Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP) · CV Curriculum Vitae DAA Dublin Airport Authority DDLETB Dublin and Dún Laoghaire Education and Training Board DEASP

Social Inclusion and Community

Activation Programme (SICAP) End of programme report 2015-2017

September 2018

Published September 2018 Copyright ©SICAP Pobal

All rights reserved. Statutory and voluntary organisations may reproduce parts of the text for their own

internal use. The source, author and publisher must be credited.

Glossary of terms

BTWEA Back to Work Enterprise Allowance

CCDP Carlow County Development Partnership

CE Community Employment

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CRM Customer Relationship Management

CSO Central Statistics Office

CSP Community Services Programme

CV Curriculum Vitae

DAA Dublin Airport Authority

DDLETB Dublin and Dún Laoghaire Education and Training Board

DEASP Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection

DECLG Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government

DEIS Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools

DJE Department of Justice and Equality

DLDC Donegal Local Development Company Ltd

DLR Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown

DLR DATF Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Drugs and Alcohol Task Force

DRCD Department of Rural and Community Development

ESF European Social Fund

ESIF European Structural and Investment Funds

ESRI Economic and Social Research Institute

ETB Education and Training Board

ETHOS European Typology of Homelessness and Housing Exclusion

FET Further Education and Training

FETAC Further Education and Training Awards Council

FRC Family Resource Centre

FTE Full-time Equivalent

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GMIT Galway Mayo Institute of Technology

HACCP Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Point,

HI Headline Indicator

HP Haase and Pratschke

HSE Health Service Executive

ICT Information and Communications Technology

INOU Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed

IRIS Integrated Reporting and Information System

ISCED International Standard Classification of Education

KPI Key Performance Indicator

LCDC Local Community Development Committee

LCDP Local and Community Development Programme

LCG Local Community Group

LEO Local Enterprise Office

LES Local Employment Service

LESN Local Employment Service Network

LLL Life-long Learning

LLP Louth Leader Partnership

MABS Money Advice and Budgeting Service

MNELP Mayo North East Leader Partnership

MRCI Migrants Rights Centre Ireland

NEET Not in Employment, Education or Training

NFQ National Framework of Qualifications

PI Programme Implementer

PLICS Promoting Literacy in Communities and Schools

PPN Public Participation Network

PR Public Relations

RAPID Revitalising Areas by Planning, Investment and Development

SICAP Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme

SILC Survey on Income and Living Conditions

SSP Southside Partnership

VAT Value Added Tax

WAP Waterford Area Partnership Ltd

SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017

5

Table of contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 7

1 Introduction and programme overview ...................................................................................... 11

1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 11

1.2 Socio-economic context and policy 2015-2017 ................................................................ 11

1.2.1 European policy context .............................................................................................. 11

1.2.2 National policy context and SICAP .............................................................................. 11

1.2.3 Labour market context and policies ........................................................................... 12

1.2.4 Education and training context and policies .............................................................. 14

1.2.5 Local government and local and community development ...................................... 14

1.3 SICAP overview .................................................................................................................... 15

1.3.1 SICAP Lots and funding ............................................................................................... 15

1.3.2 SICAP Goals ................................................................................................................. 17

1.3.3 SICAP target groups and focus groups ....................................................................... 18

1.3.4 Horizontal themes ....................................................................................................... 18

1.3.5 Stakeholders and their roles....................................................................................... 19

2 Programme indicators and key inputs ....................................................................................... 20

2.1 Key performance and headline indicators ......................................................................... 20

2.2 Geographical distribution of supported individuals and LCGs .......................................... 23

2.3 Summary financial report ................................................................................................... 25

2.3.1 SICAP costs charged: summary report 2015-2017 ................................................... 25

2.3.2 SICAP underspends 2015-2017 ................................................................................ 26

2.3.3 FTEs delivering SICAP .................................................................................................. 27

3 Community development and collaborative work ..................................................................... 28

3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 28

3.2 Supporting Local Community Groups (LCGs) ..................................................................... 28

3.2.1 Characteristics of Local Community Groups .............................................................. 28

3.2.2 LCG supports ............................................................................................................... 30

3.2.3 LCG outputs and progression ..................................................................................... 31

3.3 Social enterprise supports and outputs ............................................................................. 36

3.4 Collaborative frameworks ................................................................................................... 39

4 SICAP supports for individuals .................................................................................................... 43

4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 43

4.2 Socio-economic profile of individuals supported ............................................................... 43

4.3 Supports provided to individuals ........................................................................................ 51

4.3.1 Educational supports (Goal 2) .................................................................................... 52


6

4.3.2 Labour market supports (Goal 3) ............................................................................... 56

4.4 Outputs and progression (Goals 2 and 3) .......................................................................... 61

4.4.1 Progression along the education continuum ............................................................. 61

4.4.2 Course completion rates ............................................................................................. 61

4.4.3 Progression to employment and self-employment .................................................... 61

4.5 Supporting children and young people .............................................................................. 63

5 Programme delivery 2015-2017: challenges & lessons learned ............................................. 64

5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 64

5.2 Programme structures ........................................................................................................ 64

5.2.1 Experience of LCDCs ........................................................................................................ 64

5.2.2 Experience of PIs .............................................................................................................. 67

5.2.3 Collaboration with other agencies and bodies .............................................................. 68

5.3 Programme design and requirements ............................................................................... 69

5.4 Operation and delivery of SICAP 2015-2017 .................................................................... 71

5.5 Budgets and resources ....................................................................................................... 74

5.6 Community development approach ................................................................................... 74

5.7 Changes and improvements to SICAP 2018-2022 ........................................................... 75

6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 76

References........................................................................................................................................... 78

Appendix 1: Financial report for 2017 ............................................................................................... 79

Appendix 2: List of Lots and Programme Implementers ................................................................... 85


7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP) aims to reduce poverty and

promote social inclusion and equality through local, regional and national engagement and

collaboration. This report presents the summary of programme achievements and outlines the

experiences related to programme implementation over its lifecycle (2015-2017).

The first round of the programme, which ran from 1 April 2015 to 31 December 2017, was funded

and overseen by the Department of Rural and Community Development (DRCD)1. The total

programme budget (2015-2017) was €100,117,865. SICAP was delivered by 46 Programme

Implementers (PIs) covering 51 Lots across the country and administered locally by Local

Community Development Committees (LCDCs).

Over the lifetime of the programme, SICAP supported 110,044 individuals on a one-to-one basis

and 5,028 Local Community Groups (LCGs).

Over the programme lifecycle, the targets for the majority of indicators were met, with some

significantly surpassed. The targets set for the two Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were

exceeded in the last two years of the programme, i.e. the total number of disadvantaged individuals

engaged under SICAP and the number of Local Community Groups assisted under SICAP.

Local Community Groups (Goal 1)

5,028 Local Community Groups were supported under SICAP between 2015 and 2017.

The majority of LCGs supported by the programme (63%) worked to address the needs of

specific geographical communities as well as issue-based target groups. Almost two thirds

of LCGs (64%) worked with people living in disadvantaged communities as the main target

group.

1,999 LCGs were supported to participate in local, regional and national decision making

structures.

Three quarters of LCGs supported by SICAP were in the early stages of their development

and 734 LCGs progressed along the community development matrix (15% of all groups

supported under SICAP).

452 social enterprises were assisted under SICAP and 26 new social enterprises were

established over the programme duration.

Collaborative frameworks

Over the lifetime of the programme, 286 new joint programmes, strategies or partnerships

were put in place between SICAP implementers and education providers, designed to meet

the educational needs of SICAP target groups.

109 new strategies, partnerships and joint programmes were put in place between PIs and

employment focused agencies in order to improve access to employment supports and 54

new initiatives/partnerships were formed between SICAP implementers and employers.

1 The responsibility for SICAP was moved to the Department of Rural and Community Development (DRCD) in July 2017.

Previously, responsibility for the programme was with the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local

Government (DHPCLG).


8

Profile of individuals (Goals 2 & 3)

110,044 individuals were supported under SICAP over the lifetime of the programme.

Three out of ten of these individuals lived in areas designated as being disadvantaged, very

disadvantaged or extremely disadvantaged. Almost half of all beneficiaries (47%) were

long-term unemployed and 40% were from a jobless household. The highest educational

achievement for 69% of individuals was Leaving Certificate level or below.

The majority of individuals accessing the programme over the three years were men (55%)

and 53% of individuals were aged between 25 and 45.

The main target group supported were the unemployed (78% of the caseload) and the

second largest target group were people living in disadvantaged communities (29%). There

were 12,473 young people who were not in employment, education or training (NEETs)

supported by the programme.

Almost three quarters of individuals supported under SICAP (80,675) were Irish nationals.

Polish nationals were the second largest nationality, representing 4% of the caseload.

Almost half of SICAP participants (50,614 or 46%) were referred to the programme by a

government body, state agency or other relevant organisation. Over the lifetime of the

programme, the share of referrals from government bodies/state agencies increased from

40% in 2015 to 47% in 2017. One in five beneficiaries were referred to SICAP by an LCG

(20%) and a further 18% learned about the programme from their family or friends.

Individual educational supports and outputs (Goal 2)

Over the programme duration, 52,068 people received supports related to Life-long

Learning (LLL). Of these, 11,365 were young people (aged 15-24). The share of people on

the SICAP caseload receiving educational supports increased from 45% in 2015 to 48% in

2017.

77% of individuals accessing Goal 2 supports had an educational attainment of Leaving

Certificate level or lower. The proportion of females accessing Goal 2 supports increased

over the programme period from 55% in 2015 to 57% in 2017. Goal 2 had a higher

proportion of young people and older people accessing supports compared to the overall

programme caseload and those accessing Goal 3 supports (22% of Goal 2 participants

were aged 15-24 and 14% were over 55 years).

In total, 9,721 individuals have progressed along the education continuum after registering

with SICAP, 22% of whom were young people (aged 15-24).

On average, over 53,600 children (under 18 years) received Goal 2 educational supports

each year.

Individual employment and self-employment supports and outputs (Goal 3)

A total of 73,374 individuals, including 9,964 young people (aged 15-24), received

employment supports under Goal 3.

57% of people accessing Goal 3 supports were aged between 25 and 45 years and 62%

were men.

Over the lifetime of the programme, an average of 41% of individuals on the Goal 3

caseload received career advice and guidance supports, 38% availed of self-employment

supports and 32% participated in labour market training. Between 2015 and 2017, the

share of individuals on Goal 3 caseload availing of both labour market training and career

advice and guidance support increased, while the share of people availing of the self-

employment supports decreased year on year.


9

Over the lifetime of the programme, 5,801 people progressed to full-time or part-time

employment. Of these, 1,519 were young people aged 15-24 and they represented 26%

of those who got jobs.

15, 923 people who received self-employment supports set up a new business, which led

to the creation of 1,695 full time jobs. Only 459 young people (aged 15-24 years)

progressed to self-employment – they represented 3% of all people who set up their own

businesses. The progression of young people to self-employment was cited by many PIs as

a significant challenge throughout the programme.

Challenges and learning

Over the lifetime of the programme, LCDCs and PIs identified a number of key challenges

they faced when implementing the programme. Some challenges related to programme

design – namely the registration process and associated data requirements, the focus on

quantitative targets and the lack of funding supports for LCGs and individuals. The lack of

flexibility in relation to setting targets at a local level was also raised.

In relation to the operation and delivery of the programme, PIs outlined a number of

challenges, including engagement with some of the hard to reach target groups, such as

NEETs, engagement with LCGs, difficulties with progression into self-employment, the

impact of the JobPath programme, and barriers to access to services, such as childcare

and transport, particularly in rural areas.

At the start of the programme, many PIs and LCDCs experienced issues with the IRIS

reporting system, many of which were related to learning the new system. The issues had

been addressed over the lifetime of the programme, both through making changes to the

system as well as providing training supports. By 2017, the number reporting this as a

challenge reduced significantly.

Many of the challenges relating to programme design and requirements were addressed

as the programme progressed and training delivered over the programme period supported

LCDCs and PIs in their roles.

Key areas of learning highlighted the importance of the following: communication and

effective working relationships between PIs and LCDCs; collaborative approaches with

external agencies and bodies to ensure the needs of the most marginalised people are

met; a bottom up community development approach in order to address social exclusion;

and the value of regular staff up-skilling and training in line with programme requirements.

The feedback from LCDCs and PIs was taken into account and used to address the key

challenges identified under SICAP 2015-2017 as well as in the design of the new

programme (SICAP 2018-2022). The new programme has been designed to address local

needs in a more streamlined, simplified and flexible manner.

Going forward – changes to the new programme (SICAP 2018-2022)

The design of the new programme has been based on feedback from PIs and LCDCs, with the

following key changes made:

Longer funding commitment – the programme cycle has been extended to five years.

Reduction to two Goals (Goal 1: Supporting communities and Goal 2: Supporting

individuals).

A simplified registration process.

More target groups to ensure better coverage and greater access for marginalised people.

Grants to support local community groups and individuals.

Greater focus on quality community development and more intensive engagement.


10

Fewer headline indicators and targets.

Measurement of the barriers that SICAP clients face.

The age limit has been removed to allow people of all ages to avail of SICAP supports.

A new specialised SICAP tool to measure personal progression is currently being designed.


11

1 Introduction and programme overview

1.1 Introduction

Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP) is a national programme that aims

to tackle poverty, social exclusion and long-term unemployment through local engagement and

partnerships between disadvantaged individuals, community organisations and public sector

agencies.

This report provides a summary of the results achieved and an analysis of lessons learnt and good

practice arising from programme implementation between 1 April 2015 and 31 December 2017.

SICAP is funded and overseen by the Department of Rural and Community Development (DRCD)

and is the successor programme to the Local and Community Development Programme (LCDP).

This report was prepared using multiple sources of information and data. The quantitative

information on programme activities and financial data was sourced from the Integrated Reporting

and Information System (IRIS)2. The analysis of programme implementation issues is primarily

based on Programme Implementers (PIs) end of year reports, Local Community Development

Committees (LCDC) reports and the findings of programme evaluation and consultation activities

carried out by external consultants. The case study examples included in the report were submitted

by PIs as part of their end of year progress reports.

1.2 Socio-economic context and policy 2015-2017

SICAP 2015–2017 was influenced by a range of EU and national policies and social and economic

trends, both at programme design and implementation stage. The below section sets out the key

policies, strategies and reports in 20173 which influenced SICAP and its target group selection and

refers to documents where the programme is named. The section starts with a brief outline of the

European and national policy context, followed by the labour market, education and training, and

local government context.

1.2.1 European policy context

In 2017, European Member States continued to contribute to the Europe 2020 Growth Strategy

by reflecting European objectives in their social investment plans and policies and by implementing

European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF, 2014-2020). Overall, 2017 marked a period of

recovery within the EU as most Member States showed significant improvements in economic

growth and employment rates. The EU employment rate of those aged 20-64 increased to 72.2%

from 71.1% in 2016 and the total share of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion in the EU-

28 was 23.4% (Eurostat, Europe 2020 Employment Indicators, 2018).

Nonetheless, young people across Europe proved to be highly sensitive to the negative impacts of

the economic crisis and children (under 18) were the most vulnerable age group, meaning they

faced the highest risk of poverty and social exclusion in the EU (Children at Risk of Poverty or Social

Exclusion).

1.2.2 National policy context and SICAP

The Programme for Government 2017 Annual Report set out government commitments for 2017

and included the core objective to make life better for everyone. SICAP was referenced in this

report under ‘Community supports’. The Programme for a Partnership Government Progress

2 IRIS is a customised Customer Relationship Management (CRM) database developed by Pobal in 2010 and adapted

for SICAP in 2015.

3 For the policy and social economic context for 2015 and 2016, see the SICAP End of Year Reports for 2015 and 2016.


12

Report was published in December 2017. SICAP was included in the Progress Report under

‘Investing in society’ where it was outlined that LCDCs will identify their own emerging needs group

to more efficiently target supports in local communities. Rural areas were highlighted as a priority

in light of a two-track recovery between large urban centres and the rest of the country.

The Action Plan for Rural Development was published in early 2017. Aimed at delivering change

for people living and working in rural Ireland, the Action Plan acts as an overarching structure for

the co-ordination and implementation of initiatives across government to benefit rural Ireland.

There is specific mention of SICAP under ‘Investing in the future of rural Ireland’.

Homelessness and housing shortages continued to be at the top of the agenda for government.

There was continued growth in the numbers of people who were homeless or at risk of

homelessness. The Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government

published an Action Plan for Housing and Homelessness in 2016, which set out five pillars across

government to address homelessness. SICAP is referenced in the Action Plan under urban

regeneration, highlighting scope to align and strengthen links between SICAP and the RAPID

programme through local authorities. SICAP designated people who were homeless or experiencing

housing exclusion as a priority group.

The employment gap between women and men remains wide, in particular for mothers and women

with caring responsibilities. In an Assessment of Social Investment Approaches in the EU

(European Social Network, 2015), the European Commission noted that Early Childhood Education

and Care in Ireland is under-developed and childcare remains expensive and has a social class

gradient.

The national poverty rate has had a major influence on the operational context for SICAP. Since

the financial crisis, the rate of consistent poverty has increased and over the period 2015–2017,

it was particularly high amongst a number of SICAP target groups including people with disabilities,

lone parents, the unemployed and non-Irish nationals. According to the Survey on Income and

Living Conditions (SILC), the at-risk-of poverty or social exclusion rate was 16.5% in 2016 (CSO,

2017).4

As stated in the Partnership for Government Progress Report (2017), Ireland faces a number of

challenges in addressing high poverty risks, particularly for the long-term unemployed, lone parent

families and jobless households. SILC figures reveal that the unemployed and lone parents face

the highest poverty risk at almost three times the national average and Ireland has a higher

number of people living in jobless households than the EU average. People who live in a household

where no-one is working are more likely to have no qualifications, to be single or parenting alone,

or to either have a disability or live with someone with a disability.

1.2.3 Labour market context and policies

Unemployment in Ireland has continued to fall over the programme lifetime. In the two years and

nine month period when SICAP was operational, unemployment fell from 10% in 2015 to 6.2% in

2017. Nonetheless, challenges remain in creating an inclusive labour market for at-risk groups,

such as the long-term unemployed, people with disabilities, non-Irish nationals and young people.

Two important trends in unemployment remained constant, i.e. high levels of youth unemployment

and long-term unemployment.

Long-term joblessness has declined, falling from 3.7% in Q1 to 2.5% in Q4 2017 (CSO, 2018).

People out of work for more than 12 months accounted for almost half of those unemployed at

48.7% by Q4 2017 (CSO, 2017). The European Semester Country Report for Ireland (European

4 This refers to the at-risk-of poverty rate including all social transfers (SILC, 2016).


13

Commission, 2017) noted that very long-term unemployment (more than two years) remains a

concern in Ireland. These jobseekers are at greater risk of losing skills and are likely to experience

difficulties in re-entering the labour market. They are more likely to experience economic scarring,

meaning prolonged periods of unemployment, especially youth unemployment, which is likely to

inhibit future labour force participation and carry penalties for future earnings (Eurofound, 2017).

Young people are still more likely to be unemployed than their older counterparts. The

unemployment rate for 15-74 year olds is lower than 15-24 year olds (at 6.2% and 13.7%

respectively (CSO, 2017). Indeed, the Europe 2020 Growth Strategy for 2017 notes that for Ireland

the rise in the employment rate for older people (aged 55 to 64) between 2006 and 2016 was

associated with a fall in the employment rate for younger people (aged 20 to 24).

While youth unemployment has since fallen to below the European average, the number of Irish

NEETs remains high. The proportion of Irish NEETs was one of the highest in the Eurozone at 18.5%

in 2017 - Eurofound estimates the cost of not integrating NEETs to be 2% of GDP for Ireland

(Eurofound, 2015). SICAP 2015–2017 included NEETs and young unemployed people living in

disadvantaged areas as target groups.

SICAP 2015–2017 was shaped by three annual Action Plans for Jobs. The 2017 plan identifies 14

updated high level goals, which were grouped into four themes. In the 2017 Action Plan, SICAP is

mentioned under ‘Action 8 - Addressing New Labour Market Challenges’ and is described as the

primary social inclusion programme of government.

A core component of the Action Plan is the complementary Pathways to Work Strategy, which

combines reforms to the social support system, employment programmes, and services for

jobseekers and employers. It has resulted in the roll-out of Intreo centres and a range of other

initiatives aimed at supporting an inclusive labour market, such as the JobPath initiative,

Momentum, Springboard and the Youth Guarantee.

