Tipperary South Ridinq 65 12dego 0 0 3 0 10 80 25 Kerry 71 12dego 1 0 1 0 8 0 20
bullGalway County and City 75 I 12=10 1 2 37 3 12 72 3 Waterford City 82 10dego 0 1 0 1 20 108 33 Mayo 78 10oo 0 48 0 0 5 221 6 Longford 50 9dego 3 5 5 0 7 60 10
Cork North 36 8dego 0 0 0 0 0 340 0
Total 3879 18dego 57 455 108 27 352 5409 726
County Enterprise Boards Non Grant Expenditure 1997 Appendix A32
INPUTS OUTPUTS middotshy
County Enterprise Board Non-Grant bull1o of Total Surveys Media Networks Third Second Business Mentor Management Activities Expenditure Events Level Level Counselling Support Development
EOOO Colleges Schools Programme
Don~al 156 36dego 3 3 1 3 9 55 12 3 Tipperary Nor1h County 162 36dego 0 33 1 0 7 175 12 3 Oun laoghaireRathdown 219 35oo 2 20 6 4 24 240 67 2 Kilkenny 162 30oo 2 12 0 0 27 99 16 3 Louth 233 30 0 14 2 1 11 60 18 6 Sliao 144 29dego 1 7 2 2 7 246 26 6-Laois 167 27oo 0 127 2 0 13 100 6 4 Clare 171 27dego 1 37 12 1 15 97 31 6 Mavo 162 271 0 15 2 0 10 190 6 3 Limerick City 163 26dego 1 29 4 3 6 100 5 4 Kildare 198 26dego 0 24 4 0 15 190 46 6 Wesl Cork 133 26oo 1 271 2 0 10 152 2 4 Limerick County 183 26oo 1 55 12 3 8 194 35 6 Mealh 193 26oo 1 28 3 2 19 48 9 4 Offaly 127 25oo 1 53 6 0 8 59 35 5 Fingal (Dublin) 224 25dego 0 5 0 1 6 446 155 3 Leitrim 157 24oo 2 84 3 2 7 135 14 2 South Cork 164 23dego 0 14 85 1 16 627 15 6 Roscommon 109 23oo 1 27 3 0 11 50 8 4
Gatway County and City 190 23dego 0 5000 10 3 36 18 10 14
Co1lt Ci1V 150 22dego 1 10 5 2 B 1325 16 3 Monaghan 121 22dego 2 24 6 0 B 47 0 3 Tipperary South Riding 131 21 Ofo 1 25 3 0 11 672 20 3 Westmeath 132 21dego 1 3 0 0 29 6 10 4 Waterford Countv 104 21dego 3 32 2 1 21 156 7 3 Dublin City 245 21 oo 1 26 6 5 23 110 50 6 Wexford 131 20dego 1 17 0 0 17 55 16 2 Wicklow 159 20 0 44 0 0 6 32 9 3 Cavan 144 20dego 4 14 7 1 6 134 63 7
CorX North 66 19 1 10 5 2 16 1325 16 3 Waterford City 149 19oo 2 12 0 1 21 183 18 3 South Dublin 184 19dego 1 2 0 0 16 87 37 3 Kerry 104 18 1 324 0 0 12 115 B 2 LonQford 81 16oo 5 41 8 0 5 0 6 41 Carlow 95 16 1 110 1 1 10 228 50 2 Total 5414 24 42 6552 203 39 474 7756 854 182
LEADER Groups Non Grant Expenditure 1995-1997 (1) Appendix A33
Local Development Group
INPUTS
Non-Grant -Activities
pound000
As a 0o of Total--middot
Expenditure
Seminars Held-shy
OUTPUTS
Press I Other tApplications Releases Promotional -Approved-
Projects Referred Creation I Creation of Training Completed to Other of Newmiddot middot Community middotCourses
Actions Agencies Business Association
East Corllt Area Development Ltd 144 51dego 104 110 0 O 0 O 5 2 I O gt-M~e~a~th=C-o~m-m~u~n~i~ttv
0
middotP~a~rt~n-e-rs~h~o=C~o-L-td-----~--1-8-0--+-~5~1~0~---+--7~7-1--+---16-4---- 110 91 11 960 21 12 16
Word - Wexford Ornan1sat1on for Rural Oevetonment bull 351 48oo 0 0 0 0 t-c~innbulle~ra~~-L~e~a~d~er~Gro~u~o~middot~-~~~~~---r-~3~4~3----t-~4~8~o--o 24 7 4 191 45 10 15 13 22 f--~----=~~~~~~~~~+-----~+----~---~+---------l~~-----+-~~----~+-~--~--l~----~f-~300~+-~=-~+-~--~-+~-=~~
Kellmiddot Kildare Euronean Leader II TEO 268 46Yo 85 125 4 74 33 1 10 36 Blackwater Reo1on Leader Co_ Ltd -middot _136----+--4-6A~o------6--7_ __ _ __65------lt----4----I- --7-3__1_---3-1------22--+----3------lt--------1--~__2_4-----1 lnishowen Commumtv Develonment Groun bull 175 46dego 288 86 25 64 27 147 10 17 28 Laois Leader Rural Develonment Co Ltd 103 44dego 67 116 12 56 17 27 40 7 17 Tualha Chiarrai Ltd 244 42dego 239 25 10 168 82 66 24 6 39 West Cork Leader Groun middot 414 38~C -middot-+-~75----t--6-9-8----t----O--t----o-----t --~O-----t----O--t--~1~2_ _____o----shy 33
~c~o~S~h~go~L-ead-e~r~P~bull~rt--n-e--rs~h~ip~Co~~Lt~d--------+-----1~0~1--+-~3~7~~_ ___J3 6 6 73 21 14 20 17 5 Rural Dutgt11n Leader Comoanv Ltd 63 37dego 83 18 -~9--t----2~7--middot-+---6----+---~12-----t--~3---+--~7---+----5-Co_ Louth Rural Devclooment Co Ltd 137 37dego 139 56 18 39 5 23 5 2 11
gt-W~c~kl-o--w~R~u~r~a~I~P-art~n~bull~middot~sh~io~L--td---middot---------~1~4~3--+_~3~6~~-+---5~0~7____~1~12------ O 25 33 209 9 11 6 IRD Duhallow Lld bull ___2~middotbull-1-+-3_~V----t-~283------j--272--+----o-----1 85 40 144 11 37 1A
Rural Resource Dcvclooment ld__middot-------+--20502--+-C3057___-t-1=38~2o---t---5~0t----t--0905----t-----OO--- 0 0 6 9 14 Offalv Lead_~r II Co_ Ltd_middot 130 35oo 49 43 20 76 56 9 17 0 91
gt-S~ou--th~K~bull~Y~P~a~rt~n~bull~s~h~ip~L~t~d-middot________1__1_7~5--+-~34---~~middot--i---1~bull~85----+---1middotQ4_--+-----9--~--0-----+-----o--+----o---~-~2~0---+--3~0-----+--~3~6--1 Galwav Rural DevelgPment Co 126 33dego 38 12 0 147 21 130 19 6 39 Western Rural Devetoomenl Co Ltd 298 33dego 134 102 1 165 46 81 27 1 9 DonPnal L~cal Development Co Ltd 139 32 5 15 1 127 36 29 20 0 13 Lonaford ~ommun1lv Resources Ltd 118 31dego 15 57 7 97 46 22 3 2 5 Westmeath Communitv Develonmenl Ltd 149 30dego 254 50 15 165 60 20 17 5 __sect_____
l-Ba~ll~vlh~ou~ra~De~v-e~lo~rnm~e--n--t-Ll~d~_middot_________t--~2~7~3--+_~30~~~---t---64~-t--bull~8-----t----5--t----2~0~1--l--~8~2-----t--~8~0----+-~59----t---~bull~O---t ~5~2~-t Barrow-Nor~-Suir Rural Development bull -~2~4~7--+--~3~0~----+---3~5~0---__f----5_____15----l--~1~5~1---1C-----92-----t--~65-----t---2~0---t--~10-----t--~2~8-----t Comhair lorrais ILead~rl Teoranta bull 45 29dego o O _o__t------Co__t--_~o___-t-_--o_-+---co_ _____o--_-+_ __o-----t Wesl Limerick Resources 1 tn 126 29dego 69 104 3 103 1h 10 87 7 10 Comhdhail 01leain Na hEireann 64 27dego 41 32 0 124 hO 45 15 0 10
~_~ndegh~Wc~s~t~Mou_nDev~e~lo-nmbulln~t~n~middot------+--~1bullbull-+--2-bull-~-+---12----t--~~5-------0--l----1~middot4___+-_~5~8--t-----4~-+--~13---t------1--+--~3~3-~ Waterford Develooment Partnershio Ltd 209 26dego 56 0 0 95 35 35 34 7 46 Cavan-Monaghan Rural Development
l--C~o~-o~gtP~e~r=a~v~e~S=oc-e=t~y~L~tdo-middot---~-~----+-~2~2~7--+-C2~47o=---+-=2676~-t----11~7~---l----2~174__t---~36700---+----3~0~1--l----2~--+---20---+~--75__t-----2=2~--l Ariana Catchment Arca Community Co bull 121 23dego 21 7 23 105 39 4 5 0 O
f---M~~~h=~~F~o=r~b~a=rth~a--N~a=G~a~e~lt~a~c=ht~a~T~E~o=---~----r-~2=3~7----C2~3o=---+-~1773=----t--~150~--t--~o--t---~4700---+--1-5=7--+-~35~0~--+-~109----t--~2~1----+--~176--j
Mid-South Rural Roscommon Development Association Ltd 63 18 24 18 120 90 36 10 20 5 4
Total Expenditure - Local Development Groups 6227 34dego 7183 2879 730 I 3496 1514 2871 690 291 716
Acqu1s1t1on of skills i 274 Ooo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1-coc~e~c11=n~ca-1-a~s~s~s~ta-n~ce---------------=27~2~---l--0~0~~--t---Co~--t--~o--+--~o=---+-1--~o~-+---~o~-+----o--+------io~-t----o~--+-----io----+
Total Expenditure -LEADER Groups 6773 36dego 7183 2 879 730 3 496 1 514 2 871 (1) Expenditure for 1995-1997 is grouped together as only cumulative output statistics to 31December1997 were available at the time of preparing the report bull These groups also existed under the Leader I initiative
690 291 716
I
Partnerships Non Grant Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A34 middot-middot
INPUTS OUTPUTS
Partnership Name Non-Grant Activities As a 04 of Total Enterprise Services for Preventative Complementary pound000 Expenditure Support Unemployed Education Education
Norths1de Partnership bull 636 84dego 321 1885 520 443 Limerickbull 420 82dego 296 935 100 388 Waterford Counlv bull 184 81 oo 57 0 0 0
t--shy272 328Ballymun bull 426 81oo 401 82
Tallaght bull 466 77dego 496 - 957 143 29 Dublin Inner City bull 405 75dego 343 1651 50 59 Wexford County Partnership bull 375 75dego 138 0 17 272 Finalas bull 365 68oo 557 731 378 155 Dundalk bull 350 64dego 148 388 132 207 Co1lt Citymiddot 300 63dego 344 0 180 261 Ballyfermot Partnership 215 60dego 0 211 40 94 Drogheda Partnership Company 200 60dego 60 0 0 38 Blanchardstown Area Partnership 288 58dego 116 71 48 18 South Kerrv bull 146 58oo 90 212 399 265 Clondalkin Partnership Company 129 42oo 164 0 0 0 Le1tnm Partnership 31 33oo 23 184 0 56 Donegal Local Development Company 18 23dego 0 0 0 0 -IJYexford Area Partnership 34 20oo 14 0 0 13 Mayo 18o lo 181 10 34 North West KildareNorth Offaly 14 10 0 0 u 28 Southside Partnership 17 9dego 0 0 0 0 West Limencilt Resources Ltd 8 9dego 52 0 0 0 Waterford Area Partnershij)shy 5 6dego 49 14 0 5 Tra Li Partnership 2 2 u 0 0 0 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 0 QOo 0 0 0 0 LonQford Community Resources Ltd 0 Ooo 0 0 I 0 0-Pairtiocht Gaeltacht Th1r Chona1ll 0 0 0 0 0 0 lnishowen Partnership Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canal Commun1t1es Partnershrp 0 00o 0 0 0 0 Pairtiocht Chonamara 0 QOa 0 0 0 0 Gatway Rural Development Co 0 OOa 0 0 0 0 Sligo Leader Partnership Co 0 0 16 0 0 0 Roscommon County t-artnersh1p - u 0-1 u 0 u 0 Brav Partnership 0 01 0 0 0 0 Gatwav City Partnership 0 OOo 0 0 0 0 Cavan Partnership 0 00o 0 0 0 0 MonaQhan Partnership Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 KWCD Partnership 0 Ooo 0 0 0 0 Total Expenditure - Partnerships 5098 56dego 3739 7821 2107 2693
Commun1lv Grouas 63 8 0 0 0 0 National Oraanisalions 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 5161 50 3739 7821 2107 2693
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
Partnerships Non Grant Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A35
INPUTS OUTPUTS -
Partnership Non-Grant Activities As a 0o of Total Business Job Groups Preventative -shy -middot middot- -middot pound000 -middot - Expenditure -Start-Ups- shy Placements -shy Supportmiddot Education Projects
Northside Partnership bull I 838 87dego 503 438 28 15 I - -middot -middotmiddot - tCbullbull 602 isgt10 11b tiLj 31 16 I Dr()(lheda Partnership Co I 591 82dego 60 12 177 10 Ballyfermot Partnership 587 a2deg10 88 88 30 3
-middot Southside Partnership 546 80dego I 200 6 80 24 Waterford Counly bull 206 79dego 42 4 23 6 Fmglas bull 557 79dego 257 233 174 28 West limerick Resources Ltd 199 78degc 40 0 50 0 Tallaaht bull 602 78dego 309 646 51 7 Dublin Inner City bull 500 77dego 290 448 34 10 Clondalkin Partnership Conipany 478 77oo 225 562 63 7 Tra L1 Partnership 396 76deg1gt 80 20 67 6 -cork Citymiddot 775 76- 217 111 55 9 Soulh Kerry bull 533 75dego 135 150 61 middot51 -
Wexford County Partnership bull 462 75dego 170 63 31 0 Donegal Local Development Co 267 72dego 150 0 63 2 Bra~ Partnershi~ 375 71degu 71 0 14 Ballymun bull 274 71dego 70 402 50 10 Wexford Area ~artnership OUpound 71o 17U 4 5 18 -shyNorth vvest tildareNorth Offaly 292 71 Oo 56 0 8
I Leitrim Partnership 360 70deg1= 60 3 119 6 Dundalk bull 343 70~~ 71 64 50 10 Blanchardstown Area Partnership 345 68dego 170 97 29 13 Waterford Arca Partnership 367 68dego 37 6 55 1
middotshyPa1rtiocht Gaeltacht Thir Chona1ll 203 67deg~ 75 0 50 10 KWCD Partnership 389 66deg 15 0 0
- 4 middot-
Lonqford Commumtv Resources Ltd 212 64dego 85 4 19 5 middotmiddotshyPairt1ocht Chonamara 205 62 67 2 3 34
middotmiddot-Cavan Partnershio 112 61dego 90 1 49 6 Roscommon County Partnership 221 60degJ 120 0 38 6 -Sligo LeaCer Partnership Co 230 60dego 120 0 32 2 Monaghan Partnership Board 138 58dego 88 0 40 10 Galway Rural Development Company 116 55dego 101 0 51 2 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 118 55deg1= 0 0 20 2 -Canal Communities Partnersh10 145 54deg~ 0 0 16 6 Mavo bull 306 53dego 177 200 28 3 Galway City Partnership 180 50dego 113 0 35 12 lmshowen Partnership Board 134 49dego 60 0 42
Total Expenditure bull Partnerships 13589 72dego 4698 4192 1853 397
Commun1tv Grouos 1 990 57 0 0 0 0 Nalional Oraanisations 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 15579 68dego 4698 4192 1853 397
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
Appendix B Administration Cost Trends of Local Development Bodies
Number of CEBs within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs 1994-1997
Cost Band 1994 1995 1996 1997
ltpound50000 pound50-100000 pound100-150000
pound150-200000
gtpound200000
3 17
15 2
24
7
2
1
32
2
5
23 7
Total Administration Costs pound4_8m pound49m pound43m pound44m
Number of LEADER groups within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs 1995-1997
Cost Band 1995 1996 1997
ltpound50000 25 23 17
pound50-100000 9 11 14 pound100-150000 3
Total Administration Costs pound0Bm pound16m pound20m
Number of Partnerships within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs of Partnerships
Cost Band 1996 1997
ltpound50000 9 6 pound50-100000 7 19 pound100-150000 15 10 pound150-200000 5 10 gt pound200000 2 3
Total Administration Costs pound40m pound53m
11l)(lrJY 11 I
--
Appendix C Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development - Performance Indicators and Revised Targets
-
f 11~
iority Indicator
Jobs
1mber of of 1obs
Revised Targets (1994-1999) Original TargetUnits for total Operational Sub Sub
Programme 2Programme Programme 1
Jobs 15000 proved (for support grant assistance)
Nl1mber of new jobs erbullated not placed in Jobs and vacanc1es) Persons (N 81middot for Sub Pr gtgramme 1wjobs
bullgt provecr figure will mJke up the bulk of thbull i ~jobs created an1ounl) (N 02- for Sub Pr )gramme 2 this eq uates 10 new en terpriscs SUpported)
17000 (Sub Programme 1 8000 Sub Programme 2
1717516900
6900 Sub Programme 3 (Temple Bar) 2000 permanenl in service amp 5000 construction)
AjfJe11c1x CI
~ Priority Indicator
2 Enterprise creation and development
Grants to enterprise Value of grant allocations
Number of enterprises supported
Percentage of investment 1n enterprises provided by the Operational Programme
Provision of improved access for potential entrepreneurs to initial advice Number of firms receiving business advice
Percentage of grant aided firms whose promoters received other Operational Programme support advice consultancy mentoring
Management developm9nt Number of enlerprises participating in managemenl development programmes Number of managers participating in management developmenl programmes
3 Community Development Number of local groups financially assisted
4 Services for the unemployed Number of persons registered for assistance
Number of Long-Term Unemployed persons to benefil from Services for the
I Unemployed expressed as a
I Oo of total number of persons registered for assistance
Units Original Target for total Operational
Programme
pound
Enterprises 2260 new businesses and for Sub Programme 1
Persons and 3640 new and 960 existing for Sub Programme 2
Enterprises 6000 firms and
Persons
280 firmsEnterprises
Persons 500 per annum
No target set groups Local
Persons Caseload of 11 0000 (30000 1n 1995 and
20000 new cases per annum thereafter)
No targel set
Revised Targets (1994-1999)
Sub Sub Programme 1 Programme 2
i
pound16000000pound56020000
17 000 new and6050 new and 7000
existing 3750
existing
(Tolal 9800) (Tolal 24000)
39dego
3000010900
100dego83oo
6000
10000
700
57000 (40000 Local Employment
Scheme Partnerships and 17 000 Non- Local
Employment Scheme)
60dego
AfJXIUimiddot C2
---
Priority Indicator Units Original Target Revised Targets (1994-1999) for total Operational
Sub SubProgramme Programme 1 Programme 2
Progression Number bulllf persons progressing Persons 2500 per annum 16000 to full-time employment (1e placement in a job vacancy) Number of persons progressing Persons 300 per annum 5000 to part-lir le employment (ie placeme11t in a job vacancy) Number of persons assisted into Persons 17000 self-emplJyment (see 1 above) N~mber of persons assisted Persons 19000 under co1nplementary education and training Number of persons in continuing Persons 5000 per annum 2000
1 cducat1or1 Number c1f persons in work Persons 10000 per annum 1000 experience programmes Number Cbullf unemployed referred Persons 5000 onwards middot o other agencies
- -middot 5 ~ducation and Training Complementary education and training Number cmiddotf persons assisted Persons 12000 per annum 19000 under cornplementary education and traini l9
Provision of recognised ce~ificaticbulln Number cf participants ptovided Persons 60003500 with re~1nised certification
I 0o of part1 1pants provided with 30oo reltXJgniset certification
Training for trainers NuOiber ol persons benefiting Persons 1000 under actions tn the area of trai~1ng of trainers and teachers
I of partimiddotipants ptovided with recognise j certification
I 6 Preventive education Number of children attending Children 4080 per annum 44000 preventive education courses I youth serVices
7 lnfrasbucture and enVironmental measures Number o infrastructutal and 20 per annum 1000Protects 98 environmE ntal actions
Appendix C3
Original Target Revised Targets (1994-1999) Priority Indicator Units for total Operational Sub Sub
Programme Programme 1 Programme 2
8 Land development
Area of targeted land developed
Expenditure on developmenl of targeled land
Number of derelict sites eradicated
Number of villages assisted
Number of towns assisted
Number of conservation projects to be funded
9 Other
Entarprse culture Number of participants in activities to promote an enterprise culture 1n schools and colleges
Customer contacts Number of customer contacts with CEBs
Hectares
pound
Sites
Villages and projects
Towns and projects
Projects
Persons 62000
Customer 190000 Contacts
Appendix C 4
Appendix D Extract from Consolidated Reporting Guidelines - December 1997 The LEADER Operational Programme Performance Indicators and Revised Targets
Pe-rformance Indicators
Under the tenns nf the Opcr~llional Progr1111n1e e1ch group is rtmiddot4uired to set ck)vn
1~erforn11nce uHJic~1tors and targets vhitmiddoth it vdl ain1 10 ~1chilve in 1he
itn )le1ncntation of its hu~iness plan and against vh1ch its perfonnance Viii htmiddot
evllua1ed_ Follc)ving ~t rcvitv of the fonn ind contenl of 1hc originil incliclliVl
inclicHors1 cornincnt by the independent evduator and consuh1lion Vilh groups a
dc1111itivc range of perfon111nce inclicJtors llas nclv been prepared
E~11h (~roup is required to llltgtdify ils Busin1middotss Pl1n perforn1ance indicators in this
remiddotiscd forn1at for lmiddotte1sure B Ruril innovation 1neasures and insofar as it is possible
at 1his s1age to prep1re inltlil~ltors for middotleisure C middotrransni1ion~1I cu-operitiun for 1hv
period tnding 5 I l)ece111her 1999 PleJse note thlt 1leisure C does no[ relale to
teclmical suppo11 funding received from AEIDL
lh1 Ile st1te111cru of pcrfonn1ncl indicators -hould rLprcscnl a co111pnhensivc
stncnHmiddotnc of 1argets based on progress to ditc ind the i1nplc111entllio11 of 1he
huine~gt plmiddottll to )1 l)cc~1nbcr iltJ99 including thl acklitional 1ctivitics being
~upportcd vith the funding 11locItcd fron1 the -middotrcservtmiddotmiddotmiddot
imiddotht revised busintmiddot-s plan indicators should he con1plctccl ind rc1urnecl to Huril
De-elopmem Division lw ii _l1nua1v 1998
regress Viii he 1neasurecl 1gainst these t1rgcts by lllttns of the Lf)LJ rerurn~ incl the
quant1tat1ve incl qualitllivc reports outlirlltd in sections 3A jl3 incl 5C of 1hesc
guiklines
Ple1se note thal -hJcled areas ire for infon11a1ion only incl 11 lhis st1ge do nol
require indicators to be Stl All olhltr t1rge1s should ht inpulled in 1he 1ppropri1te
fickl- here rherc is no 1lmiddotlemiddotan1 ac1ivi1y tllSl rl zero
1[Jfx11rL IJ 1
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Animation and Capacity Building
ActivityOutput
Promotion
Number of seminarspublic meetingsworkshops organised to cover the following topics GeneralCommunity SpecialisedSectoral
Number of attendees al the above
Number of press releases articles published media interviews
Circulation of LEADER Newsletter Number issued Number per print run
Number of other promotional actions
Direct Animation Assistance I Technical Advice
Number of private individuals directly assistedadvised
Number of bodies directly assistedadvised GeneralCommunity Specialised Sectoral
Number of development strategiestplansmiddot arising from field work (Le_ not covered in ~other technical assistance beneath) including community plans
Co-ordination of Activities
Number of applications referred to other agencies
Impact
Enhanced Awareness of LEADER Services (Not for completion)
This will be measured by middot
The number of individuals contacting LEADER office
The number of groupsbusinesses contacting LEADER office
The number of applications from promoters
The number of projects promoted by LEADER Group itself
General Level of Local I Community Development
Activity (Not for completion)
This will be measured by middot
The number of applications successfully improved
The number of bodies assistedanimatedrestructured improved
Number of bodies established
More Efficient Use of Resources
(Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number of projects successfully referred to other agencies (i e funded)
i
------MeasL1re B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector ActivityOutput -
I
dministration Processing
Number of staff exclusively I assigned to administrative duties
(2 15 etc)
Number of staff exciusively assigned to animation duties (2 1 5 etc)
Number of Board meetings held
Number of hours worked on a I voluntary basis by Board
members
Number of project evaluation committees
I
Number of project evaluation committee meetings held I
Number of hours worked on a voluntary basis by pro1ect evaluation committee members
I Number of internal LEADER Group evaluation meetingssessionsreviews
I Number of external system auditsreviews (not including accounts)
Co-ordination of Activities I
Number or meetings with other LEADER Groups
I
Number of County Strategy Meetings attended
Number of other meetings with I public bodies
middot shy
Impact
Efficient Delivery of Service (Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number or applications received The number of applications
processed The number of applications approved The number of projects completed
More Efficient Use of Resources
(Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number of projects referred to other agencies (not including those that were referred after provision of animation assistancetechn1cal advice which 1s dealt with beneath)
Apprnd1x 0 3
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector ActivityOutput Impact
Technical Support Studies and Research Knowledge I Expertise Made Available to Potential
Number of studies plansaudits Promoters commissioned by LEADER (Not for completion) Group (not including field work carried This wlfl be measured by out by animators which is included above) The number of LEADER
projects emanating from studies Number of other auditsstudiesplans prototype The number of projects development commissioned by emanating from studies funded promoters amp funded by by other agencies LEADER
The number of bodies restructuredimproved
The number of bodies established
1ppc11cLy ) 4
----
--- --
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
I Sector Activity I Output Impact middot- ---shy
Training Provision of Training Courses Acquisition of Skills (Not for completion)
I Number of training courses commissionedundertaken by This will be measured by LEADER Group (not including animation activ1t1es The number of bodies outlined above) demonstrably LEADER StaffBoard restructuredimproved by GeneralCommunity Courses training provided to SpecialisedSectoral volunteersstaff
I
Number of attendees at the above The number of proiects emanating from training
I PROVISION OF TRAINING GRANTS The number of attendees who
were placed in employment as Number of Training Grants for a result of training
I courses commissioned by promoters and funded under LEADER (not including any of the above)
I GeneralCommunity Courses Spec1al1sedSectoral
Number of attendees at the above
Grant Provision Job CreationRecruitment Assistance I
Number of Employment Grants Employment created provided
I ~-
Afgtj)(11cLmiddot J 5
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Activity I OutputSector
Improvement of Existing Accommodation and
Tourist Amenities
Rural Tourism
Number of capital grants provided
Development of New Accommodation and
Tourist Amenities
Number of capital grants provided
Marketing
Number of marketing grants provided
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number accommodation facilities upgraded to Bord Faille standard
Number of additional beds available
Increased number of visitormiddot capacity
Add1t1ona1 tourist revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Sectoral Benefits
New entrants
Number of additional beds available
Increased number of visilor capacity
Additional revenue generated IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Improved Business Attributable to Marketing
Additional bed-nights arising from marketing strategy
Additional inquiries visits to tourist offices - domestic - overseas
Additional visits to tourist amenities Siles arising from marketing strategy
Number or new marketmg methods tourist packages initiated
Employment- (e g directly arising rrom marketing as opposed to capital grant aid eg as a result or brochures advertisements etc) Created I Sustained
-------
Meas1Jre B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Small Firms Craft Enterprise and Local Services
I
I
i
I
i
i
I
_
Activity I Output
Support for Existing Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Support for New Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Marllteting
Number of marketing grants provided
- -Impact
-Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with improved efficiencyadded value to products and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product ranges
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
I
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises established
New productsproduct ranges
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Greater Awarness of Enterprise Activity
Number of new (geographical) markets developed - within Ireland - within EU - non - EU
Increased sales (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
1J(11di- Igt 7
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Agricultural Forestry and Fishery Products
Activity I Output
Support for Existing Enterprises and Improving
Quality of Existing Products
Number of capital grants provided
Support for New Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Marketing
Number of marketing grants provided
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with improved efficiencyadded value to products and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product ranges
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Number of enterprises established
New productsproduct ranges
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Greater Awareness of Enterprise Activity
Number of new (geographical) markets developed - within Ireland - within EU - non - EU
Increased sales (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector Activity I Output Impact
Freservation of the Improving Awareness Increased Environmental Environment and Livin Awareness9
Conditions Number of capital grants Number of environmental provided plansaction groups established
(not including groupsplans arising from animation andor other technical support outlined above)
Number of entries for Tidy Towns Competition
Benefit to the Built I Cultural of Built I Social and Cultural
Protection I Enhancement Environment
Environment
Number of built sitesstructures provided Number of capital grants
protected or restored
Number of socialcultural events held
Employment created I sustained
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Benefit to the Natural of Natural Environment
Protection I Enhancement Environment
Number of natural sites protected provided Number of capital grants
Number of natural amenities restoredenhanced
Improved Managment of Activities I Alternative
Waste Management Waste I Availability of
Energies Alternative Energy
Number of capital grants Number of alternative energy provided providers established
Number of waste management initiatives implemented
Employment created I sustained
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
AJf)(itrlLmiddot J9
Measure C Transnational co-operation
Sector
Transnational Co~peration
Activity I Output
Grant Provision
GeneralCommunity SpecialisedSectoral Rural Tourism Small Firmscraftsenterprises AgricultureForestryFisheries Products EnvironmenVLiving Conditions Other
Number of Grants provided to final beneficiary (each category is exclusive)
Private Men Private Women Private Jointmiddot CommunityDevelopment Groups Business VoluntarySpecific Issue Groups Co-operatives LEADER Group Other Total
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with establishedimproved efficiency added value to producls and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product rangesnumber of new marketing methods tourist packages initiated
Number of new (geographical) markels developed - within Ireland -within EU - non-EU
Additional inquiries visits to tourist offices - domestic - overseas
Additional visits to tourist amenities sites arising from marlltetmg strategy
Additional bed-nights arising from marketing strategy
Increased sales Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Number of cultural links established
Number of local development strategies studies transferred shared
Number of environmental actions
Employment - created full-time all year fu11-time seasonal part-time all year part-time seasonal
Employment - sustained full-trme all year full-time seasonal part-time all year part-time seasonal
AfJJll1tll~Y )_ Q
Appendix E Matrix of Development Agencies in County Roscommon and the Services Provided (Produced by Roscommon County Enterprise Board)
---------~
c Q
~l agt-EUJ
Co Jnty Slrategy Group CoJnty Enterpnse BoHd
Anmiddotina Enterprise Fund
Lec1der 11
Pai tnersh1p Co ( --~--~---~--~--
Co-Jnty Council ---- middot---~---t--~--~~-~r ---~-~--~-~--~-~--~--~
lrel 3nd Wes ToLnsm
--~---~--~--~---middot -~----~----------~--
Tecgasc
An Bord Tr3cht31a
Forbairt ( ( (
10t Ireland I
FA
Bord Faille (
Bar1ksFinanc1al Insmiddot itulions I
Dcpartmenl of Social Welfare
Buiness Innovation Centre
European lnfc rmat1on Centre
AfJjJCJICfiY E l
Appendix F Framework of Agreement between County Meath CEB and County Meath LEADER II Group
MEMOHANDUM OF AGHEFMFNT
JelVtLll
The Meath County Fn1erpnse Board Ltd
and
Mca th Leader 11
Given he -i1n1brilics bl(lLll ccnnn ispeCls of the n1ni1 of bnth Counry Enterprise Hoard ind lc1dcr
IL ii b 11ceptcJ th11 i high ltkne of co-orxru1on is rcql1inJ to tbullns11n that dtmiddotserv1ng proiccis giin
n11xi1nl1111 txncfit fron1 he s11p1x111 1ncchanis11h avulihh V1tlun hoth orgu11-11in11s_ Vhdc s~ 11HL
division of rcsponsiliililics is possibl~ t outlined hcIO 11 1s ncogni cJ 11111 both groups need 10 1dop1
tn OJICll n(Xihh tpproteh IO the ltsk of f)TltJCCing ClllflCS 111J tppliCtliOllS
lc1dcr II -ill ha prin1a~middot n spon~ibilitv ill 11lc Couniy f()r lhc st1ppon of p1ojlmiddotCS f10111 the frgtllovi11~
sectors
bull Craft Enttrpnscs Cfor fin1nciil suppon ilh 1 li1n11cd fcxmiddotus on soft suppons)
bull Kurii Touris1n
bull Proicn- p1n1nnttd hy Co111111u11i1y CnH1P
bull Exploilition and M1rke1ing of lor1I agriculcur1I fcxxl for(siry tnd fishtnts products
bull Envuonn1tnl for ht follomiddotinJ mc1surcs middot
e Prtscrv1tion ind dcvlmiddotloprnenl of the existing 1rch11te1ur1I heriti(lbull ind bullillages
bull Suppo11 for n1hur1I Cfl111v1ty ind the pron1ot1un C1f cultur1I product- linked ith nir~d
ltlevelcip111ent
bull Prot~ctron rch1btli111ion ind explollllion of nuural rccurces (Oor1 fiunt srndl s1rc11ns
ccc) ind bncl~tpcs
bull Di1x1s1I 1nd fC()ding Clf ISie illdl1ding llSt or energy pnxluuion
ll1is i111plies th11 Le1ltler II tvill cngig1middot 111 p1--delmiddotlltipn1lmiddotnt 1ni11nins research tnd 1111rkc1ing ind he
prin11rily nspons1hlc for the c1pi1d invt~1111enl 1s-oci11ed Vith tht dcvcloprnent of vdue-iltld(d fotgtlt1
produce ind viii dso pronss rtqutsts for 1id for c1p1rd intslmeni ln1ploy111cnt grants 1111rktting
ind 111ining s11ppon- in lht 1hovl stcio1s
The County Enttrpnsc l3cgt1rltl tvill continu1 10 support f(bull1siliilicy cap1td ind (rnploy1ncnl projcd
l1id1 li1vt tilt c1p1lt ily ro gtntricc ernpkraquobull111tn1 v11h1n tll otlllmiddotr -ltmiddotciors Po1cnt1tl projects vhich 111cit
This rtquirvnicnc viii he rtfcrrtd to tteh otliLr in 1cltorltlincc Vitll tlus Agrtllllcnl
middot111t 1ltith Coun1y Enterprise Boird lld ind ilcalh Lealtlcr II arlmiddot lOn1n1incd to rn11ntaining open lines
nf cn111n1un1c11ton tn in1plcn1er1t the tcnn- of thi u11dirs11nd1ng ind alsn co111111ir 1h11 the Chief
Execu1ivltmiddot OfficLmiddotrs will n1eet hH1ndly on 1 111onclilmiddot li1sis to v11s111c cff1cilnt i1npllnhnt1tilgtn middot111i
AgretlllLnt tltgt co111inue 111 orxr11ion un11I _l_t Oeccn1her 19)7 ind viii Ix suh1cc1 10 rcvittmiddot by the
1cith County Enterprise Board 11cl 1n consult1t1011 Vith Lcidtr IL
101hi11g in chis A_irec1ntnt shtll he cltJntruccl 10 li111i1 DI tLStnu lhe _1in11D1y il1nu1011s 111d n1xr1titJns
of till 11lmiddot1th Coun1y Enttrprbc Bo1rd 11cl or lc1der II
Pn1lint B1ker Torn Clinton
Ch11rr111n Ch11n11111
middotlttth Coun1y Enlerprisc Boud Ltd Mc11h lc1dtr II
~ppcndrx I I
Appendix G Terms of Reference for Interdepartmental Policy Committee
Thn New Committees Role
The Role of the new Committee to be cl1Jired by Minister of ~late Finnel will Ix
shned by the Local Demiddotelopnlltnt Mind1Itmiddot given to Department of Tourism Sport
and lkcrca11on by the (jovcrnmenL Key items in that bndate which fall into the
Coumittees remit will mcluclc
A PronH)ticJn of tile integral(lt dcvelop111cnt of tl1e 111o~n dis~1dvantaged urban con1n1unitics hy ensuring that their needs are addresscd ()11 a priority ~incl
coordinated basis in conjunction vi1h 1rea Partnership lton1panie~ by all nlevanr public agencies
bull middot1l1is is regarded as the 1nost urgent priltgtrity
bull Tlw focus will be on developing the opti1ml approach to addressing
the needs of these areas
bull Special co-on linated all-out etfltJl1 in a nun1bcr ltgtf s1nall areas
j B Co-cgtrdination of Ioc~1l lgtcvcloprnent iniriatives and prcp~trnion for the
post - 1999 transition to an integrated Local Development ancl Local
Govcrnn1cnr systc1n
bull 1oc~d l)evelopn1enl IiaiS(gtn Jean1 issues
bull Adclnssing rclevan1 local clcvelopn1cnt issues raised in l3etter Loc~d
(overnnltnt - ~1 Prngra111111e fltgtr CJ1angc anU lh( recenlly ruhl1sliecl Hcport of the J)evcgtlu1ion Co111111ission
bull middotrhe en1phasis vlll ht ltgtn en~uring thal the posi11ve dcvelopn1ents and effective lltV V~l)S of VOrking resulting fro1n Local l)evelop111ent
and Partnership initiative~ arc preserved and strengthened in the
developnltlll nf i renevecl Loc1I Govern111ent
C The Oper1tiond Progrimmc for Locd Urb1n 111cl Rural Development
ancl its sh1pe post - 1lt)99
middot middotrhL 1nain tmiddottsks Vill be tltgt
bull Secure hl btmiddot~r co-ordinttion hltveen the various i111rle1nerHing
1ge11cie- l)ep111n1ents etc
r1jJjJlllriz~y G 7
bull Seek 10 ensure chat problcn1s incl issucs vhlch ~1rise il ~1 local level
ire n-ponclecl ro incl rcsolveltI
bull lclencify i1en1s tltgt be n11instrc1111ed in tern1s cgtf overall policy
bull Consider 1he ou1line of i new 011URJ) for the post - 1999 penocl
taking into ~1ccount the viC-middot of the Social Partncri
D Co-urclin11iun of (gtV(rltdl Govern1nent Policy on Local l)evekgtpn1ent
bull middotr1ie Jn1er-l)epan111ental Pt)licy Con11ni11ee on Loc~d J)evelopn1en1 Vill
be a key foru 111
bull Scctltgtrtl is-ues viii he considered fro111 1he perspective of
encouraging gre~ttcr cO-ltgtrdin~ttion and integr1tion of delivery of
services It local hvel
S1J1mmary middotrhis alue for 1nnney rcpo11 is cnnccrntd vi1h the oper~Hion during the period 1994shy1995middot of loc1J devllop1ntnt initiatives provided through (ounry Enterprise Boards (CEiis) Arc1-B1sed 11nnersh1r Comp1111es (i1rtncrshipsJ ind IEADER groups
CEiigt Wltre es11hished in every countv for thtmiddot p11rrose of promnlng locd emerprise incl econo1111c clev([op1nen1 middotrhcrc 1rc 3 CLBs vhich opcrltttc undtmiddotr agreen1en1
Villi the J)epart1ncn1 of Enterprise middotrrade and E111ploy1nen1
middotrhe purpose of Partnerships is to co1nlx11 unln1ployn1ent ~ind exclusion middotrhere ire
38 lannerships operalrng in 1re1s design11ed as disrdvrntagcd and a fu11her 33 Inell devtlopnumiddotnt gruups in non-dis1dv1nt1gecl 1n1s middotrhesc opertle under in inle1111ldi1ry con11x1ny vhich rt~purt~ to the Igtcp1rt11Hnt uf middotrouris111 Sprnl ind
Rccreilion
The LEADER grours were cstiblrshed under an EU In11io11ive to promote rur11 clevcmiddotlopnitmiddotnt 1ly suppCgtrting lltgtcal developnHtH groups middotrhere middottrl 5i lEAl)EH
groups opirH1ng undcr agrei1nc11t- vith the lJep1ru11ent of Agriculrurl ind Food
From 1994 10 1998 public funding totalling l208 million was providld lo these bodies of vhich pound-127 111illion middotIi pruvicled by 1hc EC Co111n1i~sion incl f~-1 111illion
by 1he Exchequer CEB-gt ~ind Pannirships an funded under the ()perationtl lrofra111111e Or Lltx-al Urlgtan and Hurorl [kvelop111en1 199lt1-1999 (OPUIHD) The UADER groups 1re funded under the LEAD EH Operational Programme 1994- 1999
middotr11e value for niuncy ex1111inttion looked H specific issues rel1ting to rhc
acln1inistr1tive ~ind opilJtiontl etliciincy of thlt thrt~t~ 1ypts of hoclies lht
1rra11gc111ents fo1 co ordination lgtlttvtmiddotcn rhe txxlies and approache~ 10 ltValutlion of
their i111p1ct
Administrative Efficiency
middotrhe divcrsily of 1c1ivi1ies ~ind different stages of developnicnr of the hodies li1111t chc~
exrc11 to Vhich cross con1parisons of achninistrHive efficiency c1n be 111acllt
drrinistc111011 expc11di111re hy all tlte hocl1es 111tallld S28 9 11ull1on 1n tlw pltn11d 1995 to 1middot)97 )uring 1hiI period thl ovcr~i11 rrcenl~tgi of ad1111ni~lration costs to total cxplncli111re declined subtantitlly fro1n 28Yo co 220u principilly bccaust n1any of chc bodies n1ovcd fron1 1 set up phase ICgt being fully operational Achninis1r1t1on expenditure as a ptTcc11t1ge of ltgtlal expcndi1un also varied bttVCltll individu1I hnclitmiddots clue to clitlere1Hes in the nalure of the aclimiddoti1ies undeniken For lX~ttnpk the level of 1cl1ninistr~1tive co-l~ middotoukl he influenced by lhe extent to Vhich
incli11idual bodies is~lll grant support or offer non-financial 1ssist1nce In generil Partnlrships have higher adn1in1strllion cost- nlHive to thlmiddot other hod1es for rhis reasc)n
middotrhe llodies are characterised hy -ubstintitl voluniarmiddotymiddot inputs at board and sulgtshycon1n1inee levels middotrhis is in kclping Vith hirncs-ing local knovledgc and tpenise ro ~1ch1eve con1n1on ob1ectivt~ Key staff VCrC inv1n1hly highly qualified and
rcso ircefuL
lhe develop1ncn1 of n1~1nagen1tmiddotnt inforn1ition _ys1c1ns has not been sari-Ltctorymiddot in
--- middot- --------------shy
ulttf I )(coJlllc1 II If ii itl f itL
that rhert is nn 1tJ1un111ic sharing of d111 11nnng loc1l dtVllop111en1 bodies ind lhe scope for effectiveness inilysis is t1111i1ed middotrhroughoul 1hlt pcritxl covered by lhL ex1111in11ion inforn1ation systt111s vl1icl1 include perfcn1111nce 111e1suns ind inclic1tors (cl n1cJniror etliciltncy incl ~tTectiveness htvL l)etmiddotn under tlevLmiddotlup111cn1 ind pr()grts is heing 1111cle in iddrc sing the deficiencilS
Co-ordination of Activities
The flexible approich 10 the i111ple111et11ition of local dewloprnnt policy rcmiddotstilts in consider1hhmiddot duplicition of the enlcrprislmiddot crvicts providld by thlt three types or hodils Vith 1pcc1 10 objlClies clients incl 1c1ivities middotro i lesser lXtLllt 1here is duplici11on of 1c1ivities concerned ilh coun1ering serious ecnno111ic incl sociil dis1clv1n1ige heciusl Pirtnerships t1rgct specific clitnl groups - the long-tcnn unemployed ind the soci11ly excludld In nine ctsc-s Pinnerships and lEADEH groups share i conunon 1111n1gc1nen1 board
Co-operilion 11nung 1hc hodies ind Villi othtr urginisalions (Stale local govern111tnl co111111unity ind volunttry st ctor incl bllllllSS) ~Jt loctl ltvel to 1chicve igreed objectives con1rib11tcs to the unique innovlit roll of 1hc Local l)evelor1nen1 initiitives
Suhsicly shopping can ltgtCltl1r IHrehy Lmiddotlitmiddotn1s can 1111xin1ise the public funding they rcciivi by tpplying for grillS frolll cliffcnn IJodieS (O 11ppOlt cliiferent elelllt~lllS Oi
their projccls middotrhis incvit1bly leicls lo cluplic11ion in 1d1ninistrllion Fonnil in1erdep1rr111en1il 1gree111en1s should Ix- cmiddotontmiddott1ded to define 1l1e li1ni1s bllVecn the ohrcc11ves clienls ind activities of thl three bodies ind si111ilir 1gree111en1s should he concluded It locil level middotrhese 1green1tmiddotn1 n1ight look for vays of n1ini1nising the id111inisr11ion of 111ultiple tpplicHions for funcling in 1 project
t cohestvlmiddot 1ppro1ch to th( intcgrition of locil govern1nen1 1nd loc~ll develorn1en1 V~ts set out in 1998 by tn in1erclep111n1ental middotrask Force J1nplen1cnt11ion of 1his rep(U1 is underv1y
Operational Efficiency
middotrh1middot 1111in 1ctivi1y ind outpul tirgcts ire being n1et but the absence of baseline perfnnnince d111middot llll1ns lltll ii is not knclvn hoV dc1111nding 1he original r1rgets Vere 1rising fron1 VOrk by the external cviluitors ro thl Oper1tional Progra1nn1es 1111ny nf the 11rge1s h1vc been rlisccl hv tile -loniroring (01nn1inees vhich oversee llH i1nplv111c111tlilt)n c)f rl1ltmiddot Progr11111ncs
1hile tlcn1en1s nf exptmiddotnditun (Pannltrships incl LEAJ)FH groups) Vere son1cvh1t behind tirget II the lttlcl of 1998 it is cxpec1ed by the lgtcp~1111nents 1h11 spcncling targlts viii he n1e1 by the encl of the Operational Progran1111es
Sludils indicHt lhH tht level of dcadvciglll (the tmiddotxrent to Vhich enterprises suppltgtrlt~cl unclir the Operational lrogr1111111es Ould be cst1hlished Vilhout gr1n1s) n11y be in the rangt 4(Yc1 10 50dego ()isplicen1en1 (the ex1cn1 to Vhich suppo11ed enterpri~cs clive11 stils ind en1ploy111en1 oppo11uni11es fro1n other Irish enterprises) 111iy he in the r1ngl 20 (Cl 400u Fron1 eirly l 99H CEBs and P111nerships have been tn1poverecl to Jss1s1 enterprise projects by n1eans of refuncl1ble Jid incl equily Use
ii
S1111111u11v
of thltse forms of id should he expndcd quickly in prelerencl 10 11011-repyJlt gracts 1s they can help to reduce cleHhveight 1nd dispL1ce111tnt and in addi11on 1re t 1111)1 econo1nictl use of public funds
Son1e inst1nces of clispk1cen1en1 providl social benefits vhich n11y outvcigh the
cost involved There is a need for n1orl cl1rity regarding the circu111s11nces in vhich
dispbccrncnr rn he perrnined
Assessment of Impact
lhe developn1en1 of sys1e1ns to 1ssess the in1pact of Local J)tgtvtgtlopn1en1 initkHives is not easy hec1use of 1he clibullersity of objccrives rhc tick of n1easurahility nf so111e
i111p1cts rlie tlJsence of clisagtregtled d1t1 n1odels rclcv1nt lo locil areas and the need for careful in1erpretHio11 of results
Quantitative Assessment
ltJu1n1itJtiC 1sessn1ent of the in11x1c1 of (gtcal l)evclopn1ent hodivs c1n bl carried our by exa1nining ch1nges in vari1ble such as long-tcnn 11ne1nploynHnl ind 1-n11middotrpri-e forn1arinn Studits to dare of thest v1riallles have yielded inlmiddotonclu-ive
rt~sults
rtpon on the i111p~1ct of OJgtLLHI) on ong-tenn ltnen1ployr11lrlt shnvs thtt fro111
1991 to 1996 unc111ploy111cnt in gtJrtntmiddotr~hipmiddotareas fell by roughly poundhe sa111t penentage as in non-P~n1nership ~treas
A111y~is of 11~11ional Live Hcgi~[er cla1a for 1he pc-riod CJ94-1998 indilates ~1 signifi(1n1 Lill in chc kwl of long-cerm unemployment hich b pat11cula1 focu of P~1r111erships bur the reduction n1ay h1ve 111ore 10 do vith 1he in1pact of tron~ 1middotconon1ic gn)vth poundh1n vid1 rhc effec1 of Local l)cvclop111cnt initiatives
A nmiddotiev of the nu1nber of n1anuL1c1uring s1ar1urs fru1n 1987-1996 siHJVS rhar 1he rapid econon1ic grcJvlh fro1n 1995 and the onstmiddott of thtmiddot Local l)evllop111ent iniri11ives did 101 result in an increisecl rate of 1111nuf1c1uring sta11ups
lntc~rnion of enterprise support incl perforn11nct da11 Jcross the Loctl l)evmiddot-lopn1cn1 inipoundiuives voulcl be required in order 10 est1hlish 1he underlying reasmiddot)llS for these rends
Quiitative Assessment
lkciled Census of Populicio11 d11 (1991 a11d 19)6) is available regrd1ng 1ndicacors of distdv1n11ge in Pirtnership 1n~1 hile rherc are lin11tuions inolved in int(-rpreti11g the cl1t1 fu11her ~1111lys1s ~houd facilitlle 1s~es1nen1 of lhl in1p1cr of the actimiddotities of 1111ncrhips
Jhe exlent of n1~11eri1J specificJJly covering 1hc evtlua1ion of i111pacl is very li111ited P1rt11crships hie CJrriecl our evcril cisc Situlies to cxplorL the in1ptrl of 1heir tcliililS ind 10 pro111ute 1-gtesr pr1c1ice (1~l srudies arc undervay also in ni1ny
lEA)EH groups l-lovtver there is i clt-1r nted for 111ore d111 lmiddotulllmiddotcrion and the
clevdopmenc of sonil policy rnocleb co prnvicle a hcncr ins1gl11 into che imp1cr of Loe~ I l)evelop111ent 1c1ivities
iii
bull
Local Development Initiatives
middot
- shy~~ ~~ltmiddot~-
middot
middot~
1 Introduction
Background to Local Development Initiatives
11 Since htbull ltarly 1)90 the (omiddoternn1tmiddotn1 middotill1 the support of 1hc European
lJnion (_lmiddotl) h1s introdutcd 1 nun1hvr of policy initiatives in suppo11 of hxil sltx-ioshy
eltcgtncgtnlilmiddot clcvelltlp1ncnt Tlteslt 1ni1i1timiddotcs stc111111cd fngt1n htmiddot pertcivcd L1ilt1re (Jf
cxiting pnlicicmiddots to _hirl lfllmiddot benefit ol 1middotcono111ic gnnmiddotth lmiddotquitahly tcrn-s local
ro11H1H1nililS ind 111Hn1g thl 111ore distdmiddot1n11gtmiddotd scctCJr of Irish iocitImiddot (~llltrtl to
1hc initiatives ts tliemiddot cn~11ion of lllcd lll1ployn1cn1 oppnnunititmiddot togetlitmiddotr Villi
llHISllrtmiddots to 11cklc cduc1tional distclvan11glmiddot tJlmiddotirltlflllltnlil cl1c1y ind ocial
lxclusion middotrhe IH~v pc ii icy alio n11rked 1 revers~1l fro111 the tr1ditio11al htmiddotgi111ony DI
central govltrnnitmiddotn1 by nmiddotcognising iht roll Vhich local cu11111111ni1amiddot c1n play in
the proctsi of lCltHlltunic trKI Sltgtc1al dtbull(lopn1enc
12 r pri11IJI) purpo--l of Incil J)evelop111lnl V1- co identify Jprropnllt Vays of
-tin1uLtting tll rllvvant luctl re-ources 111 suppo11 of Lllterpngti deth)pn1vn1 ind
tickling long-tern1 unernploy111ent hough llLttetL lhe-imiddot 1rt di-rinct uhjccliVLS 1nU
tlil vXtmiddotnr ro middothich they could htbull 1sotiatcd in operationd llllll- rc1111ined tn he
lthlished it that ti111e
13 IIH 1111in ekmiddotnlLllC ()f the llt appro1ch middotLlL
bull p1rtnersliip hllVtmiddotcn stitulory hu ines ind cD111nH1nity scctnrgt
bull dtmiddotmiddotulurinn to local bodies of lllltmiddotds idcntifiLation pL1nning to-ordi111Cio11 of
progr11111tltS dvlill of 1r111ova1it and ctmiddotriain other action tnd 111on11()ring
of progres
bull involvcrncnt of the eniirlt co111n1unity cspcciilly d1sHhmiddot1nt1gcd groups
bull 1dltl[Hilt1n cgtf a Jtili-li(middot ll)PH)tclt l1tbullrtbulll)y l(l)flCgtllliC 111d S(icmiddoti~1J dlVtbullhipnlcllt
VOllld OCClll (CllCUllellliy
13 middotrt1tmiddot Hhnini-rrililtlll (Jf Lo~middot1l J)tmiddotvlmiddotlopnHmiddotnr in Ireland is cl1ssi1111l1r legt 1ll11 in
oth1 middotr FlJ countriis in li1tl
bull lhltrl artbull i nu111lill of di1inc1 pn1gr1n1n1cs
bull there i strong centrd gullllllhllt 111d EU involve111tlll
bull 111middotv local 1d111ini-tr1t1vc s1n1c1111middotls -ere demiddoticcJ inderH1Hllnt ()r lXiring local
govlmiddotrn111cnt structu1
Ctmiddotrrril goven1111enl control- the hulk of public fininces At locil ltmiddotvel local
aulill gtril ilt~ ft 1 net ions h1 ve 1llen li111i1ed Ct ivering n11ttcrs such ts roads -1ni111ion
111d housing ihill 1hvonric1llv locil ~1u1lionl1tS co1dd lllgtgLmiddot in 111a11v uther ()cal
c lemiddot l le iJ Hnen t
hinmiddotling ~ygttlIll 111d ittthility 10 pursue ltl ignificull ltgtctl c1x11ion middotYtcn1_ 1 middotr1sk
oca Je1ehJ[J111e111 lnitiatiues
Force 1 esrtblish~cl by rhe Governn1tnl 1nadc i nu111her of rtco1n1ncnd1tions in 1
rcpon 111 August 1998 regarcl1ng the mtcgration of local dcvdopment with local
government These ere approved by the Government in September 1998 (sec
paragraphs 10 to 3 31)
Organisational and Management Arrangements
15 The tO main EU funded programmes providing suppon for Local
Development arc the Opernional Programme for Local Urban 1nd Hural
Devclormcnt (OlLUHD) ind 1he llADEH II lrogr1111111c These Opcrntional
lrog11mmcs were drafted by the Department of the Tao1sc1ch and 1hc Dep1rtmen1
of Agriculture and Food (Agricuhure 1nd Food) respectively within EU guidelines
incl 1grced Vith the EU Co1n111ission
16 Each sub-progr1111111e of 011UlI) and IEADER 11 is 1clm1nistc1nl locally by di1inc1 Local J)evelop1ncn1 bodilts middotrhis c11nin~1tion is concerned Vilh Lltx~il
l)evelop111en1 acrivilies 1cl1niniscercd by Coun1y Enlerprise Bltgtards and 1re1-Based
111111crship Companies under OlLURD and by LEADEl groups under LEADER II Hcspons1bili1y for rhee bodies coines under chi rc1nit of three scpar11lt Governn1en1
Dep111ments (sec 11gurc II)
Co1111ty pound11er[Jrise Boards
17 Crn1111y Enterprise lloirds ((Ells) were established 111 Oe1olier 1993 wnh the
tilll or fu tering incl f1cilitating che LCOll01l1iC dcvelopn1ent of local area~ Each CEB
Vts required 10 clrt1 up 1 Counry 1nccrprise Pltn incl its iccions incl prupo-als are
Figure 11 Main Departments and Local Development bodies
Enterprise Trade and
Employment
County Enterprise
Boards
Tourism Sport Government and Recreation Departments and Agriculture
and Area Intermediary and Food DevelopmenlCompany
Management Ltd
bull
Area-Based
Local LEADERPartnershipsDevelopment groupsCompanies and
Bodies community groups
1Jc To5k fmiddot(Jtmiddotccmiddot R(Xlrt u11 rbe 1tfpound7ratiu11 lt oc(lf (io1en1111e1u (11tf Local Jc1elo1me11t Srs1e111s bullbull~Ql( 19)i
2
---1tfrotluct1un
ha ed on 1hi plan middotrhertmiddot art 51 ltEBs in total covering county and urban local
~ll1hori1y 1rc1s Ftch (~EB h1s 1-i 111e1111Jer irHluding repngtStIltHivls of local
govltrnn1c11t public Stl or 1g~ncics hu1ntmiddots Lun1ing lradt union and co11111n1ni1y
inlTest
lH middotrhc CEBs provide 1 r1nge of enltrprigtt -upp()rt -ervices al local levt l eg
admiddot1 ic~ and coun~tlling hus1ncmiddot infonnaiion financial 1sis1ancc and 111an1gtIlllnc
dcmiddottlop11l(Jll middotrhtbull firgltl group- ~tre husinltsse- co11111nu1i1y groups individud
en rcprtJ1(lJrs 1nd -n1i[] enterprises cEBs tonk OVtf re-gtpon-ihililv frorll lhl fltgtrlller
Industrial i)tclop111cnt u1hori1y (ll)A) for the devt~lDpllhllt of 111anufac111ring and
inl =rna1iont gtervicc - finn~ Vilh ltmiddot s th111 ten en1ploycmiddotc In 1ddi1ion_ thtmiddoty is-u111cd
the l1tmiddot roll of pngt11101in~ 111 vnltTpriL culturt
l~1 J-ro111 1hc outet the i)tgtp1r1111lnt of Entcrprist middotrrade and F1nployn1cnt
( Enterpri-e middotrr1dtmiddot 111d L111ploynHmiddotn1) has been responsiblt for co-ord1n~Hing and
supcrvising the crBgt lniti11ly dec1~ions on grant payn1ent~ lo individual projecls
vtre vetted by hl f)t1gt1rt111enl 11ltgttVtL (~EBs Vere ccgtr1s1i1111cd as lin1ited liahili1y
l0111p1nies during iltJltJ) and ifl(I 1January 19CJ(i hive 111idc grtnt decisions
110 Stiffing accon1111ltJLlatiun and 01hcr expen es V(~1tmiddot ini1i1lly provided liy lhtmiddot
lul ii 1u1horitics on a recoupn1cnr lgtt~i and ah hough the CFBs anmiddot nov
inl orporatccl rntny havtmiddot coniinutd Viti lliis 1rrangen1cn1
111 Funding for ltt]is is co-fin111ctmiddotd by Elj _1ruc1urtl funds via suh-progra1111ne I
of 011UHD mcl hv the hchequlr
Ara-amp1setl lc1rt11erslJiJ (-tJn11c111ies
112 1ret-Bit~d 11rtntrhip co1np1nies ltPa11ncrship) vere originally c-tihlished
in 12 ~1rltmiddotmiddotas un 1 pilot hi~i in 1991 10 in1phnhnt an nca-hastmiddotd nmiddotspollgtt to longshy
tlrrn unen1pl(lyn1tlll under tile Progra111111e for Econoinic and Sul-i1I Progrltss (PESP)
_JH Partnerships havt hcen lSt1hlished (2() urhJn ind 1- rural) lo optrat in 55 areas
dtig11Htmiddotd by 1hc (~ovvnlllltlll i~ hling disidvan1~1gtd In 1cldi1ion lherc ire 55 C(lJllllH1nity dcmiddotLmiddotlop111ent groups in non-dtmiddotsig111ted arets middot1J1ch c1ny oul fu11ctior1s
i111iltr to tho~v uf 1he 11r111er-liips middotrile Boards of i)irectors of the co111panil-gt lll
drvn fror11 (1) 1he SlgtCiil p1nncr (ii l -ttle 1genc1tmiddots ind (iii) co111111unity ~ind
vc gt t1n1tr~- cHg111is1 tio11
tmiddot13 The function~ nf the P1rntrsliip art to preptre lnc1I dcmiddottlopn1t~n1 pl1n _ in
con~tdtalion vi1h otl1LI local groups incl hudicmiddots_ to lOLHlltf d1stdvan11gc in 1hcir
~trtts and tiltn lo hlmiddotl thlmiddot-c plans i111ptmiddotn1cmiddotn1td middotrile pl111 oullines the rangt of
socitl ind lmiddotcono111ic tSSlltS to ht addrtmiddot scd in lhimiddot l1rget trta and the ohjeclive to
Ill pursultd h1scd on tile resuh of ~1 ltgtcio-ccono111ic analysis of lhc iret middotrliLmiddot
intbulllllion i~ ro 1tLmiddotlcr11c lnlt11 eronoinic dltmiddotvltmiddotlorn1e1H increise frnrloynHmiddotnt ind
local Develop111e11t l11itiati1es
tickle cxclu~ion incl 1nargintlisa1ion resulting fro111 long-llflll une111ploy111ent vc1y
vide r1nge of 1ctivities i~ unde111ken including job pltCLlllCIH adull education
training con111n1ni1y clevelopn1lmiddotn1 cnviro1111H111tl projLCI~ and youth iniliHives
114 An indepenckn1 in1c1mcdia1y company wis eslahlished in 1992 in111ally under
1he aqigt of 1he Dep111men1of1he Tioisetch and subgtltltjlltgtnily from midmiddot 1997 1he
Depanmcn1 of Tourism Spon and lkcre11ion (Tourism Spon and Hecreuion) 10
oversee 1hc P1nnersllips ind Jocd devclopn1tnl groups middotrhe con1pany 1rca
i)(velopmet11 M1n1gemen1 Iid (ADM) is required 10 cv1lu11e plins from
Ptrlllt~r~hips corn111unity groups ind selecled organisHions lO 1J1ocatc resources in
1ccord1ncc Vilh the eviluation resul1s ind ro 111onitor LXpenditure incl perfon11~1nce
by btneficiarits Over lj(YtJ of funding is spent by tile lartncrsliips incl (he re1111inder
is spent by co1n1nuni1y gro11ps ind nHionil nrgani11ions
115 funding for P1rtnerships co1111nuni1y groups and eligible spending bv selected n11iond org1nisarions is co-fin1ncecl by ElJ s1n1ctural funds incl by the
Exchequer EU funding is provided uh-progrtmme 2 of 011uRD
LEADER
116 This EU lni1ia11vcmiddot for rural devdopmenl w1s origin1lly bunched 111 1991
(lEADloR 1) The obwrnw of 1hc progr11nme wis 10 ltS11lilish locli devdopmen1
1ction groups bullhich voulcl bt responsible for 1he in1plcn1cn11tion of business pl1ns
for heir areis lE1l)EH I v1s 1he subjecl of 111y firs value for 111oney exa111ini1ion
comple1ed 1n Decemhe1 1994 The ini1i111ve wis co111inued under 1he Oper11ional
lrog11mme for IEADER 11 covering ihe period 1994 10 1999 There tre 34 approved
1EADlR groups (is opposed IO 16 group in 1hc orig1nli progr111Hnc) These 11e
iu10110111011- lcg1l cntilies each conrrollecl by 1 boird 111d opeining under 111
igreen1en1 Vith the J)cp111111cnt of gricul1urc and Food (Agriculture incl Fuuclgt Jht-
l)epa1111Hmiddotn1 required th11 the bo1rds h1ve 1 1ripar1ite s1n1crure representative of 1he
con1111unity incl volunt1ry sec1ur luc1l Stite ~1gencies and the priv11t I con11ncrcitl
sector
117 Unlike 1he 01her lniti11ives covered in 1h1gt ex1111in11ion (which are csset11ilily
n11io11il policy initiHivc-) lEAl)EH i in EU lnitiitivl Vliich Va designed incl
Ln1nchccl by the turope~111 Co111111issio11 his 1ne1ns 1hi1 he in1plc111enlalio11 of
LEAJ)flt its 1in1ing ind opertting rules ~in de1ennined Ltrgel~middot Vithin 1ht EU
Co111n1i~sion 1uncling for rhe LEl)EH II lrogr1111n1e is co-financed fron1 ElJ
s1n1c111ioli f11nd the 1lADEH Opci1110111 lrogrunmc 1))4-1999 rnd by ihe
Exchequer
4
In 1roclzut1on
Sc1urces of Finance
118 The Fll Commission incl rhe Exchequer prolidccl funding for the 1niria11middotes inmiddot
the period 199i-199H follows
EU hchequer Toril
pound-111 t-111 ~-nl
CEils 465 516 98 I Parntrships 530 181 711
LEIDER groups 272 ILG 388
126 7 81) 208 0
Scope and objectives of the examination
1l) middotrhe cxa111in~1tion V~1s concerned only vi1h initiatives to pron1ott local
clebullclop111em rhrough Counrv Enrcrprisc Boards Ptrrnerships and LEADEH groups
Thue are 111anv orher ml[1nives for local devdopmcm such as URBAN Terrironal
E11l)loy1nent Picts Pe~tce ~incl Heconciiation 111d lnterreg II vhich ire outside the
scogtc of this ex~1111ina1ion
12middotJ Nei1her iJ)-1 nor the l1rtnershirs arv covered by 111y statutory value fcgt1 11101ey nn1i1 In the interest of producing i cohcivc report on locil l)lmiddotvclopn1cnt
ini1=11ivlts 1hey igreed that the exa111inuion ~hould he extended to chc111 middotrhcir coshy
OJX ration in 1liis resptmiddotlmiddot1 i~ icknovllmiddotclgecl
121 The overall objec11vcs of rhc c1n1inar1on w
bull ro ltVal11are rhc administrative effwncv ol rhc llltXlit (Chaprer 2)
bull lo asstmiddotss the extent of duplic~Hion and co-ordin1tion ~1rrangen1en1s ltCh1p1cr j)
bull to ev~dualc thl operHional efficiency of the bodies (Chipttr 4)
bull to coniidcr ho- tlii i1n1x1ct of 11ie holtl1e~ can hl asscmiddotssecl (Ch1p1cr 5)
1nr The p1opltJ-f of Illgt c_rrn11iiu111011 CFHgt lar111lmiddot-Ji1ps and 1eoJ(1middot grv11S uill IA Fccmiddoti-rlmiddotd l u lrJl(I
)c1lffJ[gtl11ltf hodico
5
loca l)evelojJ1ne1u 11itiatitCs
122 The main issues considered are
Issue Evaluation Criteria
Administrative efficiency Administration costs bull bull Human resources bull Adequacy of management
information systems
Co-ordination of activities Duplicationbull bull Co-ordination
Operational efficiency Targets and performance bull bull Resource allocation and outturn
bull Deadweight and displacement
Impact assessment Quantitative assessments bull bull Qualitative assessments
Methodology
123 Officials 111 the Depanmem of Amicroricuhure and Food the Dcpanmcnr of
Tourism Spoil and lkcrea11on 1he Department of Enlerprise Tracie and
Employmcm 111cl 1DM were interviewed Oua and pipcrs rcbting to targets cosl
and perfon11~1nce Vere ex11nined Analysis Vas carried out of cost and perfonnance
clua aria1ion in perfonnance ck1t1 vas used as a basis for selecting individual Loctl
Development bodies for funher examimtion
124 Selcc1ed CEl3s LEADEH groups and Partnerships were visi1ecl Helevant
personnel Vere intervi(Ld and individual rrojecls Vere visited Sevtrd CISC studies
Vtre identified during the co11rse of this vork and thc~c arc used in this rero11 to
illustr11i key i1SULS middotrhcy should not be ngarltled a1 rcpresentHivi of the cype of
pro1ee1s supponed hy the bodies
125 1Vleetings Vere held vith offici1Js fro1n the l)ep1nn1en1 of the E11viro11111ent
and Loctl Goern111ent ind Ille Co111ba1 lovlmiddotrty Agency lntervieVS look place Vith
the folJoving orga11is~11ions PlJtEmiddotr (Ille netvork of Arc~1-B1scd igtJnnerships)
Comhar IEADER 1u hiireann (tire network of 11ADEH groups) 1he ssociation of
Chief txecutives of Counly EnrcrprisC Bo1rcls (representing County Enlerprise
l3001rcls) the Irish 10111onal Orga1ma11on for 1he ncmployecl (INOU) he
Ken Cork iortb a1ul So111h )uhill CFJJs Trti li )011epal 11ihot1c11 a11d Northside art11lrh1J Fexford Ora11iflfio11 fur R11ral IJltbull1ltlup111c111 anti lao1bull tJ-1nHk Rural Dtbull1tlop111e111 Co Jd (IJ-ADJR ~rn11p) lv11sfonl Co1111111111i~~middot RrrJ1rCli Jd (1d S(J11rh lerry IAmiddottlIOJtllllll Part11crbip Jd (comhi11(c JHADERPart11c1~hip orxa11iatio11~j
6
J11frotll1 rI ion
Conf~r~nr~ of lkhg1ot1s 111 JrcmiddotLrnd (CORIJ vb Yvonne Murplrv lks~ardwr 111d Prof
J1111es A Walsh gtill Mrvnooth
)26 1n eternaJ exrerl IS lt ngagtbulld IO adviSl on the 1ncthodo(ogy of tht --Udy
and rlvtev the study findings_middot
7
2 Administrative Efficiency
21 Tlfrbull chtpter is concerned with the dliciencl of the CEils ltrtnergthips incl
llADER groups in iclminigtIenng locd Development ini111I11es loc1I Dcvdopment
is chirictltnsecl bv t 111uliplirny of object11es mcl ac11vi1ies The control of
achninisrrilive expendirure is 1chicvccl hy reference to stiffing levels pay rates tnd
1he re1sonablcness of 01her 1cl1ninistration expenses
22 Thlt clivers11y of 1he 1c1ivi11es of Local Development bodies ind 1he nexibili1y
in hov rhey set about 1chieving their objecrives li111it rhl extent to vhich cross
co111parisons of efficiency can btmiddot 111ade Neither unifonn perfonnanre inclicarors nor
co111111on infonnirion sysEc1ns on 1cl111inis1ruivc efficiency 1cross the ini1i1tivcs l1ave
been cle1middotcJopecl
23 The ptriocl covered in 1he chtpler is I994- I 998 indus1le However cle11ilecl
tndysrs ti indiviclutl Loctl Dltvelop111ent bodies ielel rel11es 10 I99i - 1997 II
should be noted thu local l)cvelop111ent bodies did 1101 co1nn1ence si1nultancously
incl 1h11 1he lime 11ken 10 esttblish indivicl11d local groups viriccl Accorclingly
expencli1ure in the early ye~trs rel~tles to the middotfullmiddot 1crivilics of i 111inority of groups
and the st111up plt1se of 111any lcgteal groups
24 middotrhe issues incl Calualion cri1t~ri1 used in thi chaptc1 are
Issue Evaluation Criteria
Administration costs Administration costs as a percentage bull of total expenditure
Human resources Extent of Board input bull Staff skills bull
Adequacy of management Data collecllon by Local Development bodies bull information systems Integration of data at national level bull
bull Reporting and monitoring
Administration Costs
25 The tottl 1111oun1 of expcncl1111rc incurred lw Local Develormcnt IJoclics m the
pen0ltI 1994 10 1998 was s208 mrll1on This is tntlysed in Ttble 2 I
26 middotrhc totil expenditure incurred can ht- categorised inro ad1ninisrration costs
vhich are the costs of running the relevant office-i and other exrenditurc Vhich is
cliviclecl IJeteen direct fin1nciil issis1ance 10 enterprise~ ~ind exp~ncliturc on
1ctivirics to incn1se enterprise avireness pro11101e con111n1ni1y dcvclop111cn1 or
redress clis~1dv1nt1ge
8
Atl111i11 ist rrttilt ~lie ic11c_ v
Ta~le 21 Expenditurebull by Local Development bodies 1994-1998
CEBs
P3rtnersh1ps
and other
LloADER Groups
Total
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
poundm poundm poundm poundm poundm
82 28
19 9 46
216 104
230 232
254 301
1 6 53 11 7 202
11 0 261 373 579 75 7
Norg a Expenditure relates to activities under OPLURD and LEADER II Some Local Development bodies also incur expenditure on other activities which arc not funded under OPLURD or LEADER and which are outside the scope of the examination Details for 1995-1997 are contained in Appendix A
b The total expenditure in the table includes Partnerships Community Groups and selected National Organisations
c Includes selected sectoral groups Annual reports of OPLURD and LEADER for 1998
Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total EJcpenditure
2i 1d1ninistra1ion costs 1 a perceniage of total expenditure in the period 1995 shy197 are shown in Tabk 2 L (There was link ad11uniscra11on pending in 1994)
2S dn1inistraliOn CDSIS IS J pcrcen1agt of tOtt[ eXJ1tl1citure decreaStcl uver the
period 199i 10 1997 for t~1ch iniriativtmiddot middotrhis JS clul n11inly co the face that it took
so1ne tin1c for rhe developnHnc groups 10 beco1ne opcrHional 1ncl hence 11n1ch of
the initial expenditure vas on adn1inistration rather thin activic1es This trend i~
1x111iculirly nocKeablc in che cise of LEADER groups md lirtnerships where
acl111inistrHion co1s 1s a percent1ge of tottl expencliture clroppecl sultilanli~11ly
middotrh1re Vere so1ne varialiuns betveen intlividt1al ltEls LFl)FH gnntps ind
Jgta1tnersl1ips middotr11ese ire considered belO Cfhe 1cl111inistration costs of Local
Deiclopnwn1 bodies are shown 111 Appendix B)
CltJUlllJmiddot E11te1prise Rltgttlrtls
29 1middot1icrc v(middotrc no great variations in rhc ad111inistruion costs incurred by che
CEl3s w11h lhe mqorill spending helWtCn pound 100000 and Jl )0000 per innum
1n1lysis of 1997 dat1 shc)Ytbullcl 1h~11 the adn1inistra1ion costs of n1ost CEBs V(n Vithin
1 ~1 r1nge of I ~Ai 10 25S~1 in rel~llion to tnttl expenditure The )ov~st Vas f)uhlin City
H J 1 with Cork Norch being che h1ghcsc ac 11 The level is scronglv mlluencecl IJy
the extent to vhich CFI3s are involved in the provision of gruus is chis increases the
9
local l)cuer4J11unt lnitiaflvcs
Table 22 Administration costs as a percentage of total expenditure
CEBs Partnershipsbull LEADER Groupsbull
Total
1995
poundm
49
15
08
72
Admin c
1996
poundm
43
41
16
100
istration osts
1997
poundm
44
53
20
11 7
Percentage of total expenditure
1995 1996 1997
25 20 19
34 44 28
51 31 17
28 28 22
Note B The figures exclude Community Groups and selected National Organisations b Excludes selected sectoral groups
Source Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General see Appendix A
level of overill expenditure In the c1sc of Cork North their mtin activities are
ini111~1tion incl the rrobullision of suppor1 such 1s counselling and training
wh1Chwould involve lowtr levels of expenditure rlm1 the supply of grant aJCI In the
case of other CFl3s such 1s Dublin City the focus was pnnnpally on the pronsion
of grtnl aid
Part11ersJips
210 P111nersh1ps generally spenl between l)0000 ind l200000 on adminisrruion
1n l997 with some excep11ons Mos 11rtnersl11ps which were esiiblished before
OPLURD had lower adminis1ru1on costs as a percentage of 1otal expenduure rhan
those wl11ch were srtnecl under OPIUlm In 1997 adminis1ra11on expenditure as a
perceniage of 1otil expencliture vas generally in the r1nge of 200u to 40Yo vith the
lowesl a 13 (in rhe case of i011hsidc in Dublin) 10 rhe highest m 51 (1n rhe
case of lnishovltn in J)o11cgal) il1ile 1c111al adn1inistration exptnditure vas si111il1r
in borh Partnerships expenditure on 1crivi1ies VIS significantly greater in Nonhside
as compared ro Donegil lnishowen which wis still in a scr up phase The riming
of projects locil rriorilies in the i1nple111ent1Cion of business rt~1n ind the nu1nbcr
of yltars the Jgtartner-hips have been operating have tn in1p1c1 on the adrninistritivc
cos1s percent1ge indicator
IEADER G10llJlt
211 LEADEH groups genenilly spenr lgtetween 50000 incl U00000 on
~1d1ninis1r1tion in 1997 Vith son1e exceptions In 1997 1dn1inis1rJtion expenditure ~1s
a percentage of 101al expenditure was generally in rhe r111gc 10 to 20 wuh the
lowest at 7 (in rhe c1SL of IJirrow-Nore-Suir) 10 rhe h1ghes1 ll 45 (in the case of
Comhm lorrais) While 1dminis1rarion expenditure wis simiLtr 111 borh LEADlR
10
Adn1i11istrati1cbull IJiciellcy
groups expendilurc on activities (including ~1nin1ation ind provision of grants) v1s
significanlly gnatcr in BarrO-Norc-Suir cor11p1red LO (cJJ11h1ir lnrr1is_ middotr1ierc llL 1
nuirtlltr of factors that can give rise to the variation uch a- hov Vt11 cst1blishcd
lhe sroup is local priorities in the in1ple111ent~1tion of the bu-iiness plan tilt tin1ing
of pro1ecis and 1hc lcnI of grant ml
Human Resources
21lt The loc1I charancr of each of he Local Devclopnw111 boclies mcl the nllure 1 ~incl diversity of thlir operHions n1ean thH thty h1vc l Sllbs11nti1I rolt of initiating
and co ordinating ac11vnies in co-operit1on ith 1 Viele v1ric1y of volunt~1ry and
stttutory org1nisu1ons (see Chapter 3) middotrhe achieve111t~n1 of their objectives is
I clepcndenl on _rhe avail~1hility of high quality plrsonn~I al Board tncl suh-co111111it1Ll
level and clecl1uted high ctl1bre s111f
Extent of Board Input I
2 B There 1s significant input it Boircl level for all of 1he bocl1es Arouncl 1wo 1hircb
of ( EBs operate sub-Boarcl co1111111nccs and half of these suigt-COlllllllllecs inclucle
1 111cn1lxmiddotr clravn fron1 1he local con1n1unit vho are nnt Boltncl clirector ~ middotrhis
invch-t~n1erH in 1octl l)evelopn1tnr bodies e1~tail~ a high dcgrLL of co111n1itn1en1 fro111
people vho are alrctdy active in their local co111111unitics
214 Pr1ctically ill Pirtnerships have suh-co1111111trecs on con1111unity ltlevelopnhmiddotnt=
I education and cnltrpri-e ~incl 111ost LEAl)EH microruups h~1ve -llh-co111111itte1middots on rurtl
touris111environnHn1 natural resources and s111all husinesscraftgt~erviccsr
Prermiddotaratory vork alllndince at 111cct1ngs ancl follov ur ~1ctivities pl1cc considerable
ti111c den1ands on Board and -ub-co111n1ittet 1ne1nbers l)uring chc exuninHion
I lt1bu11clan1 lViclence Vts found of the con1111itn1ent incl skill of Board n1en1lgters and
111en1htmiddotrs of suh-connniutes
Stciff Skills
215 A wide variety of skills is requirecl of 1cxal Developmem swff to match the
range of act1vitilmiddots 11ncle11~1ken middotrhis feature is ranicularly i111portan1 for LEAl)EH
I groL ps and P1rtnershirs clue to tht extent of their nmiddotn1i1 middotrhe staff nf Local
J)cvltmiddotlop111cnt bodies are highly qualified According co ~1 ncenl survey 5lVo of the
i-~~F ond Ihl lCgtfal Jr)(111 c111d RlflI )c11h1p111tllf PTT1JiHlllll1l f11ropca11 )(lt1a F111u Pro~ra1111111
1ttd11a1io11 Unll Apnl (JJJ
1)p(rt111011(1 fro~rc1111111e fnr IJAJ)FJ II (rJl11111111 11ilrcll1Utmiddot iI( Tlr11 R1bull1re11 Rtbullfx11 3re1uftu1 ((middott1rne1 middot (11t A ~(Jlt ialt3 199 7
II
(JC(l )e(lltJjJ11CI 11itiatiU(
CEOs of CEBs huld post-griduite que11ilkirion and funher 2()0 hive prima11middot
ckgrce In the cise of Partnerships 6()0o of 1nan1gers hold a post-gr1du~1te
qualificllion and a funher 24degAgt h1ve 1 pri1n1ry degret
216 flu rc-nurcefulnes- of Lltxil l)cmiddotelop111ent s11ff IS cvident during the course
of the eXltllllill1li01l
Adequacy of Management Information Systems
217 ht avaiL1bili1y of gncgtd 1111111ge111ent infonnation sys1e111s is 1 pnrequisitc fnr
cfficicnt icl1ninis1ration of the inititrives ind for ensuring thll rlllVLnt incl reli1hle
d1t1 is 1v1ilablc for pl1nning plrfonnince 111onitoring ind ev1luation An in-depth
rcvieV of the 1111n1ge1nen1 infon1111ion sysh111s in use Vas 1101 incl11dtd 1n the scope
of the ex1111ina1ion_ 1-lovever ce111in cltfic1cncics in the systen1s htmiddotc1111e app1rent
in discussions Vith officitls in 1hc locil f)evelnp111ent bodies ind during the
qu1n1i111ivt 1nil~middotsis vork
Data Collection by Local Development Bodies
218 E1ch of 1hc bodies opertllS scp1r11e co111pu1erisecl infonnttinn syste111s Vhirh
Vere ck~signtd by consuh1n1 under the aegis of lhe J)cpar1111cnts ind 1l)fmiddotI is
tppropnHe middotrhc pri1111ry purpose of 1hese syste1ns is 10 provide fredbtck on
ae11v1ties by eich Locd Development body ID the Dep1nme111s incl AD1vl The
syste111s should tlso provide 1111n~1ge111ent infor111a1ion for usc locally and facilitite
external evalunion 10vevtr the 1rge nun1bLmiddotr of local groups reponing 10
ditfercnt dtp1n111en1s posls pa11icul1r cJ11lltmiddotngLS tlaquoJr cL1t1 c~tpture
219 l)isc11ssions vitl1 ltgtfficials in the Local l)evelcgtprnent bodies visi1ed indicated
so1ne di~s11i-faction Villi ht kx1l use of systen1s in 1h11 they vere reg1rded as being
1101 user friendly or Vere perceivcd as not being fully suited 10 loc~tl 1ninage111cn1
needs_ In fi(I so111e locd f)evelopn1en1 bodicmiddots h1ve kepi lhltir origin1I syste111s in
11si O -upplc111lnl 1he infon1tttinn provided by the cen1r~1lly debullcloped systeni_ middotrhe
dillicultit~s havt heen recognised ind steps 1rt being t1ke11 011 1n ongoing b1is 10
encourage grc11cr loctl u-e of the C(ntrilly developed syste111~
220 Forn1al 1rr1ngc111en1s ire nor in place Vhich VOuld f1cilitlle nuo111a1ic sharing
of infon111tio11 Joctlly icross ill of rhe groups_ 1his is not possible due to 1he
1bsnce of 1 con1111011 clicnr identifier in the thrtt co111pu1cr sys1e111s_ So111c id-hoc
shiring of dtli such ts projerl tpplicition and 1pprov1ls occurs through rneetings
be1vccn bodies ind via County Str11cgy Groups lmiddotlovcver 1his is no subs1iru1e for
a systen111ic approich to dati sharing
12
Acl111i11 isrrari1e lli-c ieJtlmiddot_ v
22 l A middotide v1riery of perfonna11ce indicnors V1s dtveloped 1hrough discus~ions
w11li 1he external evilullor and with Local Development bodies (se~ Appendix C
mcl OJ LEADEH groups ind Partnersh1ps m 1x111irnlar undertake i wide range of
tctimiddot1 ities and con-lmiddotqucnly 1hcir co111pu1er sy-1en1s c1pture ~1 Viele range of data
middotrhi c111 plicc an tLessive burden on the sn1all 1d111inb1rilie st1ff 1n these bodies
perfonn~tnce 1ncasun111en1 systc111 Vhich focu~es nn 1n agreld StI of key indicuors lo tnco111plttS~ core tctivities and ou1purs and vhich reflect- key objectives
n1ighc be n1ore appropriattmiddot 1ny addicional inforn1uion require1nents could Ix
prltrlided Jess frlmiddotquently through for ex1111ple annual rtporting arrangc111cn1s
22~ 1middot11e fnltomiddoting issues Verlt also noced
bull The p11ori1ics of d1fferen1 loc1I Dcvelopmcnl lxKlies arc not 1den1ical even
Vithin 1hc sunc Local f)cvelopn1ent ini1ia1ive For exan1ple one Local l)evclopn1cnt lxxly 111ight prioritisl 1ss1stance to cl1stclvant1ged groups vhilc 1norher rnight priontise cnterprist clevelop1ncn1_ Exisling 1ne1st1rlll1cnt syste111s do not allov 11le perfon111ncc of chese tvo gruups co be realiticdly r111kecl and con11xircd
bull Measurement should cope w11h the fact that much of the pcrform1nce under
the ini1iat1ves is qualitative in nHure Exunplcmiddots include quil11y of tr~tining openness to disadvantaged groups and qu11i1y of relacionships Vith other
st1tu101) bodies Exiscing n1easunmiddotmiddot111Lllt systcn1s do not cuer for rhcsc 1spects
of perfo1111111ct
bull f)espice initiatieS to involve locd l)evelop111ent bodies in the specificuion of
perfonnancc indicators cxisling perfon111nce n1oni1oring is frequencly seen as son1cth1ng vhich is in1pltgtstcl on groups Vilh lillll direct bcncfi1 in lenns of
e11~1bling 1hltmiddotn1 to understand hov to in1prove 1hcir Ovn perfonnancc~
22 The apprrnd1 described in Case S1uclv I gi1bulls 1n 1nclic111on of 111~ prltp1ratory
Yor involved in developing svsce111s to cviluatc rhc efficiency and tgtfflttivencss of
1he bCKlies Governmenl Dep1rtmenLlt and Local Developmenl bocl1es might es1lt1bl1sh
10 middothat cxtenc this 1ppro~1ch could hl~ applied co rhc 1neasure111en1 and n1anagc1nent
of LDcil Dcvdopmenl periorrnrnc~ Thi 1s a prercquisi1e 10 es11blishing the clati
reqt-ire111ents Yllich should be -arisficd hy the inforn11til~n sys1c1ns in u~e by LocalI l)evmiddotlop111erH bodies Under clie exis1ing s~middotsren1s the inforniHion require111cnts for
detennining 1he extenc ro Vhich value for n1oney is htmiddoting obt1ined front expencli1ure
on lhe iniliatives arl nor 1dequarCly provided for middotrhe current inadequacies of the
inforn)Hion sys1e111i lin1it the scope for evaluation middotrhc middotlid-middotrenn Ev1lt111iuns of both
llA)FR and 011LRD have drawn a11e111ion lo 1his deficiency
Ilo1rc1er 11~-tf)FR groups produce wn11e11 c11u1i1a1ilmiddote repon llriccbull year~r 011d other local 1Je1eop111eu1 lltXlics olso 111c11de c111ai1a11n aJXCt of Jfrfon1u111ce u1 1b1middot1r n7xJt1s AJJ J(ls prod11t1bulld a sene bull of poundltlgt lt1dit- ubich nfhbullc1 q11all1a1inmiddot clfJtltmiddotr_~ of the uork of Parr11erships
J-rr an e(11ded disn1ss1nJ1 nr1 the (flk11e _p_- u_(Jt1j()r11111J1c(bull 111v11i1r1i11g 1middotce middot11F and 1111middot local Urlxo1 111d N11nil FJtnmiddotlopn1ltll lltJ8111n11111middot middot FuroJlllll Sulti(I F1111d lr(Jgn111111Jl 1alifioi1 fh1i1 April 1999
13
lnco l)erelop111enf 11itiati1es
Case Study 1
A benchmarking project
A transnational study funded by the EU is underway to develop benchmarks for pro1ects which seek to insert unemployed people into the labour market The main purpose of benchmarking is to enable organisations to improve their performance
Through a process of discussion and analysis involving the implementing organisations the key processes and desired outcomes are established An agreed set of quantifiable
indicators is developed to give a measure of performance under each key process and desired outcome Overall performance 1s denved by applying an agreed weighting formula to the 1ndiv1dual measures Data capture and performance reporting are
overseen by an independent third party
Graphical representations are produced showing the performance of each group for each key process and outcome Typically the performance of each group will be stronger in some respects than others and future action to improve performance can then ensue
Integration of Data at National Level
224 It is 1111port1nt th11 there should be ce111ral access to cltu to provtclc for a
sys1e1n11ic 1nd co111prchensivLmiddot cv1Jua1ion 1t nation1l level of tl1e efficicnc ind
cffectivcntmiddotss of lcxlttl develop111cnt 1cross the country In 1ddi1ion 1his vould
suppo11 co-01)er1tion ind co-ordina1ion across the bodies
225 Dllt lteld within Governtttent Depa11111enb and ADM is not tntegratecl at the
levtI of tile henefici~111 For exa1nple grant approvJJs to 111 enterprise gr1nt
pJyn1cn1- ~incl e1nploy111cnt 1re not associ1tcd vith 1 unique client identifier in
Enterprise middotrr1dt~ and E111ploy111en(s con1pu1er sys1e111 sin1ik1r veakncss exists in
Agriculture and Foocl and ADM This ctn reduce the scope for evaluttion For
cxainplc the JXrfonnancc of c1Hi1ics vhich obtain financial assis1ance cinno1 readily
be con1p1re(I Vilh 1hose vhich rlCcive 01her non-fin3nci1J supports
226 Whltn CEils were first cstablishccl Enterp11se Traut incl Ftttployment usecl a
cl11ilx1se inheri1ed fro1n 1he J)cpann1en1 of Fin1nce to record ce11~1in key datltI such
is grants piicl ancl ipprovecl on eich enterprise assisted by CEils In aclclition clati
on the Enterprise T11clc ancl Emplovmcnt Business lnfortttation Systettt (BIS) hdcl
grant and e1nploy1nent clua for all 1n1nufac1uring 1nd international services finns
middotr1ie opportunity v1s not taken of co111hining d1ta on the CEB clatal)ase vith its 011
BIS Subscquenllr EntcrpniL middotrrackmiddot incl E111ploy111Lmiddotn1 discontinued recording gran1
piyment cl1t1 on the CEB cL111base finally the coverage of the Forfis annual
etttploytttent survey (which 11pcl11es the BIS) was allowed to clittttnislt so that it no
14
longer allernrts lO include syste111aticillv -i111tll n11nuL1cturing tmiddotnterpriscs Vith less
1han 1en employees Agt a result 1he ibihty of En1erprise Trtcle incl Employmenl lo
1noni1or sn1all indus1ry perfunn~1nce and the cffec1ivencss of s1nall indusC1)
de clopn1cnt progr1111n1es l1as cmiddotonsicleralgtly eJkene(I
227 Enterprise middotrr1de incl Ernployn1tnt is H pr(S(nt agr(eing tcnns of reference
fur 1he es11hlish1ncnt of J sy-itcn1 tn L1cilitate chc inllgrition of CEl3 cL111 in10 1he Bl~
11 ii intended that ForL1s viii include CEB clien1- in its 1nnu1l c1nployn1tnt survey
In addition the l)epann1enl rl~1ns (O acquire a stacistical soft~tre p~1ckage to f1cilita1lt
udysis of CEil cL11a
228 middotrhcre is no nuional pltn to integrHt en1errrisc incl individual clien1 level dtta
fron1 CEl3s ith sin1il1r cLn1 fron1 lEAl)EH gruurs tnd Pannerships Agri(tilture incI
roud does not integrate 1nfonnation vhich is collecllmiddotd fron1 e1ch of 1htgt groups in10
nu onal systen1s and has no plans to do so Al)1 provides rltrltJrts 10 a n111nber of
f)epa111nen1 including Sociil ltollununity ind F11nily 1flairi Fnttrprise middotrr1de and
Fn1ployn1en1 and l~duca1ion and Science
1 229 In 1995 middotrmiddotouris1n Sport ind Hecrcation began 1 process of Stlling up a
I ClnlrJised rerfonnance lllOTlitoring systclll (P~middotIS) for OPJLiHJ) co1nprising ~1ggrega1e
output indicators for CEUs ind Partncrships9 Significin1 rlsources have been
demiddot01ed to developing this systtmiddot111 Pcrfonnance 1ndica1ors Verlt tin~1lly approved by
hlmiddot OPllif) Vtonitoring Con11ni11ee in Jl1y 1999 According lo middot1middotouris1n Srort and
Ht(reation this did not JJlov sufficienl 1in1e to consider extending the sys1e1n
frarnevork 10 provide for co1nplt1nson Vilh o(her rrogr11nn1es such as LEAl)Elt lmiddothe
c11rmiddotent posilion is tliH
bull P1nncrship rerforn11ncc dat~l fro111 I January 19lt)7 IS StJCcessfully taken into
the Jgt~1S l)Ha fron1 co11111n1nity ~ind special inttrcsc groups Vls taken inlo till
PMS for l 998
bull Performance dJla for 1998 from all of the CFlb has beltn rnlla1ed by South
Dublin CEB and taken mlltgt Ille PMS
Tht PMS is used to mon11or 1he levels of ae1ivi11es and outputs under 011UHD 11 JS
usel by thL ex1crn1I ev~tlua1or to assist middotrouris1n Sport and lh~crettion ~ind 1he
OfgtlURl) vlonilonng ConunittlL lO OVLf-itv the Progra1nn1e It is of li111itcd use for
efflCtivcnltSS analysis
23t) A funlicr ditficully is the allsenct of con11x1rison-gt vi1h son1c key h~tseline data
pricbullr to the es1ablishn1ent of ll1Lmiddot bodies for cxunrlt the r11e of nev firn1 fonnalion
and job cretlion 111 -111lt111 firins and 1he pL1cc1nent of long-lenn u11tn1ployecl
middotrourisin Sport and Hlcreation has co111111issionecl a ltudy of b1-cline da1a
15
oca J)e1euj111e11t 11ififlli1e
Reporting and Monitoring
231 Progress npo11s Jre produced every six 111on1hs by 1he lead l)ep1n111en1s for
consider1tion tnd approval lgty the reltv1n1 flonitoring Con1111i11ces Ex1ern1l
cmiddotvdu11ors VCrl eng1ged by middotrouris111 Spltgtn and Hecrea1ion and Agriculture and
rood for 011lHlD ancl lltDEll respcctilely ro produce evduarion rqions ancl 1hey
]11ve ~ilso produced 111id-ten11 rcvievs_ middotr111se repo11s iremiddot considered ll hilf-ye1rly
111ee1ings of 1he nlevint f1onitoring Co1n1nittees_ All Loc1l l)evelop111e111 bodies
prodt1ce 1nn11al rcpo11s ou1lining 1c1ivititS undenaktmiddotn 1oge1htr Vilh financial
s1He111ents 1~ required under the operHional progr11111ncs
232 Nerworking plays an irnponanr role for rhe bocl1s Borh lEtDEH groups and
Pu11Hr~hips have 1he bcncfit of personnel dedica1ed 10 org1nis1ng nelvork
acriv1ries The CEOs of rhe CUh also meer regularly
16
3 Co-ordination of Activities
31 middotrhtmiddot co-cistenrl of chtbull 1hrll types of hltxlics for local clevclop1nen1 lt1- given
rise to concern tlX)llt duplicttion and the Jack of co-ordinuion 1 middotrhe pltllentid for
cluplic1tion irises bcciu_c the bodies co111111e1Htd inderenck~nlly of each olhlr ind
s1ariccI 11 clitlercnt ti1nes lt1ve sin1ilar ubjemiddottives incl 11rglt ovcrl1pping p(gtpul~1tions
hivmiddot~ se1x1rItc local ad1n1nistr1lll strucrurls 1 rcpo11 to different lgtepa11n1enLi and ire
funded by different opltftlionil progr1111111es_ A a res11h there is 1 need 10 ln-gture
that there nl lttdtqulle 1rr1ngin1Lmiddotnts in pL1c1 to recluce the pnss1hility of cluplicltion
and to ensure that lhtrc is proper co-ordination betVten he ditlerenl bodies
32 Jhe iSSlllS of Jupllcl11on and co-urdinlliun can bl t~sc -lcl
bull bccwcen ch cl1ffllellC loctl Devclormenc boclicmiddots
bull belveen Local ()evelopn1ent hoclies and 01her agencies ~11ch is Enltrpri~tmiddot
lreL1nd 1ncl che l)lmiddot1x1111ntmiddotn1 of Suciil lt0111111un11y incl F1111ily tfL1ir-
1middothis ex1111ination is confined to duplication incl co-orclinat1on belVeen Local
n~vfiopmtell( bodies
33 In this chapter rhlmiddot i-sues of duplication and cn-ordinition are exanuntd under
evduition criteria ~1s shovn bclOmiddot
Issue Evaluation criteria
Du )lication Objectivesbull Clientsbull Activitiesbull Funding of projects bull
Comiddotordination Local level bull National level bull
IDulication
134 1 subst1nliil nu111her of lgencies c111 provide l0~11 l)evelopn1ent suppnrts in
I thl 1111e hgtc~d 1rc~J 1igure 31 fro111 lhe Suulh Vest illus1rites this
35 middotrhe natun of lhtmiddot inllillimiddottmiddots is 1hat lhlrc should be tltmiddotibiliry in str11egic
dlcigtiun n1ahing at locil level Vilhin brc)Jd p1ra11H[lfS lllch 1n sel oul 1n the
Operation1) Progr1111111es middotrhe si1nilari1ies igtelveen ohjectimiddotes clienL ind activilies i~
shltn11 in middotrabies 3_ I to 34 1re 1 result of thlst policies
17
loca )evelofn11enf lnifia11es
Figure 31 Local Development Supports in the South West
Tuartha Chiarrai Teo (Leader)
West Cor Enterprise Board
North Cork Enterprise
Board
Blackwater Resource Development (Leader)
m Car City Partnership
South Cork Enterprise Board
Cork URBAN
Note The following ADM funded community groups are indicated on the map by nun1bers
[] Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo [Z] Bantry Integrated Development Group
G1] East Cork Area Development Ltd ] Avondha Development Partnership fil IRO Duhalow Ltd
[sect] Sliabh Luachra Ltd [Z] Listowef Baronies Group Ltd
Objectives
36 All of 1he Lxxlics trt concerned illl locil econoinic develop1nlllt tnd h~1ve
i IJrief lo rn-ordin11e incl enlunce ex1s1ing suppo11s ii locd level Bo1h lEAl)EH
incl P111nersl1ip grltn1ps arc conccrntmiddotd V1th co1n111unity clcvelop1nent Vhile
P~1nn~rships ire explicitly focused on co1nlx1111ng socitl exclusion
Clients
37 1Ltny sin1il1ri1ies exist hetVeen 1he clitnls uf the lhllt types nf bodies hu1
there tre tlso in1pon1nt clifferenclS ihile CEHs deal Vilh business ickas fro1n any
individual or group thty do not specifically target dis1dv~11111gcd groups vhich are
1hc focus of P111nersh1ps lFAl)ER acliitics ire dirtctcd IOVllcls the loc1J
18
-------
I
Coorclination ojmiddot Acliuitiltgts
Table 31 Objectives
Objectives CEBs Partnerships LEADER
Fogtster development by Area planning Jc1b creation
Business supports Arumatton
C1)unter serious economic and social problems by Aisisting long-term unemployed 1n10 jobs Promoting adult educationtraining Aisisting community development Ericouraging provision of child support Integrate supports at local level
0
Table 32 Clients
Nature of Clients
Pcmiddotpulation coverage
G(bullograph1c coverage
Small Enterprises
Adult Learners
Joigt Seekers incl LongshyTelm Unemployed (LTU)
Ccmmunity Groups
Lone parents
Trc1vellers
Pe)ple with d1sabil1ties
Dirndvantaged youth
i==
CEBs Partnerships LEADER
100 61
100 Includes 13 complete counties and several
other disadvantaged areas
Almost complete in rural areas
(excludes part of cities of Dublin Cork Galway Limerick Waterford)
Note o denotes thor one Local Development body has chosen to pursue this objective
a This relates to designated areas covered by Area-Based Partnerships Soures Tables 3 1 amp 32 These tables were derived from the Operational Programme for LEADER
OPLURO and interviews with managers of Local Development bodies
19
lr1ca )e1eh11111e111 11i1iati1es
Table 33 Main development activities
Activity CEBs Partnerships LEADER
Draft development plans v v v Assess local plans 0 v v Carry out surveys of enterprises v v 0
Provide finance to enterprises v v v Provide advice to enterprises v v v Assist enterprises to access
consultancy support v 0 v Organisefund mentors for enterprises v v v Fund management development v Organisefund marketing initiatives v v Promote enterprise via meetings etc v v v Produce enterprise
brochuresbusiness guides v v v Promote enterprise 1n schools via
competitions training etc v v v Fund prov1s1on of tourism facilities v v Fund road signage Tidy towns v Fund artscultural festivals v v
Table 34 Main activities concerned with countering serious economic and social problems
Activity
Counsel long-term unemployed (lTU)
Carry out skills audit of LTUs
Establish network of L TUs
Organise fund education or
training courses Fund provision of education centres
Fund construction refurbishment
equipment of community resource
or activity centres Fund estate improvement
Fund communityyouth workers
Organise fund community fora
or networks Organise fund homework clubs
Fund youth act1vit1es
Fund play groups creches
CEBs Partnerships
v v v
LEADER
v v
v v
0
Note 0 denotes that not afl Local Development bodies have chosen to undertake these activities
Sources Tables 3_3 amp 34 These tables were derived from the Operational Programme for LEADER OPLURD and interviews with managers of Local Development bodies
20
Coor(i nation ojmiddot11 c I tu it ies
co111nunity in genertl ind local project pron1ottri lhile people vho tr( Slvcrely
socially or ((Cll)Olllically deprived IllJY r1r1iciplle in lEAl)l-f lllivitilS LEAl)EI his
no nmiddot1nit 1n spccifically targlting lhlSl groups In nine c1-es lEAlgtER ancl
P1dncrship Strviccs an dtbulllimiddotlncl by llHmiddot s11ne loc1I group
3~ LEAl)ER Jnd P111r1trships ltivc exten-iiC hut not co111plc1e popult11un
colrttge Jgt111nerships ind 1l)ivl-funcled con1nu1nity groups coVlI 1111ny of 1hc n1ure
conclmiddotn1r11ecl trltls of dis1dvin11ge l)lllt to lhe ficl 1h11 social dis1clvanragc is
spali11ly clis1rilH1ttmiddotd son1ltmiddot 1nmiddot1s of till cuuntry Vh(r( clis1dv1r111ge ex1sts arc nor
cobullbulltmiddotnmiddotd by P1rlnltrships or l)imiddotl-h1nded con1n1uni1v groups
A1tivities
