Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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).
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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).
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
16
Map 1: SICAP Lots – national (excluding the Greater Dublin Area)
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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
6a % of those targeted should have educational
attainment of Leaving Certificate or lower 93% 92% 91% 92%
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
21
9 Number of individuals (15 years upwards) in receipt
of Goal 3 employment supports 23,546 30,206 31,016 73,374
9a % of those targeted should have educational
attainment of Leaving Certificate or lower 66% 64% 62% 64%
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
Number of individuals (15 years upwards)
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
12a % of those targeted should have educational
attainment of Leaving Certificate or lower 86% 86% 86% 86%
13
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
352
565
645
1,519
14
Number of young people (aged 15-24) progressing
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
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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%
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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 budget € Total cost reported € % of total budget
Total administration cost
€23,894,142.45 €23,640,133.39 23.61%
(The administration cost cannot exceed 25% of the total budget)
Total budget € Total cost reported € % of 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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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
The cumulative spend reported against Goal 2 is €25,262,293.51. This represents 33.51% of the
total action costs reported over the period. This demonstrates that Goal 2 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 3
The cumulative spend reported against Goal 3 is €26,433,243.85. This represents 35.06% of the
total action costs reported over the period. This demonstrates that Goal 3 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).
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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
Direct salary €515,280.89
Total Goal 2 €226,654.96
Goal 3
Non-salary €-219,504.89
Direct salary €382,073.32
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
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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).
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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%
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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:
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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,
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
33
Table 3.2 LCGs outputs
Programme indicators
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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”.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
42
Challenges and barriers
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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%
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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;
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
Challenges and barriers
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.
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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.
Challenges and barriers
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
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
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
SICAP End of programme report 2015-2017
Table 4.5 Individuals who progressed to employment and self-employment 2015-2017
Programme indicators
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
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
5.7%
2,208
7.3%
2,413
7.8%
5,801
7.93%
HI 11
Number of individuals (15 years upwards)
progressing to self- employment up to 6 months
after receiving a Goal 3 employment support
4,687
19.9%
5,752
19.0%
5,553
17.9%
15,923
21.76%
HI 13
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
352
1.5%
565
1.9%
645
2.1%
1,519
2.08%
HI 14
Number of young people (aged 15-24) progressing
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.
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.
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 budget € Total cost reported € % of total budget
Total actions cost €28,503,591.32 €28,345,892.56 75.71%
Total budget € Total cost reported € % of total budget
Total administration
cost €8,937,644.64 €8,903,628.75 23.78%
(The administration cost cannot exceed 25% of the total budget)
Total budget € Total cost reported € % of 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.
Administration costs
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
Direct salary €178,496.23
Total Goal 1 €105,114.57
Goal 2
Non-salary - €119,671.68
Direct salary €127,675.10
Total Goal 2 €8,003.42
Goal 3
Non-salary -€ 36,534.29
Direct salary €83,516.23
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.
Administration costs
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