The revised Pathways to Work Strategy 2016-2020 highlighted the importance of considering how

to adapt activation approaches designed in a time of recession to a recovery scenario and is

underpinned by a two-pronged approach of consolidating recent reforms and ongoing

development. SICAP is listed in Pathways to Work 2016-2020 under Action 2.6 – ‘Offer Intreo

clients’ access to the Social Inclusion Community Activation Programme.’

The Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection (DEASP) continued to coordinate

the implementation of the Youth Guarantee and oversaw many initiatives to tackle youth

unemployment. This emphasis was reflected in SICAP’s objective to improve the labour market

participation of young people.

The National Traveller and Roma Inclusion Strategy (2016-2020) Action Plan - Phase 1 was

published by the Department of Justice and Equality (DJE) in June 2017. It recognises the distinct

needs of Travellers and Roma and has been a key influencer for SICAP in highlighting the

inequalities faced by Roma and Travellers, which are two of the SICAP target groups.

The National Strategy for Women and Girls 2017-2020 was published by the Department of Justice

and Equality in April 2017 as part of a framework to address the remaining obstacles to women’s

equality. The strategy sets out measures to tackle the unequal labour force participation of women

by proposing increased investment in childcare and improving the conditions of women in

precarious employment. SICAP 2015-2017 designated marginalised and socio-economically

disadvantaged women as a priority group.


14

1.2.4 Education and training context and policies

In 2015, Ireland published the National Skills Strategy 2025, which set an ambitious national

trajectory for skills development over a ten year period. This contained a specific focus on active

inclusion to support participation in education and training and the labour market.

Ireland exceeded its Europe 2020 target in reducing the number of early leavers from education

and training, achieving a 5.1% reduction between 2008 and 2016. Furthermore, Ireland continues

to be one of the top performing European Member States for third level education attainment.

According to CSO data (2017), Ireland’s rate of third level completion was the fourth highest in the

EU, surpassing the UK and the Nordic states with 53% of Irish people aged 30-34 having attained

tertiary qualifications.

The Further Education and Training Professional Development Strategy was published in 2017,

setting out how over the next three years, the sector aims to reform and further embed a strong

professional development culture across the ETB network. The strategy aims to double investment

in training and upskilling by 2020 (from €132 million in 2011); to meet 74% of ICT skills demand

with domestic supply by 2018 (59% of demand in 2014); and to meet the EU participation in life-

long learning target of 15% by 2020 (up from 6.7% of adults engaged in 2014).

The 2017 Further Education and Training Service Plan was published in 2017. The Service Plan

aims to align education and training to labour market needs. Targets to be achieved by 2020 are

a 10% increase in the rate of certification on courses primarily focused on social mobility and

10,000 more learners each year to achieve qualifications related to business sectors where

employment growth and skills needs have been identified.

The Action Plan to Expand Apprenticeship and Traineeship in Ireland 2016 – 2020 was published

in early 2017. This sets out how state agencies, education and training providers and employers

will work together to deliver on expanding apprenticeship and traineeship. The action plan is a key

influencer of SICAP as the programme encourages apprenticeships in addition to other forms of

education and training.

With regard to younger children in education, the DEIS Plan for 2017 is another core influencer of

SICAP with disadvantaged children designated as a target group. The DEIS Plan sets out

government commitments for future intervention in social inclusion and education policy. The plan

sets out goals of improved outcomes for children, with the aim of narrowing gaps between children

and developing better education pathways. The plan made specific reference to SICAP, highlighting

the importance of SICAP and LCDC interventions in seeking to extend supports for disadvantaged

children. It recognised SICAP interventions as particularly important elements of the School

Completion Programme.

1.2.5 Local government and local and community development

The ongoing local government reforms led by the former Department of the Environment,

Community and Local Government formed part of the wider policy landscape and shaped the

delivery structures of SICAP.

The new Local Community Development Committees (LCDCs) played a central role in coordinating

local community and economic development planning at the local authority level and put together

a Local Economic and Community Plan (LECP) in each county. PIs were required to take into

consideration their Local Economic and Community Plans and ensure that SICAP actions

contributed to reaching their broader objectives.


15

Local authorities have been key players in local economic development and supporting

entrepreneurship through the creation of Local Enterprise Offices and taking on responsibility for

the renewed Strategic Policy Committees.

The DECLG developed a framework outlining how the state engages with the local and community

development sectors ‘Our Communities: A Framework for Local and Community Development’

(2015). This is an overarching, high-level document, which sets the foundations for how state

policies, programmes and interventions for local and community development will be created.

The Public Participation Network (PPN) was set up in 2014 with the passing of the Local

Government Act 2014. The PPN is a formal network, which allows local authorities to connect with

community groups around the country. Many local community groups supported under SICAP have

been assisted to participate in their local PPN.

1.3 SICAP overview

1.3.1 SICAP Lots and funding

The programme was overseen and managed at county level by Local Community Development

Committees (LCDCs) and implemented by 46 Programme Implementers (PIs) in 51 geographic

areas (known as Lots). The breakdown of the country into Lots is presented in Map 1 and Map 2.

SICAP is funded by the Department of Rural and Community Development. The programme (2015-

2017) had a total budget of €100,117,865. The total cost reported was €99,027,038, which

represented 98.9% of the total budget. The budget is made up of both action and administration

costs. Action costs are budgeted with a 33% allocation (with a 5% leeway allowable) to each of the

three SICAP programme Goals. The administration costs budget cannot exceed 25% of the total

programme budget. A summary financial report for the period between 1 April 2015 and 31

December 2017 is included in section 2.3 of the report.


16

Map 1: SICAP Lots – national (excluding the Greater Dublin Area)


17

Map 2: SICAP Lots - Greater Dublin Area

1.3.2 SICAP Goals

SICAP 2015-2017 had three Goals:

Goal 1: Strengthening local communities. To support and resource disadvantaged communities

and marginalised target groups to engage with relevant local and national stakeholders in

identifying and addressing social exclusion and equality issues.

Goal 2: Promoting life-long learning. To support individuals and marginalised target groups

experiencing educational disadvantage so they can participate fully, engage with and progress

through life-long learning opportunities through the use of community development approaches.

Goal 3: Helping people become more job ready. To engage with marginalised target

groups/individuals and residents of disadvantaged communities who are unemployed but who do


18

not fall within mainstream employment service provision, or who are referred to SICAP, to move

them closer to the labour market and improve work readiness, and support them in accessing

employment and self-employment and creating social enterprise opportunities.

1.3.3 SICAP target groups and focus groups

SICAP supports a broad range of target groups who are disadvantaged or marginalised from society

and who are unable or unlikely to access mainstream supports. All programme beneficiaries must

belong to at least one SICAP target group.

Programme Implementers were required to adopt an area-based approach5 to tackling

disadvantage and use the Pobal HP Deprivation Index to identify concentrations of disadvantage

in their respective Lots. This provision allowed implementers to target specific geographical areas

with high levels of poverty, hardship and social exclusion, as well as working with issue-based

target groups. Each implementer had a Lot-specific target for the percentage of their caseload,

which must reside in disadvantaged areas. This helped to promote actions focusing on particularly

disadvantaged areas whilst allowing for the fact that disadvantage is not necessarily determined

geographically.

Target groups were also issue based. An issue-based target group is defined as “a group of

individuals who experience social disadvantage as a result of a particular theme or issue which is

common between them, e.g. unemployment, disability etc.” The SICAP target groups were:

Disadvantaged children and families (in 2015 this target group was named “children and

families in disadvantaged areas”)

Lone parents

New communities (including refugees and asylum seekers)

People living in disadvantaged communities

People with disabilities

Roma

The unemployed (including those not on the Live Register)

Low income workers/households (introduced in 2016)

Travellers

Young unemployed people living in disadvantaged areas

NEETs – young people aged 15-24 years who are not in employment, education or training

In addition to target groups, two ‘focus’ groups were named for the programme in 2016. These

were: marginalised and socio-economically disadvantaged women and people who are homeless

or experiencing housing exclusion. Distinguishing specific ‘focus’ groups aims to highlight the need

to engage with individuals who may not belong to a specific target group but have been identified

as in need. It also encourages PIs and LCDCs to consider and address their needs locally.

1.3.4 Horizontal themes

Horizontal themes relate to the core principles that cut across and have relevance to all areas of

Programme Implementers’ work. SICAP was underpinned by three horizontal themes:

1. Promoting an equality framework with a particular focus on gender equality and anti-

discrimination practices.

2. Applying community development approaches to achieve the participation of

disadvantaged and marginalised communities in the wider local development context.

5 This approach focuses on the needs of communities in a specific geographical area.


19

3. Developing collaborative approaches with local (through the LCDC) and national

stakeholders to improve how mainstream policies and programmes are delivered so that

they have a more positive impact on the socially excluded.

This report does not provide details on how the horizontal themes have been incorporated into the

delivery of SICAP, as this was covered in detail in the SICAP annual reports for 2015 and 20166.

There was no major changes in the programme implementation in relation to horizontal themes as

reported by PIs for 2017.

1.3.5 Stakeholders and their roles

Department of Rural and Community Development (DRCD)

The Department of Rural and Community Development is the lead and funding department for

SICAP. The Department channels SICAP funding directly to LCDCs.

Local authorities and Local Community Development Committees (LCDCs)

Local Community Development Committees (LCDCs) are the contracting authorities that manage

and administer SICAP at a local level and direct funding to the Programme Implementers. LCDCs

are the key decision-makers at local level and have responsibility for monitoring compliance in

respect of financial management and performance monitoring. They also have responsibility for

decision-making in regard to the annual performance review and the annual planning process for

the delivery of SICAP in their area.

Programme Implementers (PIs)

The Programme Implementers design and, once it is approved by the LCDC, implement the annual

plan in their area, reporting directly to the relevant LCDC on actions, targets and spending. The

contract between an LCDC and Programme Implementer sets out the contractual conditions in full.

Pobal

Pobal was nominated by the Department of Rural and Community Development to project manage

the set-up and design of the programme and draw up the programme framework. It has

responsibility for managing the IRIS system, updating programme documentation, liaising with the

main stakeholders, capacity building and delivering support events with the implementers and

LCDCs. It also assists LCDCs with technical review of annual plans and the mid-year and end of

year finance and monitoring reports.

6 https://www.pobal.ie/app/uploads/2018/06/SICAP-End-of-Year-Report-2015-FINAL.pdf

https://www.pobal.ie/app/uploads/2018/06/SICAP-2016-End-of-Year-Report-Full-Version.pdf

https://www.pobal.ie/app/uploads/2018/06/SICAP-End-of-Year-Report-2015-FINAL.pdf




20

2 Programme indicators and key inputs

2.1 Key performance and headline indicators

The programme performance is measured against two Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and a

range of other headline indicators. Table 2.1 presents the achievements for the KPIs and headline

indicators on an annual basis as well as for the programme overall7. In the period between 1 April

2015 and 31 December 2017, 110,044 people received one-to-one supports and 5,028 Local

Community Groups were assisted.

Table 2.1 Key performance and headline indicators for 2015-2017 period

Ref Headline Indicator (HI) 20158 20169 2017 Programme

total

1 Total number of disadvantaged individuals (15 years

upwards) engaged under SICAP on a one-to-one

basis (KPI 1)

36,854

47,511

48,330

110,044

1b

% of disadvantaged individuals (15 years upwards)

engaged under SICAP on a one-to-one basis living in

a disadvantaged area

30.7%

30.6%

29.4%

28.9%

2 Number of Local Community Groups assisted under

SICAP (KPI 2) 2,506 3,076 3,192 5,028

3

Number of local community groups whose members

have been assisted by SICAP to participate in local,

regional or national decision-making structures

867

1,048

1,111

1,999

4 Number of individuals (15 years upwards) in receipt

of a Goal 2 educational support 16,705 22,427 23,235 52,068

4a % of those targeted should have educational

attainment of Leaving Certificate or lower 81% 78% 75% 77%

5 Number of individuals who have progressed along

the education continuum after registering with SICAP 3,102 4,109 3,768 9,721

6 Number of young people (aged 15-24) in receipt of a

SICAP Goal 2 educational support 4,038 4,517 4,847 11,365



7

Number of young people (aged 15-24) who have

progressed along the education continuum after

registering with SICAP

737

961

784

2,141

8a Number of children in receipt of a Goal 2

educational or developmental support 49,988 55,890 55,169 *n/a

8b

No. of children/young people (non-caseload)

identified as at risk of early school leaving receiving

support

New

Indicator

New

Indicator

2017

5,286

n/a

7 Note that the column for the ‘programme total’ is the distinct count of individuals and LCGs – this means that

individuals and LCGs who were supported under SICAP in more than one year, are counted only once in this column and

therefore 2015, 2016 and 2017 will not equal the programme total.

8 2015 figures are between 1 April and 31 December 2015.

9 2015 and 2016 figures are for the 50 SICAP Lots, while 2017 figures are for 51 Lots.

http://pob-isitesqlqa/ReportServer?%2FSICAP2016_MSCRM%2FCustomReports%2F%7B39497AC5-B1B3-E511-9428-005056BC0AAC%7D&rs%3AStoredParametersID=ovk1zx45cl2uqbeyzd0ihm55&rs%3AParameterLanguage

http://pob-isitesqlqa/ReportServer?%2FSICAP2016_MSCRM%2FCustomReports%2F%7B02D0D980-C5B3-E511-9428-005056BC0AAC%7D&rs%3AStoredParametersID=0nzirr45jxbsjc2omq4jpc45&rs%3AParameterLanguage

http://pob-isitesqlqa/ReportServer?%2FSICAP2016_MSCRM%2FCustomReports%2F%7B39497AC5-B1B3-E511-9428-005056BC0AAC%7D&rs%3AStoredParametersID=gyypax55ng4ren45w2tcnbiy&rs%3AParameterLanguage


21

9 Number of individuals (15 years upwards) in receipt

of Goal 3 employment supports 23,546 30,206 31,016 73,374



10

Number of individuals (15 years upwards)

progressing to part-time or full-time employment up

to 6 months after receiving a Goal 3 employment

support

1,337

2,208

2,413

5,801

11


progressing to self- employment up to 6 months

after receiving a Goal 3 employment support

4,687

5,752

5,553

15,923

12 Number of young people (aged 15-24) in receipt of a

SICAP Goal 3 employment support 2,975 4,051 4,352 9,964



13

Number of young people (aged 15-24) progressing

to part-time or full-time employment up to 6 months


352

565

645

1,519

14


to self-employment up to 6 months after receiving a

Goal 3 employment support

156

156

152

459

15

Number of initiatives aimed at promoting, developing and/or sustaining social enterprises

(2015 only)

Number of social enterprises assisted under SICAP

97

--

--

241

--

321

97

452

*n/a - Children are not registered with a unique identifier under SICAP i.e. are non-caseload, therefore the total for each

year may contain duplicates.

Over the programme duration, the targets set for the two KPIs (KPI1: total number of

disadvantaged individuals (15 years upwards) engaged under SICAP on a one-to-one basis and

KPI 2: number of Local Community Groups assisted under SICAP) were exceeded in the last two

years of the programme, however these were below 100% in 2015. Similar performance patterns

were observed for another five indicators (HI 3, HI 4, HI 10, HI 12 and HI 13). These indicators

were related to LCGs’ participation in decision-making structures, educational supports,

employment supports and progression to employment.

The lower levels of achievement for these indicators in the first year of the programme were largely

due to timing issues. The start of the programme in April impacted on the number of educational

activities the Programme Implementers were able to deliver, as many of these are linked to the

academic year cycle. Progression to employment as well as LCGs participation in the decision-

making structures, in many cases, require a longer lead-in time. Consequently, a lower number of

outputs for this work may have been achieved in the first year of programme operation.

The targets for six headline indicators were achieved every year. These indicators related to the

progression along the education continuum, delivery of educational and employment supports and

assistance for social enterprises (HI 5, HI 6, HI 7, HI 8a, HI 9 and HI 15).

The targets for two indicators were not met throughout the duration of the programme. Both of

these were related to the progression to self-employment. While the level of achievement improved

in 2016 and 2017 compared to 2015, progression to self-employment, especially amongst young

people, remained a challenge throughout the programme. Programme Implementers reported a


22

number of issues that may have contributed to the underachievement in this area. Amongst the

most often cited were the higher number of clients presenting with gaps in the skillset required to

set up their own business, the low quality of business ideas coming forward and lack of finance for

start-ups.

Figure 2.1 Headline indicators - level of achievement against targets in 2015, 2016 and 2017

0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300%

Total number of disadvantaged individuals (15 years upwards) engaged under SICAP on a one-to-one basis (KPI)

Number of local community groups assisted under SICAP

(KPI)

Number of local community groups whose members have been assisted by SICAP to participate in local, regional or

national decision-making structures

Number of individuals (15 years upwards) in receipt of a Goal 2 educational support

Number of individuals who have progressed along the education continuum after registering with SICAP

224% 249%

225%

Number of young people (aged 15-24) in receipt of a SICAP, ESF and YEI Goal 2 educational support

Number of young people (aged 15-24) who have progressed along the education continuum after registering

with SICAP

Number of children/young people (non-caseload) in receipt of a Goal 2 educational or developmental support

No. of children/young people (non-caseload) identified as 0%

at risk of early school leaving receiving support 0%

Number of individuals (15 years upwards) in receipt of Goal 3 employment supports

Number of individuals (15 years upwards) progressing to part-time or full-time employment up to 6 months after

receiving a Goal 3 employment support

76%

146% 133%

141%

125% 122% 125%

137%

102% 119% 121%

138% 141%

212%

214%

267%

Number of individuals (15 years upwards) progressing to self- employment up to 6 months after receiving a Goal 3

employment support

Number of young people (aged 15-24) in receipt of a SICAP,

84% 95% 93%

94%

ESF and YEI Goal 3 employment support

Number of young people (aged 15-24) progressing to part- time or full-time employment up to 6 months after

receiving a Goal 3 employment support

Number of young people (aged 15-24) progressing to self- employment up to 6 months after receiving a Goal 3

employment support

Number of social enterprises assisted under SICAP

68%

53%

66% 64%

115% 124%

117%

124%

111% 150%

180%

2015 2016 2017

90%

104%

106%

96%

112%

97%

109%

109%

73%

101%

105%


23

2.2 Geographical distribution of supported individuals and LCGs

The geographical distribution of individuals and LCGs supported under SICAP is broadly

proportional to the geographical distribution of Ireland’s overall population. However, it is worth

noting that this is not true for all counties as it also reflects the targets set locally. These targets

are reflective of the local levels of disadvantage.

Figure 2.2 shows the number of SICAP participants in each county over the lifetime of the

programme. The highest number of people supported were living in Dublin (31,120) and Cork

(11,022), which together represented 38% of the overall caseload.

Figure 2.2 Number of people supported at county level 2015-2017

- 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000

Carlow

Cavan

Clare

Cork

Donegal

Dublin

Galway

Kerry

Kildare

Kilkenny

Laois

Leitrim

Limerick

Longford

Louth

Mayo

Meath

Monaghan

Offaly

Roscommon

Sligo

Tipperary

Waterford

Westmeath

Wexford

Wicklow

31,120

Figure 2.3 presents the number of LCGs supported in each county. As with the individuals

supported, this distribution is broadly proportional to the geographical distribution of Ireland’s

overall population. The highest number of LCGs supported were in Dublin (1,181) and Cork (558),

which together accounted for 35% of all LCGs supported.

1,800

2,274

2,072

11,022

6,278

3,988

4,598

3,174

1,611

1,508

1,497

5,208

1,159

3,873

3,583

1,180

1,746

2,288

1,542

1,857

3,385

3,011

1,918

4,879

3,473


24

Figure 2.3 Number of LCGs supported at county level 2015-2017

- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400

Carlow

Cavan

Clare

Cork

Donegal

Dublin

Galway

Kerry

Kildare

Kilkenny

Laois

Leitrim

Limerick

Longford

Louth

Mayo

Meath

Monaghan

Offaly

Roscommon

Sligo

Tipperary

Waterford

Westmeath

Wexford

Wicklow

1,181

74

124

94

558

346

221

206

101

54

71

87

309

33

177

200

120

80

162

89

115

133

126

90

182

95


25

2.3 Summary financial report

This financial report for the period between 1 April 2015 and 31 December 2017 was prepared

using figures extracted from IRIS and from previous end of year reports for 2015 and 2017.

Financial report for 2017 is included in Appendix 1.

2.3.1 SICAP costs charged: summary report 2015-2017

Table 2.2 below, details the total budget and the total costs reported, under the various cost

categories, for the 51 Lots for the period of 2015–2017.