39 It c111 igte gteen fro111 middotro1ble Jl 1hll 1hcre ecrraquoive duplicnion of
de1c]op111e11t tctivities 1crois 1he bodies Vith 1hnost tll of the 1c1ivitics lgteing
llndertlken by JI Je1-t tVO type~ of hodJtS [n inlLfilS Vith ht lllJntgtrs or the
Local l)evelorn1tnl bodies ii middotas indicated 1h~H Vhile thcv are lVtre of this
overl1p they rel~ on co-ordination n1ech1nis111s to ensure that re-ource- are nnl
Vl ~teeI
310 It c111 igte gtltmiddoten fro111 Table 34 1ha1 so111e overlip exisis lielween IEADER
gnurs ind P1nnerships Vith respec1 [o countering serious econo1nic ind soci1l
prcmiddotblv111- middotrills can irislt through i111pnmiddotc1stmiddot defini1ion ind inlerprtlUiun of the r~1nge
of crviltlS providld J-[oll(L the extenl of overlap 1n countering serious econo111ic
and Slgtcitl rroblcins is n111ch less 1han in 1he case of develor1nent activilies pa1tly because of th( 11rgct1ng of -plcific client groups hy P1rtnerships (the long-tenn
uncn1ployed ind the soc111ly ecludedJ
311 It should be no1ecl th~1t 1111ny other agencies or groups outside the scope of
1he exa1nin~nirln are ilso 1ctive II local level For cx1111pllt the Hosco111111on (JmiddotB
1ction Pl111 1997 - 1999 conttins a 111trrix uf dtmiddotvehgtp111ent agltncies incI servicis
pre vided in Coun(y Hosco111111on lhis i- shnmiddotn in ppendix E
F1J1nding of Projects
3 12 Situations can occur vhere pro111oters can 111axilnist thl funding they receive
b~middot applying for surport froo1 cJillenlll groups
W1hlre arc Poor 011s(hcd~ 711c Spali(I )11rih11lPll () r11e11r a11d DeJ11r11011 111 rlrt11d Urito1 1oa11 cl (J C0111ha1Ponrty1l~ltJ1C) 19lt)8
21
ocal Jeveloj1111c111 lniJ1atiUltS middot----- shy
Case Study 2
Subsidy shopping
A promoter had a turnover of pound80000 from an equestrian centre and language school In addition he was a farmer his spouse was a teacher and he had net assets of almost pound05 m1ll1on He wished to develop the equestrian centre and language school and provide accommodation on site for language students he applied to a CEB for financial assistance The estimated cost of the project was as follows
pound Accommodation costs 20000 Classrooms 10000 Indoor arena 22000 Outdoor arena 15000 Tennis court 10000
Total 77000
The CEB considered that financial support would be appropriate for certain nonshyaccommodationmiddot aspects of the project This comprised classrooms indoor arena and outdoor arena costing pound47000 and a grant of pound20000 was approved in May 1996 The Board considered that the promoter should fund all of the accommodation aspects (The Board had a policy of not assisting the provision of accommodation because this is a response to rather than a generator of demand)
In September 1996 the promoter applied to a LEADER group for a grant According to the grant application form the accommodation cost had risen to pound85000 (as against pound20000 in the CEB application) The LEADER group was aware of the financial support already provided by the CEB and the reasons why this level of support was given The LEADER Board approved a grant of pound17000 being 20 of the cost of the accommodation The project promoter was also approved for a marketing grant from LEADER of pound2750
Total capital grants approved for the project (pound37000) amounted to 26 of pro1ected capital expenditure (pound142000)
313 It has been po1n1ccl 011t (by Entlrpnse Trnclc ind Employment ind Tourism
Sport ~ind HecreJtion) 1hat this ct~e srudy gives little risemiddot fur concern 1~ the funcling
vas clinctecl tOv1rds different ele1nent of the projecr l-loCVer the fnlloving
efficiency difficulc1cs arise
bull aclcluionil middotsearchmiddot costs for cl1cnts who mikc mul11ple applicu1ons for ~1-isistance
bull ~1dditiontl tin1e ~pent by n1en1bers of Bo1rd incl evtluuion co1n1ni1tees and adn1inistrJrivc cosrs in Loc1I l)evelnpn1ent bodies
bull thC first Local Devdopment body to approve finannJI assisuncl cannot adopt a middotrotlJ project vieV bCClttUSe it is 110t lV1fe Vhether subsequent tJ1plicati011S ill be 1n1cle for assist1nce to other Local Developn1ent bodies
22
COorcination of Actiuitics
C1gt-ordination
314 As part of their an11nat1011 and co111111unity development 1ctivitits all of the
bol1es part1culirlv LFADER groups and P1rtnersl11ps look for opportunities to
1ni iale and co-orclina1e acrivilies vhich 111iy be underlaken by a vide variety of
st1tutory rnmmun11y and voluntary groups Tlus work usually Licilitates the
provision of econo111ic and social benefits to the co111n1un1ty Typical exunples 1re
bull Organising nevorks of lone parenis
bull Pro1nnting tidy tovns
bull Organising second chancC cducuicgtn
Vihin Local Development hodics therLmiddot is often tc11sion between the priorny to be
given to their co-ordination role ver~us the direct delivery of services including
grants
315 Co-ordination frequently involves the co-operation of several different
organisations at different levels (StHc local government communitvvoluntary
se(tor and business) to ~chicve a con1111on objective middotrhrough their co-ordinarion
roli~ the bodies n1ay harness rhc porcntial of several organisarions to achieve an end1 which would not otherwise be achieved This role has been cited is contnbutmg to
the unique role of the Joell development bod1Lmiddots A good LXimple of this mshyore ination i~ set out in Case Study 3
316 The multiple funding ol this anglmg pro1ect is substint1ally differtnl from the
multiple funding shown 1n Case Study 2 In Cie Stuclv 3 thlt contributions of the
vanous bodies were agreed as part of an integrated plan
317 The co-existence of three significant types of boches (and the inherent
cluphcarion shovn in 1he previous section) places a particular onus on 111anagc111tmiddotn1
of the organisations oH both national and lcxal levels to co-ordintte service provision
Fig1re 32 illustrates for each of the bodiltS the dilftmiddotrcnt co-ordinarion structures in
phe
23
loco l Jc1eofgt11HJ 11 I11 ii iu I ioes
Case Study 3
Co-ordination of a tourism angling project
A LEADER group in an inland county sponsored a study of the tourism development
potential of the county Although the county had weak tourism infrastructure and
practically no angling facilities the study identified several tourism sub-sectors that
could be developed including angling
An initiative was undertaken by the LEADER group to co-ordinate the development of
angling in partnership with fourteen other bodies including Fisheries Boards ESB
Coillte Duchas Bord na M6na and several community development organisations and
angling groups The initiative consists of
bull the upgrading of eight lakes most of which are owned by State agencies and many
of which were overgrown or silted
bull construction of stiles paths etc and restocking the lakes with fish
bull grant support for accommodation providers in the lakes area
The total cost of the project was estimated at around pound05 million Some of these costs are borne by LEADER but most are borne by State agencies and the Tourism
Operational Programme 1994-1999
The LEADER group is involved with other organisations in marketing angling facilities
and the provision of training for the ongoing management of the lakes
Co-ordination at Local Level
318 Cot1n1y Strllcgy croups Vere es1hlimiddotmiddotd1ed in LICh cnu111y under OPLUl~J) O
L1ci[i[Je co-orclin11ion ~ind 111inin1isc cluplic1tinn in lie delivery of progrin1111es
middotrhe Groups provide i forun1 for forn1d conununicition Vithin etch councy and
hctCt11 counties incl cenlrtl policy 111akers_ vlen1lxrship of the Groups includes
the Chlt1irpersn11s of CEl~s Ptr1nerships ind lEAl)EH groups County middotrouri111
Con1n1i1tees Coun1y f11n1~ers incI represen111ives fron1 middotrourisn1 Spon and
Recnation
319 middotrhe cu-ordinttion of services 10 cliencs depends very heavily on cruss-1gtncy
rcpresenltlion incl illendance at 111cetings middotralgtle ~5 shovs 1ypictl Board
repre~enc11ion
24
Coo1middotrh11atio11 o lctiuillcs
Fi1ure 32 Monitoring and Coordination
InterdepartmentalOPLURD OPLEADER Evaluation Polley Committee Evaluation
_l Department of Department of
Enterprise Trade Tourism Sport and Employment and Recreation
ADM Ltd
Partnership Boards
County Strategy Groups
1~BBoards ------shy
Department of Agriculture and Food
LEADER Group Boards
Table 35 Typical Board representation
S~bullctor Represented CEBs LEADER Partnerships
Lcmiddotcal authority members almost complete
Statutory bodies Ernployers I Trade Unions I Farmers Community I Voluntary sector
SouCe Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General
25
ocu )e1Alop111e111 11ifi(lf1ccs
320 CEils ire represented on most IEADER groups incl many Pa11ncrsh1ps
Hovever 1n~1ny lEAl)ER groups and P~111nerships ire not represented on CEBs In
so111e bu1 not all cises vhere cross-board represenlation i lacking there is crossshy
agencymiddot rtpn=sentllion at sub-boird level instead such as evilullion co1n111iuees for
protects_ In nine c1s(s vhere then~ are con1n1on boundaries the san1e Board
1clm1nis1ers both a LEADER group incl Partnership In ciscs where there ire not
m11ch1ng bounclirics 11 1s usud for LEADER groups incl lu1ncrships to have
C01111ll011 UO~trd repreSCl1tatives
321 Agriculture incl Food require all lEADEH groups to specify how they intend
to co-ordinate their activiies Vith other bodies before agree111en1s 10 i111plen1en1 a
LEADER progr1111me are completed Each tgreement includes t clause to this effect
and dso requires IEADER groups to part1n1x11e in Coun1y Strategy Groups
322 The view of the Local Development bodies is 1h11 loctl knowledge is of
piran1oun1 in1po111nce for co-orclina1ing their ~1ctiviries Use is n1aclc of infonntl
contacts 10 ensure tha1 each organisHion is tvarc of Vhat others artgt doing middotrhere
is often no formal 1gree111ent berween Local Devclop111ent bodies H local level
regarding 1h~ lin1its betveen objtgtctives acrivities and clients Hovevcr
consideration should be given 10 drlving up a middotfittcn staten1ent Vhich VOtilcl set
out a broad fra111ework of agree111ent between Loctl Dcvelop111ent bodies A good
exmtple from County Meath is shown in Appendix F
323 from the beginning elected pol1ticd representation was absent fro111 IEADER
incl Partnership 13oards Mc111bers of local authonrics are represented on CEl3s but
not is of right on LEADER groups and Partnerships However local aurhonry
officials arc frequentlv on the boards of lEADEH groups incl Partnerships A process
his been undc1way to 1nclucle 111e111bers of local authonties on rhe Boards of
LEADER groups and Partnerships This process is now complete in the cise of
IEADER incl is d111ost rn111plete 1n the cise of Pirtnerships
GeograpJica ampm1ulmJbull ProJlem
324 The co-orclmation of activi11es it locd level is 111ade 111ore difficult by the lack
of coherence the way the boundmes of the Local Develop111ent bodies were
clr~lvn and because of overltpping houndanes vi1h srHucory bodies 1s 1 result
n1any iltx~d l)evclop111ent bodies 1nust liaise vi1h a nun1ber of orher Iocil
l)evelop111ent bodies Jnd srJn1cory organisations_ middotrt1is increases tl1e acln1inistra1ive
burden on Local Develop111ent bodies ancl 1mpecks rhcir ability to offer unifor111
service delive1y in their territorymiddot and to co-ordinate activities of other Local
Develop111ent bodies and Srate igencies
26
Coordi11atio11 Cf Actiuities
se Study 4
Bcbullundary problem in South County Dublin
The boundary of South Dublin CEB covers the same geographical area as that of South De blin County Council and South Dublin Area of Dublin Tourism In this area there are four Partnership companies
Ta laght Partnership wholly located in Dublin South Clondalkin Partnership wholly located in Dublin South KWCD Partnership divided between Dublin South and Dublin City Scuths1de Partnership divided between South Dublin and Dun
LaoghaireRathdown
Al~o the Dublin Rural LEADER Company covers part of South Dublin as well as Dun LagtghaireRathdown and Fingal Council areas The State service providers such as FlgtS Eastern Health Board (EHB) Department of Social Community and Family Affairs (D3CFA) and Enterprise Ireland do not have the same geographical areas as local auhont1es They are split up into regional areas and these regions impinge on South Dublin CEB as follows
FlgtS Dublin SouthWicklow region of FAS contains part of South Dublin while Dublin WesVKildare region of FAS caters for the rest of the South Dublin area
EHB Each of three regional areas of the EHB Dublin South Central South West and West impinge on the area of South Dublin CEB
D~middotCFA Dublin South region of DSCFA contains part of South Dublin and Dublin West region of DSCFA caters for the remainder
Enlerprise Ireland South Dublin 1s totally contained within Enterprise lrelandmiddots region of Dublin and Mid-East
32~i Agricuhure and Food ha~ poinced ou1 rhar coheren1 geogr~1pliical boundaries
would be contrarv to the bottom upmiddotmiddot approach of LEADER The initial EU proposal
for hl fo11hcommg LEADER lnillatilC stales middotmiddot11 would he desirable rhar rbe eligihle
areas do not coi11citle tuith notional acln1ii11strati1e ho111ularies nnr ufth cli_~ihle
zon$ 1111cler the 1nainstrec11n operations(~ the structural jltntlsmiddot
Co-ordination at National Level
32(1 An Interckpartmcntal Policy Committee for Local Delelopment was
estltulishcd m June 1993 under 1he auspices of 1he Department of the Ta01seach and
subequently reconltt1tuted in Ocwber 1997 under Tourism Span and Rccrea11on 1s
funmon is to oversee 111d make recommendations on local delelopment (Appendix
G shovs the conunitteemiddots renns of reference) fhe co1nn1itcee is chaired by the
Minster of State in Tourism Spo11 and Hecreation ind comprises represenwives of
27
loca I )e1eofJ111e11 f In it itlf ftls
i nu111her of Gov1rnn1ent lgtepart1nc11ts middotrhe ro1111ni11ee has contributed policy
n111eriil 10 1he post 2000 s11b1nission on the future of struc1ural funds ind v1s
involved in 1htmiddot develop1nent of 1ht Integrated Services Prnjec1middot
327 middotn1e co111n1i11et sees i1s fu1ure role is one of infon11ing its([f nf dcvclop111ents
cnh1ncing links Vith local develnp1n~n1 orgtnisuions 111d lt1rn1ng les-gtons fron1
piln1ing projet1s including 1htmiddot porenti~tl for n11instrl1n1ing successful projects
328 middotrhlre is a potential role for the con11nittee 10 get involved in soning out the
sys1t111smiddot in1clequ1cics ind to develop 1 strltcgic lttpproich to coun1ering 1he
neg1tive ispcmiddotcts or duplicuion lhc co111111ittee should consider developing 1n
1green1ent concerning the lin1its hitveen tile olgtjec1ives 1ctivities and clients of the
three types of bodies vhilt- laking account of the li111it1tions on the discretionar
nllure of lhe LE1l)EI Jgtrogran1n1c Vhich is an FU Initiative
329 Fruin 1 viluc for 1noney perspective ind bised on the 1buve 1nilysis the
follr)ving i1nprove111~111s ire desirlttble in the short tern1
bull 1hc cs1ablish111ent of coherent geogr1phical buuncL1rics
bull tn incretse in he forinal co-orclinllion of service provision
The Task Force Report on the Integration of Local Government and Local Development Systems
330 t Trsk Force which was esublished lo reporr on 1h~ 1n1egr111on of locd
govern111ent incl locil clevelopn1cn1 sys1en1s reportccl in August 1998 and its
reco111111end~11ions Vtre approved by C1nvern111cnt in Septen1ber 1998 1 middotrhe 11sk
1orce l-gt concerned to ckvclop 1 vision ~ind s1ra1egy vhich Voulcl encon1pass in
in integralecl IY (he oper11ions of loc1I governn1ent ind Local l)evelop1nent
bodies in order 10 significantly incre~1se 1heir effec1iveness
331 Tire Task Force conltrdercd 1111 Iris could besr be achieved 11 1hc counry rncl
cily level The cclllrrl role will be pL1yed by new Coun1y or City Dcvdopmenl
Boards (CDlb) which will be es1ablislred in each ciry incl cou111y locrl authority
The CDBs with memlJerslup drawn from four sltcrors (ie local governmcnl
co111111uni1y ~ind voluntary social partners and Slate agencies opcra1ing at local level)
ill clrnv up an agreed ~ind con1prehensive Coun1y or City Strategy for Econon1ic
Sociil ind Culturtl l)evelopn1cn1 It VtS 1greecl 11i~11 Jgtannerships or LEAl)EH groups
should cllal Vith clis1clvan1aged areis on an 1greecl basis 1nd 1hat con1111unlly
1)( 111ltgr(lc-d Wnncc~ lropU tla egtlabllshtd 011 a pilot btLgtiL ill f)rce111hcr 1998 ill 011r sltmiddotnmiddoto11S~) ltliltult(l11fa~1middotd arltbullas_ (JbjeLliltmiddot 1s 10 cr1-ordi11flle tbtbull i11p111 ofall S1a1C senlicegt
28
Coorrli11atio11 o Jcmiddotti111 ie------------------------------~---
developinent and -ciciJI incl11sion 111c1sl1re tho11lcl vl1ertmiddot possibll bl cleliVlrld bymiddot
gra~sroots bodies Further nmiddotcon1n1endatinns of the middotr1sk rorcc include
bull (Jl(lprise support func11un lo htbull vered in 1he CFBs Vith rrovision for the
involvement of other Local Dcvdoprncnt bodies such as LEADEH by ~1grec111ent
bull fu11ctional arl1- to coincidemiddot Villi co11n1y or city IHHJndaries or_ t[ sub-county
kmiddotvtmiddotL local elector~il ~treas
bull ~1 si11gle igency to bl nmiddotspt1nsihll for con1n11111i1y dlvclop1nlnl at suh-cuun1y
lclI (either the local tuthoritymiddots Arca Con1111ittee or in clc-ign1tecl
clisadv~1nt1ged 1rc1s groups -gtuch ts P111ntmiddotrJ1ips or LEAJ)ER groups)
I bull any future loctl ckv(loptntmiddotnt groups slloulltl have cou11ty or city councillors on
[heir Boards
An interdc1x1rtn1en1al i111ple1nent~1tio11 group h~ts hLcn fonncd to oversee thl in1plcnltmiddotn111ion of 1l1c middotr~1sk ilnce reco111111endarions
29
4 Operational Efficiency
41 This chapter considers the operational efficiency of the groups Operational
efficiency is concerned Vilh 111aking the best use of 1hc resources provided to
111axin1ise the ltmiddotvel of outputs achieved
42 middotrhe issues and evtluHion criteria arc
Issues Evaluation criteria
Targets and performance Quantification of targets bull Use of baseline data bull Achievement and review bull
Resource allocation and outturn Targets and outturns bull Allocation of resources to Localbull Development bodies
bull Grant cost per job
bull Cost of non-grant outputs
Deadweight and displacement Information on extent bull Effective procedures bull
Targets and Performance
43 OlLUHD contained a number of output md ac[Jv1ty t1rgets to IJe achieved
over the priod 199 middot 1999 A report issued in 1994 crnicised some of the tJrgets
in that they did not refer to previous performance In the absence of this middotbaseline
perform1nce cl11a it is not posstble to know how realistic or demanding these targets
are Extmples of the lick of baseline cl11a include information on new 1obs and new
businesses middotrhc report ilso ronsiclend 1ha1 oilier 11rgets Vere coo n1odcst in relation
10 hat v1s knovn lttbou1 perforn1ancc such as chc tirget for ncv businesses suppo11ed by P1rrnership vith reference to the perforn1ance undltr the original
PESP Partnerships
44 lhe n1ain OPLLRI) targt~ts and 1chievc111cncs against the targets are fhOvn in
Table 41 Most of the original targets were excccdccl bv 1998 rrnny by a wide
margin The only target that w1s quantified in th~ Operational lrogrunme for
LEDER as the creation of obs wluch was set H 4000 over the life of the
Programme Up to encl 1998 an overall job creation figure of 2700 (fulhime job
equivalents) was reponecl
45 Folloving the reco111n1endarions conrainecl in the 1nid-ten11 reviev revised
performance indicators and raised targets were adopted by the OPLURD Monitoring
Ex-a11( Appaiitil of Proposed local Dcmiddotvelop111e111 Progran1me pn1x1rltbulld on bfhalf of DC X11 ~)the SeflJices 11d11ilnltS Research Centrt liCD F11zpa1ncJ Associates a11d Kiert111 lcKeo1m1 lld Febn1ary 1994
30
Tatle 41 OPLURD targets to end-1999 and achievements to end-1998
-
Target
Now JObs
Nt~w businesses
Progression of unemployed to -full-lime jobs -part-time jobs
Number of adults asgtisted to access education
NL mber of children attending preventative education services
Existing businesses su Jported
Cl sterner contacts
=
CEBs
Original Targets
8000
2260
280 pa
20000 pa
Achievements
15500
3 110
2500 (1996-1998)
8700a (1998)
Partnerships
Original
Targets
6900
3640
12500 1500
60000
20400
30000 pa
Achievements
12800
12800
11400 2900
18500
35000
na
Note 8 Only contacts which fed to a provision of a service by the Boards to a client were recorded
Soure OPL URO and annual roports
cn111111i11ee in i-lay 1999 (ee ppendi ))_ middotrhcsc l~1rg~ts appear to he 111ore re~iliitic
having regard to perfonnance in the early ye~1rs of the Progra1nn1e
146 in the cise of ihDlH the mid-term rtmiddotnew notd that the 01 ind1cuors
_cured highly on relevance 1-lovever n1any ut the indicators verc so vague 1ha1
111caningful qu111tificlt1tion vould htmiddot aln1osr 1n1rx1ssible -rhlt reviev concluded that
the pcrforn1ance indicators dieI 1101 provide J sufficiently cltar basis on vhich groups
could debullelop con1n1on indicuor systen1s_ lhe nvit~V proposed a sys1en1 of
ptrf1nnance indicators flt1r discussiltgtn 11ncnchnent incI i111plen1en1a1ion imiddot11e
LEA)ER Morntonng Commince clccidccl that each LEADER group should prepare
i rt~middoti~t~cl t1rgtIS in respect of he indicators proposed in lhlt n1icl-1enn nviev (see
pptmiddotnclix E)_ Nu revised nationil targtli Vtrt agreed by the fmiddot1nnitorin_g Co1n1nittcc
or griculture Jnc1 Food
l
ocal JercoJ11rent 11itulfiteshy
Table 42 Expenditure targets 1994-1999 and outturns 1994-1998
Initiative OP Forecastbull
1994-1999
Revised
Forecast 1994-1999
Latest Forecastc
1994-1999
Outturn 1994-1998
poundm poundm poundm poundm CEBs 818 811 808 620d Partnerships 1047 1036 1083 706e
LEADER Groups 772 947 947 388
Notes a Updated for exchange rate changes and inflation as of May 1999 b Revised forecast is lhBI which has been most recently approved by the Monitonng
Committee ft refers only to expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds c Latest forecast is the most recent estimate by the relevant department of the most
likely outcome It refers only to expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds d Outturn only includes expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds (pound620ni)
Expenditure not co-financed by EU structural funds an1ounted to pound36 1m e Ourtum only includes expendifure co-financed by EU structural funds (pound706m)
Expenditure not co-financed by EU structural funds amount9d ro pound05m Source OPLURD LEADER OP annual reports
Resource Allocation and Outturn
47 Public e-pendi1ure 11rgets ind ou11urns ire shovn in middotrable 42
48 Fro111 the beginning it V1s the viev of Enterprise middotrr~1dL incl En1ployn1tnl thit
there IVlI nut sulliuenc EU funds under 011UHI) 10 support 1lte desired kbullel oldeg
t-pctHliturc by CE13s over 1he life of the Prngrunrnc_ ccorclingly CEB exrenditun
wis in ecess of the level co-finrnred by Ill funds rnd the b1l111n of U6 J million
wis provided bv the hclwquer It is ciltrr 1h11 EU funds rvrilrble for CElh under
011UIU) wrll be fully u11lised bv the encl of 1he lrogrrmme
49 A~ n1ost P1nntrships h1cl to go through J lcng1hy pnxtss of es11hlish1ncn1
incl planning in 19ltJ5 ind 1996 their cxpendiltirc Vas slov in rhuse ye~1rs tlovtver
expenditure 1ccclcr1Ctcl in 1997 and 1998 middotruurisn1 Spo11 ind Hecrellion and 1)11
expecc chH over the full progranllne period c-pencli1urc 1argc1s viii be n1et
410 E-pencli1u1-c under LE1J)fH Vts suhst1nti11ly Ix-In ttrget for rhc pcriocl
1995-1998 A fu11hcr sum of J18 million wrs rllocued to lEDEH liv the EU
Co111n1ission in 1996 fro111 an EU re-erve avai11hle for (on1111unity initiatives In order
to reach lht revised forec~1st expendi1ure in 1999 Voukl h1vc to be 1non 1han lVO
111cl 1 hilf ti111cs lite expenditure of 998 tmiddotlovever griculturc incl Food lXPLCls
1h1t ill alloc1tecl funds viii be spent by the encl of tiltmiddot Progr1n11nemiddot
11ltcor(111g trJ the 11AIJlR ()~ lt11 eliJihle ltpc11di111nmiddot 111ust lgtc co111tlffltlf 1~1 middot JtA f)IJ~ gn111h l~r tbc (IU
of fJrl-1 111Jc_bullr 15J-JY 11Ji~e 111r1111middot1 s 11111sf he Hiid rJ11f I~) llAJ)f( grrgtllJS lxfurc )l_1111c 2000
j2
( ))(rct f iu 11cf fi-c iei Ilt)middot-- middot---------------- shy
A1ocation of Resources to Local Development Bodies
411 Fnlerprise middotrr1clc and E1nployn1en1 inittdly alloctttmiddotd resources equdly to each
CEit middotrhc l)ltp1rtn1ent suhscquently 111nved to 1 1nore dtmiddotn11nd Jtmiddotd 1ppr()~1ch
h1nmiddothy allocations VeHild lgtt varied depending on 1hc relative llctmiddotds uf each aret
Ille c~1p1city of e1ch art lo successfully utilise eriterprimiddotbulle supports ind to crelle jobs
i ind the qud1ty nf thtmiddot cmiddotnterpnstmiddot pL1ns prepared hv each CEB
41 Al)middott placed 1dvcnistmiddot1nents in nevsptpers i11vi1i11g cnn1n1t1ni1y groups
(ou side Ille designated JrLIS of dis1dvintJgt being IUl)kcd Jfter hv Area-Based
P1nncrships) incl relevant n11ion1 organisations to ~11gt11ly for ()JgtLUHI) funding 33
con1n1unity groups ind 15 nitiontl urganisuion Vere sekCtld by t()1I for funding
41 middotrhe allocation of resources to Pirrnvrships hy Al)1l v~1s hiscd on cltt1ilcd
1nIlysis of the socioeconn1uic ch1ractlris1ic- of eJch tre~1 highliglning various
aSf)lt_cts of dtpriv11ion drlVll fro111 tlie 1991 ltensus of Population ()tiler rclcv1nt
v1riihlcs inclt1cll~d the qu~ditv of the pL111 tlttmiddot c1p1ci1y of htmiddot l1rtncrsliip ind the
1v1l1bility-of orher clevelop111ent resources to 1hc lrll such as IE1l)l-J or LiHB1N
4lbulli 1chmiddoter1istmiddot1nents Vere pL1cecl in 11Lmiddotvsp1rtmiddotrs innouncing lhe LEtl)lR lni1i1tivl
and inviting applicnions 1middot1ic~e VCrc assesstmiddotd by 1gricuhure and 1~nod Vith the
1ssi-bull1ance of an incltpcndenl consul11nt to es1ahlish tile txtent to vhich they 111lt~1 iii~
key ftatures of LEl)FH lhtmiddot rltsourctS middotere tllocatcd h~1ving regard to the quality
of the hu iness pl1n subniilllltL 1he population ind cl(gree of rurility of the 1rea and
the ~1vailalgtility of othtr sourcts uf ~lss1st1ncc fn1 Joctl ltkmiddotclop1ncn1 3i loc~d group-
Ver~ sclecled ind 2 SLctoral groups
Grint Cost per Job
4l~i middotr1iere arc specific f1c1ors vhich lin1i1 the usefulness of htmiddot gr1n1 cost per job
incli ~-tlnr in the con1cx1 of lltx11 devclop111cnt middotrhese include
bull (rear d1versil in the ni1urc of the 1ohs cre1ted ind 1he 111ethod of cc)un1ing
I hl111
bull No direct con1p1nson hetveen the VOrk invoVtltI in supporting job cna1ion 11
local level VIiii nationtl joll crcition agtncics
bull middotrile us1ain1bility of jobs 1n1y d1fft r frn111 11in-e crc1tltd by nuional igtncics
bull middotril(middot focu- un job cre1tinn iritmiddot vithin the three 1ypes nf lllt1clic
local Jevelopn1e11r fllifiariues
416 For CEils the number of jobs created is used is a performance meisure The
average gr1n1 cost per job creared vtriecl over the pericxJ under reviev as follovsn
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Number of jobs created 1958 3174 3589 3317 3487
Grant cost per 1ob created pound2535 pound4249 pound3763 pound3884 pound4206
The v1ri11ions from year 10 year miy be panly explained hv the fact 1h11 sometimes
1here is 1 riine t1g hetveen the gn111t expenditure ind 1he creition of thi relevant
jobs Over the period 1994middot97 the average grant cost per 1ob was Aj725 with the
lowest CEil be111g S2269 (Tipperary North) and the highest being gtfi683 (Leitrim)
Cost of Non-Grant Outputs
417 In add111011 to grmt aiding job crcll1011 md adminis1r11ion all of the bodies
~Ire involved in non-granr activities including
CEils
bull Producing enrcrprise plans and generJlly pro1noting in enterprise culurc
bull Busines~ infonnttion 1clvice counselling incl 1nentoring
bull ~ltn1gc111ent devetopn1en1 rraining
lartnersl1ips
bull Enterprise cre11ion and ckvelopment
bull Environ1nent ind infrtstrucrure projects
bull Provision of services to the unen1ployecl
bull Con1n1unity clevelop1ncnt
bull Co1nple1nentary ~incl prevcnt11ive educarion
LEADER groups bull tni1nation 1crivit1es
bull middot1-icl1nical assis11nce
Expenditure on these 1ctiv1tic~ is shovn in middot1middot1blL lt3
418 11blc 43 shovs the v1rying ex1cnt 10 vhich the clitlerenl locil l)cvelop111ent
lxgtdics trt involved in non-gr1n1 ou1pu1s_ Thlt CEB ind LEl)EH groups focus on
gr1nt is grtmiddotarcr th1n Panncrships vho focus on non-gr1nt activi1ies imiddothis is
cons1s1ltnt with tlic list of 1ctiv1ties 111 Tible 34
- 71Jt 111tmeratfJr is l1n11t~ paid 111 the cale11dt1r HCff 01u the de11011111uur1r 1~middot the lllfJloy111e11t ~ai11 Cllthic~( (1er IIitbull yor i11 the jln11middot 11111J rcce11ed jiTu111c1td uufuitl Jimiddotom (Lfgtsmiddot 11 1Jf1bull rbut
empluymc111flt_-e1middot1111h1middots1middotjir11r_ are 1g11ored
31
()fJert-111u1uil Fj)lcicJJ(l --middotmiddot-middotmiddot---------- shy
Table 43 Expenditure on non-grant outputs 1996 - 1997
1996 1997 1996 1997 poundm poundm of total of total
expenditure expenditure
CEBs 39 54 18 24 Pyentnershipsbull 51 136 56 72 LEADER groups 21 34 40 30
folal 11 1 224 31 42
Not~ a 7he figures oxclude Community Groups and selected National Organisations b Excludes selected sectoral groups
Sotrce Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller iJnd Auditor General see Appendix A
Duadweight and Displacement
419 l)ct(lveight refers to situation Vhcre 1 pro1nocer vould undertake 1he
buiness projtmiddotct in 111y evcn1 i_e_ Vitliotll 1 gr1nc or 1sistince fron1 ~1 Iocil
l)e-elorn1en1 body middot1l1e granting of funltls 10 dealthveiglH projects is an ineffic1tgtnt
and ineflec1ivt alloc11ion of resources Disrlacen1tmiddotn1 refers ro situations vhere 1he
golt1cL or ~ervicvs iOlcl by 1 grlttlllltISiiSled rroll10ler divert sales opporlunitiis fro111
other exisling busincssl-gt E111plor111ent c1n hl sin1iL1rlv divlrtecl In chese cases rhe
in1pac1 of thl funds allocHed is achieved at the exptmiddotnsc of other enterprises
420 Tltere is risk of deidweight and c1splacemcnt in Iii gr1nr ictlmiddotUv including
th11 It lltgtcal clevelopn1en1 level A nccnc study stated th~1t 1 ~
ie bate tao concerns uifb the s11ppo11s Or n1icro e111e1JJrse Jbe Jruhlen1 uf
clacue1ibt a11cl clisplaccbull111e11t is e11clc111ic in such Slf)jJ01ts eJHCial~v 1ohlre
sc1cral agencie ure to su1ne clerrecbull inuolultcl in tlishursing such suJfgtorts
The Operational llogrammls for 11--DEH 111d 011lJHD llotlt su1e thll dc1clwe1ght
1ncl clisplact1nent are to Ixmiddot 1voiclld
421 All cn1crprise project Lill into one of 1he folloving fo111 clllgorics
Deadweighl Yes Deadweight No
Displacement No Displacement No
Deadweighl Yes Deadweight No
DisplacementbullYes Displacement Yes
Vlt1tio11al 11ici11nbull11i P11onlies for the xbullnfJd 1000-JrxJG Fitzgltbullrald cmiddott al Fn11omic ond )o(middotial Reearch 1i111u1rmiddot -Hor(h 19Y)
ocu )etelo111u11 t 11 it it1 I ives
Of 1he four possible scenarios onlv one (wi1h no displaccmeni incl no cleaclweigh1)
yields potcn1iil net increises in outpu1 incon1e en1ploy111cnr and consu1nption 1hat
could Ix 111nbu1ible 10 l[ADEH or 011Ul(l) supporl From vil11e for lllClllC)
perspective ii is in1ponant tha1 1hcrc be good infonnation on the extent of
cle1clwe1gl11 and dispLicemem and dfcc1ive prcxeclures 10 deal wi1h 1hem
Deadweight
422 11 is cl1fficuli 10 111eas11re the ex1ent of clcaclweigh1 and no method c1n Ix
rcmicro1rded is provicling tn1~illy rcliallle es1in1~1les [)eichveight Vts exa111ined in the
111idmiddotltnn reviev of OJgtLUHIJ in rcspcct uf fin~1nci1l ~1ssistu1ct givtn 10 s1nall finns
by CEl3s Fron1 a s11nple of finns ~untycd over 40dego of thC pron101ltrs indic1ted thll
they would hivc es11blished the businesses w11hou1 CUl suppo11 A s111cly of micro
enterprises 1h1t fl~Ceivtcl grants under Local )evelop1nent initiitivcs 1nd other
progr11n1111s rcpo11ed deichveight of 45Yi
423 E111erpnse Tricle and F111ploy111en1 has irgued 1h11 1hese estim11cs of
ceJdeiglu are roo high ccorcling tu thl l)erart111e11t the viCS of proinoter~ irt
nor 1 reli1ble guide to cil11er lheir behiviuur or heir SllCLt-S lhe l)cp1nn1ltnt ~1-serts
1hll di CEBs seek 10 ivoicl cleiclwcigh1 However i1 J11s been no1ccl 1h11
rcsrondentsmiddot confidence rcgtrding their abil11y to sta11 i busines in the 1bsence of
i grant c111 he considered 1s 1n underesli111~1le
424 A siucly f 1hc Arca Allowincc Fn1erprise Scheme (AAES) which is
adniinisterecl by P1rrnerships suneyecl a sa111ple of pa111cip1nr- 1 11 Vts concludedbull
thit cleachveigl11 Vas in 1he range 40-50o_ Even alkJving for s1111pling risks the
thnt surbulley-gt t1ke11 1oge1her suggest thlt there is 1 consiclerihlt incidence of
cittciVCight
425 An cximrle of poten1iil cleiclweiglll involving IEADER funding is se1 ou1 in
Cise Study 5
11of11at1011 (~ 1liClO 111tt1pn4 S11pxn3 lcrni 1ltllicn10 d local fgtcbull1ymiddotfop1111bull11t Agc11c1e 11d11try 11a11atirJ11 11111 1111~11-t 1999- lluro (llfe1p11lt- that rcCcbulluetl prro11s fr(J11 1111e17nisc flflt11u_ (danis 1u1 Crrlllachf( t111d Sht11111rJ1t )c1elop111e1111tmiddotc1v111c1uld i111lw arl(hiiS
Set fj lJiAJhk 111iutitlt hmiddot1a11af11J1 r11ul llttmiddot(middotr1111111middot11rlatiu11 lcmiddotontcmiddotv CI ul 1)95
Stjl111plortd a11d tlw 011g (bulln11 l11e111plr~rrmiddotd A11 1al11alio11 (J 11w tlnf1 t1101ra11cc f11terprit Xhe11tc IFNC Co11s1il1a111s J-)7
-1)1 cr11bullrde1middot 1ba11hc prop()r1p11middotuncncl 11IFJ _-lated b(l biy 11011d hatcmiddot 1atmiddotc11 up c111plrJy1111J1rJbull1jshy1middot111101111i1 ~ 111J (J nmiddotfia1c n1lt1ict1orji1r thost 1141u M1ild (UT nLltrfllll dn11( 11 t1) ht1 01)11cd that IJc lllU(rillllf (CtlN n1t1middotJrom l(lllJtiy1111Jl ~r I 1r11gmiddotttrlll llt1fJIO)td 24Ci Ill tbc iRC middot111(~1) 11Yfdd he c1 lgttbulluer t-li11(lft ofdct1tl11eipIJ1 fur AAlS paiticipd11t tha11 the tfiJJlltlllgt q11ofcfl i 1 1ha1 suufbull_ Nou~middotzybullr_ lh1bull s11u~v J(jiJfld (fl that lbulle cht1roocns1il~ vf Amiddot115 KJrticipa11t (tmiddotducatio11 and dt1r(lI011 of 1111c111p()y111cmiddot11t) were lkl(rmiddotmiddot tba11 for thl frn~~-1en11 111u111ploycd uho dul 11ol fx1rtic1xflcgt II Atf)
y
Of)(rotional IJfcicbullnc-)-
ase Study 5
Potential deadweight situation
lr1 1999 a business person 1n a large provincial town decided to provide a bed and bmiddoteakfast establishment in a spacious house that she owned in the centre of the town She decided to focus on the upper end I business market and provide four en-suite rcbulloms She received assurances from several local businesses that they would be willing to refer clients to her Two local hotels also indicated that they would refer cverflow customers
Tie total investment required to refurbish the property fit out and supply furniture crockery and bed linen was esl1maled al pound88000 Loan approval was obtained from the bmk for renovations and the promoter applied to the local LEADER group for a grant
T 1e LEADER group estimated that pound44000 of the proposed expenditure would be
eligible for grant assistance and a grant of pound13000 was approved for the venture
T 1e pro1ect report prepared for the LEADER Board meeting did not include consideration of the possibility lhat the pro1ect might proceed without a grant In that regard the following faclors would have been relevant
bull the premises was located 1n the centre of a busy growing town bull the premises was owned by the promoter bull the owner was self-employed and operated a consultancy service from home bull based on 35 occupancy net cash now in lhe first year was forecast at pound8000 bull if no grant had been paid and the funds had been borrowed instead the estimated
surplus for the year would have been reduced by an increased interest charge of up to pound1300 which would not have substantially changed the potential Viability of
the business venture
426 Posible Vtys of 111i11i1111sing dlHhveigh1 in assisted projects include
bull Targeting financial abullsistancc on projects where the costs of entry to the business arc high relative to the resources available to the promoter So111e pro111nltIS have ve111 li1ni1cd financial resources for fxa111ple 1he vast
n1Jjori1r of Ptrtntrship l lien1s ~ire long-tenn unc1nploycd It is Vorth noting
thtt evtn Vhlt 1dequa1e privite resoune- are lmiddotaiL1hle it 1nty bt difficult
for so1ne Jlt)cal f)evelop1nent bodit~ given their job creation target~ 10 1urn
clumiddotll involve1nent in othlmiddotrvisl sound projects Indeed 1he viev Vts
tprcssed hy 0111e of thosL in1ervitmiddotvecl in the courst of the study 1h~ll fi11111cial
Sllppo11 for CJigihJt projects is often vieVCd hy prOtllltllers ~IS an cntiJe1ll(fl( and
this can 111akl it difficult for Loctl l)tvLlopn1en( ])(xlies to nfusc financial
1ssist1nce (() deathve1gh1 rru1ect
37
(JC( )Ct(()JHUJl 11itiati1es
bull Providing financial assistance by means of repayable grants loans or equity mthcr than non-repayable cash grants middotrhis should discourige reli1ncc on public funds by those entrepreneurs vho
do not need ii Vhiltgt ensuring that entrepnmiddotnctllS vho do need public finance
can alail of it Tltlte m1cl-tcrm evtluil1on of 011UIU) recommenclecl the
incre1sed llSC of loans and l(jUity rlttther thtfl grtf)i reron 1ly tile lndUSll)
Evtlua1ion Uni ncon11ncndccl thll all financial 1ssi-11nce provided uncler 1he
1egis of lEADEH ancl CEils should require 1 fm1neid return From earlv 1998
CfB- ind Pa11nerships hive been tmiddotn1pOVlrld by 1hc EU Con1rnis inn to issisl
projects hy 111c1ns of equity ind rcfuncLtblc 1icl In 199~ tlrnost ~05111 of CEB
assist1ncc (4oo) v1s provided in 1hc fonn of equity 111d refundthle ~1id
Entcrprisc middotrrack ind E1nploy111en1 intend 1h11 refundable forins of 1ssis1ance
Vil] he deployed incrc1nentdly 111 future Al)11 hJs tgllld vi1h P1r1ncrships
tllt clien1- should Vhtre prtctic~ilgtle nceiVl nmiddotfundable 1itl r11hcr th~111 grints
In 1ccurcl111ce wt1h EU regul1llons lEADEH groups ire precluded from
providing lotns or equity to enterprises
427 recent study reported thi1~
le ackn()toleclgc that n1icru e11te17Jrises 111a_v face capital constraints especialfr in the stcut uJdegfJhase but strongf)i s11_rges11hat the n1us1 ejecliue
uov Ju lf(lltress his fJOssible middotn1arkct _(ailunmiddot is Jbrough rJals an( eq1tif)
rather tba11 microran aicl 1Jt~~- uo11c 111inin1ise tbe r1~k ojmiddot creating a cleJenclcnl~) c11111 remiddot
428 It is clear [hll here is cope for n1uch greater use of rep1y~il)[c grin[S loans
ind equi1y 10 111inin1isl dtachveiglil incI such ustmiddot has 1hc 1ddccl 1dv1nt1ge 1h11
1ssistince c1n he providlcl n1ore econon1ic1lly 1 funds c1n bl recycled to 1ssis1
n1ore thtn one project Huvcvcr so111c incre~1se in ~1dn1ini-gttr11ion cos1s could be
expcc1ecl
429 An extre1ne fonn of ckichveiglH irises Vhtn public fin1nciil support is
supplied 10 1 project vhirh as cst1hlishecl and is oreruing in [he Jbsencc nf this
suppon CtSl Siucly 6 involving 1hc ArlJ Allovtnce Enterprise Schlllle illus1r1tes thi
11a11aH11t of 11ficro 111(tpn-lt SupjXJl1 Ao-o a11011til a11d lcx(I Jrbull1tmiddotlup111c1u 11~cmiddot11C11gtmiddot iu1111y tia11r1i(Jll 11it A11~1til CJlt-lt)
rJ1irJ1Ui lnnmiddott111cbull11f Jn-ru1fi(middoti f(lr tbe wnod 20(J-2(XX) Faz Ccrllfd lf t1I c()10111ic (JUI S(Jcial Nc_1middott1rr_h 11_f1ltrlt I-Ion)) JJlt-J
Sltmiddotj~F1111lo1ld o 1u he lh11g-T1middotr111 Ui1tmiddot111plo1middotetl- 1111 10i1atio11 of lbltmiddot Artbulla Alllt1flft 110middot 11tlJHi1e ScJ1111cbull 1HC Co1111raJ11middot 19lt)7
middotmiddot
38
Ojgteraliollal JJicie11lt_~1middot
ase Study 6
Funding the startup of an existing business
A fisherman was 1n receipt of Unemployment Assistance (UA) from the Department of
SJcial Community and Family Affairs (DSCFA) from 1979 to 1999 In September 1998 hi applied for support under the Area Allowance Enterpnse Scheme (AAES)
Uoder the terms of the scheme an applicant must be unemployed for at least a year
and this eligibility must be confirmed in writing on the application form by DSCFA The Praquortnership can subsequently approve the application and may provide minor financial support 1n addition to the main financial benefits provided by DSCFA 1e the receipt of full unemployment payments for a year and on a reducing scale for a further three years plus retention of secondary benefits
Abullcording to the application form the applicant had received a bank loan of pound18000 for the purchase of a boat with repayments commencing on 30 August 1998 In addition hf was the owner of fishing nets to a value of pound6000
Tt1e application form was certified by DSCFA 1n January 1999 to the effect that the applicant was eligible for AAES The certification did not explain
bull how the applicant managed to purchase a boat while on UA bull how he persuaded the bank to provide a loan or pound18000 bull how he was financing the business from August 1998 to January 1999 in particular
the boat repayments and insurance amounting to pound565 per month
Tt1e report prepared for the Partnership Board meeting stated that the applicant had with the knowledge of DSCFA been engaged 1n the fishing industry for the previous ten years on a part-time basis The Board approved the application
mcFA has made the following observations on this case
bull Following an investigation in 1988 the UA payment was terminated but reinstated under appeal with an assessment of net income at pound1250 from fishing per year The case was reviewed 1n 1993 and the net income per year was increased to pound1400 A further review was conducted in September 1998 (the month atter the boat was purchased) and the assessment of net income did not increase
bull It is very difficult to establish an accurate income for such fishermen as fish can be sold to tourists and restaurants for cash
bull The Department did not consider 1t necessary to check with the bank as to what if any security was provided for the loan
bull While failures occur in the scheme they do not cost the Department any more than if the client continued on UA
A[1M has pointed out that fishing comprises a very small proportion of AAES pa1ic1pants supported by Partnerships A recent review of Partnership business su1iports reported that fishing and Bed and Breakfast businesses do not provide a viable full-time 1ob and Area Allowance 1s not an appropriate support payment It also recommended that clearer guidelines should be issued regarding eligib1l1ty
Soure Partnership Business Supports and the Area Allowance Scheme Insights No 8 ADM 1999
J9
locaf f)ltueloJn1e11t fl1itiati1es
Case Study 7
Potential displacement situation
A business proposal was made to a CEB 1n 1998 The promoler wished to provide a food delivery service to factories on industrial estates ie sandwiches baps snacks elc The promoter recognised that there were several competitors Unlike the
competitors he proposed to provide the service via three refrigerated vending machines lhat would be reslocked regularly He applied for and was approved a capital grant of pound5500 by the CEB in December 1998
The project report prepared for lhe Board meeting dealt with the possibility of displacement by noling that lhe promoters service would be provided in a manner different from his compet11ors However the question arises if the project is successful how will its sales be achieved unless by the diversion of the expenditure of faclory employees from one service provider to another
Displacement
430 middotrhc only antlysis of clispL1ce1ncnt vas in respccl uf 11lS 1nd this shl)Vcd a
wide rmge of estimils Using a methodology devised bv Breen and Halpin the
consul11nts esti1111recl that 64oo of the business carried out by 1ES panicipants Vas
diver1cd fron1 other Irish fin11s and Iiiat ~i l1X1 of en1plny1llLl1I created in
thescentcrpriscs v1s at the expense of other enterprises middot1l1e consultants felt thtt the
Breen 111cl 1-ldpin methodology had limitations ancl tlut their estinutes of
clisplicc1nent Vere too high lJsing different 1ssu1nptions incl 1 different
mthodology they estim11ecl that 19 of employment created in AAES enterprises
Vts displacLcl fro1n other cn1erpriscs
431 Possible vays of n1ini111ising clispl1cen1ent include
bull CounsLlting pro1notcrs tovncb exports or cloincstic sectors supplied prltdom1n1111lv l)y import
bull ithholding 1ssis1ance fron1 projec1s in1encling 10 supply goods and stgtrviccs to the clon1es1ic 1111rke1 vhich are alrc1cly supplied by other busineSSlS
bull Providing financial tssisttnce by n1eans of rep1yibllt grants lo1ns ind cqui1y rathtr rhin non-repayable ct~h gr1nts
432 All LEADEH groups Partnerships and CEils are insrruned not to suppon
projects Vhich voulcl displace business fro1n other enterprises
433 CEl3s were advised early in 1999 10 focus heir efforts on thlt development of
n1anuf1cturing incl in1ern1tional services projects vhich viii have the pltgttential 10
clevclop in10 export-oriented finns hile not neglecting other eligible rrojects
(vi1ble non-clcaclveight non-displacc1nen1) outside these sec1ors Jgtirtnersl1ips have
40
()JCltflional Jffrienc)
agmiddoteed tht financid support should not be supplied to businsses 111 plentiful
supply such as hackneys couriers builcling contr1cpoundors Ix-cl and hre1kLi~t
operators vm sales and hairdrclaquors LEADER groups are advised to d11ect the11
Stlj)p(H1S tOvards innltgtva1ive pnijeLt~
4i4 There arc d1ffcrcmiddotnt views among Local Development bodies regarding what is
inmiddotoived in rtcognising diplacetntnt middotrhus -cHne Lltic~11 J)evelopn1en1 bodi1s
co1sider thtl if lhe existing co111peeitors to a project are located outside their county
or evtn their loc~1lity 1hen clisplacen1cn1 is not 1n issue
4s The 1111cl-1cnn reviews of LEADEH and OPLUHD made linlc reference to
displlcemcnt Howevmiddotcr the LEADEH mid-term review contended that displJcemcnt
vculd he 111ini111ised if LEAl)ER groups focused their f1nincial 1ssistance on
111rovative proiects Agnrnlture and Food intend that the final evalu111on of LEADEH
11 Viii includ ltSli111a1ion of tltmiddotachveigh1 and clispl1cen1ent effect
Be11e_ficit1 Dis1U1ce111e11t
436 II rhere are ~1ny circu111st~1nces in vhich ltlispl1ce111ent can be ignored thev
shltnild be identified For exunple it 111ay be possible to sustain the c~1se on sociJI
jus1 ice or equity grounds rhu specific groups such JS 1he lung-1ern1 t1nt111ployed
shcbullttld receivlt posi1ivlt cliscri111in~n1on elifJI at the cxfxnse ojotherjoh see~ctYi tOi1
111 lrgucd 1h1t onlt of the obwctives of Partnerships is to 1mprovmiddot( the potcnlld of
the long-tcnn unc111ployccl ind 1he socially ltXcludccl 10 gain cn1ploy111ltnl in lhlt
eccbullno1ny generally ind specifically 1n poundheir Ovn areas_ middotrhc inslrtion of particular
dis1dvant3ged groups into e111ploy1ncnt or a husine~s viii often have thL effec1 of
dis)Jcing a non-clis~1dvantaged person fron1 that 1oh oppo11unity Hcnvcver the
social giin makes the displJce111ent worthwhile
437 Given that CEBs cover the emire populallon incl that Partnlrships and
LEd)EH groups cover 540o and 6Joo respectively the exacpound circun1s11ncltS Vhen
clisplacemem 111ight be permincd for any Local Devdopmelll body should be
cluificd by the relevant Dep1rtmenis
(rnui11g (lUJ Sharing ()I r F111plr1y111e11t S1raUt_r (JfX 011 the lt1bltgt11r _bulllfariltf tgtlt1uu11cmiddotn1 of1111erpnmiddotc_ 7huC and 1111Joy111e11r Jn 19ltXgt
41
5 Assessment of Impact
51 Xhik the 1nc1sun111cnt of the 1chieven1ent of cconon1y 1nd efficiency is
ilnportan1 in the n1an1ge1nenl of the initiatives establishing their in1pact is of even
grci1er 11npnrtance J111pic1 assessn1enl is concerntd Vilh est1blishing the e-1cn1 10
which the local devdoprnent oJ1cc1Jns ire achievecl 1110 the wider contribution of
the initiatives 10 local cconon1ic and socitl developn1ent 11 is desirable thtt
appropri1te sys1tn1s to evaulle 1he 1chicve111ents of the iniliHives in n lttion co their
desired 11np1cts should IJt in place
52 Ille cllvcloprnent nf syste1ns to detennine 1he i1np1ct of the initiitivcs is not
easy middotrhlt clivlr~i1y of Jnc~il dcvelupn1ent objecrive~ n1e1ns thit it is unlikely thH 1ny
one 1ssessn1cn1 niethocl Otild he sufficient So1ne in1p1cts like cn1ploy1nent
crltJtiun can lx quintified Jnd 1chieven1ent can be n1unitorecl chrough che 111alysis
of nJev1n1 perfonnanct indic11ors_ Othcrs like rlttising the level of econo111ic activity
ctn be 1ssessecl 1hrough 1he usc of ccono111ic 1noclels using surroga1e 111e1sures of
irnpacl 1VL1ny of the socitl objeclives of 1he inili11ive are not susceptible to
n1e1sure1ne111 at di incl till i1111xu1 achieved Jre best detenninccl through surveys
of chtngts in local condilions a1 inclividu1I and con1nnir1i1y levels
S3 lhi ch1p1er consiclt~rs 1ppro1chcs co che 1sscss111en1 of i1npact under the
folJoving J1e1dings
Issues Subject
Quantitative assessments Baseline analysis bull bull Use of macroeconomic data
Qualitative assessments Assessing social impacts bull Case studies and international studies bull
Quantitative Assessments
54 lnfonnition on job creacion and the progression of long-tenn une1nployecl
persons 10 fuJI lirlle VOrk 1re rerorted for i[J these ypes Of 1gtltKJies (see middotr1ble 41
ind Append A) Vhile the figures tint hive been reported to end-1998 under
011URI) 1re well 1he1d of the tirgcts thit were set it is difficult to interpret these
resuhs in hrn1s of i111picl in lhe ibsence of bascline cl1t1
Baseline Analysis
55 B1selinc analysis would estiblish the performance of a representative group
of enterprises con1n1uni1y groups incl individu~1ls 1hat did not receive 1ssis11nce
under 1hc initiatives middotrhe rcrfonnancc of 1ssis1ecl entities incl individuils al counry
42
Assess1ne111 lt~ 111JOCI
or r111ional levtgtI could then he co1nparcd Vilh the 1xmiddotrfonnancl of middotn1ttchedmiddot nonshy
tssi ~1ed cnlitiii selected fro1n the repre~entltil group Si1nil1rly tile pcrlltlrn11ncl
of en1i1ies recltiving ditlenmiddotnt kinJ of ~1ssistance could also he antlysed to cletenninc
rel1 live ilnpac1
56 Baseline analysi~ can he pcrfonnld using 1nicroecono111ic d111 (da1a 1bou1
spcltific enterprises) or n1acrotcnnon1ic clat1 (1ggrLg11t~d dat1)_ middotrhc cl1t1 collection
proicduns -11 loc1l level hJve not heimiddotn 1dequatt to suppo11 this kind of ltinalysis
using 1nicrocconon1ic data 1ccordingly analysis against a baseline of non-1ssis1cd
cnlt-rprises co111n1unity groups ind individu1J- cHHlO( hl carried out
I Case Study on Unemployment using Macroeconomic Data
i 5 7 stuclv of the irnpact uf 011l RD on unemplovment ing census clata
(111a- rltgttgtcono111ic data) has hlttll c1rrild out under tile ~1egis of the ()PlUH)
P1oriloring ConHniuec So1nc rcsuhs of the study 1re su11H11arised in Cae Study H
58 middotrtiis finding fro111 ltase S1udy 8 dltgtcs nor nectgtssarily 111ean 11111 P~trtnerships trl
les effective in assisting une111ployed peorle 10 find vork 1s unc111ploycd ptorlt~
in P~ntncrship 1rc1s 111ay he 111on di_-adv~1nt1ged and find ii lllOll dillicull to 1ccess
e111(oy1ncn1 In addition 1he ralt of entry to une1nploy111lnt in Partnership 1reas
1nay he different frorn non-Jgt1r1nershir 1n~~1s 11lt)vevcr the data is inconclusive
I ~1hont tile level of ttlcclivcness of P~111nlr~liips in addressing Ltr1e111rloyn1cnL middotrhe
case s1udy highlights the co111plexity of in1pac1 analysis but also illustrates ils
i irnpbullgtrltnce in le~1cling lo a grlmiddotHer uncllrst1nd1ng of the resulls of progr~11n11H
aCllily More complex ltbta rnodels of the labour nurket at local level woulcl be
nccclecl for a svs1e111~11ic revicv of 1hc elTcctivenesi of Pannerships in tickling longshy
I 1ern~ llllt~n1plon1ent
59 It is of inlertst 10 e-an1inc the trends in the duration of uncn1ployn1ent in
I recent years imiddot~1hle 51 ihOVS thc nun1hers une111plnyecl ylmiddot1r on yctr in ont year
banltls up to 1l1nc years fron1 1994-1999 and the 11ne1nplcgtyn1ent retentugtn r1tcsmiddot
fro1r vtmiddotar to year i_e_ lhe proportion of those 11ne111ployed ho nLmiddot still unen1ploytCI I
one year li1er
I510 middotr1hle 51 shov- 1h1t signific1nt i111provlrnlnts in une111ploy111cnt rerintion
ralc~ htVl occurrLd in recent yetrs particularly for long-ten11 UllLlllploy1nen1 Strong
ecoron1ic grovth in 1lie period covered vould li1ve beltIl of prinH in1ponance in
1he reduction 111 long-1tmiddotrn1 l1ne111ploy111ent ihiJc the long-lerrn une1nployed ire thl
1111in rarge1 group for Partnerships thlse areas are not sep1raccly distinguished 1n
lhe analysis OutlOVS ro schen1es such 1s Co111111u11ity Fn1ployn1cnt could also he I
llllf)()flilll
43
olta JeueloJn1e111 11itioti1cs
Case study 8
Analysis of the impact of OPLURD on long-term unemployment using macrodata
A key part of the analysis was a comparison between the change in unemployment in Partnership areas from 1991-1996 with the corresponding change in non-Partnership
areas The comparison was based on the Census of Population for 1991and1996 The logic behind the comparison was that disadvantaged areas are at risk of falling behind
the general level of economic development unless there is a targeted intervention to ensure that the rising tide of economic growth flows into those areas Thus if the
decline m unemployment in Partnership areas is similar to that in Ireland as a whole
then at least the gap between affluent and poor areas has not widened and Partnerships may have contributed to some extent to this outcome
The consultants measured changes 1n the unemployment rate in two ways (i) by the percentage point (or absolute) change (ii) by the proportionate (or relative to 1991) change
They used a simple example to illustrate the difference between the two measures Assume that Area A has 90 unemployment rate and Area B has 20 unemployment
rate If the unemployment rate declines by 10 percentage points in both areas (the
same absolute change in the rate) the relative rate is quite different since Area A has declined by only 11 (relative to its starting rate) whereas Area B has deemed by 50
(relative to 1s starting rate) Both rates should be used together
The key data was summarised as follows
Unemployment rate
Area 1991 1996 Absolute Percent Percent Change initial rate Points Change Relative to Initial
Ireland 169 14 8 -21dego
Ratebull
-126
Partne1ship areas 256 230 -26 -100 (PESP only)
Non-Partnership 139 119 -20 -141 areas
Note 8 Change in unerriployment rate divided by the initial unemployment rate
The consultants commented that the unemployment rate in PESP Partnership areas
fell by a slightly greater absolute amount than either Ireland or non-Partnership areas but in relative terms they did worse - essentially because they had higher unemployment rates to begin with in 1991
Sourco A Report on the Impact of the Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development on Long- Term Unemployment Goodbody Economic Consultants et el October 1999
44
Assessnu11t q J11pact
Table 51 Duration of unemployment and retention rates 1994-1999
Ye
19 19 19 19 19 19
ar
94 95 96 97 98 99
Less than one year Number
151032 144283 146776 132398 130780 110446
--shy1-2 years 2-3 years 3+ years
Number Retention Number Retention
rate rate
Number
43697 39748 263 40875 283 38361 261 31719 240 28 194 216
27489 64154 26293 602 67955 25852 650 69667 24227 593 61870 18914 493 54448 14496 457 44940
NotB Retenrion rates are calculated as follows_ All of those who wero unemployed for 1-2 years in 1995 (39 748) wcro unernployed for less than one year in 1994 (151032) thus the unemployment retention rate is 263 (39 748+151032) CSO Live Register data
i Case Study on Business Formation using Macroeconomic Data
I 511 tucly of s11111l business forn1ation over ti111e 111ight be usecl to consider issues
middot such as lhe i111pact of lhl initi~Himiddotes on thtbull rice of n1anufacturing st1nups his i~
considered in Case Srudy 9
51~ C~rtater underst1nding is requirtcl of the n1ix of variables vhich n1ay be
responihle for the trends appann( in the data In a situ11ion vhere an unexpected 1 result is obt1inLmiddotd fron1 tile analysi~ C1s in Case Study 9) 11 Otild lgtt necessary to
refirc the analysit using 1111croecono111ic dala un1il the reasons for the trends
observed 1re clarified and the dilTcren1 contribution~ of lhe initiatives to sn1all 1
enterprise fonn~uion ere better understood
513 In order to use 111icrtgteconon1ic cLua 10 assess the in1p1ct of 1ht ini1ia1ivcs on1 n1anufacturing and intern~llional StTviccs it vould be necessJI) to integrate locil
clcvdopment suppo11 dlla from all the mitia11ves -Uh rhe Forfis and Enterprise
middotrr1de and E1nploy1ncn1 Bu~iness InforntHion Sygtt(Jll (BIS) Enterprise lrlttcle incl
Fmrlovment 1ntcncls to proceed with the 1nrcmiddotgra1ion of CEil data with the BIS (See
paragraphgt 2 2i-228) i 514 Enrerprise Tracie ancl Employment h1s commissioned a review 10 take place
in 11middote currenl year on the in1p1ct of CEUs vith particular reference 10 thlt ratlt of 1
bu~i1es~ fonnacion tnd 1he su~tlinability of the johs cre~Htmiddotcl
45
lucal JelJelo111unl l11i1ia11cs
Case Study 9
Use of macroeconomic data on business formation
In 1993 Enterprise Ireland stopped assisting manufacturing and international services firms with less than ten employees This role was transferred to CEBs The trend in the number of Irish-owned startups in manufacturing from 1987 to 1996 has been studied in an effort to detect the impact of economic growth on the rate of startups It might equally be used as a starting point to consider the impact of CEBs in this role
Startups in Irish-owned manufacturing 1987 to 1996bull
600
500
bullOO
300
200
100
0 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Year
The graph shows that the very rapid economic growth from 1993 (which period includes the emergence of the initiatives) did not result in an increased rate of manufacturing startups According to the quoted study The start-up performance 1s surprising The improvement m the economy over the years has not been accompanied by a corresponding growth in the number of manufacturing startupsmiddot
Note a Case study based on ~startups and Closures in Indigenous Manufactunmiddotng an Analysis of the CensCJS of Industrial Production 1986-1995 Irish Banking Review Autumn 1998 Anthony Foley and Teresa Hogan
Source Data Census of lndustna Production CSO
Qualitative Assessments
Assessing Social Impacts
515 Some irnpo11rn1 rnrcro clilt wts cs1rl3lrshecl by ADM reltting 10 middotc1ep1wa1ion
111clic11ors for l1nnership areas Bised on the 1991 Clnsus of Populttion ADM
co1npilecl indic1rors of cleprivuion for all Pannershlp areas domiddotn to l)istrict
Elcctor1l l)ivisiltgtn levc1 l)cprivJriun 1n1p- tre 1lso procluced middotrhe clcprivltlCion
indicators 1nclucled
46
bull educationtl a1tainn1en1
bull ltgtCcu1x11ional profile
bull lltxmiddotil labour n1arket characteris1ics
bull housing
FrOill 1hcse indicators a con1pusite deprivaiion index value Vas con1p11tcd for each
lartnersl11p area for 1991
516 Tlrrs exercr lras rectgtnilv bcrn repeated from tire results of the 1996 Census of lo1n1llli(gtn Fngtnl ~tn in1pac1 assess111en1 ptrspcctivtmiddot relilt1nce ltgtn these indicators
voulcl involve ~0111e li111itllions_ For lt1n1ple chc Census year- do not coincide Vith
Partnership 111ilcstones 111igruion can con1plicatc 1nalysis and [he d111 is not
definitive regltncling c1usality~~
51 ()espile these lin1ilalions analysis of the indicators of dtprivt1ion should
probullicle valuable inforn1ation rcg1rdi11g changes in 1pects of clt~pfiv1tion in different
Partnershq1 anas and should ilso Ltcilitatc con1p1rion ovtr 1i111e Vith nun
la11nersl11p areas lhe ltlmiddotailtbility of this infonnltllion shot1ld ftcilirarc furthCr
ittt111pts to consider the social in1p1c1s of tht~ initlHives
Case Studies and International Studies
5tf Whrle much hrs been wrr11en on tire rctrvrtres of Local Development bodies
chc tlcnt of 111atcrial spccifictlly covering the evtl1111ion of their i1np1c1 is very
li111i1ecl Several Partnerships have c1rried otH case srudil~middotM) to highlight hov issues
wen being trckled by different Partnerships ancl to promote best practice Case studies are undcrv1y tlso in n1lt1ny LLl)FH groups No case studies havtmiddot lgteen u ed
so L1r in tlic cnlcrprisc ind ioh crc1tion ~1rea for CEB ac1ivi1ies
519 A for111J E11ropean s1ucly v1s unck-rtiken of he rnle of p1nnerships in
proriuting sociil cohesion in ten fmiddot1t1nhcr Srarl~ of the EU co111prising ten nniond
rtpcrts (including lrel1ncl) and 1 synli1esis European rt~portjlbull middotrht study and repo11s
j middotltre bt-gtlltl prin1arily on rh1rty ctst tuclic (rhree fro111 etch middotten1ber St~lle) Vhich
looked 11 issues of reprtstnlalion ncgoliHion and alliance lgtuilcling in tile
devElop111ent of strategies and 1c1ion plans ind the vorking 111ethocls skills incl
I reso-_1rces aprlied lgty p~111nershirs
()her 11111101io11s arc rexnccl i11 fJrxr coptmiddot fJrgtCir i~ edttimiddotd l~r I) Pn11gle tf of Ook Tree )rt--
)11J111_ -~)9
_rKmiddottd 1art11c1ih1p~ middotI 5111n--11 511HIL1Y fur Sc)(middotial Cubl~011lt 11 Ccddcbull OJ1tc ( QOua 11h1lta1J11_- fvr w F11n1J1CJ11ltiJ111111111111umiddots1111d -111middotn1wt111 h1111ulrlf1011for1ie lm1ro1(mlW of itll~L tntl lliirk111~ Co11tl11io11s 19ltJ-
47
ocal Jevelop111e11t lnilit1tite_
520 1ihilc the rtpon included n1iny individual references to isol11cd cxirnpks of
1hc 1tll1x1c1 of panncrships Clllpincd rcstarch into 1he effecliveness of 1xnmerships
Vts not Vithin the score of the study middotrhcrc VIS also no 1ue1npt to con1p1re the
perfor1111nce of p1nncrsl1i1)s it nationil l(vel
521 The 1bsencc of specific tllaterial on the cvalL1a1ion of effectiveness of locd
clevelop111en1 bodies is panly clL1e 10 a lick of come~tuil clata 11 local level 10
L1cilita1e in~dysis A pri1n1ry ain1 of the bodies is to L1cilit1te thl locil achievtinent
of resuh~ incl to ltver1gc 1hc 1c1ivitics of local groups Assess1ncnt of effectiveness
of this kind of 1c1ivHy woulcl require that the role played by the lxxlies could he
isollltcl fruin ill oiher contribuiory f1ctors middot1middothis is difficult middotrtiere is 1 cletr need for
more data collernon llld 1hc clcvdop111ent of soual poltl) models which would
f1cili111e bcuer 1ns1gh1 by policy 1111kcrs imo the impact of the arnvities of local
clevdopment boclits
48
Jr
0 Ji~ )~ l ( imiddot
Appendices
~ gt
- _ middot-
---middotmiddot middot--shy ~--y- -~ -middot bull bull - bull __~
middot
middot
_ _~ -- middot ~
Appendix A Annual Cost and Outputs of Individual County Enterprise Boards Partnerships and LEADER Groups 1995-1997
(Jkistd on du1 ~upplicd by Dcp111111ents and ADJ1 Ltd Luc in 1998)
I
Summary of Expenditure on Local Development Programmes (1995-1997) Appendix A
1995 1996
pound000 of total expenditure
pound000 of total expenditure
CEBs
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
Total Expenditure
13485
1421
4895
19801
68dego
7dego
25
100
13503
3879
4284
21666
62
18dego
20
100
LEADER (1)
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
Total Expenditure
23
887
820
1730
2dego 51dego
47dego
100
1529
2350
1684
5563
28
42dego
30dego
100
PartnershipsCommunity Groups
and National Organisations (2)
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
I
-3 025
1532
66
34dego
-5161
5164
-SOoo
50
Total Expenditure 4557 100 10325 100
Aggregate expenditure figures shown in this table have been superseded by more up to date figures shown in Table 21 (1) Local Development groups accounted for 96 of LEADER expenditure in 1995 - 1997 and detailed analysis focused on lhis (2) Partnerships accounted for 84 of total expenditure for 1996 - 1997 and detailed analysis focused on this
1997
pound000
12884
5414
4437
22735
6226
3536
2015
11778
15579
7398
22977
0o of total expenditure
57dego 24dego
19dego
100
53
30
17dego
100
-68oo 32
100
County Enterprise Boards Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1995 Appendix A11
County Enterprise Board Administration
Expenditure pound000
Total Expenditure
pound000 Administration as 0o of
Total Expenditure
Grant Aid as 0o of
Total Expenditure
Non~rant Outputs as
of Total Expenditure
Tipperary South Riding 150 274 55dego 381 7oo
Corllt North 142 315 45dego 55dego Ooo Monaghan 143 375 38oo 621 QOo
Tipperary North County 122 353 35 57dego 8dego Meath 128 373 34oo 59oo 7dego
Louth 135 410 33dego 56dego 11 Ofo
Kildare 157 476 33 48 19dego Kerry 228 747 J 1Ofo 62 7 Limerick City 162 561 29dego 64oo 71
West Cork 142 498 29dego 65dego 6dego
Limerick County 209 714 29dego 63 Soo Westmeath 103 358 29dego 71dego Ooo Longford 95 335 28dego 68dego 4oo
Clare 169 635 27dego 68dego Soo Waterford County 106 396 27oo 73dego Ooo Cork City 150 543 27oo 671 6 Doneaal 124 460 27dego 68dego 5dego Fingal (Oubhn) 152 598 26dego 63dego 11
Mayo 155 651 24 72oo 4dego Waterford City 134 559 24dego 63 13dego Wicklow 127 558 23oo 70 7dego Ca now 149 654 23dego 72 5 South Corllt 187 844 22dego 71dego 7 Leitrim 147 671 22dego 67 11dego Cavan 122 564 22dego 65dego 3dego Laois 121 595 21dego 73 6dego South Dublin 143 670 21 70deg4 9dego Offaly 126 600 21deg4 63dego 16dego Dublin City 111 551 20deg4 67oo 13 Sligo 147 728 20deg4 73dego 7 Roscommon 111 597 19deg4 77 4dego Wexford 144 777 19dego 75deg4 6oo Kilkenny 1()0 637 16oo 84dego OOo
Galway County and City 140 950 15 83 2 Oun Laoghaire - Rathdown 82 743 110o 78oo 11 Oo
Miscellaneous (1) 30 30 Ooo QOo OOo
Total 4895 19801 25 68 7
(1) Refers to set up costs incurred on behatf of au Boards
County Enterprise Boards - Administration Costs as a Percmiddotentage of Total Expendifure --f996 Appendix A12
I _ - vuony c11u1tUllgttl ouaru
I Administration
I Total Expenditure Administration as 0o of Grant Aid as 0o of Non-grant Outputs as
Expenditure pound000 pound000 Total Expenditure Total Expenditure 0 0 of Total Expenditure
Cork North 119 417 29~o 63degshy 8degc -middot
113 28dego 56dego 16degoTipperarv North _counlv 404 -shy -Sliqo 118 457 26dego 50dego 24dego--Mealh 136 532 25~~ 53dego 22dego Laois 151 612 25dego I 59eo 16dego
Westmeath 120 500 24dego 55oo 21dego
Cork City 124 533 23dego 55dego 22oo Roscomn1on 120 536 22dego 61dego 17dego
Louth 133 620 21 Oo 57dego 22dego-Cavan 128 599 21dego 67degc 12dego
Clare 123 581 21Co 61dego 18dego
South Dublin 147 705 21 oo 56 23dego
Dublin City 139 668 21dego 49dego 30deg~
Kildare 128 625 20degh 41 lo 39o-shyTipperary South Riding 108 530 201 68dego 12oo
-Mavo 159 784 20dego 70oo 10dego
Carlow 117 582 20dego 67dego 13oo
West Cork 127 633 20dego 59dego 21
Longford 114 579 20dego 71dego 9dego -
Kerry 114 584 20oo 68deg~ 12oA
South Cork 125 645 19dego 58dego 23dego Limerick Cily 132 683 19oo 64oo 17dego
-Galway 122 631 190~ 69~o 12dego-Kilkenny 120 636 19dego 67dego 14dego
Offaly 117 628 19dego 62dego 19dego
Waterford County 105 563 19 66dego 15dego
Leitrim 121 665 18oo 64 18dego middot-
Oun Laoghairc bull Rathdown 116 648 18dego 57dego 25dego-
Fingal (Dublin) 117 656 18dego 56degc 26deg~ -Wexford 117 708 17oo 68dego 15dego
Wicklow 122 739 16 71 13dego
Donegal 119 757 16dego 65dego 19dego
Limerick County 120 810 15degc 68dego 17dego
Waterford City 118 800 15dego 75dego 10dego--Monaghan 75 616 12 74dego 14degc
Total 4284 21666 2011o 62dego I 18dego I
County Enterprise Boards Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A13
County Enterprise Board Administration Total Expenditure Administration as 0A of Grant Aid as 0o of Non-grant Outputs as
Expenditure pound000 pound000 Total Expenditure Total Expenditure deglo of Total Expenditure
Cork North 106 344 31dego 50dego 19dego
Clare 172 631 27dego 46dego 27oo---shyTieperary North County 116 448 26dego 38 36dego Waterford County 126 505 25dego 54dego 21dego Longford 121 498 24dego 60oo 16dego Wexford 156 647 24dego 56oo 20dego Wicklow 184 796 23dego 57dego 20dego Limerick Cilv 141 619 23oo 51dego 26dego
Mealh 170 751 22oo 52dego 26dego Offaly 113 505 22dego 53dego 25dego Kilkenny 121 545 22dego 48dego 30oo Donegal 94 428 22dego 42dego 35co
Leilrim 139 640 22dego 54dego 24dego------shy -Monaghan 118 556 21dego 57oo 22dego
Waterford City 164 788 21dego 60dego 19dego
Limenck County 147 708 21degk 53dego 26deg1 Louth 161 787 20dego 50dego 30dego
Mayo 122 602 20oo 53dego 27dego
Sligo 99 496 20dego 51 Ofo 29dego Tipperary South R1d1ng 120 619 19eo 60dego 21dego
Carlow 113 593 19dego 65dego 16dego Cork City 127 672 19dego 59 22dego
Weslm~ath 119 637 19dego 60dego 21dego South Cork 131 704 19dego 58dego 23dego
Laois 113 615 18dego 55dego 27 --Kildare 136 761 18 56dego 26dego Cavan 127 740 17dego 63dego 20 West Cork 87 513 17dego 57dego 26dego South Dublin 165 981 17dego 64dego 19dego Dun Laoghaire middot Rathdown 102 621 17dego 48dego 35dego Kerry 94 580 16dego 66 18dego
Roscommon 75 474 16dego 61 23dego Galway 110 835 13 64 23oo Fingal (Dublin) 117 902 13dego 62dego 25dego Dublin City 130 1 195 11 69 20
Total 4436 22735 19dego 57dego 24dego
---
I
LEADER A~minist_ration ~osts -~~ a Percentage of Total Expenditure -_ 1_995 __ Appendix A1 4
I Local Development Group
I
Laois Leader Rural Development Co Lid Cavan-Monaghan Rural Oevelopn1ent Co~rat1ve Soc~ely Ltd
Barrow-Norc-Suir Rural Developmentmiddot 62 81 771 QOo 23dego
Wicklow Rural Partnership Lid bull 26 38 70dego -I QOo 30dego
Westmeath Community Development Ltd
Longford Community Resources Lid -middot
-
8 11
-11 18
70degc
65
bull Oh
QOo
23dego
35dego middotmiddotshy
Mid-South Rural Roscommon Development Assoc1alion Ltd 9 14 63dego QOo 37dego
Rural Resource Development Lid bull 80 129 62degc Ooe 38dego
Meath Con1mumty Partnershrp Co Ltd
Meithcal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo
3
68
5 117
- 60dego
58dego
4dego
OOo
35eo
42dego
South West Mayo Development Co Galway Rural Development Co
54
8
94 middot-middotmiddot
15 58dego
56dego
1Oe
00o
41Co
44
Arigna Catchment Area Community Co 11 23 48dego 4dego 48
Western Rural Development Co Lld bull 28 58 48dego 00o 52oo
Offaly LEADER If Co Lid -middotmiddot
3 6 48~J QOo 52
IRD Duhallow Ltd bull -
Ballyhoura Development Ltd 60 74
131 163
46dego
45dego
OOo middotshy
OOo
54
55
West Limerick Resources Ltd
South Kerry Partnership Ltd bull
Waterford Development Partnership Lid
Tuatha Ch1arra1 Ltd
Word - Wexford Organisation for Rural Development
West Cork LEADER Group bull
Donegal Local Development Co Lid
-
10
29
34
6
51
57
8
- 23 66 76 14
125
160
22
44dego
44dego
44dego
42gtigt
41
35dego 340
3dego
00o
00o
6 1eo
00o
3eo
middotshy
53dege
56dego-56dego
52deg
58dego
65dego
63dego
-middotmiddotshy
Tipperary LEADER Group bull
Totalmiddot Local Development Groups
30 813
95
1584
32dego
51dego
00o
1dego -
68dego
48 -shy
middotshy
Acquisition of Skills
0 -
85 0 OCo 100dego
Other Collective Bodies
Technical Assistance
7
0
23 37
30 QOo
70dego
00o
00o
00dego
i Total Expenditure - LEADER Groups 820 1730 47dego 1dego 52dego
~-
--
Administration txpenditure
EOOO
3 81
Total AdministrationI I Expenditure as 0o of Total
EOOO Expenditurei
98dego
98 82deg~
3
Grant Aid as Non~rantI I I 0o of Total Outputs as of
Expenditure Total Expendituro
2dego 01 middot-shyQO 18dego
middotmiddotshy
bull These groups also existed under the Leader I in11ahve
LEADER Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A15
Total Administration Expenditure as 0o of Total
pound000 Expenditure
81dego56 lv-10Jbull
ro v 106 b1o
77 46dego 91 43dego
113 4 1 Ofo
226 39dego 92 38dego 90 38dego 67 38dego
100 36dego 230 36dego
JUmiddot~ 86 35dego
262 35dego 292 I 32dego 168 31dego 111 31dego 94 30dego- 29dego 65 I 29dego
289
85
29dego 182 27dego 258 25 194 24dego 198 23dego 165 22oo 141 22dego 285 22dego 271 21 249 20 185 19 94 19dego
5173 31
189 0dego 115 75o 86 0
5564 30dego
Grant Aid as 0o of Total
Expenditure
0 J _ 3dego 9dego bo 18dego 13dego
5dego 2dego
35dego 17dego
6dego
18dego 34o 44degc 29dega 26dego 28dego 50dego 19dego 47
5dego 55oo 20 50dego 46dego 42 36 50dego 40dego 20 25 29dego
0 25Vo
OOo
28
Non~rant
Outputs as 0o of Total Expenditure
19dego LO
~-
36dego 45dego 44o 41dego
48dego 57oo 6v-10 27dego 47dego 58dego 55vO 47 31dego 24oo 40dego 43 42dego 21 52dego 24dego 68dego 20dego 56dego 27dego 32dego 36dego 42 29 40dego 61dego 56dego 40dego
100o OOo
100o
42dego
Local Development Group
-Comhar lorrais (LEADER) Teoranta bull lounly ~ligo LlAurH t-artnersh1p co LIO r-cura1 uuo11n LtAUttlt vvmpany Lia ln1sh0Wen Community Development Co ltd middot Laois LEADER Rural Development Co Ltd comhdhail 011ea1n na hlireann South Kerry Partnership Ltd bull Rural Resources Develooment Ltd Blackwaler Region LEADER Co Ltd Meath Community Partnership Co Ltd LonQford Community Resources Ltd Galwav Rural Develooment Co Word-Wexford Organisation for Rural Developmenl
-Barrow-Nore-~uir tltura1 ueve1opment Lta_ Ariana Catchment Area Community Co bull Cavan-MonaQhan Rural Development Co-operative Society lid Me1theal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo Wicklow Rural Partnership Ltd bull Offaly LEADER II Co Ltd bull Doneoal Local Development Co Ltd Mid-South Rural Roscommon Developmenl Association Ltd Co Louth Rural Development Co Ltd Ballyhoura Development Ltd bull Kell-Kildare European LEADER II Teoranta IRD Duhallow ltd_ Tuatha Ch1arrai Lid -South West Mavo Oevelooment Co Westmeath Community Development ltd West Limerick Resources Ltd
-middot West Cork LEADER Groupmiddot Waterford Develooment Partnersh10 Ltd Western Rural Development Co Lid Tinnorarv LEADER Group bull East Cork Area Development Ltd Total - Local Development Groups
Acqu1s1t1on of Skills Uther Collective tsodies Technical Assistance
Total Expendituremiddot LEADER Groups
bull These groups also exisled under the Leader I initiative
Administration Expenditure
pound000
45
deg 64 35 - 47 88 35
25 37 83 60 31 91 94 53 35 28 25
19 84 49 64 46 45 37 31 61 58 49 36 17
1599
0 86
0
1684
---
--
----
----
I
I
LEADER _Admiri_istration_ Costs_as a Percentage_of TotalExpenditure bull 1997 Appendix A-16
Local Development GroupI I
Comhair lorrais (LEADER) Teoranta bull Co Sllqo LEADER Partnership Co Lid Rural Dublin LEADER Compant lid Wicklow Rural Partnershi~ Lid Rural Resource Development Lid Word-Wexford Orqani5allon for Rural Develo~ment Ltd Blackwater Reoion LEADER Co Lid Meath Communit~ Partnershi~ Co Ltd Laois LEADER Ru_ral Oevelooment Co Ltd IRD Ouhallow Ltd bull Oonal Local Oevelooment Co Ltd Kell-Kildare Eurooean LEADER II Teoranla Cavan-Monaghan Rural Oeveloement Co-o~rat1ve Socie_lv Ltd South Kerrv Partnersh10 Lid bull
I South Wesl Mavo Devetooment Co bull I Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo
Waterford Development Partnership Lid Galway Rural Developn-ent Co lnishowen Community Development Group bull Wesl Limerick Resources Ltd Co Louth Rural Dev~topment Co Ltd Comhdhail Oilea1n na hEireann West Cork LEADER Grouo bull Tuatha Ch1arra1 Ltd Westmeath Communitv Develoomenl Ltd Offalv LEADER II Co Ltd bull Ballyhoura Development Ltd East Cork Area Development Ltd Weslern Rural Development Co Ltd Mid-South Rural Roscommon Deveroomenl Assoc1at1on Ltd Longford Community Resources Ltd
Administration I Total Expenditure ExpenditureIpound000 pound000
43 I 96 83 48 52 89 91 46 -58 31 57 60 75
102 59 60
109 78 45 47 46 50 35
104 56 48 39 67
-- 27 83 32 35
Arigna Catchment Area Community Co I 43 middotmiddotmiddot shy
Tipperary LEADER Group 0 38 41Barrow-Nore-Suir RurEii Development bull
Total - local Develooment Grouos 1979
Other Collective Bodies 36 Technical Assistance 0
i Total Expenditure bull LEADER Groups 2015
234 140
186 365 373 204 260 156 293 314 399 568 335 341 626 458
middot-middot 264 277 275 309 221 658 367 314 259 455
Grant Aid as [ Nnn~r~ntAdministration as deglo of Total 0o of Total Expenditure Expenditure
45dego
36dego 34oo 28Co 24dego
24oo 22oo 22dego 20degtc 20oo 19dego 19dego 18degc 18degc 18dego 17dego 17degc 17degh 17 17 16dego 16dego 16dego 15dego 15 15dego 15o
189 I 14dego 592 I 14dego 252 290 414 441 561
11487
142 25dego 75 0 149 0 OOfo 100
11778 17dego 53dego JQOo I
13dego 12Jo 10dego
9oo 7dego
17dego
19dego
25dego 28dego 37dego so~lo
37oo 37dego 30oo 36Yv 40dego 54 45dego 59degn 55dego 61dego 64dego 64degh 56dego 34 49I 6QOo I 23dego 50dego I 34dego 64dego 55 50dego 55deg 55dego 60o 38oo 58dego 71 dego 56o 73dego 54dego 70dego 53dego
20dego 29dego 35oo 3_0 30dego 25dego 48dego 28dego 16degc 32dego 17dego 37dego 23dego 30
Outputs as oo of Total Expenditure I
36Co 39oo 38dego 35dego 26dego 39dego 41dego
48dego 44deg 40dego 27dego 36dego 23oA 27dego 21dego 19dego 19dego 27~o
Partnerships Community Groups and National Organisations Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A17
Partnership Administration Total Expenditure Expenditure pound000 pound000
KWCD Partnershii - -middot 128 128 lnishowen Partnersh10 Board 33 33-middot-Monaahan Partnershii Board 48 48 Lonoford Commumtv Resources ltd 40 40 Galwav Rural Oevelooment Co 39 39 Galwav C1tv Partnership 109 109
~Q_LEAOER Partnershii Co 50 50 Pairt1ocht Gaellacht Th1r Chonaill 48 48 Roscommon Countv Partncrshin 55 55 Pairt1ocht Chonamara 116 116 Cavan Partnershin 18 - 18_ Canal Communities Partnership 67 67 Brav Partnershio 115 115 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 49 50 Tra Li Partnershio 105 107 Waterford Area Partnershio 77 82 West Limerick Resources Ltd 74 82 Southside Partnershin 163 180 North-West KildareNorth Offalv (OAK) 125 139 Mavo bull 288 I 353 Wexford Area Partnershio 132 166 Doneaal Local Develoomenl Co 60 78 Leitnm Partnership 63 94 Clondalkin Partnershio Comoanv 176 305 South Kerrv bull 107 253 Blanchardstown Area Partnershin 208 495 Droaheda Partnershio Comoanv 136 337 Baltvfermot Partnershio 143 359 Cork Cilv bull 176 476 Dundalk bull 196 546 Finnlas bull 169 53 vvovforcl tn ntv prtnPrshio bull 126 501 n11hl1n lnOAr rjtv bull 14 539 T~ll ht bull 7 Ballvmun bull 103 529 Waterford Countv bull 42 227 Limerickmiddot 90 510 Northside Partnershio 125 761
Total Exoendituro - Partnerships 4071 9169
Communilv Grouos 710 773 National Oroanisations 383 383
Total 5164 10325
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) ~--
Administration as 0o Other Activities as 0o of Total Expenditure of Total Expenditure
100dego QOo
100dego QOo
100dego QOo
1QQ0o QOo
100deg QOo
100oo QOo
100oo 0dego 100dego QOo
100dego Ooo 100dego QOo
100middot QO(
1QQ 0o QDo
1QQDo 0dego 100dego OOo
98dego 2dego 94dego 6dego 91dego 9dego 91dego 9dego 90dego 10dego 82oo 18dego 80dego 20dego 77 23 67 33dego 58dego 42 42dego 58dego 42dego 58degc 40dego 69dego 40dego 60oo 37dego 63dego 36dego 64oo 3701 25dego 75degn 2i01 7t01Q TtOn 77deg 19dego 81dego 19dego 81dego 18oo a2deg10 16 84
44dego 56dego
92dego 8dego 100dego 0dego
50deg4 50dego
Partnerships Community Groups and National Organisations Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A 18
Partnership Administration
I Total Expenditure
--middot -shy -shy - --shy Expenditure pound000 - [000- shy
lnishowen Partnershio Board 137 272 Galwav C1tv PnrtnArsh1n 1e~ 35~
Mavo bull 274 580 Canal Commun1tv Partnersh10 122 267-W~~tmeath Communitv Develonmenl Ltd 98 216 Galwav Rural Oevelooment Co ~-
94 211 Monaahan Partnershio Board 100 238 Shoo LEAOEftigtartnersh1p C_o 155 385 Roscommon Counlv Partnershin 146 367 Cavan Partnersh10 72 184 Pa1rtiocht Chonamara 124 328- -LonQford Community Resources Lid 121 334 KWCO Partnershio 205 594 Pairtiocht Gaeltacht Thir Chonaill 99 302 Waterford Area Partnershin 175
middotshy 542 Blanchardstoln_ Area Partnersh1E 159 504 Oundalk bull 147 490 Leitrim Partnership 154 514 - -North West KildareNorth Offalv ltOAKl 122 414 Wexford Area Partnersh1R _ 125 427
_B~lymun bull 112 385 Brav Partnershio 151 526-Oonenal Local Develonment Co 104 371 Wexford Countv Partnershio bull 152 614
_sectQuth Kerrv bull 173 707 Cork Citymiddot 240 1 015 Tra Li Partnershio 122 519
_s1o_ndalk1n PartnershiQ ComQany 140 618 __lliJ_blin Inner C1ly bull 147 647
Tallaaht 173 775 Wesl Limerick Resources Ltd 57 256 F1nnlas bull 152 709 Walerford CountY bull --middot 54 261 Southside Partnershio 141 686 Ballyfcrmot Partnership 132 720 Droaheda Partnersh10 Comoanv 132 723--middot Limerickbull 121 803 Northside Partnershio bull 126 964 Set Un Casis - All Partnershins 28 28
Total Exoenditure bull Partnershios 5269 18858
Communitv Grouos 1 509 3499 National Oraan1salions 621 621
Total 7J98 22977
Administration as 0o Other Activities as 0o I- -middotshy of Total-Expenditure of Total Expenditure
51 oo 49dego-~ v u u-o
middotshy47dego 53dego 46dego 54dego 45lo 55oo-450o 55oo__ 42oo 58dego 40dego 60dego 40eo 60dego 39oo 61degi
38oo 62dego 36dego 64dego 34oo 66dego 33dego 67 32dego 68dego 32dego 68dego 30oo 70dego 30dego 70dego 29 71dego 29dego 71deg(0 29dego 71dego 29dego 71dego 28deg1gt 72dego 25dego 75oo 25dego 75 24dego 76dego-- shy24dego 76oo 23dego 77deg 23dego 77oo-shy22dego 78dego 22dego 78dego 21dego 79dego 2_1 dego 79deg 20dego 80dego 18 82 18 82dego 15 85dego 13dego 87dego
28dego 72
43dego 57=10 100dego OOo-shy32dego 68oo
i bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economrc and Social Progress (PESP)
County Enterprise Boards Grant Cost Per Job 1994-1997 (In Descending Order) Appendix A21
County Enterprise Board Expenditure on Grant Full Time Jobs Part Time Jobs Equivalent Jobs Aid 1994middot1997 pound000 1994-1997 (1) 1994-1997 (1) 1994-1997 (1)
Leitnm 1417 209 6 212 Westmeath 1012 154 0 154 Wexford 1575 280 37 299 Cork C1tv 1089 208 0 208 -Monaahan 1057 178 62 209 Waterford Counlv 1003 188 36 206-South Cork 1566 324 0 324 South Dublin 1753 362 6 365---TinnPrarv South R1dina 922 184 47 208 Limerick Citi 1197 273 10 278 Offalv 1137 243 74 280 Waterford City 1664 387 58 416 Mayo 1565 345 95 393 Limerick City 1512 362 60 392 Kllkennv 1325 320 55 348 DonPnal 1061 254 50 279 Finaal (Dublin) 1377 347 42 368 Wicklow 1538 333 170 418 Kiidare 1004 264 20 274
-Cork North 779 213 0 213
-Carlow 1435 309 169 394 -Cavan 1357 301 152 377 Clare 1 342 335 92 381 Kerrv 1432 288 238 407 Laois 1245 339 42 360 Louth 1045 280 46 303 Dublin Citv 1734 533 0 533
_
SliQo 1182 260 210 365 Oun LaoghaireRathdown 1323 408 3 410 Longford 1145 332 51 358 Roscommon 1208 315 133 382 West Cork 1063 361 21 372 Meath 980 350 23 362 Gatway County and City 2131 843 120 903 Tipperary North County 660 223 136 291
Total 44834 10905 2264 12037
Grant Cost per Job pound
6683 middot-shy6571 5278 5235 5057 4 867 4 834 4801 4444
4306 4061 3999 3988 3857 3812 3802 3743 3680 3666 3658 3647 3599 3522 3518 3459 3448 3254 3238 3231 3203 3 165 2 861 2711
2360 2269
3725
( 1) The jobs created in the year are computed by taking a head count of new jobs 1n enterprises receiving grant aid from CEBs The grant aid expended in the year may not be directly comparable with this as here may be a time rag between the expenditure and the creation of the relevant job but this should be minimised by taking an average over 4 years In computing the equivalent 1obs figure part-lime jobs are taken as 05 of a 1ob
County Enterprise Boards Non Grant Expenditure 1996 Appendix A31
r= middotshy
INPUTS OUTPUTS
I Cou~ty Enterpr_ise Boar_ct_ ~on-Grant - shy
0o of Total _Surveys __ Media _Networks __ ThirdLevel _Second Business - Mentor Activities Expenditure Events Colleges Level Counselling Support
pound000 Schools -
Kildare 241 39oo 1 0 4 3 15 380 40 middotshy
Dublin City 202 30oo 1 9 6 2 20 151 35 Fingal(Oubhn) 171 26dego 1 14 11 I 0 4 3 93 Oun LaoghaireRathdown 160 25oo 1 7 3 0 14 25 84
Sligo 108 24dego 0 68 0 1 3 250 30 - shySouth Cork 150 23dego 20 24 14 1 14 120 45 South Dublin 161 23dego 2 8 0 0 18 105 4
-middot Cork City 118 22dego 2 10 3 2 14 0 14
Loulh 137 22dego 7 3 2 1 6 40 15 Meath 116 22deg1~ 0 3 3 1 12 0 21 West Cork 135 21dego 0 130 2 0 10 174 10 Westmeath 106 21dego 0 0 0 0 17 0 14
Offaly 121 19dego 4 34 5 2 9 17 20 Donegal 144 19dego 1 4 0 1 8 216 46
-107 18oo 0 17 0 1 I 15 150 16
~ Clare
- middot----Leitrim 121 18oo 5 0 4 0 I 9 416 12
Roscommon 92 1Tlo 0 0 0 1 5 484 5 -Limerick City 7
I 17dego 0 2 0 5 5 0 6 Limerick County 137 17dego 1 25 1 0 13 102 7 Laois 101 16dego 0 4 0 0 14 54 bull 1
Tipperary North County 65 16dego 0 0 0 0 12 279 17
Wexford 107 15dego 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 Waterford County 85 15dego 0 2 0 1 0 69 4 Monaghan 86 14deg= 0 0 0 0 7 10 5 Kilkenny 88 14dego 0 16 0 I 0 12 I 19 I 10 Carlow 77 13dego 0 7 0 I 0 10 I 0 I 20 -Wicklow 96 13dego 1 12 0 0 9 70 14
Cavan 74 12oo 5 0 4 1 5 1394 i 31 Tipperary South Ridinq 65 12dego 0 0 3 0 10 80 25 Kerry 71 12dego 1 0 1 0 8 0 20
bullGalway County and City 75 I 12=10 1 2 37 3 12 72 3 Waterford City 82 10dego 0 1 0 1 20 108 33 Mayo 78 10oo 0 48 0 0 5 221 6 Longford 50 9dego 3 5 5 0 7 60 10
Cork North 36 8dego 0 0 0 0 0 340 0
Total 3879 18dego 57 455 108 27 352 5409 726
County Enterprise Boards Non Grant Expenditure 1997 Appendix A32
INPUTS OUTPUTS middotshy
County Enterprise Board Non-Grant bull1o of Total Surveys Media Networks Third Second Business Mentor Management Activities Expenditure Events Level Level Counselling Support Development
EOOO Colleges Schools Programme
Don~al 156 36dego 3 3 1 3 9 55 12 3 Tipperary Nor1h County 162 36dego 0 33 1 0 7 175 12 3 Oun laoghaireRathdown 219 35oo 2 20 6 4 24 240 67 2 Kilkenny 162 30oo 2 12 0 0 27 99 16 3 Louth 233 30 0 14 2 1 11 60 18 6 Sliao 144 29dego 1 7 2 2 7 246 26 6-Laois 167 27oo 0 127 2 0 13 100 6 4 Clare 171 27dego 1 37 12 1 15 97 31 6 Mavo 162 271 0 15 2 0 10 190 6 3 Limerick City 163 26dego 1 29 4 3 6 100 5 4 Kildare 198 26dego 0 24 4 0 15 190 46 6 Wesl Cork 133 26oo 1 271 2 0 10 152 2 4 Limerick County 183 26oo 1 55 12 3 8 194 35 6 Mealh 193 26oo 1 28 3 2 19 48 9 4 Offaly 127 25oo 1 53 6 0 8 59 35 5 Fingal (Dublin) 224 25dego 0 5 0 1 6 446 155 3 Leitrim 157 24oo 2 84 3 2 7 135 14 2 South Cork 164 23dego 0 14 85 1 16 627 15 6 Roscommon 109 23oo 1 27 3 0 11 50 8 4
Gatway County and City 190 23dego 0 5000 10 3 36 18 10 14
Co1lt Ci1V 150 22dego 1 10 5 2 B 1325 16 3 Monaghan 121 22dego 2 24 6 0 B 47 0 3 Tipperary South Riding 131 21 Ofo 1 25 3 0 11 672 20 3 Westmeath 132 21dego 1 3 0 0 29 6 10 4 Waterford Countv 104 21dego 3 32 2 1 21 156 7 3 Dublin City 245 21 oo 1 26 6 5 23 110 50 6 Wexford 131 20dego 1 17 0 0 17 55 16 2 Wicklow 159 20 0 44 0 0 6 32 9 3 Cavan 144 20dego 4 14 7 1 6 134 63 7
CorX North 66 19 1 10 5 2 16 1325 16 3 Waterford City 149 19oo 2 12 0 1 21 183 18 3 South Dublin 184 19dego 1 2 0 0 16 87 37 3 Kerry 104 18 1 324 0 0 12 115 B 2 LonQford 81 16oo 5 41 8 0 5 0 6 41 Carlow 95 16 1 110 1 1 10 228 50 2 Total 5414 24 42 6552 203 39 474 7756 854 182
LEADER Groups Non Grant Expenditure 1995-1997 (1) Appendix A33
Local Development Group
INPUTS
Non-Grant -Activities
pound000
As a 0o of Total--middot
Expenditure
Seminars Held-shy
OUTPUTS
Press I Other tApplications Releases Promotional -Approved-
Projects Referred Creation I Creation of Training Completed to Other of Newmiddot middot Community middotCourses
Actions Agencies Business Association
East Corllt Area Development Ltd 144 51dego 104 110 0 O 0 O 5 2 I O gt-M~e~a~th=C-o~m-m~u~n~i~ttv
0
middotP~a~rt~n-e-rs~h~o=C~o-L-td-----~--1-8-0--+-~5~1~0~---+--7~7-1--+---16-4---- 110 91 11 960 21 12 16
Word - Wexford Ornan1sat1on for Rural Oevetonment bull 351 48oo 0 0 0 0 t-c~innbulle~ra~~-L~e~a~d~er~Gro~u~o~middot~-~~~~~---r-~3~4~3----t-~4~8~o--o 24 7 4 191 45 10 15 13 22 f--~----=~~~~~~~~~+-----~+----~---~+---------l~~-----+-~~----~+-~--~--l~----~f-~300~+-~=-~+-~--~-+~-=~~
Kellmiddot Kildare Euronean Leader II TEO 268 46Yo 85 125 4 74 33 1 10 36 Blackwater Reo1on Leader Co_ Ltd -middot _136----+--4-6A~o------6--7_ __ _ __65------lt----4----I- --7-3__1_---3-1------22--+----3------lt--------1--~__2_4-----1 lnishowen Commumtv Develonment Groun bull 175 46dego 288 86 25 64 27 147 10 17 28 Laois Leader Rural Develonment Co Ltd 103 44dego 67 116 12 56 17 27 40 7 17 Tualha Chiarrai Ltd 244 42dego 239 25 10 168 82 66 24 6 39 West Cork Leader Groun middot 414 38~C -middot-+-~75----t--6-9-8----t----O--t----o-----t --~O-----t----O--t--~1~2_ _____o----shy 33
~c~o~S~h~go~L-ead-e~r~P~bull~rt--n-e--rs~h~ip~Co~~Lt~d--------+-----1~0~1--+-~3~7~~_ ___J3 6 6 73 21 14 20 17 5 Rural Dutgt11n Leader Comoanv Ltd 63 37dego 83 18 -~9--t----2~7--middot-+---6----+---~12-----t--~3---+--~7---+----5-Co_ Louth Rural Devclooment Co Ltd 137 37dego 139 56 18 39 5 23 5 2 11
gt-W~c~kl-o--w~R~u~r~a~I~P-art~n~bull~middot~sh~io~L--td---middot---------~1~4~3--+_~3~6~~-+---5~0~7____~1~12------ O 25 33 209 9 11 6 IRD Duhallow Lld bull ___2~middotbull-1-+-3_~V----t-~283------j--272--+----o-----1 85 40 144 11 37 1A
