An exploration of (area-based) social inclusion and community development training programmes in Ireland Seamus McGuinness Research Professor Pobal Conference: Creating an Inclusive Labour Market Wednesday 9th November, 2016 The Helix, DCU: Agenda

Introduction Social Inclusion & Community Activation Programme (SICAP) is a major component of Ireland’s community development strategy The ‘bottom-up’ structure aims to enable participation by citizens in the design, planning and implementation of interventions at a local level Data relating to community development activities is often decentralised in nature and does not easily facilitate any national level analysis Availability of IRIS data provides a unique opportunity To explore the relationship between community development training and goals and the links between provision and social deprivation, geography and cost

Distribution of Funding: Share of Total Expenditure on Training Programmes by Deprivation Index? Mean: 16% Min: 3% Max: 43%

Key Objectives Extent to which provision differs across training areas and examine accreditation levels Estimate how expenditure and duration of interventions are distributed across programme areas Extent that provision relates to SICAP goals Geographical variation in the distribution of provision by population, deprivation index, programme objectives and costs

Data IRIS Database (2014) Local & Community Development Programme (LDCP) Predecessor to SICAP (April 2015) 25,554 total places in 2014 21,019 places examined (81%) Classified training into 30 Programme types Note: SICAP guidelines suggest that spending should be equally distributed across the three goals (with minor flexibility) but do not have any guidelines around the distribution of between one-to-one supports and group supports

1. Extent to which provision differs across programme areas and accreditation

Distribution of Places by Main Subject Area and Accreditation Top 6 course areas account for around 50% of training resources in terms of places and funding

Profile of Individuals undertaking SICAP training programmes Education The majority of individuals have Leaving Cert. or lower education levels (81%) NFQ<4 are concentrated in IT and Personal Development Programmes LC level concentrated in Job-Seeking and Enterprise programmes Graduates predominately enrolled in self-employment or other employment programmes (Business and Enterprise) Age 51% of individuals are aged between 26 and 45 Aged 16-25 are concentrated in Job Seeking and Personal Development programmes Aged 26 - 45, predominately enrolled in Enterprise and SYOB programmes Aged 46+ are concentrated in IT and Personal Development programmes

1. Extent to which provision differs across programme areas and accreditation Significant differences across PIs in terms of the share of total expenditure on training programmes Top 6 programme areas account for around 50% of training resources in terms of places and funding Around 40% of places are accredited (15% FETAC) Accreditation rates vary substantially by programme types

2. Estimate how expenditure and duration of interventions are distributed across programme areas

Expenditure and Duration of Interventions

3. Extent provision relates to SICAP goals

Outline of SICAP Goals Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Social Inclusion and Capacity Building e.g. Personal development and Parenting Goal 2 Lifelong Learning e.g. I.T. and Art, craft and design Goal 3 Employment e.g. Job Seeking and Enterprise

Distribution across Goals at County Level Lowest: Highest: Note: Examined at Lot level in the report

Extent provision relates to SICAP goals

3. Extent provision relates to SICAP goals It is clear from the data that PIs set different objectives with respect to the training component of their activities While patterns of total expenditure may comply with overarching guidelines, PIs behave in a much more flexible way in their approach to one-to-one training interventions (typically accounts for approximately only 16 per cent of total expenditure). Two-thirds of places are in employment programmes (goal 3) Relatively low levels of accreditation across all goals Makes evaluation of programmes in goal 2 (LL) particularly difficult Average cost per place is highest in Social Inclusion and Capacity Building programmes (goal 1)

4. Geographical variation in the distribution of provision by deprivation index, subject, and cost

Spatial Analysis at Nuts III Level

How does the share of enrolments match the population and deprivation indices at Lot Level? Note: This regression line is statistically significant at the 5% level.

How does the share of expenditure match the population and deprivation indices at Lot Level? Note: This regression line is statistically significant at the 5% level.

How does the average cost per place match the deprivation index at Lot Level? Note: This regression line is statistically significant at the 5% level.

4. Geographical variation in the distribution of provision by deprivation index, subject, and cost Distribution of places is broadly in line with population levels Resources, whether measured in terms of places or spending are generally most heavily targeted at areas with the highest levels of social disadvantage. Average training costs higher in less deprived areas

Key Findings I Training resources are generally focused towards geographical areas with the highest levels of deprivation. Inverse relationship between area deprivation & average cost per place indicating a higher level of resources per participant in less deprived areas Significant differences across PIs in terms of the concentration of training places On average, 16 per cent of total expenditure of PIs is directed towards training activities but no clear discernible pattern emerging with respect to social and economic deprivation levels In 2014, two-thirds of training places were in employment programmes (goal 3); relatively low levels of accreditation across all goals and makes evaluation of programmes in goal 2 (LL) particularly difficult

Key Findings II Due to its concentration in disadvantaged areas and the inclusion of specific target groups, training participants may be more heavily exposed to a range of significant barriers to inclusion SICAP training programmes could certainly be subject to rigorous evaluation. However, the more disadvantaged nature of the client base implies that costlier mixed-method approaches are required. The relatively small scale and low cost of specific initiatives suggests that only the largest initiatives could ever be subject to formal evaluation With respect to the evaluation of community-level impacts, the objectives of community development initiatives are often wide ranging and without clearly defined targets. Difficult to develop an evaluation framework to fully capture both direct & spillover effects. Scale of expenditures would justify significant investments in data infrastructure to ensure effective monitoring & occasional evaluation