Table 2.2 Costs charged summary report 2015-2017

Total budget €

Total cost reported €

% of total action costs

reported

Goal 1

Non-salary €3,461,963.21 €3,513,069.00

30.13% Direct salary €19,612,596.58 €19,204,652.10

Total Goal 1 €23,074,559.79 €22,717,721.10

Goal 2

Non-salary €7,379,876.64 €7,668,502.57

33.51% Direct salary €18,109,071.83 €17,593,790.54

Total Goal 2 €25,488,948.47 €25,262,293.51

Goal 3

Non-salary €6,727,765.53 €6,947,270.42

35.06% Direct salary €19,868,046.75 €19,485,973.43

Total Goal 3 €26,595,812.28 €26,433,243.85

(Each Goal cost % reported must be between 28% and 38% of total actions cost reported)

Monitoring €1,064,401.72 €973,645.87 1.29%

Total budget € Total cost reported € % of total budget

Total actions cost €76,223,722.26 €75,386,904.33 75.30%


Total administration cost

€23,894,142.45 €23,640,133.39 23.61%

(The administration cost cannot exceed 25% of the total budget)


Overall Cost €100,117,864.71 €99,027,037.72 98.91%

Commentary on Table 2.2

The figures in the above table represent the cumulative budgets and spend as reported in IRIS

from 1 April 2015 – 31 December 2017.


26

Overall 98.91% of the total budgets available over this period has been reported as spent. The

cumulative spend reported across each of the Goals and the administration cost categories are

consistent with the percentage of costs reported across these headings on an annual basis from

2015 to 2017.

Administration costs

The cumulative amount reported for administration costs is €23,640,133.39. This amount

represents 23.61% of the total cumulative budget and demonstrates that the programme is

compliant with the financial rules set in relation to administration costs spend (i.e. costs reported

against administration must not exceed 25% of the total budget).

Action costs

Goal 1

The cumulative spend reported against Goal 1 is €22,717,721.10. This represents 30.13% of the

total action costs reported over the period. This demonstrates that Goal 1 on a cumulative basis is

compliant with the parameters of the financial rules set in relation to Goal costs spend (i.e. costs

reported against each Goal must be between 28% and 38% of the total action costs reported).

Goal 2





Goal 3





2.3.2 SICAP underspends 2015-2017

Underspends 2015-2017

The cumulative budget versus spend report for the 2015–2017 period shows a total underspend

of €1,090,826.99. This represents 1.09% of the cumulative budget for the same period as outlined

in Table 2.3 below. The cumulative underspend for the period is a result of salary budgets not

being fully utilised across the administration and Goal cost categories.


27

Table 2.3 Underspends 2015-2017

Goals Category Underspend/overspend (minus

indicates overspend)

Underspend as % of total budget

Goal 1

Non-salary €-51,105.79

Direct salary €407,944.48

Total Goal 1 €356,838.69

Goal 2

Non-salary €-288,625.93


Total Goal 2 €226,654.96

Goal 3

Non-salary €-219,504.89


Total Goal 3 €162,568.43

Monitoring €90,755.85

Total actions costs €836,817.93

Administration costs €254,009.06

Total underspend €1,090,826.99 1.09%

2.3.3 FTEs delivering SICAP

Throughout the duration of the programme, on average SICAP was delivered by 518 FTE staff. The

number of FTE staff grew every year from 505 in 2015 to 538 in 2017 (Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4 Number of FTE staff delivering SICAP 2015-2017

550

540

530

520

510

500

490

480

538

2015 2016 2017 Average No. of FTEs 2015 - 2017

518

505 510


28

3 Community development and collaborative work

3.1 Introduction

SICAP aims to empower disadvantaged communities and individuals to play a greater role, together

with other stakeholders, in addressing social inclusion and equality issues. The programme is

underpinned by a community development approach and addresses the need to support and

promote the engagement of disadvantaged communities and individuals throughout their lifecycle.

It fosters principles of participation, empowerment, capacity building, collective action and

decision-making in a structured way.

SICAP promotes community development primarily through engagement with and supports to Local

Community Groups (LCGs). These supports aim to increase LCG engagement in community

development issues and assist them in connecting with SICAP target groups to bring about greater

participation in social, cultural and civic activities.

A broader contribution of SICAP to community development is the facilitation of strategic

collaborative frameworks and networks as part of a dialogue for developing solutions to social

exclusion.

This chapter provides an overview of SICAP’s contribution to community development through

supports provided to Local Community Groups and social enterprises and work with collaborative

frameworks and networks.

3.2 Supporting Local Community Groups (LCGs)

Local Community Groups are groups operating out of community work principles and processes

focusing on the needs of people in disadvantaged areas and/or SICAP target groups. The work with

community groups was centred on four main objectives:

To support and promote the community engagement of disadvantaged target groups

across the lifecycle.

To support the development of local community groups which promote equality and social

inclusion in local, regional or national context.

To support disadvantaged communities and individuals to enhance their participation in

local, regional and national decision-making structures.

To develop and facilitate strategic collaborative frameworks and networks as part of a

dialogue for developing solutions to social exclusion.

The following sections summarise the key characteristics of LCGs supported under SICAP, the

supports provided and outputs achieved, and the development and progression achieved by the

groups.

3.2.1 Characteristics of Local Community Groups

A total of 5,028 Local Community Groups were supported under SICAP over its lifetime. Almost a

quarter of these groups (24%) received SICAP supports over three years, 27% over two years and

49% during one year.

The majority of LCGs (63%) were both area and issue-based, with a further 18% being area-based

and 19% issue-based (see Figure 3.1).


29

1%

Figure 3.1 Type of Local Community Groups supported between 2015 and 2017

Area and issue based

Area based

Issue based

The majority of LCGs supported by SICAP worked with and represented multiple target groups.

Throughout the programme, on average, LCGs worked with 2.3 target groups of the SICAP. The

majority of LCGs (64%) worked with people living in disadvantaged communities and another large

proportion (45%) represented disadvantaged children and families.

Figure 3.2 Target groups LCGs worked with between 2015 and 2017

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

People living in disadvantaged communities

Disadvantaged children & families

People with disabilities

The unemployed (incl those not on the Live Register)

Lone parents

New communities

Young unemployed living in disadvantaged areas

Low Income workers/households

26%

24% 24% 25%

27% 23%

21% 23%

22% 18%

17% 18%

21% 17%

16% 18%

19% 15%

13% 15%

0% 8%

11% 9%

47% 44% 44% 45%

67% 63% 63% 64%

Travellers

12% 8%

7% 9%

3% Roma 1%

2%

2015 2016 2017 Programme average

19%

18%

63%


30

Examples of work carried out by SICAP PIs with LCGs representing different target groups are listed

below.

Ballyfermot/Chapelizod Partnership Co. Ltd. collaborated with local parents, Dublin City

Council, the Orchard Community Centre and St. Ultans Primary School to establish a new

afterschool programme run by local parents for the children of Cherry Orchard who attend

St. Ultans Primary School. The provision of affordable and accessible afterschool facilities

helps parents return to the workforce and engage in further education and training.

Children are provided with a broad variety of activities including homework support,

sporting and cultural activities and outings to local community activities.

Clare Local Development Co. Ltd. helped to establish ‘The Breaking Barriers’ group in

response to individuals who were experiencing ageism as a barrier in their search for

employment. The purpose of the group is primarily to support people aged over 50 years

into employment. The group brought together individuals and provided a structure where

they received peer support from each other and reduced social isolation. The group is made

up of a diverse group of individuals with varying levels of experience and career history.

3.2.2 LCG supports

SICAP provides a range of supports to Local Community Groups (LCGs) that range from assistance

in formation, development, progression and participation in structures to help in leveraging

additional funding. The vast majority of LCGs, over 90% throughout the programme, received

supports related to their formation, development and progression. Around one in ten LCGs were

participating in the annual planning and review processes for SICAP and were assisted in

leveraging funding. The share of groups assisted to leverage funding grew by over a half, from 7%

in 2015 to 11% in 2017. Table 3.1 presents the key supports provided to LCGs throughout the

programme, including the number of groups receiving each type of support.

Table 3.1 LCG supports provided 2015-2017

Programme indicators

2015 2016 2017

No. of

LCGs

% of

all

LCGs

No. of

LCGs

% of all

LCGs

No. of

LCGs

% of

all

LCGs

Assisted in their formation, development and

progression 2,322 93% 2,839 92% 2,881 90%

Assisted to participate in local, regional and

national decision-making structures (HI 3) 867 35% 1,048 34% 1,111 35%

Participating in annual planning and review

processes for SICAP 232 9% 323 11% 322 10%

Assisted to leverage funding 180 7% 263 9% 354 11%

LCGs participation in decision-making structures

One of the key objectives of SICAP is to support disadvantaged communities and individuals to

enhance their participation in local, regional and national decision-making structures. Annually,

over one third of LCGs received supports assisting them to participate in these structures.

Examples of SICAP provided supports include the following:


31

Carlow Older Persons Forum was launched in May 2015 as the political, economic and

social voice of older persons in Carlow. One of its key aims was to empower older persons

to advocate on their own behalf, where possible, and to support those who were not in a

position to do so. Under SICAP, Carlow County Development Partnership (CCDP) has

worked over the past two years with Carlow Older Persons Forum to develop their capacity

and to enable them to become involved in decision making processes. The Forum is

currently represented on several strategic networks and structures, including the HSE

Patient Partnership, PPN, Age Friendly Ireland, Age Action and the CCDP board. The value

of SICAP’s contribution was described by the Chairperson of Carlow Older Persons Forum:

“Carlow Older Persons Forum has gone from strength to strength since its launch in May 2015. This is due in no small part to the support and encouragement of the SICAP Programme in Carlow County Development Partnership. Their professionalism and hard work has enabled the forum to build its membership to over 500 and to participate in regional and national decision making structures. We look forward to continuing our journey together.”

Leitrim Integrated Development Company Ltd. supported Shannonside Women’s Group

representing women from the Traveller community. The group received capacity building

supports to ensure representation of Traveller women on decision making structures. This

group was supported to address some of the issues facing Traveller women, including the

need for education and training, and participated in an initiative to promote positive mental

health.

In 2017, Louth Leader Partnership (LLP), established the Louth Disability Forum and

worked with clients on equality issues. LLP work to support the target groups resulted in

the establishment of disABILITY Louth, a network of people with disabilities formed by 91

individuals from 38 community and voluntary groups. disABILITY Louth Chairperson

described the work of LLP:

“Louth Leader Partnership assisted in establishing the group, identifying needs of the group, coordinating meetings, establishing a constitution, booking venues, printing of literature, and mentoring people with disabilities in their new roles. Without the expertise and assistance of Louth Leader Partnership, this group would not exist or survive the early stages. Service is professional, friendly, always available to offer help and support.”

3.2.3 LCG outputs and progression

SICAP aims to support the development of LCGs that promote equality and social inclusion at a

local, regional or national level. Emphasis has been placed on facilitating groups’ progression along

the community development matrix, which comprises of four stages:

Stage 1: Pre-development and group formation

Stage 2: Capacity building and empowerment

Stage 3: Collective action

Stage 4: Strategic involvement in policy and decision making processes at a local, regional and/or

national level

The majority of LCGs (75%) supported by SICAP were in the early stages of their development:

Stage 1 – pre-development and group formation (31%) and Stage 2 - capacity building and

empowerment (44%). The smallest proportion of LCGs were at Stage 4 – strategic involvement in

policy/decision-making at local, regional or national level (8%). Over the lifetime of the programme,

the share of LCGs supported, which at the time of registration were at Stage 1 of development,


32

increased by 7%, while the share of groups at Stage 2 and 3 decreased by 5% and 2% respectively.

The detailed breakdown of LCGs and their stage of development at registration10 is shown in Figure

3.3.

Figure 3.3 LCG stage of development at registration 2015-2017

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

1. Pre-development and group formation

25% 28%

32% 31%

2. Capacity building and empowerment

43%

48% 47%

44%

3. Collective Action

4. Strategic involvement in policy/decision making at local, regional and/or national level

18% 17%

16% 17%

9%

8% 9%

8%

2015 2016 2017 Total programme

Almost one in ten LCGs supported under SICAP in 2015 became members of a Public Participation

Network (9%). It is worth noting that some of the LCGs supported may have already be a PPN

member before they engaged with SICAP. This share decreased to 6% for the remainder of the

programme. This decrease was likely linked to the fact that majority of registrations took place in

2015 and additional resources being allocated to PPNs in 2016 (and 2017) potentially reduced

the need for SICAP support.

The share of LCGs who were supported to put anti-discrimination and equality measures in place

remained the same, at 4%, throughout the programme. Some examples of supported activities

include:

Providing Equality of Opportunity Statement templates to support capacity building of a

group.

Assisting LCGs with awareness raising activities.

Working with groups to deliver community spirit evenings, where social inclusion was the

main topic. This involved looking at core values, getting feedback from each group and

exploring steps to create an equality policy.

Organising workshops and training in areas such as mental health stigma and cultural

awareness.

10 The figures for the programme total relate to the stage of development when they first time registered for the

programme.


33

Table 3.2 LCGs outputs


2015 2016 2017

No. of

LCGs

% of

all

LCGs

No. of

LCGs

% of all

LCGs

No. of

LCGs

% of

all

LCGs

Progressed using the structured progression

path of development model 200 8% 314 10% 415 13%

LCGs supported into a Public Participation

Network (PPN) 233 9% 192 6% 203 6%

Supported to put anti-discrimination and

equality measures in place 108 4% 121 4% 131 4%

LCGs progression along the community development matrix

Over the lifetime of the programme, 734 LCGs progressed along the community development

matrix. Of the groups that progressed, most (44%) moved from Stage 1 to Stage 2, with the next

highest group (28%) moving from Stage 2 to Stage 3. A small proportion of groups (5%) recorded

regression along the matrix. The regression usually arises when there is change in a group’s

circumstances, such as personnel/leadership transition, or refocusing of the group’s activities.


34

Case study 1: The impact of dyslexia workshops in two separate areas of the Donegal Gaeltacht – The Rosses & Southwest Donegal

Case study 1: The impact of dyslexia workshops in two separate areas of the Donegal Gaeltacht –

The Rosses & Southwest Donegal

Donegal Local Development Company Ltd. (Donegal Gaeltacht (33-2))

Background

Through continued community engagement, Donegal Local Development Company (DLDC) identified

a strong need for supports for young people and their parents challenged with dyslexia in the

Gaeltacht areas of Donegal. With the support of more established dyslexia support groups in the

county (Glenties in particular), DLDC identified a group of parents, who with support, were prepared

to work towards assisting children with dyslexia. The work was focused in two areas of the Gaeltacht:

Southwest Donegal (Iar Dheiscirt Dhún na nGall - Glencolmcille & Kilcar) and the Rosses (Na Rossa

- Dungloe, Leitirmacaward & Annagry).

The aim of the action was to support young people and their parents challenged with dyslexia. With

the support of DLDC, open public meetings were initiated in 2015 where parents were invited to

discuss their views and needs. Encouraged by the turnout and support from other parents, a number

of parents were nominated to research the options available to them with a view of organising out-

of-school classes to be provided by the end of the year.

The next steps undertaken by the group consisted of:

Linking with a more established group (Glenties) and inviting them to meet with the wider

group of parents. This aimed to instil confidence in a capability of organising such support

for their children and learning the best way to go about it.

Under Goal 1 of SICAP, training was provided to 12 teachers in order to develop their skills

in teaching children with dyslexia. Six of these teachers offered to provide their services for

the delivery of out-of-school supports.

Non-financial support was also provided to the Sliabh a’Liag group in the preparation and

submission of a funding application to the HSE requesting support for materials and

resources specific to the group needs. They were subsequently awarded €1,000 by the HSE.

Both groups were supported in accessing other funding streams, including those provided

by local councillors.

Target groups

Children and families living in disadvantaged areas - parents of children with dyslexia.

People living in disadvantaged communities – parents and children with dyslexia.

People with disabilities – children with dyslexia. (66 children were supported in total).

Key achievements

Children who were otherwise in danger of leaving school early have been provided with an

early intervention.

Parents have been supported to be better equipped to help their children.

Greater awareness was achieved. Parents are now openly discussing the issues impacting

negatively on their children’s learning and are more inclined to explore options to address

their needs.

Each of the schools (both primary and secondary) openly and regularly acknowledge the

visible improvements in each of the students attending the classes.


35

Challenges and barriers

Encouraging and identifying a sufficient number of teachers interested/willing to provide

out-of-school support on an ongoing basis.

Liaising directly with teachers working in their own parishes and in the neighbouring

parishes to ensure that enough people were identified.

In order to have classes available in September, the time frame for training the teachers

was short. Given that the training was taking place in mid-summer, the level of interest was

lower among teachers in Southwest Donegal compared to West Donegal in the past.

The resources available, like books or games were limited at the beginning, but this was

overcome by liaising with and borrowing and photocopying material from the Glenties

group.

None of the above halted the progress or determination of either group.

Learning

The catalyst for the formation of both groups centred on families who were trying everything they

could think of to help their child as they felt that the current educational system was failing them.

While a high level of support was required (especially given that there were two distinctively different

areas), it was essential to instil sufficient confidence in the ability of the parents themselves to move

the projects forward. Parents had the assurance that at each step along that journey they would be

fully supported by DLDC/SICAP.

Good practice

Encouraging a collaborative approach and information sharing, including advice and

guidance on what is required of parents if they become involved in a group’s committee.

Support in planning the delivery of classes – including the financial management and

timelines.

Ensuring a community development approach is applied.

Liaising with schools in ensuring their support and pro-active participation.

Liaising with other government agencies, such as the ETB, and developing a collaborative

approach where dyslexia specific training is needed for teachers.

Supporting groups’ awareness and understanding of the need to apply anti-discriminatory

approaches, promoting inclusivity, social participation, equality and diversity.

Feedback from a participant of Sliabh a ‘Liag dyslexia group in 2017:

“The feedback from the parents

and teachers of the children is

extremely positive. This is reflected

in the increase in children

attending the workshops on a

weekly basis”.

The photo shows parents together

with public representatives

attending an Awards Night in 2017,

where children are presented with

achievement certificates in the

Rosses Dyslexia Workshop.


36

3.3 Social enterprise supports and outputs

It has been recognised that SICAP can make a significant contribution towards strengthening

Ireland’s social economy with the dual impact of improving services in deprived local areas and

increasing employment locally. SICAP aims to support social enterprises operating in

disadvantaged communities in providing services to these communities, and linking people from

SICAP target groups to employment opportunities within the sector. The programme focused on

supporting community-led social enterprises and in ensuring that social enterprises in the locality

are also well positioned to provide volunteering opportunities for SICAP clients. The supports for

social enterprises were related to enterprise establishment, operation and growth.

The number of social enterprises assisted under SICAP more than doubled between 201511 and

2017. The supports provided and outputs achieved as a result of LCGs work with social enterprises

is presented in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Supports provided and outputs achieved to assist social enterprises

Programme indicators 2015 2016 2017

Social enterprises assisted 143 220 293

Groups that received SICAP funding to assist social enterprises 17 35 31

New social enterprises established 11 7 8

Over the duration of the programme, 26 new social enterprises were established with support from

SICAP. They provided services and activities in the following areas:

accommodation and food service activities (4)

construction (3)

human health and social work activities (3)

wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles (3)

arts, entertainment and recreation (2)

administrative and support service activities (1)

education (1)

other services (9)

Ten of these enterprises created jobs – with 13 full-time and 51 part-time positions created in

total. Five enterprises were located in urban Lots and 21 were in rural Lots.

11 In 2015, the programme was delivered over a period of nine months.


37

Case study 2: Social enterprise and social entrepreneurs’ awareness programme

Case study 2: Social enterprise and social entrepreneurs awareness programme

Carlow County Development Partnership Ltd. (Carlow County (1-1))

Background

Carlow County Development Partnership (CCDP) developed and delivered a social enterprise support

programme called ‘Set up, start up, scale up’. The programme aimed to create awareness and build

supports around social enterprise in county Carlow and to help develop sustainable social

enterprises and support entrepreneurs to create a lasting social impact on the community and

economy. CCDP ran a seven-week course aimed at new and existing social enterprises and

businesses with social impact.

About the programme

The seven-week training programme was aimed at potential Carlow social entrepreneurs and existing

social enterprises. It provided participants with essential business training to support and develop

their projects and an opportunity to pitch their project/enterprise for seed funding provided by CCDP

on completion of the programme.

Throughout the course, participants gained an understanding of how to generate, evaluate, launch

and grow a social enterprise from the idea stage, right up to creating a sustainable entity, which in

turn will have a social impact and benefit the local community. By using and learning different

business model tools, participants were able to define the benefits and social impacts their idea

could deliver. They could test it as a business model, which can be prototyped and encapsulated

within a planning process, as well as exploring how to market their idea and use PR to gain a

competitive advantage.