Rural Resource Dcvclooment ld__middot-------+--20502--+-C3057___-t-1=38~2o---t---5~0t----t--0905----t-----OO--- 0 0 6 9 14 Offalv Lead_~r II Co_ Ltd_middot 130 35oo 49 43 20 76 56 9 17 0 91
gt-S~ou--th~K~bull~Y~P~a~rt~n~bull~s~h~ip~L~t~d-middot________1__1_7~5--+-~34---~~middot--i---1~bull~85----+---1middotQ4_--+-----9--~--0-----+-----o--+----o---~-~2~0---+--3~0-----+--~3~6--1 Galwav Rural DevelgPment Co 126 33dego 38 12 0 147 21 130 19 6 39 Western Rural Devetoomenl Co Ltd 298 33dego 134 102 1 165 46 81 27 1 9 DonPnal L~cal Development Co Ltd 139 32 5 15 1 127 36 29 20 0 13 Lonaford ~ommun1lv Resources Ltd 118 31dego 15 57 7 97 46 22 3 2 5 Westmeath Communitv Develonmenl Ltd 149 30dego 254 50 15 165 60 20 17 5 __sect_____
l-Ba~ll~vlh~ou~ra~De~v-e~lo~rnm~e--n--t-Ll~d~_middot_________t--~2~7~3--+_~30~~~---t---64~-t--bull~8-----t----5--t----2~0~1--l--~8~2-----t--~8~0----+-~59----t---~bull~O---t ~5~2~-t Barrow-Nor~-Suir Rural Development bull -~2~4~7--+--~3~0~----+---3~5~0---__f----5_____15----l--~1~5~1---1C-----92-----t--~65-----t---2~0---t--~10-----t--~2~8-----t Comhair lorrais ILead~rl Teoranta bull 45 29dego o O _o__t------Co__t--_~o___-t-_--o_-+---co_ _____o--_-+_ __o-----t Wesl Limerick Resources 1 tn 126 29dego 69 104 3 103 1h 10 87 7 10 Comhdhail 01leain Na hEireann 64 27dego 41 32 0 124 hO 45 15 0 10
~_~ndegh~Wc~s~t~Mou_nDev~e~lo-nmbulln~t~n~middot------+--~1bullbull-+--2-bull-~-+---12----t--~~5-------0--l----1~middot4___+-_~5~8--t-----4~-+--~13---t------1--+--~3~3-~ Waterford Develooment Partnershio Ltd 209 26dego 56 0 0 95 35 35 34 7 46 Cavan-Monaghan Rural Development
l--C~o~-o~gtP~e~r=a~v~e~S=oc-e=t~y~L~tdo-middot---~-~----+-~2~2~7--+-C2~47o=---+-=2676~-t----11~7~---l----2~174__t---~36700---+----3~0~1--l----2~--+---20---+~--75__t-----2=2~--l Ariana Catchment Arca Community Co bull 121 23dego 21 7 23 105 39 4 5 0 O
f---M~~~h=~~F~o=r~b~a=rth~a--N~a=G~a~e~lt~a~c=ht~a~T~E~o=---~----r-~2=3~7----C2~3o=---+-~1773=----t--~150~--t--~o--t---~4700---+--1-5=7--+-~35~0~--+-~109----t--~2~1----+--~176--j
Mid-South Rural Roscommon Development Association Ltd 63 18 24 18 120 90 36 10 20 5 4
Total Expenditure - Local Development Groups 6227 34dego 7183 2879 730 I 3496 1514 2871 690 291 716
Acqu1s1t1on of skills i 274 Ooo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1-coc~e~c11=n~ca-1-a~s~s~s~ta-n~ce---------------=27~2~---l--0~0~~--t---Co~--t--~o--+--~o=---+-1--~o~-+---~o~-+----o--+------io~-t----o~--+-----io----+
Total Expenditure -LEADER Groups 6773 36dego 7183 2 879 730 3 496 1 514 2 871 (1) Expenditure for 1995-1997 is grouped together as only cumulative output statistics to 31December1997 were available at the time of preparing the report bull These groups also existed under the Leader I initiative
690 291 716
I
Partnerships Non Grant Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A34 middot-middot
INPUTS OUTPUTS
Partnership Name Non-Grant Activities As a 04 of Total Enterprise Services for Preventative Complementary pound000 Expenditure Support Unemployed Education Education
Norths1de Partnership bull 636 84dego 321 1885 520 443 Limerickbull 420 82dego 296 935 100 388 Waterford Counlv bull 184 81 oo 57 0 0 0
t--shy272 328Ballymun bull 426 81oo 401 82
Tallaght bull 466 77dego 496 - 957 143 29 Dublin Inner City bull 405 75dego 343 1651 50 59 Wexford County Partnership bull 375 75dego 138 0 17 272 Finalas bull 365 68oo 557 731 378 155 Dundalk bull 350 64dego 148 388 132 207 Co1lt Citymiddot 300 63dego 344 0 180 261 Ballyfermot Partnership 215 60dego 0 211 40 94 Drogheda Partnership Company 200 60dego 60 0 0 38 Blanchardstown Area Partnership 288 58dego 116 71 48 18 South Kerrv bull 146 58oo 90 212 399 265 Clondalkin Partnership Company 129 42oo 164 0 0 0 Le1tnm Partnership 31 33oo 23 184 0 56 Donegal Local Development Company 18 23dego 0 0 0 0 -IJYexford Area Partnership 34 20oo 14 0 0 13 Mayo 18o lo 181 10 34 North West KildareNorth Offaly 14 10 0 0 u 28 Southside Partnership 17 9dego 0 0 0 0 West Limencilt Resources Ltd 8 9dego 52 0 0 0 Waterford Area Partnershij)shy 5 6dego 49 14 0 5 Tra Li Partnership 2 2 u 0 0 0 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 0 QOo 0 0 0 0 LonQford Community Resources Ltd 0 Ooo 0 0 I 0 0-Pairtiocht Gaeltacht Th1r Chona1ll 0 0 0 0 0 0 lnishowen Partnership Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canal Commun1t1es Partnershrp 0 00o 0 0 0 0 Pairtiocht Chonamara 0 QOa 0 0 0 0 Gatway Rural Development Co 0 OOa 0 0 0 0 Sligo Leader Partnership Co 0 0 16 0 0 0 Roscommon County t-artnersh1p - u 0-1 u 0 u 0 Brav Partnership 0 01 0 0 0 0 Gatwav City Partnership 0 OOo 0 0 0 0 Cavan Partnership 0 00o 0 0 0 0 MonaQhan Partnership Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 KWCD Partnership 0 Ooo 0 0 0 0 Total Expenditure - Partnerships 5098 56dego 3739 7821 2107 2693
Commun1lv Grouas 63 8 0 0 0 0 National Oraanisalions 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 5161 50 3739 7821 2107 2693
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
Partnerships Non Grant Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A35
INPUTS OUTPUTS -
Partnership Non-Grant Activities As a 0o of Total Business Job Groups Preventative -shy -middot middot- -middot pound000 -middot - Expenditure -Start-Ups- shy Placements -shy Supportmiddot Education Projects
Northside Partnership bull I 838 87dego 503 438 28 15 I - -middot -middotmiddot - tCbullbull 602 isgt10 11b tiLj 31 16 I Dr()(lheda Partnership Co I 591 82dego 60 12 177 10 Ballyfermot Partnership 587 a2deg10 88 88 30 3
-middot Southside Partnership 546 80dego I 200 6 80 24 Waterford Counly bull 206 79dego 42 4 23 6 Fmglas bull 557 79dego 257 233 174 28 West limerick Resources Ltd 199 78degc 40 0 50 0 Tallaaht bull 602 78dego 309 646 51 7 Dublin Inner City bull 500 77dego 290 448 34 10 Clondalkin Partnership Conipany 478 77oo 225 562 63 7 Tra L1 Partnership 396 76deg1gt 80 20 67 6 -cork Citymiddot 775 76- 217 111 55 9 Soulh Kerry bull 533 75dego 135 150 61 middot51 -
Wexford County Partnership bull 462 75dego 170 63 31 0 Donegal Local Development Co 267 72dego 150 0 63 2 Bra~ Partnershi~ 375 71degu 71 0 14 Ballymun bull 274 71dego 70 402 50 10 Wexford Area ~artnership OUpound 71o 17U 4 5 18 -shyNorth vvest tildareNorth Offaly 292 71 Oo 56 0 8
I Leitrim Partnership 360 70deg1= 60 3 119 6 Dundalk bull 343 70~~ 71 64 50 10 Blanchardstown Area Partnership 345 68dego 170 97 29 13 Waterford Arca Partnership 367 68dego 37 6 55 1
middotshyPa1rtiocht Gaeltacht Thir Chona1ll 203 67deg~ 75 0 50 10 KWCD Partnership 389 66deg 15 0 0
- 4 middot-
Lonqford Commumtv Resources Ltd 212 64dego 85 4 19 5 middotmiddotshyPairt1ocht Chonamara 205 62 67 2 3 34
middotmiddot-Cavan Partnershio 112 61dego 90 1 49 6 Roscommon County Partnership 221 60degJ 120 0 38 6 -Sligo LeaCer Partnership Co 230 60dego 120 0 32 2 Monaghan Partnership Board 138 58dego 88 0 40 10 Galway Rural Development Company 116 55dego 101 0 51 2 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 118 55deg1= 0 0 20 2 -Canal Communities Partnersh10 145 54deg~ 0 0 16 6 Mavo bull 306 53dego 177 200 28 3 Galway City Partnership 180 50dego 113 0 35 12 lmshowen Partnership Board 134 49dego 60 0 42
Total Expenditure bull Partnerships 13589 72dego 4698 4192 1853 397
Commun1tv Grouos 1 990 57 0 0 0 0 Nalional Oraanisations 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 15579 68dego 4698 4192 1853 397
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
Appendix B Administration Cost Trends of Local Development Bodies
Number of CEBs within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs 1994-1997
Cost Band 1994 1995 1996 1997
ltpound50000 pound50-100000 pound100-150000
pound150-200000
gtpound200000
3 17
15 2
24
7
2
1
32
2
5
23 7
Total Administration Costs pound4_8m pound49m pound43m pound44m
Number of LEADER groups within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs 1995-1997
Cost Band 1995 1996 1997
ltpound50000 25 23 17
pound50-100000 9 11 14 pound100-150000 3
Total Administration Costs pound0Bm pound16m pound20m
Number of Partnerships within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs of Partnerships
Cost Band 1996 1997
ltpound50000 9 6 pound50-100000 7 19 pound100-150000 15 10 pound150-200000 5 10 gt pound200000 2 3
Total Administration Costs pound40m pound53m
11l)(lrJY 11 I
--
Appendix C Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development - Performance Indicators and Revised Targets
-
f 11~
iority Indicator
Jobs
1mber of of 1obs
Revised Targets (1994-1999) Original TargetUnits for total Operational Sub Sub
Programme 2Programme Programme 1
Jobs 15000 proved (for support grant assistance)
Nl1mber of new jobs erbullated not placed in Jobs and vacanc1es) Persons (N 81middot for Sub Pr gtgramme 1wjobs
bullgt provecr figure will mJke up the bulk of thbull i ~jobs created an1ounl) (N 02- for Sub Pr )gramme 2 this eq uates 10 new en terpriscs SUpported)
17000 (Sub Programme 1 8000 Sub Programme 2
1717516900
6900 Sub Programme 3 (Temple Bar) 2000 permanenl in service amp 5000 construction)
AjfJe11c1x CI
~ Priority Indicator
2 Enterprise creation and development
Grants to enterprise Value of grant allocations
Number of enterprises supported
Percentage of investment 1n enterprises provided by the Operational Programme
Provision of improved access for potential entrepreneurs to initial advice Number of firms receiving business advice
Percentage of grant aided firms whose promoters received other Operational Programme support advice consultancy mentoring
Management developm9nt Number of enlerprises participating in managemenl development programmes Number of managers participating in management developmenl programmes
3 Community Development Number of local groups financially assisted
4 Services for the unemployed Number of persons registered for assistance
Number of Long-Term Unemployed persons to benefil from Services for the
I Unemployed expressed as a
I Oo of total number of persons registered for assistance
Units Original Target for total Operational
Programme
pound
Enterprises 2260 new businesses and for Sub Programme 1
Persons and 3640 new and 960 existing for Sub Programme 2
Enterprises 6000 firms and
Persons
280 firmsEnterprises
Persons 500 per annum
No target set groups Local
Persons Caseload of 11 0000 (30000 1n 1995 and
20000 new cases per annum thereafter)
No targel set
Revised Targets (1994-1999)
Sub Sub Programme 1 Programme 2
i
pound16000000pound56020000
17 000 new and6050 new and 7000
existing 3750
existing
(Tolal 9800) (Tolal 24000)
39dego
3000010900
100dego83oo
6000
10000
700
57000 (40000 Local Employment
Scheme Partnerships and 17 000 Non- Local
Employment Scheme)
60dego
AfJXIUimiddot C2
---
Priority Indicator Units Original Target Revised Targets (1994-1999) for total Operational
Sub SubProgramme Programme 1 Programme 2
Progression Number bulllf persons progressing Persons 2500 per annum 16000 to full-time employment (1e placement in a job vacancy) Number of persons progressing Persons 300 per annum 5000 to part-lir le employment (ie placeme11t in a job vacancy) Number of persons assisted into Persons 17000 self-emplJyment (see 1 above) N~mber of persons assisted Persons 19000 under co1nplementary education and training Number of persons in continuing Persons 5000 per annum 2000
1 cducat1or1 Number c1f persons in work Persons 10000 per annum 1000 experience programmes Number Cbullf unemployed referred Persons 5000 onwards middot o other agencies
- -middot 5 ~ducation and Training Complementary education and training Number cmiddotf persons assisted Persons 12000 per annum 19000 under cornplementary education and traini l9
Provision of recognised ce~ificaticbulln Number cf participants ptovided Persons 60003500 with re~1nised certification
I 0o of part1 1pants provided with 30oo reltXJgniset certification
Training for trainers NuOiber ol persons benefiting Persons 1000 under actions tn the area of trai~1ng of trainers and teachers
I of partimiddotipants ptovided with recognise j certification
I 6 Preventive education Number of children attending Children 4080 per annum 44000 preventive education courses I youth serVices
7 lnfrasbucture and enVironmental measures Number o infrastructutal and 20 per annum 1000Protects 98 environmE ntal actions
Appendix C3
Original Target Revised Targets (1994-1999) Priority Indicator Units for total Operational Sub Sub
Programme Programme 1 Programme 2
8 Land development
Area of targeted land developed
Expenditure on developmenl of targeled land
Number of derelict sites eradicated
Number of villages assisted
Number of towns assisted
Number of conservation projects to be funded
9 Other
Entarprse culture Number of participants in activities to promote an enterprise culture 1n schools and colleges
Customer contacts Number of customer contacts with CEBs
Hectares
pound
Sites
Villages and projects
Towns and projects
Projects
Persons 62000
Customer 190000 Contacts
Appendix C 4
Appendix D Extract from Consolidated Reporting Guidelines - December 1997 The LEADER Operational Programme Performance Indicators and Revised Targets
Pe-rformance Indicators
Under the tenns nf the Opcr~llional Progr1111n1e e1ch group is rtmiddot4uired to set ck)vn
1~erforn11nce uHJic~1tors and targets vhitmiddoth it vdl ain1 10 ~1chilve in 1he
itn )le1ncntation of its hu~iness plan and against vh1ch its perfonnance Viii htmiddot
evllua1ed_ Follc)ving ~t rcvitv of the fonn ind contenl of 1hc originil incliclliVl
inclicHors1 cornincnt by the independent evduator and consuh1lion Vilh groups a
dc1111itivc range of perfon111nce inclicJtors llas nclv been prepared
E~11h (~roup is required to llltgtdify ils Busin1middotss Pl1n perforn1ance indicators in this
remiddotiscd forn1at for lmiddotte1sure B Ruril innovation 1neasures and insofar as it is possible
at 1his s1age to prep1re inltlil~ltors for middotleisure C middotrransni1ion~1I cu-operitiun for 1hv
period tnding 5 I l)ece111her 1999 PleJse note thlt 1leisure C does no[ relale to
teclmical suppo11 funding received from AEIDL
lh1 Ile st1te111cru of pcrfonn1ncl indicators -hould rLprcscnl a co111pnhensivc
stncnHmiddotnc of 1argets based on progress to ditc ind the i1nplc111entllio11 of 1he
huine~gt plmiddottll to )1 l)cc~1nbcr iltJ99 including thl acklitional 1ctivitics being
~upportcd vith the funding 11locItcd fron1 the -middotrcservtmiddotmiddotmiddot
imiddotht revised busintmiddot-s plan indicators should he con1plctccl ind rc1urnecl to Huril
De-elopmem Division lw ii _l1nua1v 1998
regress Viii he 1neasurecl 1gainst these t1rgcts by lllttns of the Lf)LJ rerurn~ incl the
quant1tat1ve incl qualitllivc reports outlirlltd in sections 3A jl3 incl 5C of 1hesc
guiklines
Ple1se note thal -hJcled areas ire for infon11a1ion only incl 11 lhis st1ge do nol
require indicators to be Stl All olhltr t1rge1s should ht inpulled in 1he 1ppropri1te
fickl- here rherc is no 1lmiddotlemiddotan1 ac1ivi1y tllSl rl zero
1[Jfx11rL IJ 1
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Animation and Capacity Building
ActivityOutput
Promotion
Number of seminarspublic meetingsworkshops organised to cover the following topics GeneralCommunity SpecialisedSectoral
Number of attendees al the above
Number of press releases articles published media interviews
Circulation of LEADER Newsletter Number issued Number per print run
Number of other promotional actions
Direct Animation Assistance I Technical Advice
Number of private individuals directly assistedadvised
Number of bodies directly assistedadvised GeneralCommunity Specialised Sectoral
Number of development strategiestplansmiddot arising from field work (Le_ not covered in ~other technical assistance beneath) including community plans
Co-ordination of Activities
Number of applications referred to other agencies
Impact
Enhanced Awareness of LEADER Services (Not for completion)
This will be measured by middot
The number of individuals contacting LEADER office
The number of groupsbusinesses contacting LEADER office
The number of applications from promoters
The number of projects promoted by LEADER Group itself
General Level of Local I Community Development
Activity (Not for completion)
This will be measured by middot
The number of applications successfully improved
The number of bodies assistedanimatedrestructured improved
Number of bodies established
More Efficient Use of Resources
(Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number of projects successfully referred to other agencies (i e funded)
i
------MeasL1re B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector ActivityOutput -
I
dministration Processing
Number of staff exclusively I assigned to administrative duties
(2 15 etc)
Number of staff exciusively assigned to animation duties (2 1 5 etc)
Number of Board meetings held
Number of hours worked on a I voluntary basis by Board
members
Number of project evaluation committees
I
Number of project evaluation committee meetings held I
Number of hours worked on a voluntary basis by pro1ect evaluation committee members
I Number of internal LEADER Group evaluation meetingssessionsreviews
I Number of external system auditsreviews (not including accounts)
Co-ordination of Activities I
Number or meetings with other LEADER Groups
I
Number of County Strategy Meetings attended
Number of other meetings with I public bodies
middot shy
Impact
Efficient Delivery of Service (Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number or applications received The number of applications
processed The number of applications approved The number of projects completed
More Efficient Use of Resources
(Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number of projects referred to other agencies (not including those that were referred after provision of animation assistancetechn1cal advice which 1s dealt with beneath)
Apprnd1x 0 3
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector ActivityOutput Impact
Technical Support Studies and Research Knowledge I Expertise Made Available to Potential
Number of studies plansaudits Promoters commissioned by LEADER (Not for completion) Group (not including field work carried This wlfl be measured by out by animators which is included above) The number of LEADER
projects emanating from studies Number of other auditsstudiesplans prototype The number of projects development commissioned by emanating from studies funded promoters amp funded by by other agencies LEADER
The number of bodies restructuredimproved
The number of bodies established
1ppc11cLy ) 4
----
--- --
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
I Sector Activity I Output Impact middot- ---shy
Training Provision of Training Courses Acquisition of Skills (Not for completion)
I Number of training courses commissionedundertaken by This will be measured by LEADER Group (not including animation activ1t1es The number of bodies outlined above) demonstrably LEADER StaffBoard restructuredimproved by GeneralCommunity Courses training provided to SpecialisedSectoral volunteersstaff
I
Number of attendees at the above The number of proiects emanating from training
I PROVISION OF TRAINING GRANTS The number of attendees who
were placed in employment as Number of Training Grants for a result of training
I courses commissioned by promoters and funded under LEADER (not including any of the above)
I GeneralCommunity Courses Spec1al1sedSectoral
Number of attendees at the above
Grant Provision Job CreationRecruitment Assistance I
Number of Employment Grants Employment created provided
I ~-
Afgtj)(11cLmiddot J 5
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Activity I OutputSector
Improvement of Existing Accommodation and
Tourist Amenities
Rural Tourism
Number of capital grants provided
Development of New Accommodation and
Tourist Amenities
Number of capital grants provided
Marketing
Number of marketing grants provided
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number accommodation facilities upgraded to Bord Faille standard
Number of additional beds available
Increased number of visitormiddot capacity
Add1t1ona1 tourist revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Sectoral Benefits
New entrants
Number of additional beds available
Increased number of visilor capacity
Additional revenue generated IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Improved Business Attributable to Marketing
Additional bed-nights arising from marketing strategy
Additional inquiries visits to tourist offices - domestic - overseas
Additional visits to tourist amenities Siles arising from marketing strategy
Number or new marketmg methods tourist packages initiated
Employment- (e g directly arising rrom marketing as opposed to capital grant aid eg as a result or brochures advertisements etc) Created I Sustained
-------
Meas1Jre B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Small Firms Craft Enterprise and Local Services
I
I
i
I
i
i
I
_
Activity I Output
Support for Existing Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Support for New Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Marllteting
Number of marketing grants provided
- -Impact
-Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with improved efficiencyadded value to products and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product ranges
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
I
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises established
New productsproduct ranges
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Greater Awarness of Enterprise Activity
Number of new (geographical) markets developed - within Ireland - within EU - non - EU
Increased sales (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
1J(11di- Igt 7
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Agricultural Forestry and Fishery Products
Activity I Output
Support for Existing Enterprises and Improving
Quality of Existing Products
Number of capital grants provided
Support for New Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Marketing
Number of marketing grants provided
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with improved efficiencyadded value to products and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product ranges
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Number of enterprises established
New productsproduct ranges
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Greater Awareness of Enterprise Activity
Number of new (geographical) markets developed - within Ireland - within EU - non - EU
Increased sales (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector Activity I Output Impact
Freservation of the Improving Awareness Increased Environmental Environment and Livin Awareness9
Conditions Number of capital grants Number of environmental provided plansaction groups established
(not including groupsplans arising from animation andor other technical support outlined above)
Number of entries for Tidy Towns Competition
Benefit to the Built I Cultural of Built I Social and Cultural
Protection I Enhancement Environment
Environment
Number of built sitesstructures provided Number of capital grants
protected or restored
Number of socialcultural events held
Employment created I sustained
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Benefit to the Natural of Natural Environment
Protection I Enhancement Environment
Number of natural sites protected provided Number of capital grants
Number of natural amenities restoredenhanced
Improved Managment of Activities I Alternative
Waste Management Waste I Availability of
Energies Alternative Energy
Number of capital grants Number of alternative energy provided providers established
Number of waste management initiatives implemented
Employment created I sustained
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
AJf)(itrlLmiddot J9
Measure C Transnational co-operation
Sector
Transnational Co~peration
Activity I Output
Grant Provision
GeneralCommunity SpecialisedSectoral Rural Tourism Small Firmscraftsenterprises AgricultureForestryFisheries Products EnvironmenVLiving Conditions Other
Number of Grants provided to final beneficiary (each category is exclusive)
Private Men Private Women Private Jointmiddot CommunityDevelopment Groups Business VoluntarySpecific Issue Groups Co-operatives LEADER Group Other Total
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with establishedimproved efficiency added value to producls and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product rangesnumber of new marketing methods tourist packages initiated
Number of new (geographical) markels developed - within Ireland -within EU - non-EU
Additional inquiries visits to tourist offices - domestic - overseas
Additional visits to tourist amenities sites arising from marlltetmg strategy
Additional bed-nights arising from marketing strategy
Increased sales Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Number of cultural links established
Number of local development strategies studies transferred shared
Number of environmental actions
Employment - created full-time all year fu11-time seasonal part-time all year part-time seasonal
Employment - sustained full-trme all year full-time seasonal part-time all year part-time seasonal
AfJJll1tll~Y )_ Q
Appendix E Matrix of Development Agencies in County Roscommon and the Services Provided (Produced by Roscommon County Enterprise Board)
---------~
c Q
~l agt-EUJ
Co Jnty Slrategy Group CoJnty Enterpnse BoHd
Anmiddotina Enterprise Fund
Lec1der 11
Pai tnersh1p Co ( --~--~---~--~--
Co-Jnty Council ---- middot---~---t--~--~~-~r ---~-~--~-~--~-~--~--~
lrel 3nd Wes ToLnsm
--~---~--~--~---middot -~----~----------~--
Tecgasc
An Bord Tr3cht31a
Forbairt ( ( (
10t Ireland I
FA
Bord Faille (
Bar1ksFinanc1al Insmiddot itulions I
Dcpartmenl of Social Welfare
Buiness Innovation Centre
European lnfc rmat1on Centre
AfJjJCJICfiY E l
Appendix F Framework of Agreement between County Meath CEB and County Meath LEADER II Group
MEMOHANDUM OF AGHEFMFNT
JelVtLll
The Meath County Fn1erpnse Board Ltd
and
Mca th Leader 11
Given he -i1n1brilics bl(lLll ccnnn ispeCls of the n1ni1 of bnth Counry Enterprise Hoard ind lc1dcr
IL ii b 11ceptcJ th11 i high ltkne of co-orxru1on is rcql1inJ to tbullns11n that dtmiddotserv1ng proiccis giin
n11xi1nl1111 txncfit fron1 he s11p1x111 1ncchanis11h avulihh V1tlun hoth orgu11-11in11s_ Vhdc s~ 11HL
division of rcsponsiliililics is possibl~ t outlined hcIO 11 1s ncogni cJ 11111 both groups need 10 1dop1
tn OJICll n(Xihh tpproteh IO the ltsk of f)TltJCCing ClllflCS 111J tppliCtliOllS
lc1dcr II -ill ha prin1a~middot n spon~ibilitv ill 11lc Couniy f()r lhc st1ppon of p1ojlmiddotCS f10111 the frgtllovi11~
sectors
bull Craft Enttrpnscs Cfor fin1nciil suppon ilh 1 li1n11cd fcxmiddotus on soft suppons)
bull Kurii Touris1n
bull Proicn- p1n1nnttd hy Co111111u11i1y CnH1P
bull Exploilition and M1rke1ing of lor1I agriculcur1I fcxxl for(siry tnd fishtnts products
bull Envuonn1tnl for ht follomiddotinJ mc1surcs middot
e Prtscrv1tion ind dcvlmiddotloprnenl of the existing 1rch11te1ur1I heriti(lbull ind bullillages
bull Suppo11 for n1hur1I Cfl111v1ty ind the pron1ot1un C1f cultur1I product- linked ith nir~d
ltlevelcip111ent
bull Prot~ctron rch1btli111ion ind explollllion of nuural rccurces (Oor1 fiunt srndl s1rc11ns
ccc) ind bncl~tpcs
bull Di1x1s1I 1nd fC()ding Clf ISie illdl1ding llSt or energy pnxluuion
ll1is i111plies th11 Le1ltler II tvill cngig1middot 111 p1--delmiddotlltipn1lmiddotnt 1ni11nins research tnd 1111rkc1ing ind he
prin11rily nspons1hlc for the c1pi1d invt~1111enl 1s-oci11ed Vith tht dcvcloprnent of vdue-iltld(d fotgtlt1
produce ind viii dso pronss rtqutsts for 1id for c1p1rd intslmeni ln1ploy111cnt grants 1111rktting
ind 111ining s11ppon- in lht 1hovl stcio1s
The County Enttrpnsc l3cgt1rltl tvill continu1 10 support f(bull1siliilicy cap1td ind (rnploy1ncnl projcd
l1id1 li1vt tilt c1p1lt ily ro gtntricc ernpkraquobull111tn1 v11h1n tll otlllmiddotr -ltmiddotciors Po1cnt1tl projects vhich 111cit
This rtquirvnicnc viii he rtfcrrtd to tteh otliLr in 1cltorltlincc Vitll tlus Agrtllllcnl
middot111t 1ltith Coun1y Enterprise Boird lld ind ilcalh Lealtlcr II arlmiddot lOn1n1incd to rn11ntaining open lines
nf cn111n1un1c11ton tn in1plcn1er1t the tcnn- of thi u11dirs11nd1ng ind alsn co111111ir 1h11 the Chief
Execu1ivltmiddot OfficLmiddotrs will n1eet hH1ndly on 1 111onclilmiddot li1sis to v11s111c cff1cilnt i1npllnhnt1tilgtn middot111i
AgretlllLnt tltgt co111inue 111 orxr11ion un11I _l_t Oeccn1her 19)7 ind viii Ix suh1cc1 10 rcvittmiddot by the
1cith County Enterprise Board 11cl 1n consult1t1011 Vith Lcidtr IL
101hi11g in chis A_irec1ntnt shtll he cltJntruccl 10 li111i1 DI tLStnu lhe _1in11D1y il1nu1011s 111d n1xr1titJns
of till 11lmiddot1th Coun1y Enttrprbc Bo1rd 11cl or lc1der II
Pn1lint B1ker Torn Clinton
Ch11rr111n Ch11n11111
middotlttth Coun1y Enlerprisc Boud Ltd Mc11h lc1dtr II
~ppcndrx I I
Appendix G Terms of Reference for Interdepartmental Policy Committee
Thn New Committees Role
The Role of the new Committee to be cl1Jired by Minister of ~late Finnel will Ix
shned by the Local Demiddotelopnlltnt Mind1Itmiddot given to Department of Tourism Sport
and lkcrca11on by the (jovcrnmenL Key items in that bndate which fall into the
Coumittees remit will mcluclc
A PronH)ticJn of tile integral(lt dcvelop111cnt of tl1e 111o~n dis~1dvantaged urban con1n1unitics hy ensuring that their needs are addresscd ()11 a priority ~incl
coordinated basis in conjunction vi1h 1rea Partnership lton1panie~ by all nlevanr public agencies
bull middot1l1is is regarded as the 1nost urgent priltgtrity
bull Tlw focus will be on developing the opti1ml approach to addressing
the needs of these areas
bull Special co-on linated all-out etfltJl1 in a nun1bcr ltgtf s1nall areas
j B Co-cgtrdination of Ioc~1l lgtcvcloprnent iniriatives and prcp~trnion for the
post - 1999 transition to an integrated Local Development ancl Local
Govcrnn1cnr systc1n
bull 1oc~d l)evelopn1enl IiaiS(gtn Jean1 issues
bull Adclnssing rclevan1 local clcvelopn1cnt issues raised in l3etter Loc~d
(overnnltnt - ~1 Prngra111111e fltgtr CJ1angc anU lh( recenlly ruhl1sliecl Hcport of the J)evcgtlu1ion Co111111ission
bull middotrhe en1phasis vlll ht ltgtn en~uring thal the posi11ve dcvelopn1ents and effective lltV V~l)S of VOrking resulting fro1n Local l)evelop111ent
and Partnership initiative~ arc preserved and strengthened in the
developnltlll nf i renevecl Loc1I Govern111ent
C The Oper1tiond Progrimmc for Locd Urb1n 111cl Rural Development
ancl its sh1pe post - 1lt)99
middot middotrhL 1nain tmiddottsks Vill be tltgt
bull Secure hl btmiddot~r co-ordinttion hltveen the various i111rle1nerHing
1ge11cie- l)ep111n1ents etc
r1jJjJlllriz~y G 7
bull Seek 10 ensure chat problcn1s incl issucs vhlch ~1rise il ~1 local level
ire n-ponclecl ro incl rcsolveltI
bull lclencify i1en1s tltgt be n11instrc1111ed in tern1s cgtf overall policy
bull Consider 1he ou1line of i new 011URJ) for the post - 1999 penocl
taking into ~1ccount the viC-middot of the Social Partncri
D Co-urclin11iun of (gtV(rltdl Govern1nent Policy on Local l)evekgtpn1ent
bull middotr1ie Jn1er-l)epan111ental Pt)licy Con11ni11ee on Loc~d J)evelopn1en1 Vill
be a key foru 111
bull Scctltgtrtl is-ues viii he considered fro111 1he perspective of
encouraging gre~ttcr cO-ltgtrdin~ttion and integr1tion of delivery of
services It local hvel
ulttf I )(coJlllc1 II If ii itl f itL
that rhert is nn 1tJ1un111ic sharing of d111 11nnng loc1l dtVllop111en1 bodies ind lhe scope for effectiveness inilysis is t1111i1ed middotrhroughoul 1hlt pcritxl covered by lhL ex1111in11ion inforn1ation systt111s vl1icl1 include perfcn1111nce 111e1suns ind inclic1tors (cl n1cJniror etliciltncy incl ~tTectiveness htvL l)etmiddotn under tlevLmiddotlup111cn1 ind pr()grts is heing 1111cle in iddrc sing the deficiencilS
Co-ordination of Activities
The flexible approich 10 the i111ple111et11ition of local dewloprnnt policy rcmiddotstilts in consider1hhmiddot duplicition of the enlcrprislmiddot crvicts providld by thlt three types or hodils Vith 1pcc1 10 objlClies clients incl 1c1ivities middotro i lesser lXtLllt 1here is duplici11on of 1c1ivities concerned ilh coun1ering serious ecnno111ic incl sociil dis1clv1n1ige heciusl Pirtnerships t1rgct specific clitnl groups - the long-tcnn unemployed ind the soci11ly excludld In nine ctsc-s Pinnerships and lEADEH groups share i conunon 1111n1gc1nen1 board
Co-operilion 11nung 1hc hodies ind Villi othtr urginisalions (Stale local govern111tnl co111111unity ind volunttry st ctor incl bllllllSS) ~Jt loctl ltvel to 1chicve igreed objectives con1rib11tcs to the unique innovlit roll of 1hc Local l)evelor1nen1 initiitives
Suhsicly shopping can ltgtCltl1r IHrehy Lmiddotlitmiddotn1s can 1111xin1ise the public funding they rcciivi by tpplying for grillS frolll cliffcnn IJodieS (O 11ppOlt cliiferent elelllt~lllS Oi
their projccls middotrhis incvit1bly leicls lo cluplic11ion in 1d1ninistrllion Fonnil in1erdep1rr111en1il 1gree111en1s should Ix- cmiddotontmiddott1ded to define 1l1e li1ni1s bllVecn the ohrcc11ves clienls ind activities of thl three bodies ind si111ilir 1gree111en1s should he concluded It locil level middotrhese 1green1tmiddotn1 n1ight look for vays of n1ini1nising the id111inisr11ion of 111ultiple tpplicHions for funcling in 1 project
t cohestvlmiddot 1ppro1ch to th( intcgrition of locil govern1nen1 1nd loc~ll develorn1en1 V~ts set out in 1998 by tn in1erclep111n1ental middotrask Force J1nplen1cnt11ion of 1his rep(U1 is underv1y
Operational Efficiency
middotrh1middot 1111in 1ctivi1y ind outpul tirgcts ire being n1et but the absence of baseline perfnnnince d111middot llll1ns lltll ii is not knclvn hoV dc1111nding 1he original r1rgets Vere 1rising fron1 VOrk by the external cviluitors ro thl Oper1tional Progra1nn1es 1111ny nf the 11rge1s h1vc been rlisccl hv tile -loniroring (01nn1inees vhich oversee llH i1nplv111c111tlilt)n c)f rl1ltmiddot Progr11111ncs
1hile tlcn1en1s nf exptmiddotnditun (Pannltrships incl LEAJ)FH groups) Vere son1cvh1t behind tirget II the lttlcl of 1998 it is cxpec1ed by the lgtcp~1111nents 1h11 spcncling targlts viii he n1e1 by the encl of the Operational Progran1111es
Sludils indicHt lhH tht level of dcadvciglll (the tmiddotxrent to Vhich enterprises suppltgtrlt~cl unclir the Operational lrogr1111111es Ould be cst1hlished Vilhout gr1n1s) n11y be in the rangt 4(Yc1 10 50dego ()isplicen1en1 (the ex1cn1 to Vhich suppo11ed enterpri~cs clive11 stils ind en1ploy111en1 oppo11uni11es fro1n other Irish enterprises) 111iy he in the r1ngl 20 (Cl 400u Fron1 eirly l 99H CEBs and P111nerships have been tn1poverecl to Jss1s1 enterprise projects by n1eans of refuncl1ble Jid incl equily Use
ii
S1111111u11v
of thltse forms of id should he expndcd quickly in prelerencl 10 11011-repyJlt gracts 1s they can help to reduce cleHhveight 1nd dispL1ce111tnt and in addi11on 1re t 1111)1 econo1nictl use of public funds
Son1e inst1nces of clispk1cen1en1 providl social benefits vhich n11y outvcigh the
cost involved There is a need for n1orl cl1rity regarding the circu111s11nces in vhich
dispbccrncnr rn he perrnined
Assessment of Impact
lhe developn1en1 of sys1e1ns to 1ssess the in1pact of Local J)tgtvtgtlopn1en1 initkHives is not easy hec1use of 1he clibullersity of objccrives rhc tick of n1easurahility nf so111e
i111p1cts rlie tlJsence of clisagtregtled d1t1 n1odels rclcv1nt lo locil areas and the need for careful in1erpretHio11 of results
Quantitative Assessment
ltJu1n1itJtiC 1sessn1ent of the in11x1c1 of (gtcal l)evclopn1ent hodivs c1n bl carried our by exa1nining ch1nges in vari1ble such as long-tcnn 11ne1nploynHnl ind 1-n11middotrpri-e forn1arinn Studits to dare of thest v1riallles have yielded inlmiddotonclu-ive
rt~sults
rtpon on the i111p~1ct of OJgtLLHI) on ong-tenn ltnen1ployr11lrlt shnvs thtt fro111
1991 to 1996 unc111ploy111cnt in gtJrtntmiddotr~hipmiddotareas fell by roughly poundhe sa111t penentage as in non-P~n1nership ~treas
A111y~is of 11~11ional Live Hcgi~[er cla1a for 1he pc-riod CJ94-1998 indilates ~1 signifi(1n1 Lill in chc kwl of long-cerm unemployment hich b pat11cula1 focu of P~1r111erships bur the reduction n1ay h1ve 111ore 10 do vith 1he in1pact of tron~ 1middotconon1ic gn)vth poundh1n vid1 rhc effec1 of Local l)cvclop111cnt initiatives
A nmiddotiev of the nu1nber of n1anuL1c1uring s1ar1urs fru1n 1987-1996 siHJVS rhar 1he rapid econon1ic grcJvlh fro1n 1995 and the onstmiddott of thtmiddot Local l)evllop111ent iniri11ives did 101 result in an increisecl rate of 1111nuf1c1uring sta11ups
lntc~rnion of enterprise support incl perforn11nct da11 Jcross the Loctl l)evmiddot-lopn1cn1 inipoundiuives voulcl be required in order 10 est1hlish 1he underlying reasmiddot)llS for these rends
Quiitative Assessment
lkciled Census of Populicio11 d11 (1991 a11d 19)6) is available regrd1ng 1ndicacors of distdv1n11ge in Pirtnership 1n~1 hile rherc are lin11tuions inolved in int(-rpreti11g the cl1t1 fu11her ~1111lys1s ~houd facilitlle 1s~es1nen1 of lhl in1p1cr of the actimiddotities of 1111ncrhips
Jhe exlent of n1~11eri1J specificJJly covering 1hc evtlua1ion of i111pacl is very li111ited P1rt11crships hie CJrriecl our evcril cisc Situlies to cxplorL the in1ptrl of 1heir tcliililS ind 10 pro111ute 1-gtesr pr1c1ice (1~l srudies arc undervay also in ni1ny
lEA)EH groups l-lovtver there is i clt-1r nted for 111ore d111 lmiddotulllmiddotcrion and the
clevdopmenc of sonil policy rnocleb co prnvicle a hcncr ins1gl11 into che imp1cr of Loe~ I l)evelop111ent 1c1ivities
iii
bull
Local Development Initiatives
middot
- shy~~ ~~ltmiddot~-
middot
middot~
1 Introduction
Background to Local Development Initiatives
11 Since htbull ltarly 1)90 the (omiddoternn1tmiddotn1 middotill1 the support of 1hc European
lJnion (_lmiddotl) h1s introdutcd 1 nun1hvr of policy initiatives in suppo11 of hxil sltx-ioshy
eltcgtncgtnlilmiddot clcvelltlp1ncnt Tlteslt 1ni1i1timiddotcs stc111111cd fngt1n htmiddot pertcivcd L1ilt1re (Jf
cxiting pnlicicmiddots to _hirl lfllmiddot benefit ol 1middotcono111ic gnnmiddotth lmiddotquitahly tcrn-s local
ro11H1H1nililS ind 111Hn1g thl 111ore distdmiddot1n11gtmiddotd scctCJr of Irish iocitImiddot (~llltrtl to
1hc initiatives ts tliemiddot cn~11ion of lllcd lll1ployn1cn1 oppnnunititmiddot togetlitmiddotr Villi
llHISllrtmiddots to 11cklc cduc1tional distclvan11glmiddot tJlmiddotirltlflllltnlil cl1c1y ind ocial
lxclusion middotrhe IH~v pc ii icy alio n11rked 1 revers~1l fro111 the tr1ditio11al htmiddotgi111ony DI
central govltrnnitmiddotn1 by nmiddotcognising iht roll Vhich local cu11111111ni1amiddot c1n play in
the proctsi of lCltHlltunic trKI Sltgtc1al dtbull(lopn1enc
12 r pri11IJI) purpo--l of Incil J)evelop111lnl V1- co identify Jprropnllt Vays of
-tin1uLtting tll rllvvant luctl re-ources 111 suppo11 of Lllterpngti deth)pn1vn1 ind
tickling long-tern1 unernploy111ent hough llLttetL lhe-imiddot 1rt di-rinct uhjccliVLS 1nU
tlil vXtmiddotnr ro middothich they could htbull 1sotiatcd in operationd llllll- rc1111ined tn he
lthlished it that ti111e
13 IIH 1111in ekmiddotnlLllC ()f the llt appro1ch middotLlL
bull p1rtnersliip hllVtmiddotcn stitulory hu ines ind cD111nH1nity scctnrgt
bull dtmiddotmiddotulurinn to local bodies of lllltmiddotds idcntifiLation pL1nning to-ordi111Cio11 of
progr11111tltS dvlill of 1r111ova1it and ctmiddotriain other action tnd 111on11()ring
of progres
bull involvcrncnt of the eniirlt co111n1unity cspcciilly d1sHhmiddot1nt1gcd groups
bull 1dltl[Hilt1n cgtf a Jtili-li(middot ll)PH)tclt l1tbullrtbulll)y l(l)flCgtllliC 111d S(icmiddoti~1J dlVtbullhipnlcllt
VOllld OCClll (CllCUllellliy
13 middotrt1tmiddot Hhnini-rrililtlll (Jf Lo~middot1l J)tmiddotvlmiddotlopnHmiddotnr in Ireland is cl1ssi1111l1r legt 1ll11 in
oth1 middotr FlJ countriis in li1tl
bull lhltrl artbull i nu111lill of di1inc1 pn1gr1n1n1cs
bull there i strong centrd gullllllhllt 111d EU involve111tlll
bull 111middotv local 1d111ini-tr1t1vc s1n1c1111middotls -ere demiddoticcJ inderH1Hllnt ()r lXiring local
govlmiddotrn111cnt structu1
Ctmiddotrrril goven1111enl control- the hulk of public fininces At locil ltmiddotvel local
aulill gtril ilt~ ft 1 net ions h1 ve 1llen li111i1ed Ct ivering n11ttcrs such ts roads -1ni111ion
111d housing ihill 1hvonric1llv locil ~1u1lionl1tS co1dd lllgtgLmiddot in 111a11v uther ()cal
c lemiddot l le iJ Hnen t
hinmiddotling ~ygttlIll 111d ittthility 10 pursue ltl ignificull ltgtctl c1x11ion middotYtcn1_ 1 middotr1sk
oca Je1ehJ[J111e111 lnitiatiues
Force 1 esrtblish~cl by rhe Governn1tnl 1nadc i nu111her of rtco1n1ncnd1tions in 1
rcpon 111 August 1998 regarcl1ng the mtcgration of local dcvdopment with local
government These ere approved by the Government in September 1998 (sec
paragraphs 10 to 3 31)
Organisational and Management Arrangements
15 The tO main EU funded programmes providing suppon for Local
Development arc the Opernional Programme for Local Urban 1nd Hural
Devclormcnt (OlLUHD) ind 1he llADEH II lrogr1111111c These Opcrntional
lrog11mmcs were drafted by the Department of the Tao1sc1ch and 1hc Dep1rtmen1
of Agriculture and Food (Agricuhure 1nd Food) respectively within EU guidelines
incl 1grced Vith the EU Co1n111ission
16 Each sub-progr1111111e of 011UlI) and IEADER 11 is 1clm1nistc1nl locally by di1inc1 Local J)evelop1ncn1 bodilts middotrhis c11nin~1tion is concerned Vilh Lltx~il
l)evelop111en1 acrivilies 1cl1niniscercd by Coun1y Enlerprise Bltgtards and 1re1-Based
111111crship Companies under OlLURD and by LEADEl groups under LEADER II Hcspons1bili1y for rhee bodies coines under chi rc1nit of three scpar11lt Governn1en1
Dep111ments (sec 11gurc II)
Co1111ty pound11er[Jrise Boards
17 Crn1111y Enterprise lloirds ((Ells) were established 111 Oe1olier 1993 wnh the
tilll or fu tering incl f1cilitating che LCOll01l1iC dcvelopn1ent of local area~ Each CEB
Vts required 10 clrt1 up 1 Counry 1nccrprise Pltn incl its iccions incl prupo-als are
Figure 11 Main Departments and Local Development bodies
Enterprise Trade and
Employment
County Enterprise
Boards
Tourism Sport Government and Recreation Departments and Agriculture
and Area Intermediary and Food DevelopmenlCompany
Management Ltd
bull
Area-Based
Local LEADERPartnershipsDevelopment groupsCompanies and
Bodies community groups
1Jc To5k fmiddot(Jtmiddotccmiddot R(Xlrt u11 rbe 1tfpound7ratiu11 lt oc(lf (io1en1111e1u (11tf Local Jc1elo1me11t Srs1e111s bullbull~Ql( 19)i
2
---1tfrotluct1un
ha ed on 1hi plan middotrhertmiddot art 51 ltEBs in total covering county and urban local
~ll1hori1y 1rc1s Ftch (~EB h1s 1-i 111e1111Jer irHluding repngtStIltHivls of local
govltrnn1c11t public Stl or 1g~ncics hu1ntmiddots Lun1ing lradt union and co11111n1ni1y
inlTest
lH middotrhc CEBs provide 1 r1nge of enltrprigtt -upp()rt -ervices al local levt l eg
admiddot1 ic~ and coun~tlling hus1ncmiddot infonnaiion financial 1sis1ancc and 111an1gtIlllnc
dcmiddottlop11l(Jll middotrhtbull firgltl group- ~tre husinltsse- co11111nu1i1y groups individud
en rcprtJ1(lJrs 1nd -n1i[] enterprises cEBs tonk OVtf re-gtpon-ihililv frorll lhl fltgtrlller
Industrial i)tclop111cnt u1hori1y (ll)A) for the devt~lDpllhllt of 111anufac111ring and
inl =rna1iont gtervicc - finn~ Vilh ltmiddot s th111 ten en1ploycmiddotc In 1ddi1ion_ thtmiddoty is-u111cd
the l1tmiddot roll of pngt11101in~ 111 vnltTpriL culturt
l~1 J-ro111 1hc outet the i)tgtp1r1111lnt of Entcrprist middotrrade and F1nployn1cnt
( Enterpri-e middotrr1dtmiddot 111d L111ploynHmiddotn1) has been responsiblt for co-ord1n~Hing and
supcrvising the crBgt lniti11ly dec1~ions on grant payn1ent~ lo individual projecls
vtre vetted by hl f)t1gt1rt111enl 11ltgttVtL (~EBs Vere ccgtr1s1i1111cd as lin1ited liahili1y
l0111p1nies during iltJltJ) and ifl(I 1January 19CJ(i hive 111idc grtnt decisions
110 Stiffing accon1111ltJLlatiun and 01hcr expen es V(~1tmiddot ini1i1lly provided liy lhtmiddot
lul ii 1u1horitics on a recoupn1cnr lgtt~i and ah hough the CFBs anmiddot nov
inl orporatccl rntny havtmiddot coniinutd Viti lliis 1rrangen1cn1
111 Funding for ltt]is is co-fin111ctmiddotd by Elj _1ruc1urtl funds via suh-progra1111ne I
of 011UHD mcl hv the hchequlr
Ara-amp1setl lc1rt11erslJiJ (-tJn11c111ies
112 1ret-Bit~d 11rtntrhip co1np1nies ltPa11ncrship) vere originally c-tihlished
in 12 ~1rltmiddotmiddotas un 1 pilot hi~i in 1991 10 in1phnhnt an nca-hastmiddotd nmiddotspollgtt to longshy
tlrrn unen1pl(lyn1tlll under tile Progra111111e for Econoinic and Sul-i1I Progrltss (PESP)
_JH Partnerships havt hcen lSt1hlished (2() urhJn ind 1- rural) lo optrat in 55 areas
dtig11Htmiddotd by 1hc (~ovvnlllltlll i~ hling disidvan1~1gtd In 1cldi1ion lherc ire 55 C(lJllllH1nity dcmiddotLmiddotlop111ent groups in non-dtmiddotsig111ted arets middot1J1ch c1ny oul fu11ctior1s
i111iltr to tho~v uf 1he 11r111er-liips middotrile Boards of i)irectors of the co111panil-gt lll
drvn fror11 (1) 1he SlgtCiil p1nncr (ii l -ttle 1genc1tmiddots ind (iii) co111111unity ~ind
vc gt t1n1tr~- cHg111is1 tio11
tmiddot13 The function~ nf the P1rntrsliip art to preptre lnc1I dcmiddottlopn1t~n1 pl1n _ in
con~tdtalion vi1h otl1LI local groups incl hudicmiddots_ to lOLHlltf d1stdvan11gc in 1hcir
~trtts and tiltn lo hlmiddotl thlmiddot-c plans i111ptmiddotn1cmiddotn1td middotrile pl111 oullines the rangt of
socitl ind lmiddotcono111ic tSSlltS to ht addrtmiddot scd in lhimiddot l1rget trta and the ohjeclive to
Ill pursultd h1scd on tile resuh of ~1 ltgtcio-ccono111ic analysis of lhc iret middotrliLmiddot
intbulllllion i~ ro 1tLmiddotlcr11c lnlt11 eronoinic dltmiddotvltmiddotlorn1e1H increise frnrloynHmiddotnt ind
local Develop111e11t l11itiati1es
tickle cxclu~ion incl 1nargintlisa1ion resulting fro111 long-llflll une111ploy111ent vc1y
vide r1nge of 1ctivities i~ unde111ken including job pltCLlllCIH adull education
training con111n1ni1y clevelopn1lmiddotn1 cnviro1111H111tl projLCI~ and youth iniliHives
114 An indepenckn1 in1c1mcdia1y company wis eslahlished in 1992 in111ally under
1he aqigt of 1he Dep111men1of1he Tioisetch and subgtltltjlltgtnily from midmiddot 1997 1he
Depanmcn1 of Tourism Spon and lkcre11ion (Tourism Spon and Hecreuion) 10
oversee 1hc P1nnersllips ind Jocd devclopn1tnl groups middotrhe con1pany 1rca
i)(velopmet11 M1n1gemen1 Iid (ADM) is required 10 cv1lu11e plins from
Ptrlllt~r~hips corn111unity groups ind selecled organisHions lO 1J1ocatc resources in
1ccord1ncc Vilh the eviluation resul1s ind ro 111onitor LXpenditure incl perfon11~1nce
by btneficiarits Over lj(YtJ of funding is spent by tile lartncrsliips incl (he re1111inder
is spent by co1n1nuni1y gro11ps ind nHionil nrgani11ions
115 funding for P1rtnerships co1111nuni1y groups and eligible spending bv selected n11iond org1nisarions is co-fin1ncecl by ElJ s1n1ctural funds incl by the
Exchequer EU funding is provided uh-progrtmme 2 of 011uRD
LEADER
116 This EU lni1ia11vcmiddot for rural devdopmenl w1s origin1lly bunched 111 1991
(lEADloR 1) The obwrnw of 1hc progr11nme wis 10 ltS11lilish locli devdopmen1
1ction groups bullhich voulcl bt responsible for 1he in1plcn1cn11tion of business pl1ns
for heir areis lE1l)EH I v1s 1he subjecl of 111y firs value for 111oney exa111ini1ion
comple1ed 1n Decemhe1 1994 The ini1i111ve wis co111inued under 1he Oper11ional
lrog11mme for IEADER 11 covering ihe period 1994 10 1999 There tre 34 approved
1EADlR groups (is opposed IO 16 group in 1hc orig1nli progr111Hnc) These 11e
iu10110111011- lcg1l cntilies each conrrollecl by 1 boird 111d opeining under 111
igreen1en1 Vith the J)cp111111cnt of gricul1urc and Food (Agriculture incl Fuuclgt Jht-
l)epa1111Hmiddotn1 required th11 the bo1rds h1ve 1 1ripar1ite s1n1crure representative of 1he
con1111unity incl volunt1ry sec1ur luc1l Stite ~1gencies and the priv11t I con11ncrcitl
sector
117 Unlike 1he 01her lniti11ives covered in 1h1gt ex1111in11ion (which are csset11ilily
n11io11il policy initiHivc-) lEAl)EH i in EU lnitiitivl Vliich Va designed incl
Ln1nchccl by the turope~111 Co111111issio11 his 1ne1ns 1hi1 he in1plc111enlalio11 of
LEAJ)flt its 1in1ing ind opertting rules ~in de1ennined Ltrgel~middot Vithin 1ht EU
Co111n1i~sion 1uncling for rhe LEl)EH II lrogr1111n1e is co-financed fron1 ElJ
s1n1c111ioli f11nd the 1lADEH Opci1110111 lrogrunmc 1))4-1999 rnd by ihe
Exchequer
4
In 1roclzut1on
Sc1urces of Finance
118 The Fll Commission incl rhe Exchequer prolidccl funding for the 1niria11middotes inmiddot
the period 199i-199H follows
EU hchequer Toril
pound-111 t-111 ~-nl
CEils 465 516 98 I Parntrships 530 181 711
LEIDER groups 272 ILG 388
126 7 81) 208 0
Scope and objectives of the examination
1l) middotrhe cxa111in~1tion V~1s concerned only vi1h initiatives to pron1ott local
clebullclop111em rhrough Counrv Enrcrprisc Boards Ptrrnerships and LEADEH groups
Thue are 111anv orher ml[1nives for local devdopmcm such as URBAN Terrironal
E11l)loy1nent Picts Pe~tce ~incl Heconciiation 111d lnterreg II vhich ire outside the
scogtc of this ex~1111ina1ion
12middotJ Nei1her iJ)-1 nor the l1rtnershirs arv covered by 111y statutory value fcgt1 11101ey nn1i1 In the interest of producing i cohcivc report on locil l)lmiddotvclopn1cnt
ini1=11ivlts 1hey igreed that the exa111inuion ~hould he extended to chc111 middotrhcir coshy
OJX ration in 1liis resptmiddotlmiddot1 i~ icknovllmiddotclgecl
121 The overall objec11vcs of rhc c1n1inar1on w
bull ro ltVal11are rhc administrative effwncv ol rhc llltXlit (Chaprer 2)
bull lo asstmiddotss the extent of duplic~Hion and co-ordin1tion ~1rrangen1en1s ltCh1p1cr j)
bull to ev~dualc thl operHional efficiency of the bodies (Chipttr 4)
bull to coniidcr ho- tlii i1n1x1ct of 11ie holtl1e~ can hl asscmiddotssecl (Ch1p1cr 5)
1nr The p1opltJ-f of Illgt c_rrn11iiu111011 CFHgt lar111lmiddot-Ji1ps and 1eoJ(1middot grv11S uill IA Fccmiddoti-rlmiddotd l u lrJl(I
)c1lffJ[gtl11ltf hodico
5
loca l)evelojJ1ne1u 11itiatitCs
122 The main issues considered are
Issue Evaluation Criteria
Administrative efficiency Administration costs bull bull Human resources bull Adequacy of management
information systems
Co-ordination of activities Duplicationbull bull Co-ordination
Operational efficiency Targets and performance bull bull Resource allocation and outturn
bull Deadweight and displacement
Impact assessment Quantitative assessments bull bull Qualitative assessments
Methodology
123 Officials 111 the Depanmem of Amicroricuhure and Food the Dcpanmcnr of
Tourism Spoil and lkcrea11on 1he Department of Enlerprise Tracie and
Employmcm 111cl 1DM were interviewed Oua and pipcrs rcbting to targets cosl
and perfon11~1nce Vere ex11nined Analysis Vas carried out of cost and perfonnance
clua aria1ion in perfonnance ck1t1 vas used as a basis for selecting individual Loctl
Development bodies for funher examimtion
124 Selcc1ed CEl3s LEADEH groups and Partnerships were visi1ecl Helevant
personnel Vere intervi(Ld and individual rrojecls Vere visited Sevtrd CISC studies
Vtre identified during the co11rse of this vork and thc~c arc used in this rero11 to
illustr11i key i1SULS middotrhcy should not be ngarltled a1 rcpresentHivi of the cype of
pro1ee1s supponed hy the bodies
125 1Vleetings Vere held vith offici1Js fro1n the l)ep1nn1en1 of the E11viro11111ent
and Loctl Goern111ent ind Ille Co111ba1 lovlmiddotrty Agency lntervieVS look place Vith
the folJoving orga11is~11ions PlJtEmiddotr (Ille netvork of Arc~1-B1scd igtJnnerships)
Comhar IEADER 1u hiireann (tire network of 11ADEH groups) 1he ssociation of
Chief txecutives of Counly EnrcrprisC Bo1rcls (representing County Enlerprise
l3001rcls) the Irish 10111onal Orga1ma11on for 1he ncmployecl (INOU) he
Ken Cork iortb a1ul So111h )uhill CFJJs Trti li )011epal 11ihot1c11 a11d Northside art11lrh1J Fexford Ora11iflfio11 fur R11ral IJltbull1ltlup111c111 anti lao1bull tJ-1nHk Rural Dtbull1tlop111e111 Co Jd (IJ-ADJR ~rn11p) lv11sfonl Co1111111111i~~middot RrrJ1rCli Jd (1d S(J11rh lerry IAmiddottlIOJtllllll Part11crbip Jd (comhi11(c JHADERPart11c1~hip orxa11iatio11~j
6
J11frotll1 rI ion
Conf~r~nr~ of lkhg1ot1s 111 JrcmiddotLrnd (CORIJ vb Yvonne Murplrv lks~ardwr 111d Prof
J1111es A Walsh gtill Mrvnooth
)26 1n eternaJ exrerl IS lt ngagtbulld IO adviSl on the 1ncthodo(ogy of tht --Udy
and rlvtev the study findings_middot
7
2 Administrative Efficiency
21 Tlfrbull chtpter is concerned with the dliciencl of the CEils ltrtnergthips incl
llADER groups in iclminigtIenng locd Development ini111I11es loc1I Dcvdopment
is chirictltnsecl bv t 111uliplirny of object11es mcl ac11vi1ies The control of
achninisrrilive expendirure is 1chicvccl hy reference to stiffing levels pay rates tnd
1he re1sonablcness of 01her 1cl1ninistration expenses
22 Thlt clivers11y of 1he 1c1ivi11es of Local Development bodies ind 1he nexibili1y
in hov rhey set about 1chieving their objecrives li111it rhl extent to vhich cross
co111parisons of efficiency can btmiddot 111ade Neither unifonn perfonnanre inclicarors nor
co111111on infonnirion sysEc1ns on 1cl111inis1ruivc efficiency 1cross the ini1i1tivcs l1ave
been cle1middotcJopecl
23 The ptriocl covered in 1he chtpler is I994- I 998 indus1le However cle11ilecl
tndysrs ti indiviclutl Loctl Dltvelop111ent bodies ielel rel11es 10 I99i - 1997 II
should be noted thu local l)cvelop111ent bodies did 1101 co1nn1ence si1nultancously
incl 1h11 1he lime 11ken 10 esttblish indivicl11d local groups viriccl Accorclingly
expencli1ure in the early ye~trs rel~tles to the middotfullmiddot 1crivilics of i 111inority of groups
and the st111up plt1se of 111any lcgteal groups
24 middotrhe issues incl Calualion cri1t~ri1 used in thi chaptc1 are
Issue Evaluation Criteria
Administration costs Administration costs as a percentage bull of total expenditure
Human resources Extent of Board input bull Staff skills bull
Adequacy of management Data collecllon by Local Development bodies bull information systems Integration of data at national level bull
bull Reporting and monitoring
Administration Costs
25 The tottl 1111oun1 of expcncl1111rc incurred lw Local Develormcnt IJoclics m the
pen0ltI 1994 10 1998 was s208 mrll1on This is tntlysed in Ttble 2 I
26 middotrhc totil expenditure incurred can ht- categorised inro ad1ninisrration costs
vhich are the costs of running the relevant office-i and other exrenditurc Vhich is
cliviclecl IJeteen direct fin1nciil issis1ance 10 enterprise~ ~ind exp~ncliturc on
1ctivirics to incn1se enterprise avireness pro11101e con111n1ni1y dcvclop111cn1 or
redress clis~1dv1nt1ge
8
Atl111i11 ist rrttilt ~lie ic11c_ v
Ta~le 21 Expenditurebull by Local Development bodies 1994-1998
CEBs
P3rtnersh1ps
and other
LloADER Groups
Total
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
poundm poundm poundm poundm poundm
82 28
19 9 46
216 104
230 232
254 301
1 6 53 11 7 202
11 0 261 373 579 75 7
Norg a Expenditure relates to activities under OPLURD and LEADER II Some Local Development bodies also incur expenditure on other activities which arc not funded under OPLURD or LEADER and which are outside the scope of the examination Details for 1995-1997 are contained in Appendix A
b The total expenditure in the table includes Partnerships Community Groups and selected National Organisations
c Includes selected sectoral groups Annual reports of OPLURD and LEADER for 1998
Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total EJcpenditure
2i 1d1ninistra1ion costs 1 a perceniage of total expenditure in the period 1995 shy197 are shown in Tabk 2 L (There was link ad11uniscra11on pending in 1994)
2S dn1inistraliOn CDSIS IS J pcrcen1agt of tOtt[ eXJ1tl1citure decreaStcl uver the
period 199i 10 1997 for t~1ch iniriativtmiddot middotrhis JS clul n11inly co the face that it took
so1ne tin1c for rhe developnHnc groups 10 beco1ne opcrHional 1ncl hence 11n1ch of
the initial expenditure vas on adn1inistration rather thin activic1es This trend i~
1x111iculirly nocKeablc in che cise of LEADER groups md lirtnerships where
acl111inistrHion co1s 1s a percent1ge of tottl expencliture clroppecl sultilanli~11ly
middotrh1re Vere so1ne varialiuns betveen intlividt1al ltEls LFl)FH gnntps ind
Jgta1tnersl1ips middotr11ese ire considered belO Cfhe 1cl111inistration costs of Local
Deiclopnwn1 bodies are shown 111 Appendix B)
CltJUlllJmiddot E11te1prise Rltgttlrtls
29 1middot1icrc v(middotrc no great variations in rhc ad111inistruion costs incurred by che
CEl3s w11h lhe mqorill spending helWtCn pound 100000 and Jl )0000 per innum
1n1lysis of 1997 dat1 shc)Ytbullcl 1h~11 the adn1inistra1ion costs of n1ost CEBs V(n Vithin
1 ~1 r1nge of I ~Ai 10 25S~1 in rel~llion to tnttl expenditure The )ov~st Vas f)uhlin City
H J 1 with Cork Norch being che h1ghcsc ac 11 The level is scronglv mlluencecl IJy
the extent to vhich CFI3s are involved in the provision of gruus is chis increases the
9
local l)cuer4J11unt lnitiaflvcs
Table 22 Administration costs as a percentage of total expenditure
CEBs Partnershipsbull LEADER Groupsbull
Total
1995
poundm
49
15
08
72
Admin c
1996
poundm
43
41
16
100
istration osts
1997
poundm
44
53
20
11 7
Percentage of total expenditure
1995 1996 1997
25 20 19
34 44 28
51 31 17
28 28 22
Note B The figures exclude Community Groups and selected National Organisations b Excludes selected sectoral groups
Source Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General see Appendix A
level of overill expenditure In the c1sc of Cork North their mtin activities are
ini111~1tion incl the rrobullision of suppor1 such 1s counselling and training
wh1Chwould involve lowtr levels of expenditure rlm1 the supply of grant aJCI In the
case of other CFl3s such 1s Dublin City the focus was pnnnpally on the pronsion
of grtnl aid
Part11ersJips
210 P111nersh1ps generally spenl between l)0000 ind l200000 on adminisrruion
1n l997 with some excep11ons Mos 11rtnersl11ps which were esiiblished before
OPLURD had lower adminis1ru1on costs as a percentage of 1otal expenduure rhan
those wl11ch were srtnecl under OPIUlm In 1997 adminis1ra11on expenditure as a
perceniage of 1otil expencliture vas generally in the r1nge of 200u to 40Yo vith the
lowesl a 13 (in rhe case of i011hsidc in Dublin) 10 rhe highest m 51 (1n rhe
case of lnishovltn in J)o11cgal) il1ile 1c111al adn1inistration exptnditure vas si111il1r
in borh Partnerships expenditure on 1crivi1ies VIS significantly greater in Nonhside
as compared ro Donegil lnishowen which wis still in a scr up phase The riming
of projects locil rriorilies in the i1nple111ent1Cion of business rt~1n ind the nu1nbcr
of yltars the Jgtartner-hips have been operating have tn in1p1c1 on the adrninistritivc
cos1s percent1ge indicator
IEADER G10llJlt
211 LEADEH groups genenilly spenr lgtetween 50000 incl U00000 on
~1d1ninis1r1tion in 1997 Vith son1e exceptions In 1997 1dn1inis1rJtion expenditure ~1s
a percentage of 101al expenditure was generally in rhe r111gc 10 to 20 wuh the
lowest at 7 (in rhe c1SL of IJirrow-Nore-Suir) 10 rhe h1ghes1 ll 45 (in the case of
Comhm lorrais) While 1dminis1rarion expenditure wis simiLtr 111 borh LEADlR
10
Adn1i11istrati1cbull IJiciellcy
groups expendilurc on activities (including ~1nin1ation ind provision of grants) v1s
significanlly gnatcr in BarrO-Norc-Suir cor11p1red LO (cJJ11h1ir lnrr1is_ middotr1ierc llL 1
nuirtlltr of factors that can give rise to the variation uch a- hov Vt11 cst1blishcd
lhe sroup is local priorities in the in1ple111ent~1tion of the bu-iiness plan tilt tin1ing
of pro1ecis and 1hc lcnI of grant ml
Human Resources
21lt The loc1I charancr of each of he Local Devclopnw111 boclies mcl the nllure 1 ~incl diversity of thlir operHions n1ean thH thty h1vc l Sllbs11nti1I rolt of initiating
and co ordinating ac11vnies in co-operit1on ith 1 Viele v1ric1y of volunt~1ry and
stttutory org1nisu1ons (see Chapter 3) middotrhe achieve111t~n1 of their objectives is
I clepcndenl on _rhe avail~1hility of high quality plrsonn~I al Board tncl suh-co111111it1Ll
level and clecl1uted high ctl1bre s111f
Extent of Board Input I
2 B There 1s significant input it Boircl level for all of 1he bocl1es Arouncl 1wo 1hircb
of ( EBs operate sub-Boarcl co1111111nccs and half of these suigt-COlllllllllecs inclucle
1 111cn1lxmiddotr clravn fron1 1he local con1n1unit vho are nnt Boltncl clirector ~ middotrhis
invch-t~n1erH in 1octl l)evelopn1tnr bodies e1~tail~ a high dcgrLL of co111n1itn1en1 fro111
people vho are alrctdy active in their local co111111unitics
214 Pr1ctically ill Pirtnerships have suh-co1111111trecs on con1111unity ltlevelopnhmiddotnt=
I education and cnltrpri-e ~incl 111ost LEAl)EH microruups h~1ve -llh-co111111itte1middots on rurtl
touris111environnHn1 natural resources and s111all husinesscraftgt~erviccsr
Prermiddotaratory vork alllndince at 111cct1ngs ancl follov ur ~1ctivities pl1cc considerable
ti111c den1ands on Board and -ub-co111n1ittet 1ne1nbers l)uring chc exuninHion
I lt1bu11clan1 lViclence Vts found of the con1111itn1ent incl skill of Board n1en1lgters and
111en1htmiddotrs of suh-connniutes
Stciff Skills
215 A wide variety of skills is requirecl of 1cxal Developmem swff to match the
range of act1vitilmiddots 11ncle11~1ken middotrhis feature is ranicularly i111portan1 for LEAl)EH
I groL ps and P1rtnershirs clue to tht extent of their nmiddotn1i1 middotrhe staff nf Local
J)cvltmiddotlop111cnt bodies are highly qualified According co ~1 ncenl survey 5lVo of the
i-~~F ond Ihl lCgtfal Jr)(111 c111d RlflI )c11h1p111tllf PTT1JiHlllll1l f11ropca11 )(lt1a F111u Pro~ra1111111
1ttd11a1io11 Unll Apnl (JJJ
1)p(rt111011(1 fro~rc1111111e fnr IJAJ)FJ II (rJl11111111 11ilrcll1Utmiddot iI( Tlr11 R1bull1re11 Rtbullfx11 3re1uftu1 ((middott1rne1 middot (11t A ~(Jlt ialt3 199 7
II
(JC(l )e(lltJjJ11CI 11itiatiU(
CEOs of CEBs huld post-griduite que11ilkirion and funher 2()0 hive prima11middot
ckgrce In the cise of Partnerships 6()0o of 1nan1gers hold a post-gr1du~1te
qualificllion and a funher 24degAgt h1ve 1 pri1n1ry degret
216 flu rc-nurcefulnes- of Lltxil l)cmiddotelop111ent s11ff IS cvident during the course
of the eXltllllill1li01l
Adequacy of Management Information Systems
217 ht avaiL1bili1y of gncgtd 1111111ge111ent infonnation sys1e111s is 1 pnrequisitc fnr
cfficicnt icl1ninis1ration of the inititrives ind for ensuring thll rlllVLnt incl reli1hle
d1t1 is 1v1ilablc for pl1nning plrfonnince 111onitoring ind ev1luation An in-depth
rcvieV of the 1111n1ge1nen1 infon1111ion sysh111s in use Vas 1101 incl11dtd 1n the scope
of the ex1111ina1ion_ 1-lovever ce111in cltfic1cncics in the systen1s htmiddotc1111e app1rent
in discussions Vith officitls in 1hc locil f)evelnp111ent bodies ind during the
qu1n1i111ivt 1nil~middotsis vork
Data Collection by Local Development Bodies
218 E1ch of 1hc bodies opertllS scp1r11e co111pu1erisecl infonnttinn syste111s Vhirh
Vere ck~signtd by consuh1n1 under the aegis of lhe J)cpar1111cnts ind 1l)fmiddotI is
tppropnHe middotrhc pri1111ry purpose of 1hese syste1ns is 10 provide fredbtck on
ae11v1ties by eich Locd Development body ID the Dep1nme111s incl AD1vl The
syste111s should tlso provide 1111n~1ge111ent infor111a1ion for usc locally and facilitite
external evalunion 10vevtr the 1rge nun1bLmiddotr of local groups reponing 10
ditfercnt dtp1n111en1s posls pa11icul1r cJ11lltmiddotngLS tlaquoJr cL1t1 c~tpture
219 l)isc11ssions vitl1 ltgtfficials in the Local l)evelcgtprnent bodies visi1ed indicated
so1ne di~s11i-faction Villi ht kx1l use of systen1s in 1h11 they vere reg1rded as being
1101 user friendly or Vere perceivcd as not being fully suited 10 loc~tl 1ninage111cn1
needs_ In fi(I so111e locd f)evelopn1en1 bodicmiddots h1ve kepi lhltir origin1I syste111s in
11si O -upplc111lnl 1he infon1tttinn provided by the cen1r~1lly debullcloped systeni_ middotrhe
dillicultit~s havt heen recognised ind steps 1rt being t1ke11 011 1n ongoing b1is 10
encourage grc11cr loctl u-e of the C(ntrilly developed syste111~
220 Forn1al 1rr1ngc111en1s ire nor in place Vhich VOuld f1cilitlle nuo111a1ic sharing
of infon111tio11 Joctlly icross ill of rhe groups_ 1his is not possible due to 1he
1bsnce of 1 con1111011 clicnr identifier in the thrtt co111pu1cr sys1e111s_ So111c id-hoc
shiring of dtli such ts projerl tpplicition and 1pprov1ls occurs through rneetings
be1vccn bodies ind via County Str11cgy Groups lmiddotlovcver 1his is no subs1iru1e for
a systen111ic approich to dati sharing
12
Acl111i11 isrrari1e lli-c ieJtlmiddot_ v
22 l A middotide v1riery of perfonna11ce indicnors V1s dtveloped 1hrough discus~ions
w11li 1he external evilullor and with Local Development bodies (se~ Appendix C
mcl OJ LEADEH groups ind Partnersh1ps m 1x111irnlar undertake i wide range of
tctimiddot1 ities and con-lmiddotqucnly 1hcir co111pu1er sy-1en1s c1pture ~1 Viele range of data
middotrhi c111 plicc an tLessive burden on the sn1all 1d111inb1rilie st1ff 1n these bodies
perfonn~tnce 1ncasun111en1 systc111 Vhich focu~es nn 1n agreld StI of key indicuors lo tnco111plttS~ core tctivities and ou1purs and vhich reflect- key objectives
n1ighc be n1ore appropriattmiddot 1ny addicional inforn1uion require1nents could Ix
prltrlided Jess frlmiddotquently through for ex1111ple annual rtporting arrangc111cn1s
22~ 1middot11e fnltomiddoting issues Verlt also noced
bull The p11ori1ics of d1fferen1 loc1I Dcvelopmcnl lxKlies arc not 1den1ical even
Vithin 1hc sunc Local f)cvelopn1ent ini1ia1ive For exan1ple one Local l)evclopn1cnt lxxly 111ight prioritisl 1ss1stance to cl1stclvant1ged groups vhilc 1norher rnight priontise cnterprist clevelop1ncn1_ Exisling 1ne1st1rlll1cnt syste111s do not allov 11le perfon111ncc of chese tvo gruups co be realiticdly r111kecl and con11xircd
bull Measurement should cope w11h the fact that much of the pcrform1nce under
the ini1iat1ves is qualitative in nHure Exunplcmiddots include quil11y of tr~tining openness to disadvantaged groups and qu11i1y of relacionships Vith other
st1tu101) bodies Exiscing n1easunmiddotmiddot111Lllt systcn1s do not cuer for rhcsc 1spects
of perfo1111111ct
bull f)espice initiatieS to involve locd l)evelop111ent bodies in the specificuion of
perfonnancc indicators cxisling perfon111nce n1oni1oring is frequencly seen as son1cth1ng vhich is in1pltgtstcl on groups Vilh lillll direct bcncfi1 in lenns of
e11~1bling 1hltmiddotn1 to understand hov to in1prove 1hcir Ovn perfonnancc~
22 The apprrnd1 described in Case S1uclv I gi1bulls 1n 1nclic111on of 111~ prltp1ratory
Yor involved in developing svsce111s to cviluatc rhc efficiency and tgtfflttivencss of
1he bCKlies Governmenl Dep1rtmenLlt and Local Developmenl bocl1es might es1lt1bl1sh
10 middothat cxtenc this 1ppro~1ch could hl~ applied co rhc 1neasure111en1 and n1anagc1nent
of LDcil Dcvdopmenl periorrnrnc~ Thi 1s a prercquisi1e 10 es11blishing the clati
reqt-ire111ents Yllich should be -arisficd hy the inforn11til~n sys1c1ns in u~e by LocalI l)evmiddotlop111erH bodies Under clie exis1ing s~middotsren1s the inforniHion require111cnts for
detennining 1he extenc ro Vhich value for n1oney is htmiddoting obt1ined front expencli1ure
on lhe iniliatives arl nor 1dequarCly provided for middotrhe current inadequacies of the
inforn)Hion sys1e111i lin1it the scope for evaluation middotrhc middotlid-middotrenn Ev1lt111iuns of both
llA)FR and 011LRD have drawn a11e111ion lo 1his deficiency
Ilo1rc1er 11~-tf)FR groups produce wn11e11 c11u1i1a1ilmiddote repon llriccbull year~r 011d other local 1Je1eop111eu1 lltXlics olso 111c11de c111ai1a11n aJXCt of Jfrfon1u111ce u1 1b1middot1r n7xJt1s AJJ J(ls prod11t1bulld a sene bull of poundltlgt lt1dit- ubich nfhbullc1 q11all1a1inmiddot clfJtltmiddotr_~ of the uork of Parr11erships
J-rr an e(11ded disn1ss1nJ1 nr1 the (flk11e _p_- u_(Jt1j()r11111J1c(bull 111v11i1r1i11g 1middotce middot11F and 1111middot local Urlxo1 111d N11nil FJtnmiddotlopn1ltll lltJ8111n11111middot middot FuroJlllll Sulti(I F1111d lr(Jgn111111Jl 1alifioi1 fh1i1 April 1999
13
lnco l)erelop111enf 11itiati1es
Case Study 1
A benchmarking project
A transnational study funded by the EU is underway to develop benchmarks for pro1ects which seek to insert unemployed people into the labour market The main purpose of benchmarking is to enable organisations to improve their performance
Through a process of discussion and analysis involving the implementing organisations the key processes and desired outcomes are established An agreed set of quantifiable
indicators is developed to give a measure of performance under each key process and desired outcome Overall performance 1s denved by applying an agreed weighting formula to the 1ndiv1dual measures Data capture and performance reporting are
overseen by an independent third party
Graphical representations are produced showing the performance of each group for each key process and outcome Typically the performance of each group will be stronger in some respects than others and future action to improve performance can then ensue
Integration of Data at National Level
224 It is 1111port1nt th11 there should be ce111ral access to cltu to provtclc for a
sys1e1n11ic 1nd co111prchensivLmiddot cv1Jua1ion 1t nation1l level of tl1e efficicnc ind
cffectivcntmiddotss of lcxlttl develop111cnt 1cross the country In 1ddi1ion 1his vould
suppo11 co-01)er1tion ind co-ordina1ion across the bodies
225 Dllt lteld within Governtttent Depa11111enb and ADM is not tntegratecl at the
levtI of tile henefici~111 For exa1nple grant approvJJs to 111 enterprise gr1nt
pJyn1cn1- ~incl e1nploy111cnt 1re not associ1tcd vith 1 unique client identifier in
Enterprise middotrr1dt~ and E111ploy111en(s con1pu1er sys1e111 sin1ik1r veakncss exists in
Agriculture and Foocl and ADM This ctn reduce the scope for evaluttion For
cxainplc the JXrfonnancc of c1Hi1ics vhich obtain financial assis1ance cinno1 readily
be con1p1re(I Vilh 1hose vhich rlCcive 01her non-fin3nci1J supports
226 Whltn CEils were first cstablishccl Enterp11se Traut incl Ftttployment usecl a
cl11ilx1se inheri1ed fro1n 1he J)cpann1en1 of Fin1nce to record ce11~1in key datltI such
is grants piicl ancl ipprovecl on eich enterprise assisted by CEils In aclclition clati
on the Enterprise T11clc ancl Emplovmcnt Business lnfortttation Systettt (BIS) hdcl
grant and e1nploy1nent clua for all 1n1nufac1uring 1nd international services finns
middotr1ie opportunity v1s not taken of co111hining d1ta on the CEB clatal)ase vith its 011
BIS Subscquenllr EntcrpniL middotrrackmiddot incl E111ploy111Lmiddotn1 discontinued recording gran1
piyment cl1t1 on the CEB cL111base finally the coverage of the Forfis annual
etttploytttent survey (which 11pcl11es the BIS) was allowed to clittttnislt so that it no
14
longer allernrts lO include syste111aticillv -i111tll n11nuL1cturing tmiddotnterpriscs Vith less
1han 1en employees Agt a result 1he ibihty of En1erprise Trtcle incl Employmenl lo
1noni1or sn1all indus1ry perfunn~1nce and the cffec1ivencss of s1nall indusC1)
de clopn1cnt progr1111n1es l1as cmiddotonsicleralgtly eJkene(I
227 Enterprise middotrr1de incl Ernployn1tnt is H pr(S(nt agr(eing tcnns of reference
fur 1he es11hlish1ncnt of J sy-itcn1 tn L1cilitate chc inllgrition of CEl3 cL111 in10 1he Bl~
11 ii intended that ForL1s viii include CEB clien1- in its 1nnu1l c1nployn1tnt survey
In addition the l)epann1enl rl~1ns (O acquire a stacistical soft~tre p~1ckage to f1cilita1lt
udysis of CEil cL11a
228 middotrhcre is no nuional pltn to integrHt en1errrisc incl individual clien1 level dtta
fron1 CEl3s ith sin1il1r cLn1 fron1 lEAl)EH gruurs tnd Pannerships Agri(tilture incI
roud does not integrate 1nfonnation vhich is collecllmiddotd fron1 e1ch of 1htgt groups in10
nu onal systen1s and has no plans to do so Al)1 provides rltrltJrts 10 a n111nber of
f)epa111nen1 including Sociil ltollununity ind F11nily 1flairi Fnttrprise middotrr1de and
Fn1ployn1en1 and l~duca1ion and Science
1 229 In 1995 middotrmiddotouris1n Sport ind Hecrcation began 1 process of Stlling up a
I ClnlrJised rerfonnance lllOTlitoring systclll (P~middotIS) for OPJLiHJ) co1nprising ~1ggrega1e
output indicators for CEUs ind Partncrships9 Significin1 rlsources have been
demiddot01ed to developing this systtmiddot111 Pcrfonnance 1ndica1ors Verlt tin~1lly approved by
hlmiddot OPllif) Vtonitoring Con11ni11ee in Jl1y 1999 According lo middot1middotouris1n Srort and
Ht(reation this did not JJlov sufficienl 1in1e to consider extending the sys1e1n
frarnevork 10 provide for co1nplt1nson Vilh o(her rrogr11nn1es such as LEAl)Elt lmiddothe
c11rmiddotent posilion is tliH
bull P1nncrship rerforn11ncc dat~l fro111 I January 19lt)7 IS StJCcessfully taken into
the Jgt~1S l)Ha fron1 co11111n1nity ~ind special inttrcsc groups Vls taken inlo till
PMS for l 998
bull Performance dJla for 1998 from all of the CFlb has beltn rnlla1ed by South
Dublin CEB and taken mlltgt Ille PMS
Tht PMS is used to mon11or 1he levels of ae1ivi11es and outputs under 011UHD 11 JS
usel by thL ex1crn1I ev~tlua1or to assist middotrouris1n Sport and lh~crettion ~ind 1he
OfgtlURl) vlonilonng ConunittlL lO OVLf-itv the Progra1nn1e It is of li111itcd use for
efflCtivcnltSS analysis
23t) A funlicr ditficully is the allsenct of con11x1rison-gt vi1h son1c key h~tseline data
pricbullr to the es1ablishn1ent of ll1Lmiddot bodies for cxunrlt the r11e of nev firn1 fonnalion
and job cretlion 111 -111lt111 firins and 1he pL1cc1nent of long-lenn u11tn1ployecl
middotrourisin Sport and Hlcreation has co111111issionecl a ltudy of b1-cline da1a
15
oca J)e1euj111e11t 11ififlli1e
Reporting and Monitoring
231 Progress npo11s Jre produced every six 111on1hs by 1he lead l)ep1n111en1s for
consider1tion tnd approval lgty the reltv1n1 flonitoring Con1111i11ces Ex1ern1l
cmiddotvdu11ors VCrl eng1ged by middotrouris111 Spltgtn and Hecrea1ion and Agriculture and
rood for 011lHlD ancl lltDEll respcctilely ro produce evduarion rqions ancl 1hey
]11ve ~ilso produced 111id-ten11 rcvievs_ middotr111se repo11s iremiddot considered ll hilf-ye1rly
111ee1ings of 1he nlevint f1onitoring Co1n1nittees_ All Loc1l l)evelop111e111 bodies
prodt1ce 1nn11al rcpo11s ou1lining 1c1ivititS undenaktmiddotn 1oge1htr Vilh financial
s1He111ents 1~ required under the operHional progr11111ncs
232 Nerworking plays an irnponanr role for rhe bocl1s Borh lEtDEH groups and
Pu11Hr~hips have 1he bcncfit of personnel dedica1ed 10 org1nis1ng nelvork
acriv1ries The CEOs of rhe CUh also meer regularly
16
3 Co-ordination of Activities
31 middotrhtmiddot co-cistenrl of chtbull 1hrll types of hltxlics for local clevclop1nen1 lt1- given
rise to concern tlX)llt duplicttion and the Jack of co-ordinuion 1 middotrhe pltllentid for
cluplic1tion irises bcciu_c the bodies co111111e1Htd inderenck~nlly of each olhlr ind
s1ariccI 11 clitlercnt ti1nes lt1ve sin1ilar ubjemiddottives incl 11rglt ovcrl1pping p(gtpul~1tions
hivmiddot~ se1x1rItc local ad1n1nistr1lll strucrurls 1 rcpo11 to different lgtepa11n1enLi and ire
funded by different opltftlionil progr1111111es_ A a res11h there is 1 need 10 ln-gture
that there nl lttdtqulle 1rr1ngin1Lmiddotnts in pL1c1 to recluce the pnss1hility of cluplicltion
and to ensure that lhtrc is proper co-ordination betVten he ditlerenl bodies
32 Jhe iSSlllS of Jupllcl11on and co-urdinlliun can bl t~sc -lcl
bull bccwcen ch cl1ffllellC loctl Devclormenc boclicmiddots
bull belveen Local ()evelopn1ent hoclies and 01her agencies ~11ch is Enltrpri~tmiddot
lreL1nd 1ncl che l)lmiddot1x1111ntmiddotn1 of Suciil lt0111111un11y incl F1111ily tfL1ir-
1middothis ex1111ination is confined to duplication incl co-orclinat1on belVeen Local
n~vfiopmtell( bodies
33 In this chapter rhlmiddot i-sues of duplication and cn-ordinition are exanuntd under
evduition criteria ~1s shovn bclOmiddot
Issue Evaluation criteria
Du )lication Objectivesbull Clientsbull Activitiesbull Funding of projects bull
Comiddotordination Local level bull National level bull
IDulication
134 1 subst1nliil nu111her of lgencies c111 provide l0~11 l)evelopn1ent suppnrts in
I thl 1111e hgtc~d 1rc~J 1igure 31 fro111 lhe Suulh Vest illus1rites this
35 middotrhe natun of lhtmiddot inllillimiddottmiddots is 1hat lhlrc should be tltmiddotibiliry in str11egic
dlcigtiun n1ahing at locil level Vilhin brc)Jd p1ra11H[lfS lllch 1n sel oul 1n the
Operation1) Progr1111111es middotrhe si1nilari1ies igtelveen ohjectimiddotes clienL ind activilies i~
shltn11 in middotrabies 3_ I to 34 1re 1 result of thlst policies
17
loca )evelofn11enf lnifia11es
Figure 31 Local Development Supports in the South West
Tuartha Chiarrai Teo (Leader)
West Cor Enterprise Board
North Cork Enterprise
Board
Blackwater Resource Development (Leader)
m Car City Partnership
South Cork Enterprise Board
Cork URBAN
Note The following ADM funded community groups are indicated on the map by nun1bers
[] Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo [Z] Bantry Integrated Development Group
G1] East Cork Area Development Ltd ] Avondha Development Partnership fil IRO Duhalow Ltd
[sect] Sliabh Luachra Ltd [Z] Listowef Baronies Group Ltd
Objectives
36 All of 1he Lxxlics trt concerned illl locil econoinic develop1nlllt tnd h~1ve
i IJrief lo rn-ordin11e incl enlunce ex1s1ing suppo11s ii locd level Bo1h lEAl)EH
incl P111nersl1ip grltn1ps arc conccrntmiddotd V1th co1n111unity clcvelop1nent Vhile
P~1nn~rships ire explicitly focused on co1nlx1111ng socitl exclusion
Clients
37 1Ltny sin1il1ri1ies exist hetVeen 1he clitnls uf the lhllt types nf bodies hu1
there tre tlso in1pon1nt clifferenclS ihile CEHs deal Vilh business ickas fro1n any
individual or group thty do not specifically target dis1dv~11111gcd groups vhich are
1hc focus of P111nersh1ps lFAl)ER acliitics ire dirtctcd IOVllcls the loc1J
18
-------
I
Coorclination ojmiddot Acliuitiltgts
Table 31 Objectives
Objectives CEBs Partnerships LEADER
Fogtster development by Area planning Jc1b creation
Business supports Arumatton
C1)unter serious economic and social problems by Aisisting long-term unemployed 1n10 jobs Promoting adult educationtraining Aisisting community development Ericouraging provision of child support Integrate supports at local level
0
Table 32 Clients
Nature of Clients
Pcmiddotpulation coverage
G(bullograph1c coverage
Small Enterprises
Adult Learners
Joigt Seekers incl LongshyTelm Unemployed (LTU)
Ccmmunity Groups
Lone parents
Trc1vellers
Pe)ple with d1sabil1ties
Dirndvantaged youth
i==
CEBs Partnerships LEADER
100 61
100 Includes 13 complete counties and several
other disadvantaged areas
Almost complete in rural areas
(excludes part of cities of Dublin Cork Galway Limerick Waterford)
Note o denotes thor one Local Development body has chosen to pursue this objective
a This relates to designated areas covered by Area-Based Partnerships Soures Tables 3 1 amp 32 These tables were derived from the Operational Programme for LEADER
OPLURO and interviews with managers of Local Development bodies
19
lr1ca )e1eh11111e111 11i1iati1es
Table 33 Main development activities
Activity CEBs Partnerships LEADER
Draft development plans v v v Assess local plans 0 v v Carry out surveys of enterprises v v 0
Provide finance to enterprises v v v Provide advice to enterprises v v v Assist enterprises to access
consultancy support v 0 v Organisefund mentors for enterprises v v v Fund management development v Organisefund marketing initiatives v v Promote enterprise via meetings etc v v v Produce enterprise
brochuresbusiness guides v v v Promote enterprise 1n schools via
competitions training etc v v v Fund prov1s1on of tourism facilities v v Fund road signage Tidy towns v Fund artscultural festivals v v
Table 34 Main activities concerned with countering serious economic and social problems
Activity
Counsel long-term unemployed (lTU)
Carry out skills audit of LTUs
Establish network of L TUs
Organise fund education or
training courses Fund provision of education centres
Fund construction refurbishment
equipment of community resource
or activity centres Fund estate improvement
Fund communityyouth workers
Organise fund community fora
or networks Organise fund homework clubs
Fund youth act1vit1es
Fund play groups creches
CEBs Partnerships
v v v
LEADER
v v
v v
0
Note 0 denotes that not afl Local Development bodies have chosen to undertake these activities
Sources Tables 3_3 amp 34 These tables were derived from the Operational Programme for LEADER OPLURD and interviews with managers of Local Development bodies
20
Coor(i nation ojmiddot11 c I tu it ies
co111nunity in genertl ind local project pron1ottri lhile people vho tr( Slvcrely
socially or ((Cll)Olllically deprived IllJY r1r1iciplle in lEAl)l-f lllivitilS LEAl)EI his
no nmiddot1nit 1n spccifically targlting lhlSl groups In nine c1-es lEAlgtER ancl
P1dncrship Strviccs an dtbulllimiddotlncl by llHmiddot s11ne loc1I group
3~ LEAl)ER Jnd P111r1trships ltivc exten-iiC hut not co111plc1e popult11un
colrttge Jgt111nerships ind 1l)ivl-funcled con1nu1nity groups coVlI 1111ny of 1hc n1ure
conclmiddotn1r11ecl trltls of dis1dvin11ge l)lllt to lhe ficl 1h11 social dis1clvanragc is
spali11ly clis1rilH1ttmiddotd son1ltmiddot 1nmiddot1s of till cuuntry Vh(r( clis1dv1r111ge ex1sts arc nor
cobullbulltmiddotnmiddotd by P1rlnltrships or l)imiddotl-h1nded con1n1uni1v groups
A1tivities
39 It c111 igte gteen fro111 middotro1ble Jl 1hll 1hcre ecrraquoive duplicnion of
de1c]op111e11t tctivities 1crois 1he bodies Vith 1hnost tll of the 1c1ivitics lgteing
llndertlken by JI Je1-t tVO type~ of hodJtS [n inlLfilS Vith ht lllJntgtrs or the
Local l)evelorn1tnl bodies ii middotas indicated 1h~H Vhile thcv are lVtre of this
overl1p they rel~ on co-ordination n1ech1nis111s to ensure that re-ource- are nnl
Vl ~teeI
310 It c111 igte gtltmiddoten fro111 Table 34 1ha1 so111e overlip exisis lielween IEADER
gnurs ind P1nnerships Vith respec1 [o countering serious econo1nic ind soci1l
prcmiddotblv111- middotrills can irislt through i111pnmiddotc1stmiddot defini1ion ind inlerprtlUiun of the r~1nge
of crviltlS providld J-[oll(L the extenl of overlap 1n countering serious econo111ic
and Slgtcitl rroblcins is n111ch less 1han in 1he case of develor1nent activilies pa1tly because of th( 11rgct1ng of -plcific client groups hy P1rtnerships (the long-tenn
uncn1ployed ind the soc111ly ecludedJ
311 It should be no1ecl th~1t 1111ny other agencies or groups outside the scope of
1he exa1nin~nirln are ilso 1ctive II local level For cx1111pllt the Hosco111111on (JmiddotB
1ction Pl111 1997 - 1999 conttins a 111trrix uf dtmiddotvehgtp111ent agltncies incI servicis
pre vided in Coun(y Hosco111111on lhis i- shnmiddotn in ppendix E
F1J1nding of Projects
3 12 Situations can occur vhere pro111oters can 111axilnist thl funding they receive
b~middot applying for surport froo1 cJillenlll groups
W1hlre arc Poor 011s(hcd~ 711c Spali(I )11rih11lPll () r11e11r a11d DeJ11r11011 111 rlrt11d Urito1 1oa11 cl (J C0111ha1Ponrty1l~ltJ1C) 19lt)8
21
ocal Jeveloj1111c111 lniJ1atiUltS middot----- shy
Case Study 2
Subsidy shopping
A promoter had a turnover of pound80000 from an equestrian centre and language school In addition he was a farmer his spouse was a teacher and he had net assets of almost pound05 m1ll1on He wished to develop the equestrian centre and language school and provide accommodation on site for language students he applied to a CEB for financial assistance The estimated cost of the project was as follows
pound Accommodation costs 20000 Classrooms 10000 Indoor arena 22000 Outdoor arena 15000 Tennis court 10000
Total 77000
The CEB considered that financial support would be appropriate for certain nonshyaccommodationmiddot aspects of the project This comprised classrooms indoor arena and outdoor arena costing pound47000 and a grant of pound20000 was approved in May 1996 The Board considered that the promoter should fund all of the accommodation aspects (The Board had a policy of not assisting the provision of accommodation because this is a response to rather than a generator of demand)
In September 1996 the promoter applied to a LEADER group for a grant According to the grant application form the accommodation cost had risen to pound85000 (as against pound20000 in the CEB application) The LEADER group was aware of the financial support already provided by the CEB and the reasons why this level of support was given The LEADER Board approved a grant of pound17000 being 20 of the cost of the accommodation The project promoter was also approved for a marketing grant from LEADER of pound2750
Total capital grants approved for the project (pound37000) amounted to 26 of pro1ected capital expenditure (pound142000)
313 It has been po1n1ccl 011t (by Entlrpnse Trnclc ind Employment ind Tourism
Sport ~ind HecreJtion) 1hat this ct~e srudy gives little risemiddot fur concern 1~ the funcling
vas clinctecl tOv1rds different ele1nent of the projecr l-loCVer the fnlloving
efficiency difficulc1cs arise
bull aclcluionil middotsearchmiddot costs for cl1cnts who mikc mul11ple applicu1ons for ~1-isistance
bull ~1dditiontl tin1e ~pent by n1en1bers of Bo1rd incl evtluuion co1n1ni1tees and adn1inistrJrivc cosrs in Loc1I l)evelnpn1ent bodies
bull thC first Local Devdopment body to approve finannJI assisuncl cannot adopt a middotrotlJ project vieV bCClttUSe it is 110t lV1fe Vhether subsequent tJ1plicati011S ill be 1n1cle for assist1nce to other Local Developn1ent bodies
22
COorcination of Actiuitics
C1gt-ordination
314 As part of their an11nat1011 and co111111unity development 1ctivitits all of the
bol1es part1culirlv LFADER groups and P1rtnersl11ps look for opportunities to
1ni iale and co-orclina1e acrivilies vhich 111iy be underlaken by a vide variety of
st1tutory rnmmun11y and voluntary groups Tlus work usually Licilitates the
provision of econo111ic and social benefits to the co111n1un1ty Typical exunples 1re
bull Organising nevorks of lone parenis
bull Pro1nnting tidy tovns
bull Organising second chancC cducuicgtn
Vihin Local Development hodics therLmiddot is often tc11sion between the priorny to be
given to their co-ordination role ver~us the direct delivery of services including
grants
315 Co-ordination frequently involves the co-operation of several different
organisations at different levels (StHc local government communitvvoluntary
se(tor and business) to ~chicve a con1111on objective middotrhrough their co-ordinarion
roli~ the bodies n1ay harness rhc porcntial of several organisarions to achieve an end1 which would not otherwise be achieved This role has been cited is contnbutmg to
the unique role of the Joell development bod1Lmiddots A good LXimple of this mshyore ination i~ set out in Case Study 3
316 The multiple funding ol this anglmg pro1ect is substint1ally differtnl from the
multiple funding shown 1n Case Study 2 In Cie Stuclv 3 thlt contributions of the
vanous bodies were agreed as part of an integrated plan
317 The co-existence of three significant types of boches (and the inherent
cluphcarion shovn in 1he previous section) places a particular onus on 111anagc111tmiddotn1
of the organisations oH both national and lcxal levels to co-ordintte service provision
Fig1re 32 illustrates for each of the bodiltS the dilftmiddotrcnt co-ordinarion structures in
phe
23
loco l Jc1eofgt11HJ 11 I11 ii iu I ioes
Case Study 3
Co-ordination of a tourism angling project
A LEADER group in an inland county sponsored a study of the tourism development
potential of the county Although the county had weak tourism infrastructure and
practically no angling facilities the study identified several tourism sub-sectors that
could be developed including angling
An initiative was undertaken by the LEADER group to co-ordinate the development of
angling in partnership with fourteen other bodies including Fisheries Boards ESB
Coillte Duchas Bord na M6na and several community development organisations and
angling groups The initiative consists of
bull the upgrading of eight lakes most of which are owned by State agencies and many
of which were overgrown or silted
bull construction of stiles paths etc and restocking the lakes with fish
bull grant support for accommodation providers in the lakes area
The total cost of the project was estimated at around pound05 million Some of these costs are borne by LEADER but most are borne by State agencies and the Tourism
Operational Programme 1994-1999
The LEADER group is involved with other organisations in marketing angling facilities
and the provision of training for the ongoing management of the lakes
Co-ordination at Local Level
318 Cot1n1y Strllcgy croups Vere es1hlimiddotmiddotd1ed in LICh cnu111y under OPLUl~J) O