The course consisted of seven modules:

Module 1 “The idea”

Module 2 “The business model for your social enterprise”

Module 3 “Getting the plan right”

Module 4 “Marketing”

Module 5 “Launching it”

Module 6 “Growing it”

Module 7 “Putting it into practice – The pitch”.

Twelve social enterprises/businesses took part in the programme. On completion of the programme,

eight social enterprises/businesses pitched for funding and three were successful.

Business 1: Bare Necessities provides package free dried

food and environmentally friendly hygiene and cleaning

products. It also supports people on a journey to be more

environmentally friendly by providing them with the skills to

be more sustainable and more aware of how they can

protect biodiversity. The aim of this service is to affect

change in our country from the ground up, to empower

people to engage with the landscape around them, to be

more food and water secure and to help them lead their

lives with less impact on the environment.


38

Business 2: Bobbi Yoga provides children and adults with special needs with a unique and accepting

space to explore yoga in their own individual way by giving them a sense of achievement while getting

the many physical, emotional and sensory benefits. It supports parents and families by offering a

unique activity for their family member that can help with sleeping, digestive or emotional issues.

Business 3: Coffee Connection aims to provide a community gathering place and create a bond

between people and place. It develops a tourism product to contribute to the sustainable

diversification of the rural economy. It builds a sustainable business that provides employment, a

place where all segments of community can interconnect both directly and indirectly thus

encouraging co-operation and mutually supportive relationships. Offering food and drink - the staples

of socialising, a welcoming and informal atmosphere, conversation and unity are promoted. This will

help build community and develop a sense of belonging, to promote authentic connection and not

just physical presence. It will also help to promote social inclusion and reduce social isolation.

Feedback from the course participants:

“Excellent social enterprise course which will add value to the overall package of my business

proposition.”

“Feel much more prepared for my business.”

“This course was very helpful and informative. I enjoyed it so much I wish it could go on for another

couple of weeks.”

“I was delighted at the newness of the course material, very cutting edge.”

Of the trainers:

“Delivered the social enterprise course in a professional, relaxed and encouraging manner. Hugely

beneficial to starting my own business.”

“Were always very professional and the information and support was brilliant”.


39

3.4 Collaborative frameworks

Development of collaborative approaches with local and national stakeholders is one of the

horizontal themes underlying the delivery of SICAP. The collaborative frameworks established

under the programme aim to influence the delivery of mainstream policies and programmes to

have a more positive impact on the socially excluded. While delivering SICAP, Programme

Implementers are expected to engage with structures and networks12 and form joint strategies and

initiatives to address the needs of the programme target groups. These collaborations aim to:

better address barriers to learning and enhance local learning systems for people

experiencing educational disadvantage; and

ensure the development of more collaborative approaches to tackling labour market

barriers and addressing unemployment.

The numbers and types of joint strategies, programmes and partnerships developed throughout

the lifetime of the programme are presented in Table 3.4 below, while specific examples of such

initiatives are presented in the further parts of this section. In addition, a detailed example of a

broader collaborative project under SICAP addressing the needs of a particular target group is

presented in Case study 3.

Table 3.4 Joint strategies, programmes and partnerships developed throughout the programme

Programme indicator

Number of entities

2015 2016 2017 Total

New specialised LLL programmes/initiatives set up to meet

the needs of the target groups which were not being met by

existing provision

9

43

40

92

New strategies/partnerships/joint programmes in place

between SICAP implementer and education providers, which

are designed to meet the educational needs of SICAP target

groups

144

78

64

286

New partnerships/initiatives formed between SICAP

implementer and employers 26 15 13 54

New strategies/partnership/joint programmes in place

between SICAP Implementer and employment focused

agencies which are designed to improve access to

employment supports

51

30

28

109

Over the lifetime of the programme, 286 new joint programmes, strategies or partnerships were

put in place between SICAP implementers and education providers. Their aim was to meet the

educational needs of SICAP target groups. Examples of such initiatives include:

Dublin South City Partnership Co. Ltd. collaborated with the Youth Service, local businesses

and South Dublin County Partnership Ltd. to deliver a prosocial kickboxing programme to

engage young people at risk.

12 Structures and networks are local, regional or national decision-making structures, which require input from different

sectors and have a common goal to address social exclusion and disadvantage. Networks are defined as formal or

informal meetings between community activists or community groups with a common interest. The purpose of the

networks is to share experiences, develop support mechanisms, identify good practices and develop policy positions and

common strategies. Networks may or may not be formally structured.


40

Waterford Area Partnership Ltd. with expansion of the work under the Waterford PLICS

Network (Promoting Literacy in Communities and Schools established by WAP) oversaw the

delivery of the Waterford Spelling Bee Inter-schools competition, hosted by the Waterford

Library Service.

Cork City Partnership Ltd., through The City Centre Adult Education Network, promoted

adult community education courses, both accredited and unaccredited. The aim was to

strengthen the community education sector; work as a collective to avoid duplication; share

information and be a positive resource in the community for accessible education; as well

as organise the area's contribution to the annual Life-long Learning Festival in Cork.

Programme Implementers were also involved in setting up 92 new LLL initiatives aiming to meet

the needs of the target groups, which at the time were not met by existing provision. An example

of such initiative includes:

Mayo North East Leader Partnership Co. Ltd. (MNELP) joined with DeafHear Mayo to

provide education opportunities for deaf people (initially deaf men) in the Ballina area. The

content of the programmes is decided by the participants together with MNELP/SICAP and

DeafHear source tutors, venues, interpreters etc.

109 new strategies, partnerships and joint programmes were put in place between Programme

Implementers and employment focused agencies in order to improve access to employment

supports. Examples include:

South Tipperary Development Company Ltd. met with the Department of Employment

Affairs and Social Protection (DEASP) to discuss the referral process between the DEASP

and SICAP in regard to employment and self-employment. Other issues discussed included

operational issues of the Self Employment Options Programme; Enterprise Support Grant

process and timelines; general labour market supports and the policy context in relation to

self-employment.

Waterford Area Partnership Ltd. through the Waterford Micro Business Network provides

support to Waterford Area Partnership enterprise clients in terms of business workshops,

guest speakers and monthly network meetings.

54 new initiatives or partnerships were formed between SICAP implementers and employers.

Examples of such partnerships include:

Westmeath Community Development Ltd. engaged with a number of employers, such as

Outdoor Sports Ltd., Eddie Rockets, and The Chop Shop. As part of this engagement, the

partnership designed and delivered training courses to SICAP clients to assist them with

getting employment in these companies.

Blanchardstown Area Partnership Ltd. in collaboration with DAA (Dublin Airport Authority)

organised an Airport Jobs Workshop. The initiative involved over 30 frontline DAA staff

showcasing jobs at Dublin Airport to local Fingal jobseekers. The partnership also worked

with PayPal - an interactive workshop covering CV and interview advice was delivered by

PayPal’s coaching team to local jobseekers.


41

Case study 3: Developing the DLR Youth at Risk Network

Case study 3: Developing the DLR Youth at Risk Network

Southside Partnership DLR Ltd. (Dún Laoghaire/Rathdown (5 - 1))

Background

The Youth at Risk Network in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown is an example of a collaboration between

organisations and agencies that aims to review and reflect on working with young people in the

county, who are considered to be at risk, and to ensure an integrated response to their needs.

A Youth at Risk Network that existed previously in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown operated as an

interagency forum facilitated by Southside Partnership, however, primarily due to budget cuts, it

ceased to exist. It promoted information sharing between agencies and centralised certain initiatives

addressing issues affecting youth at risk. Organisations, such as Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Drugs and

Alcohol Task Force (DLR DATF), Southside Partnership Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown (SSP), Dublin and

Dún Laoghaire Education and Training Board (DDLETB) and Sportsreach felt that the network should

be revived as it facilitated a better communication between those working with youth at risk.

In the spring of 2017, four organisations with a remit around youth at risk, DLR DATF, SSP, DDLETB

and Sports Reach, met to discuss the setting up of a new Youth at Risk Network in Dún Laoghaire-

Rathdown. The main objective of the network was to provide a space for frontline staff and managers

to explore the current issues that arise for young people at risk. It also involved planning for a more

integrated response to their needs.

A steering committee was set up whose role was to: develop a vision for the network; invite

individuals, groups and agencies to join the network; design a process of engagement with all

partners; and support the development of collaborative working processes among the partners.

Following this, three workshops were organised for staff from agencies, organisations and schools.

Target group

The focus of the work is on young people at risk. The network itself targets staff (an average of 45

staff have participated in the workshops to date) and practitioners from agencies, local primary and

post primary DEIS schools and LCGs. The groups that have participated in the network workshops

and planning sessions to date include: Tusla, DDLETB, Sportsreach, Schools, Crosscare, An Garda

Siochana, Springboard, Exchange House, National Learning Network, Cottage Home Service Dún

Laoghaire Community Training College, Barnardos, the Smyly Trust Services and Sonas.

Key achievements

1. Good level of attendance at the events. The three workshops organised by the network had a

high number of participants from agencies, organisations and LCGs. The first, a Youth At Risk

Café Conversation, explored current issues that young people at risk face and was attended by

48 individuals. The second workshop explored the challenge of engaging young people at risk,

with 41 individuals attending. The third workshop looked at the issue of cannabis (48 attendees).

2. Simple, effective and flexible approach. The events to date have been described by participants

as employing a simple, effective and flexible approach, which facilitates large group dialogue and

engagement of all partners in the room.

3. A directory of relevant services and projects for young people in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown was

completed within the last six months entitled “I’ve had enough, I’m outta here”.

4. A youth at risk database, available to members only, has been set up to facilitate ease of

communication between members.

5. Sharing good practice. Members of the Holly House Youth Group were invited to one of the

residential services in the county to talk about their work with hard to reach young men.


42


Keeping the content of workshops and meetings relevant and interesting so that

participation levels remain high.

Ensuring that the network will develop and grow organically and is not only driven by a small

number of organisations.

Currently the proposal and organisation of workshops has been undertaken by the four

organisations that developed the initiative. It is hoped that representatives from other

organisations will begin to propose and implement activities.

Learning

Working with young people at risk

Practitioners need to understand the world of the young person, where they come from and

focus on developing long-term relationships. Building relationships should be at the core of

all work with young people. This requires time, patience and empathy. Relationship building

can also include building relationships with the family.

Peers are useful to develop contacts with young people.

Identifying young people at risk can be a challenge and, in some cases, if a young person is

from a family facing multiple issues, the young person and their difficulties may be

overlooked with practitioners focusing on the family unit.

Young persons may not to be aware of their own needs. Using the term ‘young person at risk’

can often be counterproductive and young people may react negatively to being ‘labelled’ as

at risk.

Workers and agencies need to make their centres more drop-in friendly and explore the use

of social media as a method of engaging young people.

There is a need to upskill frontline workers to deal with young people with specific issues,

such as autism, mental health and addictions. There is also a need for training in outreach

work.

Network building

People like to talk together about things they care about. Providing that space in the Youth

at Risk Network has been key to its success to date. It is important to keep the conversations

relevant, to facilitate a space that allows for mutual insight and innovation, all of which are

present in the group but just need to be tapped into.

Using round table discussions in comfortable and accessible settings has been helpful.

Developing ideas among tables in several rounds of conversation has helped build trust and

has been instrumental in the building of collaborative practices.

A need for working partnerships across services is seen as key. However, rather than create

a very formal structure, it is hoped that a more organic network will develop out of

practitioners’ need for networking and exchange with staff from other services.

Workshops are targeting practitioners more than the organisation itself. The hope is to

encourage practitioners to work across boundaries. Many young people at risk have access

to non-specialist services first and foremost, therefore, it is important to work with frontline

staff in these services to help them identify issues and understand appropriate responses.

Members participate actively in the planning, facilitation and review of each network

meeting, thus ensuring relevance of content and process.


43

4 SICAP supports for individuals

4.1 Introduction

Under SICAP, individual beneficiaries are defined as people who have been registered and have

received interventions13 through the programme. In order to be counted within the Programme

Implementer’s caseload for a particular period14, the individuals must have received at least two

separate interventions – the initial registration meeting is not counted. The individuals must also

be a member of at least one of the eligible target groups.

Over the lifetime of the programme, 110,044 disadvantaged individuals (aged 15 years and

upwards) were supported on a one-to-one basis (KPI 1). 81.9% of individuals were supported over

one year, 15.6% were supported over two years and 2.5% over three years. On an annual basis,

the number of individuals supported ranged from 36,854 in 201515, to 47,511 in 2016 and

48,330 in 2017.

Almost two thirds (65%) of individuals supported16 under SICAP lived in urban electoral districts

and 35% lived in rural ones17. This is in line with the national distribution of population between

urban and rural areas. In 2016, 62.7% of the Irish population lived in urban areas and 37.3% in

rural areas (CSO, 2017).

Over the duration of the programme, 52,068 individuals were in receipt of Goal 2 educational

supports and 73,374 individuals were in receipt of Goal 3 employment supports. Of those

supported under SICAP over its lifetime, 47% of individuals received support under Goal 2 and 67%

under Goal 3.

4.2 Socio-economic profile of individuals supported

This section provides the demographic profile of individuals supported under SICAP throughout the

lifetime of the programme, including gender, age, principal economic status, highest level of

educational attainment, nationality and other relevant characteristics.

Gender

Of the 110,044 individuals supported under SICAP, 60,228 were male (55%) and 49,816 were

female (45%). Throughout the programme, more women than men availed of educational supports,

while more men than women received employment supports (see Figure 4.1). Overall, the gender

breakdown remained similar over the lifecycle of the programme, with the exception of 2017, when

the gap between the share of men and women narrowed by 2%.

13 Interventions are recorded when a PI engages with an individual and provides support under one of the support

categories.

14 An individual must receive two interventions within a calendar year to be counted on the caseload for that year.

15 In 2015, SICAP was delivered for nine months.

16 This breakdown is provided for 104,732 individuals for whom the Electoral District of their address could be

determined.

17 The urban/rural designation of individuals is based on the CSO classification of Electoral Districts as being urban or

rural.


44

Figure 4.1 Gender breakdown of individuals on the overall SICAP caseload and Goal 2 and 3 caseloads

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

SICAP caseload

2015

SICAP caseload

2016

SICAP caseload

2017

Goal 2 caseload

2015

Goal 2 caseload

2016

Goal 2 caseload

2017

Goal 3 caseload

2015

Goal 3 caseload

2016

Goal 3 caseload

2017

Female Male

Age

The majority of individuals supported by SICAP over the lifetime of the programme (53%) were aged

between 25 and 45. The smallest age cohort were those aged over 55, with an 11% share of the

caseload. The participation of different age groups in the programme remained the same over its

lifetime.

The age profile of individuals supported under different Goals varied noticeably. A significantly

higher proportion of the younger (15-24 years) and the older programme participants (over 55

years) (36% combined) received educational supports. These two age groups combined accounted

for 22% of participants receiving employment supports.

Figure 4.2 Age profile of individuals on SICAP programme caseload and Goal 2 and Goal 3 caseloads (2015-2017)

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

11% 14% 8%

21%

20%

18%

26%

28%

23%

23%

27%

29%

22%

16% 14%

Programme caseload Goal 2 caseload Goal 3 caseload

15-24 25-35 36-45 46-55 Over 55

55%

55%

53%

45%

43%

43%

62%

63%

60%

57%

57%

55%

47%

45%

45%

40%

38%

37%


45

Spatial disadvantage

Programme Implementers are required to adopt an area-based approach to tackling disadvantage.

They are expected to use Pobal Maps and the Pobal HP Deprivation Index to identify the greatest

concentrations of disadvantage in the catchment area of their Lot. The Pobal HP Deprivation Index

is based on the combination of three dimensions of relative affluence and deprivation, i.e.

demographic profile, social class composition and labour market situation. The data for these

dimensions is sourced from the census18.

The Pobal HP Deprivation Index scale ranges from extremely affluent to extremely disadvantaged.

Individuals on the caseload were assigned to a point on this scale based on their address19. Table

4.1 shows a breakdown of individuals addresses categorised by the Pobal HP Deprivation range.

During the lifetime of the programme the distribution of individual addresses across the Pobal HP

Deprivation range remained relatively unchanged. The share of individuals supported under SICAP

that live in disadvantaged to extremely disadvantaged areas showed a slight decrease over the

lifetime of the programme from 30.66% in 2015 to 29.44% in 2017.

Table 4.1 Individual beneficiary addresses categorised by Pobal HP Deprivation Index

Pobal HP Deprivation range

SICAP 2015

caseload (%)

SICAP 2016

caseload (%)

SICAP 2017

caseload (%)

National population (%)

(2016 census)

Very / extremely affluent 0.78% 0.86% 0.89% 1.79%

Affluent 6.44% 6.57% 7.01% 15.24%

Marginally above average 24.38% 24.74% 25.77% 37.10%

Marginally below average 35.86% 36.21% 36.61% 31.52%

Disadvantaged 24.23% 23.77% 22.67% 11.45%

Very / extremely

disadvantaged 6.43% 6.79% 6.77% 2.90%

Individuals not mapped to

index 1.90% 1.06% 0.25% n/a

Share of individuals that live in disadvantaged to

extremely disadvantaged

range

30.66%

30.56%

29.44%

14.35%

The ability to successfully geo-code individual’s addresses has improved significantly throughout

the programme, with the proportion of addresses geocoded reaching 99.75% in 2017.

18 The current index is based on the 2016 census.

19 The IRIS database has an auto-address function, which uses An Post GeoDirectory to automatically validate the

address of each individual who registers with a PI under SICAP. The address is then mapped to the relevant small

area/electoral district, which is linked to the Pobal HP Deprivation Index.


46

Target groups

Figure 4.3 shows a breakdown of individuals on the overall SICAP caseload and Goal 2 and 3

caseloads by target group over the lifetime of the programme. A beneficiary may belong to multiple

target groups and therefore the percentages here will add up to more than 100.

The majority of individuals supported (78% or 86,341) were unemployed20. The second largest

target group were people living in disadvantaged communities (29%). The target group of low

income workers/households, introduced in 2016, made up 10% of the caseload.

There were clear differences between the target groups with regard to the supports they accessed

under SICAP. Overall, the representation from all target groups, with the exception of unemployed

and young unemployed people living in disadvantaged areas, was higher on the Goal 2 caseload.

The unemployed made up the majority of the Goal 3 caseload with a share of 85%, 15% higher

than the share of the same target group in the Goal 2 caseload.

Figure 4.3 Breakdown of target groups on the overall SICAP caseload and Goal 2 and 3 caseloads (2015-2017)

20 This includes individuals who are economically inactive e.g. those at home full-time with caring responsibilities or who

are no longer actively seeking employment, on disability payments etc.


47

Principal economic status

The largest category of individuals on the overall caseload were those who were unemployed and

on the Live Register for more than 24 months (26%), followed by those unemployed on the Live

Register for less than 1 year (20%). The combined unemployed categories, both on the Live

Register and not, made up the majority of all individuals supported under SICAP (71%). Almost half

of unemployed individuals (both on the Live Register and not) were unemployed for more than two

years (45%) and they constituted 32% of the entire caseload. Figure 4.4 presents the economic

status of individuals at registration on the overall SICAP caseload alongside the Goal 2 and 3

caseloads. The largest group of individuals on the Goal 2 caseload were economically inactive

(21%), followed by those on the Live Register for more than 24 months (20%) and those on the

Live Register for less than 1 year (15%). The three largest groups on the Goal 3 caseload were

unemployed on the Live Register (for more than 24 months (31%), for less than one year (25%)

and between 13 and 24 months (17%)), who together made up almost three quarters of the Goal

3 caseload (73%).

Figure 4.4 Principal economic status of individuals on overall caseload and Goals 2 and 3 caseload (2015-2017)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Live Register more than 24 months

Live Register 13—24 months

13%

8%

20%

17%

26% 31%

Live Register less than 1 year

Unemployed more than 24 months but not on Live Register

Unemployed 13-24 months but not on Live Register

Unemployed less than1 year but not on Live Register

Economically inactive

Employed: full-time

15%

6%

7% 4%

2% 2% 2%

4% 5%

4%

12%

4%

2% 3%

1%

20%

21%

25%

Employed: part-time

Employed: State supported employment scheme (e.g. CE,

JI, TUS, RSS, CSP, Gateway etc.)