L1ci[i[Je co-orclin11ion ~ind 111inin1isc cluplic1tinn in lie delivery of progrin1111es
middotrhe Groups provide i forun1 for forn1d conununicition Vithin etch councy and
hctCt11 counties incl cenlrtl policy 111akers_ vlen1lxrship of the Groups includes
the Chlt1irpersn11s of CEl~s Ptr1nerships ind lEAl)EH groups County middotrouri111
Con1n1i1tees Coun1y f11n1~ers incI represen111ives fron1 middotrourisn1 Spon and
Recnation
319 middotrhe cu-ordinttion of services 10 cliencs depends very heavily on cruss-1gtncy
rcpresenltlion incl illendance at 111cetings middotralgtle ~5 shovs 1ypictl Board
repre~enc11ion
24
Coo1middotrh11atio11 o lctiuillcs
Fi1ure 32 Monitoring and Coordination
InterdepartmentalOPLURD OPLEADER Evaluation Polley Committee Evaluation
_l Department of Department of
Enterprise Trade Tourism Sport and Employment and Recreation
ADM Ltd
Partnership Boards
County Strategy Groups
1~BBoards ------shy
Department of Agriculture and Food
LEADER Group Boards
Table 35 Typical Board representation
S~bullctor Represented CEBs LEADER Partnerships
Lcmiddotcal authority members almost complete
Statutory bodies Ernployers I Trade Unions I Farmers Community I Voluntary sector
SouCe Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General
25
ocu )e1Alop111e111 11ifi(lf1ccs
320 CEils ire represented on most IEADER groups incl many Pa11ncrsh1ps
Hovever 1n~1ny lEAl)ER groups and P~111nerships ire not represented on CEBs In
so111e bu1 not all cises vhere cross-board represenlation i lacking there is crossshy
agencymiddot rtpn=sentllion at sub-boird level instead such as evilullion co1n111iuees for
protects_ In nine c1s(s vhere then~ are con1n1on boundaries the san1e Board
1clm1nis1ers both a LEADER group incl Partnership In ciscs where there ire not
m11ch1ng bounclirics 11 1s usud for LEADER groups incl lu1ncrships to have
C01111ll011 UO~trd repreSCl1tatives
321 Agriculture incl Food require all lEADEH groups to specify how they intend
to co-ordinate their activiies Vith other bodies before agree111en1s 10 i111plen1en1 a
LEADER progr1111me are completed Each tgreement includes t clause to this effect
and dso requires IEADER groups to part1n1x11e in Coun1y Strategy Groups
322 The view of the Local Development bodies is 1h11 loctl knowledge is of
piran1oun1 in1po111nce for co-orclina1ing their ~1ctiviries Use is n1aclc of infonntl
contacts 10 ensure tha1 each organisHion is tvarc of Vhat others artgt doing middotrhere
is often no formal 1gree111ent berween Local Devclop111ent bodies H local level
regarding 1h~ lin1its betveen objtgtctives acrivities and clients Hovevcr
consideration should be given 10 drlving up a middotfittcn staten1ent Vhich VOtilcl set
out a broad fra111ework of agree111ent between Loctl Dcvelop111ent bodies A good
exmtple from County Meath is shown in Appendix F
323 from the beginning elected pol1ticd representation was absent fro111 IEADER
incl Partnership 13oards Mc111bers of local authonrics are represented on CEl3s but
not is of right on LEADER groups and Partnerships However local aurhonry
officials arc frequentlv on the boards of lEADEH groups incl Partnerships A process
his been undc1way to 1nclucle 111e111bers of local authonties on rhe Boards of
LEADER groups and Partnerships This process is now complete in the cise of
IEADER incl is d111ost rn111plete 1n the cise of Pirtnerships
GeograpJica ampm1ulmJbull ProJlem
324 The co-orclmation of activi11es it locd level is 111ade 111ore difficult by the lack
of coherence the way the boundmes of the Local Develop111ent bodies were
clr~lvn and because of overltpping houndanes vi1h srHucory bodies 1s 1 result
n1any iltx~d l)evclop111ent bodies 1nust liaise vi1h a nun1ber of orher Iocil
l)evelop111ent bodies Jnd srJn1cory organisations_ middotrt1is increases tl1e acln1inistra1ive
burden on Local Develop111ent bodies ancl 1mpecks rhcir ability to offer unifor111
service delive1y in their territorymiddot and to co-ordinate activities of other Local
Develop111ent bodies and Srate igencies
26
Coordi11atio11 Cf Actiuities
se Study 4
Bcbullundary problem in South County Dublin
The boundary of South Dublin CEB covers the same geographical area as that of South De blin County Council and South Dublin Area of Dublin Tourism In this area there are four Partnership companies
Ta laght Partnership wholly located in Dublin South Clondalkin Partnership wholly located in Dublin South KWCD Partnership divided between Dublin South and Dublin City Scuths1de Partnership divided between South Dublin and Dun
LaoghaireRathdown
Al~o the Dublin Rural LEADER Company covers part of South Dublin as well as Dun LagtghaireRathdown and Fingal Council areas The State service providers such as FlgtS Eastern Health Board (EHB) Department of Social Community and Family Affairs (D3CFA) and Enterprise Ireland do not have the same geographical areas as local auhont1es They are split up into regional areas and these regions impinge on South Dublin CEB as follows
FlgtS Dublin SouthWicklow region of FAS contains part of South Dublin while Dublin WesVKildare region of FAS caters for the rest of the South Dublin area
EHB Each of three regional areas of the EHB Dublin South Central South West and West impinge on the area of South Dublin CEB
D~middotCFA Dublin South region of DSCFA contains part of South Dublin and Dublin West region of DSCFA caters for the remainder
Enlerprise Ireland South Dublin 1s totally contained within Enterprise lrelandmiddots region of Dublin and Mid-East
32~i Agricuhure and Food ha~ poinced ou1 rhar coheren1 geogr~1pliical boundaries
would be contrarv to the bottom upmiddotmiddot approach of LEADER The initial EU proposal
for hl fo11hcommg LEADER lnillatilC stales middotmiddot11 would he desirable rhar rbe eligihle
areas do not coi11citle tuith notional acln1ii11strati1e ho111ularies nnr ufth cli_~ihle
zon$ 1111cler the 1nainstrec11n operations(~ the structural jltntlsmiddot
Co-ordination at National Level
32(1 An Interckpartmcntal Policy Committee for Local Delelopment was
estltulishcd m June 1993 under 1he auspices of 1he Department of the Ta01seach and
subequently reconltt1tuted in Ocwber 1997 under Tourism Span and Rccrea11on 1s
funmon is to oversee 111d make recommendations on local delelopment (Appendix
G shovs the conunitteemiddots renns of reference) fhe co1nn1itcee is chaired by the
Minster of State in Tourism Spo11 and Hecreation ind comprises represenwives of
27
loca I )e1eofJ111e11 f In it itlf ftls
i nu111her of Gov1rnn1ent lgtepart1nc11ts middotrhe ro1111ni11ee has contributed policy
n111eriil 10 1he post 2000 s11b1nission on the future of struc1ural funds ind v1s
involved in 1htmiddot develop1nent of 1ht Integrated Services Prnjec1middot
327 middotn1e co111n1i11et sees i1s fu1ure role is one of infon11ing its([f nf dcvclop111ents
cnh1ncing links Vith local develnp1n~n1 orgtnisuions 111d lt1rn1ng les-gtons fron1
piln1ing projet1s including 1htmiddot porenti~tl for n11instrl1n1ing successful projects
328 middotrhlre is a potential role for the con11nittee 10 get involved in soning out the
sys1t111smiddot in1clequ1cics ind to develop 1 strltcgic lttpproich to coun1ering 1he
neg1tive ispcmiddotcts or duplicuion lhc co111111ittee should consider developing 1n
1green1ent concerning the lin1its hitveen tile olgtjec1ives 1ctivities and clients of the
three types of bodies vhilt- laking account of the li111it1tions on the discretionar
nllure of lhe LE1l)EI Jgtrogran1n1c Vhich is an FU Initiative
329 Fruin 1 viluc for 1noney perspective ind bised on the 1buve 1nilysis the
follr)ving i1nprove111~111s ire desirlttble in the short tern1
bull 1hc cs1ablish111ent of coherent geogr1phical buuncL1rics
bull tn incretse in he forinal co-orclinllion of service provision
The Task Force Report on the Integration of Local Government and Local Development Systems
330 t Trsk Force which was esublished lo reporr on 1h~ 1n1egr111on of locd
govern111ent incl locil clevelopn1cn1 sys1en1s reportccl in August 1998 and its
reco111111end~11ions Vtre approved by C1nvern111cnt in Septen1ber 1998 1 middotrhe 11sk
1orce l-gt concerned to ckvclop 1 vision ~ind s1ra1egy vhich Voulcl encon1pass in
in integralecl IY (he oper11ions of loc1I governn1ent ind Local l)evelop1nent
bodies in order 10 significantly incre~1se 1heir effec1iveness
331 Tire Task Force conltrdercd 1111 Iris could besr be achieved 11 1hc counry rncl
cily level The cclllrrl role will be pL1yed by new Coun1y or City Dcvdopmenl
Boards (CDlb) which will be es1ablislred in each ciry incl cou111y locrl authority
The CDBs with memlJerslup drawn from four sltcrors (ie local governmcnl
co111111uni1y ~ind voluntary social partners and Slate agencies opcra1ing at local level)
ill clrnv up an agreed ~ind con1prehensive Coun1y or City Strategy for Econon1ic
Sociil ind Culturtl l)evelopn1cn1 It VtS 1greecl 11i~11 Jgtannerships or LEAl)EH groups
should cllal Vith clis1clvan1aged areis on an 1greecl basis 1nd 1hat con1111unlly
1)( 111ltgr(lc-d Wnncc~ lropU tla egtlabllshtd 011 a pilot btLgtiL ill f)rce111hcr 1998 ill 011r sltmiddotnmiddoto11S~) ltliltult(l11fa~1middotd arltbullas_ (JbjeLliltmiddot 1s 10 cr1-ordi11flle tbtbull i11p111 ofall S1a1C senlicegt
28
Coorrli11atio11 o Jcmiddotti111 ie------------------------------~---
developinent and -ciciJI incl11sion 111c1sl1re tho11lcl vl1ertmiddot possibll bl cleliVlrld bymiddot
gra~sroots bodies Further nmiddotcon1n1endatinns of the middotr1sk rorcc include
bull (Jl(lprise support func11un lo htbull vered in 1he CFBs Vith rrovision for the
involvement of other Local Dcvdoprncnt bodies such as LEADEH by ~1grec111ent
bull fu11ctional arl1- to coincidemiddot Villi co11n1y or city IHHJndaries or_ t[ sub-county
kmiddotvtmiddotL local elector~il ~treas
bull ~1 si11gle igency to bl nmiddotspt1nsihll for con1n11111i1y dlvclop1nlnl at suh-cuun1y
lclI (either the local tuthoritymiddots Arca Con1111ittee or in clc-ign1tecl
clisadv~1nt1ged 1rc1s groups -gtuch ts P111ntmiddotrJ1ips or LEAJ)ER groups)
I bull any future loctl ckv(loptntmiddotnt groups slloulltl have cou11ty or city councillors on
[heir Boards
An interdc1x1rtn1en1al i111ple1nent~1tio11 group h~ts hLcn fonncd to oversee thl in1plcnltmiddotn111ion of 1l1c middotr~1sk ilnce reco111111endarions
29
4 Operational Efficiency
41 This chapter considers the operational efficiency of the groups Operational
efficiency is concerned Vilh 111aking the best use of 1hc resources provided to
111axin1ise the ltmiddotvel of outputs achieved
42 middotrhe issues and evtluHion criteria arc
Issues Evaluation criteria
Targets and performance Quantification of targets bull Use of baseline data bull Achievement and review bull
Resource allocation and outturn Targets and outturns bull Allocation of resources to Localbull Development bodies
bull Grant cost per job
bull Cost of non-grant outputs
Deadweight and displacement Information on extent bull Effective procedures bull
Targets and Performance
43 OlLUHD contained a number of output md ac[Jv1ty t1rgets to IJe achieved
over the priod 199 middot 1999 A report issued in 1994 crnicised some of the tJrgets
in that they did not refer to previous performance In the absence of this middotbaseline
perform1nce cl11a it is not posstble to know how realistic or demanding these targets
are Extmples of the lick of baseline cl11a include information on new 1obs and new
businesses middotrhc report ilso ronsiclend 1ha1 oilier 11rgets Vere coo n1odcst in relation
10 hat v1s knovn lttbou1 perforn1ancc such as chc tirget for ncv businesses suppo11ed by P1rrnership vith reference to the perforn1ance undltr the original
PESP Partnerships
44 lhe n1ain OPLLRI) targt~ts and 1chievc111cncs against the targets are fhOvn in
Table 41 Most of the original targets were excccdccl bv 1998 rrnny by a wide
margin The only target that w1s quantified in th~ Operational lrogrunme for
LEDER as the creation of obs wluch was set H 4000 over the life of the
Programme Up to encl 1998 an overall job creation figure of 2700 (fulhime job
equivalents) was reponecl
45 Folloving the reco111n1endarions conrainecl in the 1nid-ten11 reviev revised
performance indicators and raised targets were adopted by the OPLURD Monitoring
Ex-a11( Appaiitil of Proposed local Dcmiddotvelop111e111 Progran1me pn1x1rltbulld on bfhalf of DC X11 ~)the SeflJices 11d11ilnltS Research Centrt liCD F11zpa1ncJ Associates a11d Kiert111 lcKeo1m1 lld Febn1ary 1994
30
Tatle 41 OPLURD targets to end-1999 and achievements to end-1998
-
Target
Now JObs
Nt~w businesses
Progression of unemployed to -full-lime jobs -part-time jobs
Number of adults asgtisted to access education
NL mber of children attending preventative education services
Existing businesses su Jported
Cl sterner contacts
=
CEBs
Original Targets
8000
2260
280 pa
20000 pa
Achievements
15500
3 110
2500 (1996-1998)
8700a (1998)
Partnerships
Original
Targets
6900
3640
12500 1500
60000
20400
30000 pa
Achievements
12800
12800
11400 2900
18500
35000
na
Note 8 Only contacts which fed to a provision of a service by the Boards to a client were recorded
Soure OPL URO and annual roports
cn111111i11ee in i-lay 1999 (ee ppendi ))_ middotrhcsc l~1rg~ts appear to he 111ore re~iliitic
having regard to perfonnance in the early ye~1rs of the Progra1nn1e
146 in the cise of ihDlH the mid-term rtmiddotnew notd that the 01 ind1cuors
_cured highly on relevance 1-lovever n1any ut the indicators verc so vague 1ha1
111caningful qu111tificlt1tion vould htmiddot aln1osr 1n1rx1ssible -rhlt reviev concluded that
the pcrforn1ance indicators dieI 1101 provide J sufficiently cltar basis on vhich groups
could debullelop con1n1on indicuor systen1s_ lhe nvit~V proposed a sys1en1 of
ptrf1nnance indicators flt1r discussiltgtn 11ncnchnent incI i111plen1en1a1ion imiddot11e
LEA)ER Morntonng Commince clccidccl that each LEADER group should prepare
i rt~middoti~t~cl t1rgtIS in respect of he indicators proposed in lhlt n1icl-1enn nviev (see
pptmiddotnclix E)_ Nu revised nationil targtli Vtrt agreed by the fmiddot1nnitorin_g Co1n1nittcc
or griculture Jnc1 Food
l
ocal JercoJ11rent 11itulfiteshy
Table 42 Expenditure targets 1994-1999 and outturns 1994-1998
Initiative OP Forecastbull
1994-1999
Revised
Forecast 1994-1999
Latest Forecastc
1994-1999
Outturn 1994-1998
poundm poundm poundm poundm CEBs 818 811 808 620d Partnerships 1047 1036 1083 706e
LEADER Groups 772 947 947 388
Notes a Updated for exchange rate changes and inflation as of May 1999 b Revised forecast is lhBI which has been most recently approved by the Monitonng
Committee ft refers only to expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds c Latest forecast is the most recent estimate by the relevant department of the most
likely outcome It refers only to expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds d Outturn only includes expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds (pound620ni)
Expenditure not co-financed by EU structural funds an1ounted to pound36 1m e Ourtum only includes expendifure co-financed by EU structural funds (pound706m)
Expenditure not co-financed by EU structural funds amount9d ro pound05m Source OPLURD LEADER OP annual reports
Resource Allocation and Outturn
47 Public e-pendi1ure 11rgets ind ou11urns ire shovn in middotrable 42
48 Fro111 the beginning it V1s the viev of Enterprise middotrr~1dL incl En1ployn1tnl thit
there IVlI nut sulliuenc EU funds under 011UHI) 10 support 1lte desired kbullel oldeg
t-pctHliturc by CE13s over 1he life of the Prngrunrnc_ ccorclingly CEB exrenditun
wis in ecess of the level co-finrnred by Ill funds rnd the b1l111n of U6 J million
wis provided bv the hclwquer It is ciltrr 1h11 EU funds rvrilrble for CElh under
011UIU) wrll be fully u11lised bv the encl of 1he lrogrrmme
49 A~ n1ost P1nntrships h1cl to go through J lcng1hy pnxtss of es11hlish1ncn1
incl planning in 19ltJ5 ind 1996 their cxpendiltirc Vas slov in rhuse ye~1rs tlovtver
expenditure 1ccclcr1Ctcl in 1997 and 1998 middotruurisn1 Spo11 ind Hecrellion and 1)11
expecc chH over the full progranllne period c-pencli1urc 1argc1s viii be n1et
410 E-pencli1u1-c under LE1J)fH Vts suhst1nti11ly Ix-In ttrget for rhc pcriocl
1995-1998 A fu11hcr sum of J18 million wrs rllocued to lEDEH liv the EU
Co111n1ission in 1996 fro111 an EU re-erve avai11hle for (on1111unity initiatives In order
to reach lht revised forec~1st expendi1ure in 1999 Voukl h1vc to be 1non 1han lVO
111cl 1 hilf ti111cs lite expenditure of 998 tmiddotlovever griculturc incl Food lXPLCls
1h1t ill alloc1tecl funds viii be spent by the encl of tiltmiddot Progr1n11nemiddot
11ltcor(111g trJ the 11AIJlR ()~ lt11 eliJihle ltpc11di111nmiddot 111ust lgtc co111tlffltlf 1~1 middot JtA f)IJ~ gn111h l~r tbc (IU
of fJrl-1 111Jc_bullr 15J-JY 11Ji~e 111r1111middot1 s 11111sf he Hiid rJ11f I~) llAJ)f( grrgtllJS lxfurc )l_1111c 2000
j2
( ))(rct f iu 11cf fi-c iei Ilt)middot-- middot---------------- shy
A1ocation of Resources to Local Development Bodies
411 Fnlerprise middotrr1clc and E1nployn1en1 inittdly alloctttmiddotd resources equdly to each
CEit middotrhc l)ltp1rtn1ent suhscquently 111nved to 1 1nore dtmiddotn11nd Jtmiddotd 1ppr()~1ch
h1nmiddothy allocations VeHild lgtt varied depending on 1hc relative llctmiddotds uf each aret
Ille c~1p1city of e1ch art lo successfully utilise eriterprimiddotbulle supports ind to crelle jobs
i ind the qud1ty nf thtmiddot cmiddotnterpnstmiddot pL1ns prepared hv each CEB
41 Al)middott placed 1dvcnistmiddot1nents in nevsptpers i11vi1i11g cnn1n1t1ni1y groups
(ou side Ille designated JrLIS of dis1dvintJgt being IUl)kcd Jfter hv Area-Based
P1nncrships) incl relevant n11ion1 organisations to ~11gt11ly for ()JgtLUHI) funding 33
con1n1unity groups ind 15 nitiontl urganisuion Vere sekCtld by t()1I for funding
41 middotrhe allocation of resources to Pirrnvrships hy Al)1l v~1s hiscd on cltt1ilcd
1nIlysis of the socioeconn1uic ch1ractlris1ic- of eJch tre~1 highliglning various
aSf)lt_cts of dtpriv11ion drlVll fro111 tlie 1991 ltensus of Population ()tiler rclcv1nt
v1riihlcs inclt1cll~d the qu~ditv of the pL111 tlttmiddot c1p1ci1y of htmiddot l1rtncrsliip ind the
1v1l1bility-of orher clevelop111ent resources to 1hc lrll such as IE1l)l-J or LiHB1N
4lbulli 1chmiddoter1istmiddot1nents Vere pL1cecl in 11Lmiddotvsp1rtmiddotrs innouncing lhe LEtl)lR lni1i1tivl
and inviting applicnions 1middot1ic~e VCrc assesstmiddotd by 1gricuhure and 1~nod Vith the
1ssi-bull1ance of an incltpcndenl consul11nt to es1ahlish tile txtent to vhich they 111lt~1 iii~
key ftatures of LEl)FH lhtmiddot rltsourctS middotere tllocatcd h~1ving regard to the quality
of the hu iness pl1n subniilllltL 1he population ind cl(gree of rurility of the 1rea and
the ~1vailalgtility of othtr sourcts uf ~lss1st1ncc fn1 Joctl ltkmiddotclop1ncn1 3i loc~d group-
Ver~ sclecled ind 2 SLctoral groups
Grint Cost per Job
4l~i middotr1iere arc specific f1c1ors vhich lin1i1 the usefulness of htmiddot gr1n1 cost per job
incli ~-tlnr in the con1cx1 of lltx11 devclop111cnt middotrhese include
bull (rear d1versil in the ni1urc of the 1ohs cre1ted ind 1he 111ethod of cc)un1ing
I hl111
bull No direct con1p1nson hetveen the VOrk invoVtltI in supporting job cna1ion 11
local level VIiii nationtl joll crcition agtncics
bull middotrile us1ain1bility of jobs 1n1y d1fft r frn111 11in-e crc1tltd by nuional igtncics
bull middotril(middot focu- un job cre1tinn iritmiddot vithin the three 1ypes nf lllt1clic
local Jevelopn1e11r fllifiariues
416 For CEils the number of jobs created is used is a performance meisure The
average gr1n1 cost per job creared vtriecl over the pericxJ under reviev as follovsn
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Number of jobs created 1958 3174 3589 3317 3487
Grant cost per 1ob created pound2535 pound4249 pound3763 pound3884 pound4206
The v1ri11ions from year 10 year miy be panly explained hv the fact 1h11 sometimes
1here is 1 riine t1g hetveen the gn111t expenditure ind 1he creition of thi relevant
jobs Over the period 1994middot97 the average grant cost per 1ob was Aj725 with the
lowest CEil be111g S2269 (Tipperary North) and the highest being gtfi683 (Leitrim)
Cost of Non-Grant Outputs
417 In add111011 to grmt aiding job crcll1011 md adminis1r11ion all of the bodies
~Ire involved in non-granr activities including
CEils
bull Producing enrcrprise plans and generJlly pro1noting in enterprise culurc
bull Busines~ infonnttion 1clvice counselling incl 1nentoring
bull ~ltn1gc111ent devetopn1en1 rraining
lartnersl1ips
bull Enterprise cre11ion and ckvelopment
bull Environ1nent ind infrtstrucrure projects
bull Provision of services to the unen1ployecl
bull Con1n1unity clevelop1ncnt
bull Co1nple1nentary ~incl prevcnt11ive educarion
LEADER groups bull tni1nation 1crivit1es
bull middot1-icl1nical assis11nce
Expenditure on these 1ctiv1tic~ is shovn in middot1middot1blL lt3
418 11blc 43 shovs the v1rying ex1cnt 10 vhich the clitlerenl locil l)cvelop111ent
lxgtdics trt involved in non-gr1n1 ou1pu1s_ Thlt CEB ind LEl)EH groups focus on
gr1nt is grtmiddotarcr th1n Panncrships vho focus on non-gr1nt activi1ies imiddothis is
cons1s1ltnt with tlic list of 1ctiv1ties 111 Tible 34
- 71Jt 111tmeratfJr is l1n11t~ paid 111 the cale11dt1r HCff 01u the de11011111uur1r 1~middot the lllfJloy111e11t ~ai11 Cllthic~( (1er IIitbull yor i11 the jln11middot 11111J rcce11ed jiTu111c1td uufuitl Jimiddotom (Lfgtsmiddot 11 1Jf1bull rbut
empluymc111flt_-e1middot1111h1middots1middotjir11r_ are 1g11ored
31
()fJert-111u1uil Fj)lcicJJ(l --middotmiddot-middotmiddot---------- shy
Table 43 Expenditure on non-grant outputs 1996 - 1997
1996 1997 1996 1997 poundm poundm of total of total
expenditure expenditure
CEBs 39 54 18 24 Pyentnershipsbull 51 136 56 72 LEADER groups 21 34 40 30
folal 11 1 224 31 42
Not~ a 7he figures oxclude Community Groups and selected National Organisations b Excludes selected sectoral groups
Sotrce Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller iJnd Auditor General see Appendix A
Duadweight and Displacement
419 l)ct(lveight refers to situation Vhcre 1 pro1nocer vould undertake 1he
buiness projtmiddotct in 111y evcn1 i_e_ Vitliotll 1 gr1nc or 1sistince fron1 ~1 Iocil
l)e-elorn1en1 body middot1l1e granting of funltls 10 dealthveiglH projects is an ineffic1tgtnt
and ineflec1ivt alloc11ion of resources Disrlacen1tmiddotn1 refers ro situations vhere 1he
golt1cL or ~ervicvs iOlcl by 1 grlttlllltISiiSled rroll10ler divert sales opporlunitiis fro111
other exisling busincssl-gt E111plor111ent c1n hl sin1iL1rlv divlrtecl In chese cases rhe
in1pac1 of thl funds allocHed is achieved at the exptmiddotnsc of other enterprises
420 Tltere is risk of deidweight and c1splacemcnt in Iii gr1nr ictlmiddotUv including
th11 It lltgtcal clevelopn1en1 level A nccnc study stated th~1t 1 ~
ie bate tao concerns uifb the s11ppo11s Or n1icro e111e1JJrse Jbe Jruhlen1 uf
clacue1ibt a11cl clisplaccbull111e11t is e11clc111ic in such Slf)jJ01ts eJHCial~v 1ohlre
sc1cral agencie ure to su1ne clerrecbull inuolultcl in tlishursing such suJfgtorts
The Operational llogrammls for 11--DEH 111d 011lJHD llotlt su1e thll dc1clwe1ght
1ncl clisplact1nent are to Ixmiddot 1voiclld
421 All cn1crprise project Lill into one of 1he folloving fo111 clllgorics
Deadweighl Yes Deadweight No
Displacement No Displacement No
Deadweighl Yes Deadweight No
DisplacementbullYes Displacement Yes
Vlt1tio11al 11ici11nbull11i P11onlies for the xbullnfJd 1000-JrxJG Fitzgltbullrald cmiddott al Fn11omic ond )o(middotial Reearch 1i111u1rmiddot -Hor(h 19Y)
ocu )etelo111u11 t 11 it it1 I ives
Of 1he four possible scenarios onlv one (wi1h no displaccmeni incl no cleaclweigh1)
yields potcn1iil net increises in outpu1 incon1e en1ploy111cnr and consu1nption 1hat
could Ix 111nbu1ible 10 l[ADEH or 011Ul(l) supporl From vil11e for lllClllC)
perspective ii is in1ponant tha1 1hcrc be good infonnation on the extent of
cle1clwe1gl11 and dispLicemem and dfcc1ive prcxeclures 10 deal wi1h 1hem
Deadweight
422 11 is cl1fficuli 10 111eas11re the ex1ent of clcaclweigh1 and no method c1n Ix
rcmicro1rded is provicling tn1~illy rcliallle es1in1~1les [)eichveight Vts exa111ined in the
111idmiddotltnn reviev of OJgtLUHIJ in rcspcct uf fin~1nci1l ~1ssistu1ct givtn 10 s1nall finns
by CEl3s Fron1 a s11nple of finns ~untycd over 40dego of thC pron101ltrs indic1ted thll
they would hivc es11blished the businesses w11hou1 CUl suppo11 A s111cly of micro
enterprises 1h1t fl~Ceivtcl grants under Local )evelop1nent initiitivcs 1nd other
progr11n1111s rcpo11ed deichveight of 45Yi
423 E111erpnse Tricle and F111ploy111en1 has irgued 1h11 1hese estim11cs of
ceJdeiglu are roo high ccorcling tu thl l)erart111e11t the viCS of proinoter~ irt
nor 1 reli1ble guide to cil11er lheir behiviuur or heir SllCLt-S lhe l)cp1nn1ltnt ~1-serts
1hll di CEBs seek 10 ivoicl cleiclwcigh1 However i1 J11s been no1ccl 1h11
rcsrondentsmiddot confidence rcgtrding their abil11y to sta11 i busines in the 1bsence of
i grant c111 he considered 1s 1n underesli111~1le
424 A siucly f 1hc Arca Allowincc Fn1erprise Scheme (AAES) which is
adniinisterecl by P1rrnerships suneyecl a sa111ple of pa111cip1nr- 1 11 Vts concludedbull
thit cleachveigl11 Vas in 1he range 40-50o_ Even alkJving for s1111pling risks the
thnt surbulley-gt t1ke11 1oge1her suggest thlt there is 1 consiclerihlt incidence of
cittciVCight
425 An cximrle of poten1iil cleiclweiglll involving IEADER funding is se1 ou1 in
Cise Study 5
11of11at1011 (~ 1liClO 111tt1pn4 S11pxn3 lcrni 1ltllicn10 d local fgtcbull1ymiddotfop1111bull11t Agc11c1e 11d11try 11a11atirJ11 11111 1111~11-t 1999- lluro (llfe1p11lt- that rcCcbulluetl prro11s fr(J11 1111e17nisc flflt11u_ (danis 1u1 Crrlllachf( t111d Sht11111rJ1t )c1elop111e1111tmiddotc1v111c1uld i111lw arl(hiiS
Set fj lJiAJhk 111iutitlt hmiddot1a11af11J1 r11ul llttmiddot(middotr1111111middot11rlatiu11 lcmiddotontcmiddotv CI ul 1)95
Stjl111plortd a11d tlw 011g (bulln11 l11e111plr~rrmiddotd A11 1al11alio11 (J 11w tlnf1 t1101ra11cc f11terprit Xhe11tc IFNC Co11s1il1a111s J-)7
-1)1 cr11bullrde1middot 1ba11hc prop()r1p11middotuncncl 11IFJ _-lated b(l biy 11011d hatcmiddot 1atmiddotc11 up c111plrJy1111J1rJbull1jshy1middot111101111i1 ~ 111J (J nmiddotfia1c n1lt1ict1orji1r thost 1141u M1ild (UT nLltrfllll dn11( 11 t1) ht1 01)11cd that IJc lllU(rillllf (CtlN n1t1middotJrom l(lllJtiy1111Jl ~r I 1r11gmiddotttrlll llt1fJIO)td 24Ci Ill tbc iRC middot111(~1) 11Yfdd he c1 lgttbulluer t-li11(lft ofdct1tl11eipIJ1 fur AAlS paiticipd11t tha11 the tfiJJlltlllgt q11ofcfl i 1 1ha1 suufbull_ Nou~middotzybullr_ lh1bull s11u~v J(jiJfld (fl that lbulle cht1roocns1il~ vf Amiddot115 KJrticipa11t (tmiddotducatio11 and dt1r(lI011 of 1111c111p()y111cmiddot11t) were lkl(rmiddotmiddot tba11 for thl frn~~-1en11 111u111ploycd uho dul 11ol fx1rtic1xflcgt II Atf)
y
Of)(rotional IJfcicbullnc-)-
ase Study 5
Potential deadweight situation
lr1 1999 a business person 1n a large provincial town decided to provide a bed and bmiddoteakfast establishment in a spacious house that she owned in the centre of the town She decided to focus on the upper end I business market and provide four en-suite rcbulloms She received assurances from several local businesses that they would be willing to refer clients to her Two local hotels also indicated that they would refer cverflow customers
Tie total investment required to refurbish the property fit out and supply furniture crockery and bed linen was esl1maled al pound88000 Loan approval was obtained from the bmk for renovations and the promoter applied to the local LEADER group for a grant
T 1e LEADER group estimated that pound44000 of the proposed expenditure would be
eligible for grant assistance and a grant of pound13000 was approved for the venture
T 1e pro1ect report prepared for the LEADER Board meeting did not include consideration of the possibility lhat the pro1ect might proceed without a grant In that regard the following faclors would have been relevant
bull the premises was located 1n the centre of a busy growing town bull the premises was owned by the promoter bull the owner was self-employed and operated a consultancy service from home bull based on 35 occupancy net cash now in lhe first year was forecast at pound8000 bull if no grant had been paid and the funds had been borrowed instead the estimated
surplus for the year would have been reduced by an increased interest charge of up to pound1300 which would not have substantially changed the potential Viability of
the business venture
426 Posible Vtys of 111i11i1111sing dlHhveigh1 in assisted projects include
bull Targeting financial abullsistancc on projects where the costs of entry to the business arc high relative to the resources available to the promoter So111e pro111nltIS have ve111 li1ni1cd financial resources for fxa111ple 1he vast
n1Jjori1r of Ptrtntrship l lien1s ~ire long-tenn unc1nploycd It is Vorth noting
thtt evtn Vhlt 1dequa1e privite resoune- are lmiddotaiL1hle it 1nty bt difficult
for so1ne Jlt)cal f)evelop1nent bodit~ given their job creation target~ 10 1urn
clumiddotll involve1nent in othlmiddotrvisl sound projects Indeed 1he viev Vts
tprcssed hy 0111e of thosL in1ervitmiddotvecl in the courst of the study 1h~ll fi11111cial
Sllppo11 for CJigihJt projects is often vieVCd hy prOtllltllers ~IS an cntiJe1ll(fl( and
this can 111akl it difficult for Loctl l)tvLlopn1en( ])(xlies to nfusc financial
1ssist1nce (() deathve1gh1 rru1ect
37
(JC( )Ct(()JHUJl 11itiati1es
bull Providing financial assistance by means of repayable grants loans or equity mthcr than non-repayable cash grants middotrhis should discourige reli1ncc on public funds by those entrepreneurs vho
do not need ii Vhiltgt ensuring that entrepnmiddotnctllS vho do need public finance
can alail of it Tltlte m1cl-tcrm evtluil1on of 011UIU) recommenclecl the
incre1sed llSC of loans and l(jUity rlttther thtfl grtf)i reron 1ly tile lndUSll)
Evtlua1ion Uni ncon11ncndccl thll all financial 1ssi-11nce provided uncler 1he
1egis of lEADEH ancl CEils should require 1 fm1neid return From earlv 1998
CfB- ind Pa11nerships hive been tmiddotn1pOVlrld by 1hc EU Con1rnis inn to issisl
projects hy 111c1ns of equity ind rcfuncLtblc 1icl In 199~ tlrnost ~05111 of CEB
assist1ncc (4oo) v1s provided in 1hc fonn of equity 111d refundthle ~1id
Entcrprisc middotrrack ind E1nploy111en1 intend 1h11 refundable forins of 1ssis1ance
Vil] he deployed incrc1nentdly 111 future Al)11 hJs tgllld vi1h P1r1ncrships
tllt clien1- should Vhtre prtctic~ilgtle nceiVl nmiddotfundable 1itl r11hcr th~111 grints
In 1ccurcl111ce wt1h EU regul1llons lEADEH groups ire precluded from
providing lotns or equity to enterprises
427 recent study reported thi1~
le ackn()toleclgc that n1icru e11te17Jrises 111a_v face capital constraints especialfr in the stcut uJdegfJhase but strongf)i s11_rges11hat the n1us1 ejecliue
uov Ju lf(lltress his fJOssible middotn1arkct _(ailunmiddot is Jbrough rJals an( eq1tif)
rather tba11 microran aicl 1Jt~~- uo11c 111inin1ise tbe r1~k ojmiddot creating a cleJenclcnl~) c11111 remiddot
428 It is clear [hll here is cope for n1uch greater use of rep1y~il)[c grin[S loans
ind equi1y 10 111inin1isl dtachveiglil incI such ustmiddot has 1hc 1ddccl 1dv1nt1ge 1h11
1ssistince c1n he providlcl n1ore econon1ic1lly 1 funds c1n bl recycled to 1ssis1
n1ore thtn one project Huvcvcr so111c incre~1se in ~1dn1ini-gttr11ion cos1s could be
expcc1ecl
429 An extre1ne fonn of ckichveiglH irises Vhtn public fin1nciil support is
supplied 10 1 project vhirh as cst1hlishecl and is oreruing in [he Jbsencc nf this
suppon CtSl Siucly 6 involving 1hc ArlJ Allovtnce Enterprise Schlllle illus1r1tes thi
11a11aH11t of 11ficro 111(tpn-lt SupjXJl1 Ao-o a11011til a11d lcx(I Jrbull1tmiddotlup111c1u 11~cmiddot11C11gtmiddot iu1111y tia11r1i(Jll 11it A11~1til CJlt-lt)
rJ1irJ1Ui lnnmiddott111cbull11f Jn-ru1fi(middoti f(lr tbe wnod 20(J-2(XX) Faz Ccrllfd lf t1I c()10111ic (JUI S(Jcial Nc_1middott1rr_h 11_f1ltrlt I-Ion)) JJlt-J
Sltmiddotj~F1111lo1ld o 1u he lh11g-T1middotr111 Ui1tmiddot111plo1middotetl- 1111 10i1atio11 of lbltmiddot Artbulla Alllt1flft 110middot 11tlJHi1e ScJ1111cbull 1HC Co1111raJ11middot 19lt)7
middotmiddot
38
Ojgteraliollal JJicie11lt_~1middot
ase Study 6
Funding the startup of an existing business
A fisherman was 1n receipt of Unemployment Assistance (UA) from the Department of
SJcial Community and Family Affairs (DSCFA) from 1979 to 1999 In September 1998 hi applied for support under the Area Allowance Enterpnse Scheme (AAES)
Uoder the terms of the scheme an applicant must be unemployed for at least a year
and this eligibility must be confirmed in writing on the application form by DSCFA The Praquortnership can subsequently approve the application and may provide minor financial support 1n addition to the main financial benefits provided by DSCFA 1e the receipt of full unemployment payments for a year and on a reducing scale for a further three years plus retention of secondary benefits
Abullcording to the application form the applicant had received a bank loan of pound18000 for the purchase of a boat with repayments commencing on 30 August 1998 In addition hf was the owner of fishing nets to a value of pound6000
Tt1e application form was certified by DSCFA 1n January 1999 to the effect that the applicant was eligible for AAES The certification did not explain
bull how the applicant managed to purchase a boat while on UA bull how he persuaded the bank to provide a loan or pound18000 bull how he was financing the business from August 1998 to January 1999 in particular
the boat repayments and insurance amounting to pound565 per month
Tt1e report prepared for the Partnership Board meeting stated that the applicant had with the knowledge of DSCFA been engaged 1n the fishing industry for the previous ten years on a part-time basis The Board approved the application
mcFA has made the following observations on this case
bull Following an investigation in 1988 the UA payment was terminated but reinstated under appeal with an assessment of net income at pound1250 from fishing per year The case was reviewed 1n 1993 and the net income per year was increased to pound1400 A further review was conducted in September 1998 (the month atter the boat was purchased) and the assessment of net income did not increase
bull It is very difficult to establish an accurate income for such fishermen as fish can be sold to tourists and restaurants for cash
bull The Department did not consider 1t necessary to check with the bank as to what if any security was provided for the loan
bull While failures occur in the scheme they do not cost the Department any more than if the client continued on UA
A[1M has pointed out that fishing comprises a very small proportion of AAES pa1ic1pants supported by Partnerships A recent review of Partnership business su1iports reported that fishing and Bed and Breakfast businesses do not provide a viable full-time 1ob and Area Allowance 1s not an appropriate support payment It also recommended that clearer guidelines should be issued regarding eligib1l1ty
Soure Partnership Business Supports and the Area Allowance Scheme Insights No 8 ADM 1999
J9
locaf f)ltueloJn1e11t fl1itiati1es
Case Study 7
Potential displacement situation
A business proposal was made to a CEB 1n 1998 The promoler wished to provide a food delivery service to factories on industrial estates ie sandwiches baps snacks elc The promoter recognised that there were several competitors Unlike the
competitors he proposed to provide the service via three refrigerated vending machines lhat would be reslocked regularly He applied for and was approved a capital grant of pound5500 by the CEB in December 1998
The project report prepared for lhe Board meeting dealt with the possibility of displacement by noling that lhe promoters service would be provided in a manner different from his compet11ors However the question arises if the project is successful how will its sales be achieved unless by the diversion of the expenditure of faclory employees from one service provider to another
Displacement
430 middotrhc only antlysis of clispL1ce1ncnt vas in respccl uf 11lS 1nd this shl)Vcd a
wide rmge of estimils Using a methodology devised bv Breen and Halpin the
consul11nts esti1111recl that 64oo of the business carried out by 1ES panicipants Vas
diver1cd fron1 other Irish fin11s and Iiiat ~i l1X1 of en1plny1llLl1I created in
thescentcrpriscs v1s at the expense of other enterprises middot1l1e consultants felt thtt the
Breen 111cl 1-ldpin methodology had limitations ancl tlut their estinutes of
clisplicc1nent Vere too high lJsing different 1ssu1nptions incl 1 different
mthodology they estim11ecl that 19 of employment created in AAES enterprises
Vts displacLcl fro1n other cn1erpriscs
431 Possible vays of n1ini111ising clispl1cen1ent include
bull CounsLlting pro1notcrs tovncb exports or cloincstic sectors supplied prltdom1n1111lv l)y import
bull ithholding 1ssis1ance fron1 projec1s in1encling 10 supply goods and stgtrviccs to the clon1es1ic 1111rke1 vhich are alrc1cly supplied by other busineSSlS
bull Providing financial tssisttnce by n1eans of rep1yibllt grants lo1ns ind cqui1y rathtr rhin non-repayable ct~h gr1nts
432 All LEADEH groups Partnerships and CEils are insrruned not to suppon
projects Vhich voulcl displace business fro1n other enterprises
433 CEl3s were advised early in 1999 10 focus heir efforts on thlt development of
n1anuf1cturing incl in1ern1tional services projects vhich viii have the pltgttential 10
clevclop in10 export-oriented finns hile not neglecting other eligible rrojects
(vi1ble non-clcaclveight non-displacc1nen1) outside these sec1ors Jgtirtnersl1ips have
40
()JCltflional Jffrienc)
agmiddoteed tht financid support should not be supplied to businsses 111 plentiful
supply such as hackneys couriers builcling contr1cpoundors Ix-cl and hre1kLi~t
operators vm sales and hairdrclaquors LEADER groups are advised to d11ect the11
Stlj)p(H1S tOvards innltgtva1ive pnijeLt~
4i4 There arc d1ffcrcmiddotnt views among Local Development bodies regarding what is
inmiddotoived in rtcognising diplacetntnt middotrhus -cHne Lltic~11 J)evelopn1en1 bodi1s
co1sider thtl if lhe existing co111peeitors to a project are located outside their county
or evtn their loc~1lity 1hen clisplacen1cn1 is not 1n issue
4s The 1111cl-1cnn reviews of LEADEH and OPLUHD made linlc reference to
displlcemcnt Howevmiddotcr the LEADEH mid-term review contended that displJcemcnt
vculd he 111ini111ised if LEAl)ER groups focused their f1nincial 1ssistance on
111rovative proiects Agnrnlture and Food intend that the final evalu111on of LEADEH
11 Viii includ ltSli111a1ion of tltmiddotachveigh1 and clispl1cen1ent effect
Be11e_ficit1 Dis1U1ce111e11t
436 II rhere are ~1ny circu111st~1nces in vhich ltlispl1ce111ent can be ignored thev
shltnild be identified For exunple it 111ay be possible to sustain the c~1se on sociJI
jus1 ice or equity grounds rhu specific groups such JS 1he lung-1ern1 t1nt111ployed
shcbullttld receivlt posi1ivlt cliscri111in~n1on elifJI at the cxfxnse ojotherjoh see~ctYi tOi1
111 lrgucd 1h1t onlt of the obwctives of Partnerships is to 1mprovmiddot( the potcnlld of
the long-tcnn unc111ployccl ind 1he socially ltXcludccl 10 gain cn1ploy111ltnl in lhlt
eccbullno1ny generally ind specifically 1n poundheir Ovn areas_ middotrhc inslrtion of particular
dis1dvant3ged groups into e111ploy1ncnt or a husine~s viii often have thL effec1 of
dis)Jcing a non-clis~1dvantaged person fron1 that 1oh oppo11unity Hcnvcver the
social giin makes the displJce111ent worthwhile
437 Given that CEBs cover the emire populallon incl that Partnlrships and
LEd)EH groups cover 540o and 6Joo respectively the exacpound circun1s11ncltS Vhen
clisplacemem 111ight be permincd for any Local Devdopmelll body should be
cluificd by the relevant Dep1rtmenis
(rnui11g (lUJ Sharing ()I r F111plr1y111e11t S1raUt_r (JfX 011 the lt1bltgt11r _bulllfariltf tgtlt1uu11cmiddotn1 of1111erpnmiddotc_ 7huC and 1111Joy111e11r Jn 19ltXgt
41
5 Assessment of Impact
51 Xhik the 1nc1sun111cnt of the 1chieven1ent of cconon1y 1nd efficiency is
ilnportan1 in the n1an1ge1nenl of the initiatives establishing their in1pact is of even
grci1er 11npnrtance J111pic1 assessn1enl is concerntd Vilh est1blishing the e-1cn1 10
which the local devdoprnent oJ1cc1Jns ire achievecl 1110 the wider contribution of
the initiatives 10 local cconon1ic and socitl developn1ent 11 is desirable thtt
appropri1te sys1tn1s to evaulle 1he 1chicve111ents of the iniliHives in n lttion co their
desired 11np1cts should IJt in place
52 Ille cllvcloprnent nf syste1ns to detennine 1he i1np1ct of the initiitivcs is not
easy middotrhlt clivlr~i1y of Jnc~il dcvelupn1ent objecrive~ n1e1ns thit it is unlikely thH 1ny
one 1ssessn1cn1 niethocl Otild he sufficient So1ne in1p1cts like cn1ploy1nent
crltJtiun can lx quintified Jnd 1chieven1ent can be n1unitorecl chrough che 111alysis
of nJev1n1 perfonnanct indic11ors_ Othcrs like rlttising the level of econo111ic activity
ctn be 1ssessecl 1hrough 1he usc of ccono111ic 1noclels using surroga1e 111e1sures of
irnpacl 1VL1ny of the socitl objeclives of 1he inili11ive are not susceptible to
n1e1sure1ne111 at di incl till i1111xu1 achieved Jre best detenninccl through surveys
of chtngts in local condilions a1 inclividu1I and con1nnir1i1y levels
S3 lhi ch1p1er consiclt~rs 1ppro1chcs co che 1sscss111en1 of i1npact under the
folJoving J1e1dings
Issues Subject
Quantitative assessments Baseline analysis bull bull Use of macroeconomic data
Qualitative assessments Assessing social impacts bull Case studies and international studies bull
Quantitative Assessments
54 lnfonnition on job creacion and the progression of long-tenn une1nployecl
persons 10 fuJI lirlle VOrk 1re rerorted for i[J these ypes Of 1gtltKJies (see middotr1ble 41
ind Append A) Vhile the figures tint hive been reported to end-1998 under
011URI) 1re well 1he1d of the tirgcts thit were set it is difficult to interpret these
resuhs in hrn1s of i111picl in lhe ibsence of bascline cl1t1
Baseline Analysis
55 B1selinc analysis would estiblish the performance of a representative group
of enterprises con1n1uni1y groups incl individu~1ls 1hat did not receive 1ssis11nce
under 1hc initiatives middotrhe rcrfonnancc of 1ssis1ecl entities incl individuils al counry
42
Assess1ne111 lt~ 111JOCI
or r111ional levtgtI could then he co1nparcd Vilh the 1xmiddotrfonnancl of middotn1ttchedmiddot nonshy
tssi ~1ed cnlitiii selected fro1n the repre~entltil group Si1nil1rly tile pcrlltlrn11ncl
of en1i1ies recltiving ditlenmiddotnt kinJ of ~1ssistance could also he antlysed to cletenninc
rel1 live ilnpac1
56 Baseline analysi~ can he pcrfonnld using 1nicroecono111ic d111 (da1a 1bou1
spcltific enterprises) or n1acrotcnnon1ic clat1 (1ggrLg11t~d dat1)_ middotrhc cl1t1 collection
proicduns -11 loc1l level hJve not heimiddotn 1dequatt to suppo11 this kind of ltinalysis
using 1nicrocconon1ic data 1ccordingly analysis against a baseline of non-1ssis1cd
cnlt-rprises co111n1unity groups ind individu1J- cHHlO( hl carried out
I Case Study on Unemployment using Macroeconomic Data
i 5 7 stuclv of the irnpact uf 011l RD on unemplovment ing census clata
(111a- rltgttgtcono111ic data) has hlttll c1rrild out under tile ~1egis of the ()PlUH)
P1oriloring ConHniuec So1nc rcsuhs of the study 1re su11H11arised in Cae Study H
58 middotrtiis finding fro111 ltase S1udy 8 dltgtcs nor nectgtssarily 111ean 11111 P~trtnerships trl
les effective in assisting une111ployed peorle 10 find vork 1s unc111ploycd ptorlt~
in P~ntncrship 1rc1s 111ay he 111on di_-adv~1nt1ged and find ii lllOll dillicull to 1ccess
e111(oy1ncn1 In addition 1he ralt of entry to une1nploy111lnt in Partnership 1reas
1nay he different frorn non-Jgt1r1nershir 1n~~1s 11lt)vevcr the data is inconclusive
I ~1hont tile level of ttlcclivcness of P~111nlr~liips in addressing Ltr1e111rloyn1cnL middotrhe
case s1udy highlights the co111plexity of in1pac1 analysis but also illustrates ils
i irnpbullgtrltnce in le~1cling lo a grlmiddotHer uncllrst1nd1ng of the resulls of progr~11n11H
aCllily More complex ltbta rnodels of the labour nurket at local level woulcl be
nccclecl for a svs1e111~11ic revicv of 1hc elTcctivenesi of Pannerships in tickling longshy
I 1ern~ llllt~n1plon1ent
59 It is of inlertst 10 e-an1inc the trends in the duration of uncn1ployn1ent in
I recent years imiddot~1hle 51 ihOVS thc nun1hers une111plnyecl ylmiddot1r on yctr in ont year
banltls up to 1l1nc years fron1 1994-1999 and the 11ne1nplcgtyn1ent retentugtn r1tcsmiddot
fro1r vtmiddotar to year i_e_ lhe proportion of those 11ne111ployed ho nLmiddot still unen1ploytCI I
one year li1er
I510 middotr1hle 51 shov- 1h1t signific1nt i111provlrnlnts in une111ploy111cnt rerintion
ralc~ htVl occurrLd in recent yetrs particularly for long-ten11 UllLlllploy1nen1 Strong
ecoron1ic grovth in 1lie period covered vould li1ve beltIl of prinH in1ponance in
1he reduction 111 long-1tmiddotrn1 l1ne111ploy111ent ihiJc the long-lerrn une1nployed ire thl
1111in rarge1 group for Partnerships thlse areas are not sep1raccly distinguished 1n
lhe analysis OutlOVS ro schen1es such 1s Co111111u11ity Fn1ployn1cnt could also he I
llllf)()flilll
43
olta JeueloJn1e111 11itioti1cs
Case study 8
Analysis of the impact of OPLURD on long-term unemployment using macrodata
A key part of the analysis was a comparison between the change in unemployment in Partnership areas from 1991-1996 with the corresponding change in non-Partnership
areas The comparison was based on the Census of Population for 1991and1996 The logic behind the comparison was that disadvantaged areas are at risk of falling behind
the general level of economic development unless there is a targeted intervention to ensure that the rising tide of economic growth flows into those areas Thus if the
decline m unemployment in Partnership areas is similar to that in Ireland as a whole
then at least the gap between affluent and poor areas has not widened and Partnerships may have contributed to some extent to this outcome
The consultants measured changes 1n the unemployment rate in two ways (i) by the percentage point (or absolute) change (ii) by the proportionate (or relative to 1991) change
They used a simple example to illustrate the difference between the two measures Assume that Area A has 90 unemployment rate and Area B has 20 unemployment
rate If the unemployment rate declines by 10 percentage points in both areas (the
same absolute change in the rate) the relative rate is quite different since Area A has declined by only 11 (relative to its starting rate) whereas Area B has deemed by 50
(relative to 1s starting rate) Both rates should be used together
The key data was summarised as follows
Unemployment rate
Area 1991 1996 Absolute Percent Percent Change initial rate Points Change Relative to Initial
Ireland 169 14 8 -21dego
Ratebull
-126
Partne1ship areas 256 230 -26 -100 (PESP only)
Non-Partnership 139 119 -20 -141 areas
Note 8 Change in unerriployment rate divided by the initial unemployment rate
The consultants commented that the unemployment rate in PESP Partnership areas
fell by a slightly greater absolute amount than either Ireland or non-Partnership areas but in relative terms they did worse - essentially because they had higher unemployment rates to begin with in 1991
Sourco A Report on the Impact of the Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development on Long- Term Unemployment Goodbody Economic Consultants et el October 1999
44
Assessnu11t q J11pact
Table 51 Duration of unemployment and retention rates 1994-1999
Ye
19 19 19 19 19 19
ar
94 95 96 97 98 99
Less than one year Number
151032 144283 146776 132398 130780 110446
--shy1-2 years 2-3 years 3+ years
Number Retention Number Retention
rate rate
Number
43697 39748 263 40875 283 38361 261 31719 240 28 194 216
27489 64154 26293 602 67955 25852 650 69667 24227 593 61870 18914 493 54448 14496 457 44940
NotB Retenrion rates are calculated as follows_ All of those who wero unemployed for 1-2 years in 1995 (39 748) wcro unernployed for less than one year in 1994 (151032) thus the unemployment retention rate is 263 (39 748+151032) CSO Live Register data
i Case Study on Business Formation using Macroeconomic Data
I 511 tucly of s11111l business forn1ation over ti111e 111ight be usecl to consider issues
middot such as lhe i111pact of lhl initi~Himiddotes on thtbull rice of n1anufacturing st1nups his i~
considered in Case Srudy 9
51~ C~rtater underst1nding is requirtcl of the n1ix of variables vhich n1ay be
responihle for the trends appann( in the data In a situ11ion vhere an unexpected 1 result is obt1inLmiddotd fron1 tile analysi~ C1s in Case Study 9) 11 Otild lgtt necessary to
refirc the analysit using 1111croecono111ic dala un1il the reasons for the trends
observed 1re clarified and the dilTcren1 contribution~ of lhe initiatives to sn1all 1
enterprise fonn~uion ere better understood
513 In order to use 111icrtgteconon1ic cLua 10 assess the in1p1ct of 1ht ini1ia1ivcs on1 n1anufacturing and intern~llional StTviccs it vould be necessJI) to integrate locil
clcvdopment suppo11 dlla from all the mitia11ves -Uh rhe Forfis and Enterprise
middotrr1de and E1nploy1ncn1 Bu~iness InforntHion Sygtt(Jll (BIS) Enterprise lrlttcle incl
Fmrlovment 1ntcncls to proceed with the 1nrcmiddotgra1ion of CEil data with the BIS (See
paragraphgt 2 2i-228) i 514 Enrerprise Tracie ancl Employment h1s commissioned a review 10 take place
in 11middote currenl year on the in1p1ct of CEUs vith particular reference 10 thlt ratlt of 1
bu~i1es~ fonnacion tnd 1he su~tlinability of the johs cre~Htmiddotcl
45
lucal JelJelo111unl l11i1ia11cs
Case Study 9
Use of macroeconomic data on business formation
In 1993 Enterprise Ireland stopped assisting manufacturing and international services firms with less than ten employees This role was transferred to CEBs The trend in the number of Irish-owned startups in manufacturing from 1987 to 1996 has been studied in an effort to detect the impact of economic growth on the rate of startups It might equally be used as a starting point to consider the impact of CEBs in this role
Startups in Irish-owned manufacturing 1987 to 1996bull
600
500
bullOO
300
200
100
0 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Year
The graph shows that the very rapid economic growth from 1993 (which period includes the emergence of the initiatives) did not result in an increased rate of manufacturing startups According to the quoted study The start-up performance 1s surprising The improvement m the economy over the years has not been accompanied by a corresponding growth in the number of manufacturing startupsmiddot
Note a Case study based on ~startups and Closures in Indigenous Manufactunmiddotng an Analysis of the CensCJS of Industrial Production 1986-1995 Irish Banking Review Autumn 1998 Anthony Foley and Teresa Hogan
Source Data Census of lndustna Production CSO
Qualitative Assessments
Assessing Social Impacts
515 Some irnpo11rn1 rnrcro clilt wts cs1rl3lrshecl by ADM reltting 10 middotc1ep1wa1ion
111clic11ors for l1nnership areas Bised on the 1991 Clnsus of Populttion ADM
co1npilecl indic1rors of cleprivuion for all Pannershlp areas domiddotn to l)istrict
Elcctor1l l)ivisiltgtn levc1 l)cprivJriun 1n1p- tre 1lso procluced middotrhe clcprivltlCion
indicators 1nclucled
46
bull educationtl a1tainn1en1
bull ltgtCcu1x11ional profile
bull lltxmiddotil labour n1arket characteris1ics
bull housing
FrOill 1hcse indicators a con1pusite deprivaiion index value Vas con1p11tcd for each
lartnersl11p area for 1991
516 Tlrrs exercr lras rectgtnilv bcrn repeated from tire results of the 1996 Census of lo1n1llli(gtn Fngtnl ~tn in1pac1 assess111en1 ptrspcctivtmiddot relilt1nce ltgtn these indicators
voulcl involve ~0111e li111itllions_ For lt1n1ple chc Census year- do not coincide Vith
Partnership 111ilcstones 111igruion can con1plicatc 1nalysis and [he d111 is not
definitive regltncling c1usality~~
51 ()espile these lin1ilalions analysis of the indicators of dtprivt1ion should
probullicle valuable inforn1ation rcg1rdi11g changes in 1pects of clt~pfiv1tion in different
Partnershq1 anas and should ilso Ltcilitatc con1p1rion ovtr 1i111e Vith nun
la11nersl11p areas lhe ltlmiddotailtbility of this infonnltllion shot1ld ftcilirarc furthCr
ittt111pts to consider the social in1p1c1s of tht~ initlHives
Case Studies and International Studies
5tf Whrle much hrs been wrr11en on tire rctrvrtres of Local Development bodies
chc tlcnt of 111atcrial spccifictlly covering the evtl1111ion of their i1np1c1 is very
li111i1ecl Several Partnerships have c1rried otH case srudil~middotM) to highlight hov issues
wen being trckled by different Partnerships ancl to promote best practice Case studies are undcrv1y tlso in n1lt1ny LLl)FH groups No case studies havtmiddot lgteen u ed
so L1r in tlic cnlcrprisc ind ioh crc1tion ~1rea for CEB ac1ivi1ies
519 A for111J E11ropean s1ucly v1s unck-rtiken of he rnle of p1nnerships in
proriuting sociil cohesion in ten fmiddot1t1nhcr Srarl~ of the EU co111prising ten nniond
rtpcrts (including lrel1ncl) and 1 synli1esis European rt~portjlbull middotrht study and repo11s
j middotltre bt-gtlltl prin1arily on rh1rty ctst tuclic (rhree fro111 etch middotten1ber St~lle) Vhich
looked 11 issues of reprtstnlalion ncgoliHion and alliance lgtuilcling in tile
devElop111ent of strategies and 1c1ion plans ind the vorking 111ethocls skills incl
I reso-_1rces aprlied lgty p~111nershirs
()her 11111101io11s arc rexnccl i11 fJrxr coptmiddot fJrgtCir i~ edttimiddotd l~r I) Pn11gle tf of Ook Tree )rt--
)11J111_ -~)9
_rKmiddottd 1art11c1ih1p~ middotI 5111n--11 511HIL1Y fur Sc)(middotial Cubl~011lt 11 Ccddcbull OJ1tc ( QOua 11h1lta1J11_- fvr w F11n1J1CJ11ltiJ111111111111umiddots1111d -111middotn1wt111 h1111ulrlf1011for1ie lm1ro1(mlW of itll~L tntl lliirk111~ Co11tl11io11s 19ltJ-
47
ocal Jevelop111e11t lnilit1tite_
520 1ihilc the rtpon included n1iny individual references to isol11cd cxirnpks of
1hc 1tll1x1c1 of panncrships Clllpincd rcstarch into 1he effecliveness of 1xnmerships
Vts not Vithin the score of the study middotrhcrc VIS also no 1ue1npt to con1p1re the
perfor1111nce of p1nncrsl1i1)s it nationil l(vel
521 The 1bsencc of specific tllaterial on the cvalL1a1ion of effectiveness of locd
clevelop111en1 bodies is panly clL1e 10 a lick of come~tuil clata 11 local level 10
L1cilita1e in~dysis A pri1n1ry ain1 of the bodies is to L1cilit1te thl locil achievtinent
of resuh~ incl to ltver1gc 1hc 1c1ivitics of local groups Assess1ncnt of effectiveness
of this kind of 1c1ivHy woulcl require that the role played by the lxxlies could he
isollltcl fruin ill oiher contribuiory f1ctors middot1middothis is difficult middotrtiere is 1 cletr need for
more data collernon llld 1hc clcvdop111ent of soual poltl) models which would
f1cili111e bcuer 1ns1gh1 by policy 1111kcrs imo the impact of the arnvities of local
clevdopment boclits
48
Jr
0 Ji~ )~ l ( imiddot
Appendices
~ gt
- _ middot-
---middotmiddot middot--shy ~--y- -~ -middot bull bull - bull __~
middot
middot
_ _~ -- middot ~
Appendix A Annual Cost and Outputs of Individual County Enterprise Boards Partnerships and LEADER Groups 1995-1997
(Jkistd on du1 ~upplicd by Dcp111111ents and ADJ1 Ltd Luc in 1998)
I
Summary of Expenditure on Local Development Programmes (1995-1997) Appendix A
1995 1996
pound000 of total expenditure
pound000 of total expenditure
CEBs
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
Total Expenditure
13485
1421
4895
19801
68dego
7dego
25
100
13503
3879
4284
21666
62
18dego
20
100
LEADER (1)
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
Total Expenditure
23
887
820
1730
2dego 51dego
47dego
100
1529
2350
1684
5563
28
42dego
30dego
100
PartnershipsCommunity Groups
and National Organisations (2)
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
I
-3 025
1532
66
34dego
-5161
5164
-SOoo
50
Total Expenditure 4557 100 10325 100
Aggregate expenditure figures shown in this table have been superseded by more up to date figures shown in Table 21 (1) Local Development groups accounted for 96 of LEADER expenditure in 1995 - 1997 and detailed analysis focused on lhis (2) Partnerships accounted for 84 of total expenditure for 1996 - 1997 and detailed analysis focused on this
1997
pound000
12884
5414
4437
22735
6226
3536
2015
11778
15579
7398
22977
0o of total expenditure
57dego 24dego
19dego
100
53
30
17dego
100
-68oo 32
100
County Enterprise Boards Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1995 Appendix A11
County Enterprise Board Administration
Expenditure pound000
Total Expenditure
pound000 Administration as 0o of
Total Expenditure
Grant Aid as 0o of
Total Expenditure
Non~rant Outputs as
of Total Expenditure
Tipperary South Riding 150 274 55dego 381 7oo
Corllt North 142 315 45dego 55dego Ooo Monaghan 143 375 38oo 621 QOo
Tipperary North County 122 353 35 57dego 8dego Meath 128 373 34oo 59oo 7dego
Louth 135 410 33dego 56dego 11 Ofo
Kildare 157 476 33 48 19dego Kerry 228 747 J 1Ofo 62 7 Limerick City 162 561 29dego 64oo 71
West Cork 142 498 29dego 65dego 6dego
Limerick County 209 714 29dego 63 Soo Westmeath 103 358 29dego 71dego Ooo Longford 95 335 28dego 68dego 4oo
Clare 169 635 27dego 68dego Soo Waterford County 106 396 27oo 73dego Ooo Cork City 150 543 27oo 671 6 Doneaal 124 460 27dego 68dego 5dego Fingal (Oubhn) 152 598 26dego 63dego 11
Mayo 155 651 24 72oo 4dego Waterford City 134 559 24dego 63 13dego Wicklow 127 558 23oo 70 7dego Ca now 149 654 23dego 72 5 South Corllt 187 844 22dego 71dego 7 Leitrim 147 671 22dego 67 11dego Cavan 122 564 22dego 65dego 3dego Laois 121 595 21dego 73 6dego South Dublin 143 670 21 70deg4 9dego Offaly 126 600 21deg4 63dego 16dego Dublin City 111 551 20deg4 67oo 13 Sligo 147 728 20deg4 73dego 7 Roscommon 111 597 19deg4 77 4dego Wexford 144 777 19dego 75deg4 6oo Kilkenny 1()0 637 16oo 84dego OOo
Galway County and City 140 950 15 83 2 Oun Laoghaire - Rathdown 82 743 110o 78oo 11 Oo
Miscellaneous (1) 30 30 Ooo QOo OOo
Total 4895 19801 25 68 7
(1) Refers to set up costs incurred on behatf of au Boards
County Enterprise Boards - Administration Costs as a Percmiddotentage of Total Expendifure --f996 Appendix A12
I _ - vuony c11u1tUllgttl ouaru
I Administration
I Total Expenditure Administration as 0o of Grant Aid as 0o of Non-grant Outputs as
Expenditure pound000 pound000 Total Expenditure Total Expenditure 0 0 of Total Expenditure
Cork North 119 417 29~o 63degshy 8degc -middot
113 28dego 56dego 16degoTipperarv North _counlv 404 -shy -Sliqo 118 457 26dego 50dego 24dego--Mealh 136 532 25~~ 53dego 22dego Laois 151 612 25dego I 59eo 16dego
Westmeath 120 500 24dego 55oo 21dego
Cork City 124 533 23dego 55dego 22oo Roscomn1on 120 536 22dego 61dego 17dego
Louth 133 620 21 Oo 57dego 22dego-Cavan 128 599 21dego 67degc 12dego
Clare 123 581 21Co 61dego 18dego
South Dublin 147 705 21 oo 56 23dego
Dublin City 139 668 21dego 49dego 30deg~
Kildare 128 625 20degh 41 lo 39o-shyTipperary South Riding 108 530 201 68dego 12oo
-Mavo 159 784 20dego 70oo 10dego
Carlow 117 582 20dego 67dego 13oo
West Cork 127 633 20dego 59dego 21
Longford 114 579 20dego 71dego 9dego -
Kerry 114 584 20oo 68deg~ 12oA
South Cork 125 645 19dego 58dego 23dego Limerick Cily 132 683 19oo 64oo 17dego
-Galway 122 631 190~ 69~o 12dego-Kilkenny 120 636 19dego 67dego 14dego
Offaly 117 628 19dego 62dego 19dego
Waterford County 105 563 19 66dego 15dego
Leitrim 121 665 18oo 64 18dego middot-
Oun Laoghairc bull Rathdown 116 648 18dego 57dego 25dego-
Fingal (Dublin) 117 656 18dego 56degc 26deg~ -Wexford 117 708 17oo 68dego 15dego
Wicklow 122 739 16 71 13dego
Donegal 119 757 16dego 65dego 19dego
Limerick County 120 810 15degc 68dego 17dego
Waterford City 118 800 15dego 75dego 10dego--Monaghan 75 616 12 74dego 14degc
Total 4284 21666 2011o 62dego I 18dego I
County Enterprise Boards Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A13
County Enterprise Board Administration Total Expenditure Administration as 0A of Grant Aid as 0o of Non-grant Outputs as
Expenditure pound000 pound000 Total Expenditure Total Expenditure deglo of Total Expenditure
Cork North 106 344 31dego 50dego 19dego
Clare 172 631 27dego 46dego 27oo---shyTieperary North County 116 448 26dego 38 36dego Waterford County 126 505 25dego 54dego 21dego Longford 121 498 24dego 60oo 16dego Wexford 156 647 24dego 56oo 20dego Wicklow 184 796 23dego 57dego 20dego Limerick Cilv 141 619 23oo 51dego 26dego
Mealh 170 751 22oo 52dego 26dego Offaly 113 505 22dego 53dego 25dego Kilkenny 121 545 22dego 48dego 30oo Donegal 94 428 22dego 42dego 35co
Leilrim 139 640 22dego 54dego 24dego------shy -Monaghan 118 556 21dego 57oo 22dego
Waterford City 164 788 21dego 60dego 19dego
Limenck County 147 708 21degk 53dego 26deg1 Louth 161 787 20dego 50dego 30dego
Mayo 122 602 20oo 53dego 27dego
Sligo 99 496 20dego 51 Ofo 29dego Tipperary South R1d1ng 120 619 19eo 60dego 21dego
Carlow 113 593 19dego 65dego 16dego Cork City 127 672 19dego 59 22dego
Weslm~ath 119 637 19dego 60dego 21dego South Cork 131 704 19dego 58dego 23dego
Laois 113 615 18dego 55dego 27 --Kildare 136 761 18 56dego 26dego Cavan 127 740 17dego 63dego 20 West Cork 87 513 17dego 57dego 26dego South Dublin 165 981 17dego 64dego 19dego Dun Laoghaire middot Rathdown 102 621 17dego 48dego 35dego Kerry 94 580 16dego 66 18dego
Roscommon 75 474 16dego 61 23dego Galway 110 835 13 64 23oo Fingal (Dublin) 117 902 13dego 62dego 25dego Dublin City 130 1 195 11 69 20
Total 4436 22735 19dego 57dego 24dego
---
I
LEADER A~minist_ration ~osts -~~ a Percentage of Total Expenditure -_ 1_995 __ Appendix A1 4
I Local Development Group
I
Laois Leader Rural Development Co Lid Cavan-Monaghan Rural Oevelopn1ent Co~rat1ve Soc~ely Ltd
Barrow-Norc-Suir Rural Developmentmiddot 62 81 771 QOo 23dego
Wicklow Rural Partnership Lid bull 26 38 70dego -I QOo 30dego
Westmeath Community Development Ltd
Longford Community Resources Lid -middot
-
8 11
-11 18
70degc
65
bull Oh
QOo
23dego
35dego middotmiddotshy
Mid-South Rural Roscommon Development Assoc1alion Ltd 9 14 63dego QOo 37dego
Rural Resource Development Lid bull 80 129 62degc Ooe 38dego
Meath Con1mumty Partnershrp Co Ltd
Meithcal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo
3
68
5 117
- 60dego
58dego
4dego
OOo
35eo
42dego
South West Mayo Development Co Galway Rural Development Co
54
8
94 middot-middotmiddot
15 58dego
56dego
1Oe
00o
41Co
44
Arigna Catchment Area Community Co 11 23 48dego 4dego 48
Western Rural Development Co Lld bull 28 58 48dego 00o 52oo
Offaly LEADER If Co Lid -middotmiddot
3 6 48~J QOo 52
IRD Duhallow Ltd bull -
Ballyhoura Development Ltd 60 74
131 163
46dego
45dego
OOo middotshy
OOo
54
55
West Limerick Resources Ltd
South Kerry Partnership Ltd bull
Waterford Development Partnership Lid
Tuatha Ch1arra1 Ltd
Word - Wexford Organisation for Rural Development
West Cork LEADER Group bull
Donegal Local Development Co Lid
-
10
29
34
6
51
57
8
- 23 66 76 14
125
160
22
44dego
44dego
44dego
42gtigt
41
35dego 340
3dego
00o
00o
6 1eo
00o
3eo
middotshy
53dege
56dego-56dego
52deg
58dego
65dego
63dego
-middotmiddotshy
Tipperary LEADER Group bull
Totalmiddot Local Development Groups
30 813
95
1584
32dego
51dego
00o
1dego -
68dego
48 -shy
middotshy
Acquisition of Skills
0 -
85 0 OCo 100dego
Other Collective Bodies
Technical Assistance
7
0
23 37
30 QOo
70dego
00o
00o
00dego
i Total Expenditure - LEADER Groups 820 1730 47dego 1dego 52dego
~-
--
Administration txpenditure
EOOO
3 81
Total AdministrationI I Expenditure as 0o of Total
EOOO Expenditurei
98dego
98 82deg~
3
Grant Aid as Non~rantI I I 0o of Total Outputs as of
Expenditure Total Expendituro
2dego 01 middot-shyQO 18dego
middotmiddotshy
bull These groups also existed under the Leader I in11ahve
LEADER Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A15
Total Administration Expenditure as 0o of Total
pound000 Expenditure
81dego56 lv-10Jbull
ro v 106 b1o
77 46dego 91 43dego
113 4 1 Ofo
226 39dego 92 38dego 90 38dego 67 38dego
100 36dego 230 36dego
JUmiddot~ 86 35dego
262 35dego 292 I 32dego 168 31dego 111 31dego 94 30dego- 29dego 65 I 29dego
289
85
29dego 182 27dego 258 25 194 24dego 198 23dego 165 22oo 141 22dego 285 22dego 271 21 249 20 185 19 94 19dego
5173 31
189 0dego 115 75o 86 0
5564 30dego
Grant Aid as 0o of Total
Expenditure
0 J _ 3dego 9dego bo 18dego 13dego
5dego 2dego
35dego 17dego
6dego
18dego 34o 44degc 29dega 26dego 28dego 50dego 19dego 47
5dego 55oo 20 50dego 46dego 42 36 50dego 40dego 20 25 29dego
0 25Vo
OOo
28
Non~rant
Outputs as 0o of Total Expenditure
19dego LO
~-
36dego 45dego 44o 41dego
48dego 57oo 6v-10 27dego 47dego 58dego 55vO 47 31dego 24oo 40dego 43 42dego 21 52dego 24dego 68dego 20dego 56dego 27dego 32dego 36dego 42 29 40dego 61dego 56dego 40dego
100o OOo
100o
42dego
Local Development Group
-Comhar lorrais (LEADER) Teoranta bull lounly ~ligo LlAurH t-artnersh1p co LIO r-cura1 uuo11n LtAUttlt vvmpany Lia ln1sh0Wen Community Development Co ltd middot Laois LEADER Rural Development Co Ltd comhdhail 011ea1n na hlireann South Kerry Partnership Ltd bull Rural Resources Develooment Ltd Blackwaler Region LEADER Co Ltd Meath Community Partnership Co Ltd LonQford Community Resources Ltd Galwav Rural Develooment Co Word-Wexford Organisation for Rural Developmenl
-Barrow-Nore-~uir tltura1 ueve1opment Lta_ Ariana Catchment Area Community Co bull Cavan-MonaQhan Rural Development Co-operative Society lid Me1theal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo Wicklow Rural Partnership Ltd bull Offaly LEADER II Co Ltd bull Doneoal Local Development Co Ltd Mid-South Rural Roscommon Developmenl Association Ltd Co Louth Rural Development Co Ltd Ballyhoura Development Ltd bull Kell-Kildare European LEADER II Teoranta IRD Duhallow ltd_ Tuatha Ch1arrai Lid -South West Mavo Oevelooment Co Westmeath Community Development ltd West Limerick Resources Ltd
-middot West Cork LEADER Groupmiddot Waterford Develooment Partnersh10 Ltd Western Rural Development Co Lid Tinnorarv LEADER Group bull East Cork Area Development Ltd Total - Local Development Groups
Acqu1s1t1on of Skills Uther Collective tsodies Technical Assistance
Total Expendituremiddot LEADER Groups
bull These groups also exisled under the Leader I initiative
Administration Expenditure
pound000
45
deg 64 35 - 47 88 35
25 37 83 60 31 91 94 53 35 28 25
19 84 49 64 46 45 37 31 61 58 49 36 17
1599
0 86
0
1684
---
--
----
----
I
I
LEADER _Admiri_istration_ Costs_as a Percentage_of TotalExpenditure bull 1997 Appendix A-16
Local Development GroupI I
Comhair lorrais (LEADER) Teoranta bull Co Sllqo LEADER Partnership Co Lid Rural Dublin LEADER Compant lid Wicklow Rural Partnershi~ Lid Rural Resource Development Lid Word-Wexford Orqani5allon for Rural Develo~ment Ltd Blackwater Reoion LEADER Co Lid Meath Communit~ Partnershi~ Co Ltd Laois LEADER Ru_ral Oevelooment Co Ltd IRD Ouhallow Ltd bull Oonal Local Oevelooment Co Ltd Kell-Kildare Eurooean LEADER II Teoranla Cavan-Monaghan Rural Oeveloement Co-o~rat1ve Socie_lv Ltd South Kerrv Partnersh10 Lid bull
I South Wesl Mavo Devetooment Co bull I Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo
Waterford Development Partnership Lid Galway Rural Developn-ent Co lnishowen Community Development Group bull Wesl Limerick Resources Ltd Co Louth Rural Dev~topment Co Ltd Comhdhail Oilea1n na hEireann West Cork LEADER Grouo bull Tuatha Ch1arra1 Ltd Westmeath Communitv Develoomenl Ltd Offalv LEADER II Co Ltd bull Ballyhoura Development Ltd East Cork Area Development Ltd Weslern Rural Development Co Ltd Mid-South Rural Roscommon Deveroomenl Assoc1at1on Ltd Longford Community Resources Ltd
Administration I Total Expenditure ExpenditureIpound000 pound000
43 I 96 83 48 52 89 91 46 -58 31 57 60 75
102 59 60
109 78 45 47 46 50 35
104 56 48 39 67
-- 27 83 32 35
Arigna Catchment Area Community Co I 43 middotmiddotmiddot shy
Tipperary LEADER Group 0 38 41Barrow-Nore-Suir RurEii Development bull
Total - local Develooment Grouos 1979
Other Collective Bodies 36 Technical Assistance 0
i Total Expenditure bull LEADER Groups 2015
234 140
186 365 373 204 260 156 293 314 399 568 335 341 626 458
middot-middot 264 277 275 309 221 658 367 314 259 455
Grant Aid as [ Nnn~r~ntAdministration as deglo of Total 0o of Total Expenditure Expenditure
45dego
36dego 34oo 28Co 24dego
24oo 22oo 22dego 20degtc 20oo 19dego 19dego 18degc 18degc 18dego 17dego 17degc 17degh 17 17 16dego 16dego 16dego 15dego 15 15dego 15o
189 I 14dego 592 I 14dego 252 290 414 441 561
11487
142 25dego 75 0 149 0 OOfo 100
11778 17dego 53dego JQOo I
13dego 12Jo 10dego
9oo 7dego
17dego
19dego
25dego 28dego 37dego so~lo
37oo 37dego 30oo 36Yv 40dego 54 45dego 59degn 55dego 61dego 64dego 64degh 56dego 34 49I 6QOo I 23dego 50dego I 34dego 64dego 55 50dego 55deg 55dego 60o 38oo 58dego 71 dego 56o 73dego 54dego 70dego 53dego
20dego 29dego 35oo 3_0 30dego 25dego 48dego 28dego 16degc 32dego 17dego 37dego 23dego 30
Outputs as oo of Total Expenditure I
36Co 39oo 38dego 35dego 26dego 39dego 41dego
48dego 44deg 40dego 27dego 36dego 23oA 27dego 21dego 19dego 19dego 27~o
Partnerships Community Groups and National Organisations Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A17
Partnership Administration Total Expenditure Expenditure pound000 pound000
KWCD Partnershii - -middot 128 128 lnishowen Partnersh10 Board 33 33-middot-Monaahan Partnershii Board 48 48 Lonoford Commumtv Resources ltd 40 40 Galwav Rural Oevelooment Co 39 39 Galwav C1tv Partnership 109 109
~Q_LEAOER Partnershii Co 50 50 Pairt1ocht Gaellacht Th1r Chonaill 48 48 Roscommon Countv Partncrshin 55 55 Pairt1ocht Chonamara 116 116 Cavan Partnershin 18 - 18_ Canal Communities Partnership 67 67 Brav Partnershio 115 115 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 49 50 Tra Li Partnershio 105 107 Waterford Area Partnershio 77 82 West Limerick Resources Ltd 74 82 Southside Partnershin 163 180 North-West KildareNorth Offalv (OAK) 125 139 Mavo bull 288 I 353 Wexford Area Partnershio 132 166 Doneaal Local Develoomenl Co 60 78 Leitnm Partnership 63 94 Clondalkin Partnershio Comoanv 176 305 South Kerrv bull 107 253 Blanchardstown Area Partnershin 208 495 Droaheda Partnershio Comoanv 136 337 Baltvfermot Partnershio 143 359 Cork Cilv bull 176 476 Dundalk bull 196 546 Finnlas bull 169 53 vvovforcl tn ntv prtnPrshio bull 126 501 n11hl1n lnOAr rjtv bull 14 539 T~ll ht bull 7 Ballvmun bull 103 529 Waterford Countv bull 42 227 Limerickmiddot 90 510 Northside Partnershio 125 761
Total Exoendituro - Partnerships 4071 9169
Communilv Grouos 710 773 National Oroanisations 383 383
Total 5164 10325
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) ~--
Administration as 0o Other Activities as 0o of Total Expenditure of Total Expenditure
100dego QOo
100dego QOo
100dego QOo
1QQ0o QOo
100deg QOo
100oo QOo
100oo 0dego 100dego QOo
100dego Ooo 100dego QOo
100middot QO(
1QQ 0o QDo
1QQDo 0dego 100dego OOo
98dego 2dego 94dego 6dego 91dego 9dego 91dego 9dego 90dego 10dego 82oo 18dego 80dego 20dego 77 23 67 33dego 58dego 42 42dego 58dego 42dego 58degc 40dego 69dego 40dego 60oo 37dego 63dego 36dego 64oo 3701 25dego 75degn 2i01 7t01Q TtOn 77deg 19dego 81dego 19dego 81dego 18oo a2deg10 16 84
44dego 56dego
92dego 8dego 100dego 0dego
50deg4 50dego
Partnerships Community Groups and National Organisations Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A 18
Partnership Administration
I Total Expenditure
--middot -shy -shy - --shy Expenditure pound000 - [000- shy
lnishowen Partnershio Board 137 272 Galwav C1tv PnrtnArsh1n 1e~ 35~
Mavo bull 274 580 Canal Commun1tv Partnersh10 122 267-W~~tmeath Communitv Develonmenl Ltd 98 216 Galwav Rural Oevelooment Co ~-
94 211 Monaahan Partnershio Board 100 238 Shoo LEAOEftigtartnersh1p C_o 155 385 Roscommon Counlv Partnershin 146 367 Cavan Partnersh10 72 184 Pa1rtiocht Chonamara 124 328- -LonQford Community Resources Lid 121 334 KWCO Partnershio 205 594 Pairtiocht Gaeltacht Thir Chonaill 99 302 Waterford Area Partnershin 175
middotshy 542 Blanchardstoln_ Area Partnersh1E 159 504 Oundalk bull 147 490 Leitrim Partnership 154 514 - -North West KildareNorth Offalv ltOAKl 122 414 Wexford Area Partnersh1R _ 125 427
_B~lymun bull 112 385 Brav Partnershio 151 526-Oonenal Local Develonment Co 104 371 Wexford Countv Partnershio bull 152 614
_sectQuth Kerrv bull 173 707 Cork Citymiddot 240 1 015 Tra Li Partnershio 122 519
_s1o_ndalk1n PartnershiQ ComQany 140 618 __lliJ_blin Inner C1ly bull 147 647
Tallaaht 173 775 Wesl Limerick Resources Ltd 57 256 F1nnlas bull 152 709 Walerford CountY bull --middot 54 261 Southside Partnershio 141 686 Ballyfcrmot Partnership 132 720 Droaheda Partnersh10 Comoanv 132 723--middot Limerickbull 121 803 Northside Partnershio bull 126 964 Set Un Casis - All Partnershins 28 28
Total Exoenditure bull Partnershios 5269 18858
Communitv Grouos 1 509 3499 National Oraan1salions 621 621
Total 7J98 22977
Administration as 0o Other Activities as 0o I- -middotshy of Total-Expenditure of Total Expenditure
51 oo 49dego-~ v u u-o
middotshy47dego 53dego 46dego 54dego 45lo 55oo-450o 55oo__ 42oo 58dego 40dego 60dego 40eo 60dego 39oo 61degi
38oo 62dego 36dego 64dego 34oo 66dego 33dego 67 32dego 68dego 32dego 68dego 30oo 70dego 30dego 70dego 29 71dego 29dego 71deg(0 29dego 71dego 29dego 71dego 28deg1gt 72dego 25dego 75oo 25dego 75 24dego 76dego-- shy24dego 76oo 23dego 77deg 23dego 77oo-shy22dego 78dego 22dego 78dego 21dego 79dego 2_1 dego 79deg 20dego 80dego 18 82 18 82dego 15 85dego 13dego 87dego
28dego 72
43dego 57=10 100dego OOo-shy32dego 68oo
i bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economrc and Social Progress (PESP)
County Enterprise Boards Grant Cost Per Job 1994-1997 (In Descending Order) Appendix A21
County Enterprise Board Expenditure on Grant Full Time Jobs Part Time Jobs Equivalent Jobs Aid 1994middot1997 pound000 1994-1997 (1) 1994-1997 (1) 1994-1997 (1)
Leitnm 1417 209 6 212 Westmeath 1012 154 0 154 Wexford 1575 280 37 299 Cork C1tv 1089 208 0 208 -Monaahan 1057 178 62 209 Waterford Counlv 1003 188 36 206-South Cork 1566 324 0 324 South Dublin 1753 362 6 365---TinnPrarv South R1dina 922 184 47 208 Limerick Citi 1197 273 10 278 Offalv 1137 243 74 280 Waterford City 1664 387 58 416 Mayo 1565 345 95 393 Limerick City 1512 362 60 392 Kllkennv 1325 320 55 348 DonPnal 1061 254 50 279 Finaal (Dublin) 1377 347 42 368 Wicklow 1538 333 170 418 Kiidare 1004 264 20 274
-Cork North 779 213 0 213
-Carlow 1435 309 169 394 -Cavan 1357 301 152 377 Clare 1 342 335 92 381 Kerrv 1432 288 238 407 Laois 1245 339 42 360 Louth 1045 280 46 303 Dublin Citv 1734 533 0 533
_
SliQo 1182 260 210 365 Oun LaoghaireRathdown 1323 408 3 410 Longford 1145 332 51 358 Roscommon 1208 315 133 382 West Cork 1063 361 21 372 Meath 980 350 23 362 Gatway County and City 2131 843 120 903 Tipperary North County 660 223 136 291
Total 44834 10905 2264 12037
Grant Cost per Job pound
6683 middot-shy6571 5278 5235 5057 4 867 4 834 4801 4444
4306 4061 3999 3988 3857 3812 3802 3743 3680 3666 3658 3647 3599 3522 3518 3459 3448 3254 3238 3231 3203 3 165 2 861 2711
2360 2269
3725
( 1) The jobs created in the year are computed by taking a head count of new jobs 1n enterprises receiving grant aid from CEBs The grant aid expended in the year may not be directly comparable with this as here may be a time rag between the expenditure and the creation of the relevant job but this should be minimised by taking an average over 4 years In computing the equivalent 1obs figure part-lime jobs are taken as 05 of a 1ob
County Enterprise Boards Non Grant Expenditure 1996 Appendix A31
r= middotshy
INPUTS OUTPUTS
I Cou~ty Enterpr_ise Boar_ct_ ~on-Grant - shy
0o of Total _Surveys __ Media _Networks __ ThirdLevel _Second Business - Mentor Activities Expenditure Events Colleges Level Counselling Support
pound000 Schools -
Kildare 241 39oo 1 0 4 3 15 380 40 middotshy
Dublin City 202 30oo 1 9 6 2 20 151 35 Fingal(Oubhn) 171 26dego 1 14 11 I 0 4 3 93 Oun LaoghaireRathdown 160 25oo 1 7 3 0 14 25 84
Sligo 108 24dego 0 68 0 1 3 250 30 - shySouth Cork 150 23dego 20 24 14 1 14 120 45 South Dublin 161 23dego 2 8 0 0 18 105 4
-middot Cork City 118 22dego 2 10 3 2 14 0 14
Loulh 137 22dego 7 3 2 1 6 40 15 Meath 116 22deg1~ 0 3 3 1 12 0 21 West Cork 135 21dego 0 130 2 0 10 174 10 Westmeath 106 21dego 0 0 0 0 17 0 14
Offaly 121 19dego 4 34 5 2 9 17 20 Donegal 144 19dego 1 4 0 1 8 216 46
-107 18oo 0 17 0 1 I 15 150 16
~ Clare
- middot----Leitrim 121 18oo 5 0 4 0 I 9 416 12
Roscommon 92 1Tlo 0 0 0 1 5 484 5 -Limerick City 7
I 17dego 0 2 0 5 5 0 6 Limerick County 137 17dego 1 25 1 0 13 102 7 Laois 101 16dego 0 4 0 0 14 54 bull 1
Tipperary North County 65 16dego 0 0 0 0 12 279 17
Wexford 107 15dego 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 Waterford County 85 15dego 0 2 0 1 0 69 4 Monaghan 86 14deg= 0 0 0 0 7 10 5 Kilkenny 88 14dego 0 16 0 I 0 12 I 19 I 10 Carlow 77 13dego 0 7 0 I 0 10 I 0 I 20 -Wicklow 96 13dego 1 12 0 0 9 70 14
Cavan 74 12oo 5 0 4 1 5 1394 i 31 Tipperary South Ridinq 65 12dego 0 0 3 0 10 80 25 Kerry 71 12dego 1 0 1 0 8 0 20
bullGalway County and City 75 I 12=10 1 2 37 3 12 72 3 Waterford City 82 10dego 0 1 0 1 20 108 33 Mayo 78 10oo 0 48 0 0 5 221 6 Longford 50 9dego 3 5 5 0 7 60 10
Cork North 36 8dego 0 0 0 0 0 340 0
Total 3879 18dego 57 455 108 27 352 5409 726
County Enterprise Boards Non Grant Expenditure 1997 Appendix A32
INPUTS OUTPUTS middotshy
County Enterprise Board Non-Grant bull1o of Total Surveys Media Networks Third Second Business Mentor Management Activities Expenditure Events Level Level Counselling Support Development
EOOO Colleges Schools Programme
Don~al 156 36dego 3 3 1 3 9 55 12 3 Tipperary Nor1h County 162 36dego 0 33 1 0 7 175 12 3 Oun laoghaireRathdown 219 35oo 2 20 6 4 24 240 67 2 Kilkenny 162 30oo 2 12 0 0 27 99 16 3 Louth 233 30 0 14 2 1 11 60 18 6 Sliao 144 29dego 1 7 2 2 7 246 26 6-Laois 167 27oo 0 127 2 0 13 100 6 4 Clare 171 27dego 1 37 12 1 15 97 31 6 Mavo 162 271 0 15 2 0 10 190 6 3 Limerick City 163 26dego 1 29 4 3 6 100 5 4 Kildare 198 26dego 0 24 4 0 15 190 46 6 Wesl Cork 133 26oo 1 271 2 0 10 152 2 4 Limerick County 183 26oo 1 55 12 3 8 194 35 6 Mealh 193 26oo 1 28 3 2 19 48 9 4 Offaly 127 25oo 1 53 6 0 8 59 35 5 Fingal (Dublin) 224 25dego 0 5 0 1 6 446 155 3 Leitrim 157 24oo 2 84 3 2 7 135 14 2 South Cork 164 23dego 0 14 85 1 16 627 15 6 Roscommon 109 23oo 1 27 3 0 11 50 8 4
Gatway County and City 190 23dego 0 5000 10 3 36 18 10 14
Co1lt Ci1V 150 22dego 1 10 5 2 B 1325 16 3 Monaghan 121 22dego 2 24 6 0 B 47 0 3 Tipperary South Riding 131 21 Ofo 1 25 3 0 11 672 20 3 Westmeath 132 21dego 1 3 0 0 29 6 10 4 Waterford Countv 104 21dego 3 32 2 1 21 156 7 3 Dublin City 245 21 oo 1 26 6 5 23 110 50 6 Wexford 131 20dego 1 17 0 0 17 55 16 2 Wicklow 159 20 0 44 0 0 6 32 9 3 Cavan 144 20dego 4 14 7 1 6 134 63 7
CorX North 66 19 1 10 5 2 16 1325 16 3 Waterford City 149 19oo 2 12 0 1 21 183 18 3 South Dublin 184 19dego 1 2 0 0 16 87 37 3 Kerry 104 18 1 324 0 0 12 115 B 2 LonQford 81 16oo 5 41 8 0 5 0 6 41 Carlow 95 16 1 110 1 1 10 228 50 2 Total 5414 24 42 6552 203 39 474 7756 854 182
LEADER Groups Non Grant Expenditure 1995-1997 (1) Appendix A33
Local Development Group
INPUTS
Non-Grant -Activities
pound000
As a 0o of Total--middot
Expenditure
Seminars Held-shy
OUTPUTS
Press I Other tApplications Releases Promotional -Approved-
Projects Referred Creation I Creation of Training Completed to Other of Newmiddot middot Community middotCourses
Actions Agencies Business Association
East Corllt Area Development Ltd 144 51dego 104 110 0 O 0 O 5 2 I O gt-M~e~a~th=C-o~m-m~u~n~i~ttv
0
middotP~a~rt~n-e-rs~h~o=C~o-L-td-----~--1-8-0--+-~5~1~0~---+--7~7-1--+---16-4---- 110 91 11 960 21 12 16
Word - Wexford Ornan1sat1on for Rural Oevetonment bull 351 48oo 0 0 0 0 t-c~innbulle~ra~~-L~e~a~d~er~Gro~u~o~middot~-~~~~~---r-~3~4~3----t-~4~8~o--o 24 7 4 191 45 10 15 13 22 f--~----=~~~~~~~~~+-----~+----~---~+---------l~~-----+-~~----~+-~--~--l~----~f-~300~+-~=-~+-~--~-+~-=~~
Kellmiddot Kildare Euronean Leader II TEO 268 46Yo 85 125 4 74 33 1 10 36 Blackwater Reo1on Leader Co_ Ltd -middot _136----+--4-6A~o------6--7_ __ _ __65------lt----4----I- --7-3__1_---3-1------22--+----3------lt--------1--~__2_4-----1 lnishowen Commumtv Develonment Groun bull 175 46dego 288 86 25 64 27 147 10 17 28 Laois Leader Rural Develonment Co Ltd 103 44dego 67 116 12 56 17 27 40 7 17 Tualha Chiarrai Ltd 244 42dego 239 25 10 168 82 66 24 6 39 West Cork Leader Groun middot 414 38~C -middot-+-~75----t--6-9-8----t----O--t----o-----t --~O-----t----O--t--~1~2_ _____o----shy 33
~c~o~S~h~go~L-ead-e~r~P~bull~rt--n-e--rs~h~ip~Co~~Lt~d--------+-----1~0~1--+-~3~7~~_ ___J3 6 6 73 21 14 20 17 5 Rural Dutgt11n Leader Comoanv Ltd 63 37dego 83 18 -~9--t----2~7--middot-+---6----+---~12-----t--~3---+--~7---+----5-Co_ Louth Rural Devclooment Co Ltd 137 37dego 139 56 18 39 5 23 5 2 11
gt-W~c~kl-o--w~R~u~r~a~I~P-art~n~bull~middot~sh~io~L--td---middot---------~1~4~3--+_~3~6~~-+---5~0~7____~1~12------ O 25 33 209 9 11 6 IRD Duhallow Lld bull ___2~middotbull-1-+-3_~V----t-~283------j--272--+----o-----1 85 40 144 11 37 1A
Rural Resource Dcvclooment ld__middot-------+--20502--+-C3057___-t-1=38~2o---t---5~0t----t--0905----t-----OO--- 0 0 6 9 14 Offalv Lead_~r II Co_ Ltd_middot 130 35oo 49 43 20 76 56 9 17 0 91
gt-S~ou--th~K~bull~Y~P~a~rt~n~bull~s~h~ip~L~t~d-middot________1__1_7~5--+-~34---~~middot--i---1~bull~85----+---1middotQ4_--+-----9--~--0-----+-----o--+----o---~-~2~0---+--3~0-----+--~3~6--1 Galwav Rural DevelgPment Co 126 33dego 38 12 0 147 21 130 19 6 39 Western Rural Devetoomenl Co Ltd 298 33dego 134 102 1 165 46 81 27 1 9 DonPnal L~cal Development Co Ltd 139 32 5 15 1 127 36 29 20 0 13 Lonaford ~ommun1lv Resources Ltd 118 31dego 15 57 7 97 46 22 3 2 5 Westmeath Communitv Develonmenl Ltd 149 30dego 254 50 15 165 60 20 17 5 __sect_____
l-Ba~ll~vlh~ou~ra~De~v-e~lo~rnm~e--n--t-Ll~d~_middot_________t--~2~7~3--+_~30~~~---t---64~-t--bull~8-----t----5--t----2~0~1--l--~8~2-----t--~8~0----+-~59----t---~bull~O---t ~5~2~-t Barrow-Nor~-Suir Rural Development bull -~2~4~7--+--~3~0~----+---3~5~0---__f----5_____15----l--~1~5~1---1C-----92-----t--~65-----t---2~0---t--~10-----t--~2~8-----t Comhair lorrais ILead~rl Teoranta bull 45 29dego o O _o__t------Co__t--_~o___-t-_--o_-+---co_ _____o--_-+_ __o-----t Wesl Limerick Resources 1 tn 126 29dego 69 104 3 103 1h 10 87 7 10 Comhdhail 01leain Na hEireann 64 27dego 41 32 0 124 hO 45 15 0 10
~_~ndegh~Wc~s~t~Mou_nDev~e~lo-nmbulln~t~n~middot------+--~1bullbull-+--2-bull-~-+---12----t--~~5-------0--l----1~middot4___+-_~5~8--t-----4~-+--~13---t------1--+--~3~3-~ Waterford Develooment Partnershio Ltd 209 26dego 56 0 0 95 35 35 34 7 46 Cavan-Monaghan Rural Development
l--C~o~-o~gtP~e~r=a~v~e~S=oc-e=t~y~L~tdo-middot---~-~----+-~2~2~7--+-C2~47o=---+-=2676~-t----11~7~---l----2~174__t---~36700---+----3~0~1--l----2~--+---20---+~--75__t-----2=2~--l Ariana Catchment Arca Community Co bull 121 23dego 21 7 23 105 39 4 5 0 O
f---M~~~h=~~F~o=r~b~a=rth~a--N~a=G~a~e~lt~a~c=ht~a~T~E~o=---~----r-~2=3~7----C2~3o=---+-~1773=----t--~150~--t--~o--t---~4700---+--1-5=7--+-~35~0~--+-~109----t--~2~1----+--~176--j
Mid-South Rural Roscommon Development Association Ltd 63 18 24 18 120 90 36 10 20 5 4
Total Expenditure - Local Development Groups 6227 34dego 7183 2879 730 I 3496 1514 2871 690 291 716
Acqu1s1t1on of skills i 274 Ooo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1-coc~e~c11=n~ca-1-a~s~s~s~ta-n~ce---------------=27~2~---l--0~0~~--t---Co~--t--~o--+--~o=---+-1--~o~-+---~o~-+----o--+------io~-t----o~--+-----io----+
Total Expenditure -LEADER Groups 6773 36dego 7183 2 879 730 3 496 1 514 2 871 (1) Expenditure for 1995-1997 is grouped together as only cumulative output statistics to 31December1997 were available at the time of preparing the report bull These groups also existed under the Leader I initiative
690 291 716
I
Partnerships Non Grant Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A34 middot-middot
INPUTS OUTPUTS
Partnership Name Non-Grant Activities As a 04 of Total Enterprise Services for Preventative Complementary pound000 Expenditure Support Unemployed Education Education
Norths1de Partnership bull 636 84dego 321 1885 520 443 Limerickbull 420 82dego 296 935 100 388 Waterford Counlv bull 184 81 oo 57 0 0 0
t--shy272 328Ballymun bull 426 81oo 401 82
Tallaght bull 466 77dego 496 - 957 143 29 Dublin Inner City bull 405 75dego 343 1651 50 59 Wexford County Partnership bull 375 75dego 138 0 17 272 Finalas bull 365 68oo 557 731 378 155 Dundalk bull 350 64dego 148 388 132 207 Co1lt Citymiddot 300 63dego 344 0 180 261 Ballyfermot Partnership 215 60dego 0 211 40 94 Drogheda Partnership Company 200 60dego 60 0 0 38 Blanchardstown Area Partnership 288 58dego 116 71 48 18 South Kerrv bull 146 58oo 90 212 399 265 Clondalkin Partnership Company 129 42oo 164 0 0 0 Le1tnm Partnership 31 33oo 23 184 0 56 Donegal Local Development Company 18 23dego 0 0 0 0 -IJYexford Area Partnership 34 20oo 14 0 0 13 Mayo 18o lo 181 10 34 North West KildareNorth Offaly 14 10 0 0 u 28 Southside Partnership 17 9dego 0 0 0 0 West Limencilt Resources Ltd 8 9dego 52 0 0 0 Waterford Area Partnershij)shy 5 6dego 49 14 0 5 Tra Li Partnership 2 2 u 0 0 0 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 0 QOo 0 0 0 0 LonQford Community Resources Ltd 0 Ooo 0 0 I 0 0-Pairtiocht Gaeltacht Th1r Chona1ll 0 0 0 0 0 0 lnishowen Partnership Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canal Commun1t1es Partnershrp 0 00o 0 0 0 0 Pairtiocht Chonamara 0 QOa 0 0 0 0 Gatway Rural Development Co 0 OOa 0 0 0 0 Sligo Leader Partnership Co 0 0 16 0 0 0 Roscommon County t-artnersh1p - u 0-1 u 0 u 0 Brav Partnership 0 01 0 0 0 0 Gatwav City Partnership 0 OOo 0 0 0 0 Cavan Partnership 0 00o 0 0 0 0 MonaQhan Partnership Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 KWCD Partnership 0 Ooo 0 0 0 0 Total Expenditure - Partnerships 5098 56dego 3739 7821 2107 2693
Commun1lv Grouas 63 8 0 0 0 0 National Oraanisalions 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 5161 50 3739 7821 2107 2693
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
Partnerships Non Grant Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A35
INPUTS OUTPUTS -
Partnership Non-Grant Activities As a 0o of Total Business Job Groups Preventative -shy -middot middot- -middot pound000 -middot - Expenditure -Start-Ups- shy Placements -shy Supportmiddot Education Projects
Northside Partnership bull I 838 87dego 503 438 28 15 I - -middot -middotmiddot - tCbullbull 602 isgt10 11b tiLj 31 16 I Dr()(lheda Partnership Co I 591 82dego 60 12 177 10 Ballyfermot Partnership 587 a2deg10 88 88 30 3
-middot Southside Partnership 546 80dego I 200 6 80 24 Waterford Counly bull 206 79dego 42 4 23 6 Fmglas bull 557 79dego 257 233 174 28 West limerick Resources Ltd 199 78degc 40 0 50 0 Tallaaht bull 602 78dego 309 646 51 7 Dublin Inner City bull 500 77dego 290 448 34 10 Clondalkin Partnership Conipany 478 77oo 225 562 63 7 Tra L1 Partnership 396 76deg1gt 80 20 67 6 -cork Citymiddot 775 76- 217 111 55 9 Soulh Kerry bull 533 75dego 135 150 61 middot51 -
Wexford County Partnership bull 462 75dego 170 63 31 0 Donegal Local Development Co 267 72dego 150 0 63 2 Bra~ Partnershi~ 375 71degu 71 0 14 Ballymun bull 274 71dego 70 402 50 10 Wexford Area ~artnership OUpound 71o 17U 4 5 18 -shyNorth vvest tildareNorth Offaly 292 71 Oo 56 0 8
I Leitrim Partnership 360 70deg1= 60 3 119 6 Dundalk bull 343 70~~ 71 64 50 10 Blanchardstown Area Partnership 345 68dego 170 97 29 13 Waterford Arca Partnership 367 68dego 37 6 55 1
middotshyPa1rtiocht Gaeltacht Thir Chona1ll 203 67deg~ 75 0 50 10 KWCD Partnership 389 66deg 15 0 0
- 4 middot-
Lonqford Commumtv Resources Ltd 212 64dego 85 4 19 5 middotmiddotshyPairt1ocht Chonamara 205 62 67 2 3 34
middotmiddot-Cavan Partnershio 112 61dego 90 1 49 6 Roscommon County Partnership 221 60degJ 120 0 38 6 -Sligo LeaCer Partnership Co 230 60dego 120 0 32 2 Monaghan Partnership Board 138 58dego 88 0 40 10 Galway Rural Development Company 116 55dego 101 0 51 2 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 118 55deg1= 0 0 20 2 -Canal Communities Partnersh10 145 54deg~ 0 0 16 6 Mavo bull 306 53dego 177 200 28 3 Galway City Partnership 180 50dego 113 0 35 12 lmshowen Partnership Board 134 49dego 60 0 42
Total Expenditure bull Partnerships 13589 72dego 4698 4192 1853 397
Commun1tv Grouos 1 990 57 0 0 0 0 Nalional Oraanisations 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 15579 68dego 4698 4192 1853 397
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
Appendix B Administration Cost Trends of Local Development Bodies
Number of CEBs within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs 1994-1997
Cost Band 1994 1995 1996 1997
ltpound50000 pound50-100000 pound100-150000
pound150-200000
gtpound200000
3 17
15 2
24
7
2
1
32
2
5
23 7
Total Administration Costs pound4_8m pound49m pound43m pound44m
Number of LEADER groups within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs 1995-1997
Cost Band 1995 1996 1997
ltpound50000 25 23 17
pound50-100000 9 11 14 pound100-150000 3
Total Administration Costs pound0Bm pound16m pound20m
Number of Partnerships within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs of Partnerships
Cost Band 1996 1997
ltpound50000 9 6 pound50-100000 7 19 pound100-150000 15 10 pound150-200000 5 10 gt pound200000 2 3
Total Administration Costs pound40m pound53m
11l)(lrJY 11 I
--
Appendix C Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development - Performance Indicators and Revised Targets
-
f 11~
iority Indicator
Jobs
1mber of of 1obs
Revised Targets (1994-1999) Original TargetUnits for total Operational Sub Sub
Programme 2Programme Programme 1
Jobs 15000 proved (for support grant assistance)
Nl1mber of new jobs erbullated not placed in Jobs and vacanc1es) Persons (N 81middot for Sub Pr gtgramme 1wjobs
bullgt provecr figure will mJke up the bulk of thbull i ~jobs created an1ounl) (N 02- for Sub Pr )gramme 2 this eq uates 10 new en terpriscs SUpported)
17000 (Sub Programme 1 8000 Sub Programme 2
1717516900
6900 Sub Programme 3 (Temple Bar) 2000 permanenl in service amp 5000 construction)
AjfJe11c1x CI
~ Priority Indicator
2 Enterprise creation and development
Grants to enterprise Value of grant allocations
Number of enterprises supported
Percentage of investment 1n enterprises provided by the Operational Programme
Provision of improved access for potential entrepreneurs to initial advice Number of firms receiving business advice
Percentage of grant aided firms whose promoters received other Operational Programme support advice consultancy mentoring
Management developm9nt Number of enlerprises participating in managemenl development programmes Number of managers participating in management developmenl programmes
3 Community Development Number of local groups financially assisted
4 Services for the unemployed Number of persons registered for assistance
Number of Long-Term Unemployed persons to benefil from Services for the
I Unemployed expressed as a
I Oo of total number of persons registered for assistance
Units Original Target for total Operational
Programme
pound
Enterprises 2260 new businesses and for Sub Programme 1
Persons and 3640 new and 960 existing for Sub Programme 2
Enterprises 6000 firms and
Persons
280 firmsEnterprises
Persons 500 per annum
No target set groups Local
Persons Caseload of 11 0000 (30000 1n 1995 and
20000 new cases per annum thereafter)
No targel set
Revised Targets (1994-1999)
Sub Sub Programme 1 Programme 2
i
pound16000000pound56020000
17 000 new and6050 new and 7000
existing 3750
existing
(Tolal 9800) (Tolal 24000)
39dego
3000010900
100dego83oo
6000
10000
700
57000 (40000 Local Employment
Scheme Partnerships and 17 000 Non- Local
Employment Scheme)
60dego
AfJXIUimiddot C2
---
Priority Indicator Units Original Target Revised Targets (1994-1999) for total Operational
Sub SubProgramme Programme 1 Programme 2
Progression Number bulllf persons progressing Persons 2500 per annum 16000 to full-time employment (1e placement in a job vacancy) Number of persons progressing Persons 300 per annum 5000 to part-lir le employment (ie placeme11t in a job vacancy) Number of persons assisted into Persons 17000 self-emplJyment (see 1 above) N~mber of persons assisted Persons 19000 under co1nplementary education and training Number of persons in continuing Persons 5000 per annum 2000
1 cducat1or1 Number c1f persons in work Persons 10000 per annum 1000 experience programmes Number Cbullf unemployed referred Persons 5000 onwards middot o other agencies
- -middot 5 ~ducation and Training Complementary education and training Number cmiddotf persons assisted Persons 12000 per annum 19000 under cornplementary education and traini l9
Provision of recognised ce~ificaticbulln Number cf participants ptovided Persons 60003500 with re~1nised certification
I 0o of part1 1pants provided with 30oo reltXJgniset certification
Training for trainers NuOiber ol persons benefiting Persons 1000 under actions tn the area of trai~1ng of trainers and teachers
I of partimiddotipants ptovided with recognise j certification
I 6 Preventive education Number of children attending Children 4080 per annum 44000 preventive education courses I youth serVices
7 lnfrasbucture and enVironmental measures Number o infrastructutal and 20 per annum 1000Protects 98 environmE ntal actions
Appendix C3
Original Target Revised Targets (1994-1999) Priority Indicator Units for total Operational Sub Sub
Programme Programme 1 Programme 2
8 Land development
Area of targeted land developed
Expenditure on developmenl of targeled land
Number of derelict sites eradicated
Number of villages assisted
Number of towns assisted
Number of conservation projects to be funded
9 Other
Entarprse culture Number of participants in activities to promote an enterprise culture 1n schools and colleges
Customer contacts Number of customer contacts with CEBs
Hectares
pound
Sites
Villages and projects
Towns and projects
Projects
Persons 62000
Customer 190000 Contacts
Appendix C 4
Appendix D Extract from Consolidated Reporting Guidelines - December 1997 The LEADER Operational Programme Performance Indicators and Revised Targets
Pe-rformance Indicators
Under the tenns nf the Opcr~llional Progr1111n1e e1ch group is rtmiddot4uired to set ck)vn
1~erforn11nce uHJic~1tors and targets vhitmiddoth it vdl ain1 10 ~1chilve in 1he
itn )le1ncntation of its hu~iness plan and against vh1ch its perfonnance Viii htmiddot
evllua1ed_ Follc)ving ~t rcvitv of the fonn ind contenl of 1hc originil incliclliVl
inclicHors1 cornincnt by the independent evduator and consuh1lion Vilh groups a
dc1111itivc range of perfon111nce inclicJtors llas nclv been prepared
E~11h (~roup is required to llltgtdify ils Busin1middotss Pl1n perforn1ance indicators in this
remiddotiscd forn1at for lmiddotte1sure B Ruril innovation 1neasures and insofar as it is possible
at 1his s1age to prep1re inltlil~ltors for middotleisure C middotrransni1ion~1I cu-operitiun for 1hv
period tnding 5 I l)ece111her 1999 PleJse note thlt 1leisure C does no[ relale to
teclmical suppo11 funding received from AEIDL
lh1 Ile st1te111cru of pcrfonn1ncl indicators -hould rLprcscnl a co111pnhensivc
stncnHmiddotnc of 1argets based on progress to ditc ind the i1nplc111entllio11 of 1he
huine~gt plmiddottll to )1 l)cc~1nbcr iltJ99 including thl acklitional 1ctivitics being
~upportcd vith the funding 11locItcd fron1 the -middotrcservtmiddotmiddotmiddot
imiddotht revised busintmiddot-s plan indicators should he con1plctccl ind rc1urnecl to Huril
De-elopmem Division lw ii _l1nua1v 1998
regress Viii he 1neasurecl 1gainst these t1rgcts by lllttns of the Lf)LJ rerurn~ incl the
quant1tat1ve incl qualitllivc reports outlirlltd in sections 3A jl3 incl 5C of 1hesc
guiklines
Ple1se note thal -hJcled areas ire for infon11a1ion only incl 11 lhis st1ge do nol
require indicators to be Stl All olhltr t1rge1s should ht inpulled in 1he 1ppropri1te
fickl- here rherc is no 1lmiddotlemiddotan1 ac1ivi1y tllSl rl zero
1[Jfx11rL IJ 1
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Animation and Capacity Building
ActivityOutput
Promotion
Number of seminarspublic meetingsworkshops organised to cover the following topics GeneralCommunity SpecialisedSectoral
Number of attendees al the above
Number of press releases articles published media interviews
Circulation of LEADER Newsletter Number issued Number per print run
Number of other promotional actions
Direct Animation Assistance I Technical Advice
Number of private individuals directly assistedadvised
Number of bodies directly assistedadvised GeneralCommunity Specialised Sectoral
Number of development strategiestplansmiddot arising from field work (Le_ not covered in ~other technical assistance beneath) including community plans
Co-ordination of Activities
Number of applications referred to other agencies
Impact
Enhanced Awareness of LEADER Services (Not for completion)
This will be measured by middot
The number of individuals contacting LEADER office
The number of groupsbusinesses contacting LEADER office
The number of applications from promoters
The number of projects promoted by LEADER Group itself
General Level of Local I Community Development
Activity (Not for completion)
This will be measured by middot
The number of applications successfully improved
The number of bodies assistedanimatedrestructured improved
Number of bodies established
More Efficient Use of Resources
(Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number of projects successfully referred to other agencies (i e funded)
i
------MeasL1re B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector ActivityOutput -
I
dministration Processing
Number of staff exclusively I assigned to administrative duties
(2 15 etc)
Number of staff exciusively assigned to animation duties (2 1 5 etc)
Number of Board meetings held
Number of hours worked on a I voluntary basis by Board
members
Number of project evaluation committees
I
Number of project evaluation committee meetings held I
Number of hours worked on a voluntary basis by pro1ect evaluation committee members
I Number of internal LEADER Group evaluation meetingssessionsreviews
I Number of external system auditsreviews (not including accounts)
Co-ordination of Activities I
Number or meetings with other LEADER Groups
I
Number of County Strategy Meetings attended
Number of other meetings with I public bodies
middot shy
Impact
Efficient Delivery of Service (Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number or applications received The number of applications
processed The number of applications approved The number of projects completed
More Efficient Use of Resources
(Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number of projects referred to other agencies (not including those that were referred after provision of animation assistancetechn1cal advice which 1s dealt with beneath)
Apprnd1x 0 3
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector ActivityOutput Impact
Technical Support Studies and Research Knowledge I Expertise Made Available to Potential
Number of studies plansaudits Promoters commissioned by LEADER (Not for completion) Group (not including field work carried This wlfl be measured by out by animators which is included above) The number of LEADER
projects emanating from studies Number of other auditsstudiesplans prototype The number of projects development commissioned by emanating from studies funded promoters amp funded by by other agencies LEADER
The number of bodies restructuredimproved
The number of bodies established
1ppc11cLy ) 4
----
--- --
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
I Sector Activity I Output Impact middot- ---shy
Training Provision of Training Courses Acquisition of Skills (Not for completion)
I Number of training courses commissionedundertaken by This will be measured by LEADER Group (not including animation activ1t1es The number of bodies outlined above) demonstrably LEADER StaffBoard restructuredimproved by GeneralCommunity Courses training provided to SpecialisedSectoral volunteersstaff
I
Number of attendees at the above The number of proiects emanating from training
I PROVISION OF TRAINING GRANTS The number of attendees who
were placed in employment as Number of Training Grants for a result of training
I courses commissioned by promoters and funded under LEADER (not including any of the above)
I GeneralCommunity Courses Spec1al1sedSectoral
Number of attendees at the above
Grant Provision Job CreationRecruitment Assistance I
Number of Employment Grants Employment created provided
I ~-
Afgtj)(11cLmiddot J 5
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Activity I OutputSector
Improvement of Existing Accommodation and
Tourist Amenities
Rural Tourism
Number of capital grants provided
Development of New Accommodation and
Tourist Amenities
Number of capital grants provided
Marketing
Number of marketing grants provided
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number accommodation facilities upgraded to Bord Faille standard
Number of additional beds available
Increased number of visitormiddot capacity
Add1t1ona1 tourist revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Sectoral Benefits
New entrants
Number of additional beds available
Increased number of visilor capacity
Additional revenue generated IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Improved Business Attributable to Marketing
Additional bed-nights arising from marketing strategy
Additional inquiries visits to tourist offices - domestic - overseas
Additional visits to tourist amenities Siles arising from marketing strategy
Number or new marketmg methods tourist packages initiated
Employment- (e g directly arising rrom marketing as opposed to capital grant aid eg as a result or brochures advertisements etc) Created I Sustained
-------
Meas1Jre B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Small Firms Craft Enterprise and Local Services
I
I
i
I
i
i
I
_
Activity I Output
Support for Existing Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Support for New Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Marllteting
Number of marketing grants provided
- -Impact
-Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with improved efficiencyadded value to products and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product ranges
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
I
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises established
New productsproduct ranges
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Greater Awarness of Enterprise Activity
Number of new (geographical) markets developed - within Ireland - within EU - non - EU
Increased sales (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
1J(11di- Igt 7
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Agricultural Forestry and Fishery Products
Activity I Output
Support for Existing Enterprises and Improving
Quality of Existing Products
Number of capital grants provided
Support for New Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Marketing
Number of marketing grants provided
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with improved efficiencyadded value to products and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product ranges
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Number of enterprises established
New productsproduct ranges
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Greater Awareness of Enterprise Activity
Number of new (geographical) markets developed - within Ireland - within EU - non - EU
Increased sales (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector Activity I Output Impact
Freservation of the Improving Awareness Increased Environmental Environment and Livin Awareness9
Conditions Number of capital grants Number of environmental provided plansaction groups established
(not including groupsplans arising from animation andor other technical support outlined above)
Number of entries for Tidy Towns Competition
Benefit to the Built I Cultural of Built I Social and Cultural
Protection I Enhancement Environment
Environment
Number of built sitesstructures provided Number of capital grants
protected or restored
Number of socialcultural events held
Employment created I sustained
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Benefit to the Natural of Natural Environment
Protection I Enhancement Environment
Number of natural sites protected provided Number of capital grants
Number of natural amenities restoredenhanced
Improved Managment of Activities I Alternative
Waste Management Waste I Availability of
Energies Alternative Energy
Number of capital grants Number of alternative energy provided providers established
Number of waste management initiatives implemented
Employment created I sustained
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
AJf)(itrlLmiddot J9
Measure C Transnational co-operation
Sector
Transnational Co~peration
Activity I Output
Grant Provision
GeneralCommunity SpecialisedSectoral Rural Tourism Small Firmscraftsenterprises AgricultureForestryFisheries Products EnvironmenVLiving Conditions Other
Number of Grants provided to final beneficiary (each category is exclusive)
Private Men Private Women Private Jointmiddot CommunityDevelopment Groups Business VoluntarySpecific Issue Groups Co-operatives LEADER Group Other Total
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with establishedimproved efficiency added value to producls and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product rangesnumber of new marketing methods tourist packages initiated
Number of new (geographical) markels developed - within Ireland -within EU - non-EU
Additional inquiries visits to tourist offices - domestic - overseas
Additional visits to tourist amenities sites arising from marlltetmg strategy
Additional bed-nights arising from marketing strategy
Increased sales Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Number of cultural links established
Number of local development strategies studies transferred shared
Number of environmental actions
Employment - created full-time all year fu11-time seasonal part-time all year part-time seasonal
Employment - sustained full-trme all year full-time seasonal part-time all year part-time seasonal
AfJJll1tll~Y )_ Q
Appendix E Matrix of Development Agencies in County Roscommon and the Services Provided (Produced by Roscommon County Enterprise Board)
---------~
c Q
~l agt-EUJ
Co Jnty Slrategy Group CoJnty Enterpnse BoHd
Anmiddotina Enterprise Fund
Lec1der 11
Pai tnersh1p Co ( --~--~---~--~--
Co-Jnty Council ---- middot---~---t--~--~~-~r ---~-~--~-~--~-~--~--~
lrel 3nd Wes ToLnsm
--~---~--~--~---middot -~----~----------~--
Tecgasc
An Bord Tr3cht31a
Forbairt ( ( (
10t Ireland I
FA
Bord Faille (
Bar1ksFinanc1al Insmiddot itulions I
Dcpartmenl of Social Welfare
Buiness Innovation Centre
European lnfc rmat1on Centre
AfJjJCJICfiY E l
Appendix F Framework of Agreement between County Meath CEB and County Meath LEADER II Group
MEMOHANDUM OF AGHEFMFNT
JelVtLll
The Meath County Fn1erpnse Board Ltd
and
Mca th Leader 11
Given he -i1n1brilics bl(lLll ccnnn ispeCls of the n1ni1 of bnth Counry Enterprise Hoard ind lc1dcr
IL ii b 11ceptcJ th11 i high ltkne of co-orxru1on is rcql1inJ to tbullns11n that dtmiddotserv1ng proiccis giin
n11xi1nl1111 txncfit fron1 he s11p1x111 1ncchanis11h avulihh V1tlun hoth orgu11-11in11s_ Vhdc s~ 11HL
division of rcsponsiliililics is possibl~ t outlined hcIO 11 1s ncogni cJ 11111 both groups need 10 1dop1
tn OJICll n(Xihh tpproteh IO the ltsk of f)TltJCCing ClllflCS 111J tppliCtliOllS
lc1dcr II -ill ha prin1a~middot n spon~ibilitv ill 11lc Couniy f()r lhc st1ppon of p1ojlmiddotCS f10111 the frgtllovi11~
sectors
bull Craft Enttrpnscs Cfor fin1nciil suppon ilh 1 li1n11cd fcxmiddotus on soft suppons)
bull Kurii Touris1n
bull Proicn- p1n1nnttd hy Co111111u11i1y CnH1P
bull Exploilition and M1rke1ing of lor1I agriculcur1I fcxxl for(siry tnd fishtnts products
bull Envuonn1tnl for ht follomiddotinJ mc1surcs middot
e Prtscrv1tion ind dcvlmiddotloprnenl of the existing 1rch11te1ur1I heriti(lbull ind bullillages
bull Suppo11 for n1hur1I Cfl111v1ty ind the pron1ot1un C1f cultur1I product- linked ith nir~d
ltlevelcip111ent
bull Prot~ctron rch1btli111ion ind explollllion of nuural rccurces (Oor1 fiunt srndl s1rc11ns
ccc) ind bncl~tpcs
bull Di1x1s1I 1nd fC()ding Clf ISie illdl1ding llSt or energy pnxluuion
ll1is i111plies th11 Le1ltler II tvill cngig1middot 111 p1--delmiddotlltipn1lmiddotnt 1ni11nins research tnd 1111rkc1ing ind he
prin11rily nspons1hlc for the c1pi1d invt~1111enl 1s-oci11ed Vith tht dcvcloprnent of vdue-iltld(d fotgtlt1
produce ind viii dso pronss rtqutsts for 1id for c1p1rd intslmeni ln1ploy111cnt grants 1111rktting
ind 111ining s11ppon- in lht 1hovl stcio1s
The County Enttrpnsc l3cgt1rltl tvill continu1 10 support f(bull1siliilicy cap1td ind (rnploy1ncnl projcd
l1id1 li1vt tilt c1p1lt ily ro gtntricc ernpkraquobull111tn1 v11h1n tll otlllmiddotr -ltmiddotciors Po1cnt1tl projects vhich 111cit
This rtquirvnicnc viii he rtfcrrtd to tteh otliLr in 1cltorltlincc Vitll tlus Agrtllllcnl
middot111t 1ltith Coun1y Enterprise Boird lld ind ilcalh Lealtlcr II arlmiddot lOn1n1incd to rn11ntaining open lines
nf cn111n1un1c11ton tn in1plcn1er1t the tcnn- of thi u11dirs11nd1ng ind alsn co111111ir 1h11 the Chief
Execu1ivltmiddot OfficLmiddotrs will n1eet hH1ndly on 1 111onclilmiddot li1sis to v11s111c cff1cilnt i1npllnhnt1tilgtn middot111i
AgretlllLnt tltgt co111inue 111 orxr11ion un11I _l_t Oeccn1her 19)7 ind viii Ix suh1cc1 10 rcvittmiddot by the
1cith County Enterprise Board 11cl 1n consult1t1011 Vith Lcidtr IL
101hi11g in chis A_irec1ntnt shtll he cltJntruccl 10 li111i1 DI tLStnu lhe _1in11D1y il1nu1011s 111d n1xr1titJns
of till 11lmiddot1th Coun1y Enttrprbc Bo1rd 11cl or lc1der II
Pn1lint B1ker Torn Clinton
Ch11rr111n Ch11n11111
middotlttth Coun1y Enlerprisc Boud Ltd Mc11h lc1dtr II
~ppcndrx I I
Appendix G Terms of Reference for Interdepartmental Policy Committee
Thn New Committees Role
The Role of the new Committee to be cl1Jired by Minister of ~late Finnel will Ix
shned by the Local Demiddotelopnlltnt Mind1Itmiddot given to Department of Tourism Sport
and lkcrca11on by the (jovcrnmenL Key items in that bndate which fall into the
Coumittees remit will mcluclc
A PronH)ticJn of tile integral(lt dcvelop111cnt of tl1e 111o~n dis~1dvantaged urban con1n1unitics hy ensuring that their needs are addresscd ()11 a priority ~incl
coordinated basis in conjunction vi1h 1rea Partnership lton1panie~ by all nlevanr public agencies
bull middot1l1is is regarded as the 1nost urgent priltgtrity
bull Tlw focus will be on developing the opti1ml approach to addressing
the needs of these areas
bull Special co-on linated all-out etfltJl1 in a nun1bcr ltgtf s1nall areas
j B Co-cgtrdination of Ioc~1l lgtcvcloprnent iniriatives and prcp~trnion for the
post - 1999 transition to an integrated Local Development ancl Local
Govcrnn1cnr systc1n
bull 1oc~d l)evelopn1enl IiaiS(gtn Jean1 issues
bull Adclnssing rclevan1 local clcvelopn1cnt issues raised in l3etter Loc~d
(overnnltnt - ~1 Prngra111111e fltgtr CJ1angc anU lh( recenlly ruhl1sliecl Hcport of the J)evcgtlu1ion Co111111ission
bull middotrhe en1phasis vlll ht ltgtn en~uring thal the posi11ve dcvelopn1ents and effective lltV V~l)S of VOrking resulting fro1n Local l)evelop111ent
and Partnership initiative~ arc preserved and strengthened in the
developnltlll nf i renevecl Loc1I Govern111ent
C The Oper1tiond Progrimmc for Locd Urb1n 111cl Rural Development
ancl its sh1pe post - 1lt)99
middot middotrhL 1nain tmiddottsks Vill be tltgt
bull Secure hl btmiddot~r co-ordinttion hltveen the various i111rle1nerHing
1ge11cie- l)ep111n1ents etc
r1jJjJlllriz~y G 7
bull Seek 10 ensure chat problcn1s incl issucs vhlch ~1rise il ~1 local level
ire n-ponclecl ro incl rcsolveltI
bull lclencify i1en1s tltgt be n11instrc1111ed in tern1s cgtf overall policy
bull Consider 1he ou1line of i new 011URJ) for the post - 1999 penocl
taking into ~1ccount the viC-middot of the Social Partncri
D Co-urclin11iun of (gtV(rltdl Govern1nent Policy on Local l)evekgtpn1ent
bull middotr1ie Jn1er-l)epan111ental Pt)licy Con11ni11ee on Loc~d J)evelopn1en1 Vill
be a key foru 111
bull Scctltgtrtl is-ues viii he considered fro111 1he perspective of
encouraging gre~ttcr cO-ltgtrdin~ttion and integr1tion of delivery of
services It local hvel
S1111111u11v
of thltse forms of id should he expndcd quickly in prelerencl 10 11011-repyJlt gracts 1s they can help to reduce cleHhveight 1nd dispL1ce111tnt and in addi11on 1re t 1111)1 econo1nictl use of public funds
Son1e inst1nces of clispk1cen1en1 providl social benefits vhich n11y outvcigh the
cost involved There is a need for n1orl cl1rity regarding the circu111s11nces in vhich
dispbccrncnr rn he perrnined
Assessment of Impact
lhe developn1en1 of sys1e1ns to 1ssess the in1pact of Local J)tgtvtgtlopn1en1 initkHives is not easy hec1use of 1he clibullersity of objccrives rhc tick of n1easurahility nf so111e
i111p1cts rlie tlJsence of clisagtregtled d1t1 n1odels rclcv1nt lo locil areas and the need for careful in1erpretHio11 of results
Quantitative Assessment
ltJu1n1itJtiC 1sessn1ent of the in11x1c1 of (gtcal l)evclopn1ent hodivs c1n bl carried our by exa1nining ch1nges in vari1ble such as long-tcnn 11ne1nploynHnl ind 1-n11middotrpri-e forn1arinn Studits to dare of thest v1riallles have yielded inlmiddotonclu-ive
rt~sults
rtpon on the i111p~1ct of OJgtLLHI) on ong-tenn ltnen1ployr11lrlt shnvs thtt fro111
1991 to 1996 unc111ploy111cnt in gtJrtntmiddotr~hipmiddotareas fell by roughly poundhe sa111t penentage as in non-P~n1nership ~treas
A111y~is of 11~11ional Live Hcgi~[er cla1a for 1he pc-riod CJ94-1998 indilates ~1 signifi(1n1 Lill in chc kwl of long-cerm unemployment hich b pat11cula1 focu of P~1r111erships bur the reduction n1ay h1ve 111ore 10 do vith 1he in1pact of tron~ 1middotconon1ic gn)vth poundh1n vid1 rhc effec1 of Local l)cvclop111cnt initiatives
A nmiddotiev of the nu1nber of n1anuL1c1uring s1ar1urs fru1n 1987-1996 siHJVS rhar 1he rapid econon1ic grcJvlh fro1n 1995 and the onstmiddott of thtmiddot Local l)evllop111ent iniri11ives did 101 result in an increisecl rate of 1111nuf1c1uring sta11ups
lntc~rnion of enterprise support incl perforn11nct da11 Jcross the Loctl l)evmiddot-lopn1cn1 inipoundiuives voulcl be required in order 10 est1hlish 1he underlying reasmiddot)llS for these rends
Quiitative Assessment
lkciled Census of Populicio11 d11 (1991 a11d 19)6) is available regrd1ng 1ndicacors of distdv1n11ge in Pirtnership 1n~1 hile rherc are lin11tuions inolved in int(-rpreti11g the cl1t1 fu11her ~1111lys1s ~houd facilitlle 1s~es1nen1 of lhl in1p1cr of the actimiddotities of 1111ncrhips
Jhe exlent of n1~11eri1J specificJJly covering 1hc evtlua1ion of i111pacl is very li111ited P1rt11crships hie CJrriecl our evcril cisc Situlies to cxplorL the in1ptrl of 1heir tcliililS ind 10 pro111ute 1-gtesr pr1c1ice (1~l srudies arc undervay also in ni1ny
lEA)EH groups l-lovtver there is i clt-1r nted for 111ore d111 lmiddotulllmiddotcrion and the
clevdopmenc of sonil policy rnocleb co prnvicle a hcncr ins1gl11 into che imp1cr of Loe~ I l)evelop111ent 1c1ivities
iii
bull
Local Development Initiatives
middot
- shy~~ ~~ltmiddot~-
middot
middot~
1 Introduction
Background to Local Development Initiatives
11 Since htbull ltarly 1)90 the (omiddoternn1tmiddotn1 middotill1 the support of 1hc European
lJnion (_lmiddotl) h1s introdutcd 1 nun1hvr of policy initiatives in suppo11 of hxil sltx-ioshy
eltcgtncgtnlilmiddot clcvelltlp1ncnt Tlteslt 1ni1i1timiddotcs stc111111cd fngt1n htmiddot pertcivcd L1ilt1re (Jf
cxiting pnlicicmiddots to _hirl lfllmiddot benefit ol 1middotcono111ic gnnmiddotth lmiddotquitahly tcrn-s local
ro11H1H1nililS ind 111Hn1g thl 111ore distdmiddot1n11gtmiddotd scctCJr of Irish iocitImiddot (~llltrtl to
1hc initiatives ts tliemiddot cn~11ion of lllcd lll1ployn1cn1 oppnnunititmiddot togetlitmiddotr Villi
llHISllrtmiddots to 11cklc cduc1tional distclvan11glmiddot tJlmiddotirltlflllltnlil cl1c1y ind ocial
lxclusion middotrhe IH~v pc ii icy alio n11rked 1 revers~1l fro111 the tr1ditio11al htmiddotgi111ony DI
central govltrnnitmiddotn1 by nmiddotcognising iht roll Vhich local cu11111111ni1amiddot c1n play in
the proctsi of lCltHlltunic trKI Sltgtc1al dtbull(lopn1enc
12 r pri11IJI) purpo--l of Incil J)evelop111lnl V1- co identify Jprropnllt Vays of
-tin1uLtting tll rllvvant luctl re-ources 111 suppo11 of Lllterpngti deth)pn1vn1 ind
tickling long-tern1 unernploy111ent hough llLttetL lhe-imiddot 1rt di-rinct uhjccliVLS 1nU
tlil vXtmiddotnr ro middothich they could htbull 1sotiatcd in operationd llllll- rc1111ined tn he
lthlished it that ti111e
13 IIH 1111in ekmiddotnlLllC ()f the llt appro1ch middotLlL
bull p1rtnersliip hllVtmiddotcn stitulory hu ines ind cD111nH1nity scctnrgt
bull dtmiddotmiddotulurinn to local bodies of lllltmiddotds idcntifiLation pL1nning to-ordi111Cio11 of
progr11111tltS dvlill of 1r111ova1it and ctmiddotriain other action tnd 111on11()ring
of progres
bull involvcrncnt of the eniirlt co111n1unity cspcciilly d1sHhmiddot1nt1gcd groups
bull 1dltl[Hilt1n cgtf a Jtili-li(middot ll)PH)tclt l1tbullrtbulll)y l(l)flCgtllliC 111d S(icmiddoti~1J dlVtbullhipnlcllt
VOllld OCClll (CllCUllellliy
13 middotrt1tmiddot Hhnini-rrililtlll (Jf Lo~middot1l J)tmiddotvlmiddotlopnHmiddotnr in Ireland is cl1ssi1111l1r legt 1ll11 in
oth1 middotr FlJ countriis in li1tl
bull lhltrl artbull i nu111lill of di1inc1 pn1gr1n1n1cs
bull there i strong centrd gullllllhllt 111d EU involve111tlll
bull 111middotv local 1d111ini-tr1t1vc s1n1c1111middotls -ere demiddoticcJ inderH1Hllnt ()r lXiring local
govlmiddotrn111cnt structu1
Ctmiddotrrril goven1111enl control- the hulk of public fininces At locil ltmiddotvel local
aulill gtril ilt~ ft 1 net ions h1 ve 1llen li111i1ed Ct ivering n11ttcrs such ts roads -1ni111ion
111d housing ihill 1hvonric1llv locil ~1u1lionl1tS co1dd lllgtgLmiddot in 111a11v uther ()cal
c lemiddot l le iJ Hnen t
hinmiddotling ~ygttlIll 111d ittthility 10 pursue ltl ignificull ltgtctl c1x11ion middotYtcn1_ 1 middotr1sk
oca Je1ehJ[J111e111 lnitiatiues
Force 1 esrtblish~cl by rhe Governn1tnl 1nadc i nu111her of rtco1n1ncnd1tions in 1
rcpon 111 August 1998 regarcl1ng the mtcgration of local dcvdopment with local
government These ere approved by the Government in September 1998 (sec
paragraphs 10 to 3 31)
Organisational and Management Arrangements
15 The tO main EU funded programmes providing suppon for Local
Development arc the Opernional Programme for Local Urban 1nd Hural
Devclormcnt (OlLUHD) ind 1he llADEH II lrogr1111111c These Opcrntional
lrog11mmcs were drafted by the Department of the Tao1sc1ch and 1hc Dep1rtmen1
of Agriculture and Food (Agricuhure 1nd Food) respectively within EU guidelines
incl 1grced Vith the EU Co1n111ission
16 Each sub-progr1111111e of 011UlI) and IEADER 11 is 1clm1nistc1nl locally by di1inc1 Local J)evelop1ncn1 bodilts middotrhis c11nin~1tion is concerned Vilh Lltx~il
l)evelop111en1 acrivilies 1cl1niniscercd by Coun1y Enlerprise Bltgtards and 1re1-Based
111111crship Companies under OlLURD and by LEADEl groups under LEADER II Hcspons1bili1y for rhee bodies coines under chi rc1nit of three scpar11lt Governn1en1
Dep111ments (sec 11gurc II)
Co1111ty pound11er[Jrise Boards
17 Crn1111y Enterprise lloirds ((Ells) were established 111 Oe1olier 1993 wnh the
tilll or fu tering incl f1cilitating che LCOll01l1iC dcvelopn1ent of local area~ Each CEB
Vts required 10 clrt1 up 1 Counry 1nccrprise Pltn incl its iccions incl prupo-als are
Figure 11 Main Departments and Local Development bodies
Enterprise Trade and
Employment
County Enterprise
Boards
Tourism Sport Government and Recreation Departments and Agriculture
and Area Intermediary and Food DevelopmenlCompany
Management Ltd
bull
Area-Based
Local LEADERPartnershipsDevelopment groupsCompanies and
Bodies community groups
1Jc To5k fmiddot(Jtmiddotccmiddot R(Xlrt u11 rbe 1tfpound7ratiu11 lt oc(lf (io1en1111e1u (11tf Local Jc1elo1me11t Srs1e111s bullbull~Ql( 19)i
2
---1tfrotluct1un
ha ed on 1hi plan middotrhertmiddot art 51 ltEBs in total covering county and urban local
~ll1hori1y 1rc1s Ftch (~EB h1s 1-i 111e1111Jer irHluding repngtStIltHivls of local
govltrnn1c11t public Stl or 1g~ncics hu1ntmiddots Lun1ing lradt union and co11111n1ni1y
inlTest
lH middotrhc CEBs provide 1 r1nge of enltrprigtt -upp()rt -ervices al local levt l eg
admiddot1 ic~ and coun~tlling hus1ncmiddot infonnaiion financial 1sis1ancc and 111an1gtIlllnc
dcmiddottlop11l(Jll middotrhtbull firgltl group- ~tre husinltsse- co11111nu1i1y groups individud
en rcprtJ1(lJrs 1nd -n1i[] enterprises cEBs tonk OVtf re-gtpon-ihililv frorll lhl fltgtrlller
Industrial i)tclop111cnt u1hori1y (ll)A) for the devt~lDpllhllt of 111anufac111ring and
inl =rna1iont gtervicc - finn~ Vilh ltmiddot s th111 ten en1ploycmiddotc In 1ddi1ion_ thtmiddoty is-u111cd
the l1tmiddot roll of pngt11101in~ 111 vnltTpriL culturt
l~1 J-ro111 1hc outet the i)tgtp1r1111lnt of Entcrprist middotrrade and F1nployn1cnt
( Enterpri-e middotrr1dtmiddot 111d L111ploynHmiddotn1) has been responsiblt for co-ord1n~Hing and
supcrvising the crBgt lniti11ly dec1~ions on grant payn1ent~ lo individual projecls
vtre vetted by hl f)t1gt1rt111enl 11ltgttVtL (~EBs Vere ccgtr1s1i1111cd as lin1ited liahili1y
l0111p1nies during iltJltJ) and ifl(I 1January 19CJ(i hive 111idc grtnt decisions
110 Stiffing accon1111ltJLlatiun and 01hcr expen es V(~1tmiddot ini1i1lly provided liy lhtmiddot
lul ii 1u1horitics on a recoupn1cnr lgtt~i and ah hough the CFBs anmiddot nov
inl orporatccl rntny havtmiddot coniinutd Viti lliis 1rrangen1cn1
111 Funding for ltt]is is co-fin111ctmiddotd by Elj _1ruc1urtl funds via suh-progra1111ne I
of 011UHD mcl hv the hchequlr
Ara-amp1setl lc1rt11erslJiJ (-tJn11c111ies
112 1ret-Bit~d 11rtntrhip co1np1nies ltPa11ncrship) vere originally c-tihlished
in 12 ~1rltmiddotmiddotas un 1 pilot hi~i in 1991 10 in1phnhnt an nca-hastmiddotd nmiddotspollgtt to longshy
tlrrn unen1pl(lyn1tlll under tile Progra111111e for Econoinic and Sul-i1I Progrltss (PESP)
_JH Partnerships havt hcen lSt1hlished (2() urhJn ind 1- rural) lo optrat in 55 areas
dtig11Htmiddotd by 1hc (~ovvnlllltlll i~ hling disidvan1~1gtd In 1cldi1ion lherc ire 55 C(lJllllH1nity dcmiddotLmiddotlop111ent groups in non-dtmiddotsig111ted arets middot1J1ch c1ny oul fu11ctior1s
i111iltr to tho~v uf 1he 11r111er-liips middotrile Boards of i)irectors of the co111panil-gt lll
drvn fror11 (1) 1he SlgtCiil p1nncr (ii l -ttle 1genc1tmiddots ind (iii) co111111unity ~ind
vc gt t1n1tr~- cHg111is1 tio11
tmiddot13 The function~ nf the P1rntrsliip art to preptre lnc1I dcmiddottlopn1t~n1 pl1n _ in
con~tdtalion vi1h otl1LI local groups incl hudicmiddots_ to lOLHlltf d1stdvan11gc in 1hcir
~trtts and tiltn lo hlmiddotl thlmiddot-c plans i111ptmiddotn1cmiddotn1td middotrile pl111 oullines the rangt of
socitl ind lmiddotcono111ic tSSlltS to ht addrtmiddot scd in lhimiddot l1rget trta and the ohjeclive to
Ill pursultd h1scd on tile resuh of ~1 ltgtcio-ccono111ic analysis of lhc iret middotrliLmiddot
intbulllllion i~ ro 1tLmiddotlcr11c lnlt11 eronoinic dltmiddotvltmiddotlorn1e1H increise frnrloynHmiddotnt ind
local Develop111e11t l11itiati1es
tickle cxclu~ion incl 1nargintlisa1ion resulting fro111 long-llflll une111ploy111ent vc1y
vide r1nge of 1ctivities i~ unde111ken including job pltCLlllCIH adull education
training con111n1ni1y clevelopn1lmiddotn1 cnviro1111H111tl projLCI~ and youth iniliHives
114 An indepenckn1 in1c1mcdia1y company wis eslahlished in 1992 in111ally under
1he aqigt of 1he Dep111men1of1he Tioisetch and subgtltltjlltgtnily from midmiddot 1997 1he
Depanmcn1 of Tourism Spon and lkcre11ion (Tourism Spon and Hecreuion) 10
oversee 1hc P1nnersllips ind Jocd devclopn1tnl groups middotrhe con1pany 1rca
i)(velopmet11 M1n1gemen1 Iid (ADM) is required 10 cv1lu11e plins from
Ptrlllt~r~hips corn111unity groups ind selecled organisHions lO 1J1ocatc resources in
1ccord1ncc Vilh the eviluation resul1s ind ro 111onitor LXpenditure incl perfon11~1nce
by btneficiarits Over lj(YtJ of funding is spent by tile lartncrsliips incl (he re1111inder
is spent by co1n1nuni1y gro11ps ind nHionil nrgani11ions
115 funding for P1rtnerships co1111nuni1y groups and eligible spending bv selected n11iond org1nisarions is co-fin1ncecl by ElJ s1n1ctural funds incl by the
Exchequer EU funding is provided uh-progrtmme 2 of 011uRD
LEADER
116 This EU lni1ia11vcmiddot for rural devdopmenl w1s origin1lly bunched 111 1991
(lEADloR 1) The obwrnw of 1hc progr11nme wis 10 ltS11lilish locli devdopmen1
1ction groups bullhich voulcl bt responsible for 1he in1plcn1cn11tion of business pl1ns
for heir areis lE1l)EH I v1s 1he subjecl of 111y firs value for 111oney exa111ini1ion
comple1ed 1n Decemhe1 1994 The ini1i111ve wis co111inued under 1he Oper11ional
lrog11mme for IEADER 11 covering ihe period 1994 10 1999 There tre 34 approved
1EADlR groups (is opposed IO 16 group in 1hc orig1nli progr111Hnc) These 11e
iu10110111011- lcg1l cntilies each conrrollecl by 1 boird 111d opeining under 111
igreen1en1 Vith the J)cp111111cnt of gricul1urc and Food (Agriculture incl Fuuclgt Jht-
l)epa1111Hmiddotn1 required th11 the bo1rds h1ve 1 1ripar1ite s1n1crure representative of 1he
con1111unity incl volunt1ry sec1ur luc1l Stite ~1gencies and the priv11t I con11ncrcitl
sector
117 Unlike 1he 01her lniti11ives covered in 1h1gt ex1111in11ion (which are csset11ilily
n11io11il policy initiHivc-) lEAl)EH i in EU lnitiitivl Vliich Va designed incl
Ln1nchccl by the turope~111 Co111111issio11 his 1ne1ns 1hi1 he in1plc111enlalio11 of
LEAJ)flt its 1in1ing ind opertting rules ~in de1ennined Ltrgel~middot Vithin 1ht EU
Co111n1i~sion 1uncling for rhe LEl)EH II lrogr1111n1e is co-financed fron1 ElJ
s1n1c111ioli f11nd the 1lADEH Opci1110111 lrogrunmc 1))4-1999 rnd by ihe
Exchequer
4
In 1roclzut1on
Sc1urces of Finance
118 The Fll Commission incl rhe Exchequer prolidccl funding for the 1niria11middotes inmiddot
the period 199i-199H follows
EU hchequer Toril
pound-111 t-111 ~-nl
CEils 465 516 98 I Parntrships 530 181 711
LEIDER groups 272 ILG 388
126 7 81) 208 0
Scope and objectives of the examination
1l) middotrhe cxa111in~1tion V~1s concerned only vi1h initiatives to pron1ott local
clebullclop111em rhrough Counrv Enrcrprisc Boards Ptrrnerships and LEADEH groups
Thue are 111anv orher ml[1nives for local devdopmcm such as URBAN Terrironal
E11l)loy1nent Picts Pe~tce ~incl Heconciiation 111d lnterreg II vhich ire outside the
scogtc of this ex~1111ina1ion
12middotJ Nei1her iJ)-1 nor the l1rtnershirs arv covered by 111y statutory value fcgt1 11101ey nn1i1 In the interest of producing i cohcivc report on locil l)lmiddotvclopn1cnt
ini1=11ivlts 1hey igreed that the exa111inuion ~hould he extended to chc111 middotrhcir coshy
OJX ration in 1liis resptmiddotlmiddot1 i~ icknovllmiddotclgecl
121 The overall objec11vcs of rhc c1n1inar1on w
bull ro ltVal11are rhc administrative effwncv ol rhc llltXlit (Chaprer 2)
bull lo asstmiddotss the extent of duplic~Hion and co-ordin1tion ~1rrangen1en1s ltCh1p1cr j)
bull to ev~dualc thl operHional efficiency of the bodies (Chipttr 4)
bull to coniidcr ho- tlii i1n1x1ct of 11ie holtl1e~ can hl asscmiddotssecl (Ch1p1cr 5)
1nr The p1opltJ-f of Illgt c_rrn11iiu111011 CFHgt lar111lmiddot-Ji1ps and 1eoJ(1middot grv11S uill IA Fccmiddoti-rlmiddotd l u lrJl(I
)c1lffJ[gtl11ltf hodico
5
loca l)evelojJ1ne1u 11itiatitCs
122 The main issues considered are
Issue Evaluation Criteria
Administrative efficiency Administration costs bull bull Human resources bull Adequacy of management
information systems
Co-ordination of activities Duplicationbull bull Co-ordination
Operational efficiency Targets and performance bull bull Resource allocation and outturn
bull Deadweight and displacement
Impact assessment Quantitative assessments bull bull Qualitative assessments
Methodology
123 Officials 111 the Depanmem of Amicroricuhure and Food the Dcpanmcnr of
Tourism Spoil and lkcrea11on 1he Department of Enlerprise Tracie and
Employmcm 111cl 1DM were interviewed Oua and pipcrs rcbting to targets cosl
and perfon11~1nce Vere ex11nined Analysis Vas carried out of cost and perfonnance
clua aria1ion in perfonnance ck1t1 vas used as a basis for selecting individual Loctl
Development bodies for funher examimtion
124 Selcc1ed CEl3s LEADEH groups and Partnerships were visi1ecl Helevant
personnel Vere intervi(Ld and individual rrojecls Vere visited Sevtrd CISC studies
Vtre identified during the co11rse of this vork and thc~c arc used in this rero11 to
illustr11i key i1SULS middotrhcy should not be ngarltled a1 rcpresentHivi of the cype of
pro1ee1s supponed hy the bodies
125 1Vleetings Vere held vith offici1Js fro1n the l)ep1nn1en1 of the E11viro11111ent
and Loctl Goern111ent ind Ille Co111ba1 lovlmiddotrty Agency lntervieVS look place Vith
the folJoving orga11is~11ions PlJtEmiddotr (Ille netvork of Arc~1-B1scd igtJnnerships)
Comhar IEADER 1u hiireann (tire network of 11ADEH groups) 1he ssociation of
Chief txecutives of Counly EnrcrprisC Bo1rcls (representing County Enlerprise
l3001rcls) the Irish 10111onal Orga1ma11on for 1he ncmployecl (INOU) he
Ken Cork iortb a1ul So111h )uhill CFJJs Trti li )011epal 11ihot1c11 a11d Northside art11lrh1J Fexford Ora11iflfio11 fur R11ral IJltbull1ltlup111c111 anti lao1bull tJ-1nHk Rural Dtbull1tlop111e111 Co Jd (IJ-ADJR ~rn11p) lv11sfonl Co1111111111i~~middot RrrJ1rCli Jd (1d S(J11rh lerry IAmiddottlIOJtllllll Part11crbip Jd (comhi11(c JHADERPart11c1~hip orxa11iatio11~j
6
J11frotll1 rI ion
Conf~r~nr~ of lkhg1ot1s 111 JrcmiddotLrnd (CORIJ vb Yvonne Murplrv lks~ardwr 111d Prof
J1111es A Walsh gtill Mrvnooth
)26 1n eternaJ exrerl IS lt ngagtbulld IO adviSl on the 1ncthodo(ogy of tht --Udy
and rlvtev the study findings_middot
7
2 Administrative Efficiency
21 Tlfrbull chtpter is concerned with the dliciencl of the CEils ltrtnergthips incl
llADER groups in iclminigtIenng locd Development ini111I11es loc1I Dcvdopment
is chirictltnsecl bv t 111uliplirny of object11es mcl ac11vi1ies The control of
achninisrrilive expendirure is 1chicvccl hy reference to stiffing levels pay rates tnd
1he re1sonablcness of 01her 1cl1ninistration expenses
22 Thlt clivers11y of 1he 1c1ivi11es of Local Development bodies ind 1he nexibili1y
in hov rhey set about 1chieving their objecrives li111it rhl extent to vhich cross
co111parisons of efficiency can btmiddot 111ade Neither unifonn perfonnanre inclicarors nor
co111111on infonnirion sysEc1ns on 1cl111inis1ruivc efficiency 1cross the ini1i1tivcs l1ave
been cle1middotcJopecl
23 The ptriocl covered in 1he chtpler is I994- I 998 indus1le However cle11ilecl
tndysrs ti indiviclutl Loctl Dltvelop111ent bodies ielel rel11es 10 I99i - 1997 II
should be noted thu local l)cvelop111ent bodies did 1101 co1nn1ence si1nultancously
incl 1h11 1he lime 11ken 10 esttblish indivicl11d local groups viriccl Accorclingly
expencli1ure in the early ye~trs rel~tles to the middotfullmiddot 1crivilics of i 111inority of groups
and the st111up plt1se of 111any lcgteal groups
24 middotrhe issues incl Calualion cri1t~ri1 used in thi chaptc1 are
Issue Evaluation Criteria
Administration costs Administration costs as a percentage bull of total expenditure
Human resources Extent of Board input bull Staff skills bull
Adequacy of management Data collecllon by Local Development bodies bull information systems Integration of data at national level bull
bull Reporting and monitoring
Administration Costs
25 The tottl 1111oun1 of expcncl1111rc incurred lw Local Develormcnt IJoclics m the
pen0ltI 1994 10 1998 was s208 mrll1on This is tntlysed in Ttble 2 I
26 middotrhc totil expenditure incurred can ht- categorised inro ad1ninisrration costs
vhich are the costs of running the relevant office-i and other exrenditurc Vhich is
cliviclecl IJeteen direct fin1nciil issis1ance 10 enterprise~ ~ind exp~ncliturc on
1ctivirics to incn1se enterprise avireness pro11101e con111n1ni1y dcvclop111cn1 or
redress clis~1dv1nt1ge
8
Atl111i11 ist rrttilt ~lie ic11c_ v
Ta~le 21 Expenditurebull by Local Development bodies 1994-1998
CEBs
P3rtnersh1ps
and other
LloADER Groups
Total
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
poundm poundm poundm poundm poundm
82 28
19 9 46
216 104
230 232
254 301
1 6 53 11 7 202
11 0 261 373 579 75 7
Norg a Expenditure relates to activities under OPLURD and LEADER II Some Local Development bodies also incur expenditure on other activities which arc not funded under OPLURD or LEADER and which are outside the scope of the examination Details for 1995-1997 are contained in Appendix A
b The total expenditure in the table includes Partnerships Community Groups and selected National Organisations
c Includes selected sectoral groups Annual reports of OPLURD and LEADER for 1998
Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total EJcpenditure
2i 1d1ninistra1ion costs 1 a perceniage of total expenditure in the period 1995 shy197 are shown in Tabk 2 L (There was link ad11uniscra11on pending in 1994)
2S dn1inistraliOn CDSIS IS J pcrcen1agt of tOtt[ eXJ1tl1citure decreaStcl uver the
period 199i 10 1997 for t~1ch iniriativtmiddot middotrhis JS clul n11inly co the face that it took
so1ne tin1c for rhe developnHnc groups 10 beco1ne opcrHional 1ncl hence 11n1ch of
the initial expenditure vas on adn1inistration rather thin activic1es This trend i~
1x111iculirly nocKeablc in che cise of LEADER groups md lirtnerships where
acl111inistrHion co1s 1s a percent1ge of tottl expencliture clroppecl sultilanli~11ly
middotrh1re Vere so1ne varialiuns betveen intlividt1al ltEls LFl)FH gnntps ind
Jgta1tnersl1ips middotr11ese ire considered belO Cfhe 1cl111inistration costs of Local
Deiclopnwn1 bodies are shown 111 Appendix B)
CltJUlllJmiddot E11te1prise Rltgttlrtls
29 1middot1icrc v(middotrc no great variations in rhc ad111inistruion costs incurred by che
CEl3s w11h lhe mqorill spending helWtCn pound 100000 and Jl )0000 per innum
1n1lysis of 1997 dat1 shc)Ytbullcl 1h~11 the adn1inistra1ion costs of n1ost CEBs V(n Vithin
1 ~1 r1nge of I ~Ai 10 25S~1 in rel~llion to tnttl expenditure The )ov~st Vas f)uhlin City
H J 1 with Cork Norch being che h1ghcsc ac 11 The level is scronglv mlluencecl IJy
the extent to vhich CFI3s are involved in the provision of gruus is chis increases the
9
local l)cuer4J11unt lnitiaflvcs
Table 22 Administration costs as a percentage of total expenditure
CEBs Partnershipsbull LEADER Groupsbull
Total
1995
poundm
49
15
08
72
Admin c
1996
poundm
43
41
16
100
istration osts
1997
poundm
44
53
20
11 7
Percentage of total expenditure
1995 1996 1997
25 20 19
34 44 28
51 31 17
28 28 22
Note B The figures exclude Community Groups and selected National Organisations b Excludes selected sectoral groups
Source Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General see Appendix A
level of overill expenditure In the c1sc of Cork North their mtin activities are
ini111~1tion incl the rrobullision of suppor1 such 1s counselling and training
wh1Chwould involve lowtr levels of expenditure rlm1 the supply of grant aJCI In the
case of other CFl3s such 1s Dublin City the focus was pnnnpally on the pronsion
of grtnl aid
Part11ersJips
210 P111nersh1ps generally spenl between l)0000 ind l200000 on adminisrruion
1n l997 with some excep11ons Mos 11rtnersl11ps which were esiiblished before
OPLURD had lower adminis1ru1on costs as a percentage of 1otal expenduure rhan
those wl11ch were srtnecl under OPIUlm In 1997 adminis1ra11on expenditure as a
perceniage of 1otil expencliture vas generally in the r1nge of 200u to 40Yo vith the
lowesl a 13 (in rhe case of i011hsidc in Dublin) 10 rhe highest m 51 (1n rhe
case of lnishovltn in J)o11cgal) il1ile 1c111al adn1inistration exptnditure vas si111il1r
in borh Partnerships expenditure on 1crivi1ies VIS significantly greater in Nonhside
as compared ro Donegil lnishowen which wis still in a scr up phase The riming
of projects locil rriorilies in the i1nple111ent1Cion of business rt~1n ind the nu1nbcr
of yltars the Jgtartner-hips have been operating have tn in1p1c1 on the adrninistritivc
cos1s percent1ge indicator
IEADER G10llJlt
211 LEADEH groups genenilly spenr lgtetween 50000 incl U00000 on
~1d1ninis1r1tion in 1997 Vith son1e exceptions In 1997 1dn1inis1rJtion expenditure ~1s
a percentage of 101al expenditure was generally in rhe r111gc 10 to 20 wuh the
lowest at 7 (in rhe c1SL of IJirrow-Nore-Suir) 10 rhe h1ghes1 ll 45 (in the case of
Comhm lorrais) While 1dminis1rarion expenditure wis simiLtr 111 borh LEADlR
10
Adn1i11istrati1cbull IJiciellcy
groups expendilurc on activities (including ~1nin1ation ind provision of grants) v1s
significanlly gnatcr in BarrO-Norc-Suir cor11p1red LO (cJJ11h1ir lnrr1is_ middotr1ierc llL 1
nuirtlltr of factors that can give rise to the variation uch a- hov Vt11 cst1blishcd
lhe sroup is local priorities in the in1ple111ent~1tion of the bu-iiness plan tilt tin1ing
of pro1ecis and 1hc lcnI of grant ml
Human Resources
21lt The loc1I charancr of each of he Local Devclopnw111 boclies mcl the nllure 1 ~incl diversity of thlir operHions n1ean thH thty h1vc l Sllbs11nti1I rolt of initiating
and co ordinating ac11vnies in co-operit1on ith 1 Viele v1ric1y of volunt~1ry and
stttutory org1nisu1ons (see Chapter 3) middotrhe achieve111t~n1 of their objectives is
I clepcndenl on _rhe avail~1hility of high quality plrsonn~I al Board tncl suh-co111111it1Ll
level and clecl1uted high ctl1bre s111f
Extent of Board Input I
2 B There 1s significant input it Boircl level for all of 1he bocl1es Arouncl 1wo 1hircb
of ( EBs operate sub-Boarcl co1111111nccs and half of these suigt-COlllllllllecs inclucle
1 111cn1lxmiddotr clravn fron1 1he local con1n1unit vho are nnt Boltncl clirector ~ middotrhis
invch-t~n1erH in 1octl l)evelopn1tnr bodies e1~tail~ a high dcgrLL of co111n1itn1en1 fro111
people vho are alrctdy active in their local co111111unitics
214 Pr1ctically ill Pirtnerships have suh-co1111111trecs on con1111unity ltlevelopnhmiddotnt=
I education and cnltrpri-e ~incl 111ost LEAl)EH microruups h~1ve -llh-co111111itte1middots on rurtl
touris111environnHn1 natural resources and s111all husinesscraftgt~erviccsr
Prermiddotaratory vork alllndince at 111cct1ngs ancl follov ur ~1ctivities pl1cc considerable
ti111c den1ands on Board and -ub-co111n1ittet 1ne1nbers l)uring chc exuninHion
I lt1bu11clan1 lViclence Vts found of the con1111itn1ent incl skill of Board n1en1lgters and
111en1htmiddotrs of suh-connniutes
Stciff Skills
215 A wide variety of skills is requirecl of 1cxal Developmem swff to match the
range of act1vitilmiddots 11ncle11~1ken middotrhis feature is ranicularly i111portan1 for LEAl)EH
I groL ps and P1rtnershirs clue to tht extent of their nmiddotn1i1 middotrhe staff nf Local
J)cvltmiddotlop111cnt bodies are highly qualified According co ~1 ncenl survey 5lVo of the
i-~~F ond Ihl lCgtfal Jr)(111 c111d RlflI )c11h1p111tllf PTT1JiHlllll1l f11ropca11 )(lt1a F111u Pro~ra1111111
1ttd11a1io11 Unll Apnl (JJJ
1)p(rt111011(1 fro~rc1111111e fnr IJAJ)FJ II (rJl11111111 11ilrcll1Utmiddot iI( Tlr11 R1bull1re11 Rtbullfx11 3re1uftu1 ((middott1rne1 middot (11t A ~(Jlt ialt3 199 7
II
(JC(l )e(lltJjJ11CI 11itiatiU(
CEOs of CEBs huld post-griduite que11ilkirion and funher 2()0 hive prima11middot
ckgrce In the cise of Partnerships 6()0o of 1nan1gers hold a post-gr1du~1te
qualificllion and a funher 24degAgt h1ve 1 pri1n1ry degret
216 flu rc-nurcefulnes- of Lltxil l)cmiddotelop111ent s11ff IS cvident during the course
of the eXltllllill1li01l
Adequacy of Management Information Systems
217 ht avaiL1bili1y of gncgtd 1111111ge111ent infonnation sys1e111s is 1 pnrequisitc fnr
cfficicnt icl1ninis1ration of the inititrives ind for ensuring thll rlllVLnt incl reli1hle
d1t1 is 1v1ilablc for pl1nning plrfonnince 111onitoring ind ev1luation An in-depth
rcvieV of the 1111n1ge1nen1 infon1111ion sysh111s in use Vas 1101 incl11dtd 1n the scope
of the ex1111ina1ion_ 1-lovever ce111in cltfic1cncics in the systen1s htmiddotc1111e app1rent
in discussions Vith officitls in 1hc locil f)evelnp111ent bodies ind during the
qu1n1i111ivt 1nil~middotsis vork
Data Collection by Local Development Bodies
218 E1ch of 1hc bodies opertllS scp1r11e co111pu1erisecl infonnttinn syste111s Vhirh
Vere ck~signtd by consuh1n1 under the aegis of lhe J)cpar1111cnts ind 1l)fmiddotI is
tppropnHe middotrhc pri1111ry purpose of 1hese syste1ns is 10 provide fredbtck on
ae11v1ties by eich Locd Development body ID the Dep1nme111s incl AD1vl The
syste111s should tlso provide 1111n~1ge111ent infor111a1ion for usc locally and facilitite
external evalunion 10vevtr the 1rge nun1bLmiddotr of local groups reponing 10
ditfercnt dtp1n111en1s posls pa11icul1r cJ11lltmiddotngLS tlaquoJr cL1t1 c~tpture
219 l)isc11ssions vitl1 ltgtfficials in the Local l)evelcgtprnent bodies visi1ed indicated
so1ne di~s11i-faction Villi ht kx1l use of systen1s in 1h11 they vere reg1rded as being
1101 user friendly or Vere perceivcd as not being fully suited 10 loc~tl 1ninage111cn1
needs_ In fi(I so111e locd f)evelopn1en1 bodicmiddots h1ve kepi lhltir origin1I syste111s in
11si O -upplc111lnl 1he infon1tttinn provided by the cen1r~1lly debullcloped systeni_ middotrhe
dillicultit~s havt heen recognised ind steps 1rt being t1ke11 011 1n ongoing b1is 10
encourage grc11cr loctl u-e of the C(ntrilly developed syste111~
220 Forn1al 1rr1ngc111en1s ire nor in place Vhich VOuld f1cilitlle nuo111a1ic sharing
of infon111tio11 Joctlly icross ill of rhe groups_ 1his is not possible due to 1he
1bsnce of 1 con1111011 clicnr identifier in the thrtt co111pu1cr sys1e111s_ So111c id-hoc
shiring of dtli such ts projerl tpplicition and 1pprov1ls occurs through rneetings
be1vccn bodies ind via County Str11cgy Groups lmiddotlovcver 1his is no subs1iru1e for
a systen111ic approich to dati sharing
12
Acl111i11 isrrari1e lli-c ieJtlmiddot_ v
22 l A middotide v1riery of perfonna11ce indicnors V1s dtveloped 1hrough discus~ions
w11li 1he external evilullor and with Local Development bodies (se~ Appendix C
mcl OJ LEADEH groups ind Partnersh1ps m 1x111irnlar undertake i wide range of
tctimiddot1 ities and con-lmiddotqucnly 1hcir co111pu1er sy-1en1s c1pture ~1 Viele range of data
middotrhi c111 plicc an tLessive burden on the sn1all 1d111inb1rilie st1ff 1n these bodies
perfonn~tnce 1ncasun111en1 systc111 Vhich focu~es nn 1n agreld StI of key indicuors lo tnco111plttS~ core tctivities and ou1purs and vhich reflect- key objectives
n1ighc be n1ore appropriattmiddot 1ny addicional inforn1uion require1nents could Ix
prltrlided Jess frlmiddotquently through for ex1111ple annual rtporting arrangc111cn1s
22~ 1middot11e fnltomiddoting issues Verlt also noced
bull The p11ori1ics of d1fferen1 loc1I Dcvelopmcnl lxKlies arc not 1den1ical even
Vithin 1hc sunc Local f)cvelopn1ent ini1ia1ive For exan1ple one Local l)evclopn1cnt lxxly 111ight prioritisl 1ss1stance to cl1stclvant1ged groups vhilc 1norher rnight priontise cnterprist clevelop1ncn1_ Exisling 1ne1st1rlll1cnt syste111s do not allov 11le perfon111ncc of chese tvo gruups co be realiticdly r111kecl and con11xircd
bull Measurement should cope w11h the fact that much of the pcrform1nce under
the ini1iat1ves is qualitative in nHure Exunplcmiddots include quil11y of tr~tining openness to disadvantaged groups and qu11i1y of relacionships Vith other
st1tu101) bodies Exiscing n1easunmiddotmiddot111Lllt systcn1s do not cuer for rhcsc 1spects
of perfo1111111ct
bull f)espice initiatieS to involve locd l)evelop111ent bodies in the specificuion of
perfonnancc indicators cxisling perfon111nce n1oni1oring is frequencly seen as son1cth1ng vhich is in1pltgtstcl on groups Vilh lillll direct bcncfi1 in lenns of
e11~1bling 1hltmiddotn1 to understand hov to in1prove 1hcir Ovn perfonnancc~
22 The apprrnd1 described in Case S1uclv I gi1bulls 1n 1nclic111on of 111~ prltp1ratory
Yor involved in developing svsce111s to cviluatc rhc efficiency and tgtfflttivencss of
1he bCKlies Governmenl Dep1rtmenLlt and Local Developmenl bocl1es might es1lt1bl1sh
10 middothat cxtenc this 1ppro~1ch could hl~ applied co rhc 1neasure111en1 and n1anagc1nent
of LDcil Dcvdopmenl periorrnrnc~ Thi 1s a prercquisi1e 10 es11blishing the clati
reqt-ire111ents Yllich should be -arisficd hy the inforn11til~n sys1c1ns in u~e by LocalI l)evmiddotlop111erH bodies Under clie exis1ing s~middotsren1s the inforniHion require111cnts for
detennining 1he extenc ro Vhich value for n1oney is htmiddoting obt1ined front expencli1ure
on lhe iniliatives arl nor 1dequarCly provided for middotrhe current inadequacies of the
inforn)Hion sys1e111i lin1it the scope for evaluation middotrhc middotlid-middotrenn Ev1lt111iuns of both
llA)FR and 011LRD have drawn a11e111ion lo 1his deficiency
Ilo1rc1er 11~-tf)FR groups produce wn11e11 c11u1i1a1ilmiddote repon llriccbull year~r 011d other local 1Je1eop111eu1 lltXlics olso 111c11de c111ai1a11n aJXCt of Jfrfon1u111ce u1 1b1middot1r n7xJt1s AJJ J(ls prod11t1bulld a sene bull of poundltlgt lt1dit- ubich nfhbullc1 q11all1a1inmiddot clfJtltmiddotr_~ of the uork of Parr11erships
J-rr an e(11ded disn1ss1nJ1 nr1 the (flk11e _p_- u_(Jt1j()r11111J1c(bull 111v11i1r1i11g 1middotce middot11F and 1111middot local Urlxo1 111d N11nil FJtnmiddotlopn1ltll lltJ8111n11111middot middot FuroJlllll Sulti(I F1111d lr(Jgn111111Jl 1alifioi1 fh1i1 April 1999
13
lnco l)erelop111enf 11itiati1es
Case Study 1
A benchmarking project
A transnational study funded by the EU is underway to develop benchmarks for pro1ects which seek to insert unemployed people into the labour market The main purpose of benchmarking is to enable organisations to improve their performance
Through a process of discussion and analysis involving the implementing organisations the key processes and desired outcomes are established An agreed set of quantifiable
indicators is developed to give a measure of performance under each key process and desired outcome Overall performance 1s denved by applying an agreed weighting formula to the 1ndiv1dual measures Data capture and performance reporting are
overseen by an independent third party
Graphical representations are produced showing the performance of each group for each key process and outcome Typically the performance of each group will be stronger in some respects than others and future action to improve performance can then ensue
Integration of Data at National Level
224 It is 1111port1nt th11 there should be ce111ral access to cltu to provtclc for a
sys1e1n11ic 1nd co111prchensivLmiddot cv1Jua1ion 1t nation1l level of tl1e efficicnc ind
cffectivcntmiddotss of lcxlttl develop111cnt 1cross the country In 1ddi1ion 1his vould
suppo11 co-01)er1tion ind co-ordina1ion across the bodies
225 Dllt lteld within Governtttent Depa11111enb and ADM is not tntegratecl at the
levtI of tile henefici~111 For exa1nple grant approvJJs to 111 enterprise gr1nt
pJyn1cn1- ~incl e1nploy111cnt 1re not associ1tcd vith 1 unique client identifier in
Enterprise middotrr1dt~ and E111ploy111en(s con1pu1er sys1e111 sin1ik1r veakncss exists in
Agriculture and Foocl and ADM This ctn reduce the scope for evaluttion For
cxainplc the JXrfonnancc of c1Hi1ics vhich obtain financial assis1ance cinno1 readily
be con1p1re(I Vilh 1hose vhich rlCcive 01her non-fin3nci1J supports
226 Whltn CEils were first cstablishccl Enterp11se Traut incl Ftttployment usecl a
cl11ilx1se inheri1ed fro1n 1he J)cpann1en1 of Fin1nce to record ce11~1in key datltI such
is grants piicl ancl ipprovecl on eich enterprise assisted by CEils In aclclition clati
on the Enterprise T11clc ancl Emplovmcnt Business lnfortttation Systettt (BIS) hdcl
grant and e1nploy1nent clua for all 1n1nufac1uring 1nd international services finns
middotr1ie opportunity v1s not taken of co111hining d1ta on the CEB clatal)ase vith its 011
BIS Subscquenllr EntcrpniL middotrrackmiddot incl E111ploy111Lmiddotn1 discontinued recording gran1
piyment cl1t1 on the CEB cL111base finally the coverage of the Forfis annual
etttploytttent survey (which 11pcl11es the BIS) was allowed to clittttnislt so that it no
14
longer allernrts lO include syste111aticillv -i111tll n11nuL1cturing tmiddotnterpriscs Vith less
1han 1en employees Agt a result 1he ibihty of En1erprise Trtcle incl Employmenl lo
1noni1or sn1all indus1ry perfunn~1nce and the cffec1ivencss of s1nall indusC1)
de clopn1cnt progr1111n1es l1as cmiddotonsicleralgtly eJkene(I
227 Enterprise middotrr1de incl Ernployn1tnt is H pr(S(nt agr(eing tcnns of reference
fur 1he es11hlish1ncnt of J sy-itcn1 tn L1cilitate chc inllgrition of CEl3 cL111 in10 1he Bl~
11 ii intended that ForL1s viii include CEB clien1- in its 1nnu1l c1nployn1tnt survey
In addition the l)epann1enl rl~1ns (O acquire a stacistical soft~tre p~1ckage to f1cilita1lt
udysis of CEil cL11a
228 middotrhcre is no nuional pltn to integrHt en1errrisc incl individual clien1 level dtta
fron1 CEl3s ith sin1il1r cLn1 fron1 lEAl)EH gruurs tnd Pannerships Agri(tilture incI
roud does not integrate 1nfonnation vhich is collecllmiddotd fron1 e1ch of 1htgt groups in10
nu onal systen1s and has no plans to do so Al)1 provides rltrltJrts 10 a n111nber of
f)epa111nen1 including Sociil ltollununity ind F11nily 1flairi Fnttrprise middotrr1de and
Fn1ployn1en1 and l~duca1ion and Science
1 229 In 1995 middotrmiddotouris1n Sport ind Hecrcation began 1 process of Stlling up a
I ClnlrJised rerfonnance lllOTlitoring systclll (P~middotIS) for OPJLiHJ) co1nprising ~1ggrega1e
output indicators for CEUs ind Partncrships9 Significin1 rlsources have been
demiddot01ed to developing this systtmiddot111 Pcrfonnance 1ndica1ors Verlt tin~1lly approved by
hlmiddot OPllif) Vtonitoring Con11ni11ee in Jl1y 1999 According lo middot1middotouris1n Srort and
Ht(reation this did not JJlov sufficienl 1in1e to consider extending the sys1e1n
frarnevork 10 provide for co1nplt1nson Vilh o(her rrogr11nn1es such as LEAl)Elt lmiddothe
c11rmiddotent posilion is tliH
bull P1nncrship rerforn11ncc dat~l fro111 I January 19lt)7 IS StJCcessfully taken into
the Jgt~1S l)Ha fron1 co11111n1nity ~ind special inttrcsc groups Vls taken inlo till
PMS for l 998
bull Performance dJla for 1998 from all of the CFlb has beltn rnlla1ed by South
Dublin CEB and taken mlltgt Ille PMS
Tht PMS is used to mon11or 1he levels of ae1ivi11es and outputs under 011UHD 11 JS
usel by thL ex1crn1I ev~tlua1or to assist middotrouris1n Sport and lh~crettion ~ind 1he
OfgtlURl) vlonilonng ConunittlL lO OVLf-itv the Progra1nn1e It is of li111itcd use for
efflCtivcnltSS analysis
23t) A funlicr ditficully is the allsenct of con11x1rison-gt vi1h son1c key h~tseline data
pricbullr to the es1ablishn1ent of ll1Lmiddot bodies for cxunrlt the r11e of nev firn1 fonnalion
and job cretlion 111 -111lt111 firins and 1he pL1cc1nent of long-lenn u11tn1ployecl
middotrourisin Sport and Hlcreation has co111111issionecl a ltudy of b1-cline da1a
15
oca J)e1euj111e11t 11ififlli1e
Reporting and Monitoring
231 Progress npo11s Jre produced every six 111on1hs by 1he lead l)ep1n111en1s for
consider1tion tnd approval lgty the reltv1n1 flonitoring Con1111i11ces Ex1ern1l
cmiddotvdu11ors VCrl eng1ged by middotrouris111 Spltgtn and Hecrea1ion and Agriculture and
rood for 011lHlD ancl lltDEll respcctilely ro produce evduarion rqions ancl 1hey
]11ve ~ilso produced 111id-ten11 rcvievs_ middotr111se repo11s iremiddot considered ll hilf-ye1rly
111ee1ings of 1he nlevint f1onitoring Co1n1nittees_ All Loc1l l)evelop111e111 bodies
prodt1ce 1nn11al rcpo11s ou1lining 1c1ivititS undenaktmiddotn 1oge1htr Vilh financial
s1He111ents 1~ required under the operHional progr11111ncs
232 Nerworking plays an irnponanr role for rhe bocl1s Borh lEtDEH groups and
Pu11Hr~hips have 1he bcncfit of personnel dedica1ed 10 org1nis1ng nelvork
acriv1ries The CEOs of rhe CUh also meer regularly
16
3 Co-ordination of Activities
31 middotrhtmiddot co-cistenrl of chtbull 1hrll types of hltxlics for local clevclop1nen1 lt1- given
rise to concern tlX)llt duplicttion and the Jack of co-ordinuion 1 middotrhe pltllentid for
cluplic1tion irises bcciu_c the bodies co111111e1Htd inderenck~nlly of each olhlr ind
s1ariccI 11 clitlercnt ti1nes lt1ve sin1ilar ubjemiddottives incl 11rglt ovcrl1pping p(gtpul~1tions
hivmiddot~ se1x1rItc local ad1n1nistr1lll strucrurls 1 rcpo11 to different lgtepa11n1enLi and ire
funded by different opltftlionil progr1111111es_ A a res11h there is 1 need 10 ln-gture
that there nl lttdtqulle 1rr1ngin1Lmiddotnts in pL1c1 to recluce the pnss1hility of cluplicltion
and to ensure that lhtrc is proper co-ordination betVten he ditlerenl bodies
32 Jhe iSSlllS of Jupllcl11on and co-urdinlliun can bl t~sc -lcl
bull bccwcen ch cl1ffllellC loctl Devclormenc boclicmiddots
bull belveen Local ()evelopn1ent hoclies and 01her agencies ~11ch is Enltrpri~tmiddot
lreL1nd 1ncl che l)lmiddot1x1111ntmiddotn1 of Suciil lt0111111un11y incl F1111ily tfL1ir-
1middothis ex1111ination is confined to duplication incl co-orclinat1on belVeen Local
n~vfiopmtell( bodies
33 In this chapter rhlmiddot i-sues of duplication and cn-ordinition are exanuntd under
evduition criteria ~1s shovn bclOmiddot
Issue Evaluation criteria
Du )lication Objectivesbull Clientsbull Activitiesbull Funding of projects bull
Comiddotordination Local level bull National level bull
IDulication
134 1 subst1nliil nu111her of lgencies c111 provide l0~11 l)evelopn1ent suppnrts in
I thl 1111e hgtc~d 1rc~J 1igure 31 fro111 lhe Suulh Vest illus1rites this
35 middotrhe natun of lhtmiddot inllillimiddottmiddots is 1hat lhlrc should be tltmiddotibiliry in str11egic
dlcigtiun n1ahing at locil level Vilhin brc)Jd p1ra11H[lfS lllch 1n sel oul 1n the
Operation1) Progr1111111es middotrhe si1nilari1ies igtelveen ohjectimiddotes clienL ind activilies i~
shltn11 in middotrabies 3_ I to 34 1re 1 result of thlst policies
17
loca )evelofn11enf lnifia11es
Figure 31 Local Development Supports in the South West
Tuartha Chiarrai Teo (Leader)
West Cor Enterprise Board
North Cork Enterprise
Board
Blackwater Resource Development (Leader)
m Car City Partnership
South Cork Enterprise Board
Cork URBAN
Note The following ADM funded community groups are indicated on the map by nun1bers
[] Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo [Z] Bantry Integrated Development Group
G1] East Cork Area Development Ltd ] Avondha Development Partnership fil IRO Duhalow Ltd
[sect] Sliabh Luachra Ltd [Z] Listowef Baronies Group Ltd
Objectives
36 All of 1he Lxxlics trt concerned illl locil econoinic develop1nlllt tnd h~1ve
i IJrief lo rn-ordin11e incl enlunce ex1s1ing suppo11s ii locd level Bo1h lEAl)EH
incl P111nersl1ip grltn1ps arc conccrntmiddotd V1th co1n111unity clcvelop1nent Vhile
P~1nn~rships ire explicitly focused on co1nlx1111ng socitl exclusion
Clients
37 1Ltny sin1il1ri1ies exist hetVeen 1he clitnls uf the lhllt types nf bodies hu1
there tre tlso in1pon1nt clifferenclS ihile CEHs deal Vilh business ickas fro1n any
individual or group thty do not specifically target dis1dv~11111gcd groups vhich are
1hc focus of P111nersh1ps lFAl)ER acliitics ire dirtctcd IOVllcls the loc1J
18
-------
I
Coorclination ojmiddot Acliuitiltgts
Table 31 Objectives
Objectives CEBs Partnerships LEADER
Fogtster development by Area planning Jc1b creation
Business supports Arumatton
C1)unter serious economic and social problems by Aisisting long-term unemployed 1n10 jobs Promoting adult educationtraining Aisisting community development Ericouraging provision of child support Integrate supports at local level
0
Table 32 Clients
Nature of Clients
Pcmiddotpulation coverage
G(bullograph1c coverage
Small Enterprises
Adult Learners
Joigt Seekers incl LongshyTelm Unemployed (LTU)
Ccmmunity Groups
Lone parents
Trc1vellers
Pe)ple with d1sabil1ties
Dirndvantaged youth
i==
CEBs Partnerships LEADER
100 61
100 Includes 13 complete counties and several
other disadvantaged areas
Almost complete in rural areas
(excludes part of cities of Dublin Cork Galway Limerick Waterford)
Note o denotes thor one Local Development body has chosen to pursue this objective
a This relates to designated areas covered by Area-Based Partnerships Soures Tables 3 1 amp 32 These tables were derived from the Operational Programme for LEADER
OPLURO and interviews with managers of Local Development bodies
19
lr1ca )e1eh11111e111 11i1iati1es
Table 33 Main development activities
Activity CEBs Partnerships LEADER
Draft development plans v v v Assess local plans 0 v v Carry out surveys of enterprises v v 0
Provide finance to enterprises v v v Provide advice to enterprises v v v Assist enterprises to access
consultancy support v 0 v Organisefund mentors for enterprises v v v Fund management development v Organisefund marketing initiatives v v Promote enterprise via meetings etc v v v Produce enterprise
brochuresbusiness guides v v v Promote enterprise 1n schools via
competitions training etc v v v Fund prov1s1on of tourism facilities v v Fund road signage Tidy towns v Fund artscultural festivals v v
Table 34 Main activities concerned with countering serious economic and social problems
Activity
Counsel long-term unemployed (lTU)
Carry out skills audit of LTUs
Establish network of L TUs
Organise fund education or
training courses Fund provision of education centres
Fund construction refurbishment
equipment of community resource
or activity centres Fund estate improvement
Fund communityyouth workers
Organise fund community fora
or networks Organise fund homework clubs
Fund youth act1vit1es
Fund play groups creches
CEBs Partnerships
v v v
LEADER
v v
v v
0
Note 0 denotes that not afl Local Development bodies have chosen to undertake these activities
Sources Tables 3_3 amp 34 These tables were derived from the Operational Programme for LEADER OPLURD and interviews with managers of Local Development bodies
20
Coor(i nation ojmiddot11 c I tu it ies
co111nunity in genertl ind local project pron1ottri lhile people vho tr( Slvcrely
socially or ((Cll)Olllically deprived IllJY r1r1iciplle in lEAl)l-f lllivitilS LEAl)EI his
no nmiddot1nit 1n spccifically targlting lhlSl groups In nine c1-es lEAlgtER ancl
P1dncrship Strviccs an dtbulllimiddotlncl by llHmiddot s11ne loc1I group
3~ LEAl)ER Jnd P111r1trships ltivc exten-iiC hut not co111plc1e popult11un
colrttge Jgt111nerships ind 1l)ivl-funcled con1nu1nity groups coVlI 1111ny of 1hc n1ure
conclmiddotn1r11ecl trltls of dis1dvin11ge l)lllt to lhe ficl 1h11 social dis1clvanragc is
spali11ly clis1rilH1ttmiddotd son1ltmiddot 1nmiddot1s of till cuuntry Vh(r( clis1dv1r111ge ex1sts arc nor
cobullbulltmiddotnmiddotd by P1rlnltrships or l)imiddotl-h1nded con1n1uni1v groups
A1tivities
39 It c111 igte gteen fro111 middotro1ble Jl 1hll 1hcre ecrraquoive duplicnion of
de1c]op111e11t tctivities 1crois 1he bodies Vith 1hnost tll of the 1c1ivitics lgteing
llndertlken by JI Je1-t tVO type~ of hodJtS [n inlLfilS Vith ht lllJntgtrs or the
Local l)evelorn1tnl bodies ii middotas indicated 1h~H Vhile thcv are lVtre of this
overl1p they rel~ on co-ordination n1ech1nis111s to ensure that re-ource- are nnl
Vl ~teeI
310 It c111 igte gtltmiddoten fro111 Table 34 1ha1 so111e overlip exisis lielween IEADER
gnurs ind P1nnerships Vith respec1 [o countering serious econo1nic ind soci1l
prcmiddotblv111- middotrills can irislt through i111pnmiddotc1stmiddot defini1ion ind inlerprtlUiun of the r~1nge
of crviltlS providld J-[oll(L the extenl of overlap 1n countering serious econo111ic
and Slgtcitl rroblcins is n111ch less 1han in 1he case of develor1nent activilies pa1tly because of th( 11rgct1ng of -plcific client groups hy P1rtnerships (the long-tenn
uncn1ployed ind the soc111ly ecludedJ
311 It should be no1ecl th~1t 1111ny other agencies or groups outside the scope of
1he exa1nin~nirln are ilso 1ctive II local level For cx1111pllt the Hosco111111on (JmiddotB
1ction Pl111 1997 - 1999 conttins a 111trrix uf dtmiddotvehgtp111ent agltncies incI servicis
pre vided in Coun(y Hosco111111on lhis i- shnmiddotn in ppendix E
F1J1nding of Projects
3 12 Situations can occur vhere pro111oters can 111axilnist thl funding they receive
b~middot applying for surport froo1 cJillenlll groups
W1hlre arc Poor 011s(hcd~ 711c Spali(I )11rih11lPll () r11e11r a11d DeJ11r11011 111 rlrt11d Urito1 1oa11 cl (J C0111ha1Ponrty1l~ltJ1C) 19lt)8
21
ocal Jeveloj1111c111 lniJ1atiUltS middot----- shy
Case Study 2
Subsidy shopping
A promoter had a turnover of pound80000 from an equestrian centre and language school In addition he was a farmer his spouse was a teacher and he had net assets of almost pound05 m1ll1on He wished to develop the equestrian centre and language school and provide accommodation on site for language students he applied to a CEB for financial assistance The estimated cost of the project was as follows
pound Accommodation costs 20000 Classrooms 10000 Indoor arena 22000 Outdoor arena 15000 Tennis court 10000
Total 77000
The CEB considered that financial support would be appropriate for certain nonshyaccommodationmiddot aspects of the project This comprised classrooms indoor arena and outdoor arena costing pound47000 and a grant of pound20000 was approved in May 1996 The Board considered that the promoter should fund all of the accommodation aspects (The Board had a policy of not assisting the provision of accommodation because this is a response to rather than a generator of demand)
In September 1996 the promoter applied to a LEADER group for a grant According to the grant application form the accommodation cost had risen to pound85000 (as against pound20000 in the CEB application) The LEADER group was aware of the financial support already provided by the CEB and the reasons why this level of support was given The LEADER Board approved a grant of pound17000 being 20 of the cost of the accommodation The project promoter was also approved for a marketing grant from LEADER of pound2750
Total capital grants approved for the project (pound37000) amounted to 26 of pro1ected capital expenditure (pound142000)
313 It has been po1n1ccl 011t (by Entlrpnse Trnclc ind Employment ind Tourism
Sport ~ind HecreJtion) 1hat this ct~e srudy gives little risemiddot fur concern 1~ the funcling
vas clinctecl tOv1rds different ele1nent of the projecr l-loCVer the fnlloving
efficiency difficulc1cs arise
bull aclcluionil middotsearchmiddot costs for cl1cnts who mikc mul11ple applicu1ons for ~1-isistance
bull ~1dditiontl tin1e ~pent by n1en1bers of Bo1rd incl evtluuion co1n1ni1tees and adn1inistrJrivc cosrs in Loc1I l)evelnpn1ent bodies
bull thC first Local Devdopment body to approve finannJI assisuncl cannot adopt a middotrotlJ project vieV bCClttUSe it is 110t lV1fe Vhether subsequent tJ1plicati011S ill be 1n1cle for assist1nce to other Local Developn1ent bodies
22
COorcination of Actiuitics
C1gt-ordination
314 As part of their an11nat1011 and co111111unity development 1ctivitits all of the
bol1es part1culirlv LFADER groups and P1rtnersl11ps look for opportunities to
1ni iale and co-orclina1e acrivilies vhich 111iy be underlaken by a vide variety of
st1tutory rnmmun11y and voluntary groups Tlus work usually Licilitates the
provision of econo111ic and social benefits to the co111n1un1ty Typical exunples 1re
bull Organising nevorks of lone parenis
bull Pro1nnting tidy tovns
bull Organising second chancC cducuicgtn
Vihin Local Development hodics therLmiddot is often tc11sion between the priorny to be
given to their co-ordination role ver~us the direct delivery of services including
grants
315 Co-ordination frequently involves the co-operation of several different
organisations at different levels (StHc local government communitvvoluntary
se(tor and business) to ~chicve a con1111on objective middotrhrough their co-ordinarion
roli~ the bodies n1ay harness rhc porcntial of several organisarions to achieve an end1 which would not otherwise be achieved This role has been cited is contnbutmg to
the unique role of the Joell development bod1Lmiddots A good LXimple of this mshyore ination i~ set out in Case Study 3
316 The multiple funding ol this anglmg pro1ect is substint1ally differtnl from the
multiple funding shown 1n Case Study 2 In Cie Stuclv 3 thlt contributions of the
vanous bodies were agreed as part of an integrated plan
317 The co-existence of three significant types of boches (and the inherent
cluphcarion shovn in 1he previous section) places a particular onus on 111anagc111tmiddotn1
of the organisations oH both national and lcxal levels to co-ordintte service provision
Fig1re 32 illustrates for each of the bodiltS the dilftmiddotrcnt co-ordinarion structures in
phe
23
loco l Jc1eofgt11HJ 11 I11 ii iu I ioes
Case Study 3
Co-ordination of a tourism angling project
A LEADER group in an inland county sponsored a study of the tourism development
potential of the county Although the county had weak tourism infrastructure and
practically no angling facilities the study identified several tourism sub-sectors that
could be developed including angling
An initiative was undertaken by the LEADER group to co-ordinate the development of
angling in partnership with fourteen other bodies including Fisheries Boards ESB
Coillte Duchas Bord na M6na and several community development organisations and
angling groups The initiative consists of
bull the upgrading of eight lakes most of which are owned by State agencies and many
of which were overgrown or silted
bull construction of stiles paths etc and restocking the lakes with fish
bull grant support for accommodation providers in the lakes area
The total cost of the project was estimated at around pound05 million Some of these costs are borne by LEADER but most are borne by State agencies and the Tourism
Operational Programme 1994-1999
The LEADER group is involved with other organisations in marketing angling facilities
and the provision of training for the ongoing management of the lakes
Co-ordination at Local Level
318 Cot1n1y Strllcgy croups Vere es1hlimiddotmiddotd1ed in LICh cnu111y under OPLUl~J) O
L1ci[i[Je co-orclin11ion ~ind 111inin1isc cluplic1tinn in lie delivery of progrin1111es
middotrhe Groups provide i forun1 for forn1d conununicition Vithin etch councy and
hctCt11 counties incl cenlrtl policy 111akers_ vlen1lxrship of the Groups includes
the Chlt1irpersn11s of CEl~s Ptr1nerships ind lEAl)EH groups County middotrouri111
Con1n1i1tees Coun1y f11n1~ers incI represen111ives fron1 middotrourisn1 Spon and
Recnation
319 middotrhe cu-ordinttion of services 10 cliencs depends very heavily on cruss-1gtncy
rcpresenltlion incl illendance at 111cetings middotralgtle ~5 shovs 1ypictl Board
repre~enc11ion
24
Coo1middotrh11atio11 o lctiuillcs
Fi1ure 32 Monitoring and Coordination
InterdepartmentalOPLURD OPLEADER Evaluation Polley Committee Evaluation
_l Department of Department of
Enterprise Trade Tourism Sport and Employment and Recreation
ADM Ltd
Partnership Boards
County Strategy Groups
1~BBoards ------shy
Department of Agriculture and Food
LEADER Group Boards
Table 35 Typical Board representation
S~bullctor Represented CEBs LEADER Partnerships
Lcmiddotcal authority members almost complete
Statutory bodies Ernployers I Trade Unions I Farmers Community I Voluntary sector
SouCe Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General
25
ocu )e1Alop111e111 11ifi(lf1ccs
320 CEils ire represented on most IEADER groups incl many Pa11ncrsh1ps
Hovever 1n~1ny lEAl)ER groups and P~111nerships ire not represented on CEBs In
so111e bu1 not all cises vhere cross-board represenlation i lacking there is crossshy
agencymiddot rtpn=sentllion at sub-boird level instead such as evilullion co1n111iuees for
protects_ In nine c1s(s vhere then~ are con1n1on boundaries the san1e Board
1clm1nis1ers both a LEADER group incl Partnership In ciscs where there ire not
m11ch1ng bounclirics 11 1s usud for LEADER groups incl lu1ncrships to have
C01111ll011 UO~trd repreSCl1tatives
321 Agriculture incl Food require all lEADEH groups to specify how they intend
to co-ordinate their activiies Vith other bodies before agree111en1s 10 i111plen1en1 a
LEADER progr1111me are completed Each tgreement includes t clause to this effect
and dso requires IEADER groups to part1n1x11e in Coun1y Strategy Groups
322 The view of the Local Development bodies is 1h11 loctl knowledge is of
piran1oun1 in1po111nce for co-orclina1ing their ~1ctiviries Use is n1aclc of infonntl
contacts 10 ensure tha1 each organisHion is tvarc of Vhat others artgt doing middotrhere
is often no formal 1gree111ent berween Local Devclop111ent bodies H local level
regarding 1h~ lin1its betveen objtgtctives acrivities and clients Hovevcr
consideration should be given 10 drlving up a middotfittcn staten1ent Vhich VOtilcl set
out a broad fra111ework of agree111ent between Loctl Dcvelop111ent bodies A good
exmtple from County Meath is shown in Appendix F
323 from the beginning elected pol1ticd representation was absent fro111 IEADER
incl Partnership 13oards Mc111bers of local authonrics are represented on CEl3s but
not is of right on LEADER groups and Partnerships However local aurhonry
officials arc frequentlv on the boards of lEADEH groups incl Partnerships A process
his been undc1way to 1nclucle 111e111bers of local authonties on rhe Boards of
LEADER groups and Partnerships This process is now complete in the cise of
IEADER incl is d111ost rn111plete 1n the cise of Pirtnerships
GeograpJica ampm1ulmJbull ProJlem
324 The co-orclmation of activi11es it locd level is 111ade 111ore difficult by the lack
of coherence the way the boundmes of the Local Develop111ent bodies were
clr~lvn and because of overltpping houndanes vi1h srHucory bodies 1s 1 result
n1any iltx~d l)evclop111ent bodies 1nust liaise vi1h a nun1ber of orher Iocil
l)evelop111ent bodies Jnd srJn1cory organisations_ middotrt1is increases tl1e acln1inistra1ive
burden on Local Develop111ent bodies ancl 1mpecks rhcir ability to offer unifor111
service delive1y in their territorymiddot and to co-ordinate activities of other Local
Develop111ent bodies and Srate igencies
26
Coordi11atio11 Cf Actiuities
se Study 4
Bcbullundary problem in South County Dublin
The boundary of South Dublin CEB covers the same geographical area as that of South De blin County Council and South Dublin Area of Dublin Tourism In this area there are four Partnership companies
Ta laght Partnership wholly located in Dublin South Clondalkin Partnership wholly located in Dublin South KWCD Partnership divided between Dublin South and Dublin City Scuths1de Partnership divided between South Dublin and Dun
LaoghaireRathdown
Al~o the Dublin Rural LEADER Company covers part of South Dublin as well as Dun LagtghaireRathdown and Fingal Council areas The State service providers such as FlgtS Eastern Health Board (EHB) Department of Social Community and Family Affairs (D3CFA) and Enterprise Ireland do not have the same geographical areas as local auhont1es They are split up into regional areas and these regions impinge on South Dublin CEB as follows
FlgtS Dublin SouthWicklow region of FAS contains part of South Dublin while Dublin WesVKildare region of FAS caters for the rest of the South Dublin area
EHB Each of three regional areas of the EHB Dublin South Central South West and West impinge on the area of South Dublin CEB
D~middotCFA Dublin South region of DSCFA contains part of South Dublin and Dublin West region of DSCFA caters for the remainder
Enlerprise Ireland South Dublin 1s totally contained within Enterprise lrelandmiddots region of Dublin and Mid-East
32~i Agricuhure and Food ha~ poinced ou1 rhar coheren1 geogr~1pliical boundaries
would be contrarv to the bottom upmiddotmiddot approach of LEADER The initial EU proposal
for hl fo11hcommg LEADER lnillatilC stales middotmiddot11 would he desirable rhar rbe eligihle
areas do not coi11citle tuith notional acln1ii11strati1e ho111ularies nnr ufth cli_~ihle
zon$ 1111cler the 1nainstrec11n operations(~ the structural jltntlsmiddot
Co-ordination at National Level
32(1 An Interckpartmcntal Policy Committee for Local Delelopment was
estltulishcd m June 1993 under 1he auspices of 1he Department of the Ta01seach and
subequently reconltt1tuted in Ocwber 1997 under Tourism Span and Rccrea11on 1s
funmon is to oversee 111d make recommendations on local delelopment (Appendix
G shovs the conunitteemiddots renns of reference) fhe co1nn1itcee is chaired by the
Minster of State in Tourism Spo11 and Hecreation ind comprises represenwives of
27
loca I )e1eofJ111e11 f In it itlf ftls
i nu111her of Gov1rnn1ent lgtepart1nc11ts middotrhe ro1111ni11ee has contributed policy
n111eriil 10 1he post 2000 s11b1nission on the future of struc1ural funds ind v1s
involved in 1htmiddot develop1nent of 1ht Integrated Services Prnjec1middot
327 middotn1e co111n1i11et sees i1s fu1ure role is one of infon11ing its([f nf dcvclop111ents
cnh1ncing links Vith local develnp1n~n1 orgtnisuions 111d lt1rn1ng les-gtons fron1
piln1ing projet1s including 1htmiddot porenti~tl for n11instrl1n1ing successful projects
328 middotrhlre is a potential role for the con11nittee 10 get involved in soning out the
sys1t111smiddot in1clequ1cics ind to develop 1 strltcgic lttpproich to coun1ering 1he
neg1tive ispcmiddotcts or duplicuion lhc co111111ittee should consider developing 1n
1green1ent concerning the lin1its hitveen tile olgtjec1ives 1ctivities and clients of the
three types of bodies vhilt- laking account of the li111it1tions on the discretionar
nllure of lhe LE1l)EI Jgtrogran1n1c Vhich is an FU Initiative
329 Fruin 1 viluc for 1noney perspective ind bised on the 1buve 1nilysis the
follr)ving i1nprove111~111s ire desirlttble in the short tern1
bull 1hc cs1ablish111ent of coherent geogr1phical buuncL1rics
bull tn incretse in he forinal co-orclinllion of service provision
The Task Force Report on the Integration of Local Government and Local Development Systems
330 t Trsk Force which was esublished lo reporr on 1h~ 1n1egr111on of locd
govern111ent incl locil clevelopn1cn1 sys1en1s reportccl in August 1998 and its
reco111111end~11ions Vtre approved by C1nvern111cnt in Septen1ber 1998 1 middotrhe 11sk
1orce l-gt concerned to ckvclop 1 vision ~ind s1ra1egy vhich Voulcl encon1pass in
in integralecl IY (he oper11ions of loc1I governn1ent ind Local l)evelop1nent
bodies in order 10 significantly incre~1se 1heir effec1iveness
331 Tire Task Force conltrdercd 1111 Iris could besr be achieved 11 1hc counry rncl
cily level The cclllrrl role will be pL1yed by new Coun1y or City Dcvdopmenl
Boards (CDlb) which will be es1ablislred in each ciry incl cou111y locrl authority
The CDBs with memlJerslup drawn from four sltcrors (ie local governmcnl
co111111uni1y ~ind voluntary social partners and Slate agencies opcra1ing at local level)
ill clrnv up an agreed ~ind con1prehensive Coun1y or City Strategy for Econon1ic
Sociil ind Culturtl l)evelopn1cn1 It VtS 1greecl 11i~11 Jgtannerships or LEAl)EH groups
should cllal Vith clis1clvan1aged areis on an 1greecl basis 1nd 1hat con1111unlly
1)( 111ltgr(lc-d Wnncc~ lropU tla egtlabllshtd 011 a pilot btLgtiL ill f)rce111hcr 1998 ill 011r sltmiddotnmiddoto11S~) ltliltult(l11fa~1middotd arltbullas_ (JbjeLliltmiddot 1s 10 cr1-ordi11flle tbtbull i11p111 ofall S1a1C senlicegt
28
Coorrli11atio11 o Jcmiddotti111 ie------------------------------~---
developinent and -ciciJI incl11sion 111c1sl1re tho11lcl vl1ertmiddot possibll bl cleliVlrld bymiddot
gra~sroots bodies Further nmiddotcon1n1endatinns of the middotr1sk rorcc include
bull (Jl(lprise support func11un lo htbull vered in 1he CFBs Vith rrovision for the
involvement of other Local Dcvdoprncnt bodies such as LEADEH by ~1grec111ent
bull fu11ctional arl1- to coincidemiddot Villi co11n1y or city IHHJndaries or_ t[ sub-county
kmiddotvtmiddotL local elector~il ~treas
bull ~1 si11gle igency to bl nmiddotspt1nsihll for con1n11111i1y dlvclop1nlnl at suh-cuun1y
lclI (either the local tuthoritymiddots Arca Con1111ittee or in clc-ign1tecl
clisadv~1nt1ged 1rc1s groups -gtuch ts P111ntmiddotrJ1ips or LEAJ)ER groups)
I bull any future loctl ckv(loptntmiddotnt groups slloulltl have cou11ty or city councillors on
[heir Boards
An interdc1x1rtn1en1al i111ple1nent~1tio11 group h~ts hLcn fonncd to oversee thl in1plcnltmiddotn111ion of 1l1c middotr~1sk ilnce reco111111endarions
29
4 Operational Efficiency
41 This chapter considers the operational efficiency of the groups Operational
efficiency is concerned Vilh 111aking the best use of 1hc resources provided to
111axin1ise the ltmiddotvel of outputs achieved
42 middotrhe issues and evtluHion criteria arc
Issues Evaluation criteria
Targets and performance Quantification of targets bull Use of baseline data bull Achievement and review bull