Self employed

Employed: underemployed / seasonally employed

5% 7%

3%

8% 10%

8%

1% 1% 1%

1% 1% 0%

Caseload Goal 2 Goal 3


48

Household situation

At registration, individuals were asked a number of questions relating to their socio-economic

situation and living arrangements. The responses are presented in Figure 4.5. Almost a quarter of

individuals (24%) stated that they lived in a single adult household while 41% indicated that they

had a dependent child or children living in their household. 40% of individuals stated that they

lived in jobless households, of whom 39% were unemployed on the Live Register for longer than

24 months. Over a quarter of SICAP participants (26%) stated that they were in financial difficulty21,

while 5% reported being in receipt of financial services22. When asked whether they were homeless

or affected by housing exclusion23, 4% of individuals or 4,067 responded ‘yes’.

Figure 4.5 Household situation of individuals on the overall SICAP caseload (2015-2017)

Highest level of educational attainment

The educational attainment of each individual supported by SICAP is linked to the National

Framework of Qualifications (NFQ)24. Figure 4.6 shows a breakdown of the highest level of

educational attainment of individuals at registration for the overall SICAP caseload and the Goal 2

and 3 caseloads. The majority of individuals supported (69%) had a highest educational attainment

of Leaving Certificate level or below (NFQ 4 or 5).

As in the case of economic status, the level of highest educational attainment differed between

individuals supported under Goal 2 and 3. Overall, individuals accessing Goal 3 supports had a

21 The participants were asked the following question: “Concerning your household’s total monthly or weekly income,

with which degree of ease or difficulty is your household able to make ends meet?” Answers were provided on a six-point

scale and individuals were counted as answering yes, if they indicated one of two answers: “with great difficulty” or “with

difficulty”.

22 Financial services in this context are state funded/supported financial aid services. They include: Money Advice and

Budgeting Service (MABS), Credit Unions, Citizens Information Centre, Mortgage Arrears Information and Advice Service.

23 The definition of homeless is based on the ESF recommended definition from ETHOS and includes: rooflessness,

homelessness, living in insecure housing, living in inadequate housing.

24 The NFQ is a system of 10 levels of qualifications and is used to describe Irish education and training qualifications.


49

higher level of educational attainment with 36% having been educated to a level above Leaving

Certificate compared to 23% of individuals supported under Goal 2.

Figure 4.6 Highest level of educational attainment of individuals on SICAP overall caseload and Goal 2 and 3 caseloads (2015-2017)

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

2% No formal education ISCED 0 3%

1%

7% Primary (NFQ 1 or 2) ISCED 1 9%

6%

Lower Secondary (NFQ 3) ISCED 2

Upper Secondary (NFQ 4 or 5) ISCED 3

22%

20%

25%

30%

32% 30%

Technical or Vocational (NFQ 4-5) ISCED 4

Advanced Certificate / Completed apprenticeship (NFQ

6) ISCED 4

8% 8%

7%

8% 5%

10%

6% Higher Certificate (NFQ 6) ISCED 4 5%

7%

Ordinary Bachelor Degree/National Diploma (NFQ 7) 7%

ISCED 5 6%

7%

Honours Bachelors Degree/Professional Qualification 7%

(NFQ 8) ISCED 6 5%

8%

3% Postgraduate Diploma or Degree (NFQ 9) ISCED 7 2%

4%

0% Doctorate (NFQ 10) ISCED 8 0%

0%

Caseload Goal 2 Goal 3

Nationality

Almost three quarters of individuals supported under SICAP (80,675 or 73%) were Irish25. The

second largest cohort were individuals from the European Union’s new member states (8,374),

who made up 8% of the overall SICAP caseload. Polish nationals were the second largest

nationality, representing 4% of the overall SICAP caseload, followed by UK citizens (2%) and

participants from African countries (2%). Figure 4.7 shows a nationality breakdown of the non-Irish

individuals on the SICAP caseload.

25 Percentages were calculated on the overall caseload (110,044). There were 10,545 individuals (10%), who did not

provide a response to the question.


50

Figure 4.7 Nationality of the non-Irish individuals supported under SICAP

Ethnic and cultural background

The majority of individuals supported under SICAP were White Irish (69%), followed by White (any

other white background) (12%). 2% of individuals supported indicated they were White Irish

Travellers and less than 1% were Roma (for details see Figure 4.8).

Figure 4.8 Ethnic/cultural background of individuals supported under SICAP (2015-2017)

Access routes

Almost half of SICAP participants (50,614 or 46%) were referred to the programme by a

government body, state agency, e.g. Intreo, Local Employment Service (LES), HSE, Local Enterprise

Office (LEO) or other relevant organisation (e.g. school, college, Irish National Organisation of the

Unemployed (INOU) or Money Advice and Budgeting Services (MABS)). Almost one fifth of

participants (19%) were referred by family or friends and 16% by Local Community Groups. Figure

4.9 shows the detailed breakdown of access routes of individuals supported under SICAP.


51

3%

2%

2%

Over the lifetime of the programme, the share of referrals from government bodies and state

agencies increased from 40% in 2015 to 47% in 2017. At the same time, the proportion of

participants learning about SICAP through LCGs and from publicity and information campaigns

decreased from 20% and 16% in 2015 to 15% and 11% in 2017 respectively.

Figure 4.9 Access routes of individuals supported under SICAP

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Govt. body, state agency or other relevant organisation

Friends/family

18% 20% 20%

19%

45% 47%

46%

Local Community Group

16%

15% 16%

20%

Publicity/information campaign

2%

Social media/website 3%

3%

2%

Engagement in Goal 1 activity 2%

2%

2%

Not specified 2%

2%

12%

11% 12%

16%

2015 2016 2017 Total programme

4.3 Supports provided to individuals

SICAP provides two main types of assistance to individuals - educational and employment/self-

employment supports. Activities under Goal 2 aim to support individuals and marginalised target

groups experiencing educational disadvantage so they can participate fully, engage with and

progress through life-long learning opportunities through the use of community development

approaches. More specifically, educational supports, provided under Goal 2, aim to:

inform people experiencing educational disadvantage from target groups about local

opportunities for LLL;

increase participation by people experiencing educational disadvantage in life-long

learning opportunities;

increase progression by people experiencing educational disadvantage along the life-long

learning continuum;


52

provide supports and guidance to young people not in employment, education or training

(NEETs) to move into education, employment or training opportunity.

Activities undertaken under Goal 3 aim to support marginalised individuals who are not in

employment or who are underemployed and who do not necessarily fall within mainstream

employment service provision, in moving closer to the labour market and progressing into

employment. In particular they aim to:

create awareness amongst people most distant from the labour market about career

options and job opportunities and prepare them to enter the labour market;

support people from the target groups to progress to and remain in employment;

help the ‘underemployed’ to move to more sustainable and better quality employment;

provide individuals with information about the local self-employment opportunities and

enhance their skills and capacities to avail of these opportunities;

provide self-employed individuals with access to good quality post-enterprise supports and

training to ensure the sustainability of their business;

encourage young people to consider entrepreneurship as a viable career route and assist

them in setting up their own businesses.

4.3.1 Educational supports (Goal 2)

Over the lifetime of the programme, 52,068 people received supports related to Life-long Learning

(LLL)26. The share of people on the overall SICAP caseload receiving educational supports

increased from 45% in 2015 to 48% in 2017.

The majority of individuals supported under Goal 2 participated in LLL courses, however, the

proportion of people on course placements in the Goal 2 caseload decreased from 80% in 2015

to 71% in 2017. The second largest category of support provided was support in accessing LLL

(application, counselling, guidance etc.). The proportion of people availing of these supports as a

percentage of the Goal 2 caseload grew from 52% in 2015 to 58% in 2017. Similarly, the share of

people receiving follow up supports to remain in LLL courses grew from 14% in 2015 to 19% in

2017.

A detailed breakdown of all educational supports provided to individuals over the lifetime of the

programme, including the number of interventions delivered, is presented in Table 4.2.

26 A life-long learning opportunity is defined by the European Commission (European Commission, 2001) as “all learning

activity undertaken throughout life, with the aim of improving knowledge, skills and competencies within a personal,

civic, social and/or employment related perspective”. According to the EU resolution on a Renewed Agenda on Adult

Learning, life-long learning covers learning from pre-school to post retirement (European Council, 2011).

53


Table 4.2 Educational supports provided to individuals between 2015 and 2017

Education supports

2015 2016 2017

No. of

individuals

% of

individuals

No. of

supports

provided

No. of

individuals

% of

individuals

No. of

supports

provided

No. of

individuals

% of

individuals

No. of

supports

provided

Goal 2 caseload

16,705

n/a

22,427

n/a

23,235

n/a

In receipt of a Goal 2 educational support:

participating in LLL course (course placements)

13,434

80%

16,586

16,770

75%

21,563

16,591

71%

21,702

Support in accessing LLL (application,

counselling, guidance etc.)

8,646

52%

12,778

12,127

54%

18,438

13,564

58%

20,829

Follow up supports to remain in LLL course 2,420 14% 3,351 4,089 18% 6,002 4,515 19% 6,915

Referred to LLL/Further Education & Training

(FET) providers

946

6%

1,059

1,366

6%

1,488

1,407

6%

1,521

Referred to other services with impact on

accessing LLL

306

2%

339

250

1%

274

344

1%

354

Support in accessing community childcare (for

parents returning to LLL or employment)

255

2%

359

262

1%

425

182

1%

223

54

Case study 4: Foundation 4 Life Course

Case Study 4: Foundation 4 Life Course

South West Mayo Development Company Limited (Mayo Castlebar & Claremorris (29-3))

Background

The Foundation 4 Life Course is a life skills and job activation programme, designed to support

vulnerable young people to further develop life skills and become more job ready. The programme

ran from 25th April to 12th July 2017 in Lough Lannagh Holiday Village, Castlebar, County Mayo, two

days per week from 10am to 4pm. In total, this programme successfully engaged 14 young people

who were Not in Employment, Education or Training (NEETS) aged between 17-25 years. The

programme was developed by South West Mayo Development Company through the SICAP

programme in conjunction with the Western Region Drug and Alcohol Task Force and is supported

by Mayo County Council, Local Employment Service, Probation Services, Mayo Sports Partnership

and Mayo Sligo Leitrim Education Training Board.

Target group

This programme aimed to engage young people aged between 17 and 25 who are NEETs and may

have had previous alcohol or drug issues, are currently drinking or using at problematic levels or

whose use is at risk of increasing to problematic levels.

Recruitment process

A youth work approach to recruitment was used, networking within communities and

developing partnerships with other agencies. Information sessions were provided to key

stakeholders to aid the recruitment process.

A number of information sessions were held in Intreo offices in Castlebar to inform all young

people on the Live Register about the course. The registration for the course was voluntary.

Applicants were supported to complete a simple course registration form. They were then

contacted by phone and invited to attend an informal interview. On completion of the

interviews, successful young people were contacted by phone and letter to confirm their

place on the course. Staff ensured that any young person who did not fit the eligibility criteria

for the course was referred to another education provider or support service.

Any issues that were presented as a barrier to participation on the course at interview stage

were addressed before the course commenced, such as childcare cost covered, laptops

provided, and transport cost covered if necessary. The course was free and young people

were provided with breakfast and a hot meal throughout the course.

Course content

Certification in customer service, communication skills, manual handling, first aid, HACCP

Food Hygiene and Active Leadership Training.

Up to date CV, interview and job searching skills, 1 - 1 career guidance and one week work

placement.

Driving theory test and provisional licence and €250 worth of driving lessons, if 80% of

attendance is achieved.

Outdoor pursuits experience, team building experience, and mindfulness practice.

Drug and alcohol education.

Cooking skills, money advice and budgeting skills, information on healthy sleep habits.

Clear progression plan for their next steps in life.

Key achievements

All 14 participants completed the course and were supported to develop a progression plan.

Ten participants completed a one-week work experience placement.

55

Nine participants completed their provisional license and accessed €250 funding towards

the driving lessons.

Five participants progressed into full time employment and two people got part time jobs.

Four participants progressed onto further education and one participant applied for a course

in GMIT and awaits to hear if they were successful.

The ‘Distanced Travelled Tool’ highlighted a significant improvement for these young people.

On completion of the course they had increased confidence, reduced anxiety, improved self-

esteem, they were more motivated and generally happier than before the start of the course.


The needs of young people classified as NEETs can be manifold and complex, including low self-

esteem and confidence, challenge's to mental health, e.g. poor diet, lack of sleep, breakdown of

relationships, pressure to achieve, substance use, lack of motivation, non-supportive social

environment, peers/parents/community etc. Due to the high level of need by some of the course

participants, the time commitment from the two development workers from inception to completion

was considerably more than originally anticipated. Ensuring successful ongoing engagement with

these young people throughout the course took careful planning. It was important to create the right

learning environment, which was needs-based with a flexible approach to learning. The need for

committed funding from partners was identified to ensure the continued success of the course.

Learning

An evaluation and review of the course has been carried out through individual mentoring meetings

and group review meetings with the young people on the course and through staff supervisions,

Steering Committee meetings and staff review meetings. The main lessons learned included:

Importance of having good buy-in from stakeholders to support the project.

Demonstration of what can be achieved with limited resources where belief and commitment

is present.

A youth work approach is essential when working with young people.

The course was not mandatory. It was offered as an opportunity for the young people to

attend. This ensured a commitment from the young person to be an active participant in the

learning process.

Good support structures are essential to ensure effective engagement of young people, e.g.

individual mentoring with goal-setting, and having practical support systems in place.

Follow – up support for NEETs i.e. sign posting and post programme support is crucial to

ensuring young people continue to engage with education, training or employment.

It is crucial to help the young person break down any barriers to participation on the course.

Photo: Award Ceremony for the Foundation 4 Life Course - Key Stakeholders and Course

Participants

56

4.3.2 Labour market supports (Goal 3)

Under Goal 3, individuals received supports that can be assigned to one of four broad categories:

labour market training, employment supports, self-employment supports and referrals. Table 4.3

presents the supports provided under Goal 3 over the lifetime of the programme by the number of

individuals that received them and the total number of interventions provided in each category. It

should be noted that individuals may have received more than one support of the same or different

type.

On average, over the lifetime of the programme, 41% of individuals on Goal 3 caseload received

career advice and guidance supports through a total of 57,077 interventions, 38% availed of self-

employment supports (66,646 interventions in total) and 32% participated in the labour market

training (34,879 interventions). Supports in relation to pre-apprenticeship, apprenticeship and

traineeships had the lowest uptake. The highest number of people availed of this type of support

in 2017, with only 24 people receiving it.

Between 2015 and 2017, the share of individuals on Goal 3 caseload availing of both labour

market training and career advice and guidance support grew from 27% to 35% and 38% to 41%

respectively. However, the share of people availing of the self-employment supports decreased

year on year from 41% in 2015 to 36% in 2017. The decrease in the number of self-employment

supports provided could be the result of an improved economic situation in Ireland offering more

employment opportunities for individuals supported under SICAP, and consequently limiting the

interest in the self-employment options. The somewhat reduced interest in the self-employment

supports was also visible in the reduction in the share of individuals accessing self-employment

grants, from 7% in 2015 to 5% in 2017 and being referred to other self-employment or social

entrepreneurship training and supports, from 5% in 2015 to 3% in 2017.


57

Table 4.3 Employment supports provided to individuals between 2015 and 2017

Labour market supports

2015

2016

2017

No. of

individuals

% of

individuals

No. of supports

provided

No. of

individuals

% of

individuals

No. of supports

provided

No. of

individuals

% of

individuals

No. of supports

provided

Individuals (15 years and upwards) in

receipt of Goal 3 employment

supports (Goal 3 caseload)

23,546

n/a

30,206

n/a

31,016

n/a

Training

Labour market training and occupational specific skills (course

placements)

6,319

27%

8,019

9,924

33%

12,587

10,906

35%

14,273

Support in accessing

training/specific skills or other

labour market activities

1,350

6%

1,835

1,746

6%

2,295

1,962

6%

2,795

Employment

Career advice and guidance support 8,914 38% 14,887 12,842 43% 21,065 12,870 41% 21,125

Pre-employment supports 2,403 10% 3,238 2,482 8% 4,096 2,640 9% 3,784

Job ready activation supports 1,042 4% 1,390 1,106 4% 1,537 975 3% 1,258

Work experience/work placement

programmes 227 1% 241 311 1% 325 466 2% 482

Pre-apprenticeship /

apprenticeship/traineeship 3 0% 3 15 0% 17 24 0% 25


58

Labour market supports

2015 2016 2017

No. of

individuals

% of

individuals

No. of

supports

provided

No. of

individuals

% of

individuals

No. of

supports

provided

No. of

individuals

% of

individuals

No. of

supports

provided

Self-employment

Self-employment supports 9,640 41% 19,357 11,590 38% 24,423 11,208 36% 22,866

Self-employment follow-up supports 1,984 8% 3,231 2,320 8% 3,875 2,323 7% 4,317

Support in accessing self-

employment grants 1,590 7% 1,825 1,592 5% 1,774 1,569 5% 1,807

SICAP funding to assist start-up of

their new businesses 232 1% 241 223 1% 225 173 1% 176

Referrals

Referred to other employment

activation services 1,891 8% 2,012 1,655 5% 1,779 1,279 4% 1,366

Referred to other self-

employment/social

entrepreneurship training and

supports

1,233

5%

1,325

1,220

4%

1,463

935

3%

1,217

Referred to other services which

impact on employability and

employment

187

1%

205

273

1%

288

234

1%

255


59

Case study 5: Creating sustainable employment and work placement opportunities for marginalised groups in Duhallow through social enterprise

Case Study 5: Creating sustainable employment and work placement opportunities for

marginalised groups in Duhallow through social enterprise

IRD Duhallow Ltd. (Cork Kanturk, Newmarket & Millstreet (18-1))

Background

Community and social enterprises are an important component of a vibrant rural economy. IRD

Duhallow has developed a sustainable model of best practice in this area by providing essential

services and employment to vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals. There are 11 community and

social enterprises in the region at present. They provide an invaluable service to communities and

this sector of the economy, with over 200 jobs, is a significant player in Duhallow. Social enterprises

in the region include six community childcare facilities, Duhallow Warmer Homes, Duhallow

Community Food Services, Duhallow Community Laundry, Duhallow Community Care and Duhallow

Furniture Revamp.

IRD Duhallow has developed its social enterprises in response to the need in the region to cater for

an ageing population and the need for sheltered employment. The offerings of the local third sector

not only focus on the pursuit of independent living for older people, but also provide meaningful and

sustainable employment, work placements and training opportunities to those distant from the

labour market in integrated settings.

The provision of real work experience is complemented by access to training programmes that

develop skills, provide recognised work relevant qualifications, while also promoting positive work

behaviours and rebuilding self-esteem. 77 individuals completed labour market activation training

provided through SICAP, including: Occupational First Aid, Forklift for Inexperienced Trainees,

Customer Service and Complaint Handling, Safe Pass, and Driver Theory. One quarter of these

individuals are on a work placement or are working in a social enterprise. Productivity is a key

objective of all social enterprises together with training and social development of staff and work

placement participants. Training is seen as a major component of development allowing

marginalised people to build capacity to progress beyond dependency on the sheltered work

environment.

Target groups

Photo: Warmer Home Scheme Insulation team 2017

The provision of sheltered job opportunities, work placements and training in social enterprises have

been focused on the long-term unemployed, people with varying degrees of disability, lone parents

and migrant workers. For some individuals this serves as a pathway to transition into the open labour

market. Individuals with disabilities are not a homogenous group. Employees and those on work

placements, for example through Tús, have reported experiencing difficulties in finding a job and

keeping it prior to employment in the sheltered environment of social enterprise. For many,

employment had been characterised by low expectations, uncertainty and insecurity. Whilst financial


60

security is important for all of the employees/work placement participants, the development of social

links outside of the home is also important.

Key achievements

Many people employed in these enterprises would have difficulties finding work in the mainstream

labour market. The community and social enterprises not only support the individual but also their

family, as the employment/work placement helps to give the person independence and, in some

cases, potential respite to the family while they are at work. The employment of such individuals in

the social enterprises in Duhallow allows for the services, such as meals on wheels, laundry, home

insulation to be provided, which would not be possible with the financial assistance from other

programmes, such as CSP. The training that many employees have been able to avail of through

SICAP has helped to upskill the employee while in turn assisting the social enterprise to improve its

service.


People with disabilities and those without, work side by side in the social enterprises. Coordinators

have reported productivity levels of between 60-70% compared to a person with normal working

capacity in the same job. As a result of this, additional supervision and higher staffing levels are

required. Memory and forgetting to complete tasks has been a recurring challenge. This places

additional pressure on the enterprises, creating a disincentive to employing individuals with limited

capacity. Adequate supervision can overcome this challenge and stimulates integration.