Resource allocation and outturn Targets and outturns bull Allocation of resources to Localbull Development bodies
bull Grant cost per job
bull Cost of non-grant outputs
Deadweight and displacement Information on extent bull Effective procedures bull
Targets and Performance
43 OlLUHD contained a number of output md ac[Jv1ty t1rgets to IJe achieved
over the priod 199 middot 1999 A report issued in 1994 crnicised some of the tJrgets
in that they did not refer to previous performance In the absence of this middotbaseline
perform1nce cl11a it is not posstble to know how realistic or demanding these targets
are Extmples of the lick of baseline cl11a include information on new 1obs and new
businesses middotrhc report ilso ronsiclend 1ha1 oilier 11rgets Vere coo n1odcst in relation
10 hat v1s knovn lttbou1 perforn1ancc such as chc tirget for ncv businesses suppo11ed by P1rrnership vith reference to the perforn1ance undltr the original
PESP Partnerships
44 lhe n1ain OPLLRI) targt~ts and 1chievc111cncs against the targets are fhOvn in
Table 41 Most of the original targets were excccdccl bv 1998 rrnny by a wide
margin The only target that w1s quantified in th~ Operational lrogrunme for
LEDER as the creation of obs wluch was set H 4000 over the life of the
Programme Up to encl 1998 an overall job creation figure of 2700 (fulhime job
equivalents) was reponecl
45 Folloving the reco111n1endarions conrainecl in the 1nid-ten11 reviev revised
performance indicators and raised targets were adopted by the OPLURD Monitoring
Ex-a11( Appaiitil of Proposed local Dcmiddotvelop111e111 Progran1me pn1x1rltbulld on bfhalf of DC X11 ~)the SeflJices 11d11ilnltS Research Centrt liCD F11zpa1ncJ Associates a11d Kiert111 lcKeo1m1 lld Febn1ary 1994
30
Tatle 41 OPLURD targets to end-1999 and achievements to end-1998
-
Target
Now JObs
Nt~w businesses
Progression of unemployed to -full-lime jobs -part-time jobs
Number of adults asgtisted to access education
NL mber of children attending preventative education services
Existing businesses su Jported
Cl sterner contacts
=
CEBs
Original Targets
8000
2260
280 pa
20000 pa
Achievements
15500
3 110
2500 (1996-1998)
8700a (1998)
Partnerships
Original
Targets
6900
3640
12500 1500
60000
20400
30000 pa
Achievements
12800
12800
11400 2900
18500
35000
na
Note 8 Only contacts which fed to a provision of a service by the Boards to a client were recorded
Soure OPL URO and annual roports
cn111111i11ee in i-lay 1999 (ee ppendi ))_ middotrhcsc l~1rg~ts appear to he 111ore re~iliitic
having regard to perfonnance in the early ye~1rs of the Progra1nn1e
146 in the cise of ihDlH the mid-term rtmiddotnew notd that the 01 ind1cuors
_cured highly on relevance 1-lovever n1any ut the indicators verc so vague 1ha1
111caningful qu111tificlt1tion vould htmiddot aln1osr 1n1rx1ssible -rhlt reviev concluded that
the pcrforn1ance indicators dieI 1101 provide J sufficiently cltar basis on vhich groups
could debullelop con1n1on indicuor systen1s_ lhe nvit~V proposed a sys1en1 of
ptrf1nnance indicators flt1r discussiltgtn 11ncnchnent incI i111plen1en1a1ion imiddot11e
LEA)ER Morntonng Commince clccidccl that each LEADER group should prepare
i rt~middoti~t~cl t1rgtIS in respect of he indicators proposed in lhlt n1icl-1enn nviev (see
pptmiddotnclix E)_ Nu revised nationil targtli Vtrt agreed by the fmiddot1nnitorin_g Co1n1nittcc
or griculture Jnc1 Food
l
ocal JercoJ11rent 11itulfiteshy
Table 42 Expenditure targets 1994-1999 and outturns 1994-1998
Initiative OP Forecastbull
1994-1999
Revised
Forecast 1994-1999
Latest Forecastc
1994-1999
Outturn 1994-1998
poundm poundm poundm poundm CEBs 818 811 808 620d Partnerships 1047 1036 1083 706e
LEADER Groups 772 947 947 388
Notes a Updated for exchange rate changes and inflation as of May 1999 b Revised forecast is lhBI which has been most recently approved by the Monitonng
Committee ft refers only to expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds c Latest forecast is the most recent estimate by the relevant department of the most
likely outcome It refers only to expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds d Outturn only includes expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds (pound620ni)
Expenditure not co-financed by EU structural funds an1ounted to pound36 1m e Ourtum only includes expendifure co-financed by EU structural funds (pound706m)
Expenditure not co-financed by EU structural funds amount9d ro pound05m Source OPLURD LEADER OP annual reports
Resource Allocation and Outturn
47 Public e-pendi1ure 11rgets ind ou11urns ire shovn in middotrable 42
48 Fro111 the beginning it V1s the viev of Enterprise middotrr~1dL incl En1ployn1tnl thit
there IVlI nut sulliuenc EU funds under 011UHI) 10 support 1lte desired kbullel oldeg
t-pctHliturc by CE13s over 1he life of the Prngrunrnc_ ccorclingly CEB exrenditun
wis in ecess of the level co-finrnred by Ill funds rnd the b1l111n of U6 J million
wis provided bv the hclwquer It is ciltrr 1h11 EU funds rvrilrble for CElh under
011UIU) wrll be fully u11lised bv the encl of 1he lrogrrmme
49 A~ n1ost P1nntrships h1cl to go through J lcng1hy pnxtss of es11hlish1ncn1
incl planning in 19ltJ5 ind 1996 their cxpendiltirc Vas slov in rhuse ye~1rs tlovtver
expenditure 1ccclcr1Ctcl in 1997 and 1998 middotruurisn1 Spo11 ind Hecrellion and 1)11
expecc chH over the full progranllne period c-pencli1urc 1argc1s viii be n1et
410 E-pencli1u1-c under LE1J)fH Vts suhst1nti11ly Ix-In ttrget for rhc pcriocl
1995-1998 A fu11hcr sum of J18 million wrs rllocued to lEDEH liv the EU
Co111n1ission in 1996 fro111 an EU re-erve avai11hle for (on1111unity initiatives In order
to reach lht revised forec~1st expendi1ure in 1999 Voukl h1vc to be 1non 1han lVO
111cl 1 hilf ti111cs lite expenditure of 998 tmiddotlovever griculturc incl Food lXPLCls
1h1t ill alloc1tecl funds viii be spent by the encl of tiltmiddot Progr1n11nemiddot
11ltcor(111g trJ the 11AIJlR ()~ lt11 eliJihle ltpc11di111nmiddot 111ust lgtc co111tlffltlf 1~1 middot JtA f)IJ~ gn111h l~r tbc (IU
of fJrl-1 111Jc_bullr 15J-JY 11Ji~e 111r1111middot1 s 11111sf he Hiid rJ11f I~) llAJ)f( grrgtllJS lxfurc )l_1111c 2000
j2
( ))(rct f iu 11cf fi-c iei Ilt)middot-- middot---------------- shy
A1ocation of Resources to Local Development Bodies
411 Fnlerprise middotrr1clc and E1nployn1en1 inittdly alloctttmiddotd resources equdly to each
CEit middotrhc l)ltp1rtn1ent suhscquently 111nved to 1 1nore dtmiddotn11nd Jtmiddotd 1ppr()~1ch
h1nmiddothy allocations VeHild lgtt varied depending on 1hc relative llctmiddotds uf each aret
Ille c~1p1city of e1ch art lo successfully utilise eriterprimiddotbulle supports ind to crelle jobs
i ind the qud1ty nf thtmiddot cmiddotnterpnstmiddot pL1ns prepared hv each CEB
41 Al)middott placed 1dvcnistmiddot1nents in nevsptpers i11vi1i11g cnn1n1t1ni1y groups
(ou side Ille designated JrLIS of dis1dvintJgt being IUl)kcd Jfter hv Area-Based
P1nncrships) incl relevant n11ion1 organisations to ~11gt11ly for ()JgtLUHI) funding 33
con1n1unity groups ind 15 nitiontl urganisuion Vere sekCtld by t()1I for funding
41 middotrhe allocation of resources to Pirrnvrships hy Al)1l v~1s hiscd on cltt1ilcd
1nIlysis of the socioeconn1uic ch1ractlris1ic- of eJch tre~1 highliglning various
aSf)lt_cts of dtpriv11ion drlVll fro111 tlie 1991 ltensus of Population ()tiler rclcv1nt
v1riihlcs inclt1cll~d the qu~ditv of the pL111 tlttmiddot c1p1ci1y of htmiddot l1rtncrsliip ind the
1v1l1bility-of orher clevelop111ent resources to 1hc lrll such as IE1l)l-J or LiHB1N
4lbulli 1chmiddoter1istmiddot1nents Vere pL1cecl in 11Lmiddotvsp1rtmiddotrs innouncing lhe LEtl)lR lni1i1tivl
and inviting applicnions 1middot1ic~e VCrc assesstmiddotd by 1gricuhure and 1~nod Vith the
1ssi-bull1ance of an incltpcndenl consul11nt to es1ahlish tile txtent to vhich they 111lt~1 iii~
key ftatures of LEl)FH lhtmiddot rltsourctS middotere tllocatcd h~1ving regard to the quality
of the hu iness pl1n subniilllltL 1he population ind cl(gree of rurility of the 1rea and
the ~1vailalgtility of othtr sourcts uf ~lss1st1ncc fn1 Joctl ltkmiddotclop1ncn1 3i loc~d group-
Ver~ sclecled ind 2 SLctoral groups
Grint Cost per Job
4l~i middotr1iere arc specific f1c1ors vhich lin1i1 the usefulness of htmiddot gr1n1 cost per job
incli ~-tlnr in the con1cx1 of lltx11 devclop111cnt middotrhese include
bull (rear d1versil in the ni1urc of the 1ohs cre1ted ind 1he 111ethod of cc)un1ing
I hl111
bull No direct con1p1nson hetveen the VOrk invoVtltI in supporting job cna1ion 11
local level VIiii nationtl joll crcition agtncics
bull middotrile us1ain1bility of jobs 1n1y d1fft r frn111 11in-e crc1tltd by nuional igtncics
bull middotril(middot focu- un job cre1tinn iritmiddot vithin the three 1ypes nf lllt1clic
local Jevelopn1e11r fllifiariues
416 For CEils the number of jobs created is used is a performance meisure The
average gr1n1 cost per job creared vtriecl over the pericxJ under reviev as follovsn
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Number of jobs created 1958 3174 3589 3317 3487
Grant cost per 1ob created pound2535 pound4249 pound3763 pound3884 pound4206
The v1ri11ions from year 10 year miy be panly explained hv the fact 1h11 sometimes
1here is 1 riine t1g hetveen the gn111t expenditure ind 1he creition of thi relevant
jobs Over the period 1994middot97 the average grant cost per 1ob was Aj725 with the
lowest CEil be111g S2269 (Tipperary North) and the highest being gtfi683 (Leitrim)
Cost of Non-Grant Outputs
417 In add111011 to grmt aiding job crcll1011 md adminis1r11ion all of the bodies
~Ire involved in non-granr activities including
CEils
bull Producing enrcrprise plans and generJlly pro1noting in enterprise culurc
bull Busines~ infonnttion 1clvice counselling incl 1nentoring
bull ~ltn1gc111ent devetopn1en1 rraining
lartnersl1ips
bull Enterprise cre11ion and ckvelopment
bull Environ1nent ind infrtstrucrure projects
bull Provision of services to the unen1ployecl
bull Con1n1unity clevelop1ncnt
bull Co1nple1nentary ~incl prevcnt11ive educarion
LEADER groups bull tni1nation 1crivit1es
bull middot1-icl1nical assis11nce
Expenditure on these 1ctiv1tic~ is shovn in middot1middot1blL lt3
418 11blc 43 shovs the v1rying ex1cnt 10 vhich the clitlerenl locil l)cvelop111ent
lxgtdics trt involved in non-gr1n1 ou1pu1s_ Thlt CEB ind LEl)EH groups focus on
gr1nt is grtmiddotarcr th1n Panncrships vho focus on non-gr1nt activi1ies imiddothis is
cons1s1ltnt with tlic list of 1ctiv1ties 111 Tible 34
- 71Jt 111tmeratfJr is l1n11t~ paid 111 the cale11dt1r HCff 01u the de11011111uur1r 1~middot the lllfJloy111e11t ~ai11 Cllthic~( (1er IIitbull yor i11 the jln11middot 11111J rcce11ed jiTu111c1td uufuitl Jimiddotom (Lfgtsmiddot 11 1Jf1bull rbut
empluymc111flt_-e1middot1111h1middots1middotjir11r_ are 1g11ored
31
()fJert-111u1uil Fj)lcicJJ(l --middotmiddot-middotmiddot---------- shy
Table 43 Expenditure on non-grant outputs 1996 - 1997
1996 1997 1996 1997 poundm poundm of total of total
expenditure expenditure
CEBs 39 54 18 24 Pyentnershipsbull 51 136 56 72 LEADER groups 21 34 40 30
folal 11 1 224 31 42
Not~ a 7he figures oxclude Community Groups and selected National Organisations b Excludes selected sectoral groups
Sotrce Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller iJnd Auditor General see Appendix A
Duadweight and Displacement
419 l)ct(lveight refers to situation Vhcre 1 pro1nocer vould undertake 1he
buiness projtmiddotct in 111y evcn1 i_e_ Vitliotll 1 gr1nc or 1sistince fron1 ~1 Iocil
l)e-elorn1en1 body middot1l1e granting of funltls 10 dealthveiglH projects is an ineffic1tgtnt
and ineflec1ivt alloc11ion of resources Disrlacen1tmiddotn1 refers ro situations vhere 1he
golt1cL or ~ervicvs iOlcl by 1 grlttlllltISiiSled rroll10ler divert sales opporlunitiis fro111
other exisling busincssl-gt E111plor111ent c1n hl sin1iL1rlv divlrtecl In chese cases rhe
in1pac1 of thl funds allocHed is achieved at the exptmiddotnsc of other enterprises
420 Tltere is risk of deidweight and c1splacemcnt in Iii gr1nr ictlmiddotUv including
th11 It lltgtcal clevelopn1en1 level A nccnc study stated th~1t 1 ~
ie bate tao concerns uifb the s11ppo11s Or n1icro e111e1JJrse Jbe Jruhlen1 uf
clacue1ibt a11cl clisplaccbull111e11t is e11clc111ic in such Slf)jJ01ts eJHCial~v 1ohlre
sc1cral agencie ure to su1ne clerrecbull inuolultcl in tlishursing such suJfgtorts
The Operational llogrammls for 11--DEH 111d 011lJHD llotlt su1e thll dc1clwe1ght
1ncl clisplact1nent are to Ixmiddot 1voiclld
421 All cn1crprise project Lill into one of 1he folloving fo111 clllgorics
Deadweighl Yes Deadweight No
Displacement No Displacement No
Deadweighl Yes Deadweight No
DisplacementbullYes Displacement Yes
Vlt1tio11al 11ici11nbull11i P11onlies for the xbullnfJd 1000-JrxJG Fitzgltbullrald cmiddott al Fn11omic ond )o(middotial Reearch 1i111u1rmiddot -Hor(h 19Y)
ocu )etelo111u11 t 11 it it1 I ives
Of 1he four possible scenarios onlv one (wi1h no displaccmeni incl no cleaclweigh1)
yields potcn1iil net increises in outpu1 incon1e en1ploy111cnr and consu1nption 1hat
could Ix 111nbu1ible 10 l[ADEH or 011Ul(l) supporl From vil11e for lllClllC)
perspective ii is in1ponant tha1 1hcrc be good infonnation on the extent of
cle1clwe1gl11 and dispLicemem and dfcc1ive prcxeclures 10 deal wi1h 1hem
Deadweight
422 11 is cl1fficuli 10 111eas11re the ex1ent of clcaclweigh1 and no method c1n Ix
rcmicro1rded is provicling tn1~illy rcliallle es1in1~1les [)eichveight Vts exa111ined in the
111idmiddotltnn reviev of OJgtLUHIJ in rcspcct uf fin~1nci1l ~1ssistu1ct givtn 10 s1nall finns
by CEl3s Fron1 a s11nple of finns ~untycd over 40dego of thC pron101ltrs indic1ted thll
they would hivc es11blished the businesses w11hou1 CUl suppo11 A s111cly of micro
enterprises 1h1t fl~Ceivtcl grants under Local )evelop1nent initiitivcs 1nd other
progr11n1111s rcpo11ed deichveight of 45Yi
423 E111erpnse Tricle and F111ploy111en1 has irgued 1h11 1hese estim11cs of
ceJdeiglu are roo high ccorcling tu thl l)erart111e11t the viCS of proinoter~ irt
nor 1 reli1ble guide to cil11er lheir behiviuur or heir SllCLt-S lhe l)cp1nn1ltnt ~1-serts
1hll di CEBs seek 10 ivoicl cleiclwcigh1 However i1 J11s been no1ccl 1h11
rcsrondentsmiddot confidence rcgtrding their abil11y to sta11 i busines in the 1bsence of
i grant c111 he considered 1s 1n underesli111~1le
424 A siucly f 1hc Arca Allowincc Fn1erprise Scheme (AAES) which is
adniinisterecl by P1rrnerships suneyecl a sa111ple of pa111cip1nr- 1 11 Vts concludedbull
thit cleachveigl11 Vas in 1he range 40-50o_ Even alkJving for s1111pling risks the
thnt surbulley-gt t1ke11 1oge1her suggest thlt there is 1 consiclerihlt incidence of
cittciVCight
425 An cximrle of poten1iil cleiclweiglll involving IEADER funding is se1 ou1 in
Cise Study 5
11of11at1011 (~ 1liClO 111tt1pn4 S11pxn3 lcrni 1ltllicn10 d local fgtcbull1ymiddotfop1111bull11t Agc11c1e 11d11try 11a11atirJ11 11111 1111~11-t 1999- lluro (llfe1p11lt- that rcCcbulluetl prro11s fr(J11 1111e17nisc flflt11u_ (danis 1u1 Crrlllachf( t111d Sht11111rJ1t )c1elop111e1111tmiddotc1v111c1uld i111lw arl(hiiS
Set fj lJiAJhk 111iutitlt hmiddot1a11af11J1 r11ul llttmiddot(middotr1111111middot11rlatiu11 lcmiddotontcmiddotv CI ul 1)95
Stjl111plortd a11d tlw 011g (bulln11 l11e111plr~rrmiddotd A11 1al11alio11 (J 11w tlnf1 t1101ra11cc f11terprit Xhe11tc IFNC Co11s1il1a111s J-)7
-1)1 cr11bullrde1middot 1ba11hc prop()r1p11middotuncncl 11IFJ _-lated b(l biy 11011d hatcmiddot 1atmiddotc11 up c111plrJy1111J1rJbull1jshy1middot111101111i1 ~ 111J (J nmiddotfia1c n1lt1ict1orji1r thost 1141u M1ild (UT nLltrfllll dn11( 11 t1) ht1 01)11cd that IJc lllU(rillllf (CtlN n1t1middotJrom l(lllJtiy1111Jl ~r I 1r11gmiddotttrlll llt1fJIO)td 24Ci Ill tbc iRC middot111(~1) 11Yfdd he c1 lgttbulluer t-li11(lft ofdct1tl11eipIJ1 fur AAlS paiticipd11t tha11 the tfiJJlltlllgt q11ofcfl i 1 1ha1 suufbull_ Nou~middotzybullr_ lh1bull s11u~v J(jiJfld (fl that lbulle cht1roocns1il~ vf Amiddot115 KJrticipa11t (tmiddotducatio11 and dt1r(lI011 of 1111c111p()y111cmiddot11t) were lkl(rmiddotmiddot tba11 for thl frn~~-1en11 111u111ploycd uho dul 11ol fx1rtic1xflcgt II Atf)
y
Of)(rotional IJfcicbullnc-)-
ase Study 5
Potential deadweight situation
lr1 1999 a business person 1n a large provincial town decided to provide a bed and bmiddoteakfast establishment in a spacious house that she owned in the centre of the town She decided to focus on the upper end I business market and provide four en-suite rcbulloms She received assurances from several local businesses that they would be willing to refer clients to her Two local hotels also indicated that they would refer cverflow customers
Tie total investment required to refurbish the property fit out and supply furniture crockery and bed linen was esl1maled al pound88000 Loan approval was obtained from the bmk for renovations and the promoter applied to the local LEADER group for a grant
T 1e LEADER group estimated that pound44000 of the proposed expenditure would be
eligible for grant assistance and a grant of pound13000 was approved for the venture
T 1e pro1ect report prepared for the LEADER Board meeting did not include consideration of the possibility lhat the pro1ect might proceed without a grant In that regard the following faclors would have been relevant
bull the premises was located 1n the centre of a busy growing town bull the premises was owned by the promoter bull the owner was self-employed and operated a consultancy service from home bull based on 35 occupancy net cash now in lhe first year was forecast at pound8000 bull if no grant had been paid and the funds had been borrowed instead the estimated
surplus for the year would have been reduced by an increased interest charge of up to pound1300 which would not have substantially changed the potential Viability of
the business venture
426 Posible Vtys of 111i11i1111sing dlHhveigh1 in assisted projects include
bull Targeting financial abullsistancc on projects where the costs of entry to the business arc high relative to the resources available to the promoter So111e pro111nltIS have ve111 li1ni1cd financial resources for fxa111ple 1he vast
n1Jjori1r of Ptrtntrship l lien1s ~ire long-tenn unc1nploycd It is Vorth noting
thtt evtn Vhlt 1dequa1e privite resoune- are lmiddotaiL1hle it 1nty bt difficult
for so1ne Jlt)cal f)evelop1nent bodit~ given their job creation target~ 10 1urn
clumiddotll involve1nent in othlmiddotrvisl sound projects Indeed 1he viev Vts
tprcssed hy 0111e of thosL in1ervitmiddotvecl in the courst of the study 1h~ll fi11111cial
Sllppo11 for CJigihJt projects is often vieVCd hy prOtllltllers ~IS an cntiJe1ll(fl( and
this can 111akl it difficult for Loctl l)tvLlopn1en( ])(xlies to nfusc financial
1ssist1nce (() deathve1gh1 rru1ect
37
(JC( )Ct(()JHUJl 11itiati1es
bull Providing financial assistance by means of repayable grants loans or equity mthcr than non-repayable cash grants middotrhis should discourige reli1ncc on public funds by those entrepreneurs vho
do not need ii Vhiltgt ensuring that entrepnmiddotnctllS vho do need public finance
can alail of it Tltlte m1cl-tcrm evtluil1on of 011UIU) recommenclecl the
incre1sed llSC of loans and l(jUity rlttther thtfl grtf)i reron 1ly tile lndUSll)
Evtlua1ion Uni ncon11ncndccl thll all financial 1ssi-11nce provided uncler 1he
1egis of lEADEH ancl CEils should require 1 fm1neid return From earlv 1998
CfB- ind Pa11nerships hive been tmiddotn1pOVlrld by 1hc EU Con1rnis inn to issisl
projects hy 111c1ns of equity ind rcfuncLtblc 1icl In 199~ tlrnost ~05111 of CEB
assist1ncc (4oo) v1s provided in 1hc fonn of equity 111d refundthle ~1id
Entcrprisc middotrrack ind E1nploy111en1 intend 1h11 refundable forins of 1ssis1ance
Vil] he deployed incrc1nentdly 111 future Al)11 hJs tgllld vi1h P1r1ncrships
tllt clien1- should Vhtre prtctic~ilgtle nceiVl nmiddotfundable 1itl r11hcr th~111 grints
In 1ccurcl111ce wt1h EU regul1llons lEADEH groups ire precluded from
providing lotns or equity to enterprises
427 recent study reported thi1~
le ackn()toleclgc that n1icru e11te17Jrises 111a_v face capital constraints especialfr in the stcut uJdegfJhase but strongf)i s11_rges11hat the n1us1 ejecliue
uov Ju lf(lltress his fJOssible middotn1arkct _(ailunmiddot is Jbrough rJals an( eq1tif)
rather tba11 microran aicl 1Jt~~- uo11c 111inin1ise tbe r1~k ojmiddot creating a cleJenclcnl~) c11111 remiddot
428 It is clear [hll here is cope for n1uch greater use of rep1y~il)[c grin[S loans
ind equi1y 10 111inin1isl dtachveiglil incI such ustmiddot has 1hc 1ddccl 1dv1nt1ge 1h11
1ssistince c1n he providlcl n1ore econon1ic1lly 1 funds c1n bl recycled to 1ssis1
n1ore thtn one project Huvcvcr so111c incre~1se in ~1dn1ini-gttr11ion cos1s could be
expcc1ecl
429 An extre1ne fonn of ckichveiglH irises Vhtn public fin1nciil support is
supplied 10 1 project vhirh as cst1hlishecl and is oreruing in [he Jbsencc nf this
suppon CtSl Siucly 6 involving 1hc ArlJ Allovtnce Enterprise Schlllle illus1r1tes thi
11a11aH11t of 11ficro 111(tpn-lt SupjXJl1 Ao-o a11011til a11d lcx(I Jrbull1tmiddotlup111c1u 11~cmiddot11C11gtmiddot iu1111y tia11r1i(Jll 11it A11~1til CJlt-lt)
rJ1irJ1Ui lnnmiddott111cbull11f Jn-ru1fi(middoti f(lr tbe wnod 20(J-2(XX) Faz Ccrllfd lf t1I c()10111ic (JUI S(Jcial Nc_1middott1rr_h 11_f1ltrlt I-Ion)) JJlt-J
Sltmiddotj~F1111lo1ld o 1u he lh11g-T1middotr111 Ui1tmiddot111plo1middotetl- 1111 10i1atio11 of lbltmiddot Artbulla Alllt1flft 110middot 11tlJHi1e ScJ1111cbull 1HC Co1111raJ11middot 19lt)7
middotmiddot
38
Ojgteraliollal JJicie11lt_~1middot
ase Study 6
Funding the startup of an existing business
A fisherman was 1n receipt of Unemployment Assistance (UA) from the Department of
SJcial Community and Family Affairs (DSCFA) from 1979 to 1999 In September 1998 hi applied for support under the Area Allowance Enterpnse Scheme (AAES)
Uoder the terms of the scheme an applicant must be unemployed for at least a year
and this eligibility must be confirmed in writing on the application form by DSCFA The Praquortnership can subsequently approve the application and may provide minor financial support 1n addition to the main financial benefits provided by DSCFA 1e the receipt of full unemployment payments for a year and on a reducing scale for a further three years plus retention of secondary benefits
Abullcording to the application form the applicant had received a bank loan of pound18000 for the purchase of a boat with repayments commencing on 30 August 1998 In addition hf was the owner of fishing nets to a value of pound6000
Tt1e application form was certified by DSCFA 1n January 1999 to the effect that the applicant was eligible for AAES The certification did not explain
bull how the applicant managed to purchase a boat while on UA bull how he persuaded the bank to provide a loan or pound18000 bull how he was financing the business from August 1998 to January 1999 in particular
the boat repayments and insurance amounting to pound565 per month
Tt1e report prepared for the Partnership Board meeting stated that the applicant had with the knowledge of DSCFA been engaged 1n the fishing industry for the previous ten years on a part-time basis The Board approved the application
mcFA has made the following observations on this case
bull Following an investigation in 1988 the UA payment was terminated but reinstated under appeal with an assessment of net income at pound1250 from fishing per year The case was reviewed 1n 1993 and the net income per year was increased to pound1400 A further review was conducted in September 1998 (the month atter the boat was purchased) and the assessment of net income did not increase
bull It is very difficult to establish an accurate income for such fishermen as fish can be sold to tourists and restaurants for cash
bull The Department did not consider 1t necessary to check with the bank as to what if any security was provided for the loan
bull While failures occur in the scheme they do not cost the Department any more than if the client continued on UA
A[1M has pointed out that fishing comprises a very small proportion of AAES pa1ic1pants supported by Partnerships A recent review of Partnership business su1iports reported that fishing and Bed and Breakfast businesses do not provide a viable full-time 1ob and Area Allowance 1s not an appropriate support payment It also recommended that clearer guidelines should be issued regarding eligib1l1ty
Soure Partnership Business Supports and the Area Allowance Scheme Insights No 8 ADM 1999
J9
locaf f)ltueloJn1e11t fl1itiati1es
Case Study 7
Potential displacement situation
A business proposal was made to a CEB 1n 1998 The promoler wished to provide a food delivery service to factories on industrial estates ie sandwiches baps snacks elc The promoter recognised that there were several competitors Unlike the
competitors he proposed to provide the service via three refrigerated vending machines lhat would be reslocked regularly He applied for and was approved a capital grant of pound5500 by the CEB in December 1998
The project report prepared for lhe Board meeting dealt with the possibility of displacement by noling that lhe promoters service would be provided in a manner different from his compet11ors However the question arises if the project is successful how will its sales be achieved unless by the diversion of the expenditure of faclory employees from one service provider to another
Displacement
430 middotrhc only antlysis of clispL1ce1ncnt vas in respccl uf 11lS 1nd this shl)Vcd a
wide rmge of estimils Using a methodology devised bv Breen and Halpin the
consul11nts esti1111recl that 64oo of the business carried out by 1ES panicipants Vas
diver1cd fron1 other Irish fin11s and Iiiat ~i l1X1 of en1plny1llLl1I created in
thescentcrpriscs v1s at the expense of other enterprises middot1l1e consultants felt thtt the
Breen 111cl 1-ldpin methodology had limitations ancl tlut their estinutes of
clisplicc1nent Vere too high lJsing different 1ssu1nptions incl 1 different
mthodology they estim11ecl that 19 of employment created in AAES enterprises
Vts displacLcl fro1n other cn1erpriscs
431 Possible vays of n1ini111ising clispl1cen1ent include
bull CounsLlting pro1notcrs tovncb exports or cloincstic sectors supplied prltdom1n1111lv l)y import
bull ithholding 1ssis1ance fron1 projec1s in1encling 10 supply goods and stgtrviccs to the clon1es1ic 1111rke1 vhich are alrc1cly supplied by other busineSSlS
bull Providing financial tssisttnce by n1eans of rep1yibllt grants lo1ns ind cqui1y rathtr rhin non-repayable ct~h gr1nts
432 All LEADEH groups Partnerships and CEils are insrruned not to suppon
projects Vhich voulcl displace business fro1n other enterprises
433 CEl3s were advised early in 1999 10 focus heir efforts on thlt development of
n1anuf1cturing incl in1ern1tional services projects vhich viii have the pltgttential 10
clevclop in10 export-oriented finns hile not neglecting other eligible rrojects
(vi1ble non-clcaclveight non-displacc1nen1) outside these sec1ors Jgtirtnersl1ips have
40
()JCltflional Jffrienc)
agmiddoteed tht financid support should not be supplied to businsses 111 plentiful
supply such as hackneys couriers builcling contr1cpoundors Ix-cl and hre1kLi~t
operators vm sales and hairdrclaquors LEADER groups are advised to d11ect the11
Stlj)p(H1S tOvards innltgtva1ive pnijeLt~
4i4 There arc d1ffcrcmiddotnt views among Local Development bodies regarding what is
inmiddotoived in rtcognising diplacetntnt middotrhus -cHne Lltic~11 J)evelopn1en1 bodi1s
co1sider thtl if lhe existing co111peeitors to a project are located outside their county
or evtn their loc~1lity 1hen clisplacen1cn1 is not 1n issue
4s The 1111cl-1cnn reviews of LEADEH and OPLUHD made linlc reference to
displlcemcnt Howevmiddotcr the LEADEH mid-term review contended that displJcemcnt
vculd he 111ini111ised if LEAl)ER groups focused their f1nincial 1ssistance on
111rovative proiects Agnrnlture and Food intend that the final evalu111on of LEADEH
11 Viii includ ltSli111a1ion of tltmiddotachveigh1 and clispl1cen1ent effect
Be11e_ficit1 Dis1U1ce111e11t
436 II rhere are ~1ny circu111st~1nces in vhich ltlispl1ce111ent can be ignored thev
shltnild be identified For exunple it 111ay be possible to sustain the c~1se on sociJI
jus1 ice or equity grounds rhu specific groups such JS 1he lung-1ern1 t1nt111ployed
shcbullttld receivlt posi1ivlt cliscri111in~n1on elifJI at the cxfxnse ojotherjoh see~ctYi tOi1
111 lrgucd 1h1t onlt of the obwctives of Partnerships is to 1mprovmiddot( the potcnlld of
the long-tcnn unc111ployccl ind 1he socially ltXcludccl 10 gain cn1ploy111ltnl in lhlt
eccbullno1ny generally ind specifically 1n poundheir Ovn areas_ middotrhc inslrtion of particular
dis1dvant3ged groups into e111ploy1ncnt or a husine~s viii often have thL effec1 of
dis)Jcing a non-clis~1dvantaged person fron1 that 1oh oppo11unity Hcnvcver the
social giin makes the displJce111ent worthwhile
437 Given that CEBs cover the emire populallon incl that Partnlrships and
LEd)EH groups cover 540o and 6Joo respectively the exacpound circun1s11ncltS Vhen
clisplacemem 111ight be permincd for any Local Devdopmelll body should be
cluificd by the relevant Dep1rtmenis
(rnui11g (lUJ Sharing ()I r F111plr1y111e11t S1raUt_r (JfX 011 the lt1bltgt11r _bulllfariltf tgtlt1uu11cmiddotn1 of1111erpnmiddotc_ 7huC and 1111Joy111e11r Jn 19ltXgt
41
5 Assessment of Impact
51 Xhik the 1nc1sun111cnt of the 1chieven1ent of cconon1y 1nd efficiency is
ilnportan1 in the n1an1ge1nenl of the initiatives establishing their in1pact is of even
grci1er 11npnrtance J111pic1 assessn1enl is concerntd Vilh est1blishing the e-1cn1 10
which the local devdoprnent oJ1cc1Jns ire achievecl 1110 the wider contribution of
the initiatives 10 local cconon1ic and socitl developn1ent 11 is desirable thtt
appropri1te sys1tn1s to evaulle 1he 1chicve111ents of the iniliHives in n lttion co their
desired 11np1cts should IJt in place
52 Ille cllvcloprnent nf syste1ns to detennine 1he i1np1ct of the initiitivcs is not
easy middotrhlt clivlr~i1y of Jnc~il dcvelupn1ent objecrive~ n1e1ns thit it is unlikely thH 1ny
one 1ssessn1cn1 niethocl Otild he sufficient So1ne in1p1cts like cn1ploy1nent
crltJtiun can lx quintified Jnd 1chieven1ent can be n1unitorecl chrough che 111alysis
of nJev1n1 perfonnanct indic11ors_ Othcrs like rlttising the level of econo111ic activity
ctn be 1ssessecl 1hrough 1he usc of ccono111ic 1noclels using surroga1e 111e1sures of
irnpacl 1VL1ny of the socitl objeclives of 1he inili11ive are not susceptible to
n1e1sure1ne111 at di incl till i1111xu1 achieved Jre best detenninccl through surveys
of chtngts in local condilions a1 inclividu1I and con1nnir1i1y levels
S3 lhi ch1p1er consiclt~rs 1ppro1chcs co che 1sscss111en1 of i1npact under the
folJoving J1e1dings
Issues Subject
Quantitative assessments Baseline analysis bull bull Use of macroeconomic data
Qualitative assessments Assessing social impacts bull Case studies and international studies bull
Quantitative Assessments
54 lnfonnition on job creacion and the progression of long-tenn une1nployecl
persons 10 fuJI lirlle VOrk 1re rerorted for i[J these ypes Of 1gtltKJies (see middotr1ble 41
ind Append A) Vhile the figures tint hive been reported to end-1998 under
011URI) 1re well 1he1d of the tirgcts thit were set it is difficult to interpret these
resuhs in hrn1s of i111picl in lhe ibsence of bascline cl1t1
Baseline Analysis
55 B1selinc analysis would estiblish the performance of a representative group
of enterprises con1n1uni1y groups incl individu~1ls 1hat did not receive 1ssis11nce
under 1hc initiatives middotrhe rcrfonnancc of 1ssis1ecl entities incl individuils al counry
42
Assess1ne111 lt~ 111JOCI
or r111ional levtgtI could then he co1nparcd Vilh the 1xmiddotrfonnancl of middotn1ttchedmiddot nonshy
tssi ~1ed cnlitiii selected fro1n the repre~entltil group Si1nil1rly tile pcrlltlrn11ncl
of en1i1ies recltiving ditlenmiddotnt kinJ of ~1ssistance could also he antlysed to cletenninc
rel1 live ilnpac1
56 Baseline analysi~ can he pcrfonnld using 1nicroecono111ic d111 (da1a 1bou1
spcltific enterprises) or n1acrotcnnon1ic clat1 (1ggrLg11t~d dat1)_ middotrhc cl1t1 collection
proicduns -11 loc1l level hJve not heimiddotn 1dequatt to suppo11 this kind of ltinalysis
using 1nicrocconon1ic data 1ccordingly analysis against a baseline of non-1ssis1cd
cnlt-rprises co111n1unity groups ind individu1J- cHHlO( hl carried out
I Case Study on Unemployment using Macroeconomic Data
i 5 7 stuclv of the irnpact uf 011l RD on unemplovment ing census clata
(111a- rltgttgtcono111ic data) has hlttll c1rrild out under tile ~1egis of the ()PlUH)
P1oriloring ConHniuec So1nc rcsuhs of the study 1re su11H11arised in Cae Study H
58 middotrtiis finding fro111 ltase S1udy 8 dltgtcs nor nectgtssarily 111ean 11111 P~trtnerships trl
les effective in assisting une111ployed peorle 10 find vork 1s unc111ploycd ptorlt~
in P~ntncrship 1rc1s 111ay he 111on di_-adv~1nt1ged and find ii lllOll dillicull to 1ccess
e111(oy1ncn1 In addition 1he ralt of entry to une1nploy111lnt in Partnership 1reas
1nay he different frorn non-Jgt1r1nershir 1n~~1s 11lt)vevcr the data is inconclusive
I ~1hont tile level of ttlcclivcness of P~111nlr~liips in addressing Ltr1e111rloyn1cnL middotrhe
case s1udy highlights the co111plexity of in1pac1 analysis but also illustrates ils
i irnpbullgtrltnce in le~1cling lo a grlmiddotHer uncllrst1nd1ng of the resulls of progr~11n11H
aCllily More complex ltbta rnodels of the labour nurket at local level woulcl be
nccclecl for a svs1e111~11ic revicv of 1hc elTcctivenesi of Pannerships in tickling longshy
I 1ern~ llllt~n1plon1ent
59 It is of inlertst 10 e-an1inc the trends in the duration of uncn1ployn1ent in
I recent years imiddot~1hle 51 ihOVS thc nun1hers une111plnyecl ylmiddot1r on yctr in ont year
banltls up to 1l1nc years fron1 1994-1999 and the 11ne1nplcgtyn1ent retentugtn r1tcsmiddot
fro1r vtmiddotar to year i_e_ lhe proportion of those 11ne111ployed ho nLmiddot still unen1ploytCI I
one year li1er
I510 middotr1hle 51 shov- 1h1t signific1nt i111provlrnlnts in une111ploy111cnt rerintion
ralc~ htVl occurrLd in recent yetrs particularly for long-ten11 UllLlllploy1nen1 Strong
ecoron1ic grovth in 1lie period covered vould li1ve beltIl of prinH in1ponance in
1he reduction 111 long-1tmiddotrn1 l1ne111ploy111ent ihiJc the long-lerrn une1nployed ire thl
1111in rarge1 group for Partnerships thlse areas are not sep1raccly distinguished 1n
lhe analysis OutlOVS ro schen1es such 1s Co111111u11ity Fn1ployn1cnt could also he I
llllf)()flilll
43
olta JeueloJn1e111 11itioti1cs
Case study 8
Analysis of the impact of OPLURD on long-term unemployment using macrodata
A key part of the analysis was a comparison between the change in unemployment in Partnership areas from 1991-1996 with the corresponding change in non-Partnership
areas The comparison was based on the Census of Population for 1991and1996 The logic behind the comparison was that disadvantaged areas are at risk of falling behind
the general level of economic development unless there is a targeted intervention to ensure that the rising tide of economic growth flows into those areas Thus if the
decline m unemployment in Partnership areas is similar to that in Ireland as a whole
then at least the gap between affluent and poor areas has not widened and Partnerships may have contributed to some extent to this outcome
The consultants measured changes 1n the unemployment rate in two ways (i) by the percentage point (or absolute) change (ii) by the proportionate (or relative to 1991) change
They used a simple example to illustrate the difference between the two measures Assume that Area A has 90 unemployment rate and Area B has 20 unemployment
rate If the unemployment rate declines by 10 percentage points in both areas (the
same absolute change in the rate) the relative rate is quite different since Area A has declined by only 11 (relative to its starting rate) whereas Area B has deemed by 50
(relative to 1s starting rate) Both rates should be used together
The key data was summarised as follows
Unemployment rate
Area 1991 1996 Absolute Percent Percent Change initial rate Points Change Relative to Initial
Ireland 169 14 8 -21dego
Ratebull
-126
Partne1ship areas 256 230 -26 -100 (PESP only)
Non-Partnership 139 119 -20 -141 areas
Note 8 Change in unerriployment rate divided by the initial unemployment rate
The consultants commented that the unemployment rate in PESP Partnership areas
fell by a slightly greater absolute amount than either Ireland or non-Partnership areas but in relative terms they did worse - essentially because they had higher unemployment rates to begin with in 1991
Sourco A Report on the Impact of the Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development on Long- Term Unemployment Goodbody Economic Consultants et el October 1999
44
Assessnu11t q J11pact
Table 51 Duration of unemployment and retention rates 1994-1999
Ye
19 19 19 19 19 19
ar
94 95 96 97 98 99
Less than one year Number
151032 144283 146776 132398 130780 110446
--shy1-2 years 2-3 years 3+ years
Number Retention Number Retention
rate rate
Number
43697 39748 263 40875 283 38361 261 31719 240 28 194 216
27489 64154 26293 602 67955 25852 650 69667 24227 593 61870 18914 493 54448 14496 457 44940
NotB Retenrion rates are calculated as follows_ All of those who wero unemployed for 1-2 years in 1995 (39 748) wcro unernployed for less than one year in 1994 (151032) thus the unemployment retention rate is 263 (39 748+151032) CSO Live Register data
i Case Study on Business Formation using Macroeconomic Data
I 511 tucly of s11111l business forn1ation over ti111e 111ight be usecl to consider issues
middot such as lhe i111pact of lhl initi~Himiddotes on thtbull rice of n1anufacturing st1nups his i~
considered in Case Srudy 9
51~ C~rtater underst1nding is requirtcl of the n1ix of variables vhich n1ay be
responihle for the trends appann( in the data In a situ11ion vhere an unexpected 1 result is obt1inLmiddotd fron1 tile analysi~ C1s in Case Study 9) 11 Otild lgtt necessary to
refirc the analysit using 1111croecono111ic dala un1il the reasons for the trends
observed 1re clarified and the dilTcren1 contribution~ of lhe initiatives to sn1all 1
enterprise fonn~uion ere better understood
513 In order to use 111icrtgteconon1ic cLua 10 assess the in1p1ct of 1ht ini1ia1ivcs on1 n1anufacturing and intern~llional StTviccs it vould be necessJI) to integrate locil
clcvdopment suppo11 dlla from all the mitia11ves -Uh rhe Forfis and Enterprise
middotrr1de and E1nploy1ncn1 Bu~iness InforntHion Sygtt(Jll (BIS) Enterprise lrlttcle incl
Fmrlovment 1ntcncls to proceed with the 1nrcmiddotgra1ion of CEil data with the BIS (See
paragraphgt 2 2i-228) i 514 Enrerprise Tracie ancl Employment h1s commissioned a review 10 take place
in 11middote currenl year on the in1p1ct of CEUs vith particular reference 10 thlt ratlt of 1
bu~i1es~ fonnacion tnd 1he su~tlinability of the johs cre~Htmiddotcl
45
lucal JelJelo111unl l11i1ia11cs
Case Study 9
Use of macroeconomic data on business formation
In 1993 Enterprise Ireland stopped assisting manufacturing and international services firms with less than ten employees This role was transferred to CEBs The trend in the number of Irish-owned startups in manufacturing from 1987 to 1996 has been studied in an effort to detect the impact of economic growth on the rate of startups It might equally be used as a starting point to consider the impact of CEBs in this role
Startups in Irish-owned manufacturing 1987 to 1996bull
600
500
bullOO
300
200
100
0 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Year
The graph shows that the very rapid economic growth from 1993 (which period includes the emergence of the initiatives) did not result in an increased rate of manufacturing startups According to the quoted study The start-up performance 1s surprising The improvement m the economy over the years has not been accompanied by a corresponding growth in the number of manufacturing startupsmiddot
Note a Case study based on ~startups and Closures in Indigenous Manufactunmiddotng an Analysis of the CensCJS of Industrial Production 1986-1995 Irish Banking Review Autumn 1998 Anthony Foley and Teresa Hogan
Source Data Census of lndustna Production CSO
Qualitative Assessments
Assessing Social Impacts
515 Some irnpo11rn1 rnrcro clilt wts cs1rl3lrshecl by ADM reltting 10 middotc1ep1wa1ion
111clic11ors for l1nnership areas Bised on the 1991 Clnsus of Populttion ADM
co1npilecl indic1rors of cleprivuion for all Pannershlp areas domiddotn to l)istrict
Elcctor1l l)ivisiltgtn levc1 l)cprivJriun 1n1p- tre 1lso procluced middotrhe clcprivltlCion
indicators 1nclucled
46
bull educationtl a1tainn1en1
bull ltgtCcu1x11ional profile
bull lltxmiddotil labour n1arket characteris1ics
bull housing
FrOill 1hcse indicators a con1pusite deprivaiion index value Vas con1p11tcd for each
lartnersl11p area for 1991
516 Tlrrs exercr lras rectgtnilv bcrn repeated from tire results of the 1996 Census of lo1n1llli(gtn Fngtnl ~tn in1pac1 assess111en1 ptrspcctivtmiddot relilt1nce ltgtn these indicators
voulcl involve ~0111e li111itllions_ For lt1n1ple chc Census year- do not coincide Vith
Partnership 111ilcstones 111igruion can con1plicatc 1nalysis and [he d111 is not
definitive regltncling c1usality~~
51 ()espile these lin1ilalions analysis of the indicators of dtprivt1ion should
probullicle valuable inforn1ation rcg1rdi11g changes in 1pects of clt~pfiv1tion in different
Partnershq1 anas and should ilso Ltcilitatc con1p1rion ovtr 1i111e Vith nun
la11nersl11p areas lhe ltlmiddotailtbility of this infonnltllion shot1ld ftcilirarc furthCr
ittt111pts to consider the social in1p1c1s of tht~ initlHives
Case Studies and International Studies
5tf Whrle much hrs been wrr11en on tire rctrvrtres of Local Development bodies
chc tlcnt of 111atcrial spccifictlly covering the evtl1111ion of their i1np1c1 is very
li111i1ecl Several Partnerships have c1rried otH case srudil~middotM) to highlight hov issues
wen being trckled by different Partnerships ancl to promote best practice Case studies are undcrv1y tlso in n1lt1ny LLl)FH groups No case studies havtmiddot lgteen u ed
so L1r in tlic cnlcrprisc ind ioh crc1tion ~1rea for CEB ac1ivi1ies
519 A for111J E11ropean s1ucly v1s unck-rtiken of he rnle of p1nnerships in
proriuting sociil cohesion in ten fmiddot1t1nhcr Srarl~ of the EU co111prising ten nniond
rtpcrts (including lrel1ncl) and 1 synli1esis European rt~portjlbull middotrht study and repo11s
j middotltre bt-gtlltl prin1arily on rh1rty ctst tuclic (rhree fro111 etch middotten1ber St~lle) Vhich
looked 11 issues of reprtstnlalion ncgoliHion and alliance lgtuilcling in tile
devElop111ent of strategies and 1c1ion plans ind the vorking 111ethocls skills incl
I reso-_1rces aprlied lgty p~111nershirs
()her 11111101io11s arc rexnccl i11 fJrxr coptmiddot fJrgtCir i~ edttimiddotd l~r I) Pn11gle tf of Ook Tree )rt--
)11J111_ -~)9
_rKmiddottd 1art11c1ih1p~ middotI 5111n--11 511HIL1Y fur Sc)(middotial Cubl~011lt 11 Ccddcbull OJ1tc ( QOua 11h1lta1J11_- fvr w F11n1J1CJ11ltiJ111111111111umiddots1111d -111middotn1wt111 h1111ulrlf1011for1ie lm1ro1(mlW of itll~L tntl lliirk111~ Co11tl11io11s 19ltJ-
47
ocal Jevelop111e11t lnilit1tite_
520 1ihilc the rtpon included n1iny individual references to isol11cd cxirnpks of
1hc 1tll1x1c1 of panncrships Clllpincd rcstarch into 1he effecliveness of 1xnmerships
Vts not Vithin the score of the study middotrhcrc VIS also no 1ue1npt to con1p1re the
perfor1111nce of p1nncrsl1i1)s it nationil l(vel
521 The 1bsencc of specific tllaterial on the cvalL1a1ion of effectiveness of locd
clevelop111en1 bodies is panly clL1e 10 a lick of come~tuil clata 11 local level 10
L1cilita1e in~dysis A pri1n1ry ain1 of the bodies is to L1cilit1te thl locil achievtinent
of resuh~ incl to ltver1gc 1hc 1c1ivitics of local groups Assess1ncnt of effectiveness
of this kind of 1c1ivHy woulcl require that the role played by the lxxlies could he
isollltcl fruin ill oiher contribuiory f1ctors middot1middothis is difficult middotrtiere is 1 cletr need for
more data collernon llld 1hc clcvdop111ent of soual poltl) models which would
f1cili111e bcuer 1ns1gh1 by policy 1111kcrs imo the impact of the arnvities of local
clevdopment boclits
48
Jr
0 Ji~ )~ l ( imiddot
Appendices
~ gt
- _ middot-
---middotmiddot middot--shy ~--y- -~ -middot bull bull - bull __~
middot
middot
_ _~ -- middot ~
Appendix A Annual Cost and Outputs of Individual County Enterprise Boards Partnerships and LEADER Groups 1995-1997
(Jkistd on du1 ~upplicd by Dcp111111ents and ADJ1 Ltd Luc in 1998)
I
Summary of Expenditure on Local Development Programmes (1995-1997) Appendix A
1995 1996
pound000 of total expenditure
pound000 of total expenditure
CEBs
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
Total Expenditure
13485
1421
4895
19801
68dego
7dego
25
100
13503
3879
4284
21666
62
18dego
20
100
LEADER (1)
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
Total Expenditure
23
887
820
1730
2dego 51dego
47dego
100
1529
2350
1684
5563
28
42dego
30dego
100
PartnershipsCommunity Groups
and National Organisations (2)
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
I
-3 025
1532
66
34dego
-5161
5164
-SOoo
50
Total Expenditure 4557 100 10325 100
Aggregate expenditure figures shown in this table have been superseded by more up to date figures shown in Table 21 (1) Local Development groups accounted for 96 of LEADER expenditure in 1995 - 1997 and detailed analysis focused on lhis (2) Partnerships accounted for 84 of total expenditure for 1996 - 1997 and detailed analysis focused on this
1997
pound000
12884
5414
4437
22735
6226
3536
2015
11778
15579
7398
22977
0o of total expenditure
57dego 24dego
19dego
100
53
30
17dego
100
-68oo 32
100
County Enterprise Boards Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1995 Appendix A11
County Enterprise Board Administration
Expenditure pound000
Total Expenditure
pound000 Administration as 0o of
Total Expenditure
Grant Aid as 0o of
Total Expenditure
Non~rant Outputs as
of Total Expenditure
Tipperary South Riding 150 274 55dego 381 7oo
Corllt North 142 315 45dego 55dego Ooo Monaghan 143 375 38oo 621 QOo
Tipperary North County 122 353 35 57dego 8dego Meath 128 373 34oo 59oo 7dego
Louth 135 410 33dego 56dego 11 Ofo
Kildare 157 476 33 48 19dego Kerry 228 747 J 1Ofo 62 7 Limerick City 162 561 29dego 64oo 71
West Cork 142 498 29dego 65dego 6dego
Limerick County 209 714 29dego 63 Soo Westmeath 103 358 29dego 71dego Ooo Longford 95 335 28dego 68dego 4oo
Clare 169 635 27dego 68dego Soo Waterford County 106 396 27oo 73dego Ooo Cork City 150 543 27oo 671 6 Doneaal 124 460 27dego 68dego 5dego Fingal (Oubhn) 152 598 26dego 63dego 11
Mayo 155 651 24 72oo 4dego Waterford City 134 559 24dego 63 13dego Wicklow 127 558 23oo 70 7dego Ca now 149 654 23dego 72 5 South Corllt 187 844 22dego 71dego 7 Leitrim 147 671 22dego 67 11dego Cavan 122 564 22dego 65dego 3dego Laois 121 595 21dego 73 6dego South Dublin 143 670 21 70deg4 9dego Offaly 126 600 21deg4 63dego 16dego Dublin City 111 551 20deg4 67oo 13 Sligo 147 728 20deg4 73dego 7 Roscommon 111 597 19deg4 77 4dego Wexford 144 777 19dego 75deg4 6oo Kilkenny 1()0 637 16oo 84dego OOo
Galway County and City 140 950 15 83 2 Oun Laoghaire - Rathdown 82 743 110o 78oo 11 Oo
Miscellaneous (1) 30 30 Ooo QOo OOo
Total 4895 19801 25 68 7
(1) Refers to set up costs incurred on behatf of au Boards
County Enterprise Boards - Administration Costs as a Percmiddotentage of Total Expendifure --f996 Appendix A12
I _ - vuony c11u1tUllgttl ouaru
I Administration
I Total Expenditure Administration as 0o of Grant Aid as 0o of Non-grant Outputs as
Expenditure pound000 pound000 Total Expenditure Total Expenditure 0 0 of Total Expenditure
Cork North 119 417 29~o 63degshy 8degc -middot
113 28dego 56dego 16degoTipperarv North _counlv 404 -shy -Sliqo 118 457 26dego 50dego 24dego--Mealh 136 532 25~~ 53dego 22dego Laois 151 612 25dego I 59eo 16dego
Westmeath 120 500 24dego 55oo 21dego
Cork City 124 533 23dego 55dego 22oo Roscomn1on 120 536 22dego 61dego 17dego
Louth 133 620 21 Oo 57dego 22dego-Cavan 128 599 21dego 67degc 12dego
Clare 123 581 21Co 61dego 18dego
South Dublin 147 705 21 oo 56 23dego
Dublin City 139 668 21dego 49dego 30deg~
Kildare 128 625 20degh 41 lo 39o-shyTipperary South Riding 108 530 201 68dego 12oo
-Mavo 159 784 20dego 70oo 10dego
Carlow 117 582 20dego 67dego 13oo
West Cork 127 633 20dego 59dego 21
Longford 114 579 20dego 71dego 9dego -
Kerry 114 584 20oo 68deg~ 12oA
South Cork 125 645 19dego 58dego 23dego Limerick Cily 132 683 19oo 64oo 17dego
-Galway 122 631 190~ 69~o 12dego-Kilkenny 120 636 19dego 67dego 14dego
Offaly 117 628 19dego 62dego 19dego
Waterford County 105 563 19 66dego 15dego
Leitrim 121 665 18oo 64 18dego middot-
Oun Laoghairc bull Rathdown 116 648 18dego 57dego 25dego-
Fingal (Dublin) 117 656 18dego 56degc 26deg~ -Wexford 117 708 17oo 68dego 15dego
Wicklow 122 739 16 71 13dego
Donegal 119 757 16dego 65dego 19dego
Limerick County 120 810 15degc 68dego 17dego
Waterford City 118 800 15dego 75dego 10dego--Monaghan 75 616 12 74dego 14degc
Total 4284 21666 2011o 62dego I 18dego I
County Enterprise Boards Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A13
County Enterprise Board Administration Total Expenditure Administration as 0A of Grant Aid as 0o of Non-grant Outputs as
Expenditure pound000 pound000 Total Expenditure Total Expenditure deglo of Total Expenditure
Cork North 106 344 31dego 50dego 19dego
Clare 172 631 27dego 46dego 27oo---shyTieperary North County 116 448 26dego 38 36dego Waterford County 126 505 25dego 54dego 21dego Longford 121 498 24dego 60oo 16dego Wexford 156 647 24dego 56oo 20dego Wicklow 184 796 23dego 57dego 20dego Limerick Cilv 141 619 23oo 51dego 26dego
Mealh 170 751 22oo 52dego 26dego Offaly 113 505 22dego 53dego 25dego Kilkenny 121 545 22dego 48dego 30oo Donegal 94 428 22dego 42dego 35co
Leilrim 139 640 22dego 54dego 24dego------shy -Monaghan 118 556 21dego 57oo 22dego
Waterford City 164 788 21dego 60dego 19dego
Limenck County 147 708 21degk 53dego 26deg1 Louth 161 787 20dego 50dego 30dego
Mayo 122 602 20oo 53dego 27dego
Sligo 99 496 20dego 51 Ofo 29dego Tipperary South R1d1ng 120 619 19eo 60dego 21dego
Carlow 113 593 19dego 65dego 16dego Cork City 127 672 19dego 59 22dego
Weslm~ath 119 637 19dego 60dego 21dego South Cork 131 704 19dego 58dego 23dego
Laois 113 615 18dego 55dego 27 --Kildare 136 761 18 56dego 26dego Cavan 127 740 17dego 63dego 20 West Cork 87 513 17dego 57dego 26dego South Dublin 165 981 17dego 64dego 19dego Dun Laoghaire middot Rathdown 102 621 17dego 48dego 35dego Kerry 94 580 16dego 66 18dego
Roscommon 75 474 16dego 61 23dego Galway 110 835 13 64 23oo Fingal (Dublin) 117 902 13dego 62dego 25dego Dublin City 130 1 195 11 69 20
Total 4436 22735 19dego 57dego 24dego
---
I
LEADER A~minist_ration ~osts -~~ a Percentage of Total Expenditure -_ 1_995 __ Appendix A1 4
I Local Development Group
I
Laois Leader Rural Development Co Lid Cavan-Monaghan Rural Oevelopn1ent Co~rat1ve Soc~ely Ltd
Barrow-Norc-Suir Rural Developmentmiddot 62 81 771 QOo 23dego
Wicklow Rural Partnership Lid bull 26 38 70dego -I QOo 30dego
Westmeath Community Development Ltd
Longford Community Resources Lid -middot
-
8 11
-11 18
70degc
65
bull Oh
QOo
23dego
35dego middotmiddotshy
Mid-South Rural Roscommon Development Assoc1alion Ltd 9 14 63dego QOo 37dego
Rural Resource Development Lid bull 80 129 62degc Ooe 38dego
Meath Con1mumty Partnershrp Co Ltd
Meithcal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo
3
68
5 117
- 60dego
58dego
4dego
OOo
35eo
42dego
South West Mayo Development Co Galway Rural Development Co
54
8
94 middot-middotmiddot
15 58dego
56dego
1Oe
00o
41Co
44
Arigna Catchment Area Community Co 11 23 48dego 4dego 48
Western Rural Development Co Lld bull 28 58 48dego 00o 52oo
Offaly LEADER If Co Lid -middotmiddot
3 6 48~J QOo 52
IRD Duhallow Ltd bull -
Ballyhoura Development Ltd 60 74
131 163
46dego
45dego
OOo middotshy
OOo
54
55
West Limerick Resources Ltd
South Kerry Partnership Ltd bull
Waterford Development Partnership Lid
Tuatha Ch1arra1 Ltd
Word - Wexford Organisation for Rural Development
West Cork LEADER Group bull
Donegal Local Development Co Lid
-
10
29
34
6
51
57
8
- 23 66 76 14
125
160
22
44dego
44dego
44dego
42gtigt
41
35dego 340
3dego
00o
00o
6 1eo
00o
3eo
middotshy
53dege
56dego-56dego
52deg
58dego
65dego
63dego
-middotmiddotshy
Tipperary LEADER Group bull
Totalmiddot Local Development Groups
30 813
95
1584
32dego
51dego
00o
1dego -
68dego
48 -shy
middotshy
Acquisition of Skills
0 -
85 0 OCo 100dego
Other Collective Bodies
Technical Assistance
7
0
23 37
30 QOo
70dego
00o
00o
00dego
i Total Expenditure - LEADER Groups 820 1730 47dego 1dego 52dego
~-
--
Administration txpenditure
EOOO
3 81
Total AdministrationI I Expenditure as 0o of Total
EOOO Expenditurei
98dego
98 82deg~
3
Grant Aid as Non~rantI I I 0o of Total Outputs as of
Expenditure Total Expendituro
2dego 01 middot-shyQO 18dego
middotmiddotshy
bull These groups also existed under the Leader I in11ahve
LEADER Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A15
Total Administration Expenditure as 0o of Total
pound000 Expenditure
81dego56 lv-10Jbull
ro v 106 b1o
77 46dego 91 43dego
113 4 1 Ofo
226 39dego 92 38dego 90 38dego 67 38dego
100 36dego 230 36dego
JUmiddot~ 86 35dego
262 35dego 292 I 32dego 168 31dego 111 31dego 94 30dego- 29dego 65 I 29dego
289
85
29dego 182 27dego 258 25 194 24dego 198 23dego 165 22oo 141 22dego 285 22dego 271 21 249 20 185 19 94 19dego
5173 31
189 0dego 115 75o 86 0
5564 30dego
Grant Aid as 0o of Total
Expenditure
0 J _ 3dego 9dego bo 18dego 13dego
5dego 2dego
35dego 17dego
6dego
18dego 34o 44degc 29dega 26dego 28dego 50dego 19dego 47
5dego 55oo 20 50dego 46dego 42 36 50dego 40dego 20 25 29dego
0 25Vo
OOo
28
Non~rant
Outputs as 0o of Total Expenditure
19dego LO
~-
36dego 45dego 44o 41dego
48dego 57oo 6v-10 27dego 47dego 58dego 55vO 47 31dego 24oo 40dego 43 42dego 21 52dego 24dego 68dego 20dego 56dego 27dego 32dego 36dego 42 29 40dego 61dego 56dego 40dego
100o OOo
100o
42dego
Local Development Group
-Comhar lorrais (LEADER) Teoranta bull lounly ~ligo LlAurH t-artnersh1p co LIO r-cura1 uuo11n LtAUttlt vvmpany Lia ln1sh0Wen Community Development Co ltd middot Laois LEADER Rural Development Co Ltd comhdhail 011ea1n na hlireann South Kerry Partnership Ltd bull Rural Resources Develooment Ltd Blackwaler Region LEADER Co Ltd Meath Community Partnership Co Ltd LonQford Community Resources Ltd Galwav Rural Develooment Co Word-Wexford Organisation for Rural Developmenl
-Barrow-Nore-~uir tltura1 ueve1opment Lta_ Ariana Catchment Area Community Co bull Cavan-MonaQhan Rural Development Co-operative Society lid Me1theal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo Wicklow Rural Partnership Ltd bull Offaly LEADER II Co Ltd bull Doneoal Local Development Co Ltd Mid-South Rural Roscommon Developmenl Association Ltd Co Louth Rural Development Co Ltd Ballyhoura Development Ltd bull Kell-Kildare European LEADER II Teoranta IRD Duhallow ltd_ Tuatha Ch1arrai Lid -South West Mavo Oevelooment Co Westmeath Community Development ltd West Limerick Resources Ltd
-middot West Cork LEADER Groupmiddot Waterford Develooment Partnersh10 Ltd Western Rural Development Co Lid Tinnorarv LEADER Group bull East Cork Area Development Ltd Total - Local Development Groups
Acqu1s1t1on of Skills Uther Collective tsodies Technical Assistance
Total Expendituremiddot LEADER Groups
bull These groups also exisled under the Leader I initiative
Administration Expenditure
pound000
45
deg 64 35 - 47 88 35
25 37 83 60 31 91 94 53 35 28 25
19 84 49 64 46 45 37 31 61 58 49 36 17
1599
0 86
0
1684
---
--
----
----
I
I
LEADER _Admiri_istration_ Costs_as a Percentage_of TotalExpenditure bull 1997 Appendix A-16
Local Development GroupI I
Comhair lorrais (LEADER) Teoranta bull Co Sllqo LEADER Partnership Co Lid Rural Dublin LEADER Compant lid Wicklow Rural Partnershi~ Lid Rural Resource Development Lid Word-Wexford Orqani5allon for Rural Develo~ment Ltd Blackwater Reoion LEADER Co Lid Meath Communit~ Partnershi~ Co Ltd Laois LEADER Ru_ral Oevelooment Co Ltd IRD Ouhallow Ltd bull Oonal Local Oevelooment Co Ltd Kell-Kildare Eurooean LEADER II Teoranla Cavan-Monaghan Rural Oeveloement Co-o~rat1ve Socie_lv Ltd South Kerrv Partnersh10 Lid bull
I South Wesl Mavo Devetooment Co bull I Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo
Waterford Development Partnership Lid Galway Rural Developn-ent Co lnishowen Community Development Group bull Wesl Limerick Resources Ltd Co Louth Rural Dev~topment Co Ltd Comhdhail Oilea1n na hEireann West Cork LEADER Grouo bull Tuatha Ch1arra1 Ltd Westmeath Communitv Develoomenl Ltd Offalv LEADER II Co Ltd bull Ballyhoura Development Ltd East Cork Area Development Ltd Weslern Rural Development Co Ltd Mid-South Rural Roscommon Deveroomenl Assoc1at1on Ltd Longford Community Resources Ltd
Administration I Total Expenditure ExpenditureIpound000 pound000
43 I 96 83 48 52 89 91 46 -58 31 57 60 75
102 59 60
109 78 45 47 46 50 35
104 56 48 39 67
-- 27 83 32 35
Arigna Catchment Area Community Co I 43 middotmiddotmiddot shy
Tipperary LEADER Group 0 38 41Barrow-Nore-Suir RurEii Development bull
Total - local Develooment Grouos 1979
Other Collective Bodies 36 Technical Assistance 0
i Total Expenditure bull LEADER Groups 2015
234 140
186 365 373 204 260 156 293 314 399 568 335 341 626 458
middot-middot 264 277 275 309 221 658 367 314 259 455
Grant Aid as [ Nnn~r~ntAdministration as deglo of Total 0o of Total Expenditure Expenditure
45dego
36dego 34oo 28Co 24dego
24oo 22oo 22dego 20degtc 20oo 19dego 19dego 18degc 18degc 18dego 17dego 17degc 17degh 17 17 16dego 16dego 16dego 15dego 15 15dego 15o
189 I 14dego 592 I 14dego 252 290 414 441 561
11487
142 25dego 75 0 149 0 OOfo 100
11778 17dego 53dego JQOo I
13dego 12Jo 10dego
9oo 7dego
17dego
19dego
25dego 28dego 37dego so~lo
37oo 37dego 30oo 36Yv 40dego 54 45dego 59degn 55dego 61dego 64dego 64degh 56dego 34 49I 6QOo I 23dego 50dego I 34dego 64dego 55 50dego 55deg 55dego 60o 38oo 58dego 71 dego 56o 73dego 54dego 70dego 53dego
20dego 29dego 35oo 3_0 30dego 25dego 48dego 28dego 16degc 32dego 17dego 37dego 23dego 30
Outputs as oo of Total Expenditure I
36Co 39oo 38dego 35dego 26dego 39dego 41dego
48dego 44deg 40dego 27dego 36dego 23oA 27dego 21dego 19dego 19dego 27~o
Partnerships Community Groups and National Organisations Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A17
Partnership Administration Total Expenditure Expenditure pound000 pound000
KWCD Partnershii - -middot 128 128 lnishowen Partnersh10 Board 33 33-middot-Monaahan Partnershii Board 48 48 Lonoford Commumtv Resources ltd 40 40 Galwav Rural Oevelooment Co 39 39 Galwav C1tv Partnership 109 109
~Q_LEAOER Partnershii Co 50 50 Pairt1ocht Gaellacht Th1r Chonaill 48 48 Roscommon Countv Partncrshin 55 55 Pairt1ocht Chonamara 116 116 Cavan Partnershin 18 - 18_ Canal Communities Partnership 67 67 Brav Partnershio 115 115 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 49 50 Tra Li Partnershio 105 107 Waterford Area Partnershio 77 82 West Limerick Resources Ltd 74 82 Southside Partnershin 163 180 North-West KildareNorth Offalv (OAK) 125 139 Mavo bull 288 I 353 Wexford Area Partnershio 132 166 Doneaal Local Develoomenl Co 60 78 Leitnm Partnership 63 94 Clondalkin Partnershio Comoanv 176 305 South Kerrv bull 107 253 Blanchardstown Area Partnershin 208 495 Droaheda Partnershio Comoanv 136 337 Baltvfermot Partnershio 143 359 Cork Cilv bull 176 476 Dundalk bull 196 546 Finnlas bull 169 53 vvovforcl tn ntv prtnPrshio bull 126 501 n11hl1n lnOAr rjtv bull 14 539 T~ll ht bull 7 Ballvmun bull 103 529 Waterford Countv bull 42 227 Limerickmiddot 90 510 Northside Partnershio 125 761
Total Exoendituro - Partnerships 4071 9169
Communilv Grouos 710 773 National Oroanisations 383 383
Total 5164 10325
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) ~--
Administration as 0o Other Activities as 0o of Total Expenditure of Total Expenditure
100dego QOo
100dego QOo
100dego QOo
1QQ0o QOo
100deg QOo
100oo QOo
100oo 0dego 100dego QOo
100dego Ooo 100dego QOo
100middot QO(
1QQ 0o QDo
1QQDo 0dego 100dego OOo
98dego 2dego 94dego 6dego 91dego 9dego 91dego 9dego 90dego 10dego 82oo 18dego 80dego 20dego 77 23 67 33dego 58dego 42 42dego 58dego 42dego 58degc 40dego 69dego 40dego 60oo 37dego 63dego 36dego 64oo 3701 25dego 75degn 2i01 7t01Q TtOn 77deg 19dego 81dego 19dego 81dego 18oo a2deg10 16 84
44dego 56dego
92dego 8dego 100dego 0dego
50deg4 50dego
Partnerships Community Groups and National Organisations Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A 18
Partnership Administration
I Total Expenditure
--middot -shy -shy - --shy Expenditure pound000 - [000- shy
lnishowen Partnershio Board 137 272 Galwav C1tv PnrtnArsh1n 1e~ 35~
Mavo bull 274 580 Canal Commun1tv Partnersh10 122 267-W~~tmeath Communitv Develonmenl Ltd 98 216 Galwav Rural Oevelooment Co ~-
94 211 Monaahan Partnershio Board 100 238 Shoo LEAOEftigtartnersh1p C_o 155 385 Roscommon Counlv Partnershin 146 367 Cavan Partnersh10 72 184 Pa1rtiocht Chonamara 124 328- -LonQford Community Resources Lid 121 334 KWCO Partnershio 205 594 Pairtiocht Gaeltacht Thir Chonaill 99 302 Waterford Area Partnershin 175
middotshy 542 Blanchardstoln_ Area Partnersh1E 159 504 Oundalk bull 147 490 Leitrim Partnership 154 514 - -North West KildareNorth Offalv ltOAKl 122 414 Wexford Area Partnersh1R _ 125 427
_B~lymun bull 112 385 Brav Partnershio 151 526-Oonenal Local Develonment Co 104 371 Wexford Countv Partnershio bull 152 614
_sectQuth Kerrv bull 173 707 Cork Citymiddot 240 1 015 Tra Li Partnershio 122 519
_s1o_ndalk1n PartnershiQ ComQany 140 618 __lliJ_blin Inner C1ly bull 147 647
Tallaaht 173 775 Wesl Limerick Resources Ltd 57 256 F1nnlas bull 152 709 Walerford CountY bull --middot 54 261 Southside Partnershio 141 686 Ballyfcrmot Partnership 132 720 Droaheda Partnersh10 Comoanv 132 723--middot Limerickbull 121 803 Northside Partnershio bull 126 964 Set Un Casis - All Partnershins 28 28
Total Exoenditure bull Partnershios 5269 18858
Communitv Grouos 1 509 3499 National Oraan1salions 621 621
Total 7J98 22977
Administration as 0o Other Activities as 0o I- -middotshy of Total-Expenditure of Total Expenditure
51 oo 49dego-~ v u u-o
middotshy47dego 53dego 46dego 54dego 45lo 55oo-450o 55oo__ 42oo 58dego 40dego 60dego 40eo 60dego 39oo 61degi
38oo 62dego 36dego 64dego 34oo 66dego 33dego 67 32dego 68dego 32dego 68dego 30oo 70dego 30dego 70dego 29 71dego 29dego 71deg(0 29dego 71dego 29dego 71dego 28deg1gt 72dego 25dego 75oo 25dego 75 24dego 76dego-- shy24dego 76oo 23dego 77deg 23dego 77oo-shy22dego 78dego 22dego 78dego 21dego 79dego 2_1 dego 79deg 20dego 80dego 18 82 18 82dego 15 85dego 13dego 87dego
28dego 72
43dego 57=10 100dego OOo-shy32dego 68oo
i bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economrc and Social Progress (PESP)
County Enterprise Boards Grant Cost Per Job 1994-1997 (In Descending Order) Appendix A21
County Enterprise Board Expenditure on Grant Full Time Jobs Part Time Jobs Equivalent Jobs Aid 1994middot1997 pound000 1994-1997 (1) 1994-1997 (1) 1994-1997 (1)
Leitnm 1417 209 6 212 Westmeath 1012 154 0 154 Wexford 1575 280 37 299 Cork C1tv 1089 208 0 208 -Monaahan 1057 178 62 209 Waterford Counlv 1003 188 36 206-South Cork 1566 324 0 324 South Dublin 1753 362 6 365---TinnPrarv South R1dina 922 184 47 208 Limerick Citi 1197 273 10 278 Offalv 1137 243 74 280 Waterford City 1664 387 58 416 Mayo 1565 345 95 393 Limerick City 1512 362 60 392 Kllkennv 1325 320 55 348 DonPnal 1061 254 50 279 Finaal (Dublin) 1377 347 42 368 Wicklow 1538 333 170 418 Kiidare 1004 264 20 274
-Cork North 779 213 0 213
-Carlow 1435 309 169 394 -Cavan 1357 301 152 377 Clare 1 342 335 92 381 Kerrv 1432 288 238 407 Laois 1245 339 42 360 Louth 1045 280 46 303 Dublin Citv 1734 533 0 533
_
SliQo 1182 260 210 365 Oun LaoghaireRathdown 1323 408 3 410 Longford 1145 332 51 358 Roscommon 1208 315 133 382 West Cork 1063 361 21 372 Meath 980 350 23 362 Gatway County and City 2131 843 120 903 Tipperary North County 660 223 136 291
Total 44834 10905 2264 12037
Grant Cost per Job pound
6683 middot-shy6571 5278 5235 5057 4 867 4 834 4801 4444
4306 4061 3999 3988 3857 3812 3802 3743 3680 3666 3658 3647 3599 3522 3518 3459 3448 3254 3238 3231 3203 3 165 2 861 2711
2360 2269
3725
( 1) The jobs created in the year are computed by taking a head count of new jobs 1n enterprises receiving grant aid from CEBs The grant aid expended in the year may not be directly comparable with this as here may be a time rag between the expenditure and the creation of the relevant job but this should be minimised by taking an average over 4 years In computing the equivalent 1obs figure part-lime jobs are taken as 05 of a 1ob
County Enterprise Boards Non Grant Expenditure 1996 Appendix A31
r= middotshy
INPUTS OUTPUTS
I Cou~ty Enterpr_ise Boar_ct_ ~on-Grant - shy
0o of Total _Surveys __ Media _Networks __ ThirdLevel _Second Business - Mentor Activities Expenditure Events Colleges Level Counselling Support
pound000 Schools -
Kildare 241 39oo 1 0 4 3 15 380 40 middotshy
Dublin City 202 30oo 1 9 6 2 20 151 35 Fingal(Oubhn) 171 26dego 1 14 11 I 0 4 3 93 Oun LaoghaireRathdown 160 25oo 1 7 3 0 14 25 84
Sligo 108 24dego 0 68 0 1 3 250 30 - shySouth Cork 150 23dego 20 24 14 1 14 120 45 South Dublin 161 23dego 2 8 0 0 18 105 4
-middot Cork City 118 22dego 2 10 3 2 14 0 14
Loulh 137 22dego 7 3 2 1 6 40 15 Meath 116 22deg1~ 0 3 3 1 12 0 21 West Cork 135 21dego 0 130 2 0 10 174 10 Westmeath 106 21dego 0 0 0 0 17 0 14
Offaly 121 19dego 4 34 5 2 9 17 20 Donegal 144 19dego 1 4 0 1 8 216 46
-107 18oo 0 17 0 1 I 15 150 16
~ Clare
- middot----Leitrim 121 18oo 5 0 4 0 I 9 416 12
Roscommon 92 1Tlo 0 0 0 1 5 484 5 -Limerick City 7
I 17dego 0 2 0 5 5 0 6 Limerick County 137 17dego 1 25 1 0 13 102 7 Laois 101 16dego 0 4 0 0 14 54 bull 1
Tipperary North County 65 16dego 0 0 0 0 12 279 17
Wexford 107 15dego 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 Waterford County 85 15dego 0 2 0 1 0 69 4 Monaghan 86 14deg= 0 0 0 0 7 10 5 Kilkenny 88 14dego 0 16 0 I 0 12 I 19 I 10 Carlow 77 13dego 0 7 0 I 0 10 I 0 I 20 -Wicklow 96 13dego 1 12 0 0 9 70 14
Cavan 74 12oo 5 0 4 1 5 1394 i 31 Tipperary South Ridinq 65 12dego 0 0 3 0 10 80 25 Kerry 71 12dego 1 0 1 0 8 0 20
bullGalway County and City 75 I 12=10 1 2 37 3 12 72 3 Waterford City 82 10dego 0 1 0 1 20 108 33 Mayo 78 10oo 0 48 0 0 5 221 6 Longford 50 9dego 3 5 5 0 7 60 10
Cork North 36 8dego 0 0 0 0 0 340 0
Total 3879 18dego 57 455 108 27 352 5409 726
County Enterprise Boards Non Grant Expenditure 1997 Appendix A32
INPUTS OUTPUTS middotshy
County Enterprise Board Non-Grant bull1o of Total Surveys Media Networks Third Second Business Mentor Management Activities Expenditure Events Level Level Counselling Support Development
EOOO Colleges Schools Programme
Don~al 156 36dego 3 3 1 3 9 55 12 3 Tipperary Nor1h County 162 36dego 0 33 1 0 7 175 12 3 Oun laoghaireRathdown 219 35oo 2 20 6 4 24 240 67 2 Kilkenny 162 30oo 2 12 0 0 27 99 16 3 Louth 233 30 0 14 2 1 11 60 18 6 Sliao 144 29dego 1 7 2 2 7 246 26 6-Laois 167 27oo 0 127 2 0 13 100 6 4 Clare 171 27dego 1 37 12 1 15 97 31 6 Mavo 162 271 0 15 2 0 10 190 6 3 Limerick City 163 26dego 1 29 4 3 6 100 5 4 Kildare 198 26dego 0 24 4 0 15 190 46 6 Wesl Cork 133 26oo 1 271 2 0 10 152 2 4 Limerick County 183 26oo 1 55 12 3 8 194 35 6 Mealh 193 26oo 1 28 3 2 19 48 9 4 Offaly 127 25oo 1 53 6 0 8 59 35 5 Fingal (Dublin) 224 25dego 0 5 0 1 6 446 155 3 Leitrim 157 24oo 2 84 3 2 7 135 14 2 South Cork 164 23dego 0 14 85 1 16 627 15 6 Roscommon 109 23oo 1 27 3 0 11 50 8 4
Gatway County and City 190 23dego 0 5000 10 3 36 18 10 14
Co1lt Ci1V 150 22dego 1 10 5 2 B 1325 16 3 Monaghan 121 22dego 2 24 6 0 B 47 0 3 Tipperary South Riding 131 21 Ofo 1 25 3 0 11 672 20 3 Westmeath 132 21dego 1 3 0 0 29 6 10 4 Waterford Countv 104 21dego 3 32 2 1 21 156 7 3 Dublin City 245 21 oo 1 26 6 5 23 110 50 6 Wexford 131 20dego 1 17 0 0 17 55 16 2 Wicklow 159 20 0 44 0 0 6 32 9 3 Cavan 144 20dego 4 14 7 1 6 134 63 7
CorX North 66 19 1 10 5 2 16 1325 16 3 Waterford City 149 19oo 2 12 0 1 21 183 18 3 South Dublin 184 19dego 1 2 0 0 16 87 37 3 Kerry 104 18 1 324 0 0 12 115 B 2 LonQford 81 16oo 5 41 8 0 5 0 6 41 Carlow 95 16 1 110 1 1 10 228 50 2 Total 5414 24 42 6552 203 39 474 7756 854 182
LEADER Groups Non Grant Expenditure 1995-1997 (1) Appendix A33
Local Development Group
INPUTS
Non-Grant -Activities
pound000
As a 0o of Total--middot
Expenditure
Seminars Held-shy
OUTPUTS
Press I Other tApplications Releases Promotional -Approved-
Projects Referred Creation I Creation of Training Completed to Other of Newmiddot middot Community middotCourses
Actions Agencies Business Association
East Corllt Area Development Ltd 144 51dego 104 110 0 O 0 O 5 2 I O gt-M~e~a~th=C-o~m-m~u~n~i~ttv
0
middotP~a~rt~n-e-rs~h~o=C~o-L-td-----~--1-8-0--+-~5~1~0~---+--7~7-1--+---16-4---- 110 91 11 960 21 12 16
Word - Wexford Ornan1sat1on for Rural Oevetonment bull 351 48oo 0 0 0 0 t-c~innbulle~ra~~-L~e~a~d~er~Gro~u~o~middot~-~~~~~---r-~3~4~3----t-~4~8~o--o 24 7 4 191 45 10 15 13 22 f--~----=~~~~~~~~~+-----~+----~---~+---------l~~-----+-~~----~+-~--~--l~----~f-~300~+-~=-~+-~--~-+~-=~~
Kellmiddot Kildare Euronean Leader II TEO 268 46Yo 85 125 4 74 33 1 10 36 Blackwater Reo1on Leader Co_ Ltd -middot _136----+--4-6A~o------6--7_ __ _ __65------lt----4----I- --7-3__1_---3-1------22--+----3------lt--------1--~__2_4-----1 lnishowen Commumtv Develonment Groun bull 175 46dego 288 86 25 64 27 147 10 17 28 Laois Leader Rural Develonment Co Ltd 103 44dego 67 116 12 56 17 27 40 7 17 Tualha Chiarrai Ltd 244 42dego 239 25 10 168 82 66 24 6 39 West Cork Leader Groun middot 414 38~C -middot-+-~75----t--6-9-8----t----O--t----o-----t --~O-----t----O--t--~1~2_ _____o----shy 33
~c~o~S~h~go~L-ead-e~r~P~bull~rt--n-e--rs~h~ip~Co~~Lt~d--------+-----1~0~1--+-~3~7~~_ ___J3 6 6 73 21 14 20 17 5 Rural Dutgt11n Leader Comoanv Ltd 63 37dego 83 18 -~9--t----2~7--middot-+---6----+---~12-----t--~3---+--~7---+----5-Co_ Louth Rural Devclooment Co Ltd 137 37dego 139 56 18 39 5 23 5 2 11
gt-W~c~kl-o--w~R~u~r~a~I~P-art~n~bull~middot~sh~io~L--td---middot---------~1~4~3--+_~3~6~~-+---5~0~7____~1~12------ O 25 33 209 9 11 6 IRD Duhallow Lld bull ___2~middotbull-1-+-3_~V----t-~283------j--272--+----o-----1 85 40 144 11 37 1A
Rural Resource Dcvclooment ld__middot-------+--20502--+-C3057___-t-1=38~2o---t---5~0t----t--0905----t-----OO--- 0 0 6 9 14 Offalv Lead_~r II Co_ Ltd_middot 130 35oo 49 43 20 76 56 9 17 0 91
gt-S~ou--th~K~bull~Y~P~a~rt~n~bull~s~h~ip~L~t~d-middot________1__1_7~5--+-~34---~~middot--i---1~bull~85----+---1middotQ4_--+-----9--~--0-----+-----o--+----o---~-~2~0---+--3~0-----+--~3~6--1 Galwav Rural DevelgPment Co 126 33dego 38 12 0 147 21 130 19 6 39 Western Rural Devetoomenl Co Ltd 298 33dego 134 102 1 165 46 81 27 1 9 DonPnal L~cal Development Co Ltd 139 32 5 15 1 127 36 29 20 0 13 Lonaford ~ommun1lv Resources Ltd 118 31dego 15 57 7 97 46 22 3 2 5 Westmeath Communitv Develonmenl Ltd 149 30dego 254 50 15 165 60 20 17 5 __sect_____
l-Ba~ll~vlh~ou~ra~De~v-e~lo~rnm~e--n--t-Ll~d~_middot_________t--~2~7~3--+_~30~~~---t---64~-t--bull~8-----t----5--t----2~0~1--l--~8~2-----t--~8~0----+-~59----t---~bull~O---t ~5~2~-t Barrow-Nor~-Suir Rural Development bull -~2~4~7--+--~3~0~----+---3~5~0---__f----5_____15----l--~1~5~1---1C-----92-----t--~65-----t---2~0---t--~10-----t--~2~8-----t Comhair lorrais ILead~rl Teoranta bull 45 29dego o O _o__t------Co__t--_~o___-t-_--o_-+---co_ _____o--_-+_ __o-----t Wesl Limerick Resources 1 tn 126 29dego 69 104 3 103 1h 10 87 7 10 Comhdhail 01leain Na hEireann 64 27dego 41 32 0 124 hO 45 15 0 10
~_~ndegh~Wc~s~t~Mou_nDev~e~lo-nmbulln~t~n~middot------+--~1bullbull-+--2-bull-~-+---12----t--~~5-------0--l----1~middot4___+-_~5~8--t-----4~-+--~13---t------1--+--~3~3-~ Waterford Develooment Partnershio Ltd 209 26dego 56 0 0 95 35 35 34 7 46 Cavan-Monaghan Rural Development
l--C~o~-o~gtP~e~r=a~v~e~S=oc-e=t~y~L~tdo-middot---~-~----+-~2~2~7--+-C2~47o=---+-=2676~-t----11~7~---l----2~174__t---~36700---+----3~0~1--l----2~--+---20---+~--75__t-----2=2~--l Ariana Catchment Arca Community Co bull 121 23dego 21 7 23 105 39 4 5 0 O
f---M~~~h=~~F~o=r~b~a=rth~a--N~a=G~a~e~lt~a~c=ht~a~T~E~o=---~----r-~2=3~7----C2~3o=---+-~1773=----t--~150~--t--~o--t---~4700---+--1-5=7--+-~35~0~--+-~109----t--~2~1----+--~176--j
Mid-South Rural Roscommon Development Association Ltd 63 18 24 18 120 90 36 10 20 5 4
Total Expenditure - Local Development Groups 6227 34dego 7183 2879 730 I 3496 1514 2871 690 291 716
Acqu1s1t1on of skills i 274 Ooo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1-coc~e~c11=n~ca-1-a~s~s~s~ta-n~ce---------------=27~2~---l--0~0~~--t---Co~--t--~o--+--~o=---+-1--~o~-+---~o~-+----o--+------io~-t----o~--+-----io----+
Total Expenditure -LEADER Groups 6773 36dego 7183 2 879 730 3 496 1 514 2 871 (1) Expenditure for 1995-1997 is grouped together as only cumulative output statistics to 31December1997 were available at the time of preparing the report bull These groups also existed under the Leader I initiative
690 291 716
I
Partnerships Non Grant Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A34 middot-middot
INPUTS OUTPUTS
Partnership Name Non-Grant Activities As a 04 of Total Enterprise Services for Preventative Complementary pound000 Expenditure Support Unemployed Education Education
Norths1de Partnership bull 636 84dego 321 1885 520 443 Limerickbull 420 82dego 296 935 100 388 Waterford Counlv bull 184 81 oo 57 0 0 0
t--shy272 328Ballymun bull 426 81oo 401 82
Tallaght bull 466 77dego 496 - 957 143 29 Dublin Inner City bull 405 75dego 343 1651 50 59 Wexford County Partnership bull 375 75dego 138 0 17 272 Finalas bull 365 68oo 557 731 378 155 Dundalk bull 350 64dego 148 388 132 207 Co1lt Citymiddot 300 63dego 344 0 180 261 Ballyfermot Partnership 215 60dego 0 211 40 94 Drogheda Partnership Company 200 60dego 60 0 0 38 Blanchardstown Area Partnership 288 58dego 116 71 48 18 South Kerrv bull 146 58oo 90 212 399 265 Clondalkin Partnership Company 129 42oo 164 0 0 0 Le1tnm Partnership 31 33oo 23 184 0 56 Donegal Local Development Company 18 23dego 0 0 0 0 -IJYexford Area Partnership 34 20oo 14 0 0 13 Mayo 18o lo 181 10 34 North West KildareNorth Offaly 14 10 0 0 u 28 Southside Partnership 17 9dego 0 0 0 0 West Limencilt Resources Ltd 8 9dego 52 0 0 0 Waterford Area Partnershij)shy 5 6dego 49 14 0 5 Tra Li Partnership 2 2 u 0 0 0 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 0 QOo 0 0 0 0 LonQford Community Resources Ltd 0 Ooo 0 0 I 0 0-Pairtiocht Gaeltacht Th1r Chona1ll 0 0 0 0 0 0 lnishowen Partnership Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canal Commun1t1es Partnershrp 0 00o 0 0 0 0 Pairtiocht Chonamara 0 QOa 0 0 0 0 Gatway Rural Development Co 0 OOa 0 0 0 0 Sligo Leader Partnership Co 0 0 16 0 0 0 Roscommon County t-artnersh1p - u 0-1 u 0 u 0 Brav Partnership 0 01 0 0 0 0 Gatwav City Partnership 0 OOo 0 0 0 0 Cavan Partnership 0 00o 0 0 0 0 MonaQhan Partnership Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 KWCD Partnership 0 Ooo 0 0 0 0 Total Expenditure - Partnerships 5098 56dego 3739 7821 2107 2693
Commun1lv Grouas 63 8 0 0 0 0 National Oraanisalions 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 5161 50 3739 7821 2107 2693
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
Partnerships Non Grant Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A35
INPUTS OUTPUTS -
Partnership Non-Grant Activities As a 0o of Total Business Job Groups Preventative -shy -middot middot- -middot pound000 -middot - Expenditure -Start-Ups- shy Placements -shy Supportmiddot Education Projects
Northside Partnership bull I 838 87dego 503 438 28 15 I - -middot -middotmiddot - tCbullbull 602 isgt10 11b tiLj 31 16 I Dr()(lheda Partnership Co I 591 82dego 60 12 177 10 Ballyfermot Partnership 587 a2deg10 88 88 30 3
-middot Southside Partnership 546 80dego I 200 6 80 24 Waterford Counly bull 206 79dego 42 4 23 6 Fmglas bull 557 79dego 257 233 174 28 West limerick Resources Ltd 199 78degc 40 0 50 0 Tallaaht bull 602 78dego 309 646 51 7 Dublin Inner City bull 500 77dego 290 448 34 10 Clondalkin Partnership Conipany 478 77oo 225 562 63 7 Tra L1 Partnership 396 76deg1gt 80 20 67 6 -cork Citymiddot 775 76- 217 111 55 9 Soulh Kerry bull 533 75dego 135 150 61 middot51 -
Wexford County Partnership bull 462 75dego 170 63 31 0 Donegal Local Development Co 267 72dego 150 0 63 2 Bra~ Partnershi~ 375 71degu 71 0 14 Ballymun bull 274 71dego 70 402 50 10 Wexford Area ~artnership OUpound 71o 17U 4 5 18 -shyNorth vvest tildareNorth Offaly 292 71 Oo 56 0 8
I Leitrim Partnership 360 70deg1= 60 3 119 6 Dundalk bull 343 70~~ 71 64 50 10 Blanchardstown Area Partnership 345 68dego 170 97 29 13 Waterford Arca Partnership 367 68dego 37 6 55 1
middotshyPa1rtiocht Gaeltacht Thir Chona1ll 203 67deg~ 75 0 50 10 KWCD Partnership 389 66deg 15 0 0
- 4 middot-
Lonqford Commumtv Resources Ltd 212 64dego 85 4 19 5 middotmiddotshyPairt1ocht Chonamara 205 62 67 2 3 34
middotmiddot-Cavan Partnershio 112 61dego 90 1 49 6 Roscommon County Partnership 221 60degJ 120 0 38 6 -Sligo LeaCer Partnership Co 230 60dego 120 0 32 2 Monaghan Partnership Board 138 58dego 88 0 40 10 Galway Rural Development Company 116 55dego 101 0 51 2 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 118 55deg1= 0 0 20 2 -Canal Communities Partnersh10 145 54deg~ 0 0 16 6 Mavo bull 306 53dego 177 200 28 3 Galway City Partnership 180 50dego 113 0 35 12 lmshowen Partnership Board 134 49dego 60 0 42
Total Expenditure bull Partnerships 13589 72dego 4698 4192 1853 397
Commun1tv Grouos 1 990 57 0 0 0 0 Nalional Oraanisations 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 15579 68dego 4698 4192 1853 397
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
Appendix B Administration Cost Trends of Local Development Bodies
Number of CEBs within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs 1994-1997
Cost Band 1994 1995 1996 1997
ltpound50000 pound50-100000 pound100-150000
pound150-200000
gtpound200000
3 17
15 2
24
7
2
1
32
2
5
23 7
Total Administration Costs pound4_8m pound49m pound43m pound44m
Number of LEADER groups within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs 1995-1997
Cost Band 1995 1996 1997
ltpound50000 25 23 17
pound50-100000 9 11 14 pound100-150000 3
Total Administration Costs pound0Bm pound16m pound20m
Number of Partnerships within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs of Partnerships
Cost Band 1996 1997
ltpound50000 9 6 pound50-100000 7 19 pound100-150000 15 10 pound150-200000 5 10 gt pound200000 2 3
Total Administration Costs pound40m pound53m
11l)(lrJY 11 I
--
Appendix C Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development - Performance Indicators and Revised Targets
-
f 11~
iority Indicator
Jobs
1mber of of 1obs
Revised Targets (1994-1999) Original TargetUnits for total Operational Sub Sub
Programme 2Programme Programme 1
Jobs 15000 proved (for support grant assistance)
Nl1mber of new jobs erbullated not placed in Jobs and vacanc1es) Persons (N 81middot for Sub Pr gtgramme 1wjobs
bullgt provecr figure will mJke up the bulk of thbull i ~jobs created an1ounl) (N 02- for Sub Pr )gramme 2 this eq uates 10 new en terpriscs SUpported)
17000 (Sub Programme 1 8000 Sub Programme 2
1717516900
6900 Sub Programme 3 (Temple Bar) 2000 permanenl in service amp 5000 construction)
AjfJe11c1x CI
~ Priority Indicator
2 Enterprise creation and development
Grants to enterprise Value of grant allocations
Number of enterprises supported
Percentage of investment 1n enterprises provided by the Operational Programme
Provision of improved access for potential entrepreneurs to initial advice Number of firms receiving business advice
Percentage of grant aided firms whose promoters received other Operational Programme support advice consultancy mentoring
Management developm9nt Number of enlerprises participating in managemenl development programmes Number of managers participating in management developmenl programmes
3 Community Development Number of local groups financially assisted
4 Services for the unemployed Number of persons registered for assistance
Number of Long-Term Unemployed persons to benefil from Services for the
I Unemployed expressed as a
I Oo of total number of persons registered for assistance
Units Original Target for total Operational
Programme
pound
Enterprises 2260 new businesses and for Sub Programme 1
Persons and 3640 new and 960 existing for Sub Programme 2
Enterprises 6000 firms and
Persons
280 firmsEnterprises
Persons 500 per annum
No target set groups Local
Persons Caseload of 11 0000 (30000 1n 1995 and
20000 new cases per annum thereafter)
No targel set
Revised Targets (1994-1999)
Sub Sub Programme 1 Programme 2
i
pound16000000pound56020000
17 000 new and6050 new and 7000
existing 3750
existing
(Tolal 9800) (Tolal 24000)
39dego
3000010900
100dego83oo
6000
10000
700
57000 (40000 Local Employment
Scheme Partnerships and 17 000 Non- Local
Employment Scheme)
60dego
AfJXIUimiddot C2
---
Priority Indicator Units Original Target Revised Targets (1994-1999) for total Operational
Sub SubProgramme Programme 1 Programme 2
Progression Number bulllf persons progressing Persons 2500 per annum 16000 to full-time employment (1e placement in a job vacancy) Number of persons progressing Persons 300 per annum 5000 to part-lir le employment (ie placeme11t in a job vacancy) Number of persons assisted into Persons 17000 self-emplJyment (see 1 above) N~mber of persons assisted Persons 19000 under co1nplementary education and training Number of persons in continuing Persons 5000 per annum 2000
1 cducat1or1 Number c1f persons in work Persons 10000 per annum 1000 experience programmes Number Cbullf unemployed referred Persons 5000 onwards middot o other agencies
- -middot 5 ~ducation and Training Complementary education and training Number cmiddotf persons assisted Persons 12000 per annum 19000 under cornplementary education and traini l9
Provision of recognised ce~ificaticbulln Number cf participants ptovided Persons 60003500 with re~1nised certification
I 0o of part1 1pants provided with 30oo reltXJgniset certification
Training for trainers NuOiber ol persons benefiting Persons 1000 under actions tn the area of trai~1ng of trainers and teachers
I of partimiddotipants ptovided with recognise j certification
I 6 Preventive education Number of children attending Children 4080 per annum 44000 preventive education courses I youth serVices
7 lnfrasbucture and enVironmental measures Number o infrastructutal and 20 per annum 1000Protects 98 environmE ntal actions
Appendix C3
Original Target Revised Targets (1994-1999) Priority Indicator Units for total Operational Sub Sub
Programme Programme 1 Programme 2
8 Land development
Area of targeted land developed
Expenditure on developmenl of targeled land
Number of derelict sites eradicated
Number of villages assisted
Number of towns assisted
Number of conservation projects to be funded
9 Other
Entarprse culture Number of participants in activities to promote an enterprise culture 1n schools and colleges
Customer contacts Number of customer contacts with CEBs
Hectares
pound
Sites
Villages and projects
Towns and projects
Projects
Persons 62000
Customer 190000 Contacts
Appendix C 4
Appendix D Extract from Consolidated Reporting Guidelines - December 1997 The LEADER Operational Programme Performance Indicators and Revised Targets
Pe-rformance Indicators
Under the tenns nf the Opcr~llional Progr1111n1e e1ch group is rtmiddot4uired to set ck)vn
1~erforn11nce uHJic~1tors and targets vhitmiddoth it vdl ain1 10 ~1chilve in 1he
itn )le1ncntation of its hu~iness plan and against vh1ch its perfonnance Viii htmiddot
evllua1ed_ Follc)ving ~t rcvitv of the fonn ind contenl of 1hc originil incliclliVl
inclicHors1 cornincnt by the independent evduator and consuh1lion Vilh groups a
dc1111itivc range of perfon111nce inclicJtors llas nclv been prepared
E~11h (~roup is required to llltgtdify ils Busin1middotss Pl1n perforn1ance indicators in this
remiddotiscd forn1at for lmiddotte1sure B Ruril innovation 1neasures and insofar as it is possible
at 1his s1age to prep1re inltlil~ltors for middotleisure C middotrransni1ion~1I cu-operitiun for 1hv
period tnding 5 I l)ece111her 1999 PleJse note thlt 1leisure C does no[ relale to
teclmical suppo11 funding received from AEIDL
lh1 Ile st1te111cru of pcrfonn1ncl indicators -hould rLprcscnl a co111pnhensivc
stncnHmiddotnc of 1argets based on progress to ditc ind the i1nplc111entllio11 of 1he
huine~gt plmiddottll to )1 l)cc~1nbcr iltJ99 including thl acklitional 1ctivitics being
~upportcd vith the funding 11locItcd fron1 the -middotrcservtmiddotmiddotmiddot
imiddotht revised busintmiddot-s plan indicators should he con1plctccl ind rc1urnecl to Huril
De-elopmem Division lw ii _l1nua1v 1998
regress Viii he 1neasurecl 1gainst these t1rgcts by lllttns of the Lf)LJ rerurn~ incl the
quant1tat1ve incl qualitllivc reports outlirlltd in sections 3A jl3 incl 5C of 1hesc
guiklines
Ple1se note thal -hJcled areas ire for infon11a1ion only incl 11 lhis st1ge do nol
require indicators to be Stl All olhltr t1rge1s should ht inpulled in 1he 1ppropri1te
fickl- here rherc is no 1lmiddotlemiddotan1 ac1ivi1y tllSl rl zero
1[Jfx11rL IJ 1
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Animation and Capacity Building
ActivityOutput
Promotion
Number of seminarspublic meetingsworkshops organised to cover the following topics GeneralCommunity SpecialisedSectoral
Number of attendees al the above
Number of press releases articles published media interviews
Circulation of LEADER Newsletter Number issued Number per print run
Number of other promotional actions
Direct Animation Assistance I Technical Advice
Number of private individuals directly assistedadvised
Number of bodies directly assistedadvised GeneralCommunity Specialised Sectoral
Number of development strategiestplansmiddot arising from field work (Le_ not covered in ~other technical assistance beneath) including community plans
Co-ordination of Activities
Number of applications referred to other agencies
Impact
Enhanced Awareness of LEADER Services (Not for completion)
This will be measured by middot
The number of individuals contacting LEADER office
The number of groupsbusinesses contacting LEADER office
The number of applications from promoters
The number of projects promoted by LEADER Group itself
General Level of Local I Community Development
Activity (Not for completion)
This will be measured by middot
The number of applications successfully improved
The number of bodies assistedanimatedrestructured improved
Number of bodies established
More Efficient Use of Resources
(Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number of projects successfully referred to other agencies (i e funded)
i
------MeasL1re B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector ActivityOutput -
I
dministration Processing
Number of staff exclusively I assigned to administrative duties
(2 15 etc)
Number of staff exciusively assigned to animation duties (2 1 5 etc)
Number of Board meetings held
Number of hours worked on a I voluntary basis by Board
members
Number of project evaluation committees
I
Number of project evaluation committee meetings held I
Number of hours worked on a voluntary basis by pro1ect evaluation committee members
I Number of internal LEADER Group evaluation meetingssessionsreviews
I Number of external system auditsreviews (not including accounts)
Co-ordination of Activities I
Number or meetings with other LEADER Groups
I
Number of County Strategy Meetings attended
Number of other meetings with I public bodies
middot shy
Impact
Efficient Delivery of Service (Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number or applications received The number of applications
processed The number of applications approved The number of projects completed
More Efficient Use of Resources
(Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number of projects referred to other agencies (not including those that were referred after provision of animation assistancetechn1cal advice which 1s dealt with beneath)
Apprnd1x 0 3
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector ActivityOutput Impact
Technical Support Studies and Research Knowledge I Expertise Made Available to Potential
Number of studies plansaudits Promoters commissioned by LEADER (Not for completion) Group (not including field work carried This wlfl be measured by out by animators which is included above) The number of LEADER
projects emanating from studies Number of other auditsstudiesplans prototype The number of projects development commissioned by emanating from studies funded promoters amp funded by by other agencies LEADER
The number of bodies restructuredimproved
The number of bodies established
1ppc11cLy ) 4
----
--- --
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
I Sector Activity I Output Impact middot- ---shy
Training Provision of Training Courses Acquisition of Skills (Not for completion)
I Number of training courses commissionedundertaken by This will be measured by LEADER Group (not including animation activ1t1es The number of bodies outlined above) demonstrably LEADER StaffBoard restructuredimproved by GeneralCommunity Courses training provided to SpecialisedSectoral volunteersstaff
I
Number of attendees at the above The number of proiects emanating from training
I PROVISION OF TRAINING GRANTS The number of attendees who
were placed in employment as Number of Training Grants for a result of training
I courses commissioned by promoters and funded under LEADER (not including any of the above)
I GeneralCommunity Courses Spec1al1sedSectoral
Number of attendees at the above
Grant Provision Job CreationRecruitment Assistance I
Number of Employment Grants Employment created provided
I ~-
Afgtj)(11cLmiddot J 5
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Activity I OutputSector
Improvement of Existing Accommodation and
Tourist Amenities
Rural Tourism
Number of capital grants provided
Development of New Accommodation and
Tourist Amenities
Number of capital grants provided
Marketing
Number of marketing grants provided
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number accommodation facilities upgraded to Bord Faille standard
Number of additional beds available
Increased number of visitormiddot capacity
Add1t1ona1 tourist revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Sectoral Benefits
New entrants
Number of additional beds available
Increased number of visilor capacity
Additional revenue generated IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Improved Business Attributable to Marketing
Additional bed-nights arising from marketing strategy
Additional inquiries visits to tourist offices - domestic - overseas
Additional visits to tourist amenities Siles arising from marketing strategy
Number or new marketmg methods tourist packages initiated
Employment- (e g directly arising rrom marketing as opposed to capital grant aid eg as a result or brochures advertisements etc) Created I Sustained
-------
Meas1Jre B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Small Firms Craft Enterprise and Local Services
I
I
i
I
i
i
I
_
Activity I Output
Support for Existing Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Support for New Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Marllteting
Number of marketing grants provided
- -Impact
-Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with improved efficiencyadded value to products and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product ranges
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
I
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises established
New productsproduct ranges
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Greater Awarness of Enterprise Activity
Number of new (geographical) markets developed - within Ireland - within EU - non - EU
Increased sales (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
1J(11di- Igt 7
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Agricultural Forestry and Fishery Products
Activity I Output
Support for Existing Enterprises and Improving
Quality of Existing Products
Number of capital grants provided
Support for New Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Marketing
Number of marketing grants provided
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with improved efficiencyadded value to products and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product ranges
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Number of enterprises established
New productsproduct ranges
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Greater Awareness of Enterprise Activity
Number of new (geographical) markets developed - within Ireland - within EU - non - EU
Increased sales (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector Activity I Output Impact
Freservation of the Improving Awareness Increased Environmental Environment and Livin Awareness9
Conditions Number of capital grants Number of environmental provided plansaction groups established
(not including groupsplans arising from animation andor other technical support outlined above)
Number of entries for Tidy Towns Competition
Benefit to the Built I Cultural of Built I Social and Cultural
Protection I Enhancement Environment
Environment
Number of built sitesstructures provided Number of capital grants
protected or restored
Number of socialcultural events held
Employment created I sustained
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Benefit to the Natural of Natural Environment
Protection I Enhancement Environment
Number of natural sites protected provided Number of capital grants
Number of natural amenities restoredenhanced
Improved Managment of Activities I Alternative
Waste Management Waste I Availability of
Energies Alternative Energy
Number of capital grants Number of alternative energy provided providers established
Number of waste management initiatives implemented
Employment created I sustained
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
AJf)(itrlLmiddot J9
Measure C Transnational co-operation
Sector
Transnational Co~peration
Activity I Output
Grant Provision
GeneralCommunity SpecialisedSectoral Rural Tourism Small Firmscraftsenterprises AgricultureForestryFisheries Products EnvironmenVLiving Conditions Other
Number of Grants provided to final beneficiary (each category is exclusive)
Private Men Private Women Private Jointmiddot CommunityDevelopment Groups Business VoluntarySpecific Issue Groups Co-operatives LEADER Group Other Total
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with establishedimproved efficiency added value to producls and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product rangesnumber of new marketing methods tourist packages initiated
Number of new (geographical) markels developed - within Ireland -within EU - non-EU
Additional inquiries visits to tourist offices - domestic - overseas
Additional visits to tourist amenities sites arising from marlltetmg strategy
Additional bed-nights arising from marketing strategy
Increased sales Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Number of cultural links established
Number of local development strategies studies transferred shared
Number of environmental actions
Employment - created full-time all year fu11-time seasonal part-time all year part-time seasonal
Employment - sustained full-trme all year full-time seasonal part-time all year part-time seasonal
AfJJll1tll~Y )_ Q
Appendix E Matrix of Development Agencies in County Roscommon and the Services Provided (Produced by Roscommon County Enterprise Board)
---------~
c Q
~l agt-EUJ
Co Jnty Slrategy Group CoJnty Enterpnse BoHd
Anmiddotina Enterprise Fund
Lec1der 11
Pai tnersh1p Co ( --~--~---~--~--
Co-Jnty Council ---- middot---~---t--~--~~-~r ---~-~--~-~--~-~--~--~
lrel 3nd Wes ToLnsm
--~---~--~--~---middot -~----~----------~--
Tecgasc
An Bord Tr3cht31a
Forbairt ( ( (
10t Ireland I
FA
Bord Faille (
Bar1ksFinanc1al Insmiddot itulions I
Dcpartmenl of Social Welfare
Buiness Innovation Centre
European lnfc rmat1on Centre
AfJjJCJICfiY E l
Appendix F Framework of Agreement between County Meath CEB and County Meath LEADER II Group
MEMOHANDUM OF AGHEFMFNT
JelVtLll
The Meath County Fn1erpnse Board Ltd
and
Mca th Leader 11
Given he -i1n1brilics bl(lLll ccnnn ispeCls of the n1ni1 of bnth Counry Enterprise Hoard ind lc1dcr
IL ii b 11ceptcJ th11 i high ltkne of co-orxru1on is rcql1inJ to tbullns11n that dtmiddotserv1ng proiccis giin
n11xi1nl1111 txncfit fron1 he s11p1x111 1ncchanis11h avulihh V1tlun hoth orgu11-11in11s_ Vhdc s~ 11HL
division of rcsponsiliililics is possibl~ t outlined hcIO 11 1s ncogni cJ 11111 both groups need 10 1dop1
tn OJICll n(Xihh tpproteh IO the ltsk of f)TltJCCing ClllflCS 111J tppliCtliOllS
lc1dcr II -ill ha prin1a~middot n spon~ibilitv ill 11lc Couniy f()r lhc st1ppon of p1ojlmiddotCS f10111 the frgtllovi11~
sectors
bull Craft Enttrpnscs Cfor fin1nciil suppon ilh 1 li1n11cd fcxmiddotus on soft suppons)
bull Kurii Touris1n
bull Proicn- p1n1nnttd hy Co111111u11i1y CnH1P
bull Exploilition and M1rke1ing of lor1I agriculcur1I fcxxl for(siry tnd fishtnts products
bull Envuonn1tnl for ht follomiddotinJ mc1surcs middot
e Prtscrv1tion ind dcvlmiddotloprnenl of the existing 1rch11te1ur1I heriti(lbull ind bullillages
bull Suppo11 for n1hur1I Cfl111v1ty ind the pron1ot1un C1f cultur1I product- linked ith nir~d
ltlevelcip111ent
bull Prot~ctron rch1btli111ion ind explollllion of nuural rccurces (Oor1 fiunt srndl s1rc11ns
ccc) ind bncl~tpcs
bull Di1x1s1I 1nd fC()ding Clf ISie illdl1ding llSt or energy pnxluuion
ll1is i111plies th11 Le1ltler II tvill cngig1middot 111 p1--delmiddotlltipn1lmiddotnt 1ni11nins research tnd 1111rkc1ing ind he
prin11rily nspons1hlc for the c1pi1d invt~1111enl 1s-oci11ed Vith tht dcvcloprnent of vdue-iltld(d fotgtlt1
produce ind viii dso pronss rtqutsts for 1id for c1p1rd intslmeni ln1ploy111cnt grants 1111rktting
ind 111ining s11ppon- in lht 1hovl stcio1s
The County Enttrpnsc l3cgt1rltl tvill continu1 10 support f(bull1siliilicy cap1td ind (rnploy1ncnl projcd
l1id1 li1vt tilt c1p1lt ily ro gtntricc ernpkraquobull111tn1 v11h1n tll otlllmiddotr -ltmiddotciors Po1cnt1tl projects vhich 111cit
This rtquirvnicnc viii he rtfcrrtd to tteh otliLr in 1cltorltlincc Vitll tlus Agrtllllcnl
middot111t 1ltith Coun1y Enterprise Boird lld ind ilcalh Lealtlcr II arlmiddot lOn1n1incd to rn11ntaining open lines
nf cn111n1un1c11ton tn in1plcn1er1t the tcnn- of thi u11dirs11nd1ng ind alsn co111111ir 1h11 the Chief
Execu1ivltmiddot OfficLmiddotrs will n1eet hH1ndly on 1 111onclilmiddot li1sis to v11s111c cff1cilnt i1npllnhnt1tilgtn middot111i
AgretlllLnt tltgt co111inue 111 orxr11ion un11I _l_t Oeccn1her 19)7 ind viii Ix suh1cc1 10 rcvittmiddot by the
1cith County Enterprise Board 11cl 1n consult1t1011 Vith Lcidtr IL
101hi11g in chis A_irec1ntnt shtll he cltJntruccl 10 li111i1 DI tLStnu lhe _1in11D1y il1nu1011s 111d n1xr1titJns
of till 11lmiddot1th Coun1y Enttrprbc Bo1rd 11cl or lc1der II
Pn1lint B1ker Torn Clinton
Ch11rr111n Ch11n11111
middotlttth Coun1y Enlerprisc Boud Ltd Mc11h lc1dtr II
~ppcndrx I I
Appendix G Terms of Reference for Interdepartmental Policy Committee
Thn New Committees Role
The Role of the new Committee to be cl1Jired by Minister of ~late Finnel will Ix
shned by the Local Demiddotelopnlltnt Mind1Itmiddot given to Department of Tourism Sport
and lkcrca11on by the (jovcrnmenL Key items in that bndate which fall into the
Coumittees remit will mcluclc
A PronH)ticJn of tile integral(lt dcvelop111cnt of tl1e 111o~n dis~1dvantaged urban con1n1unitics hy ensuring that their needs are addresscd ()11 a priority ~incl
coordinated basis in conjunction vi1h 1rea Partnership lton1panie~ by all nlevanr public agencies
bull middot1l1is is regarded as the 1nost urgent priltgtrity
bull Tlw focus will be on developing the opti1ml approach to addressing
the needs of these areas
bull Special co-on linated all-out etfltJl1 in a nun1bcr ltgtf s1nall areas
j B Co-cgtrdination of Ioc~1l lgtcvcloprnent iniriatives and prcp~trnion for the
post - 1999 transition to an integrated Local Development ancl Local
Govcrnn1cnr systc1n
bull 1oc~d l)evelopn1enl IiaiS(gtn Jean1 issues
bull Adclnssing rclevan1 local clcvelopn1cnt issues raised in l3etter Loc~d
(overnnltnt - ~1 Prngra111111e fltgtr CJ1angc anU lh( recenlly ruhl1sliecl Hcport of the J)evcgtlu1ion Co111111ission
bull middotrhe en1phasis vlll ht ltgtn en~uring thal the posi11ve dcvelopn1ents and effective lltV V~l)S of VOrking resulting fro1n Local l)evelop111ent
and Partnership initiative~ arc preserved and strengthened in the
developnltlll nf i renevecl Loc1I Govern111ent
C The Oper1tiond Progrimmc for Locd Urb1n 111cl Rural Development
ancl its sh1pe post - 1lt)99
middot middotrhL 1nain tmiddottsks Vill be tltgt
bull Secure hl btmiddot~r co-ordinttion hltveen the various i111rle1nerHing
1ge11cie- l)ep111n1ents etc
r1jJjJlllriz~y G 7
bull Seek 10 ensure chat problcn1s incl issucs vhlch ~1rise il ~1 local level
ire n-ponclecl ro incl rcsolveltI
bull lclencify i1en1s tltgt be n11instrc1111ed in tern1s cgtf overall policy
bull Consider 1he ou1line of i new 011URJ) for the post - 1999 penocl
taking into ~1ccount the viC-middot of the Social Partncri
D Co-urclin11iun of (gtV(rltdl Govern1nent Policy on Local l)evekgtpn1ent
bull middotr1ie Jn1er-l)epan111ental Pt)licy Con11ni11ee on Loc~d J)evelopn1en1 Vill
be a key foru 111
bull Scctltgtrtl is-ues viii he considered fro111 1he perspective of
encouraging gre~ttcr cO-ltgtrdin~ttion and integr1tion of delivery of
services It local hvel
bull
Local Development Initiatives
middot
- shy~~ ~~ltmiddot~-
middot
middot~
1 Introduction
Background to Local Development Initiatives
11 Since htbull ltarly 1)90 the (omiddoternn1tmiddotn1 middotill1 the support of 1hc European
lJnion (_lmiddotl) h1s introdutcd 1 nun1hvr of policy initiatives in suppo11 of hxil sltx-ioshy
eltcgtncgtnlilmiddot clcvelltlp1ncnt Tlteslt 1ni1i1timiddotcs stc111111cd fngt1n htmiddot pertcivcd L1ilt1re (Jf
cxiting pnlicicmiddots to _hirl lfllmiddot benefit ol 1middotcono111ic gnnmiddotth lmiddotquitahly tcrn-s local
ro11H1H1nililS ind 111Hn1g thl 111ore distdmiddot1n11gtmiddotd scctCJr of Irish iocitImiddot (~llltrtl to
1hc initiatives ts tliemiddot cn~11ion of lllcd lll1ployn1cn1 oppnnunititmiddot togetlitmiddotr Villi
llHISllrtmiddots to 11cklc cduc1tional distclvan11glmiddot tJlmiddotirltlflllltnlil cl1c1y ind ocial
lxclusion middotrhe IH~v pc ii icy alio n11rked 1 revers~1l fro111 the tr1ditio11al htmiddotgi111ony DI
central govltrnnitmiddotn1 by nmiddotcognising iht roll Vhich local cu11111111ni1amiddot c1n play in
the proctsi of lCltHlltunic trKI Sltgtc1al dtbull(lopn1enc
12 r pri11IJI) purpo--l of Incil J)evelop111lnl V1- co identify Jprropnllt Vays of
-tin1uLtting tll rllvvant luctl re-ources 111 suppo11 of Lllterpngti deth)pn1vn1 ind
tickling long-tern1 unernploy111ent hough llLttetL lhe-imiddot 1rt di-rinct uhjccliVLS 1nU
tlil vXtmiddotnr ro middothich they could htbull 1sotiatcd in operationd llllll- rc1111ined tn he
lthlished it that ti111e
13 IIH 1111in ekmiddotnlLllC ()f the llt appro1ch middotLlL
bull p1rtnersliip hllVtmiddotcn stitulory hu ines ind cD111nH1nity scctnrgt
bull dtmiddotmiddotulurinn to local bodies of lllltmiddotds idcntifiLation pL1nning to-ordi111Cio11 of
progr11111tltS dvlill of 1r111ova1it and ctmiddotriain other action tnd 111on11()ring
of progres
bull involvcrncnt of the eniirlt co111n1unity cspcciilly d1sHhmiddot1nt1gcd groups
bull 1dltl[Hilt1n cgtf a Jtili-li(middot ll)PH)tclt l1tbullrtbulll)y l(l)flCgtllliC 111d S(icmiddoti~1J dlVtbullhipnlcllt
VOllld OCClll (CllCUllellliy
13 middotrt1tmiddot Hhnini-rrililtlll (Jf Lo~middot1l J)tmiddotvlmiddotlopnHmiddotnr in Ireland is cl1ssi1111l1r legt 1ll11 in
oth1 middotr FlJ countriis in li1tl
bull lhltrl artbull i nu111lill of di1inc1 pn1gr1n1n1cs
bull there i strong centrd gullllllhllt 111d EU involve111tlll
bull 111middotv local 1d111ini-tr1t1vc s1n1c1111middotls -ere demiddoticcJ inderH1Hllnt ()r lXiring local
govlmiddotrn111cnt structu1
Ctmiddotrrril goven1111enl control- the hulk of public fininces At locil ltmiddotvel local
aulill gtril ilt~ ft 1 net ions h1 ve 1llen li111i1ed Ct ivering n11ttcrs such ts roads -1ni111ion
111d housing ihill 1hvonric1llv locil ~1u1lionl1tS co1dd lllgtgLmiddot in 111a11v uther ()cal
c lemiddot l le iJ Hnen t
hinmiddotling ~ygttlIll 111d ittthility 10 pursue ltl ignificull ltgtctl c1x11ion middotYtcn1_ 1 middotr1sk
oca Je1ehJ[J111e111 lnitiatiues
Force 1 esrtblish~cl by rhe Governn1tnl 1nadc i nu111her of rtco1n1ncnd1tions in 1
rcpon 111 August 1998 regarcl1ng the mtcgration of local dcvdopment with local
government These ere approved by the Government in September 1998 (sec
paragraphs 10 to 3 31)
Organisational and Management Arrangements
15 The tO main EU funded programmes providing suppon for Local
Development arc the Opernional Programme for Local Urban 1nd Hural
Devclormcnt (OlLUHD) ind 1he llADEH II lrogr1111111c These Opcrntional
lrog11mmcs were drafted by the Department of the Tao1sc1ch and 1hc Dep1rtmen1
of Agriculture and Food (Agricuhure 1nd Food) respectively within EU guidelines
incl 1grced Vith the EU Co1n111ission
16 Each sub-progr1111111e of 011UlI) and IEADER 11 is 1clm1nistc1nl locally by di1inc1 Local J)evelop1ncn1 bodilts middotrhis c11nin~1tion is concerned Vilh Lltx~il
l)evelop111en1 acrivilies 1cl1niniscercd by Coun1y Enlerprise Bltgtards and 1re1-Based
111111crship Companies under OlLURD and by LEADEl groups under LEADER II Hcspons1bili1y for rhee bodies coines under chi rc1nit of three scpar11lt Governn1en1
Dep111ments (sec 11gurc II)
Co1111ty pound11er[Jrise Boards
17 Crn1111y Enterprise lloirds ((Ells) were established 111 Oe1olier 1993 wnh the
tilll or fu tering incl f1cilitating che LCOll01l1iC dcvelopn1ent of local area~ Each CEB
Vts required 10 clrt1 up 1 Counry 1nccrprise Pltn incl its iccions incl prupo-als are
Figure 11 Main Departments and Local Development bodies
Enterprise Trade and
Employment
County Enterprise
Boards
Tourism Sport Government and Recreation Departments and Agriculture
and Area Intermediary and Food DevelopmenlCompany
Management Ltd
bull
Area-Based
Local LEADERPartnershipsDevelopment groupsCompanies and
Bodies community groups
1Jc To5k fmiddot(Jtmiddotccmiddot R(Xlrt u11 rbe 1tfpound7ratiu11 lt oc(lf (io1en1111e1u (11tf Local Jc1elo1me11t Srs1e111s bullbull~Ql( 19)i
2
---1tfrotluct1un
ha ed on 1hi plan middotrhertmiddot art 51 ltEBs in total covering county and urban local
~ll1hori1y 1rc1s Ftch (~EB h1s 1-i 111e1111Jer irHluding repngtStIltHivls of local
govltrnn1c11t public Stl or 1g~ncics hu1ntmiddots Lun1ing lradt union and co11111n1ni1y
inlTest
lH middotrhc CEBs provide 1 r1nge of enltrprigtt -upp()rt -ervices al local levt l eg
admiddot1 ic~ and coun~tlling hus1ncmiddot infonnaiion financial 1sis1ancc and 111an1gtIlllnc
dcmiddottlop11l(Jll middotrhtbull firgltl group- ~tre husinltsse- co11111nu1i1y groups individud
en rcprtJ1(lJrs 1nd -n1i[] enterprises cEBs tonk OVtf re-gtpon-ihililv frorll lhl fltgtrlller
Industrial i)tclop111cnt u1hori1y (ll)A) for the devt~lDpllhllt of 111anufac111ring and
inl =rna1iont gtervicc - finn~ Vilh ltmiddot s th111 ten en1ploycmiddotc In 1ddi1ion_ thtmiddoty is-u111cd
the l1tmiddot roll of pngt11101in~ 111 vnltTpriL culturt
l~1 J-ro111 1hc outet the i)tgtp1r1111lnt of Entcrprist middotrrade and F1nployn1cnt
( Enterpri-e middotrr1dtmiddot 111d L111ploynHmiddotn1) has been responsiblt for co-ord1n~Hing and
supcrvising the crBgt lniti11ly dec1~ions on grant payn1ent~ lo individual projecls
vtre vetted by hl f)t1gt1rt111enl 11ltgttVtL (~EBs Vere ccgtr1s1i1111cd as lin1ited liahili1y
l0111p1nies during iltJltJ) and ifl(I 1January 19CJ(i hive 111idc grtnt decisions
110 Stiffing accon1111ltJLlatiun and 01hcr expen es V(~1tmiddot ini1i1lly provided liy lhtmiddot
lul ii 1u1horitics on a recoupn1cnr lgtt~i and ah hough the CFBs anmiddot nov
inl orporatccl rntny havtmiddot coniinutd Viti lliis 1rrangen1cn1
111 Funding for ltt]is is co-fin111ctmiddotd by Elj _1ruc1urtl funds via suh-progra1111ne I
of 011UHD mcl hv the hchequlr
Ara-amp1setl lc1rt11erslJiJ (-tJn11c111ies
112 1ret-Bit~d 11rtntrhip co1np1nies ltPa11ncrship) vere originally c-tihlished
in 12 ~1rltmiddotmiddotas un 1 pilot hi~i in 1991 10 in1phnhnt an nca-hastmiddotd nmiddotspollgtt to longshy
tlrrn unen1pl(lyn1tlll under tile Progra111111e for Econoinic and Sul-i1I Progrltss (PESP)
_JH Partnerships havt hcen lSt1hlished (2() urhJn ind 1- rural) lo optrat in 55 areas
dtig11Htmiddotd by 1hc (~ovvnlllltlll i~ hling disidvan1~1gtd In 1cldi1ion lherc ire 55 C(lJllllH1nity dcmiddotLmiddotlop111ent groups in non-dtmiddotsig111ted arets middot1J1ch c1ny oul fu11ctior1s
i111iltr to tho~v uf 1he 11r111er-liips middotrile Boards of i)irectors of the co111panil-gt lll
drvn fror11 (1) 1he SlgtCiil p1nncr (ii l -ttle 1genc1tmiddots ind (iii) co111111unity ~ind
vc gt t1n1tr~- cHg111is1 tio11
tmiddot13 The function~ nf the P1rntrsliip art to preptre lnc1I dcmiddottlopn1t~n1 pl1n _ in
con~tdtalion vi1h otl1LI local groups incl hudicmiddots_ to lOLHlltf d1stdvan11gc in 1hcir
~trtts and tiltn lo hlmiddotl thlmiddot-c plans i111ptmiddotn1cmiddotn1td middotrile pl111 oullines the rangt of
socitl ind lmiddotcono111ic tSSlltS to ht addrtmiddot scd in lhimiddot l1rget trta and the ohjeclive to
Ill pursultd h1scd on tile resuh of ~1 ltgtcio-ccono111ic analysis of lhc iret middotrliLmiddot
intbulllllion i~ ro 1tLmiddotlcr11c lnlt11 eronoinic dltmiddotvltmiddotlorn1e1H increise frnrloynHmiddotnt ind
local Develop111e11t l11itiati1es
tickle cxclu~ion incl 1nargintlisa1ion resulting fro111 long-llflll une111ploy111ent vc1y
vide r1nge of 1ctivities i~ unde111ken including job pltCLlllCIH adull education
training con111n1ni1y clevelopn1lmiddotn1 cnviro1111H111tl projLCI~ and youth iniliHives
114 An indepenckn1 in1c1mcdia1y company wis eslahlished in 1992 in111ally under
1he aqigt of 1he Dep111men1of1he Tioisetch and subgtltltjlltgtnily from midmiddot 1997 1he
Depanmcn1 of Tourism Spon and lkcre11ion (Tourism Spon and Hecreuion) 10
oversee 1hc P1nnersllips ind Jocd devclopn1tnl groups middotrhe con1pany 1rca
i)(velopmet11 M1n1gemen1 Iid (ADM) is required 10 cv1lu11e plins from
Ptrlllt~r~hips corn111unity groups ind selecled organisHions lO 1J1ocatc resources in
1ccord1ncc Vilh the eviluation resul1s ind ro 111onitor LXpenditure incl perfon11~1nce
by btneficiarits Over lj(YtJ of funding is spent by tile lartncrsliips incl (he re1111inder
is spent by co1n1nuni1y gro11ps ind nHionil nrgani11ions
115 funding for P1rtnerships co1111nuni1y groups and eligible spending bv selected n11iond org1nisarions is co-fin1ncecl by ElJ s1n1ctural funds incl by the
Exchequer EU funding is provided uh-progrtmme 2 of 011uRD
LEADER
116 This EU lni1ia11vcmiddot for rural devdopmenl w1s origin1lly bunched 111 1991
(lEADloR 1) The obwrnw of 1hc progr11nme wis 10 ltS11lilish locli devdopmen1
1ction groups bullhich voulcl bt responsible for 1he in1plcn1cn11tion of business pl1ns
for heir areis lE1l)EH I v1s 1he subjecl of 111y firs value for 111oney exa111ini1ion
comple1ed 1n Decemhe1 1994 The ini1i111ve wis co111inued under 1he Oper11ional
lrog11mme for IEADER 11 covering ihe period 1994 10 1999 There tre 34 approved
1EADlR groups (is opposed IO 16 group in 1hc orig1nli progr111Hnc) These 11e
iu10110111011- lcg1l cntilies each conrrollecl by 1 boird 111d opeining under 111
igreen1en1 Vith the J)cp111111cnt of gricul1urc and Food (Agriculture incl Fuuclgt Jht-
l)epa1111Hmiddotn1 required th11 the bo1rds h1ve 1 1ripar1ite s1n1crure representative of 1he
con1111unity incl volunt1ry sec1ur luc1l Stite ~1gencies and the priv11t I con11ncrcitl
sector
117 Unlike 1he 01her lniti11ives covered in 1h1gt ex1111in11ion (which are csset11ilily
n11io11il policy initiHivc-) lEAl)EH i in EU lnitiitivl Vliich Va designed incl
Ln1nchccl by the turope~111 Co111111issio11 his 1ne1ns 1hi1 he in1plc111enlalio11 of
LEAJ)flt its 1in1ing ind opertting rules ~in de1ennined Ltrgel~middot Vithin 1ht EU
Co111n1i~sion 1uncling for rhe LEl)EH II lrogr1111n1e is co-financed fron1 ElJ
s1n1c111ioli f11nd the 1lADEH Opci1110111 lrogrunmc 1))4-1999 rnd by ihe
Exchequer
4
In 1roclzut1on
Sc1urces of Finance
118 The Fll Commission incl rhe Exchequer prolidccl funding for the 1niria11middotes inmiddot
the period 199i-199H follows
EU hchequer Toril
pound-111 t-111 ~-nl
CEils 465 516 98 I Parntrships 530 181 711
LEIDER groups 272 ILG 388
126 7 81) 208 0
Scope and objectives of the examination
1l) middotrhe cxa111in~1tion V~1s concerned only vi1h initiatives to pron1ott local
clebullclop111em rhrough Counrv Enrcrprisc Boards Ptrrnerships and LEADEH groups
Thue are 111anv orher ml[1nives for local devdopmcm such as URBAN Terrironal
E11l)loy1nent Picts Pe~tce ~incl Heconciiation 111d lnterreg II vhich ire outside the
scogtc of this ex~1111ina1ion
12middotJ Nei1her iJ)-1 nor the l1rtnershirs arv covered by 111y statutory value fcgt1 11101ey nn1i1 In the interest of producing i cohcivc report on locil l)lmiddotvclopn1cnt
ini1=11ivlts 1hey igreed that the exa111inuion ~hould he extended to chc111 middotrhcir coshy
OJX ration in 1liis resptmiddotlmiddot1 i~ icknovllmiddotclgecl
121 The overall objec11vcs of rhc c1n1inar1on w
bull ro ltVal11are rhc administrative effwncv ol rhc llltXlit (Chaprer 2)
bull lo asstmiddotss the extent of duplic~Hion and co-ordin1tion ~1rrangen1en1s ltCh1p1cr j)
bull to ev~dualc thl operHional efficiency of the bodies (Chipttr 4)
bull to coniidcr ho- tlii i1n1x1ct of 11ie holtl1e~ can hl asscmiddotssecl (Ch1p1cr 5)
1nr The p1opltJ-f of Illgt c_rrn11iiu111011 CFHgt lar111lmiddot-Ji1ps and 1eoJ(1middot grv11S uill IA Fccmiddoti-rlmiddotd l u lrJl(I
)c1lffJ[gtl11ltf hodico
5
loca l)evelojJ1ne1u 11itiatitCs
122 The main issues considered are
Issue Evaluation Criteria
Administrative efficiency Administration costs bull bull Human resources bull Adequacy of management
information systems
Co-ordination of activities Duplicationbull bull Co-ordination
Operational efficiency Targets and performance bull bull Resource allocation and outturn
bull Deadweight and displacement
Impact assessment Quantitative assessments bull bull Qualitative assessments
Methodology
123 Officials 111 the Depanmem of Amicroricuhure and Food the Dcpanmcnr of
Tourism Spoil and lkcrea11on 1he Department of Enlerprise Tracie and
Employmcm 111cl 1DM were interviewed Oua and pipcrs rcbting to targets cosl
and perfon11~1nce Vere ex11nined Analysis Vas carried out of cost and perfonnance
clua aria1ion in perfonnance ck1t1 vas used as a basis for selecting individual Loctl
Development bodies for funher examimtion
124 Selcc1ed CEl3s LEADEH groups and Partnerships were visi1ecl Helevant
personnel Vere intervi(Ld and individual rrojecls Vere visited Sevtrd CISC studies
Vtre identified during the co11rse of this vork and thc~c arc used in this rero11 to
illustr11i key i1SULS middotrhcy should not be ngarltled a1 rcpresentHivi of the cype of
pro1ee1s supponed hy the bodies
125 1Vleetings Vere held vith offici1Js fro1n the l)ep1nn1en1 of the E11viro11111ent
and Loctl Goern111ent ind Ille Co111ba1 lovlmiddotrty Agency lntervieVS look place Vith
the folJoving orga11is~11ions PlJtEmiddotr (Ille netvork of Arc~1-B1scd igtJnnerships)
Comhar IEADER 1u hiireann (tire network of 11ADEH groups) 1he ssociation of
Chief txecutives of Counly EnrcrprisC Bo1rcls (representing County Enlerprise
l3001rcls) the Irish 10111onal Orga1ma11on for 1he ncmployecl (INOU) he
Ken Cork iortb a1ul So111h )uhill CFJJs Trti li )011epal 11ihot1c11 a11d Northside art11lrh1J Fexford Ora11iflfio11 fur R11ral IJltbull1ltlup111c111 anti lao1bull tJ-1nHk Rural Dtbull1tlop111e111 Co Jd (IJ-ADJR ~rn11p) lv11sfonl Co1111111111i~~middot RrrJ1rCli Jd (1d S(J11rh lerry IAmiddottlIOJtllllll Part11crbip Jd (comhi11(c JHADERPart11c1~hip orxa11iatio11~j
6
J11frotll1 rI ion
Conf~r~nr~ of lkhg1ot1s 111 JrcmiddotLrnd (CORIJ vb Yvonne Murplrv lks~ardwr 111d Prof
J1111es A Walsh gtill Mrvnooth
)26 1n eternaJ exrerl IS lt ngagtbulld IO adviSl on the 1ncthodo(ogy of tht --Udy
and rlvtev the study findings_middot
7
2 Administrative Efficiency
21 Tlfrbull chtpter is concerned with the dliciencl of the CEils ltrtnergthips incl
llADER groups in iclminigtIenng locd Development ini111I11es loc1I Dcvdopment
is chirictltnsecl bv t 111uliplirny of object11es mcl ac11vi1ies The control of
achninisrrilive expendirure is 1chicvccl hy reference to stiffing levels pay rates tnd
1he re1sonablcness of 01her 1cl1ninistration expenses
22 Thlt clivers11y of 1he 1c1ivi11es of Local Development bodies ind 1he nexibili1y
in hov rhey set about 1chieving their objecrives li111it rhl extent to vhich cross
co111parisons of efficiency can btmiddot 111ade Neither unifonn perfonnanre inclicarors nor
co111111on infonnirion sysEc1ns on 1cl111inis1ruivc efficiency 1cross the ini1i1tivcs l1ave
been cle1middotcJopecl
23 The ptriocl covered in 1he chtpler is I994- I 998 indus1le However cle11ilecl
tndysrs ti indiviclutl Loctl Dltvelop111ent bodies ielel rel11es 10 I99i - 1997 II
should be noted thu local l)cvelop111ent bodies did 1101 co1nn1ence si1nultancously
incl 1h11 1he lime 11ken 10 esttblish indivicl11d local groups viriccl Accorclingly
expencli1ure in the early ye~trs rel~tles to the middotfullmiddot 1crivilics of i 111inority of groups
and the st111up plt1se of 111any lcgteal groups
24 middotrhe issues incl Calualion cri1t~ri1 used in thi chaptc1 are
Issue Evaluation Criteria
Administration costs Administration costs as a percentage bull of total expenditure
Human resources Extent of Board input bull Staff skills bull
Adequacy of management Data collecllon by Local Development bodies bull information systems Integration of data at national level bull
bull Reporting and monitoring
Administration Costs
25 The tottl 1111oun1 of expcncl1111rc incurred lw Local Develormcnt IJoclics m the
pen0ltI 1994 10 1998 was s208 mrll1on This is tntlysed in Ttble 2 I
26 middotrhc totil expenditure incurred can ht- categorised inro ad1ninisrration costs
vhich are the costs of running the relevant office-i and other exrenditurc Vhich is
cliviclecl IJeteen direct fin1nciil issis1ance 10 enterprise~ ~ind exp~ncliturc on
1ctivirics to incn1se enterprise avireness pro11101e con111n1ni1y dcvclop111cn1 or
redress clis~1dv1nt1ge
8
Atl111i11 ist rrttilt ~lie ic11c_ v
Ta~le 21 Expenditurebull by Local Development bodies 1994-1998
CEBs
P3rtnersh1ps
and other
LloADER Groups
Total
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
poundm poundm poundm poundm poundm
82 28
19 9 46
216 104
230 232
254 301
1 6 53 11 7 202
11 0 261 373 579 75 7
Norg a Expenditure relates to activities under OPLURD and LEADER II Some Local Development bodies also incur expenditure on other activities which arc not funded under OPLURD or LEADER and which are outside the scope of the examination Details for 1995-1997 are contained in Appendix A
b The total expenditure in the table includes Partnerships Community Groups and selected National Organisations
c Includes selected sectoral groups Annual reports of OPLURD and LEADER for 1998
Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total EJcpenditure
2i 1d1ninistra1ion costs 1 a perceniage of total expenditure in the period 1995 shy197 are shown in Tabk 2 L (There was link ad11uniscra11on pending in 1994)
2S dn1inistraliOn CDSIS IS J pcrcen1agt of tOtt[ eXJ1tl1citure decreaStcl uver the
period 199i 10 1997 for t~1ch iniriativtmiddot middotrhis JS clul n11inly co the face that it took
so1ne tin1c for rhe developnHnc groups 10 beco1ne opcrHional 1ncl hence 11n1ch of
the initial expenditure vas on adn1inistration rather thin activic1es This trend i~
1x111iculirly nocKeablc in che cise of LEADER groups md lirtnerships where
acl111inistrHion co1s 1s a percent1ge of tottl expencliture clroppecl sultilanli~11ly
middotrh1re Vere so1ne varialiuns betveen intlividt1al ltEls LFl)FH gnntps ind
Jgta1tnersl1ips middotr11ese ire considered belO Cfhe 1cl111inistration costs of Local
Deiclopnwn1 bodies are shown 111 Appendix B)
CltJUlllJmiddot E11te1prise Rltgttlrtls
29 1middot1icrc v(middotrc no great variations in rhc ad111inistruion costs incurred by che
CEl3s w11h lhe mqorill spending helWtCn pound 100000 and Jl )0000 per innum
1n1lysis of 1997 dat1 shc)Ytbullcl 1h~11 the adn1inistra1ion costs of n1ost CEBs V(n Vithin
1 ~1 r1nge of I ~Ai 10 25S~1 in rel~llion to tnttl expenditure The )ov~st Vas f)uhlin City
H J 1 with Cork Norch being che h1ghcsc ac 11 The level is scronglv mlluencecl IJy
the extent to vhich CFI3s are involved in the provision of gruus is chis increases the
9
local l)cuer4J11unt lnitiaflvcs
Table 22 Administration costs as a percentage of total expenditure
CEBs Partnershipsbull LEADER Groupsbull
Total
1995
poundm
49
15
08
72
Admin c
1996
poundm
43
41
16
100
istration osts
1997
poundm
44
53
20
11 7
Percentage of total expenditure
1995 1996 1997
25 20 19
34 44 28
51 31 17
28 28 22
Note B The figures exclude Community Groups and selected National Organisations b Excludes selected sectoral groups
Source Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General see Appendix A
level of overill expenditure In the c1sc of Cork North their mtin activities are
ini111~1tion incl the rrobullision of suppor1 such 1s counselling and training
wh1Chwould involve lowtr levels of expenditure rlm1 the supply of grant aJCI In the
case of other CFl3s such 1s Dublin City the focus was pnnnpally on the pronsion
of grtnl aid
Part11ersJips
210 P111nersh1ps generally spenl between l)0000 ind l200000 on adminisrruion
1n l997 with some excep11ons Mos 11rtnersl11ps which were esiiblished before
OPLURD had lower adminis1ru1on costs as a percentage of 1otal expenduure rhan
those wl11ch were srtnecl under OPIUlm In 1997 adminis1ra11on expenditure as a
perceniage of 1otil expencliture vas generally in the r1nge of 200u to 40Yo vith the
lowesl a 13 (in rhe case of i011hsidc in Dublin) 10 rhe highest m 51 (1n rhe
case of lnishovltn in J)o11cgal) il1ile 1c111al adn1inistration exptnditure vas si111il1r
in borh Partnerships expenditure on 1crivi1ies VIS significantly greater in Nonhside
as compared ro Donegil lnishowen which wis still in a scr up phase The riming
of projects locil rriorilies in the i1nple111ent1Cion of business rt~1n ind the nu1nbcr
of yltars the Jgtartner-hips have been operating have tn in1p1c1 on the adrninistritivc
cos1s percent1ge indicator
IEADER G10llJlt
211 LEADEH groups genenilly spenr lgtetween 50000 incl U00000 on
~1d1ninis1r1tion in 1997 Vith son1e exceptions In 1997 1dn1inis1rJtion expenditure ~1s
a percentage of 101al expenditure was generally in rhe r111gc 10 to 20 wuh the
lowest at 7 (in rhe c1SL of IJirrow-Nore-Suir) 10 rhe h1ghes1 ll 45 (in the case of
Comhm lorrais) While 1dminis1rarion expenditure wis simiLtr 111 borh LEADlR
10
Adn1i11istrati1cbull IJiciellcy
groups expendilurc on activities (including ~1nin1ation ind provision of grants) v1s
significanlly gnatcr in BarrO-Norc-Suir cor11p1red LO (cJJ11h1ir lnrr1is_ middotr1ierc llL 1
nuirtlltr of factors that can give rise to the variation uch a- hov Vt11 cst1blishcd
lhe sroup is local priorities in the in1ple111ent~1tion of the bu-iiness plan tilt tin1ing
of pro1ecis and 1hc lcnI of grant ml
Human Resources
21lt The loc1I charancr of each of he Local Devclopnw111 boclies mcl the nllure 1 ~incl diversity of thlir operHions n1ean thH thty h1vc l Sllbs11nti1I rolt of initiating
and co ordinating ac11vnies in co-operit1on ith 1 Viele v1ric1y of volunt~1ry and
stttutory org1nisu1ons (see Chapter 3) middotrhe achieve111t~n1 of their objectives is
I clepcndenl on _rhe avail~1hility of high quality plrsonn~I al Board tncl suh-co111111it1Ll
level and clecl1uted high ctl1bre s111f
Extent of Board Input I
2 B There 1s significant input it Boircl level for all of 1he bocl1es Arouncl 1wo 1hircb
of ( EBs operate sub-Boarcl co1111111nccs and half of these suigt-COlllllllllecs inclucle
1 111cn1lxmiddotr clravn fron1 1he local con1n1unit vho are nnt Boltncl clirector ~ middotrhis
invch-t~n1erH in 1octl l)evelopn1tnr bodies e1~tail~ a high dcgrLL of co111n1itn1en1 fro111
people vho are alrctdy active in their local co111111unitics
214 Pr1ctically ill Pirtnerships have suh-co1111111trecs on con1111unity ltlevelopnhmiddotnt=
I education and cnltrpri-e ~incl 111ost LEAl)EH microruups h~1ve -llh-co111111itte1middots on rurtl
touris111environnHn1 natural resources and s111all husinesscraftgt~erviccsr
Prermiddotaratory vork alllndince at 111cct1ngs ancl follov ur ~1ctivities pl1cc considerable
ti111c den1ands on Board and -ub-co111n1ittet 1ne1nbers l)uring chc exuninHion
I lt1bu11clan1 lViclence Vts found of the con1111itn1ent incl skill of Board n1en1lgters and
111en1htmiddotrs of suh-connniutes
Stciff Skills
215 A wide variety of skills is requirecl of 1cxal Developmem swff to match the
range of act1vitilmiddots 11ncle11~1ken middotrhis feature is ranicularly i111portan1 for LEAl)EH
I groL ps and P1rtnershirs clue to tht extent of their nmiddotn1i1 middotrhe staff nf Local
J)cvltmiddotlop111cnt bodies are highly qualified According co ~1 ncenl survey 5lVo of the
i-~~F ond Ihl lCgtfal Jr)(111 c111d RlflI )c11h1p111tllf PTT1JiHlllll1l f11ropca11 )(lt1a F111u Pro~ra1111111
1ttd11a1io11 Unll Apnl (JJJ
1)p(rt111011(1 fro~rc1111111e fnr IJAJ)FJ II (rJl11111111 11ilrcll1Utmiddot iI( Tlr11 R1bull1re11 Rtbullfx11 3re1uftu1 ((middott1rne1 middot (11t A ~(Jlt ialt3 199 7
II
(JC(l )e(lltJjJ11CI 11itiatiU(
CEOs of CEBs huld post-griduite que11ilkirion and funher 2()0 hive prima11middot
ckgrce In the cise of Partnerships 6()0o of 1nan1gers hold a post-gr1du~1te
qualificllion and a funher 24degAgt h1ve 1 pri1n1ry degret
216 flu rc-nurcefulnes- of Lltxil l)cmiddotelop111ent s11ff IS cvident during the course
of the eXltllllill1li01l
Adequacy of Management Information Systems
217 ht avaiL1bili1y of gncgtd 1111111ge111ent infonnation sys1e111s is 1 pnrequisitc fnr
cfficicnt icl1ninis1ration of the inititrives ind for ensuring thll rlllVLnt incl reli1hle
d1t1 is 1v1ilablc for pl1nning plrfonnince 111onitoring ind ev1luation An in-depth
rcvieV of the 1111n1ge1nen1 infon1111ion sysh111s in use Vas 1101 incl11dtd 1n the scope
of the ex1111ina1ion_ 1-lovever ce111in cltfic1cncics in the systen1s htmiddotc1111e app1rent
in discussions Vith officitls in 1hc locil f)evelnp111ent bodies ind during the
qu1n1i111ivt 1nil~middotsis vork
Data Collection by Local Development Bodies
218 E1ch of 1hc bodies opertllS scp1r11e co111pu1erisecl infonnttinn syste111s Vhirh
Vere ck~signtd by consuh1n1 under the aegis of lhe J)cpar1111cnts ind 1l)fmiddotI is
tppropnHe middotrhc pri1111ry purpose of 1hese syste1ns is 10 provide fredbtck on
ae11v1ties by eich Locd Development body ID the Dep1nme111s incl AD1vl The
syste111s should tlso provide 1111n~1ge111ent infor111a1ion for usc locally and facilitite
external evalunion 10vevtr the 1rge nun1bLmiddotr of local groups reponing 10
ditfercnt dtp1n111en1s posls pa11icul1r cJ11lltmiddotngLS tlaquoJr cL1t1 c~tpture
219 l)isc11ssions vitl1 ltgtfficials in the Local l)evelcgtprnent bodies visi1ed indicated
so1ne di~s11i-faction Villi ht kx1l use of systen1s in 1h11 they vere reg1rded as being
1101 user friendly or Vere perceivcd as not being fully suited 10 loc~tl 1ninage111cn1
needs_ In fi(I so111e locd f)evelopn1en1 bodicmiddots h1ve kepi lhltir origin1I syste111s in
11si O -upplc111lnl 1he infon1tttinn provided by the cen1r~1lly debullcloped systeni_ middotrhe
dillicultit~s havt heen recognised ind steps 1rt being t1ke11 011 1n ongoing b1is 10
encourage grc11cr loctl u-e of the C(ntrilly developed syste111~
220 Forn1al 1rr1ngc111en1s ire nor in place Vhich VOuld f1cilitlle nuo111a1ic sharing
of infon111tio11 Joctlly icross ill of rhe groups_ 1his is not possible due to 1he
1bsnce of 1 con1111011 clicnr identifier in the thrtt co111pu1cr sys1e111s_ So111c id-hoc
shiring of dtli such ts projerl tpplicition and 1pprov1ls occurs through rneetings
be1vccn bodies ind via County Str11cgy Groups lmiddotlovcver 1his is no subs1iru1e for
a systen111ic approich to dati sharing
12
Acl111i11 isrrari1e lli-c ieJtlmiddot_ v
22 l A middotide v1riery of perfonna11ce indicnors V1s dtveloped 1hrough discus~ions
w11li 1he external evilullor and with Local Development bodies (se~ Appendix C
mcl OJ LEADEH groups ind Partnersh1ps m 1x111irnlar undertake i wide range of
tctimiddot1 ities and con-lmiddotqucnly 1hcir co111pu1er sy-1en1s c1pture ~1 Viele range of data
middotrhi c111 plicc an tLessive burden on the sn1all 1d111inb1rilie st1ff 1n these bodies
perfonn~tnce 1ncasun111en1 systc111 Vhich focu~es nn 1n agreld StI of key indicuors lo tnco111plttS~ core tctivities and ou1purs and vhich reflect- key objectives
n1ighc be n1ore appropriattmiddot 1ny addicional inforn1uion require1nents could Ix
prltrlided Jess frlmiddotquently through for ex1111ple annual rtporting arrangc111cn1s
22~ 1middot11e fnltomiddoting issues Verlt also noced
bull The p11ori1ics of d1fferen1 loc1I Dcvelopmcnl lxKlies arc not 1den1ical even
Vithin 1hc sunc Local f)cvelopn1ent ini1ia1ive For exan1ple one Local l)evclopn1cnt lxxly 111ight prioritisl 1ss1stance to cl1stclvant1ged groups vhilc 1norher rnight priontise cnterprist clevelop1ncn1_ Exisling 1ne1st1rlll1cnt syste111s do not allov 11le perfon111ncc of chese tvo gruups co be realiticdly r111kecl and con11xircd
bull Measurement should cope w11h the fact that much of the pcrform1nce under
the ini1iat1ves is qualitative in nHure Exunplcmiddots include quil11y of tr~tining openness to disadvantaged groups and qu11i1y of relacionships Vith other
st1tu101) bodies Exiscing n1easunmiddotmiddot111Lllt systcn1s do not cuer for rhcsc 1spects
of perfo1111111ct
bull f)espice initiatieS to involve locd l)evelop111ent bodies in the specificuion of
perfonnancc indicators cxisling perfon111nce n1oni1oring is frequencly seen as son1cth1ng vhich is in1pltgtstcl on groups Vilh lillll direct bcncfi1 in lenns of
e11~1bling 1hltmiddotn1 to understand hov to in1prove 1hcir Ovn perfonnancc~
22 The apprrnd1 described in Case S1uclv I gi1bulls 1n 1nclic111on of 111~ prltp1ratory
Yor involved in developing svsce111s to cviluatc rhc efficiency and tgtfflttivencss of
1he bCKlies Governmenl Dep1rtmenLlt and Local Developmenl bocl1es might es1lt1bl1sh
10 middothat cxtenc this 1ppro~1ch could hl~ applied co rhc 1neasure111en1 and n1anagc1nent
of LDcil Dcvdopmenl periorrnrnc~ Thi 1s a prercquisi1e 10 es11blishing the clati
reqt-ire111ents Yllich should be -arisficd hy the inforn11til~n sys1c1ns in u~e by LocalI l)evmiddotlop111erH bodies Under clie exis1ing s~middotsren1s the inforniHion require111cnts for
detennining 1he extenc ro Vhich value for n1oney is htmiddoting obt1ined front expencli1ure
on lhe iniliatives arl nor 1dequarCly provided for middotrhe current inadequacies of the
inforn)Hion sys1e111i lin1it the scope for evaluation middotrhc middotlid-middotrenn Ev1lt111iuns of both
llA)FR and 011LRD have drawn a11e111ion lo 1his deficiency
Ilo1rc1er 11~-tf)FR groups produce wn11e11 c11u1i1a1ilmiddote repon llriccbull year~r 011d other local 1Je1eop111eu1 lltXlics olso 111c11de c111ai1a11n aJXCt of Jfrfon1u111ce u1 1b1middot1r n7xJt1s AJJ J(ls prod11t1bulld a sene bull of poundltlgt lt1dit- ubich nfhbullc1 q11all1a1inmiddot clfJtltmiddotr_~ of the uork of Parr11erships
J-rr an e(11ded disn1ss1nJ1 nr1 the (flk11e _p_- u_(Jt1j()r11111J1c(bull 111v11i1r1i11g 1middotce middot11F and 1111middot local Urlxo1 111d N11nil FJtnmiddotlopn1ltll lltJ8111n11111middot middot FuroJlllll Sulti(I F1111d lr(Jgn111111Jl 1alifioi1 fh1i1 April 1999
13
lnco l)erelop111enf 11itiati1es
Case Study 1
A benchmarking project
A transnational study funded by the EU is underway to develop benchmarks for pro1ects which seek to insert unemployed people into the labour market The main purpose of benchmarking is to enable organisations to improve their performance
Through a process of discussion and analysis involving the implementing organisations the key processes and desired outcomes are established An agreed set of quantifiable
indicators is developed to give a measure of performance under each key process and desired outcome Overall performance 1s denved by applying an agreed weighting formula to the 1ndiv1dual measures Data capture and performance reporting are
overseen by an independent third party
Graphical representations are produced showing the performance of each group for each key process and outcome Typically the performance of each group will be stronger in some respects than others and future action to improve performance can then ensue
Integration of Data at National Level
224 It is 1111port1nt th11 there should be ce111ral access to cltu to provtclc for a
sys1e1n11ic 1nd co111prchensivLmiddot cv1Jua1ion 1t nation1l level of tl1e efficicnc ind
cffectivcntmiddotss of lcxlttl develop111cnt 1cross the country In 1ddi1ion 1his vould
suppo11 co-01)er1tion ind co-ordina1ion across the bodies
225 Dllt lteld within Governtttent Depa11111enb and ADM is not tntegratecl at the
levtI of tile henefici~111 For exa1nple grant approvJJs to 111 enterprise gr1nt
pJyn1cn1- ~incl e1nploy111cnt 1re not associ1tcd vith 1 unique client identifier in
Enterprise middotrr1dt~ and E111ploy111en(s con1pu1er sys1e111 sin1ik1r veakncss exists in
Agriculture and Foocl and ADM This ctn reduce the scope for evaluttion For
cxainplc the JXrfonnancc of c1Hi1ics vhich obtain financial assis1ance cinno1 readily
be con1p1re(I Vilh 1hose vhich rlCcive 01her non-fin3nci1J supports
226 Whltn CEils were first cstablishccl Enterp11se Traut incl Ftttployment usecl a
cl11ilx1se inheri1ed fro1n 1he J)cpann1en1 of Fin1nce to record ce11~1in key datltI such
is grants piicl ancl ipprovecl on eich enterprise assisted by CEils In aclclition clati
on the Enterprise T11clc ancl Emplovmcnt Business lnfortttation Systettt (BIS) hdcl
grant and e1nploy1nent clua for all 1n1nufac1uring 1nd international services finns
middotr1ie opportunity v1s not taken of co111hining d1ta on the CEB clatal)ase vith its 011
BIS Subscquenllr EntcrpniL middotrrackmiddot incl E111ploy111Lmiddotn1 discontinued recording gran1
piyment cl1t1 on the CEB cL111base finally the coverage of the Forfis annual
etttploytttent survey (which 11pcl11es the BIS) was allowed to clittttnislt so that it no
14
longer allernrts lO include syste111aticillv -i111tll n11nuL1cturing tmiddotnterpriscs Vith less
1han 1en employees Agt a result 1he ibihty of En1erprise Trtcle incl Employmenl lo
1noni1or sn1all indus1ry perfunn~1nce and the cffec1ivencss of s1nall indusC1)
de clopn1cnt progr1111n1es l1as cmiddotonsicleralgtly eJkene(I
227 Enterprise middotrr1de incl Ernployn1tnt is H pr(S(nt agr(eing tcnns of reference
fur 1he es11hlish1ncnt of J sy-itcn1 tn L1cilitate chc inllgrition of CEl3 cL111 in10 1he Bl~
11 ii intended that ForL1s viii include CEB clien1- in its 1nnu1l c1nployn1tnt survey
In addition the l)epann1enl rl~1ns (O acquire a stacistical soft~tre p~1ckage to f1cilita1lt
udysis of CEil cL11a
228 middotrhcre is no nuional pltn to integrHt en1errrisc incl individual clien1 level dtta
fron1 CEl3s ith sin1il1r cLn1 fron1 lEAl)EH gruurs tnd Pannerships Agri(tilture incI
roud does not integrate 1nfonnation vhich is collecllmiddotd fron1 e1ch of 1htgt groups in10
nu onal systen1s and has no plans to do so Al)1 provides rltrltJrts 10 a n111nber of
f)epa111nen1 including Sociil ltollununity ind F11nily 1flairi Fnttrprise middotrr1de and
Fn1ployn1en1 and l~duca1ion and Science
1 229 In 1995 middotrmiddotouris1n Sport ind Hecrcation began 1 process of Stlling up a
I ClnlrJised rerfonnance lllOTlitoring systclll (P~middotIS) for OPJLiHJ) co1nprising ~1ggrega1e
output indicators for CEUs ind Partncrships9 Significin1 rlsources have been
demiddot01ed to developing this systtmiddot111 Pcrfonnance 1ndica1ors Verlt tin~1lly approved by
hlmiddot OPllif) Vtonitoring Con11ni11ee in Jl1y 1999 According lo middot1middotouris1n Srort and
Ht(reation this did not JJlov sufficienl 1in1e to consider extending the sys1e1n
frarnevork 10 provide for co1nplt1nson Vilh o(her rrogr11nn1es such as LEAl)Elt lmiddothe
c11rmiddotent posilion is tliH
bull P1nncrship rerforn11ncc dat~l fro111 I January 19lt)7 IS StJCcessfully taken into
the Jgt~1S l)Ha fron1 co11111n1nity ~ind special inttrcsc groups Vls taken inlo till
PMS for l 998
bull Performance dJla for 1998 from all of the CFlb has beltn rnlla1ed by South
Dublin CEB and taken mlltgt Ille PMS
Tht PMS is used to mon11or 1he levels of ae1ivi11es and outputs under 011UHD 11 JS
usel by thL ex1crn1I ev~tlua1or to assist middotrouris1n Sport and lh~crettion ~ind 1he
OfgtlURl) vlonilonng ConunittlL lO OVLf-itv the Progra1nn1e It is of li111itcd use for
efflCtivcnltSS analysis
23t) A funlicr ditficully is the allsenct of con11x1rison-gt vi1h son1c key h~tseline data
pricbullr to the es1ablishn1ent of ll1Lmiddot bodies for cxunrlt the r11e of nev firn1 fonnalion
and job cretlion 111 -111lt111 firins and 1he pL1cc1nent of long-lenn u11tn1ployecl
middotrourisin Sport and Hlcreation has co111111issionecl a ltudy of b1-cline da1a
15
oca J)e1euj111e11t 11ififlli1e
Reporting and Monitoring
231 Progress npo11s Jre produced every six 111on1hs by 1he lead l)ep1n111en1s for
consider1tion tnd approval lgty the reltv1n1 flonitoring Con1111i11ces Ex1ern1l
cmiddotvdu11ors VCrl eng1ged by middotrouris111 Spltgtn and Hecrea1ion and Agriculture and
rood for 011lHlD ancl lltDEll respcctilely ro produce evduarion rqions ancl 1hey
]11ve ~ilso produced 111id-ten11 rcvievs_ middotr111se repo11s iremiddot considered ll hilf-ye1rly
111ee1ings of 1he nlevint f1onitoring Co1n1nittees_ All Loc1l l)evelop111e111 bodies
prodt1ce 1nn11al rcpo11s ou1lining 1c1ivititS undenaktmiddotn 1oge1htr Vilh financial
s1He111ents 1~ required under the operHional progr11111ncs
232 Nerworking plays an irnponanr role for rhe bocl1s Borh lEtDEH groups and
Pu11Hr~hips have 1he bcncfit of personnel dedica1ed 10 org1nis1ng nelvork
acriv1ries The CEOs of rhe CUh also meer regularly
16
3 Co-ordination of Activities
31 middotrhtmiddot co-cistenrl of chtbull 1hrll types of hltxlics for local clevclop1nen1 lt1- given
rise to concern tlX)llt duplicttion and the Jack of co-ordinuion 1 middotrhe pltllentid for
cluplic1tion irises bcciu_c the bodies co111111e1Htd inderenck~nlly of each olhlr ind
s1ariccI 11 clitlercnt ti1nes lt1ve sin1ilar ubjemiddottives incl 11rglt ovcrl1pping p(gtpul~1tions
hivmiddot~ se1x1rItc local ad1n1nistr1lll strucrurls 1 rcpo11 to different lgtepa11n1enLi and ire
funded by different opltftlionil progr1111111es_ A a res11h there is 1 need 10 ln-gture
that there nl lttdtqulle 1rr1ngin1Lmiddotnts in pL1c1 to recluce the pnss1hility of cluplicltion
and to ensure that lhtrc is proper co-ordination betVten he ditlerenl bodies
32 Jhe iSSlllS of Jupllcl11on and co-urdinlliun can bl t~sc -lcl
bull bccwcen ch cl1ffllellC loctl Devclormenc boclicmiddots
bull belveen Local ()evelopn1ent hoclies and 01her agencies ~11ch is Enltrpri~tmiddot
lreL1nd 1ncl che l)lmiddot1x1111ntmiddotn1 of Suciil lt0111111un11y incl F1111ily tfL1ir-
1middothis ex1111ination is confined to duplication incl co-orclinat1on belVeen Local
n~vfiopmtell( bodies
33 In this chapter rhlmiddot i-sues of duplication and cn-ordinition are exanuntd under
evduition criteria ~1s shovn bclOmiddot
Issue Evaluation criteria
Du )lication Objectivesbull Clientsbull Activitiesbull Funding of projects bull
Comiddotordination Local level bull National level bull
IDulication
134 1 subst1nliil nu111her of lgencies c111 provide l0~11 l)evelopn1ent suppnrts in
I thl 1111e hgtc~d 1rc~J 1igure 31 fro111 lhe Suulh Vest illus1rites this
35 middotrhe natun of lhtmiddot inllillimiddottmiddots is 1hat lhlrc should be tltmiddotibiliry in str11egic
dlcigtiun n1ahing at locil level Vilhin brc)Jd p1ra11H[lfS lllch 1n sel oul 1n the
Operation1) Progr1111111es middotrhe si1nilari1ies igtelveen ohjectimiddotes clienL ind activilies i~
shltn11 in middotrabies 3_ I to 34 1re 1 result of thlst policies
17
loca )evelofn11enf lnifia11es
Figure 31 Local Development Supports in the South West
Tuartha Chiarrai Teo (Leader)
West Cor Enterprise Board
North Cork Enterprise
Board
Blackwater Resource Development (Leader)
m Car City Partnership
South Cork Enterprise Board
Cork URBAN
Note The following ADM funded community groups are indicated on the map by nun1bers
[] Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo [Z] Bantry Integrated Development Group
G1] East Cork Area Development Ltd ] Avondha Development Partnership fil IRO Duhalow Ltd
[sect] Sliabh Luachra Ltd [Z] Listowef Baronies Group Ltd
Objectives
36 All of 1he Lxxlics trt concerned illl locil econoinic develop1nlllt tnd h~1ve
i IJrief lo rn-ordin11e incl enlunce ex1s1ing suppo11s ii locd level Bo1h lEAl)EH
incl P111nersl1ip grltn1ps arc conccrntmiddotd V1th co1n111unity clcvelop1nent Vhile
P~1nn~rships ire explicitly focused on co1nlx1111ng socitl exclusion
Clients
37 1Ltny sin1il1ri1ies exist hetVeen 1he clitnls uf the lhllt types nf bodies hu1
there tre tlso in1pon1nt clifferenclS ihile CEHs deal Vilh business ickas fro1n any
individual or group thty do not specifically target dis1dv~11111gcd groups vhich are
1hc focus of P111nersh1ps lFAl)ER acliitics ire dirtctcd IOVllcls the loc1J
18
-------
I
Coorclination ojmiddot Acliuitiltgts
Table 31 Objectives
Objectives CEBs Partnerships LEADER
Fogtster development by Area planning Jc1b creation
Business supports Arumatton
C1)unter serious economic and social problems by Aisisting long-term unemployed 1n10 jobs Promoting adult educationtraining Aisisting community development Ericouraging provision of child support Integrate supports at local level
0
Table 32 Clients
Nature of Clients
Pcmiddotpulation coverage
G(bullograph1c coverage
Small Enterprises
Adult Learners
Joigt Seekers incl LongshyTelm Unemployed (LTU)
Ccmmunity Groups
Lone parents
Trc1vellers
Pe)ple with d1sabil1ties
Dirndvantaged youth
i==
CEBs Partnerships LEADER
100 61
100 Includes 13 complete counties and several
other disadvantaged areas
Almost complete in rural areas
(excludes part of cities of Dublin Cork Galway Limerick Waterford)
Note o denotes thor one Local Development body has chosen to pursue this objective
a This relates to designated areas covered by Area-Based Partnerships Soures Tables 3 1 amp 32 These tables were derived from the Operational Programme for LEADER
OPLURO and interviews with managers of Local Development bodies
19
lr1ca )e1eh11111e111 11i1iati1es
Table 33 Main development activities
Activity CEBs Partnerships LEADER
Draft development plans v v v Assess local plans 0 v v Carry out surveys of enterprises v v 0
Provide finance to enterprises v v v Provide advice to enterprises v v v Assist enterprises to access
consultancy support v 0 v Organisefund mentors for enterprises v v v Fund management development v Organisefund marketing initiatives v v Promote enterprise via meetings etc v v v Produce enterprise
brochuresbusiness guides v v v Promote enterprise 1n schools via
competitions training etc v v v Fund prov1s1on of tourism facilities v v Fund road signage Tidy towns v Fund artscultural festivals v v
Table 34 Main activities concerned with countering serious economic and social problems
Activity
Counsel long-term unemployed (lTU)
Carry out skills audit of LTUs
Establish network of L TUs
Organise fund education or
training courses Fund provision of education centres
Fund construction refurbishment
equipment of community resource
or activity centres Fund estate improvement
Fund communityyouth workers
Organise fund community fora
or networks Organise fund homework clubs
Fund youth act1vit1es
Fund play groups creches
CEBs Partnerships
v v v
LEADER
v v
v v
0
Note 0 denotes that not afl Local Development bodies have chosen to undertake these activities
Sources Tables 3_3 amp 34 These tables were derived from the Operational Programme for LEADER OPLURD and interviews with managers of Local Development bodies
20
Coor(i nation ojmiddot11 c I tu it ies
co111nunity in genertl ind local project pron1ottri lhile people vho tr( Slvcrely
socially or ((Cll)Olllically deprived IllJY r1r1iciplle in lEAl)l-f lllivitilS LEAl)EI his
no nmiddot1nit 1n spccifically targlting lhlSl groups In nine c1-es lEAlgtER ancl
P1dncrship Strviccs an dtbulllimiddotlncl by llHmiddot s11ne loc1I group
3~ LEAl)ER Jnd P111r1trships ltivc exten-iiC hut not co111plc1e popult11un
colrttge Jgt111nerships ind 1l)ivl-funcled con1nu1nity groups coVlI 1111ny of 1hc n1ure
conclmiddotn1r11ecl trltls of dis1dvin11ge l)lllt to lhe ficl 1h11 social dis1clvanragc is
spali11ly clis1rilH1ttmiddotd son1ltmiddot 1nmiddot1s of till cuuntry Vh(r( clis1dv1r111ge ex1sts arc nor
cobullbulltmiddotnmiddotd by P1rlnltrships or l)imiddotl-h1nded con1n1uni1v groups
A1tivities
39 It c111 igte gteen fro111 middotro1ble Jl 1hll 1hcre ecrraquoive duplicnion of
de1c]op111e11t tctivities 1crois 1he bodies Vith 1hnost tll of the 1c1ivitics lgteing
llndertlken by JI Je1-t tVO type~ of hodJtS [n inlLfilS Vith ht lllJntgtrs or the
Local l)evelorn1tnl bodies ii middotas indicated 1h~H Vhile thcv are lVtre of this
overl1p they rel~ on co-ordination n1ech1nis111s to ensure that re-ource- are nnl
Vl ~teeI
310 It c111 igte gtltmiddoten fro111 Table 34 1ha1 so111e overlip exisis lielween IEADER
gnurs ind P1nnerships Vith respec1 [o countering serious econo1nic ind soci1l
prcmiddotblv111- middotrills can irislt through i111pnmiddotc1stmiddot defini1ion ind inlerprtlUiun of the r~1nge
of crviltlS providld J-[oll(L the extenl of overlap 1n countering serious econo111ic
and Slgtcitl rroblcins is n111ch less 1han in 1he case of develor1nent activilies pa1tly because of th( 11rgct1ng of -plcific client groups hy P1rtnerships (the long-tenn
uncn1ployed ind the soc111ly ecludedJ
311 It should be no1ecl th~1t 1111ny other agencies or groups outside the scope of
1he exa1nin~nirln are ilso 1ctive II local level For cx1111pllt the Hosco111111on (JmiddotB
1ction Pl111 1997 - 1999 conttins a 111trrix uf dtmiddotvehgtp111ent agltncies incI servicis
pre vided in Coun(y Hosco111111on lhis i- shnmiddotn in ppendix E
F1J1nding of Projects
3 12 Situations can occur vhere pro111oters can 111axilnist thl funding they receive
b~middot applying for surport froo1 cJillenlll groups
W1hlre arc Poor 011s(hcd~ 711c Spali(I )11rih11lPll () r11e11r a11d DeJ11r11011 111 rlrt11d Urito1 1oa11 cl (J C0111ha1Ponrty1l~ltJ1C) 19lt)8
21
ocal Jeveloj1111c111 lniJ1atiUltS middot----- shy
Case Study 2
Subsidy shopping
A promoter had a turnover of pound80000 from an equestrian centre and language school In addition he was a farmer his spouse was a teacher and he had net assets of almost pound05 m1ll1on He wished to develop the equestrian centre and language school and provide accommodation on site for language students he applied to a CEB for financial assistance The estimated cost of the project was as follows
pound Accommodation costs 20000 Classrooms 10000 Indoor arena 22000 Outdoor arena 15000 Tennis court 10000
Total 77000
The CEB considered that financial support would be appropriate for certain nonshyaccommodationmiddot aspects of the project This comprised classrooms indoor arena and outdoor arena costing pound47000 and a grant of pound20000 was approved in May 1996 The Board considered that the promoter should fund all of the accommodation aspects (The Board had a policy of not assisting the provision of accommodation because this is a response to rather than a generator of demand)
In September 1996 the promoter applied to a LEADER group for a grant According to the grant application form the accommodation cost had risen to pound85000 (as against pound20000 in the CEB application) The LEADER group was aware of the financial support already provided by the CEB and the reasons why this level of support was given The LEADER Board approved a grant of pound17000 being 20 of the cost of the accommodation The project promoter was also approved for a marketing grant from LEADER of pound2750
Total capital grants approved for the project (pound37000) amounted to 26 of pro1ected capital expenditure (pound142000)
313 It has been po1n1ccl 011t (by Entlrpnse Trnclc ind Employment ind Tourism
Sport ~ind HecreJtion) 1hat this ct~e srudy gives little risemiddot fur concern 1~ the funcling
vas clinctecl tOv1rds different ele1nent of the projecr l-loCVer the fnlloving
efficiency difficulc1cs arise
bull aclcluionil middotsearchmiddot costs for cl1cnts who mikc mul11ple applicu1ons for ~1-isistance
bull ~1dditiontl tin1e ~pent by n1en1bers of Bo1rd incl evtluuion co1n1ni1tees and adn1inistrJrivc cosrs in Loc1I l)evelnpn1ent bodies
bull thC first Local Devdopment body to approve finannJI assisuncl cannot adopt a middotrotlJ project vieV bCClttUSe it is 110t lV1fe Vhether subsequent tJ1plicati011S ill be 1n1cle for assist1nce to other Local Developn1ent bodies
22
COorcination of Actiuitics
C1gt-ordination
314 As part of their an11nat1011 and co111111unity development 1ctivitits all of the
bol1es part1culirlv LFADER groups and P1rtnersl11ps look for opportunities to
1ni iale and co-orclina1e acrivilies vhich 111iy be underlaken by a vide variety of
st1tutory rnmmun11y and voluntary groups Tlus work usually Licilitates the
provision of econo111ic and social benefits to the co111n1un1ty Typical exunples 1re
bull Organising nevorks of lone parenis
bull Pro1nnting tidy tovns
bull Organising second chancC cducuicgtn
Vihin Local Development hodics therLmiddot is often tc11sion between the priorny to be
given to their co-ordination role ver~us the direct delivery of services including
grants
315 Co-ordination frequently involves the co-operation of several different
organisations at different levels (StHc local government communitvvoluntary
se(tor and business) to ~chicve a con1111on objective middotrhrough their co-ordinarion
roli~ the bodies n1ay harness rhc porcntial of several organisarions to achieve an end1 which would not otherwise be achieved This role has been cited is contnbutmg to
the unique role of the Joell development bod1Lmiddots A good LXimple of this mshyore ination i~ set out in Case Study 3
316 The multiple funding ol this anglmg pro1ect is substint1ally differtnl from the
multiple funding shown 1n Case Study 2 In Cie Stuclv 3 thlt contributions of the
vanous bodies were agreed as part of an integrated plan
317 The co-existence of three significant types of boches (and the inherent
cluphcarion shovn in 1he previous section) places a particular onus on 111anagc111tmiddotn1
of the organisations oH both national and lcxal levels to co-ordintte service provision
Fig1re 32 illustrates for each of the bodiltS the dilftmiddotrcnt co-ordinarion structures in
phe
23
loco l Jc1eofgt11HJ 11 I11 ii iu I ioes
Case Study 3
Co-ordination of a tourism angling project
A LEADER group in an inland county sponsored a study of the tourism development
potential of the county Although the county had weak tourism infrastructure and
practically no angling facilities the study identified several tourism sub-sectors that
could be developed including angling
An initiative was undertaken by the LEADER group to co-ordinate the development of
angling in partnership with fourteen other bodies including Fisheries Boards ESB
Coillte Duchas Bord na M6na and several community development organisations and
angling groups The initiative consists of
bull the upgrading of eight lakes most of which are owned by State agencies and many
of which were overgrown or silted
bull construction of stiles paths etc and restocking the lakes with fish
bull grant support for accommodation providers in the lakes area
The total cost of the project was estimated at around pound05 million Some of these costs are borne by LEADER but most are borne by State agencies and the Tourism
Operational Programme 1994-1999
The LEADER group is involved with other organisations in marketing angling facilities
and the provision of training for the ongoing management of the lakes
Co-ordination at Local Level
318 Cot1n1y Strllcgy croups Vere es1hlimiddotmiddotd1ed in LICh cnu111y under OPLUl~J) O
L1ci[i[Je co-orclin11ion ~ind 111inin1isc cluplic1tinn in lie delivery of progrin1111es
middotrhe Groups provide i forun1 for forn1d conununicition Vithin etch councy and
hctCt11 counties incl cenlrtl policy 111akers_ vlen1lxrship of the Groups includes
the Chlt1irpersn11s of CEl~s Ptr1nerships ind lEAl)EH groups County middotrouri111
Con1n1i1tees Coun1y f11n1~ers incI represen111ives fron1 middotrourisn1 Spon and
Recnation
319 middotrhe cu-ordinttion of services 10 cliencs depends very heavily on cruss-1gtncy
rcpresenltlion incl illendance at 111cetings middotralgtle ~5 shovs 1ypictl Board
repre~enc11ion
24
Coo1middotrh11atio11 o lctiuillcs
Fi1ure 32 Monitoring and Coordination
InterdepartmentalOPLURD OPLEADER Evaluation Polley Committee Evaluation
_l Department of Department of
Enterprise Trade Tourism Sport and Employment and Recreation
ADM Ltd
Partnership Boards
County Strategy Groups
1~BBoards ------shy
Department of Agriculture and Food
LEADER Group Boards
Table 35 Typical Board representation
S~bullctor Represented CEBs LEADER Partnerships
Lcmiddotcal authority members almost complete
Statutory bodies Ernployers I Trade Unions I Farmers Community I Voluntary sector
SouCe Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General
25
ocu )e1Alop111e111 11ifi(lf1ccs
320 CEils ire represented on most IEADER groups incl many Pa11ncrsh1ps
Hovever 1n~1ny lEAl)ER groups and P~111nerships ire not represented on CEBs In
so111e bu1 not all cises vhere cross-board represenlation i lacking there is crossshy
agencymiddot rtpn=sentllion at sub-boird level instead such as evilullion co1n111iuees for
protects_ In nine c1s(s vhere then~ are con1n1on boundaries the san1e Board
1clm1nis1ers both a LEADER group incl Partnership In ciscs where there ire not
m11ch1ng bounclirics 11 1s usud for LEADER groups incl lu1ncrships to have
C01111ll011 UO~trd repreSCl1tatives
321 Agriculture incl Food require all lEADEH groups to specify how they intend
to co-ordinate their activiies Vith other bodies before agree111en1s 10 i111plen1en1 a
LEADER progr1111me are completed Each tgreement includes t clause to this effect
and dso requires IEADER groups to part1n1x11e in Coun1y Strategy Groups
322 The view of the Local Development bodies is 1h11 loctl knowledge is of
piran1oun1 in1po111nce for co-orclina1ing their ~1ctiviries Use is n1aclc of infonntl
contacts 10 ensure tha1 each organisHion is tvarc of Vhat others artgt doing middotrhere
is often no formal 1gree111ent berween Local Devclop111ent bodies H local level
regarding 1h~ lin1its betveen objtgtctives acrivities and clients Hovevcr
consideration should be given 10 drlving up a middotfittcn staten1ent Vhich VOtilcl set
out a broad fra111ework of agree111ent between Loctl Dcvelop111ent bodies A good
exmtple from County Meath is shown in Appendix F
323 from the beginning elected pol1ticd representation was absent fro111 IEADER
incl Partnership 13oards Mc111bers of local authonrics are represented on CEl3s but
not is of right on LEADER groups and Partnerships However local aurhonry
officials arc frequentlv on the boards of lEADEH groups incl Partnerships A process
his been undc1way to 1nclucle 111e111bers of local authonties on rhe Boards of
LEADER groups and Partnerships This process is now complete in the cise of
IEADER incl is d111ost rn111plete 1n the cise of Pirtnerships
GeograpJica ampm1ulmJbull ProJlem
324 The co-orclmation of activi11es it locd level is 111ade 111ore difficult by the lack
of coherence the way the boundmes of the Local Develop111ent bodies were
clr~lvn and because of overltpping houndanes vi1h srHucory bodies 1s 1 result
n1any iltx~d l)evclop111ent bodies 1nust liaise vi1h a nun1ber of orher Iocil
l)evelop111ent bodies Jnd srJn1cory organisations_ middotrt1is increases tl1e acln1inistra1ive
burden on Local Develop111ent bodies ancl 1mpecks rhcir ability to offer unifor111
service delive1y in their territorymiddot and to co-ordinate activities of other Local
Develop111ent bodies and Srate igencies
26
Coordi11atio11 Cf Actiuities
se Study 4
Bcbullundary problem in South County Dublin
The boundary of South Dublin CEB covers the same geographical area as that of South De blin County Council and South Dublin Area of Dublin Tourism In this area there are four Partnership companies
Ta laght Partnership wholly located in Dublin South Clondalkin Partnership wholly located in Dublin South KWCD Partnership divided between Dublin South and Dublin City Scuths1de Partnership divided between South Dublin and Dun
LaoghaireRathdown
Al~o the Dublin Rural LEADER Company covers part of South Dublin as well as Dun LagtghaireRathdown and Fingal Council areas The State service providers such as FlgtS Eastern Health Board (EHB) Department of Social Community and Family Affairs (D3CFA) and Enterprise Ireland do not have the same geographical areas as local auhont1es They are split up into regional areas and these regions impinge on South Dublin CEB as follows
FlgtS Dublin SouthWicklow region of FAS contains part of South Dublin while Dublin WesVKildare region of FAS caters for the rest of the South Dublin area
EHB Each of three regional areas of the EHB Dublin South Central South West and West impinge on the area of South Dublin CEB
D~middotCFA Dublin South region of DSCFA contains part of South Dublin and Dublin West region of DSCFA caters for the remainder
Enlerprise Ireland South Dublin 1s totally contained within Enterprise lrelandmiddots region of Dublin and Mid-East
32~i Agricuhure and Food ha~ poinced ou1 rhar coheren1 geogr~1pliical boundaries
would be contrarv to the bottom upmiddotmiddot approach of LEADER The initial EU proposal
for hl fo11hcommg LEADER lnillatilC stales middotmiddot11 would he desirable rhar rbe eligihle
areas do not coi11citle tuith notional acln1ii11strati1e ho111ularies nnr ufth cli_~ihle
zon$ 1111cler the 1nainstrec11n operations(~ the structural jltntlsmiddot
Co-ordination at National Level
32(1 An Interckpartmcntal Policy Committee for Local Delelopment was
estltulishcd m June 1993 under 1he auspices of 1he Department of the Ta01seach and
subequently reconltt1tuted in Ocwber 1997 under Tourism Span and Rccrea11on 1s
funmon is to oversee 111d make recommendations on local delelopment (Appendix
G shovs the conunitteemiddots renns of reference) fhe co1nn1itcee is chaired by the
Minster of State in Tourism Spo11 and Hecreation ind comprises represenwives of
27
loca I )e1eofJ111e11 f In it itlf ftls
i nu111her of Gov1rnn1ent lgtepart1nc11ts middotrhe ro1111ni11ee has contributed policy
n111eriil 10 1he post 2000 s11b1nission on the future of struc1ural funds ind v1s
involved in 1htmiddot develop1nent of 1ht Integrated Services Prnjec1middot
327 middotn1e co111n1i11et sees i1s fu1ure role is one of infon11ing its([f nf dcvclop111ents
cnh1ncing links Vith local develnp1n~n1 orgtnisuions 111d lt1rn1ng les-gtons fron1
piln1ing projet1s including 1htmiddot porenti~tl for n11instrl1n1ing successful projects
328 middotrhlre is a potential role for the con11nittee 10 get involved in soning out the
sys1t111smiddot in1clequ1cics ind to develop 1 strltcgic lttpproich to coun1ering 1he
neg1tive ispcmiddotcts or duplicuion lhc co111111ittee should consider developing 1n
1green1ent concerning the lin1its hitveen tile olgtjec1ives 1ctivities and clients of the
three types of bodies vhilt- laking account of the li111it1tions on the discretionar
nllure of lhe LE1l)EI Jgtrogran1n1c Vhich is an FU Initiative
329 Fruin 1 viluc for 1noney perspective ind bised on the 1buve 1nilysis the
follr)ving i1nprove111~111s ire desirlttble in the short tern1
bull 1hc cs1ablish111ent of coherent geogr1phical buuncL1rics
bull tn incretse in he forinal co-orclinllion of service provision
The Task Force Report on the Integration of Local Government and Local Development Systems
330 t Trsk Force which was esublished lo reporr on 1h~ 1n1egr111on of locd
govern111ent incl locil clevelopn1cn1 sys1en1s reportccl in August 1998 and its
reco111111end~11ions Vtre approved by C1nvern111cnt in Septen1ber 1998 1 middotrhe 11sk
1orce l-gt concerned to ckvclop 1 vision ~ind s1ra1egy vhich Voulcl encon1pass in
in integralecl IY (he oper11ions of loc1I governn1ent ind Local l)evelop1nent
bodies in order 10 significantly incre~1se 1heir effec1iveness
331 Tire Task Force conltrdercd 1111 Iris could besr be achieved 11 1hc counry rncl
cily level The cclllrrl role will be pL1yed by new Coun1y or City Dcvdopmenl
Boards (CDlb) which will be es1ablislred in each ciry incl cou111y locrl authority
The CDBs with memlJerslup drawn from four sltcrors (ie local governmcnl
co111111uni1y ~ind voluntary social partners and Slate agencies opcra1ing at local level)
ill clrnv up an agreed ~ind con1prehensive Coun1y or City Strategy for Econon1ic
Sociil ind Culturtl l)evelopn1cn1 It VtS 1greecl 11i~11 Jgtannerships or LEAl)EH groups
should cllal Vith clis1clvan1aged areis on an 1greecl basis 1nd 1hat con1111unlly
1)( 111ltgr(lc-d Wnncc~ lropU tla egtlabllshtd 011 a pilot btLgtiL ill f)rce111hcr 1998 ill 011r sltmiddotnmiddoto11S~) ltliltult(l11fa~1middotd arltbullas_ (JbjeLliltmiddot 1s 10 cr1-ordi11flle tbtbull i11p111 ofall S1a1C senlicegt
28
Coorrli11atio11 o Jcmiddotti111 ie------------------------------~---
developinent and -ciciJI incl11sion 111c1sl1re tho11lcl vl1ertmiddot possibll bl cleliVlrld bymiddot
gra~sroots bodies Further nmiddotcon1n1endatinns of the middotr1sk rorcc include
bull (Jl(lprise support func11un lo htbull vered in 1he CFBs Vith rrovision for the
involvement of other Local Dcvdoprncnt bodies such as LEADEH by ~1grec111ent
bull fu11ctional arl1- to coincidemiddot Villi co11n1y or city IHHJndaries or_ t[ sub-county
kmiddotvtmiddotL local elector~il ~treas
bull ~1 si11gle igency to bl nmiddotspt1nsihll for con1n11111i1y dlvclop1nlnl at suh-cuun1y
lclI (either the local tuthoritymiddots Arca Con1111ittee or in clc-ign1tecl
clisadv~1nt1ged 1rc1s groups -gtuch ts P111ntmiddotrJ1ips or LEAJ)ER groups)
I bull any future loctl ckv(loptntmiddotnt groups slloulltl have cou11ty or city councillors on
[heir Boards
An interdc1x1rtn1en1al i111ple1nent~1tio11 group h~ts hLcn fonncd to oversee thl in1plcnltmiddotn111ion of 1l1c middotr~1sk ilnce reco111111endarions
29
4 Operational Efficiency
41 This chapter considers the operational efficiency of the groups Operational
efficiency is concerned Vilh 111aking the best use of 1hc resources provided to
111axin1ise the ltmiddotvel of outputs achieved
42 middotrhe issues and evtluHion criteria arc
Issues Evaluation criteria
Targets and performance Quantification of targets bull Use of baseline data bull Achievement and review bull
Resource allocation and outturn Targets and outturns bull Allocation of resources to Localbull Development bodies
bull Grant cost per job
bull Cost of non-grant outputs
Deadweight and displacement Information on extent bull Effective procedures bull
Targets and Performance
43 OlLUHD contained a number of output md ac[Jv1ty t1rgets to IJe achieved
over the priod 199 middot 1999 A report issued in 1994 crnicised some of the tJrgets
in that they did not refer to previous performance In the absence of this middotbaseline
perform1nce cl11a it is not posstble to know how realistic or demanding these targets
are Extmples of the lick of baseline cl11a include information on new 1obs and new
businesses middotrhc report ilso ronsiclend 1ha1 oilier 11rgets Vere coo n1odcst in relation
10 hat v1s knovn lttbou1 perforn1ancc such as chc tirget for ncv businesses suppo11ed by P1rrnership vith reference to the perforn1ance undltr the original
PESP Partnerships
44 lhe n1ain OPLLRI) targt~ts and 1chievc111cncs against the targets are fhOvn in
Table 41 Most of the original targets were excccdccl bv 1998 rrnny by a wide
margin The only target that w1s quantified in th~ Operational lrogrunme for
LEDER as the creation of obs wluch was set H 4000 over the life of the
Programme Up to encl 1998 an overall job creation figure of 2700 (fulhime job
equivalents) was reponecl
45 Folloving the reco111n1endarions conrainecl in the 1nid-ten11 reviev revised
performance indicators and raised targets were adopted by the OPLURD Monitoring
Ex-a11( Appaiitil of Proposed local Dcmiddotvelop111e111 Progran1me pn1x1rltbulld on bfhalf of DC X11 ~)the SeflJices 11d11ilnltS Research Centrt liCD F11zpa1ncJ Associates a11d Kiert111 lcKeo1m1 lld Febn1ary 1994
30
Tatle 41 OPLURD targets to end-1999 and achievements to end-1998
-
Target
Now JObs
Nt~w businesses
Progression of unemployed to -full-lime jobs -part-time jobs
Number of adults asgtisted to access education
NL mber of children attending preventative education services
Existing businesses su Jported
Cl sterner contacts
=
CEBs
Original Targets
8000
2260
280 pa
20000 pa
Achievements
15500
3 110
2500 (1996-1998)
8700a (1998)
Partnerships
Original
Targets
6900
3640
12500 1500
60000
20400
30000 pa
Achievements
12800
12800
11400 2900
18500
35000
na
Note 8 Only contacts which fed to a provision of a service by the Boards to a client were recorded
Soure OPL URO and annual roports
cn111111i11ee in i-lay 1999 (ee ppendi ))_ middotrhcsc l~1rg~ts appear to he 111ore re~iliitic
having regard to perfonnance in the early ye~1rs of the Progra1nn1e
146 in the cise of ihDlH the mid-term rtmiddotnew notd that the 01 ind1cuors
_cured highly on relevance 1-lovever n1any ut the indicators verc so vague 1ha1
111caningful qu111tificlt1tion vould htmiddot aln1osr 1n1rx1ssible -rhlt reviev concluded that
the pcrforn1ance indicators dieI 1101 provide J sufficiently cltar basis on vhich groups
could debullelop con1n1on indicuor systen1s_ lhe nvit~V proposed a sys1en1 of
ptrf1nnance indicators flt1r discussiltgtn 11ncnchnent incI i111plen1en1a1ion imiddot11e
LEA)ER Morntonng Commince clccidccl that each LEADER group should prepare
i rt~middoti~t~cl t1rgtIS in respect of he indicators proposed in lhlt n1icl-1enn nviev (see
pptmiddotnclix E)_ Nu revised nationil targtli Vtrt agreed by the fmiddot1nnitorin_g Co1n1nittcc
or griculture Jnc1 Food
l
ocal JercoJ11rent 11itulfiteshy
Table 42 Expenditure targets 1994-1999 and outturns 1994-1998
Initiative OP Forecastbull
1994-1999
Revised
Forecast 1994-1999
Latest Forecastc
1994-1999
Outturn 1994-1998
poundm poundm poundm poundm CEBs 818 811 808 620d Partnerships 1047 1036 1083 706e
LEADER Groups 772 947 947 388
Notes a Updated for exchange rate changes and inflation as of May 1999 b Revised forecast is lhBI which has been most recently approved by the Monitonng
Committee ft refers only to expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds c Latest forecast is the most recent estimate by the relevant department of the most
likely outcome It refers only to expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds d Outturn only includes expenditure co-financed by EU structural funds (pound620ni)
Expenditure not co-financed by EU structural funds an1ounted to pound36 1m e Ourtum only includes expendifure co-financed by EU structural funds (pound706m)
Expenditure not co-financed by EU structural funds amount9d ro pound05m Source OPLURD LEADER OP annual reports
Resource Allocation and Outturn
47 Public e-pendi1ure 11rgets ind ou11urns ire shovn in middotrable 42
48 Fro111 the beginning it V1s the viev of Enterprise middotrr~1dL incl En1ployn1tnl thit
there IVlI nut sulliuenc EU funds under 011UHI) 10 support 1lte desired kbullel oldeg
t-pctHliturc by CE13s over 1he life of the Prngrunrnc_ ccorclingly CEB exrenditun
wis in ecess of the level co-finrnred by Ill funds rnd the b1l111n of U6 J million
wis provided bv the hclwquer It is ciltrr 1h11 EU funds rvrilrble for CElh under
011UIU) wrll be fully u11lised bv the encl of 1he lrogrrmme
49 A~ n1ost P1nntrships h1cl to go through J lcng1hy pnxtss of es11hlish1ncn1
incl planning in 19ltJ5 ind 1996 their cxpendiltirc Vas slov in rhuse ye~1rs tlovtver
expenditure 1ccclcr1Ctcl in 1997 and 1998 middotruurisn1 Spo11 ind Hecrellion and 1)11
expecc chH over the full progranllne period c-pencli1urc 1argc1s viii be n1et
410 E-pencli1u1-c under LE1J)fH Vts suhst1nti11ly Ix-In ttrget for rhc pcriocl
1995-1998 A fu11hcr sum of J18 million wrs rllocued to lEDEH liv the EU
Co111n1ission in 1996 fro111 an EU re-erve avai11hle for (on1111unity initiatives In order
to reach lht revised forec~1st expendi1ure in 1999 Voukl h1vc to be 1non 1han lVO
111cl 1 hilf ti111cs lite expenditure of 998 tmiddotlovever griculturc incl Food lXPLCls
1h1t ill alloc1tecl funds viii be spent by the encl of tiltmiddot Progr1n11nemiddot
11ltcor(111g trJ the 11AIJlR ()~ lt11 eliJihle ltpc11di111nmiddot 111ust lgtc co111tlffltlf 1~1 middot JtA f)IJ~ gn111h l~r tbc (IU
of fJrl-1 111Jc_bullr 15J-JY 11Ji~e 111r1111middot1 s 11111sf he Hiid rJ11f I~) llAJ)f( grrgtllJS lxfurc )l_1111c 2000
j2
( ))(rct f iu 11cf fi-c iei Ilt)middot-- middot---------------- shy
A1ocation of Resources to Local Development Bodies
411 Fnlerprise middotrr1clc and E1nployn1en1 inittdly alloctttmiddotd resources equdly to each
CEit middotrhc l)ltp1rtn1ent suhscquently 111nved to 1 1nore dtmiddotn11nd Jtmiddotd 1ppr()~1ch
h1nmiddothy allocations VeHild lgtt varied depending on 1hc relative llctmiddotds uf each aret
Ille c~1p1city of e1ch art lo successfully utilise eriterprimiddotbulle supports ind to crelle jobs
i ind the qud1ty nf thtmiddot cmiddotnterpnstmiddot pL1ns prepared hv each CEB
41 Al)middott placed 1dvcnistmiddot1nents in nevsptpers i11vi1i11g cnn1n1t1ni1y groups
(ou side Ille designated JrLIS of dis1dvintJgt being IUl)kcd Jfter hv Area-Based
P1nncrships) incl relevant n11ion1 organisations to ~11gt11ly for ()JgtLUHI) funding 33
con1n1unity groups ind 15 nitiontl urganisuion Vere sekCtld by t()1I for funding
41 middotrhe allocation of resources to Pirrnvrships hy Al)1l v~1s hiscd on cltt1ilcd
1nIlysis of the socioeconn1uic ch1ractlris1ic- of eJch tre~1 highliglning various
aSf)lt_cts of dtpriv11ion drlVll fro111 tlie 1991 ltensus of Population ()tiler rclcv1nt
v1riihlcs inclt1cll~d the qu~ditv of the pL111 tlttmiddot c1p1ci1y of htmiddot l1rtncrsliip ind the
1v1l1bility-of orher clevelop111ent resources to 1hc lrll such as IE1l)l-J or LiHB1N
4lbulli 1chmiddoter1istmiddot1nents Vere pL1cecl in 11Lmiddotvsp1rtmiddotrs innouncing lhe LEtl)lR lni1i1tivl
and inviting applicnions 1middot1ic~e VCrc assesstmiddotd by 1gricuhure and 1~nod Vith the
1ssi-bull1ance of an incltpcndenl consul11nt to es1ahlish tile txtent to vhich they 111lt~1 iii~
key ftatures of LEl)FH lhtmiddot rltsourctS middotere tllocatcd h~1ving regard to the quality
of the hu iness pl1n subniilllltL 1he population ind cl(gree of rurility of the 1rea and
the ~1vailalgtility of othtr sourcts uf ~lss1st1ncc fn1 Joctl ltkmiddotclop1ncn1 3i loc~d group-
Ver~ sclecled ind 2 SLctoral groups
Grint Cost per Job
4l~i middotr1iere arc specific f1c1ors vhich lin1i1 the usefulness of htmiddot gr1n1 cost per job
incli ~-tlnr in the con1cx1 of lltx11 devclop111cnt middotrhese include
bull (rear d1versil in the ni1urc of the 1ohs cre1ted ind 1he 111ethod of cc)un1ing
I hl111
bull No direct con1p1nson hetveen the VOrk invoVtltI in supporting job cna1ion 11
local level VIiii nationtl joll crcition agtncics
bull middotrile us1ain1bility of jobs 1n1y d1fft r frn111 11in-e crc1tltd by nuional igtncics
bull middotril(middot focu- un job cre1tinn iritmiddot vithin the three 1ypes nf lllt1clic
local Jevelopn1e11r fllifiariues
416 For CEils the number of jobs created is used is a performance meisure The
average gr1n1 cost per job creared vtriecl over the pericxJ under reviev as follovsn
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Number of jobs created 1958 3174 3589 3317 3487
Grant cost per 1ob created pound2535 pound4249 pound3763 pound3884 pound4206
The v1ri11ions from year 10 year miy be panly explained hv the fact 1h11 sometimes
1here is 1 riine t1g hetveen the gn111t expenditure ind 1he creition of thi relevant
jobs Over the period 1994middot97 the average grant cost per 1ob was Aj725 with the
lowest CEil be111g S2269 (Tipperary North) and the highest being gtfi683 (Leitrim)
Cost of Non-Grant Outputs
417 In add111011 to grmt aiding job crcll1011 md adminis1r11ion all of the bodies
~Ire involved in non-granr activities including
CEils
bull Producing enrcrprise plans and generJlly pro1noting in enterprise culurc
bull Busines~ infonnttion 1clvice counselling incl 1nentoring
bull ~ltn1gc111ent devetopn1en1 rraining
lartnersl1ips
bull Enterprise cre11ion and ckvelopment
bull Environ1nent ind infrtstrucrure projects
bull Provision of services to the unen1ployecl
bull Con1n1unity clevelop1ncnt
bull Co1nple1nentary ~incl prevcnt11ive educarion
LEADER groups bull tni1nation 1crivit1es
bull middot1-icl1nical assis11nce
Expenditure on these 1ctiv1tic~ is shovn in middot1middot1blL lt3
418 11blc 43 shovs the v1rying ex1cnt 10 vhich the clitlerenl locil l)cvelop111ent
lxgtdics trt involved in non-gr1n1 ou1pu1s_ Thlt CEB ind LEl)EH groups focus on
gr1nt is grtmiddotarcr th1n Panncrships vho focus on non-gr1nt activi1ies imiddothis is
cons1s1ltnt with tlic list of 1ctiv1ties 111 Tible 34
- 71Jt 111tmeratfJr is l1n11t~ paid 111 the cale11dt1r HCff 01u the de11011111uur1r 1~middot the lllfJloy111e11t ~ai11 Cllthic~( (1er IIitbull yor i11 the jln11middot 11111J rcce11ed jiTu111c1td uufuitl Jimiddotom (Lfgtsmiddot 11 1Jf1bull rbut
empluymc111flt_-e1middot1111h1middots1middotjir11r_ are 1g11ored
31
()fJert-111u1uil Fj)lcicJJ(l --middotmiddot-middotmiddot---------- shy
Table 43 Expenditure on non-grant outputs 1996 - 1997
1996 1997 1996 1997 poundm poundm of total of total
expenditure expenditure
CEBs 39 54 18 24 Pyentnershipsbull 51 136 56 72 LEADER groups 21 34 40 30
folal 11 1 224 31 42
Not~ a 7he figures oxclude Community Groups and selected National Organisations b Excludes selected sectoral groups
Sotrce Analysis by the Office of the Comptroller iJnd Auditor General see Appendix A
Duadweight and Displacement
419 l)ct(lveight refers to situation Vhcre 1 pro1nocer vould undertake 1he
buiness projtmiddotct in 111y evcn1 i_e_ Vitliotll 1 gr1nc or 1sistince fron1 ~1 Iocil
l)e-elorn1en1 body middot1l1e granting of funltls 10 dealthveiglH projects is an ineffic1tgtnt
and ineflec1ivt alloc11ion of resources Disrlacen1tmiddotn1 refers ro situations vhere 1he
golt1cL or ~ervicvs iOlcl by 1 grlttlllltISiiSled rroll10ler divert sales opporlunitiis fro111
other exisling busincssl-gt E111plor111ent c1n hl sin1iL1rlv divlrtecl In chese cases rhe
in1pac1 of thl funds allocHed is achieved at the exptmiddotnsc of other enterprises
420 Tltere is risk of deidweight and c1splacemcnt in Iii gr1nr ictlmiddotUv including
th11 It lltgtcal clevelopn1en1 level A nccnc study stated th~1t 1 ~
ie bate tao concerns uifb the s11ppo11s Or n1icro e111e1JJrse Jbe Jruhlen1 uf
clacue1ibt a11cl clisplaccbull111e11t is e11clc111ic in such Slf)jJ01ts eJHCial~v 1ohlre
sc1cral agencie ure to su1ne clerrecbull inuolultcl in tlishursing such suJfgtorts
The Operational llogrammls for 11--DEH 111d 011lJHD llotlt su1e thll dc1clwe1ght
1ncl clisplact1nent are to Ixmiddot 1voiclld
421 All cn1crprise project Lill into one of 1he folloving fo111 clllgorics
Deadweighl Yes Deadweight No
Displacement No Displacement No
Deadweighl Yes Deadweight No
DisplacementbullYes Displacement Yes
Vlt1tio11al 11ici11nbull11i P11onlies for the xbullnfJd 1000-JrxJG Fitzgltbullrald cmiddott al Fn11omic ond )o(middotial Reearch 1i111u1rmiddot -Hor(h 19Y)
ocu )etelo111u11 t 11 it it1 I ives
Of 1he four possible scenarios onlv one (wi1h no displaccmeni incl no cleaclweigh1)
yields potcn1iil net increises in outpu1 incon1e en1ploy111cnr and consu1nption 1hat
could Ix 111nbu1ible 10 l[ADEH or 011Ul(l) supporl From vil11e for lllClllC)
perspective ii is in1ponant tha1 1hcrc be good infonnation on the extent of
cle1clwe1gl11 and dispLicemem and dfcc1ive prcxeclures 10 deal wi1h 1hem
Deadweight
422 11 is cl1fficuli 10 111eas11re the ex1ent of clcaclweigh1 and no method c1n Ix
rcmicro1rded is provicling tn1~illy rcliallle es1in1~1les [)eichveight Vts exa111ined in the
111idmiddotltnn reviev of OJgtLUHIJ in rcspcct uf fin~1nci1l ~1ssistu1ct givtn 10 s1nall finns