Coordinators have pointed out that although those with a disability had in most cases a lower level

of capacity in terms of productivity, their reliability including attendance levels and low incidence of

sick leave are exceptional.

Learning

There is a proportion of long term unemployed individuals in Duhallow who may realistically never be

able to access the open labour market due to lack of skills, age, lack of mobility and reluctance on

the part of employers to hire the long term unemployed. The social economy approach offers these

individuals a work opportunity and a role in improving their direct environment through the provision

of services. For some it can also act as a stepping-stone to open employment opportunities.

The social enterprise sector in Duhallow focuses upon the worker’s ability and not their disability.

Both employees and work experience participants have reported significant benefits of the

integrative work setting in terms of improvements in self-confidence and self-worth, the acquisition

of a new skills base within the project and increased independence from family members. Project

coordinators have also remarked on the momentous personal development witnessed amongst

target groups. Family members have also been assisted to work as a result of the structured routine

provided for their spouse or son/daughter. Other reported benefits of the structured activity that work

provides included increased community integration and decision making as well as the development

of interpersonal relationships and an overall enhancement of their quality of life.

Photo: Service clients receiving their meal from Duhallow Community Food Services


61

4.4 Outputs and progression (Goals 2 and 3)

4.4.1 Progression along the education continuum

Over the programme duration, 9,721 people progressed along the education continuum (HI 5).

They represented 9% of all people supported under SICAP and 19% of individuals on the Goal 2

caseload. 22% of them were young people (2,141), aged 15-24 (HI 7). These figures include those

reporting personal progression and development of skills and abilities that may support

progression into education and not just those moving from one level of education to a higher level.

4.4.2 Course completion rates

Over the lifetime of the programme, 86% of Goal 2 educational course placements and 94% of

Goal 3 labour market training placements were completed successfully. There is a 4% rate of non-

completion for courses under both Goals. No outcome was recorded for 9% of Goal 2 courses. This

can be explained by the higher number of courses following the academic year and these courses

are due to end in 2018. For a detailed breakdown, see Table 4.4

Table 4.4 Course completion rates (2015–2017)

Course outcome Goal 2 Goal 3

Successfully completed 79% 90%

Some modules completed successfully 7% 4%

Unsuccessfully completed 1% 0%

Did not complete 4% 4%

No outcome recorded 9% 2%

4.4.3 Progression to employment and self-employment

Progression to employment

Over the lifetime of the programme, 5,801 people progressed to full-time or part-time employment

(HI 10). Of these, 1,519 were young people aged 15-24 (26% of those who got jobs) (HI 13). The

share of individuals on the Goal 3 caseload who progressed into employment grew from 5.7% in

2015 to 7.8% in 2017. The continuous growth in the share of individuals progressing to

employment may be related to the bedding down of the programme, particularly in regard to the

period between 2015 and 2016, as well as an improved economic situation within the country and

more jobs being available.

A higher proportion of those who progressed to employment were male (56%) than female (44%).

Over three quarters of individuals that got jobs (77%) were aged between 15 and 45. Only 5% of

those aged over 55 moved to employment, however, their share on the Goal 3 caseload was 8%.

Over one quarter of people who got jobs were young people aged 15-24 (26%), however, their

share on the Goal 3 caseload was 14%.

Progression to self-employment

Over the lifetime of the programme, 15,923 individuals created their own businesses (HI 11). Of

these, 459 were young people aged 15-24 (HI 14), who represented 3% of all people setting up

their own businesses. Over the lifetime of the programme the share of individuals (as a percentage

of the Goal 3 caseload) progressing into self-employment was gradually decreasing, from 19.9% in

2015 to 17.9% in 2017.

62


Table 4.5 Individuals who progressed to employment and self-employment 2015-2017


2015 2016 2017 Programme total

No. of

individuals

% of G3

caseload

No. of

individuals

% of G3

caseload

No. of

individuals

% of G3

caseload

No. of

individuals

% of G3

caseload

HI 10


progressing to part-time or full-time employment

up to 6 months after receiving a Goal 3

employment support

1,337

5.7%

2,208

7.3%

2,413

7.8%

5,801

7.93%

HI 11


progressing to self- employment up to 6 months


4,687

19.9%

5,752

19.0%

5,553

17.9%

15,923

21.76%

HI 13


to part-time or full-time employment up to 6

months after receiving a Goal 3 employment

support

352

1.5%

565

1.9%

645

2.1%

1,519

2.08%

HI 14


to self-employment up to 6 months after receiving

a Goal 3 employment support

156

0.7%

156

0.5%

152

0.5%

459

0.63%

63

4.5 Supporting children and young people

Children in receipt of Goal 2 educational or developmental support

Under SICAP, children and young people (under 18 years) received Goal 2 educational or

developmental supports (HI 8). 49,988 children received supports in 2015, 55,890 in 2016 and

55,169 in 2017.

Figure 4.10 compares the type of supports received by children and young people over the three

years. The majority of children and young people received youth work and developmental supports

(39% in 2015, 71% in 2016 and 2017) (although in 2015 39% received ‘other’ supports27). Over

the lifetime of the programme, the share of youth work/developmental supports, homework club

supports and English language supports increased by 32%, 8% and 1% respectively, while the

share of additional tuition and supports to engage FET/career guidance/counselling supports

slightly decreased by 1%, and 3% respectively.

Figure 4.10 Types of supports received by children and young people under SICAP 2015-2017

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Youth work / developmental supports

Additional tuition

Homework club

6%

9% 5%

5% 8%

13%

39% 71% 71%

Supports to engage in FET / Career guidance / 8% 4%

counselling supports 5%

3% English language supports 3%

4%

Other 5%

2%

39%

2015 2016 2017

Other supports to children and young people (non-caseload)

5,286 children and young people, who were supported through SICAP, were identified as being at

risk of early school leaving in 2017 (Headline Indicator 8b). This was a new programme indicator

introduced in 2017. More young males (53%) were supported than young females (47%).

.

27 The ‘other” category included no response. In 2015, the field was not mandatory and many PIs did not provide a

response.

64

5 Programme delivery 2015-2017: challenges & lessons learned

5.1 Introduction

This chapter provides an overview and analysis of the lessons learned, challenges experienced

and examples of good practice that emerged during programme implementation between 1 April

2015 and 31 December 2017. The analysis was carried out using information provided in the

annual end of year progress reports submitted by the Programme Implementers (PIs) and Local

Community Development Committees (LCDCs). These reports provided an overview of the

experiences, challenges and barriers faced by the PIs and LCDCs in the delivery of SICAP and the

learning, which had emerged at the end of each year of the programme.

Information included in this chapter has also been drawn from two key reports on SICAP:

1) A national and regional consultation process on the future of SICAP (2018-2022)

undertaken by Crowe Horwath in 2017: Key Themes Arising from the Consultation Process

with SICAP Stakeholders to Inform the Development of SICAP 2018-2022; and

2) An evaluation of SICAP 2015-2017 conducted by the ESRI: The Goals and Governance of

the Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP) 2015–2017: A Mixed

Methods Study.

The information in this chapter is structured around themes related to the different aspects of

programme delivery, such as programme structures, collaboration, programme design, operational

issues, and budgets and resources. The learning and experience from the PIs and LCDC

perspective will be explored under each theme. Please note that quotes used in this chapter are

from annual progress reports submitted by LCDCs and PIs.

The chapter will conclude with an overview of the new programme (SICAP 2018–2022) which has

been designed based on the lessons learned and feedback over the lifecycle of the 2015–2017

programme.

5.2 Programme structures

SICAP was delivered locally by 51 Programme Implementers, with 31 Local Community

Development Committees managing and overseeing the work in each local authority area. 2015

marked a significant adjustment period, as all stakeholders adjusted to the new operating

structure for the programme. A period of time was required to embed these new structures and

build relationships between the PIs and LCDCs. This section discusses the experiences of LCDCs

and PIs in relation to programme structures and stakeholder relationships.

5.2.1 Experience of LCDCs

The LCDC oversight role has included involvement in the annual planning process, mid-year and

end of year reviews and the procurement process. LCDCs reported that their knowledge and

expertise on the programme has increased significantly over the lifetime of the programme.

However, there is an acknowledgement by the LCDCs that this is still a relatively new area of work

and there are on-going substantial training requirements for members. LCDCs have identified a

need for the provision of regular training for LCDCs and staff of local authorities in relation to social

inclusion and community development. Such training was reported as particularly important for

LCDC members that have not had a prior remit in social inclusion or community development and

was seen as vital in order to ensure an effective role in overseeing SICAP 2018-2022. LCDCs also

acknowledged that the open and extensive consultation process that was held during 2017

65

afforded the LCDCs the opportunity to influence the shape of the successor programme, SICAP

2018-2022.

By the end of 2017, all LCDCs, with the exception of one, had a SICAP sub- group/committee in

place. The role of the sub-group is to oversee implementation of the programme, critically analyse

the delivery of the action plans, complete reviews of mid-term and end of year reports and provide

the LCDC with recommendations. This sub-committee structure has been reported as working

effectively and is considered to be a useful mechanism for facilitating a greater understanding of

SICAP delivery issues. One of the LCDCs reported:

“The sub-group structure has proved to be effective both in fostering good relationships with the

PI, working through the detail of actions of the 2017 plan, raising issues that could be dealt with

before presenting to the full LCDC and supporting the LCDC members’ engagement with SICAP”.

LCDCs reported that there has been a significant commitment from the LCDC members in

overseeing and reviewing the implementation of the programme over the programme duration, as

well as in relation to administering and completing the procurement for SICAP 2018-2022. This

was demonstrated by high attendance at LCDC meetings and the significant level of collaborative

working taking place. It was reported that the SICAP sub-committee’s knowledge of SICAP

developed throughout the programme and proved to be very beneficial during the tender process.

Members of the SICAP sub-committees made key contributions to the tender assessment process

and awarding of the contracts for the new programme.

Overall, LCDCs reported being satisfied with the progress made on the delivery of the 2015-2017

SICAP as the programme successfully achieved its KPIs annually for the majority of Lots (with the

exception of 2015). By the end of 2017, 92% of Lots had achieved their targets for KPI 1.

Engagement with Programme Implementers

The vast majority of LCDCs reported a high level of engagement and effective collaborations with

PIs throughout the programme period. This engagement was seen as positive, interactive, and

helpful in improving shared understanding of the issues affecting the local area. The level of

engagement between PIs and LCDCs has increased throughout the programme lifecycle with an

initial adjustment period leading to the development of strong working relationships. These were

fostered through regular meetings held between Chief Officers and CEOs of PIs, and other

activities, such as PI staff working alongside local authority staff on social inclusion initiatives

locally.

Some challenges regarding engagement throughout the programme period were also noted by

LCDCs. Several LCDCs reported difficulties in separating the ‘SICAP’ element of work being carried

out by PIs running multiple projects, with inputs and funding from other sources. LCDCs also

acknowledged that members without a background in or experience of social inclusion sometimes

found it “difficult to see results from SICAP and whether or not it is making a real difference in the

county”. Challenges in working with a PI were reported by a small number of LCDCs and in their

experience, these were usually related to some reluctance by PI’s in taking direction from the LCDC

with regard to targeting and collaborations.

As an example of good practice, based on the learning so far, one LCDC is entering into formal

agreements with the local authority staff and the PI to agree on how both staff groups work to

respond to disadvantage/social exclusion across the county. This will help to ensure that resources

are maximised and avoid any duplication, as well ensuring that all parties are very clear on their

specific roles and responsibilities.

66

Overall, the three-year period has seen the bedding down of structures and the development of

positive and effective working relationships between PIs and LCDCs, which provides a strong basis

for the next phase of the programme (SICAP 2018–2022).

Engagement with DRCD and Pobal

The overall working relationships with the Department of Rural and Community Development and

Pobal were described by LCDCs as beneficial and constructive. LCDCs clearly reported that both

the Department and Pobal have been “very supportive and flexible with regard to implementation

of the programme”. The LCDCs also acknowledged that the “frequent contact between Pobal and

SICAP and LCDC support staff” assisted them with the exchange of information and overcoming

data recording issues.

The importance of the regional and national training was emphasised. Training was considered to

be “useful and supportive in providing networking and learning opportunities both with the

Department, Pobal and the other LCDCs”. LCDCs reported that their knowledge of the IRIS system

has improved throughout the programme and noted the technical support provided by Pobal on

the operation of IRIS was easily accessible and clear. In the 2017 end of year reports, particular

reference was made to the guidance and training provided to LCDCs and support staff during the

procurement process. This support was described by LCDCs as “invaluable and gratefully

acknowledged”.

The ongoing engagement with Pobal on implementation issues through the Development Co-

ordinators was described as a vital resource. In particular, LCDCs valued the objective reports

furnished by Pobal on the Programme Implementer’s performance in relation to SICAP at the mid-

year and end of year review process. LCDCs reported:

“The provision of a specific Development Co-ordinator for each LCDC to liaise with has been

invaluable in the implementation of the Programme.”

“These reports gave a degree of comfort to LCDC members who still view their knowledge of

SICAP as minimal.”

LCDCs acknowledged that many of the issues and suggestions raised by LCDCs and PIs throughout

the programme have been acted upon, resulting in programme improvements. These included:

Splitting the end of year review and annual report processes allowed LCDCs to focus on

each task separately.

Moving the mid-year review to the end of May instead of the end of June to avoid scheduling

during the holiday period.

Facilitating LCDCs input into the new programme development through participation of

LCDC members and support staff in a range of regional consultation events held by the

Department and Pobal on the next SICAP Programme, including the ESRI qualitative study

of SICAP goals and governance and attendance.

While the majority of the LCDCs’ experiences of working with Pobal were reported as very positive,

some issues and areas that could be improved were raised throughout the programme. One

difficulty concerned the late issuance of communication to PIs on data quality and duplicate

records towards the end of 2016 and 2017. It was noted that earlier notice of the deletion of

ineligible clients would have been useful and appreciated. LCDCs also highlighted the need for

Pobal training programmes for LCDC support staff to be delivered earlier in the process, although

improvements in timing in 2017 were noted.

Overall, the learning emerging from the end of year reports from LCDCs is that the role of the LCDC

will continue to expand in 2018, resulting in increased demands on the general membership. It is

67

considered crucial that they are given regular briefings and training to fully inform them of the

details of the new programme to ensure that their decisions and recommendations are based on

their own knowledge of the programme rather than depending on the recommendations from the

sub-committees.

SICAP 2018-2022 presents greater opportunity for LCDCs to be strategic in their overarching role,

less focused on targets/numbers and in a better position to gauge the effectiveness and linkages

of SICAP with other county wide initiatives.

Supports to LCDCs and PIs

Throughout the programme, Pobal provided a range of supports to LCDCs and PIs. These supports

are presented in Table 5.1 below.

Table 5.1 Supports provided to LCDCs and PIs 2015-2017

Pobal supports provided to LCDCs and PIs 2015 2016 2017 Total

National/regional support and training events for LCDCs/PIs 9 6 18 33

IRIS training events delivered to LCDCs/PIs 11 7 2 20

Technical supports through the IRIS helpdesk 897 843 446 2,186

Individual support visits with LCDCs 52 31 31 114

5.2.2 Experience of PIs

Programme Implementers described their experience of SICAP programme structures and their

working relationships with the LCDCs in their end of year reports over the programme period.

The changes to the structures for programme implementation introduced in 2015 took time for

the PIs to adjust to, particularly in terms of establishing relationships and building trust with the

LCDC. The end of year reports in 2015 and 2016 described this bedding down period and the

impact it had on programme delivery, such as the ability to meet targets under some of the

Headline Indicators etc. By the end of 2017, there was a sense that the structures were more firmly

established and that more effective collaboration was taking place between stakeholders.

Engagement with LCDCs

In 2015 and 2016, PIs reported on some of the challenges during the adjustment period in relation

to their engagement with the LCDCs, which in many cases took a number of months to establish.

Over the lifecycle of the programme, the PIs described their engagement with LCDCs in increasingly

positive terms. At the end of 2017, many PIs described the important role of the LCDC as a

coordinating body, facilitating greater collaboration between all stakeholders:

“Influencing programmes locally and nationally is vital, and the establishment and embedding of

the LCDC has greatly enhanced this process, providing a dedicated forum to encourage and

facilitate collaboration between stakeholders and decision-makers”.

“The LCDC has provided a forum for raising awareness of SICAP, target groups, target

geographies and for raising issues of relevance and concern to members of the Committee”.

The working relationships between the PIs and the LCDCs were described by many PIs as strong,

positive, and collaborative. Particular reference to sub-committees and sub-groups was made in

terms of providing a forum for regular discussion and updating around issues experienced:

68

“Our working relationship with the Local Community Development Committee has been enhanced

by regular strategic discussions with the LCDC SICAP sub group and our continued positive

working relationship with local authority staff has ensured an effective approach to programme

delivery.”

“We are particularly pleased with the ongoing strong working relationship with the LCDC which

has been enhanced by regular strategic discussions with the LCDC SICAP sub group and our

continued effective partnership with local authority staff.”

“The establishment of a Social Inclusion Committee by the LCDC in 2016 built on the positive

collaborative relationship which has already been established with many agencies and it has

continued to help develop further collaboration with the LCDC members and representative

organisations in 2017.”

5.2.3 Collaboration with other agencies and bodies

Collaboration with a variety of agencies and organisations has been an essential component of

SICAP since its inception in 2015 and the new structures and linkages with local authorities were

designed to ensure a more cohesive approach to service provision at a county/local authority level.

The end of year reports from PIs and LCDCs over the lifetime of the programme indicated an

ongoing collaboration with relevant organisations, agencies and LCGs in the delivery of SICAP

during this period, with particular emphasis on collaboration between PIs, the Department of

Employment Affairs and Social Protection (DEASP) and the Education and Training Boards (ETBs).

The majority of PIs highlighted that over the lifetime of SICAP 2015–2017, the importance of

collaborative work with clients, stakeholders and agencies in the delivery of the programme could

not be underestimated. One of the PIs reported:

“Strong collaborative links with the DSP, ETB, Jobs Club and LEO, and other programmes, such

as Tús and CE Schemes are required to respond in an integrated way to clients. There needs to

be a strong alignment of Annual plans at LCDC level to ensure greater co-operation at local level.”

The wide range of organisations and stakeholders PIs worked with included:

Local Community Groups (LCGs)

Agencies delivering services (e.g. HSE, local authorities, Jobs Club, LEOs, Tús, CE, ETBs,

TUSLA, Family Resource Centres (FRCs), An Garda Síochána, Money Advice and Budgeting

Services (MABS), Saint Vincent de Paul, Tenancy Support services)

Organisations representing target groups (e.g. youth services, local Traveller organisations,

Irish Wheelchair Association, Multiple Sclerosis Society and Jigsaw)

Employers

Education providers

Others, such as prisons, probation services, etc.

A number of PIs commented that while relationships take time to build, this investment of time is

crucial in terms of accessing marginalised individuals and linking people in with suitable supports:

“Relationship building is a constant endeavour of SICAP’s, with external collaborators and

stakeholders … to enrich the programme delivery and we will continue to do so into the future.”

“Collaborative work with other state agencies allowed access to those individuals that other

mainstream services could not cater for given the complexity of needs.”

“We have worked closely and intensely with other community organisations and state agencies

during 2017 and plan to extend this work outwards in the programme to be better placed to make

the optimum referrals.”

69

“SICAP has also played a significant role in collaboration between ETB, DEASP, LESN and Turas

Nua (JobPath) around the provision of contracted training courses for unemployed clients. This

collaboration proved useful not only in filling courses and dealing with obstacles to participation

but also in building up a mutual understanding of how each organisation operates and the

potential for further collaboration.”

PIs have a role in encouraging LCGs to take part in Public Participation Networks (PPNs) and while

some PIs experienced challenges in this regard, others described it as a useful means for raising

the issues experienced by these groups at a local and national level:

“Linking with the PPN has come to be seen as a means to identify disadvantaged groups in the

county and supporting groups to join the PPN to have their issues discussed at local and national

level is a valued activity in SICAP.”

Feedback from LCDCs also recognised the need for an increased level of collaboration between

organisations, agencies and groups operating in local areas to deliver on the implementation of all

actions in the SICAP Annual Plans. One LCDC stated that ‘other government departments should

be made aware of the programme and subsequently support the delivery of the programme on

the ground through partnership working.’ A need for more information sharing between LCDCs at

a national and regional level was noted, ‘particularly on examples of good practice and innovative

actions’.