by CEl3s Fron1 a s11nple of finns ~untycd over 40dego of thC pron101ltrs indic1ted thll
they would hivc es11blished the businesses w11hou1 CUl suppo11 A s111cly of micro
enterprises 1h1t fl~Ceivtcl grants under Local )evelop1nent initiitivcs 1nd other
progr11n1111s rcpo11ed deichveight of 45Yi
423 E111erpnse Tricle and F111ploy111en1 has irgued 1h11 1hese estim11cs of
ceJdeiglu are roo high ccorcling tu thl l)erart111e11t the viCS of proinoter~ irt
nor 1 reli1ble guide to cil11er lheir behiviuur or heir SllCLt-S lhe l)cp1nn1ltnt ~1-serts
1hll di CEBs seek 10 ivoicl cleiclwcigh1 However i1 J11s been no1ccl 1h11
rcsrondentsmiddot confidence rcgtrding their abil11y to sta11 i busines in the 1bsence of
i grant c111 he considered 1s 1n underesli111~1le
424 A siucly f 1hc Arca Allowincc Fn1erprise Scheme (AAES) which is
adniinisterecl by P1rrnerships suneyecl a sa111ple of pa111cip1nr- 1 11 Vts concludedbull
thit cleachveigl11 Vas in 1he range 40-50o_ Even alkJving for s1111pling risks the
thnt surbulley-gt t1ke11 1oge1her suggest thlt there is 1 consiclerihlt incidence of
cittciVCight
425 An cximrle of poten1iil cleiclweiglll involving IEADER funding is se1 ou1 in
Cise Study 5
11of11at1011 (~ 1liClO 111tt1pn4 S11pxn3 lcrni 1ltllicn10 d local fgtcbull1ymiddotfop1111bull11t Agc11c1e 11d11try 11a11atirJ11 11111 1111~11-t 1999- lluro (llfe1p11lt- that rcCcbulluetl prro11s fr(J11 1111e17nisc flflt11u_ (danis 1u1 Crrlllachf( t111d Sht11111rJ1t )c1elop111e1111tmiddotc1v111c1uld i111lw arl(hiiS
Set fj lJiAJhk 111iutitlt hmiddot1a11af11J1 r11ul llttmiddot(middotr1111111middot11rlatiu11 lcmiddotontcmiddotv CI ul 1)95
Stjl111plortd a11d tlw 011g (bulln11 l11e111plr~rrmiddotd A11 1al11alio11 (J 11w tlnf1 t1101ra11cc f11terprit Xhe11tc IFNC Co11s1il1a111s J-)7
-1)1 cr11bullrde1middot 1ba11hc prop()r1p11middotuncncl 11IFJ _-lated b(l biy 11011d hatcmiddot 1atmiddotc11 up c111plrJy1111J1rJbull1jshy1middot111101111i1 ~ 111J (J nmiddotfia1c n1lt1ict1orji1r thost 1141u M1ild (UT nLltrfllll dn11( 11 t1) ht1 01)11cd that IJc lllU(rillllf (CtlN n1t1middotJrom l(lllJtiy1111Jl ~r I 1r11gmiddotttrlll llt1fJIO)td 24Ci Ill tbc iRC middot111(~1) 11Yfdd he c1 lgttbulluer t-li11(lft ofdct1tl11eipIJ1 fur AAlS paiticipd11t tha11 the tfiJJlltlllgt q11ofcfl i 1 1ha1 suufbull_ Nou~middotzybullr_ lh1bull s11u~v J(jiJfld (fl that lbulle cht1roocns1il~ vf Amiddot115 KJrticipa11t (tmiddotducatio11 and dt1r(lI011 of 1111c111p()y111cmiddot11t) were lkl(rmiddotmiddot tba11 for thl frn~~-1en11 111u111ploycd uho dul 11ol fx1rtic1xflcgt II Atf)
y
Of)(rotional IJfcicbullnc-)-
ase Study 5
Potential deadweight situation
lr1 1999 a business person 1n a large provincial town decided to provide a bed and bmiddoteakfast establishment in a spacious house that she owned in the centre of the town She decided to focus on the upper end I business market and provide four en-suite rcbulloms She received assurances from several local businesses that they would be willing to refer clients to her Two local hotels also indicated that they would refer cverflow customers
Tie total investment required to refurbish the property fit out and supply furniture crockery and bed linen was esl1maled al pound88000 Loan approval was obtained from the bmk for renovations and the promoter applied to the local LEADER group for a grant
T 1e LEADER group estimated that pound44000 of the proposed expenditure would be
eligible for grant assistance and a grant of pound13000 was approved for the venture
T 1e pro1ect report prepared for the LEADER Board meeting did not include consideration of the possibility lhat the pro1ect might proceed without a grant In that regard the following faclors would have been relevant
bull the premises was located 1n the centre of a busy growing town bull the premises was owned by the promoter bull the owner was self-employed and operated a consultancy service from home bull based on 35 occupancy net cash now in lhe first year was forecast at pound8000 bull if no grant had been paid and the funds had been borrowed instead the estimated
surplus for the year would have been reduced by an increased interest charge of up to pound1300 which would not have substantially changed the potential Viability of
the business venture
426 Posible Vtys of 111i11i1111sing dlHhveigh1 in assisted projects include
bull Targeting financial abullsistancc on projects where the costs of entry to the business arc high relative to the resources available to the promoter So111e pro111nltIS have ve111 li1ni1cd financial resources for fxa111ple 1he vast
n1Jjori1r of Ptrtntrship l lien1s ~ire long-tenn unc1nploycd It is Vorth noting
thtt evtn Vhlt 1dequa1e privite resoune- are lmiddotaiL1hle it 1nty bt difficult
for so1ne Jlt)cal f)evelop1nent bodit~ given their job creation target~ 10 1urn
clumiddotll involve1nent in othlmiddotrvisl sound projects Indeed 1he viev Vts
tprcssed hy 0111e of thosL in1ervitmiddotvecl in the courst of the study 1h~ll fi11111cial
Sllppo11 for CJigihJt projects is often vieVCd hy prOtllltllers ~IS an cntiJe1ll(fl( and
this can 111akl it difficult for Loctl l)tvLlopn1en( ])(xlies to nfusc financial
1ssist1nce (() deathve1gh1 rru1ect
37
(JC( )Ct(()JHUJl 11itiati1es
bull Providing financial assistance by means of repayable grants loans or equity mthcr than non-repayable cash grants middotrhis should discourige reli1ncc on public funds by those entrepreneurs vho
do not need ii Vhiltgt ensuring that entrepnmiddotnctllS vho do need public finance
can alail of it Tltlte m1cl-tcrm evtluil1on of 011UIU) recommenclecl the
incre1sed llSC of loans and l(jUity rlttther thtfl grtf)i reron 1ly tile lndUSll)
Evtlua1ion Uni ncon11ncndccl thll all financial 1ssi-11nce provided uncler 1he
1egis of lEADEH ancl CEils should require 1 fm1neid return From earlv 1998
CfB- ind Pa11nerships hive been tmiddotn1pOVlrld by 1hc EU Con1rnis inn to issisl
projects hy 111c1ns of equity ind rcfuncLtblc 1icl In 199~ tlrnost ~05111 of CEB
assist1ncc (4oo) v1s provided in 1hc fonn of equity 111d refundthle ~1id
Entcrprisc middotrrack ind E1nploy111en1 intend 1h11 refundable forins of 1ssis1ance
Vil] he deployed incrc1nentdly 111 future Al)11 hJs tgllld vi1h P1r1ncrships
tllt clien1- should Vhtre prtctic~ilgtle nceiVl nmiddotfundable 1itl r11hcr th~111 grints
In 1ccurcl111ce wt1h EU regul1llons lEADEH groups ire precluded from
providing lotns or equity to enterprises
427 recent study reported thi1~
le ackn()toleclgc that n1icru e11te17Jrises 111a_v face capital constraints especialfr in the stcut uJdegfJhase but strongf)i s11_rges11hat the n1us1 ejecliue
uov Ju lf(lltress his fJOssible middotn1arkct _(ailunmiddot is Jbrough rJals an( eq1tif)
rather tba11 microran aicl 1Jt~~- uo11c 111inin1ise tbe r1~k ojmiddot creating a cleJenclcnl~) c11111 remiddot
428 It is clear [hll here is cope for n1uch greater use of rep1y~il)[c grin[S loans
ind equi1y 10 111inin1isl dtachveiglil incI such ustmiddot has 1hc 1ddccl 1dv1nt1ge 1h11
1ssistince c1n he providlcl n1ore econon1ic1lly 1 funds c1n bl recycled to 1ssis1
n1ore thtn one project Huvcvcr so111c incre~1se in ~1dn1ini-gttr11ion cos1s could be
expcc1ecl
429 An extre1ne fonn of ckichveiglH irises Vhtn public fin1nciil support is
supplied 10 1 project vhirh as cst1hlishecl and is oreruing in [he Jbsencc nf this
suppon CtSl Siucly 6 involving 1hc ArlJ Allovtnce Enterprise Schlllle illus1r1tes thi
11a11aH11t of 11ficro 111(tpn-lt SupjXJl1 Ao-o a11011til a11d lcx(I Jrbull1tmiddotlup111c1u 11~cmiddot11C11gtmiddot iu1111y tia11r1i(Jll 11it A11~1til CJlt-lt)
rJ1irJ1Ui lnnmiddott111cbull11f Jn-ru1fi(middoti f(lr tbe wnod 20(J-2(XX) Faz Ccrllfd lf t1I c()10111ic (JUI S(Jcial Nc_1middott1rr_h 11_f1ltrlt I-Ion)) JJlt-J
Sltmiddotj~F1111lo1ld o 1u he lh11g-T1middotr111 Ui1tmiddot111plo1middotetl- 1111 10i1atio11 of lbltmiddot Artbulla Alllt1flft 110middot 11tlJHi1e ScJ1111cbull 1HC Co1111raJ11middot 19lt)7
middotmiddot
38
Ojgteraliollal JJicie11lt_~1middot
ase Study 6
Funding the startup of an existing business
A fisherman was 1n receipt of Unemployment Assistance (UA) from the Department of
SJcial Community and Family Affairs (DSCFA) from 1979 to 1999 In September 1998 hi applied for support under the Area Allowance Enterpnse Scheme (AAES)
Uoder the terms of the scheme an applicant must be unemployed for at least a year
and this eligibility must be confirmed in writing on the application form by DSCFA The Praquortnership can subsequently approve the application and may provide minor financial support 1n addition to the main financial benefits provided by DSCFA 1e the receipt of full unemployment payments for a year and on a reducing scale for a further three years plus retention of secondary benefits
Abullcording to the application form the applicant had received a bank loan of pound18000 for the purchase of a boat with repayments commencing on 30 August 1998 In addition hf was the owner of fishing nets to a value of pound6000
Tt1e application form was certified by DSCFA 1n January 1999 to the effect that the applicant was eligible for AAES The certification did not explain
bull how the applicant managed to purchase a boat while on UA bull how he persuaded the bank to provide a loan or pound18000 bull how he was financing the business from August 1998 to January 1999 in particular
the boat repayments and insurance amounting to pound565 per month
Tt1e report prepared for the Partnership Board meeting stated that the applicant had with the knowledge of DSCFA been engaged 1n the fishing industry for the previous ten years on a part-time basis The Board approved the application
mcFA has made the following observations on this case
bull Following an investigation in 1988 the UA payment was terminated but reinstated under appeal with an assessment of net income at pound1250 from fishing per year The case was reviewed 1n 1993 and the net income per year was increased to pound1400 A further review was conducted in September 1998 (the month atter the boat was purchased) and the assessment of net income did not increase
bull It is very difficult to establish an accurate income for such fishermen as fish can be sold to tourists and restaurants for cash
bull The Department did not consider 1t necessary to check with the bank as to what if any security was provided for the loan
bull While failures occur in the scheme they do not cost the Department any more than if the client continued on UA
A[1M has pointed out that fishing comprises a very small proportion of AAES pa1ic1pants supported by Partnerships A recent review of Partnership business su1iports reported that fishing and Bed and Breakfast businesses do not provide a viable full-time 1ob and Area Allowance 1s not an appropriate support payment It also recommended that clearer guidelines should be issued regarding eligib1l1ty
Soure Partnership Business Supports and the Area Allowance Scheme Insights No 8 ADM 1999
J9
locaf f)ltueloJn1e11t fl1itiati1es
Case Study 7
Potential displacement situation
A business proposal was made to a CEB 1n 1998 The promoler wished to provide a food delivery service to factories on industrial estates ie sandwiches baps snacks elc The promoter recognised that there were several competitors Unlike the
competitors he proposed to provide the service via three refrigerated vending machines lhat would be reslocked regularly He applied for and was approved a capital grant of pound5500 by the CEB in December 1998
The project report prepared for lhe Board meeting dealt with the possibility of displacement by noling that lhe promoters service would be provided in a manner different from his compet11ors However the question arises if the project is successful how will its sales be achieved unless by the diversion of the expenditure of faclory employees from one service provider to another
Displacement
430 middotrhc only antlysis of clispL1ce1ncnt vas in respccl uf 11lS 1nd this shl)Vcd a
wide rmge of estimils Using a methodology devised bv Breen and Halpin the
consul11nts esti1111recl that 64oo of the business carried out by 1ES panicipants Vas
diver1cd fron1 other Irish fin11s and Iiiat ~i l1X1 of en1plny1llLl1I created in
thescentcrpriscs v1s at the expense of other enterprises middot1l1e consultants felt thtt the
Breen 111cl 1-ldpin methodology had limitations ancl tlut their estinutes of
clisplicc1nent Vere too high lJsing different 1ssu1nptions incl 1 different
mthodology they estim11ecl that 19 of employment created in AAES enterprises
Vts displacLcl fro1n other cn1erpriscs
431 Possible vays of n1ini111ising clispl1cen1ent include
bull CounsLlting pro1notcrs tovncb exports or cloincstic sectors supplied prltdom1n1111lv l)y import
bull ithholding 1ssis1ance fron1 projec1s in1encling 10 supply goods and stgtrviccs to the clon1es1ic 1111rke1 vhich are alrc1cly supplied by other busineSSlS
bull Providing financial tssisttnce by n1eans of rep1yibllt grants lo1ns ind cqui1y rathtr rhin non-repayable ct~h gr1nts
432 All LEADEH groups Partnerships and CEils are insrruned not to suppon
projects Vhich voulcl displace business fro1n other enterprises
433 CEl3s were advised early in 1999 10 focus heir efforts on thlt development of
n1anuf1cturing incl in1ern1tional services projects vhich viii have the pltgttential 10
clevclop in10 export-oriented finns hile not neglecting other eligible rrojects
(vi1ble non-clcaclveight non-displacc1nen1) outside these sec1ors Jgtirtnersl1ips have
40
()JCltflional Jffrienc)
agmiddoteed tht financid support should not be supplied to businsses 111 plentiful
supply such as hackneys couriers builcling contr1cpoundors Ix-cl and hre1kLi~t
operators vm sales and hairdrclaquors LEADER groups are advised to d11ect the11
Stlj)p(H1S tOvards innltgtva1ive pnijeLt~
4i4 There arc d1ffcrcmiddotnt views among Local Development bodies regarding what is
inmiddotoived in rtcognising diplacetntnt middotrhus -cHne Lltic~11 J)evelopn1en1 bodi1s
co1sider thtl if lhe existing co111peeitors to a project are located outside their county
or evtn their loc~1lity 1hen clisplacen1cn1 is not 1n issue
4s The 1111cl-1cnn reviews of LEADEH and OPLUHD made linlc reference to
displlcemcnt Howevmiddotcr the LEADEH mid-term review contended that displJcemcnt
vculd he 111ini111ised if LEAl)ER groups focused their f1nincial 1ssistance on
111rovative proiects Agnrnlture and Food intend that the final evalu111on of LEADEH
11 Viii includ ltSli111a1ion of tltmiddotachveigh1 and clispl1cen1ent effect
Be11e_ficit1 Dis1U1ce111e11t
436 II rhere are ~1ny circu111st~1nces in vhich ltlispl1ce111ent can be ignored thev
shltnild be identified For exunple it 111ay be possible to sustain the c~1se on sociJI
jus1 ice or equity grounds rhu specific groups such JS 1he lung-1ern1 t1nt111ployed
shcbullttld receivlt posi1ivlt cliscri111in~n1on elifJI at the cxfxnse ojotherjoh see~ctYi tOi1
111 lrgucd 1h1t onlt of the obwctives of Partnerships is to 1mprovmiddot( the potcnlld of
the long-tcnn unc111ployccl ind 1he socially ltXcludccl 10 gain cn1ploy111ltnl in lhlt
eccbullno1ny generally ind specifically 1n poundheir Ovn areas_ middotrhc inslrtion of particular
dis1dvant3ged groups into e111ploy1ncnt or a husine~s viii often have thL effec1 of
dis)Jcing a non-clis~1dvantaged person fron1 that 1oh oppo11unity Hcnvcver the
social giin makes the displJce111ent worthwhile
437 Given that CEBs cover the emire populallon incl that Partnlrships and
LEd)EH groups cover 540o and 6Joo respectively the exacpound circun1s11ncltS Vhen
clisplacemem 111ight be permincd for any Local Devdopmelll body should be
cluificd by the relevant Dep1rtmenis
(rnui11g (lUJ Sharing ()I r F111plr1y111e11t S1raUt_r (JfX 011 the lt1bltgt11r _bulllfariltf tgtlt1uu11cmiddotn1 of1111erpnmiddotc_ 7huC and 1111Joy111e11r Jn 19ltXgt
41
5 Assessment of Impact
51 Xhik the 1nc1sun111cnt of the 1chieven1ent of cconon1y 1nd efficiency is
ilnportan1 in the n1an1ge1nenl of the initiatives establishing their in1pact is of even
grci1er 11npnrtance J111pic1 assessn1enl is concerntd Vilh est1blishing the e-1cn1 10
which the local devdoprnent oJ1cc1Jns ire achievecl 1110 the wider contribution of
the initiatives 10 local cconon1ic and socitl developn1ent 11 is desirable thtt
appropri1te sys1tn1s to evaulle 1he 1chicve111ents of the iniliHives in n lttion co their
desired 11np1cts should IJt in place
52 Ille cllvcloprnent nf syste1ns to detennine 1he i1np1ct of the initiitivcs is not
easy middotrhlt clivlr~i1y of Jnc~il dcvelupn1ent objecrive~ n1e1ns thit it is unlikely thH 1ny
one 1ssessn1cn1 niethocl Otild he sufficient So1ne in1p1cts like cn1ploy1nent
crltJtiun can lx quintified Jnd 1chieven1ent can be n1unitorecl chrough che 111alysis
of nJev1n1 perfonnanct indic11ors_ Othcrs like rlttising the level of econo111ic activity
ctn be 1ssessecl 1hrough 1he usc of ccono111ic 1noclels using surroga1e 111e1sures of
irnpacl 1VL1ny of the socitl objeclives of 1he inili11ive are not susceptible to
n1e1sure1ne111 at di incl till i1111xu1 achieved Jre best detenninccl through surveys
of chtngts in local condilions a1 inclividu1I and con1nnir1i1y levels
S3 lhi ch1p1er consiclt~rs 1ppro1chcs co che 1sscss111en1 of i1npact under the
folJoving J1e1dings
Issues Subject
Quantitative assessments Baseline analysis bull bull Use of macroeconomic data
Qualitative assessments Assessing social impacts bull Case studies and international studies bull
Quantitative Assessments
54 lnfonnition on job creacion and the progression of long-tenn une1nployecl
persons 10 fuJI lirlle VOrk 1re rerorted for i[J these ypes Of 1gtltKJies (see middotr1ble 41
ind Append A) Vhile the figures tint hive been reported to end-1998 under
011URI) 1re well 1he1d of the tirgcts thit were set it is difficult to interpret these
resuhs in hrn1s of i111picl in lhe ibsence of bascline cl1t1
Baseline Analysis
55 B1selinc analysis would estiblish the performance of a representative group
of enterprises con1n1uni1y groups incl individu~1ls 1hat did not receive 1ssis11nce
under 1hc initiatives middotrhe rcrfonnancc of 1ssis1ecl entities incl individuils al counry
42
Assess1ne111 lt~ 111JOCI
or r111ional levtgtI could then he co1nparcd Vilh the 1xmiddotrfonnancl of middotn1ttchedmiddot nonshy
tssi ~1ed cnlitiii selected fro1n the repre~entltil group Si1nil1rly tile pcrlltlrn11ncl
of en1i1ies recltiving ditlenmiddotnt kinJ of ~1ssistance could also he antlysed to cletenninc
rel1 live ilnpac1
56 Baseline analysi~ can he pcrfonnld using 1nicroecono111ic d111 (da1a 1bou1
spcltific enterprises) or n1acrotcnnon1ic clat1 (1ggrLg11t~d dat1)_ middotrhc cl1t1 collection
proicduns -11 loc1l level hJve not heimiddotn 1dequatt to suppo11 this kind of ltinalysis
using 1nicrocconon1ic data 1ccordingly analysis against a baseline of non-1ssis1cd
cnlt-rprises co111n1unity groups ind individu1J- cHHlO( hl carried out
I Case Study on Unemployment using Macroeconomic Data
i 5 7 stuclv of the irnpact uf 011l RD on unemplovment ing census clata
(111a- rltgttgtcono111ic data) has hlttll c1rrild out under tile ~1egis of the ()PlUH)
P1oriloring ConHniuec So1nc rcsuhs of the study 1re su11H11arised in Cae Study H
58 middotrtiis finding fro111 ltase S1udy 8 dltgtcs nor nectgtssarily 111ean 11111 P~trtnerships trl
les effective in assisting une111ployed peorle 10 find vork 1s unc111ploycd ptorlt~
in P~ntncrship 1rc1s 111ay he 111on di_-adv~1nt1ged and find ii lllOll dillicull to 1ccess
e111(oy1ncn1 In addition 1he ralt of entry to une1nploy111lnt in Partnership 1reas
1nay he different frorn non-Jgt1r1nershir 1n~~1s 11lt)vevcr the data is inconclusive
I ~1hont tile level of ttlcclivcness of P~111nlr~liips in addressing Ltr1e111rloyn1cnL middotrhe
case s1udy highlights the co111plexity of in1pac1 analysis but also illustrates ils
i irnpbullgtrltnce in le~1cling lo a grlmiddotHer uncllrst1nd1ng of the resulls of progr~11n11H
aCllily More complex ltbta rnodels of the labour nurket at local level woulcl be
nccclecl for a svs1e111~11ic revicv of 1hc elTcctivenesi of Pannerships in tickling longshy
I 1ern~ llllt~n1plon1ent
59 It is of inlertst 10 e-an1inc the trends in the duration of uncn1ployn1ent in
I recent years imiddot~1hle 51 ihOVS thc nun1hers une111plnyecl ylmiddot1r on yctr in ont year
banltls up to 1l1nc years fron1 1994-1999 and the 11ne1nplcgtyn1ent retentugtn r1tcsmiddot
fro1r vtmiddotar to year i_e_ lhe proportion of those 11ne111ployed ho nLmiddot still unen1ploytCI I
one year li1er
I510 middotr1hle 51 shov- 1h1t signific1nt i111provlrnlnts in une111ploy111cnt rerintion
ralc~ htVl occurrLd in recent yetrs particularly for long-ten11 UllLlllploy1nen1 Strong
ecoron1ic grovth in 1lie period covered vould li1ve beltIl of prinH in1ponance in
1he reduction 111 long-1tmiddotrn1 l1ne111ploy111ent ihiJc the long-lerrn une1nployed ire thl
1111in rarge1 group for Partnerships thlse areas are not sep1raccly distinguished 1n
lhe analysis OutlOVS ro schen1es such 1s Co111111u11ity Fn1ployn1cnt could also he I
llllf)()flilll
43
olta JeueloJn1e111 11itioti1cs
Case study 8
Analysis of the impact of OPLURD on long-term unemployment using macrodata
A key part of the analysis was a comparison between the change in unemployment in Partnership areas from 1991-1996 with the corresponding change in non-Partnership
areas The comparison was based on the Census of Population for 1991and1996 The logic behind the comparison was that disadvantaged areas are at risk of falling behind
the general level of economic development unless there is a targeted intervention to ensure that the rising tide of economic growth flows into those areas Thus if the
decline m unemployment in Partnership areas is similar to that in Ireland as a whole
then at least the gap between affluent and poor areas has not widened and Partnerships may have contributed to some extent to this outcome
The consultants measured changes 1n the unemployment rate in two ways (i) by the percentage point (or absolute) change (ii) by the proportionate (or relative to 1991) change
They used a simple example to illustrate the difference between the two measures Assume that Area A has 90 unemployment rate and Area B has 20 unemployment
rate If the unemployment rate declines by 10 percentage points in both areas (the
same absolute change in the rate) the relative rate is quite different since Area A has declined by only 11 (relative to its starting rate) whereas Area B has deemed by 50
(relative to 1s starting rate) Both rates should be used together
The key data was summarised as follows
Unemployment rate
Area 1991 1996 Absolute Percent Percent Change initial rate Points Change Relative to Initial
Ireland 169 14 8 -21dego
Ratebull
-126
Partne1ship areas 256 230 -26 -100 (PESP only)
Non-Partnership 139 119 -20 -141 areas
Note 8 Change in unerriployment rate divided by the initial unemployment rate
The consultants commented that the unemployment rate in PESP Partnership areas
fell by a slightly greater absolute amount than either Ireland or non-Partnership areas but in relative terms they did worse - essentially because they had higher unemployment rates to begin with in 1991
Sourco A Report on the Impact of the Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development on Long- Term Unemployment Goodbody Economic Consultants et el October 1999
44
Assessnu11t q J11pact
Table 51 Duration of unemployment and retention rates 1994-1999
Ye
19 19 19 19 19 19
ar
94 95 96 97 98 99
Less than one year Number
151032 144283 146776 132398 130780 110446
--shy1-2 years 2-3 years 3+ years
Number Retention Number Retention
rate rate
Number
43697 39748 263 40875 283 38361 261 31719 240 28 194 216
27489 64154 26293 602 67955 25852 650 69667 24227 593 61870 18914 493 54448 14496 457 44940
NotB Retenrion rates are calculated as follows_ All of those who wero unemployed for 1-2 years in 1995 (39 748) wcro unernployed for less than one year in 1994 (151032) thus the unemployment retention rate is 263 (39 748+151032) CSO Live Register data
i Case Study on Business Formation using Macroeconomic Data
I 511 tucly of s11111l business forn1ation over ti111e 111ight be usecl to consider issues
middot such as lhe i111pact of lhl initi~Himiddotes on thtbull rice of n1anufacturing st1nups his i~
considered in Case Srudy 9
51~ C~rtater underst1nding is requirtcl of the n1ix of variables vhich n1ay be
responihle for the trends appann( in the data In a situ11ion vhere an unexpected 1 result is obt1inLmiddotd fron1 tile analysi~ C1s in Case Study 9) 11 Otild lgtt necessary to
refirc the analysit using 1111croecono111ic dala un1il the reasons for the trends
observed 1re clarified and the dilTcren1 contribution~ of lhe initiatives to sn1all 1
enterprise fonn~uion ere better understood
513 In order to use 111icrtgteconon1ic cLua 10 assess the in1p1ct of 1ht ini1ia1ivcs on1 n1anufacturing and intern~llional StTviccs it vould be necessJI) to integrate locil
clcvdopment suppo11 dlla from all the mitia11ves -Uh rhe Forfis and Enterprise
middotrr1de and E1nploy1ncn1 Bu~iness InforntHion Sygtt(Jll (BIS) Enterprise lrlttcle incl
Fmrlovment 1ntcncls to proceed with the 1nrcmiddotgra1ion of CEil data with the BIS (See
paragraphgt 2 2i-228) i 514 Enrerprise Tracie ancl Employment h1s commissioned a review 10 take place
in 11middote currenl year on the in1p1ct of CEUs vith particular reference 10 thlt ratlt of 1
bu~i1es~ fonnacion tnd 1he su~tlinability of the johs cre~Htmiddotcl
45
lucal JelJelo111unl l11i1ia11cs
Case Study 9
Use of macroeconomic data on business formation
In 1993 Enterprise Ireland stopped assisting manufacturing and international services firms with less than ten employees This role was transferred to CEBs The trend in the number of Irish-owned startups in manufacturing from 1987 to 1996 has been studied in an effort to detect the impact of economic growth on the rate of startups It might equally be used as a starting point to consider the impact of CEBs in this role
Startups in Irish-owned manufacturing 1987 to 1996bull
600
500
bullOO
300
200
100
0 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Year
The graph shows that the very rapid economic growth from 1993 (which period includes the emergence of the initiatives) did not result in an increased rate of manufacturing startups According to the quoted study The start-up performance 1s surprising The improvement m the economy over the years has not been accompanied by a corresponding growth in the number of manufacturing startupsmiddot
Note a Case study based on ~startups and Closures in Indigenous Manufactunmiddotng an Analysis of the CensCJS of Industrial Production 1986-1995 Irish Banking Review Autumn 1998 Anthony Foley and Teresa Hogan
Source Data Census of lndustna Production CSO
Qualitative Assessments
Assessing Social Impacts
515 Some irnpo11rn1 rnrcro clilt wts cs1rl3lrshecl by ADM reltting 10 middotc1ep1wa1ion
111clic11ors for l1nnership areas Bised on the 1991 Clnsus of Populttion ADM
co1npilecl indic1rors of cleprivuion for all Pannershlp areas domiddotn to l)istrict
Elcctor1l l)ivisiltgtn levc1 l)cprivJriun 1n1p- tre 1lso procluced middotrhe clcprivltlCion
indicators 1nclucled
46
bull educationtl a1tainn1en1
bull ltgtCcu1x11ional profile
bull lltxmiddotil labour n1arket characteris1ics
bull housing
FrOill 1hcse indicators a con1pusite deprivaiion index value Vas con1p11tcd for each
lartnersl11p area for 1991
516 Tlrrs exercr lras rectgtnilv bcrn repeated from tire results of the 1996 Census of lo1n1llli(gtn Fngtnl ~tn in1pac1 assess111en1 ptrspcctivtmiddot relilt1nce ltgtn these indicators
voulcl involve ~0111e li111itllions_ For lt1n1ple chc Census year- do not coincide Vith
Partnership 111ilcstones 111igruion can con1plicatc 1nalysis and [he d111 is not
definitive regltncling c1usality~~
51 ()espile these lin1ilalions analysis of the indicators of dtprivt1ion should
probullicle valuable inforn1ation rcg1rdi11g changes in 1pects of clt~pfiv1tion in different
Partnershq1 anas and should ilso Ltcilitatc con1p1rion ovtr 1i111e Vith nun
la11nersl11p areas lhe ltlmiddotailtbility of this infonnltllion shot1ld ftcilirarc furthCr
ittt111pts to consider the social in1p1c1s of tht~ initlHives
Case Studies and International Studies
5tf Whrle much hrs been wrr11en on tire rctrvrtres of Local Development bodies
chc tlcnt of 111atcrial spccifictlly covering the evtl1111ion of their i1np1c1 is very
li111i1ecl Several Partnerships have c1rried otH case srudil~middotM) to highlight hov issues
wen being trckled by different Partnerships ancl to promote best practice Case studies are undcrv1y tlso in n1lt1ny LLl)FH groups No case studies havtmiddot lgteen u ed
so L1r in tlic cnlcrprisc ind ioh crc1tion ~1rea for CEB ac1ivi1ies
519 A for111J E11ropean s1ucly v1s unck-rtiken of he rnle of p1nnerships in
proriuting sociil cohesion in ten fmiddot1t1nhcr Srarl~ of the EU co111prising ten nniond
rtpcrts (including lrel1ncl) and 1 synli1esis European rt~portjlbull middotrht study and repo11s
j middotltre bt-gtlltl prin1arily on rh1rty ctst tuclic (rhree fro111 etch middotten1ber St~lle) Vhich
looked 11 issues of reprtstnlalion ncgoliHion and alliance lgtuilcling in tile
devElop111ent of strategies and 1c1ion plans ind the vorking 111ethocls skills incl
I reso-_1rces aprlied lgty p~111nershirs
()her 11111101io11s arc rexnccl i11 fJrxr coptmiddot fJrgtCir i~ edttimiddotd l~r I) Pn11gle tf of Ook Tree )rt--
)11J111_ -~)9
_rKmiddottd 1art11c1ih1p~ middotI 5111n--11 511HIL1Y fur Sc)(middotial Cubl~011lt 11 Ccddcbull OJ1tc ( QOua 11h1lta1J11_- fvr w F11n1J1CJ11ltiJ111111111111umiddots1111d -111middotn1wt111 h1111ulrlf1011for1ie lm1ro1(mlW of itll~L tntl lliirk111~ Co11tl11io11s 19ltJ-
47
ocal Jevelop111e11t lnilit1tite_
520 1ihilc the rtpon included n1iny individual references to isol11cd cxirnpks of
1hc 1tll1x1c1 of panncrships Clllpincd rcstarch into 1he effecliveness of 1xnmerships
Vts not Vithin the score of the study middotrhcrc VIS also no 1ue1npt to con1p1re the
perfor1111nce of p1nncrsl1i1)s it nationil l(vel
521 The 1bsencc of specific tllaterial on the cvalL1a1ion of effectiveness of locd
clevelop111en1 bodies is panly clL1e 10 a lick of come~tuil clata 11 local level 10
L1cilita1e in~dysis A pri1n1ry ain1 of the bodies is to L1cilit1te thl locil achievtinent
of resuh~ incl to ltver1gc 1hc 1c1ivitics of local groups Assess1ncnt of effectiveness
of this kind of 1c1ivHy woulcl require that the role played by the lxxlies could he
isollltcl fruin ill oiher contribuiory f1ctors middot1middothis is difficult middotrtiere is 1 cletr need for
more data collernon llld 1hc clcvdop111ent of soual poltl) models which would
f1cili111e bcuer 1ns1gh1 by policy 1111kcrs imo the impact of the arnvities of local
clevdopment boclits
48
Jr
0 Ji~ )~ l ( imiddot
Appendices
~ gt
- _ middot-
---middotmiddot middot--shy ~--y- -~ -middot bull bull - bull __~
middot
middot
_ _~ -- middot ~
Appendix A Annual Cost and Outputs of Individual County Enterprise Boards Partnerships and LEADER Groups 1995-1997
(Jkistd on du1 ~upplicd by Dcp111111ents and ADJ1 Ltd Luc in 1998)
I
Summary of Expenditure on Local Development Programmes (1995-1997) Appendix A
1995 1996
pound000 of total expenditure
pound000 of total expenditure
CEBs
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
Total Expenditure
13485
1421
4895
19801
68dego
7dego
25
100
13503
3879
4284
21666
62
18dego
20
100
LEADER (1)
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
Total Expenditure
23
887
820
1730
2dego 51dego
47dego
100
1529
2350
1684
5563
28
42dego
30dego
100
PartnershipsCommunity Groups
and National Organisations (2)
Grant Expenditure
Non Grant expenditure
Administration Costs
I
-3 025
1532
66
34dego
-5161
5164
-SOoo
50
Total Expenditure 4557 100 10325 100
Aggregate expenditure figures shown in this table have been superseded by more up to date figures shown in Table 21 (1) Local Development groups accounted for 96 of LEADER expenditure in 1995 - 1997 and detailed analysis focused on lhis (2) Partnerships accounted for 84 of total expenditure for 1996 - 1997 and detailed analysis focused on this
1997
pound000
12884
5414
4437
22735
6226
3536
2015
11778
15579
7398
22977
0o of total expenditure
57dego 24dego
19dego
100
53
30
17dego
100
-68oo 32
100
County Enterprise Boards Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1995 Appendix A11
County Enterprise Board Administration
Expenditure pound000
Total Expenditure
pound000 Administration as 0o of
Total Expenditure
Grant Aid as 0o of
Total Expenditure
Non~rant Outputs as
of Total Expenditure
Tipperary South Riding 150 274 55dego 381 7oo
Corllt North 142 315 45dego 55dego Ooo Monaghan 143 375 38oo 621 QOo
Tipperary North County 122 353 35 57dego 8dego Meath 128 373 34oo 59oo 7dego
Louth 135 410 33dego 56dego 11 Ofo
Kildare 157 476 33 48 19dego Kerry 228 747 J 1Ofo 62 7 Limerick City 162 561 29dego 64oo 71
West Cork 142 498 29dego 65dego 6dego
Limerick County 209 714 29dego 63 Soo Westmeath 103 358 29dego 71dego Ooo Longford 95 335 28dego 68dego 4oo
Clare 169 635 27dego 68dego Soo Waterford County 106 396 27oo 73dego Ooo Cork City 150 543 27oo 671 6 Doneaal 124 460 27dego 68dego 5dego Fingal (Oubhn) 152 598 26dego 63dego 11
Mayo 155 651 24 72oo 4dego Waterford City 134 559 24dego 63 13dego Wicklow 127 558 23oo 70 7dego Ca now 149 654 23dego 72 5 South Corllt 187 844 22dego 71dego 7 Leitrim 147 671 22dego 67 11dego Cavan 122 564 22dego 65dego 3dego Laois 121 595 21dego 73 6dego South Dublin 143 670 21 70deg4 9dego Offaly 126 600 21deg4 63dego 16dego Dublin City 111 551 20deg4 67oo 13 Sligo 147 728 20deg4 73dego 7 Roscommon 111 597 19deg4 77 4dego Wexford 144 777 19dego 75deg4 6oo Kilkenny 1()0 637 16oo 84dego OOo
Galway County and City 140 950 15 83 2 Oun Laoghaire - Rathdown 82 743 110o 78oo 11 Oo
Miscellaneous (1) 30 30 Ooo QOo OOo
Total 4895 19801 25 68 7
(1) Refers to set up costs incurred on behatf of au Boards
County Enterprise Boards - Administration Costs as a Percmiddotentage of Total Expendifure --f996 Appendix A12
I _ - vuony c11u1tUllgttl ouaru
I Administration
I Total Expenditure Administration as 0o of Grant Aid as 0o of Non-grant Outputs as
Expenditure pound000 pound000 Total Expenditure Total Expenditure 0 0 of Total Expenditure
Cork North 119 417 29~o 63degshy 8degc -middot
113 28dego 56dego 16degoTipperarv North _counlv 404 -shy -Sliqo 118 457 26dego 50dego 24dego--Mealh 136 532 25~~ 53dego 22dego Laois 151 612 25dego I 59eo 16dego
Westmeath 120 500 24dego 55oo 21dego
Cork City 124 533 23dego 55dego 22oo Roscomn1on 120 536 22dego 61dego 17dego
Louth 133 620 21 Oo 57dego 22dego-Cavan 128 599 21dego 67degc 12dego
Clare 123 581 21Co 61dego 18dego
South Dublin 147 705 21 oo 56 23dego
Dublin City 139 668 21dego 49dego 30deg~
Kildare 128 625 20degh 41 lo 39o-shyTipperary South Riding 108 530 201 68dego 12oo
-Mavo 159 784 20dego 70oo 10dego
Carlow 117 582 20dego 67dego 13oo
West Cork 127 633 20dego 59dego 21
Longford 114 579 20dego 71dego 9dego -
Kerry 114 584 20oo 68deg~ 12oA
South Cork 125 645 19dego 58dego 23dego Limerick Cily 132 683 19oo 64oo 17dego
-Galway 122 631 190~ 69~o 12dego-Kilkenny 120 636 19dego 67dego 14dego
Offaly 117 628 19dego 62dego 19dego
Waterford County 105 563 19 66dego 15dego
Leitrim 121 665 18oo 64 18dego middot-
Oun Laoghairc bull Rathdown 116 648 18dego 57dego 25dego-
Fingal (Dublin) 117 656 18dego 56degc 26deg~ -Wexford 117 708 17oo 68dego 15dego
Wicklow 122 739 16 71 13dego
Donegal 119 757 16dego 65dego 19dego
Limerick County 120 810 15degc 68dego 17dego
Waterford City 118 800 15dego 75dego 10dego--Monaghan 75 616 12 74dego 14degc
Total 4284 21666 2011o 62dego I 18dego I
County Enterprise Boards Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A13
County Enterprise Board Administration Total Expenditure Administration as 0A of Grant Aid as 0o of Non-grant Outputs as
Expenditure pound000 pound000 Total Expenditure Total Expenditure deglo of Total Expenditure
Cork North 106 344 31dego 50dego 19dego
Clare 172 631 27dego 46dego 27oo---shyTieperary North County 116 448 26dego 38 36dego Waterford County 126 505 25dego 54dego 21dego Longford 121 498 24dego 60oo 16dego Wexford 156 647 24dego 56oo 20dego Wicklow 184 796 23dego 57dego 20dego Limerick Cilv 141 619 23oo 51dego 26dego
Mealh 170 751 22oo 52dego 26dego Offaly 113 505 22dego 53dego 25dego Kilkenny 121 545 22dego 48dego 30oo Donegal 94 428 22dego 42dego 35co
Leilrim 139 640 22dego 54dego 24dego------shy -Monaghan 118 556 21dego 57oo 22dego
Waterford City 164 788 21dego 60dego 19dego
Limenck County 147 708 21degk 53dego 26deg1 Louth 161 787 20dego 50dego 30dego
Mayo 122 602 20oo 53dego 27dego
Sligo 99 496 20dego 51 Ofo 29dego Tipperary South R1d1ng 120 619 19eo 60dego 21dego
Carlow 113 593 19dego 65dego 16dego Cork City 127 672 19dego 59 22dego
Weslm~ath 119 637 19dego 60dego 21dego South Cork 131 704 19dego 58dego 23dego
Laois 113 615 18dego 55dego 27 --Kildare 136 761 18 56dego 26dego Cavan 127 740 17dego 63dego 20 West Cork 87 513 17dego 57dego 26dego South Dublin 165 981 17dego 64dego 19dego Dun Laoghaire middot Rathdown 102 621 17dego 48dego 35dego Kerry 94 580 16dego 66 18dego
Roscommon 75 474 16dego 61 23dego Galway 110 835 13 64 23oo Fingal (Dublin) 117 902 13dego 62dego 25dego Dublin City 130 1 195 11 69 20
Total 4436 22735 19dego 57dego 24dego
---
I
LEADER A~minist_ration ~osts -~~ a Percentage of Total Expenditure -_ 1_995 __ Appendix A1 4
I Local Development Group
I
Laois Leader Rural Development Co Lid Cavan-Monaghan Rural Oevelopn1ent Co~rat1ve Soc~ely Ltd
Barrow-Norc-Suir Rural Developmentmiddot 62 81 771 QOo 23dego
Wicklow Rural Partnership Lid bull 26 38 70dego -I QOo 30dego
Westmeath Community Development Ltd
Longford Community Resources Lid -middot
-
8 11
-11 18
70degc
65
bull Oh
QOo
23dego
35dego middotmiddotshy
Mid-South Rural Roscommon Development Assoc1alion Ltd 9 14 63dego QOo 37dego
Rural Resource Development Lid bull 80 129 62degc Ooe 38dego
Meath Con1mumty Partnershrp Co Ltd
Meithcal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo
3
68
5 117
- 60dego
58dego
4dego
OOo
35eo
42dego
South West Mayo Development Co Galway Rural Development Co
54
8
94 middot-middotmiddot
15 58dego
56dego
1Oe
00o
41Co
44
Arigna Catchment Area Community Co 11 23 48dego 4dego 48
Western Rural Development Co Lld bull 28 58 48dego 00o 52oo
Offaly LEADER If Co Lid -middotmiddot
3 6 48~J QOo 52
IRD Duhallow Ltd bull -
Ballyhoura Development Ltd 60 74
131 163
46dego
45dego
OOo middotshy
OOo
54
55
West Limerick Resources Ltd
South Kerry Partnership Ltd bull
Waterford Development Partnership Lid
Tuatha Ch1arra1 Ltd
Word - Wexford Organisation for Rural Development
West Cork LEADER Group bull
Donegal Local Development Co Lid
-
10
29
34
6
51
57
8
- 23 66 76 14
125
160
22
44dego
44dego
44dego
42gtigt
41
35dego 340
3dego
00o
00o
6 1eo
00o
3eo
middotshy
53dege
56dego-56dego
52deg
58dego
65dego
63dego
-middotmiddotshy
Tipperary LEADER Group bull
Totalmiddot Local Development Groups
30 813
95
1584
32dego
51dego
00o
1dego -
68dego
48 -shy
middotshy
Acquisition of Skills
0 -
85 0 OCo 100dego
Other Collective Bodies
Technical Assistance
7
0
23 37
30 QOo
70dego
00o
00o
00dego
i Total Expenditure - LEADER Groups 820 1730 47dego 1dego 52dego
~-
--
Administration txpenditure
EOOO
3 81
Total AdministrationI I Expenditure as 0o of Total
EOOO Expenditurei
98dego
98 82deg~
3
Grant Aid as Non~rantI I I 0o of Total Outputs as of
Expenditure Total Expendituro
2dego 01 middot-shyQO 18dego
middotmiddotshy
bull These groups also existed under the Leader I in11ahve
LEADER Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A15
Total Administration Expenditure as 0o of Total
pound000 Expenditure
81dego56 lv-10Jbull
ro v 106 b1o
77 46dego 91 43dego
113 4 1 Ofo
226 39dego 92 38dego 90 38dego 67 38dego
100 36dego 230 36dego
JUmiddot~ 86 35dego
262 35dego 292 I 32dego 168 31dego 111 31dego 94 30dego- 29dego 65 I 29dego
289
85
29dego 182 27dego 258 25 194 24dego 198 23dego 165 22oo 141 22dego 285 22dego 271 21 249 20 185 19 94 19dego
5173 31
189 0dego 115 75o 86 0
5564 30dego
Grant Aid as 0o of Total
Expenditure
0 J _ 3dego 9dego bo 18dego 13dego
5dego 2dego
35dego 17dego
6dego
18dego 34o 44degc 29dega 26dego 28dego 50dego 19dego 47
5dego 55oo 20 50dego 46dego 42 36 50dego 40dego 20 25 29dego
0 25Vo
OOo
28
Non~rant
Outputs as 0o of Total Expenditure
19dego LO
~-
36dego 45dego 44o 41dego
48dego 57oo 6v-10 27dego 47dego 58dego 55vO 47 31dego 24oo 40dego 43 42dego 21 52dego 24dego 68dego 20dego 56dego 27dego 32dego 36dego 42 29 40dego 61dego 56dego 40dego
100o OOo
100o
42dego
Local Development Group
-Comhar lorrais (LEADER) Teoranta bull lounly ~ligo LlAurH t-artnersh1p co LIO r-cura1 uuo11n LtAUttlt vvmpany Lia ln1sh0Wen Community Development Co ltd middot Laois LEADER Rural Development Co Ltd comhdhail 011ea1n na hlireann South Kerry Partnership Ltd bull Rural Resources Develooment Ltd Blackwaler Region LEADER Co Ltd Meath Community Partnership Co Ltd LonQford Community Resources Ltd Galwav Rural Develooment Co Word-Wexford Organisation for Rural Developmenl
-Barrow-Nore-~uir tltura1 ueve1opment Lta_ Ariana Catchment Area Community Co bull Cavan-MonaQhan Rural Development Co-operative Society lid Me1theal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo Wicklow Rural Partnership Ltd bull Offaly LEADER II Co Ltd bull Doneoal Local Development Co Ltd Mid-South Rural Roscommon Developmenl Association Ltd Co Louth Rural Development Co Ltd Ballyhoura Development Ltd bull Kell-Kildare European LEADER II Teoranta IRD Duhallow ltd_ Tuatha Ch1arrai Lid -South West Mavo Oevelooment Co Westmeath Community Development ltd West Limerick Resources Ltd
-middot West Cork LEADER Groupmiddot Waterford Develooment Partnersh10 Ltd Western Rural Development Co Lid Tinnorarv LEADER Group bull East Cork Area Development Ltd Total - Local Development Groups
Acqu1s1t1on of Skills Uther Collective tsodies Technical Assistance
Total Expendituremiddot LEADER Groups
bull These groups also exisled under the Leader I initiative
Administration Expenditure
pound000
45
deg 64 35 - 47 88 35
25 37 83 60 31 91 94 53 35 28 25
19 84 49 64 46 45 37 31 61 58 49 36 17
1599
0 86
0
1684
---
--
----
----
I
I
LEADER _Admiri_istration_ Costs_as a Percentage_of TotalExpenditure bull 1997 Appendix A-16
Local Development GroupI I
Comhair lorrais (LEADER) Teoranta bull Co Sllqo LEADER Partnership Co Lid Rural Dublin LEADER Compant lid Wicklow Rural Partnershi~ Lid Rural Resource Development Lid Word-Wexford Orqani5allon for Rural Develo~ment Ltd Blackwater Reoion LEADER Co Lid Meath Communit~ Partnershi~ Co Ltd Laois LEADER Ru_ral Oevelooment Co Ltd IRD Ouhallow Ltd bull Oonal Local Oevelooment Co Ltd Kell-Kildare Eurooean LEADER II Teoranla Cavan-Monaghan Rural Oeveloement Co-o~rat1ve Socie_lv Ltd South Kerrv Partnersh10 Lid bull
I South Wesl Mavo Devetooment Co bull I Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta Teo
Waterford Development Partnership Lid Galway Rural Developn-ent Co lnishowen Community Development Group bull Wesl Limerick Resources Ltd Co Louth Rural Dev~topment Co Ltd Comhdhail Oilea1n na hEireann West Cork LEADER Grouo bull Tuatha Ch1arra1 Ltd Westmeath Communitv Develoomenl Ltd Offalv LEADER II Co Ltd bull Ballyhoura Development Ltd East Cork Area Development Ltd Weslern Rural Development Co Ltd Mid-South Rural Roscommon Deveroomenl Assoc1at1on Ltd Longford Community Resources Ltd
Administration I Total Expenditure ExpenditureIpound000 pound000
43 I 96 83 48 52 89 91 46 -58 31 57 60 75
102 59 60
109 78 45 47 46 50 35
104 56 48 39 67
-- 27 83 32 35
Arigna Catchment Area Community Co I 43 middotmiddotmiddot shy
Tipperary LEADER Group 0 38 41Barrow-Nore-Suir RurEii Development bull
Total - local Develooment Grouos 1979
Other Collective Bodies 36 Technical Assistance 0
i Total Expenditure bull LEADER Groups 2015
234 140
186 365 373 204 260 156 293 314 399 568 335 341 626 458
middot-middot 264 277 275 309 221 658 367 314 259 455
Grant Aid as [ Nnn~r~ntAdministration as deglo of Total 0o of Total Expenditure Expenditure
45dego
36dego 34oo 28Co 24dego
24oo 22oo 22dego 20degtc 20oo 19dego 19dego 18degc 18degc 18dego 17dego 17degc 17degh 17 17 16dego 16dego 16dego 15dego 15 15dego 15o
189 I 14dego 592 I 14dego 252 290 414 441 561
11487
142 25dego 75 0 149 0 OOfo 100
11778 17dego 53dego JQOo I
13dego 12Jo 10dego
9oo 7dego
17dego
19dego
25dego 28dego 37dego so~lo
37oo 37dego 30oo 36Yv 40dego 54 45dego 59degn 55dego 61dego 64dego 64degh 56dego 34 49I 6QOo I 23dego 50dego I 34dego 64dego 55 50dego 55deg 55dego 60o 38oo 58dego 71 dego 56o 73dego 54dego 70dego 53dego
20dego 29dego 35oo 3_0 30dego 25dego 48dego 28dego 16degc 32dego 17dego 37dego 23dego 30
Outputs as oo of Total Expenditure I
36Co 39oo 38dego 35dego 26dego 39dego 41dego
48dego 44deg 40dego 27dego 36dego 23oA 27dego 21dego 19dego 19dego 27~o
Partnerships Community Groups and National Organisations Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A17
Partnership Administration Total Expenditure Expenditure pound000 pound000
KWCD Partnershii - -middot 128 128 lnishowen Partnersh10 Board 33 33-middot-Monaahan Partnershii Board 48 48 Lonoford Commumtv Resources ltd 40 40 Galwav Rural Oevelooment Co 39 39 Galwav C1tv Partnership 109 109
~Q_LEAOER Partnershii Co 50 50 Pairt1ocht Gaellacht Th1r Chonaill 48 48 Roscommon Countv Partncrshin 55 55 Pairt1ocht Chonamara 116 116 Cavan Partnershin 18 - 18_ Canal Communities Partnership 67 67 Brav Partnershio 115 115 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 49 50 Tra Li Partnershio 105 107 Waterford Area Partnershio 77 82 West Limerick Resources Ltd 74 82 Southside Partnershin 163 180 North-West KildareNorth Offalv (OAK) 125 139 Mavo bull 288 I 353 Wexford Area Partnershio 132 166 Doneaal Local Develoomenl Co 60 78 Leitnm Partnership 63 94 Clondalkin Partnershio Comoanv 176 305 South Kerrv bull 107 253 Blanchardstown Area Partnershin 208 495 Droaheda Partnershio Comoanv 136 337 Baltvfermot Partnershio 143 359 Cork Cilv bull 176 476 Dundalk bull 196 546 Finnlas bull 169 53 vvovforcl tn ntv prtnPrshio bull 126 501 n11hl1n lnOAr rjtv bull 14 539 T~ll ht bull 7 Ballvmun bull 103 529 Waterford Countv bull 42 227 Limerickmiddot 90 510 Northside Partnershio 125 761
Total Exoendituro - Partnerships 4071 9169
Communilv Grouos 710 773 National Oroanisations 383 383
Total 5164 10325
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) ~--
Administration as 0o Other Activities as 0o of Total Expenditure of Total Expenditure
100dego QOo
100dego QOo
100dego QOo
1QQ0o QOo
100deg QOo
100oo QOo
100oo 0dego 100dego QOo
100dego Ooo 100dego QOo
100middot QO(
1QQ 0o QDo
1QQDo 0dego 100dego OOo
98dego 2dego 94dego 6dego 91dego 9dego 91dego 9dego 90dego 10dego 82oo 18dego 80dego 20dego 77 23 67 33dego 58dego 42 42dego 58dego 42dego 58degc 40dego 69dego 40dego 60oo 37dego 63dego 36dego 64oo 3701 25dego 75degn 2i01 7t01Q TtOn 77deg 19dego 81dego 19dego 81dego 18oo a2deg10 16 84
44dego 56dego
92dego 8dego 100dego 0dego
50deg4 50dego
Partnerships Community Groups and National Organisations Administration Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A 18
Partnership Administration
I Total Expenditure
--middot -shy -shy - --shy Expenditure pound000 - [000- shy
lnishowen Partnershio Board 137 272 Galwav C1tv PnrtnArsh1n 1e~ 35~
Mavo bull 274 580 Canal Commun1tv Partnersh10 122 267-W~~tmeath Communitv Develonmenl Ltd 98 216 Galwav Rural Oevelooment Co ~-
94 211 Monaahan Partnershio Board 100 238 Shoo LEAOEftigtartnersh1p C_o 155 385 Roscommon Counlv Partnershin 146 367 Cavan Partnersh10 72 184 Pa1rtiocht Chonamara 124 328- -LonQford Community Resources Lid 121 334 KWCO Partnershio 205 594 Pairtiocht Gaeltacht Thir Chonaill 99 302 Waterford Area Partnershin 175
middotshy 542 Blanchardstoln_ Area Partnersh1E 159 504 Oundalk bull 147 490 Leitrim Partnership 154 514 - -North West KildareNorth Offalv ltOAKl 122 414 Wexford Area Partnersh1R _ 125 427
_B~lymun bull 112 385 Brav Partnershio 151 526-Oonenal Local Develonment Co 104 371 Wexford Countv Partnershio bull 152 614
_sectQuth Kerrv bull 173 707 Cork Citymiddot 240 1 015 Tra Li Partnershio 122 519
_s1o_ndalk1n PartnershiQ ComQany 140 618 __lliJ_blin Inner C1ly bull 147 647
Tallaaht 173 775 Wesl Limerick Resources Ltd 57 256 F1nnlas bull 152 709 Walerford CountY bull --middot 54 261 Southside Partnershio 141 686 Ballyfcrmot Partnership 132 720 Droaheda Partnersh10 Comoanv 132 723--middot Limerickbull 121 803 Northside Partnershio bull 126 964 Set Un Casis - All Partnershins 28 28
Total Exoenditure bull Partnershios 5269 18858
Communitv Grouos 1 509 3499 National Oraan1salions 621 621
Total 7J98 22977
Administration as 0o Other Activities as 0o I- -middotshy of Total-Expenditure of Total Expenditure
51 oo 49dego-~ v u u-o
middotshy47dego 53dego 46dego 54dego 45lo 55oo-450o 55oo__ 42oo 58dego 40dego 60dego 40eo 60dego 39oo 61degi
38oo 62dego 36dego 64dego 34oo 66dego 33dego 67 32dego 68dego 32dego 68dego 30oo 70dego 30dego 70dego 29 71dego 29dego 71deg(0 29dego 71dego 29dego 71dego 28deg1gt 72dego 25dego 75oo 25dego 75 24dego 76dego-- shy24dego 76oo 23dego 77deg 23dego 77oo-shy22dego 78dego 22dego 78dego 21dego 79dego 2_1 dego 79deg 20dego 80dego 18 82 18 82dego 15 85dego 13dego 87dego
28dego 72
43dego 57=10 100dego OOo-shy32dego 68oo
i bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economrc and Social Progress (PESP)
County Enterprise Boards Grant Cost Per Job 1994-1997 (In Descending Order) Appendix A21
County Enterprise Board Expenditure on Grant Full Time Jobs Part Time Jobs Equivalent Jobs Aid 1994middot1997 pound000 1994-1997 (1) 1994-1997 (1) 1994-1997 (1)
Leitnm 1417 209 6 212 Westmeath 1012 154 0 154 Wexford 1575 280 37 299 Cork C1tv 1089 208 0 208 -Monaahan 1057 178 62 209 Waterford Counlv 1003 188 36 206-South Cork 1566 324 0 324 South Dublin 1753 362 6 365---TinnPrarv South R1dina 922 184 47 208 Limerick Citi 1197 273 10 278 Offalv 1137 243 74 280 Waterford City 1664 387 58 416 Mayo 1565 345 95 393 Limerick City 1512 362 60 392 Kllkennv 1325 320 55 348 DonPnal 1061 254 50 279 Finaal (Dublin) 1377 347 42 368 Wicklow 1538 333 170 418 Kiidare 1004 264 20 274
-Cork North 779 213 0 213
-Carlow 1435 309 169 394 -Cavan 1357 301 152 377 Clare 1 342 335 92 381 Kerrv 1432 288 238 407 Laois 1245 339 42 360 Louth 1045 280 46 303 Dublin Citv 1734 533 0 533
_
SliQo 1182 260 210 365 Oun LaoghaireRathdown 1323 408 3 410 Longford 1145 332 51 358 Roscommon 1208 315 133 382 West Cork 1063 361 21 372 Meath 980 350 23 362 Gatway County and City 2131 843 120 903 Tipperary North County 660 223 136 291
Total 44834 10905 2264 12037
Grant Cost per Job pound
6683 middot-shy6571 5278 5235 5057 4 867 4 834 4801 4444
4306 4061 3999 3988 3857 3812 3802 3743 3680 3666 3658 3647 3599 3522 3518 3459 3448 3254 3238 3231 3203 3 165 2 861 2711
2360 2269
3725
( 1) The jobs created in the year are computed by taking a head count of new jobs 1n enterprises receiving grant aid from CEBs The grant aid expended in the year may not be directly comparable with this as here may be a time rag between the expenditure and the creation of the relevant job but this should be minimised by taking an average over 4 years In computing the equivalent 1obs figure part-lime jobs are taken as 05 of a 1ob
County Enterprise Boards Non Grant Expenditure 1996 Appendix A31
r= middotshy
INPUTS OUTPUTS
I Cou~ty Enterpr_ise Boar_ct_ ~on-Grant - shy
0o of Total _Surveys __ Media _Networks __ ThirdLevel _Second Business - Mentor Activities Expenditure Events Colleges Level Counselling Support
pound000 Schools -
Kildare 241 39oo 1 0 4 3 15 380 40 middotshy
Dublin City 202 30oo 1 9 6 2 20 151 35 Fingal(Oubhn) 171 26dego 1 14 11 I 0 4 3 93 Oun LaoghaireRathdown 160 25oo 1 7 3 0 14 25 84
Sligo 108 24dego 0 68 0 1 3 250 30 - shySouth Cork 150 23dego 20 24 14 1 14 120 45 South Dublin 161 23dego 2 8 0 0 18 105 4
-middot Cork City 118 22dego 2 10 3 2 14 0 14
Loulh 137 22dego 7 3 2 1 6 40 15 Meath 116 22deg1~ 0 3 3 1 12 0 21 West Cork 135 21dego 0 130 2 0 10 174 10 Westmeath 106 21dego 0 0 0 0 17 0 14
Offaly 121 19dego 4 34 5 2 9 17 20 Donegal 144 19dego 1 4 0 1 8 216 46
-107 18oo 0 17 0 1 I 15 150 16
~ Clare
- middot----Leitrim 121 18oo 5 0 4 0 I 9 416 12
Roscommon 92 1Tlo 0 0 0 1 5 484 5 -Limerick City 7
I 17dego 0 2 0 5 5 0 6 Limerick County 137 17dego 1 25 1 0 13 102 7 Laois 101 16dego 0 4 0 0 14 54 bull 1
Tipperary North County 65 16dego 0 0 0 0 12 279 17
Wexford 107 15dego 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 Waterford County 85 15dego 0 2 0 1 0 69 4 Monaghan 86 14deg= 0 0 0 0 7 10 5 Kilkenny 88 14dego 0 16 0 I 0 12 I 19 I 10 Carlow 77 13dego 0 7 0 I 0 10 I 0 I 20 -Wicklow 96 13dego 1 12 0 0 9 70 14
Cavan 74 12oo 5 0 4 1 5 1394 i 31 Tipperary South Ridinq 65 12dego 0 0 3 0 10 80 25 Kerry 71 12dego 1 0 1 0 8 0 20
bullGalway County and City 75 I 12=10 1 2 37 3 12 72 3 Waterford City 82 10dego 0 1 0 1 20 108 33 Mayo 78 10oo 0 48 0 0 5 221 6 Longford 50 9dego 3 5 5 0 7 60 10
Cork North 36 8dego 0 0 0 0 0 340 0
Total 3879 18dego 57 455 108 27 352 5409 726
County Enterprise Boards Non Grant Expenditure 1997 Appendix A32
INPUTS OUTPUTS middotshy
County Enterprise Board Non-Grant bull1o of Total Surveys Media Networks Third Second Business Mentor Management Activities Expenditure Events Level Level Counselling Support Development
EOOO Colleges Schools Programme
Don~al 156 36dego 3 3 1 3 9 55 12 3 Tipperary Nor1h County 162 36dego 0 33 1 0 7 175 12 3 Oun laoghaireRathdown 219 35oo 2 20 6 4 24 240 67 2 Kilkenny 162 30oo 2 12 0 0 27 99 16 3 Louth 233 30 0 14 2 1 11 60 18 6 Sliao 144 29dego 1 7 2 2 7 246 26 6-Laois 167 27oo 0 127 2 0 13 100 6 4 Clare 171 27dego 1 37 12 1 15 97 31 6 Mavo 162 271 0 15 2 0 10 190 6 3 Limerick City 163 26dego 1 29 4 3 6 100 5 4 Kildare 198 26dego 0 24 4 0 15 190 46 6 Wesl Cork 133 26oo 1 271 2 0 10 152 2 4 Limerick County 183 26oo 1 55 12 3 8 194 35 6 Mealh 193 26oo 1 28 3 2 19 48 9 4 Offaly 127 25oo 1 53 6 0 8 59 35 5 Fingal (Dublin) 224 25dego 0 5 0 1 6 446 155 3 Leitrim 157 24oo 2 84 3 2 7 135 14 2 South Cork 164 23dego 0 14 85 1 16 627 15 6 Roscommon 109 23oo 1 27 3 0 11 50 8 4
Gatway County and City 190 23dego 0 5000 10 3 36 18 10 14
Co1lt Ci1V 150 22dego 1 10 5 2 B 1325 16 3 Monaghan 121 22dego 2 24 6 0 B 47 0 3 Tipperary South Riding 131 21 Ofo 1 25 3 0 11 672 20 3 Westmeath 132 21dego 1 3 0 0 29 6 10 4 Waterford Countv 104 21dego 3 32 2 1 21 156 7 3 Dublin City 245 21 oo 1 26 6 5 23 110 50 6 Wexford 131 20dego 1 17 0 0 17 55 16 2 Wicklow 159 20 0 44 0 0 6 32 9 3 Cavan 144 20dego 4 14 7 1 6 134 63 7
CorX North 66 19 1 10 5 2 16 1325 16 3 Waterford City 149 19oo 2 12 0 1 21 183 18 3 South Dublin 184 19dego 1 2 0 0 16 87 37 3 Kerry 104 18 1 324 0 0 12 115 B 2 LonQford 81 16oo 5 41 8 0 5 0 6 41 Carlow 95 16 1 110 1 1 10 228 50 2 Total 5414 24 42 6552 203 39 474 7756 854 182
LEADER Groups Non Grant Expenditure 1995-1997 (1) Appendix A33
Local Development Group
INPUTS
Non-Grant -Activities
pound000
As a 0o of Total--middot
Expenditure
Seminars Held-shy
OUTPUTS
Press I Other tApplications Releases Promotional -Approved-
Projects Referred Creation I Creation of Training Completed to Other of Newmiddot middot Community middotCourses
Actions Agencies Business Association
East Corllt Area Development Ltd 144 51dego 104 110 0 O 0 O 5 2 I O gt-M~e~a~th=C-o~m-m~u~n~i~ttv
0
middotP~a~rt~n-e-rs~h~o=C~o-L-td-----~--1-8-0--+-~5~1~0~---+--7~7-1--+---16-4---- 110 91 11 960 21 12 16
Word - Wexford Ornan1sat1on for Rural Oevetonment bull 351 48oo 0 0 0 0 t-c~innbulle~ra~~-L~e~a~d~er~Gro~u~o~middot~-~~~~~---r-~3~4~3----t-~4~8~o--o 24 7 4 191 45 10 15 13 22 f--~----=~~~~~~~~~+-----~+----~---~+---------l~~-----+-~~----~+-~--~--l~----~f-~300~+-~=-~+-~--~-+~-=~~
Kellmiddot Kildare Euronean Leader II TEO 268 46Yo 85 125 4 74 33 1 10 36 Blackwater Reo1on Leader Co_ Ltd -middot _136----+--4-6A~o------6--7_ __ _ __65------lt----4----I- --7-3__1_---3-1------22--+----3------lt--------1--~__2_4-----1 lnishowen Commumtv Develonment Groun bull 175 46dego 288 86 25 64 27 147 10 17 28 Laois Leader Rural Develonment Co Ltd 103 44dego 67 116 12 56 17 27 40 7 17 Tualha Chiarrai Ltd 244 42dego 239 25 10 168 82 66 24 6 39 West Cork Leader Groun middot 414 38~C -middot-+-~75----t--6-9-8----t----O--t----o-----t --~O-----t----O--t--~1~2_ _____o----shy 33
~c~o~S~h~go~L-ead-e~r~P~bull~rt--n-e--rs~h~ip~Co~~Lt~d--------+-----1~0~1--+-~3~7~~_ ___J3 6 6 73 21 14 20 17 5 Rural Dutgt11n Leader Comoanv Ltd 63 37dego 83 18 -~9--t----2~7--middot-+---6----+---~12-----t--~3---+--~7---+----5-Co_ Louth Rural Devclooment Co Ltd 137 37dego 139 56 18 39 5 23 5 2 11
gt-W~c~kl-o--w~R~u~r~a~I~P-art~n~bull~middot~sh~io~L--td---middot---------~1~4~3--+_~3~6~~-+---5~0~7____~1~12------ O 25 33 209 9 11 6 IRD Duhallow Lld bull ___2~middotbull-1-+-3_~V----t-~283------j--272--+----o-----1 85 40 144 11 37 1A
Rural Resource Dcvclooment ld__middot-------+--20502--+-C3057___-t-1=38~2o---t---5~0t----t--0905----t-----OO--- 0 0 6 9 14 Offalv Lead_~r II Co_ Ltd_middot 130 35oo 49 43 20 76 56 9 17 0 91
gt-S~ou--th~K~bull~Y~P~a~rt~n~bull~s~h~ip~L~t~d-middot________1__1_7~5--+-~34---~~middot--i---1~bull~85----+---1middotQ4_--+-----9--~--0-----+-----o--+----o---~-~2~0---+--3~0-----+--~3~6--1 Galwav Rural DevelgPment Co 126 33dego 38 12 0 147 21 130 19 6 39 Western Rural Devetoomenl Co Ltd 298 33dego 134 102 1 165 46 81 27 1 9 DonPnal L~cal Development Co Ltd 139 32 5 15 1 127 36 29 20 0 13 Lonaford ~ommun1lv Resources Ltd 118 31dego 15 57 7 97 46 22 3 2 5 Westmeath Communitv Develonmenl Ltd 149 30dego 254 50 15 165 60 20 17 5 __sect_____
l-Ba~ll~vlh~ou~ra~De~v-e~lo~rnm~e--n--t-Ll~d~_middot_________t--~2~7~3--+_~30~~~---t---64~-t--bull~8-----t----5--t----2~0~1--l--~8~2-----t--~8~0----+-~59----t---~bull~O---t ~5~2~-t Barrow-Nor~-Suir Rural Development bull -~2~4~7--+--~3~0~----+---3~5~0---__f----5_____15----l--~1~5~1---1C-----92-----t--~65-----t---2~0---t--~10-----t--~2~8-----t Comhair lorrais ILead~rl Teoranta bull 45 29dego o O _o__t------Co__t--_~o___-t-_--o_-+---co_ _____o--_-+_ __o-----t Wesl Limerick Resources 1 tn 126 29dego 69 104 3 103 1h 10 87 7 10 Comhdhail 01leain Na hEireann 64 27dego 41 32 0 124 hO 45 15 0 10
~_~ndegh~Wc~s~t~Mou_nDev~e~lo-nmbulln~t~n~middot------+--~1bullbull-+--2-bull-~-+---12----t--~~5-------0--l----1~middot4___+-_~5~8--t-----4~-+--~13---t------1--+--~3~3-~ Waterford Develooment Partnershio Ltd 209 26dego 56 0 0 95 35 35 34 7 46 Cavan-Monaghan Rural Development
l--C~o~-o~gtP~e~r=a~v~e~S=oc-e=t~y~L~tdo-middot---~-~----+-~2~2~7--+-C2~47o=---+-=2676~-t----11~7~---l----2~174__t---~36700---+----3~0~1--l----2~--+---20---+~--75__t-----2=2~--l Ariana Catchment Arca Community Co bull 121 23dego 21 7 23 105 39 4 5 0 O
f---M~~~h=~~F~o=r~b~a=rth~a--N~a=G~a~e~lt~a~c=ht~a~T~E~o=---~----r-~2=3~7----C2~3o=---+-~1773=----t--~150~--t--~o--t---~4700---+--1-5=7--+-~35~0~--+-~109----t--~2~1----+--~176--j
Mid-South Rural Roscommon Development Association Ltd 63 18 24 18 120 90 36 10 20 5 4
Total Expenditure - Local Development Groups 6227 34dego 7183 2879 730 I 3496 1514 2871 690 291 716
Acqu1s1t1on of skills i 274 Ooo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1-coc~e~c11=n~ca-1-a~s~s~s~ta-n~ce---------------=27~2~---l--0~0~~--t---Co~--t--~o--+--~o=---+-1--~o~-+---~o~-+----o--+------io~-t----o~--+-----io----+
Total Expenditure -LEADER Groups 6773 36dego 7183 2 879 730 3 496 1 514 2 871 (1) Expenditure for 1995-1997 is grouped together as only cumulative output statistics to 31December1997 were available at the time of preparing the report bull These groups also existed under the Leader I initiative
690 291 716
I
Partnerships Non Grant Expenditure bull 1996 Appendix A34 middot-middot
INPUTS OUTPUTS
Partnership Name Non-Grant Activities As a 04 of Total Enterprise Services for Preventative Complementary pound000 Expenditure Support Unemployed Education Education
Norths1de Partnership bull 636 84dego 321 1885 520 443 Limerickbull 420 82dego 296 935 100 388 Waterford Counlv bull 184 81 oo 57 0 0 0
t--shy272 328Ballymun bull 426 81oo 401 82
Tallaght bull 466 77dego 496 - 957 143 29 Dublin Inner City bull 405 75dego 343 1651 50 59 Wexford County Partnership bull 375 75dego 138 0 17 272 Finalas bull 365 68oo 557 731 378 155 Dundalk bull 350 64dego 148 388 132 207 Co1lt Citymiddot 300 63dego 344 0 180 261 Ballyfermot Partnership 215 60dego 0 211 40 94 Drogheda Partnership Company 200 60dego 60 0 0 38 Blanchardstown Area Partnership 288 58dego 116 71 48 18 South Kerrv bull 146 58oo 90 212 399 265 Clondalkin Partnership Company 129 42oo 164 0 0 0 Le1tnm Partnership 31 33oo 23 184 0 56 Donegal Local Development Company 18 23dego 0 0 0 0 -IJYexford Area Partnership 34 20oo 14 0 0 13 Mayo 18o lo 181 10 34 North West KildareNorth Offaly 14 10 0 0 u 28 Southside Partnership 17 9dego 0 0 0 0 West Limencilt Resources Ltd 8 9dego 52 0 0 0 Waterford Area Partnershij)shy 5 6dego 49 14 0 5 Tra Li Partnership 2 2 u 0 0 0 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 0 QOo 0 0 0 0 LonQford Community Resources Ltd 0 Ooo 0 0 I 0 0-Pairtiocht Gaeltacht Th1r Chona1ll 0 0 0 0 0 0 lnishowen Partnership Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canal Commun1t1es Partnershrp 0 00o 0 0 0 0 Pairtiocht Chonamara 0 QOa 0 0 0 0 Gatway Rural Development Co 0 OOa 0 0 0 0 Sligo Leader Partnership Co 0 0 16 0 0 0 Roscommon County t-artnersh1p - u 0-1 u 0 u 0 Brav Partnership 0 01 0 0 0 0 Gatwav City Partnership 0 OOo 0 0 0 0 Cavan Partnership 0 00o 0 0 0 0 MonaQhan Partnership Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 KWCD Partnership 0 Ooo 0 0 0 0 Total Expenditure - Partnerships 5098 56dego 3739 7821 2107 2693
Commun1lv Grouas 63 8 0 0 0 0 National Oraanisalions 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 5161 50 3739 7821 2107 2693
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
Partnerships Non Grant Expenditure - 1997 Appendix A35
INPUTS OUTPUTS -
Partnership Non-Grant Activities As a 0o of Total Business Job Groups Preventative -shy -middot middot- -middot pound000 -middot - Expenditure -Start-Ups- shy Placements -shy Supportmiddot Education Projects
Northside Partnership bull I 838 87dego 503 438 28 15 I - -middot -middotmiddot - tCbullbull 602 isgt10 11b tiLj 31 16 I Dr()(lheda Partnership Co I 591 82dego 60 12 177 10 Ballyfermot Partnership 587 a2deg10 88 88 30 3
-middot Southside Partnership 546 80dego I 200 6 80 24 Waterford Counly bull 206 79dego 42 4 23 6 Fmglas bull 557 79dego 257 233 174 28 West limerick Resources Ltd 199 78degc 40 0 50 0 Tallaaht bull 602 78dego 309 646 51 7 Dublin Inner City bull 500 77dego 290 448 34 10 Clondalkin Partnership Conipany 478 77oo 225 562 63 7 Tra L1 Partnership 396 76deg1gt 80 20 67 6 -cork Citymiddot 775 76- 217 111 55 9 Soulh Kerry bull 533 75dego 135 150 61 middot51 -
Wexford County Partnership bull 462 75dego 170 63 31 0 Donegal Local Development Co 267 72dego 150 0 63 2 Bra~ Partnershi~ 375 71degu 71 0 14 Ballymun bull 274 71dego 70 402 50 10 Wexford Area ~artnership OUpound 71o 17U 4 5 18 -shyNorth vvest tildareNorth Offaly 292 71 Oo 56 0 8
I Leitrim Partnership 360 70deg1= 60 3 119 6 Dundalk bull 343 70~~ 71 64 50 10 Blanchardstown Area Partnership 345 68dego 170 97 29 13 Waterford Arca Partnership 367 68dego 37 6 55 1
middotshyPa1rtiocht Gaeltacht Thir Chona1ll 203 67deg~ 75 0 50 10 KWCD Partnership 389 66deg 15 0 0
- 4 middot-
Lonqford Commumtv Resources Ltd 212 64dego 85 4 19 5 middotmiddotshyPairt1ocht Chonamara 205 62 67 2 3 34
middotmiddot-Cavan Partnershio 112 61dego 90 1 49 6 Roscommon County Partnership 221 60degJ 120 0 38 6 -Sligo LeaCer Partnership Co 230 60dego 120 0 32 2 Monaghan Partnership Board 138 58dego 88 0 40 10 Galway Rural Development Company 116 55dego 101 0 51 2 Westmeath Community Development Ltd 118 55deg1= 0 0 20 2 -Canal Communities Partnersh10 145 54deg~ 0 0 16 6 Mavo bull 306 53dego 177 200 28 3 Galway City Partnership 180 50dego 113 0 35 12 lmshowen Partnership Board 134 49dego 60 0 42
Total Expenditure bull Partnerships 13589 72dego 4698 4192 1853 397
Commun1tv Grouos 1 990 57 0 0 0 0 Nalional Oraanisations 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 15579 68dego 4698 4192 1853 397
bull These partnerships existed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
Appendix B Administration Cost Trends of Local Development Bodies
Number of CEBs within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs 1994-1997
Cost Band 1994 1995 1996 1997
ltpound50000 pound50-100000 pound100-150000
pound150-200000
gtpound200000
3 17
15 2
24
7
2
1
32
2
5
23 7
Total Administration Costs pound4_8m pound49m pound43m pound44m
Number of LEADER groups within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs 1995-1997
Cost Band 1995 1996 1997
ltpound50000 25 23 17
pound50-100000 9 11 14 pound100-150000 3
Total Administration Costs pound0Bm pound16m pound20m
Number of Partnerships within administration cost bands and trends in administration costs of Partnerships
Cost Band 1996 1997
ltpound50000 9 6 pound50-100000 7 19 pound100-150000 15 10 pound150-200000 5 10 gt pound200000 2 3
Total Administration Costs pound40m pound53m
11l)(lrJY 11 I
--
Appendix C Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development - Performance Indicators and Revised Targets
-
f 11~
iority Indicator
Jobs
1mber of of 1obs
Revised Targets (1994-1999) Original TargetUnits for total Operational Sub Sub
Programme 2Programme Programme 1
Jobs 15000 proved (for support grant assistance)
Nl1mber of new jobs erbullated not placed in Jobs and vacanc1es) Persons (N 81middot for Sub Pr gtgramme 1wjobs
bullgt provecr figure will mJke up the bulk of thbull i ~jobs created an1ounl) (N 02- for Sub Pr )gramme 2 this eq uates 10 new en terpriscs SUpported)
17000 (Sub Programme 1 8000 Sub Programme 2
1717516900
6900 Sub Programme 3 (Temple Bar) 2000 permanenl in service amp 5000 construction)
AjfJe11c1x CI
~ Priority Indicator
2 Enterprise creation and development
Grants to enterprise Value of grant allocations
Number of enterprises supported
Percentage of investment 1n enterprises provided by the Operational Programme
Provision of improved access for potential entrepreneurs to initial advice Number of firms receiving business advice
Percentage of grant aided firms whose promoters received other Operational Programme support advice consultancy mentoring
Management developm9nt Number of enlerprises participating in managemenl development programmes Number of managers participating in management developmenl programmes
3 Community Development Number of local groups financially assisted
4 Services for the unemployed Number of persons registered for assistance
Number of Long-Term Unemployed persons to benefil from Services for the
I Unemployed expressed as a
I Oo of total number of persons registered for assistance
Units Original Target for total Operational
Programme
pound
Enterprises 2260 new businesses and for Sub Programme 1
Persons and 3640 new and 960 existing for Sub Programme 2
Enterprises 6000 firms and
Persons
280 firmsEnterprises
Persons 500 per annum
No target set groups Local
Persons Caseload of 11 0000 (30000 1n 1995 and
20000 new cases per annum thereafter)
No targel set
Revised Targets (1994-1999)
Sub Sub Programme 1 Programme 2
i
pound16000000pound56020000
17 000 new and6050 new and 7000
existing 3750
existing
(Tolal 9800) (Tolal 24000)
39dego
3000010900
100dego83oo
6000
10000
700
57000 (40000 Local Employment
Scheme Partnerships and 17 000 Non- Local
Employment Scheme)
60dego
AfJXIUimiddot C2
---
Priority Indicator Units Original Target Revised Targets (1994-1999) for total Operational
Sub SubProgramme Programme 1 Programme 2
Progression Number bulllf persons progressing Persons 2500 per annum 16000 to full-time employment (1e placement in a job vacancy) Number of persons progressing Persons 300 per annum 5000 to part-lir le employment (ie placeme11t in a job vacancy) Number of persons assisted into Persons 17000 self-emplJyment (see 1 above) N~mber of persons assisted Persons 19000 under co1nplementary education and training Number of persons in continuing Persons 5000 per annum 2000
1 cducat1or1 Number c1f persons in work Persons 10000 per annum 1000 experience programmes Number Cbullf unemployed referred Persons 5000 onwards middot o other agencies
- -middot 5 ~ducation and Training Complementary education and training Number cmiddotf persons assisted Persons 12000 per annum 19000 under cornplementary education and traini l9
Provision of recognised ce~ificaticbulln Number cf participants ptovided Persons 60003500 with re~1nised certification
I 0o of part1 1pants provided with 30oo reltXJgniset certification
Training for trainers NuOiber ol persons benefiting Persons 1000 under actions tn the area of trai~1ng of trainers and teachers
I of partimiddotipants ptovided with recognise j certification
I 6 Preventive education Number of children attending Children 4080 per annum 44000 preventive education courses I youth serVices
7 lnfrasbucture and enVironmental measures Number o infrastructutal and 20 per annum 1000Protects 98 environmE ntal actions
Appendix C3
Original Target Revised Targets (1994-1999) Priority Indicator Units for total Operational Sub Sub
Programme Programme 1 Programme 2
8 Land development
Area of targeted land developed
Expenditure on developmenl of targeled land
Number of derelict sites eradicated
Number of villages assisted
Number of towns assisted
Number of conservation projects to be funded
9 Other
Entarprse culture Number of participants in activities to promote an enterprise culture 1n schools and colleges
Customer contacts Number of customer contacts with CEBs
Hectares
pound
Sites
Villages and projects
Towns and projects
Projects
Persons 62000
Customer 190000 Contacts
Appendix C 4
Appendix D Extract from Consolidated Reporting Guidelines - December 1997 The LEADER Operational Programme Performance Indicators and Revised Targets
Pe-rformance Indicators
Under the tenns nf the Opcr~llional Progr1111n1e e1ch group is rtmiddot4uired to set ck)vn
1~erforn11nce uHJic~1tors and targets vhitmiddoth it vdl ain1 10 ~1chilve in 1he
itn )le1ncntation of its hu~iness plan and against vh1ch its perfonnance Viii htmiddot
evllua1ed_ Follc)ving ~t rcvitv of the fonn ind contenl of 1hc originil incliclliVl
inclicHors1 cornincnt by the independent evduator and consuh1lion Vilh groups a
dc1111itivc range of perfon111nce inclicJtors llas nclv been prepared
E~11h (~roup is required to llltgtdify ils Busin1middotss Pl1n perforn1ance indicators in this
remiddotiscd forn1at for lmiddotte1sure B Ruril innovation 1neasures and insofar as it is possible
at 1his s1age to prep1re inltlil~ltors for middotleisure C middotrransni1ion~1I cu-operitiun for 1hv
period tnding 5 I l)ece111her 1999 PleJse note thlt 1leisure C does no[ relale to
teclmical suppo11 funding received from AEIDL
lh1 Ile st1te111cru of pcrfonn1ncl indicators -hould rLprcscnl a co111pnhensivc
stncnHmiddotnc of 1argets based on progress to ditc ind the i1nplc111entllio11 of 1he
huine~gt plmiddottll to )1 l)cc~1nbcr iltJ99 including thl acklitional 1ctivitics being
~upportcd vith the funding 11locItcd fron1 the -middotrcservtmiddotmiddotmiddot
imiddotht revised busintmiddot-s plan indicators should he con1plctccl ind rc1urnecl to Huril
De-elopmem Division lw ii _l1nua1v 1998
regress Viii he 1neasurecl 1gainst these t1rgcts by lllttns of the Lf)LJ rerurn~ incl the
quant1tat1ve incl qualitllivc reports outlirlltd in sections 3A jl3 incl 5C of 1hesc
guiklines
Ple1se note thal -hJcled areas ire for infon11a1ion only incl 11 lhis st1ge do nol
require indicators to be Stl All olhltr t1rge1s should ht inpulled in 1he 1ppropri1te
fickl- here rherc is no 1lmiddotlemiddotan1 ac1ivi1y tllSl rl zero
1[Jfx11rL IJ 1
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Animation and Capacity Building
ActivityOutput
Promotion
Number of seminarspublic meetingsworkshops organised to cover the following topics GeneralCommunity SpecialisedSectoral
Number of attendees al the above
Number of press releases articles published media interviews
Circulation of LEADER Newsletter Number issued Number per print run
Number of other promotional actions
Direct Animation Assistance I Technical Advice
Number of private individuals directly assistedadvised
Number of bodies directly assistedadvised GeneralCommunity Specialised Sectoral
Number of development strategiestplansmiddot arising from field work (Le_ not covered in ~other technical assistance beneath) including community plans
Co-ordination of Activities
Number of applications referred to other agencies
Impact
Enhanced Awareness of LEADER Services (Not for completion)
This will be measured by middot
The number of individuals contacting LEADER office
The number of groupsbusinesses contacting LEADER office
The number of applications from promoters
The number of projects promoted by LEADER Group itself
General Level of Local I Community Development
Activity (Not for completion)
This will be measured by middot
The number of applications successfully improved
The number of bodies assistedanimatedrestructured improved
Number of bodies established
More Efficient Use of Resources
(Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number of projects successfully referred to other agencies (i e funded)
i
------MeasL1re B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector ActivityOutput -
I
dministration Processing
Number of staff exclusively I assigned to administrative duties
(2 15 etc)
Number of staff exciusively assigned to animation duties (2 1 5 etc)
Number of Board meetings held
Number of hours worked on a I voluntary basis by Board
members
Number of project evaluation committees
I
Number of project evaluation committee meetings held I
Number of hours worked on a voluntary basis by pro1ect evaluation committee members
I Number of internal LEADER Group evaluation meetingssessionsreviews
I Number of external system auditsreviews (not including accounts)
Co-ordination of Activities I
Number or meetings with other LEADER Groups
I
Number of County Strategy Meetings attended
Number of other meetings with I public bodies
middot shy
Impact
Efficient Delivery of Service (Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number or applications received The number of applications
processed The number of applications approved The number of projects completed
More Efficient Use of Resources
(Not for completion)
This will be measured by
The number of projects referred to other agencies (not including those that were referred after provision of animation assistancetechn1cal advice which 1s dealt with beneath)
Apprnd1x 0 3
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector ActivityOutput Impact
Technical Support Studies and Research Knowledge I Expertise Made Available to Potential
Number of studies plansaudits Promoters commissioned by LEADER (Not for completion) Group (not including field work carried This wlfl be measured by out by animators which is included above) The number of LEADER
projects emanating from studies Number of other auditsstudiesplans prototype The number of projects development commissioned by emanating from studies funded promoters amp funded by by other agencies LEADER
The number of bodies restructuredimproved
The number of bodies established
1ppc11cLy ) 4
----
--- --
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
I Sector Activity I Output Impact middot- ---shy
Training Provision of Training Courses Acquisition of Skills (Not for completion)
I Number of training courses commissionedundertaken by This will be measured by LEADER Group (not including animation activ1t1es The number of bodies outlined above) demonstrably LEADER StaffBoard restructuredimproved by GeneralCommunity Courses training provided to SpecialisedSectoral volunteersstaff
I
Number of attendees at the above The number of proiects emanating from training
I PROVISION OF TRAINING GRANTS The number of attendees who
were placed in employment as Number of Training Grants for a result of training
I courses commissioned by promoters and funded under LEADER (not including any of the above)
I GeneralCommunity Courses Spec1al1sedSectoral
Number of attendees at the above
Grant Provision Job CreationRecruitment Assistance I
Number of Employment Grants Employment created provided
I ~-
Afgtj)(11cLmiddot J 5
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Activity I OutputSector
Improvement of Existing Accommodation and
Tourist Amenities
Rural Tourism
Number of capital grants provided
Development of New Accommodation and
Tourist Amenities
Number of capital grants provided
Marketing
Number of marketing grants provided
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number accommodation facilities upgraded to Bord Faille standard
Number of additional beds available
Increased number of visitormiddot capacity
Add1t1ona1 tourist revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Sectoral Benefits
New entrants
Number of additional beds available
Increased number of visilor capacity
Additional revenue generated IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Improved Business Attributable to Marketing
Additional bed-nights arising from marketing strategy
Additional inquiries visits to tourist offices - domestic - overseas
Additional visits to tourist amenities Siles arising from marketing strategy
Number or new marketmg methods tourist packages initiated
Employment- (e g directly arising rrom marketing as opposed to capital grant aid eg as a result or brochures advertisements etc) Created I Sustained
-------
Meas1Jre B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Small Firms Craft Enterprise and Local Services
I
I
i
I
i
i
I
_
Activity I Output
Support for Existing Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Support for New Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Marllteting
Number of marketing grants provided
- -Impact
-Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with improved efficiencyadded value to products and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product ranges
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
I
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises established
New productsproduct ranges
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Greater Awarness of Enterprise Activity
Number of new (geographical) markets developed - within Ireland - within EU - non - EU
Increased sales (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
1J(11di- Igt 7
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector
Agricultural Forestry and Fishery Products
Activity I Output
Support for Existing Enterprises and Improving
Quality of Existing Products
Number of capital grants provided
Support for New Firms Enterprises and Services
Number of capital grants provided
Marketing
Number of marketing grants provided
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with improved efficiencyadded value to products and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product ranges
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Number of enterprises established
New productsproduct ranges
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Greater Awareness of Enterprise Activity
Number of new (geographical) markets developed - within Ireland - within EU - non - EU
Increased sales (IRpound)
Employment created I sustained
Measure B Rural Innovation Programmes
Sector Activity I Output Impact
Freservation of the Improving Awareness Increased Environmental Environment and Livin Awareness9
Conditions Number of capital grants Number of environmental provided plansaction groups established
(not including groupsplans arising from animation andor other technical support outlined above)
Number of entries for Tidy Towns Competition
Benefit to the Built I Cultural of Built I Social and Cultural
Protection I Enhancement Environment
Environment
Number of built sitesstructures provided Number of capital grants
protected or restored
Number of socialcultural events held
Employment created I sustained
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Benefit to the Natural of Natural Environment
Protection I Enhancement Environment
Number of natural sites protected provided Number of capital grants
Number of natural amenities restoredenhanced
Improved Managment of Activities I Alternative
Waste Management Waste I Availability of
Energies Alternative Energy
Number of capital grants Number of alternative energy provided providers established
Number of waste management initiatives implemented
Employment created I sustained
Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
AJf)(itrlLmiddot J9
Measure C Transnational co-operation
Sector
Transnational Co~peration
Activity I Output
Grant Provision
GeneralCommunity SpecialisedSectoral Rural Tourism Small Firmscraftsenterprises AgricultureForestryFisheries Products EnvironmenVLiving Conditions Other
Number of Grants provided to final beneficiary (each category is exclusive)
Private Men Private Women Private Jointmiddot CommunityDevelopment Groups Business VoluntarySpecific Issue Groups Co-operatives LEADER Group Other Total
Impact
Sectoral Benefits
Number of enterprises with establishedimproved efficiency added value to producls and delivery of services
Number of enterprises with new product rangesnumber of new marketing methods tourist packages initiated
Number of new (geographical) markels developed - within Ireland -within EU - non-EU
Additional inquiries visits to tourist offices - domestic - overseas
Additional visits to tourist amenities sites arising from marlltetmg strategy
Additional bed-nights arising from marketing strategy
Increased sales Additional revenue generated (IRpound)
Number of enterprises with expanded employment base
Number of cultural links established
Number of local development strategies studies transferred shared
Number of environmental actions
Employment - created full-time all year fu11-time seasonal part-time all year part-time seasonal
Employment - sustained full-trme all year full-time seasonal part-time all year part-time seasonal
AfJJll1tll~Y )_ Q
Appendix E Matrix of Development Agencies in County Roscommon and the Services Provided (Produced by Roscommon County Enterprise Board)
---------~
c Q
~l agt-EUJ
Co Jnty Slrategy Group CoJnty Enterpnse BoHd
Anmiddotina Enterprise Fund
Lec1der 11
Pai tnersh1p Co ( --~--~---~--~--
Co-Jnty Council ---- middot---~---t--~--~~-~r ---~-~--~-~--~-~--~--~
lrel 3nd Wes ToLnsm
--~---~--~--~---middot -~----~----------~--
Tecgasc
An Bord Tr3cht31a
Forbairt ( ( (
10t Ireland I
FA
Bord Faille (
Bar1ksFinanc1al Insmiddot itulions I
Dcpartmenl of Social Welfare
Buiness Innovation Centre
European lnfc rmat1on Centre
AfJjJCJICfiY E l
Appendix F Framework of Agreement between County Meath CEB and County Meath LEADER II Group
MEMOHANDUM OF AGHEFMFNT
JelVtLll
The Meath County Fn1erpnse Board Ltd
and
Mca th Leader 11
Given he -i1n1brilics bl(lLll ccnnn ispeCls of the n1ni1 of bnth Counry Enterprise Hoard ind lc1dcr
IL ii b 11ceptcJ th11 i high ltkne of co-orxru1on is rcql1inJ to tbullns11n that dtmiddotserv1ng proiccis giin
n11xi1nl1111 txncfit fron1 he s11p1x111 1ncchanis11h avulihh V1tlun hoth orgu11-11in11s_ Vhdc s~ 11HL
division of rcsponsiliililics is possibl~ t outlined hcIO 11 1s ncogni cJ 11111 both groups need 10 1dop1
tn OJICll n(Xihh tpproteh IO the ltsk of f)TltJCCing ClllflCS 111J tppliCtliOllS
lc1dcr II -ill ha prin1a~middot n spon~ibilitv ill 11lc Couniy f()r lhc st1ppon of p1ojlmiddotCS f10111 the frgtllovi11~
sectors
bull Craft Enttrpnscs Cfor fin1nciil suppon ilh 1 li1n11cd fcxmiddotus on soft suppons)
bull Kurii Touris1n
bull Proicn- p1n1nnttd hy Co111111u11i1y CnH1P
bull Exploilition and M1rke1ing of lor1I agriculcur1I fcxxl for(siry tnd fishtnts products
bull Envuonn1tnl for ht follomiddotinJ mc1surcs middot
e Prtscrv1tion ind dcvlmiddotloprnenl of the existing 1rch11te1ur1I heriti(lbull ind bullillages
bull Suppo11 for n1hur1I Cfl111v1ty ind the pron1ot1un C1f cultur1I product- linked ith nir~d
ltlevelcip111ent
bull Prot~ctron rch1btli111ion ind explollllion of nuural rccurces (Oor1 fiunt srndl s1rc11ns
ccc) ind bncl~tpcs
bull Di1x1s1I 1nd fC()ding Clf ISie illdl1ding llSt or energy pnxluuion
ll1is i111plies th11 Le1ltler II tvill cngig1middot 111 p1--delmiddotlltipn1lmiddotnt 1ni11nins research tnd 1111rkc1ing ind he
prin11rily nspons1hlc for the c1pi1d invt~1111enl 1s-oci11ed Vith tht dcvcloprnent of vdue-iltld(d fotgtlt1
produce ind viii dso pronss rtqutsts for 1id for c1p1rd intslmeni ln1ploy111cnt grants 1111rktting
ind 111ining s11ppon- in lht 1hovl stcio1s
The County Enttrpnsc l3cgt1rltl tvill continu1 10 support f(bull1siliilicy cap1td ind (rnploy1ncnl projcd
l1id1 li1vt tilt c1p1lt ily ro gtntricc ernpkraquobull111tn1 v11h1n tll otlllmiddotr -ltmiddotciors Po1cnt1tl projects vhich 111cit
This rtquirvnicnc viii he rtfcrrtd to tteh otliLr in 1cltorltlincc Vitll tlus Agrtllllcnl
middot111t 1ltith Coun1y Enterprise Boird lld ind ilcalh Lealtlcr II arlmiddot lOn1n1incd to rn11ntaining open lines
nf cn111n1un1c11ton tn in1plcn1er1t the tcnn- of thi u11dirs11nd1ng ind alsn co111111ir 1h11 the Chief
Execu1ivltmiddot OfficLmiddotrs will n1eet hH1ndly on 1 111onclilmiddot li1sis to v11s111c cff1cilnt i1npllnhnt1tilgtn middot111i
AgretlllLnt tltgt co111inue 111 orxr11ion un11I _l_t Oeccn1her 19)7 ind viii Ix suh1cc1 10 rcvittmiddot by the
1cith County Enterprise Board 11cl 1n consult1t1011 Vith Lcidtr IL
101hi11g in chis A_irec1ntnt shtll he cltJntruccl 10 li111i1 DI tLStnu lhe _1in11D1y il1nu1011s 111d n1xr1titJns
of till 11lmiddot1th Coun1y Enttrprbc Bo1rd 11cl or lc1der II
Pn1lint B1ker Torn Clinton
Ch11rr111n Ch11n11111
middotlttth Coun1y Enlerprisc Boud Ltd Mc11h lc1dtr II
~ppcndrx I I
Appendix G Terms of Reference for Interdepartmental Policy Committee
Thn New Committees Role
The Role of the new Committee to be cl1Jired by Minister of ~late Finnel will Ix
shned by the Local Demiddotelopnlltnt Mind1Itmiddot given to Department of Tourism Sport
and lkcrca11on by the (jovcrnmenL Key items in that bndate which fall into the
Coumittees remit will mcluclc
A PronH)ticJn of tile integral(lt dcvelop111cnt of tl1e 111o~n dis~1dvantaged urban con1n1unitics hy ensuring that their needs are addresscd ()11 a priority ~incl
coordinated basis in conjunction vi1h 1rea Partnership lton1panie~ by all nlevanr public agencies
bull middot1l1is is regarded as the 1nost urgent priltgtrity
bull Tlw focus will be on developing the opti1ml approach to addressing
the needs of these areas
bull Special co-on linated all-out etfltJl1 in a nun1bcr ltgtf s1nall areas
j B Co-cgtrdination of Ioc~1l lgtcvcloprnent iniriatives and prcp~trnion for the
post - 1999 transition to an integrated Local Development ancl Local
Govcrnn1cnr systc1n
bull 1oc~d l)evelopn1enl IiaiS(gtn Jean1 issues
bull Adclnssing rclevan1 local clcvelopn1cnt issues raised in l3etter Loc~d
(overnnltnt - ~1 Prngra111111e fltgtr CJ1angc anU lh( recenlly ruhl1sliecl Hcport of the J)evcgtlu1ion Co111111ission
bull middotrhe en1phasis vlll ht ltgtn en~uring thal the posi11ve dcvelopn1ents and effective lltV V~l)S of VOrking resulting fro1n Local l)evelop111ent
and Partnership initiative~ arc preserved and strengthened in the
developnltlll nf i renevecl Loc1I Govern111ent
C The Oper1tiond Progrimmc for Locd Urb1n 111cl Rural Development
ancl its sh1pe post - 1lt)99
middot middotrhL 1nain tmiddottsks Vill be tltgt
bull Secure hl btmiddot~r co-ordinttion hltveen the various i111rle1nerHing
1ge11cie- l)ep111n1ents etc
r1jJjJlllriz~y G 7
bull Seek 10 ensure chat problcn1s incl issucs vhlch ~1rise il ~1 local level
ire n-ponclecl ro incl rcsolveltI
bull lclencify i1en1s tltgt be n11instrc1111ed in tern1s cgtf overall policy
bull Consider 1he ou1line of i new 011URJ) for the post - 1999 penocl
taking into ~1ccount the viC-middot of the Social Partncri
D Co-urclin11iun of (gtV(rltdl Govern1nent Policy on Local l)evekgtpn1ent
bull middotr1ie Jn1er-l)epan111ental Pt)licy Con11ni11ee on Loc~d J)evelopn1en1 Vill
be a key foru 111
bull Scctltgtrtl is-ues viii he considered fro111 1he perspective of
encouraging gre~ttcr cO-ltgtrdin~ttion and integr1tion of delivery of
services It local hvel