The need to ensure there was no duplication of services or supports was raised by both PIs and

LCDCs as part of the consultation process, with the (Crowe Horwath, 2017) report noting:

“Participants would like to see collaboration with other agencies improved at local and national

levels, with a consequent reduction in duplication and redundancy of services and resources

through increased inter-agency co-operation”.

The evaluation of SICAP by the ESRI - The Goals and Governance of the Social Inclusion and

Community Activation Programme (SICAP) 2015-2017, also explored collaboration and possible

duplication of services and supports within SICAP. The report notes that in order to avoid

duplication, provision by PIs tends to be tailored to address gaps in local services. For example, “if

there are already counselling services, IT or FETAC courses offered in the area, the PI does not

provide these. The interviewees felt that the best way to avoid duplication is to share information

with other service providers in the area about the types of services each organisation provides”.

Avoiding duplication is also seen as one of the key roles of the LCDCs, which provides a structure

for the co-ordination of services at local level.

The work carried out by PIs and LCDCs during this programme period, in forming relationships,

alliances and strong working relationships with relevant agencies and community groups will form

a strong foundation for the new SICAP programme. This will ensure greater coordination of

services, identification of gaps in service provision, and allow for the tailoring of appropriate

services and supports to meet the needs of the target groups in marginalised communities.

5.3 Programme design and requirements

Challenges and learning related to the programme design, which have impacted on the delivery of

SICAP were raised by LCDCs and PIs through their end of year reports and the consultation process.

Both PIs and LCDCs highlighted their concerns as well as outlining changes, which could be made

to address these within the design and implementation structures for the delivery of the new

programme.

Three predominant themes have consistently been raised in relation to programme design since

2015:

70

Registration process and data requirements

Quantitative targets

Funding supports (small grants)

A number of the programme design issues, which were identified at the beginning of the

programme (2015) were addressed during the programme period through changes to the

programme design, for example, the requirement for 50% of the caseload to be from

disadvantaged areas, and the exclusion of small holders as a target group. Further changes have

been incorporated into the programme design for SICAP 2018-2022 and the key improvements

are outlined in section 5.7.

Registration process and data requirements

The overall amount of documentation required to administer SICAP was consistently raised by PIs

and described as “placing additional burdens on staff, moving staff away from providing

beneficiary supports and engaging in outreach activities”. A number of LCDCs also described the

administration of SICAP as resource intensive with one LCDC describing the administrative

requirements as “very onerous and there is no provision for this in the SICAP budget”.

The registration process and, in particular sensitive information required from individual

beneficiaries, continued to pose difficulties with some SICAP target groups, such as Travellers,

Roma and people with disabilities. There were concerns raised around the fact that some clients

may decide not to share sensitive information, which then could result in under reporting of some

target groups supported by the programme.

In response to this issue, Pobal, on behalf of the Department of Environment, Community and Local

Government, contracted Pavee Point to develop guidelines around the capturing of sensitive data

to support PI staff. A guidance document entitled Ethnic Data Collection: Good Practice Guidelines

for SICAP Programme Implementers was produced and training in relation to the guidelines was

delivered in 2017 by Pobal and Pavee Point through a series of regional workshops to support the

implementation of the guidelines. Workshops included a number of inputs from Programme

Implementers sharing their experiences of working with ethnic minorities and other national

organisations working with ethnic minorities, including the Migrants Rights Centre Ireland (MRCI).

Feedback from the consultation process in 2017 identified the registration form as a potential

barrier to engagement with clients. The level of information requested initially, was considered to

be overly bureaucratic, creating a barrier to the building of trust between the client and the PI. It

was suggested that the registration form for the new iteration of SICAP (2018–2022) should be

reviewed to ensure that beneficiaries are only asked to provide information that is necessary and

that the full set of personal data could be compiled more gradually as trust is established.

In response to this feedback, a more streamlined approach to the registration process has been

incorporated into the design of the new programme. This includes a reduced number of questions

to ask and the option of a pre-registration process, which allows the PI to do a partial registration

of an individual and collect the minimum information required to be IRIS, and to then follow up on

outstanding information over time, once a relationship of trust has been established. The data

consent form has been shortened and only requires one signature.

Quantitative targets

The overall focus on quantitative outputs within SICAP 2015-2017 has been continually highlighted

as a challenge by both PIs and LCDCs over the lifetime of the programme and was a key concern

expressed by participants throughout the consultation process in 2017. There was a strong desire

among contributors to see the next programme move towards capturing and reporting on more

71

qualitative, outcomes-based indicators of success. The Crowe Horwath report (Crowe Horwath,

2017) noted that the design of the new programme should have a less target-driven approach:

“A less target-driven approach to the design of the next SICAP programme would, it was suggested, enable the programme to focus on doing more with fewer people, targeting those most in need, and providing them with intensive supports to enable them to progress.”

Another key issue for the majority of participants in the consultation, was the setting of SICAP

targets on a national rather than a local basis. This view was reflected within the end of year reports

from LCDCs, which stated that they would welcome more flexibility within SICAP 2018-2022 to set

target groups and that local discretion should be allowed to determine disadvantage, rather than

compliance with a national disadvantage model.

The key learning identified from the feedback was the need for more flexibility and autonomy within

SICAP to address issues at a local level and the need to set SICAP targets at a local rather than

national level. This would allow the knowledge and experience within the PIs and LCDCs to be

utilised in determining the key needs and priorities within their local areas.

This feedback has been taken into account and used in the design of the new programme. Targets

have been reduced by 40% for individuals and 30% for LCGs. In addition, LCDCs were given local

flexibility to reduce or increase targets by up to 15% if required by local circumstances.

Funding supports (small grants)

A number of PIs noted that the lack of small grant support continued to be a barrier to LCGs and

enterprises over the lifetime of the programme, particularly where LCGs were experiencing

difficulties in securing funding from other sources. Providing small grants to LCGs to cover costs

(such as meeting spaces, lighting, insurance etc.) was considered a valuable support in the former

programme (LCDP) and one which would be hugely beneficial to LCGs. A further challenge for PIs

was their inability to give grants to individuals to support training or course fees, which could

potentially lead to employment.

This was addressed in SICAP 2018-2022 through allowing the provision of grants of up to €1,500

for LCGs for certain types of expenditure, and individual grants of €500 for payment of registration,

course and examination fees.

5.4 Operation and delivery of SICAP 2015-2017

A number of issues and challenges relating to the operational delivery of the programme were

raised by PIs through their end of year reports from 2015 to 2017 and also through the

consultation process in 2017. Specific issues have been consistently reported with some

variations to the issues reported on an annual basis due to programme changes implemented as

well as shifts in the external operating environment. This section provides an overview of the key

areas that have been consistently reported since the programme started, alongside the lessons

learned and improvements to programme delivery during this period.

Engagement with target groups. Since 2015, Programme Implementers have consistently found

engagement with particular target groups challenging, namely young people and those people

most distant from the labour market. This led to difficulties for some PIs in meeting their KPI targets

during the programme period.

As the opportunities for progression to employment for individuals, who were already closer to the

labour market improved within many areas, in these areas PIs found that a higher number of

people seeking SICAP supports required more intensive one to one supports. The end of year

reports highlighted the ways in which some PIs developed tailor-made programmes based on the

needs of individuals to ensure that individuals with more complex needs and wider social and

72

personal factors were adequately supported. However, it was noted that the level of intensive

support required for this approach could have an impact on other supports for individuals, for

example: “due to the demand of the programme to meet targets on a daily basis, client follow up

did not always get the full attention that it required”.

Engagement with young people (both NEETs and non-NEETs) was found to be the most challenging,

particularly in relation to progression into employment and self-employment. Young people who

were NEETs aged 15-18 were reported as particularly difficult to engage with, partly due to the fact

that people in this age group are not eligible for DEASP supports and are therefore somewhat

“invisible” in the system. The absence of a national protocol between SICAP and the Department

of Education and Skills ensuring that those young people at risk of early school leaving are referred

for SICAP supports was noted by PIs. To identify examples of good practice on engagement with

this target group, Pobal, on behalf of the DRCD, commissioned a research study: Kickboxing,

kindness and going the extra mile: good practice in working with NEETs under SICAP. The research

was published in the autumn 2017.

The fact that some individuals at risk of social exclusion, in particular people aged over 65 years,

were not included in the SICAP target groups also presented a challenge for a number of PIs.

Under the new programme, LCDCs were given the opportunity to select an additional target group

per Lot based on a locally identified need. The new programme will also be introducing a new tool

to measure the personal progression of individuals registered with SICAP through commissioning

a tailor-made ‘distance travelled tool’. This will allow the programme to record and acknowledge

work with individuals on achieving softer outcomes in addition to harder measurements, such as

numbers moving into employment. It is being piloted in 2018 and will be rolled out nationally in

2019.

While hard to reach individuals may always be more difficult to engage with, some of the issues

described above are being addressed as part of the new programme, such as an expansion of the

target groups, an emerging needs group, the removal of the age limit and a greater focus on intense

engagement and pre-development supports for marginalised individuals. For further information

in relation to the programme changes, see section 5.7.

Engagement with LCGs. A number of PIs reported limited capacity and/or willingness of LCGs to

engage in decision-making structures and Public Participation Networks (PPNs). This was

attributed to many LCGs being understaffed, impacting on their ability to carry out their activities

and engage with other organisations. Government policy requirements in relation to good

governance have necessitated the need for community representatives/members to increase their

knowledge and skills. Becoming compliant with these policies has put significant pressure on

voluntary boards in relation to the time commitment required and additional legal responsibilities.

This in turn has led to some reluctance in continuing to participate and to difficulties recruiting new

representatives/members. PIs also reported that the level and intensity of support required to

assist LCGs to engage in decision-making structures or PPNs is very high.

A greater focus on quality community development and more intense engagement as part of the

new programme, as well as grants to support LCGs, aims to address these concerns and provide

support and resources where they are most needed.

JobPath. A large number of PIs reported the effect of the JobPath programme on the number and

type of referrals received from the DEASP over the course of the programme as a challenge. The

beneficiaries referred to SICAP in 2016 and 2017 were reported as being further removed from

the labour market and, therefore, had more complex needs compared to those availing of SICAP

supports in 2015. Some PIs referred to a reduction in referrals and potential duplication of services

in this regard.

73

Progression into self-employment. The challenges associated with progressing individuals into self-

employment have been reported consistently. PIs reported lower uptake of these supports

generally. Many PIs commented on the intense level of supports required, for example, the number

of clients presenting business ideas in need of further development, which in turn required a higher

level of interventions to enable them to progress. The long-term supports required to progress

young people into self-employment posed a challenge for the majority of PIs as did the lack of

available finance for start-up businesses.

In 2017, a new challenge arose in relation to the Back to Work Enterprise Allowance (BTWEA). New

BTWEA scheme operational guidelines, which were introduced mid-year by the DEASP were noted

by PIs as having a significant impact on timelines for progression for SICAP clients into self-

employment.

In 2017, some PIs commented that improved access to apprenticeships for young people,

including a more diverse range of careers options, such as accountancy and aircraft technician,

may have a greater impact in the future, as more young people are trained in specific trades they

may look at self-employment as a viable employment option.

Access to services. Lack of public transport and access to childcare, have been regularly

highlighted by PIs as significant barriers for beneficiaries throughout the programme duration,

most notably in rural areas. In 2016 and 2017, the high cost of insurance for young drivers was

also reported as a prohibitive barrier to progression and mobility in terms of both education and

employment opportunities for SICAP clients. Another issue arising in 2017 was the number of

clients experiencing lack of housing and affordable accommodation. Some PIs stated that the lack

of broadband or poor internet connections in rural areas posed a challenge for beneficiaries of the

programme.

In response to the above issues, data regarding transport barriers and social/rural isolation will be

collected under the new programme.

IRIS. Over the lifetime of the programme, the number of PIs and LCDCs reporting difficulties with

IRIS reduced significantly each year. In 2015, many PIs reported that they were experiencing

difficulties with the system, including technical problems and the large amounts of time required

to familiarise themselves with the new system. In 2016, the number of challenges with the system

had reduced substantially and the delivery of training supports and user guides were considered

helpful by PIs and LCDCs. By the end of 2017, IRIS presented a challenge mainly for those who

were using the system on an infrequent basis. A small number of PIs commented that IRIS does

not capture the intensity and nature of supports provided to individuals and LCGs, given the focus

on quantitative indicators, which do not fully reflect the community development work undertaken.

The small area maps approach was raised as problematic by some PIs who stated that it does not

accurately reflect poverty in rural areas.

In relation to data quality and data cleaning, while PIs acknowledged that they have responsibility

for data quality, some noted that updates from Pobal on duplicate records towards the end of 2017

would have been beneficial if they were provided earlier. These updates, which informed PIs of

ineligible or duplicate records to be deleted, had an impact on KPIs and could therefore trigger

financial penalties/remedies for performance.

Further changes to IRIS in relation to the new programme were suggested as part of the

consultation process, including the need for the new system to become more user friendly and

provide greater flexibility in how staff can report and record their work. The need for adequate IT

training for both PI and LCDC staff on the new system was highlighted with a number of consultees

suggesting that a baseline budget for IT training should be funded within the new programme.

74

The new system has incorporated more validation rules to improve data quality and new reports

and dashboards to support review and oversight of the programme implementation.

5.5 Budgets and resources

While overall spend for the programme reached 98.91% of the budget, some PIs expressed an

opinion that the allocated funding was not adequate to allow them to develop new projects and/or

fully fund educational activities. With regard to the funding of courses, a number of PIs reported

that they were dependent on other initiatives and agencies to fund training programmes for SICAP

clients. An increase in rental prices for community-based rooms presented a financial challenge to

the programme budget for some PIs.

The consultation process highlighted that SICAP 2018-2022 should allow for local input to budget-

setting for local areas as well as for more flexibility between Goals and other funding allocations to

meet the needs of the target groups. The need to ensure that the programme funding does not

overlap with other agencies to avoid duplication was raised, as was the need to remove financial

penalties or remedies and consider ways to reward and share good practice. The new programme

has removed the link between financial remedies and a requirement to spend between 28 to 38%

of the programme budget on each Goal – it is recommended in the new programme that each Goal

has a 40% to 60% split of the total action costs. Staff are also no longer required to keep

timesheets, with the exception of direct staff who are part-funded from other programmes under a

new apportionment policy, which is designed to reduce paperwork.

5.6 Community development approach

In line with the horizontal themes of the programme, an overarching lesson emerging from

programme implementation between 2015 and 2017 was the vital need for a broader community

development approach in tackling poverty and social exclusion, which was raised consistently by

both PIs and LCDCs.

This was reflected in the consultation process undertaken by Crowe Horwath and the ESRI

evaluation of SICAP 2015-2017. Overall, feedback highlighted that the current programme does

not have enough of a focus on social inclusion and community development and that community

development in the forthcoming programme should be broadened and strengthened. More focus

should be placed on building the capacity within communities, and to “recognise and address the

structural factors in social exclusion and unemployment, rather than being overly focused on

working with individuals in a way that some consider disconnected from community issues.”

(Crowe Horwath, 2017).

A lesson learned from SICAP work in 2017, as in previous years, is that dedicated community

development resources are required to encourage involvement within disadvantaged

communities. Some PIs commented that addressing social exclusion in disadvantaged

communities can only be successfully achieved through a collaborative approach involving

statutory and voluntary organisations.

SICAP 2018-2022 has been designed to bring a stronger community development approach to the

work. This will be delivered through the custom-made Distance Travelled Tool to measure personal

progression for people assisted through SICAP, intensive local level training for PIs and LCDCs, and

more detailed Lot profiling to assist LCDCs and their sub-committees in understanding county-level

needs to inform the priorities for SICAP annual plans.

Section 5.7 provides an overview of how the learning from SICAP 2015-2017 has been

incorporated into the design of the new programme in order to create greater efficiencies, remove

barriers to access, and strengthen the community development supports.

75

5.7 Changes and improvements to SICAP 2018-2022

SICAP has evolved as a programme, with learning and feedback taken on board each year and

used to inform the programme design and implement changes to improve the delivery of the

programme for the PIs, LCDCs and the individuals accessing SICAP supports.

This feedback and learning, in conjunction with the consultation process report, and the ESRI

evaluation report, have informed the programme design for the next iteration of SICAP. The new

programme28 will introduce a number of changes to ensure a better experience for all stakeholders

and a greater focus on the needs of marginalised individuals. The key changes and improvements

to the programme are outlined below.

Key changes to SICAP 2018-2022

Longer funding commitment – the programme cycle has been extended to five years to

allow for more stability and planning.

Reduction of the number of Goals from three to two (Goal 1: Supporting communities and

Goal 2: Supporting individuals) and a newly designed Programme Requirements for easier

use.

An easier, simplified registration process, which collects less information on individuals

and also allows for a partial registration to allow for information to be collected over time.

More target groups to ensure better coverage and greater access of marginalised people:

a locally selected emerging needs group, disadvantaged women, and the disengaged from

the labour market.

Grants to support local community groups and individuals.

Greater focus on quality community development and more intense engagement. A local

community group support plan will be required for each community group registered with

the programme and a Distance Travelled Tool is being commissioned for national roll-out

in 2019.

New IRIS CRM, which has introduced more automated processes and contains fewer

targets and indicators and presents a simplified input process.

The cap on sub-contracting (previously set at 15%) has been doubled to 30% of the Lot

budget.

Fewer indicators and targets – targets for individual engagement have been reduced by

approximately 40% and the Headline Indicators have been removed.

New ways to record the multiple barriers that SICAP clients face through a Multiple Barriers

Measure – this will assist PIs in identifying which clients are likely to need more

interventions and more intensive engagement.

No age limit – the age limit has been removed to allow people of all ages, including older

people, to qualify for/avail of SICAP supports.

28 For more information on the new SICAP, see the 2018 - 2022 Programme Requirements here.

https://www.pobal.ie/app/uploads/2018/05/SICAP-Programme-Requirements-2018-2022-V1-1.pdf

76

6 Conclusion

The Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP) aims to reduce poverty and

promote social inclusion and equality through local, regional and national engagement and

collaboration. The first round of the programme, with a budget of €100,117,865, ran from 1 April

2015 to 31 December 2017. The programme was funded and overseen by the Department of

Rural and Community Development (DRCD) and delivered by 46 Programme Implementers (PIs)

covering 51 Lots across the country. SICAP is administered locally by Local Community

Development Committees (LCDCs).

Over the lifetime of the programme, SICAP supported over 110,000 individuals on a one-to-one

basis and over 5,000 Local Community Groups (LCGs). The targets for the majority of indicators

were met, with some being surpassed significantly. The targets set for the two Key Performance

Indicators (KPIs), i.e. the total number of disadvantaged individuals engaged under SICAP and the

number of Local Community Groups assisted under SICAP, were exceeded in the last two years of

the programme, with the underachievement of 10% or less in 2015.

In implementing the programme, both PIs and LCDCs emphasised the importance of a bottom up

community development approach in addressing social exclusion issues. The majority of Local

Community Groups supported under the programme (63%) worked to address both the needs of

specific geographical communities and issue-based target groups. Almost 2,000 groups were

supported to participate in local, regional and national decision making structures, giving a voice

and empowering many marginalised communities.

The use of collaborative approaches with external agencies and bodies to ensure the needs of the

most marginalised people were met was also recognised as a vital element of the programme.

Over the lifetime of the programme, 541 new joint programmes, partnerships or initiatives were

put in place between SICAP implementers and stakeholders in the areas of education and

employment to improve access to learning and employment opportunities and to develop more

collaborative approaches to addressing disadvantage.

Educational and employment supports were provided to over 110,000 people over the three years

of the programme. Three out of ten of these individuals lived in areas designated as being

disadvantaged, very disadvantaged or extremely disadvantaged. Almost half of all beneficiaries of

the programme were long-term unemployed and four in ten were from a jobless household. The

highest educational achievement for over two thirds of people supported was Leaving Certificate

level or below. Slightly more men than women participated in the programme, however, the gender

gap has narrowed between 2015 and 2017. The majority of people assisted were aged between

25 and 45.

The main target group supported were people who are unemployed, representing almost four in

five people availing of SICAP supports. The programme supported almost 12,500 young people

who were not in employment, education or training (NEETs). Roma and Travellers were the target

groups with the smallest representation, with 281 and 1,851 members of these communities

respectively participating in the programme.

Almost half of SICAP participants (46%) were referred to the programme by a government body,

state agency or other relevant organisation. Over the lifetime of the programme, the share of

referrals from government bodies/state agencies increased by 7%, indicating an improved level of

communication and collaboration between SICAP implementers and agencies.

Over the programme duration, more than 52,000 people received supports related to Life-long

Learning (LLL) under Goal 2 of the programme. Their share on the SICAP caseload increased by

3% between 2015 and 2017. In total, over 9,700 individuals have progressed along the education

77

continuum after registering with SICAP and on average, over 53,600 children (under 18 years)

received Goal 2 educational supports every year.

A total of 73,374 individuals received employment supports under Goal 3 of the programme. These

participants most often availed of career advice and guidance supports, self-employment supports

and labour market training. Between 2015 and 2017, the share of individuals on the Goal 3

caseload availing of both labour market training and career advice and guidance support

increased, while the share of people availing of the self-employment supports decreased year on

year.

Over the lifetime of the programme, just over 5,800 people progressed to full-time or part-time

employment and over 15,900 people set up a new business leading to the creation of 1,695 full

time jobs. The level of self-employment supports and number of people setting up their own

businesses declined over the programme duration. The progression of young people to self-

employment was cited by many PIs as a significant challenge throughout the programme, with only

3% of people setting up businesses being young people.

Over the lifetime of the programme, LCDCs and PIs identified a number of key challenges they

faced when implementing the programme. Some challenges related to programme design –

namely the registration process and associated data requirements, the focus on quantitative

targets and the lack of funding supports for LCGs and individuals. The lack of flexibility in relation

to setting targets at a local level was also raised as an issue.

PIs also outlined a number of challenges related to programme implementation, such as

engagement with some of the hard to reach target groups, such as NEETs, engagement with LCGs,

difficulties with progression into self-employment, the impact of the JobPath programme, and

barriers to accessing services, such as childcare and transport, particularly in rural areas.

At the start of the programme, many PIs and LCDCs experienced issues with the IRIS reporting

system. Many of these issues were addressed over the lifetime of the programme both through

making changes to the system as well as providing training supports. By 2017, the number

reporting challenges with IRIS had reduced significantly.

The feedback from PIs and LCDCs relating to the programme design and requirements was taken

on board from the beginning of the programme and many of the issues raised were addressed as

the programme progressed. Training was also delivered to provide clarity and support programme

implementation. The views of LCDCs and PIs have been central to the design of the new

programme (SICAP 2018-2022) which aims to address the needs of marginalised individuals and

communities in a more streamlined, simplified and flexible manner.

78

References

Crowe Horwath. (2017). Key Themes Arising from the Consultation Process with SICAP

Stakeholders to Inform the Development of SICAP 2018-2022. Dublin: Crowe Horwath.

Retrieved from http://www.crowehorwath.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Crowe-

Horwath-final-report-to-Pobal-SICAP-consultation.pdf

CSO. (2017). Chapter 2: Geographical distribution. Retrieved from Central Statistic Office:

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/population/2017/

Chapter_2_Geographical_distribution.pdf

CSO. (2017). Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC). Dublin: Central Statistics Office.

CSO. (2018, March 14). Central Statistics Office. Retrieved from Labour Force Survey:

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/lfs/labourforcesurveyquarter42017/

Eurofound. (2017). Long-term Unemployed Youth: Characteristics and Policy Responses . Dublin:

Eurofound.

European Commission. (2001, November 21). COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION: Making

a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality. Brussels. Retrieved from http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52001DC0678

European Commission. (2017). European Semester Country Report Ireland 2017 . Brussels:

European Commission.

European Council. (2011, December 20). Council Resolution on a renewed European agenda for

adult learning. Official Journal of the European Union.

European Social Network. (2015). Social Investment in Europe: A Study of National Policies.

Brussels: European Commission.

Eurostat. (2016). Children at Risk of Poverty or Social Exclusion. Brussels: European Commission.

Eurostat. (2018). Europe 2020 Employment Indicators. Brussels: European Commission.

Report, E. F. (2018). New Action Plan for Jobless Households in Ireland. Brussels: European

Commission.

http://www.crowehorwath.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Crowe-



http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/lfs/labourforcesurveyquarter42017/

http://eur-/

79

Appendix 1: Financial report for 2017

This financial report was prepared using figures extracted from IRIS, where they were recorded by

Programme Implementers (their actual spend) and LCDCs (the payments made to PIs).

SICAP costs charged summary report – year end 2017

Table 1.1 below, details the total budget and the total costs reported, under the various cost

categories, for the 51 Lots to 31 December 2017.

Table 1.1 Costs charged summary report for year 2017

Total 2017 budget €

Total cost reported €

% of total action costs

reported

Goal 1

Non-salary €1,335,095.36 €1,408,477.02

30.17% Direct salary €7,321,568.58 €7,143,072.35

Total Goal 1 €8,656,663.94 €8,551,549.37

Goal 2

Non-salary €2,672,871.13 €2,792,542.81

33.61% Direct salary €6,862,573.62 €6,734,898.52

Total Goal 2 €9,535,444.75 €9,527,441.33

Goal 3

Non-salary €2,472,742.30 €2,509,276.59

34.91% Direct salary €7,468,496.69 €7,384,980.46

Total Goal 3 €9,941,238.99 €9,894,257.05

(Each Goal cost % reported must be between 28% and 38% of total actions cost reported)

Monitoring €370,243.64 €372,644.81 1.31%


Total actions cost €28,503,591.32 €28,345,892.56 75.71%


Total administration

cost €8,937,644.64 €8,903,628.75 23.78%

(The administration cost cannot exceed 25% of the total budget)


Overall Cost €37,441,235.96 €37,249,521.31 99.49%

Commentary on Table 1.1

Schedule D is an appendix to the contract between the LCDC and the PI and it represents the

budget of the Lot for a particular period, i.e. from the 1 January to 31 December 2017. This budget

is comprised of action costs and administration costs. The action costs are broken down into Goal

costs and monitoring costs.

80

Certain financial rules are required to be complied with as outlined in Schedule D, and these are

as follows:

The total of each Goal cost must be between 28% and 38% of the total actions cost

reported.

The total administration cost cannot exceed 25% of the total budget cost.

The PI must submit a draft budget as part of the annual planning process showing

compliance with both of the above rules prior to the LCDC approving the budget.

Programme Implementers must also show that these financial parameters have been met

when reporting spend for the period in order to avoid having financial remedies imposed.


As per the parameters of Schedule D, total administration costs reported for the year cannot

exceed 25% of the total SICAP budget.

The amount reported for administration costs is €8,903,628.75. This amount represents 23.78%

of the total budget and therefore demonstrates that the programme overall is compliant with the

parameters of Schedule D.

Actions costs

As per the parameters of Schedule D, the amount reported for each Goal must be between 28% -

38% - i.e. 33% of the total actions cost plus or minus 5% - of the total action costs reported.

Goal 1

The amount reported for Goal 1 is €8,551,549.37. This represents 30.17% of the total action

costs reported and, therefore, demonstrates that Goal 1 is compliant with the parameters of

Schedule D.

Goal 2

The amount reported for Goal 2 is €9,527,441.33. This represents 33.61% of the total action costs

reported and therefore demonstrates that Goal 2 is compliant with the parameters of Schedule D.

Goal 3

The amount reported for Goal 3 is €9,894,257.05. This represents 34.91% of the total action costs

reported and therefore demonstrates that Goal 3 is compliant with the parameters of Schedule D.

Underspends as at 31 December 2017

The end of year report shows the total underspend reported is €191,714.65. This represents

0.51% of the total budget as outlined in Table 1.2 below. Underspends are a result of salary

budgets not being fully utilised across the administration and Goal cost categories.

81

Table 1.2 Underspends as at 31 December 2017

Goals

Category

Underspend/ Over

spend (minus

denotes overspend)

Underspend as % of total

budget

Goal 1

Non-salary - € 73,381.66


Total Goal 1 €105,114.57

Goal 2

Non-salary - €119,671.68


Total Goal 2 €8,003.42

Goal 3

Non-salary -€ 36,534.29


Total Goal 3 €46,981.94

Monitoring -€ 2,401.17

Total actions costs €157,698.76

Administration costs €34,015.89

Total underspend €191,714.65 0.51%

Overall conclusion

The above results demonstrate that despite underspends recorded against each of the Goals,

overall the programme is compliant with the parameters of Schedule D and has met its financial

targets for 2017.

Payments

The total Lot payments inputted on the IRIS system for the period to 31 December 2017, excluding

VAT, was €37,298,855.68.

82

VAT

Table 1.3 VAT costs reported by the PIs and paid by the LCDCs

Eligible VAT costs claimed by PIs VAT payments to the PIs

Mid-year period €161,575.93 €134,097.84

End of year period €356,423.16 €217,110.56

Total €517,999.09 €351,208.40

The total amount of VAT reported for 2017 is €517,999.09. The total amount of VAT inputted on

IRIS as paid by LCDCs to PIs in 2017 is €351,208.40. The VAT costs reported for the end of year

period in 2017 are not due to be paid by the LCDCs until 2018.

Analysis of the number of SICAP funded Full-time Equivalents (FTEs)

Table 1.4 below represents the salary costs for the period 1 January – 31 December 2017.

Table 1.4 Analysis of the number of SICAP funded FTEs

Budget category

No. of SICAP

funded FTEs

Salary budget cost of SICAP funded

FTEs €

Salary spend reported for SICAP

funded FTEs €

% of total salary

spend reported

Administration 102.1 €5,880,714.90 €5,849,385.01

21.57%

Goal 1 146.2 €7,321,568.58 €7,143,072.35 26.35%

Goal 2 138.75 €6,862,573.62 €6,734,898.52 24.84%

Goal 3 150.81 €7,468,496.69 €7,384,980.46 27.24%

Total 537.86 €27,533,353.79 €27,112,336.34

The average budget cost per annum for a SICAP funded FTE is €51,191.

At the year-end, 98.47% of the total salary costs budget was reported as spend, which amounts to

€27,112,336.34.

Overall conclusion

The percentage of salary costs ranges from lowest percentage under Administration costs of

21.57% to the highest under Goal 3 costs of 27.24%, which means the spend is reasonably evenly

split across the four cost categories.


The total amount of administration costs reported is 23.78% of the total overall SICAP budget and

is within the 25% maximum threshold at the year end.

83

Administration costs (overheads) are split across four headings as detailed below.

Table 1.5 Administration costs (overheads)

Budget category

Budget amount €

Spend amount €

% of total

administration

spend reported

Financial/professional fees/other €265,808.34 €286,981.44 3.22%

Indirect salary

(management/administration)

€5,880,714.90

€5,849,385.01 65.70%

Office/administration/establishment

€2,661,323.68

€2,644,795.40 29.70%

Travel and subsistence for indirect

salary

€129,797.72 €122,466.90 1.38%

Total administration €8,937,644.64 €8,903,628.75

At the year-end, 99.62% of the total administration costs budget has been reported as spend,

which amounts to €8,903,628.75. Of the total administration costs reported as spend, salary costs

are the largest component of these costs at 65.70%.

Remedies

Ongoing receipt of SICAP funding by the Programme Implementer is directly linked to performance

against the agreed targets for the two Key Performance Indicators and compliance with Schedule

D of the funding agreement as well as compliance with the spend thresholds of the programme,

where it is appropriate to do so.

Remedies are to be applied on a fixed rate basis and are aligned to a set of scales depending on

the level of non-achievement/non-compliance with the KPIs and Schedule D of the funding

agreement.

Tables 1.6 and 1.7 below outlines where remedies occurred in relation to SICAP for 2017.

Table 1.6 Remedies applied in 2017 under KPI 1 and KPI 2

No. of Lots

where

remedy

applied

under KPI 1

Non

achievement

of KPI 1

Remedy to

apply under

KPI 1 €

No. of Lots

where

remedy

applied

under KPI 2

Non

achievement

of KPI 2

Remedy to

apply under

KPI 2 €

Total

amount of

remedies

applied

under KPI

1 & 2 €

0 1% - 3% €0 0 1% - 3% €0 €0

1 4% - 6% €1,500 0 4% - 6% €0 €0

0 7% - 9% €0 0 7% - 9% €0 €0

0 >10% €0 0 >10% €0 €0

Total €1,500

84

Table 1.6 shows that a remedy was applied to one Lot in the case of non-achievement of targets

under KPI 1. The total amount of remedies applied is equal to €1,500. No remedies were applied

to Lots under KPI 2.

Table 1.7 Remedies applied in 2017 Schedule D

No. of Lots where remedy

applied under Schedule D

Non achievement under Schedule

D

Remedy to apply under Schedule D

€

1 1% - 3% €500

0 4% - 6% €0

0 7% - 9% €0

0 >10% €0

Total €500

Table 1.7 shows that a remedy was applied to one Lot in the case of non-achievement of targets

under Schedule D. The total amount of remedies applied is equal to €500.

85

Appendix 2: List of Lots and Programme Implementers

Lot PI Address

Carlow County (1-1) Carlow County Development

Partnership Limited

Main Street, Bagenalstown, Co. Carlow

Cavan County (32-1) Breffni Integrated Limited Unit 6A, Corlurgan Business Park, Corlurgan,

Ballinagh Road, Cavan

Clare County (16-1) Clare Local Development

Company Limited

Westgate Business Park, Kilrush Road, Ennis,

Co. Clare

Cork Bandon & Kinsale (18-6)

West Cork Development Partnership Limited

Block 1, The Warner Centre, Barrack Street, Bantry, Co. Cork

Cork Charleville & Mitchelstown (18-2)

Ballyhoura Development Limited

Ballyhoura Centre, Main Street, Kilfinane, Co. Limerick

Cork City (17-1) Comhar Chathair Chorcai

Teoranta

Heron House, Blackpool Retail Park,

Blackpool, Cork

Cork Kanturk, Newmarket &

Millstreet (18-1)

IRD Duhallow Ltd James O'Keeffe Memorial Institute,

Newmarket, Co. Cork

Cork Mallow & Fermoy (18-3)

Avondhu/Blackwater Partnership Limited

The Old Mill, Castletownroche, Co. Cork

Cork South & East

Cork (18-4)

South and East Cork Area Development Partnership

Limited

Midleton Community Enterprise Centre, Owenacurra Business Park, Knockgriffin,

Midleton, Co. Cork

Cork West Cork District (18-5)

West Cork Development Partnership Limited

Block 1, The Warner Centre, Barrack Street, Bantry, Co. Cork

Cork West Cork

Islands (18-7)

Comhar na nOilean Teoranta Inis Oírr, Árainn, Co. na Gaillimhe

Donegal (33-3) Donegal Local Development

Company Limited

1 Millenium Court, Pearse Road, Letterkenny,

Co. Donegal

Donegal Gaeltacht (33-2)

Donegal Local Development Company Limited

1 Millenium Court, Pearse Road, Letterkenny, Co. Donegal

Donegal Inishowen (33-1)

Inishowen Development Partnership

St. Mary's Road, Buncrana, Inishowen, Co. Donegal

Dublin Ballyfermot & Chapelizod (2-1)

The Ballyfermot/Chapelizod Partnership Company Limited

4 Drumfinn Park, Ballyfermot, Dublin 10

Dublin Ballymun, Whitehall & Tolka (2-

2)

Dublin North West Area

Partnership

Rosehill House, Finglas Road, Dublin 11

Dublin Canal, Rathmines &

Pembroke (2-4)

Dublin South City Partnership 3-4 Saint Agnes Road, Crumlin, Dublin 12

Dublin Inner City (2- 5)

Dublin Inner City Community Co-operative Society Ltd

Killarney Court, Killarney Street, Dublin 1

Dublin Northside (2- 3)

Northside Partnership Limited Coolock Development Centre, Bunratty Drive, Coolock, Dublin 17

86

Lot PI Address

Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown

(5-1)

Southside Partnership DLR Limited

The Old Post Office, 7 Rock Hill, Main Street, Blackrock, Co. Dublin

Fingal (4-1) The Blanchardstown Area

Partnership Limited

Unit 106, Dillon House, Porters Road,

Coolmine Industrial Estate, Dublin 15

Galway City (26-1) Galway City Partnership Limited 3 The Plaza, Headford Road, Galway

Galway County (27-1) Galway Rural Development

Company Limited

Mellows Campus, Ballygarraun West,

Athenry, Co. Galway

Kerry North East &

West Kerry (19-1)

North and East Kerry Leader

Partnership Teoranta

Áras an Phobail, Croilár na Mistéalach,

Tralee, Co. Kerry

Kerry Rathmore & Gneeveguilla (19-2)

IRD Duhallow Ltd James O'Keeffe Memorial Institute, Newmarket, Co. Cork

Kerry South Kerry & Killarney (19-3)

South Kerry Development Partnership Limited

West Main Street, Caherciveen, Co. Kerry

Kildare County (6-1) Cill Dara Ar Aghaidh Teoranta Jigginstown Commercial Centre, Newbridge Road, Naas, Co. Kildare

Kilkenny County (7-1) County Kilkenny Leader

Partnership Company Limited

8 Patrick's Court, Patrick Street, Kilkenny

Laois County (8-1) Laois Community and Enterprise Development

Company Limited

Block 2, Áras an Chontae, James Fintan Lalor

Avenue, Portlaoise, Co. Laois

Leitrim County (28-1) Leitrim Integrated Development

Company Limited

Church Street, Drumshanbo, Co. Leitrim

Limerick East Rural

(21-3)

Ballyhoura Development

Limited

Ballyhoura Centre, Main Street, Kilfinane, Co.

Limerick

Limerick Urban (21-

2)

PAUL Partnership (People Action Against Unemployment

Limited)

The Tait Business Centre, Dominic Street,

Limerick

Limerick West Rural

(21-1)

West Limerick Resources

Limited

St. Mary's Road, Newcastle West, Co.

Limerick

Longford County (9-

1)

Longford Community Resources

Limited

Longford Community Enterprise Centre, Longford Business & Technology Park,

Ballinalee Road, Longford

Louth County (10-1) Louth LEADER Partnership Unit 3, Partnership Court, Park Street,

Dundalk, Co. Louth

Mayo Ballina & Mayo

West (29-2)

Mayo North East Leader

Partnership Company Teoranta

Lower Main Street, Foxford, Co. Mayo

Mayo Castlebar & Claremorris (29-3)

South West Mayo Development Company Limited

Carey Walsh Building, George's Street, Newport, Co. Mayo

Mayo Islands (29-1) South West Mayo Development Company Limited

Carey Walsh Building, George's Street, Newport, Co. Mayo

Meath County (11-1) Meath Community Rural and Social Development

Partnership Limited

Unit 7, Kells Business Park, Cavan Road, Kells, Co. Meath

87

Lot PI Address

Monaghan County (34-1)

Monaghan Integrated Development Limited

Monaghan Road, Castleblayney, Co. Monaghan

Offaly County (12-1) Offaly Integrated Local Development Company Limited

Millenium House, Main Street, Tullamore, Co. Offaly

Roscommon County (30-1)

Roscommon Integrated Development Company Limited

Roscommon West Business Park, Golf Links Road, Roscommon

Sligo County (31-1) County Sligo LEADER

Partnership Company Ltd

Sligo Development Centre, Cleveragh Road,

Sligo

South Dublin County

(3-1)

SDC South Dublin County

Partnership Ltd

County Hall, Block 3, Belgard Square North,

Tallaght, Dublin 24

Tipperary North (22- 1)

North Tipperary Leader Partnership

2nd Floor, Friar's Court, Nenagh, Co. Tipperary

Tipperary South (23- 2)

South Tipperary Development Company Limited

Unit 2C, Carrigeen Industrial Estate, Clogheen Road, Cahir, Co. Tipperary

Waterford City & County (24-1)

Waterford Area Partnership Limited

Westgate Retail Park, Tramore Road, Waterford

Westmeath County

(13-1)

Westmeath Community

Development Limited

Mullingar Enterprise Technology and Innovation Centre, Zone C, Mullingar

Business Park, Mullingar, Co. Westmeath

Wexford County (14- 1)

Wexford Local Development Spawell Road, Wexford

Wicklow Arklow, Wicklow &

Baltinglass (15-2)

County Wicklow Community

Partnership Ltd

3rd Floor, Avoca River House, The Bridgewater Centre, North Quay, Arklow, Co.

Wicklow

Wicklow Bray & Greystones (15-1)

Bray Area Partnership Limited 4 Prince of Wales Terrace, Quinsborough Road, Bray, Co. Wicklow

For more information contact:

Pobal, Holbrook House, Holles Street,

Dublin 2, D02 EY84, Ireland

Pobal, Teach Holbrook, Sráid Holles,

Baile Átha Cliath 2, D02 EY84, Éire

T: +353 1 511 7000 F: +353 1 511 7981

[email protected] www.pobal.ie

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.pobal.ie/

Documents

Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP) · CV Curriculum Vitae DAA Dublin Airport Authority DDLETB Dublin and Dún Laoghaire Education and Training Board DEASP