2. C LODAGH M C D ONNELL S OCIAL I NCLUSION AND C OMMUNITIES U NIT  SICAP  C ONTRACT WITH P OBAL  T IDY T OWNS  C ONTROL OF D OGS  M ANAGEMENT OF BURIAL G ROUNDS

3. C ONTENT Overview of progress of SICAP in 2015 Lessons emerging Other relevant updates

4. O VERVIEW OF P ROGRESS IN 2015 – KP1 AND KP2 RefHeadline Indicator Annual Target ActualsActual % 1. Total number of disadvantaged individuals (15 years upwards) engaged under SICAP on a one-to- one basis (KPI) 41,10936,85490% 1.b % of disadvantaged individuals (15 years upwards) engaged under SICAP on a one-to-one basis living in a disadvantaged area 50%11,29631% 2.Number of local community groups assisted under SICAP (KPI) 2,6002,50696%

5. OVERVIEW OF PROGRESS – OTHER HEADLINE INDICATORS RefHeadline Indicator Annual Target ActualsActual % 3. Number of local community groups whose members have been assisted by SICAP to participate in local, regional or national decision-making structures 89286797% 4.Number of individuals (15 years upwards) in receipt of a Goal 2 educational support 23,02416,70573% 4.a% of those targeted should have educational attainment of Leaving Certificate or lower 70%13,46481% 5.Number of individuals who have progressed along the education continuum after registering with SICAP 1,3843,102224% 6.Number of young people (aged 15-24) in receipt of a SICAP, ESF and YEI Goal 2 educational support 2,7584,038146% 6.a% of those targeted should have educational attainment of Leaving Certificate or lower 80%3,75893% 7. Number of young people (aged 15-24) who have progressed along the education continuum after registering with SICAP 348737212% 8.Number of children in receipt of a Goal 2 educational or developmental support 39,87549,988125% 9.Number of individuals (15 years upwards) in receipt of Goal 3 employment supports 23,06023,546102% 9.a% of those targeted should have educational attainment of Leaving Certificate or lower 60%15,61266% 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 1,7591,33776% 11. Number of individuals (15 years upwards) progressing to self- employment up to 6 months after receiving a Goal 3 employment support 55954,68784% 12.Number of young people (aged 15-24) in receipt of a SICAP, ESF and YEI Goal 3 employment support 31602,97594% 12.a% of those targeted should have educational attainment of Leaving Certificate or lower 70%2,56186% 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 51535268% 14. Number of young people (aged 15-24) progressing to self-employment up to 6 months after receiving a Goal 3 employment support 29215653% 15.Number of initiatives aimed at promoting, developing and/or sustaining social enterprises 8797111%

6. OVERVIEW OF PROGRESS IN 2015 - EQUALITY PIs are required to pay particular attention to developing measures to combat gender inequality and anti-discrimination practices. Four categories of measures emerged from an analysis of 2015 annual reports: Measures addressing discrimination – the majority of PIs introduced measures aiming to tackle discrimination of specific target groups, i.e. new communities, Roma, Irish Travellers and LGBT. Measures tackling gender inequality – a large proportion of PIs implemented measures tackling gender inequality. Measures targeting groups considered to be vulnerable or at risk, such as lone parents, youth, unemployed and persons living in disadvantaged areas and at risk of poverty. A large proportion of PIs implemented measures addressing these groups. Measures addressing isolated communities. A small number of PIs implemented measures addressing isolated communities, e.g. rural communities or Islanders.

7. HORIZONTAL THEMES – COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The types of community development approaches PIs used to achieve greater levels of participation from disadvantaged and marginalised groups can be grouped into four categories: Supporting clients within their local communities. The establishment of outreach facilities was particularly important for community development and placing PI staff in facilities located in disadvantaged areas. Developing local skills and capacity. Most PIs assisted communities in some way to develop local skills and services. Educational supports and training were provided for community groups and their members and some PIs provided increased access to outreach workers and facilities. Assisting communities to identify their own needs and targets. The majority of PIs reported that assisting communities in the identification of their own needs and targets was an important part of any interventions. Several PIs stated that local community development groups, formed by volunteers after such meetings, went on to have leading roles in directing the delivery of supports and services. Empowering communities to achieve greater levels of participation and collective action. Almost half of PIs reported that they introduced community development measures focusing on empowering communities to achieve greater levels of participation in local and regional government and to develop their capacity for collective action. This was primarily achieved through the provision of training and by establishing links between LCGs, PPNs, community representatives and the local authorities.

8. HORIZONTAL THEMES - COLLABORATION PIs reported on measures they took to develop collaborative approaches with local and national stakeholders. These were grouped into three types as follows Establishment of a formal network or forum between community groups, activists and local, regional and national stakeholders. This was the most common activity and was reported by the majority of PIs. Establishing formal linkages and communication mechanisms between groups enabled the flow of information between them and was “empowering” communities who felt they did not have a voice in the decision making process. The networks also provided access to the specialist knowledge and experience of other more established organisations and partnerships, some operating at national level. Use of local outreach offices to hold classes and offer information sessions promoting the SICAP programme. This measure had a dual effect of increasing the community’s access to services and building relationships with local groups in order to foster trust in the programme. About one fifth of PIs stressed the importance of establishing or re-establishing trust with socially excluded communities for the successful roll out of developmental services. Community meetings and information sessions for local participants at early stages of involvement. This activity, implemented by almost a third of PIs, allowed community members to influence the aim and focus of community development during the initial planning stage of investment. It provided exposure to local knowledge for PIs and gave them the opportunity to learn about the work currently done in the community. PIs reported that this reduced waste and duplication of work and allowed for a greater coordination of community resources.

9. SOME LESSONS EMERGING There were a number of programmatic changes introduced after the programme went into implementation phase. These changes were developmental and designed to ensure that the programme remains responsive to emerging issues Headline Indicator 4 was expanded to include supports given to access life-long learning (e.g. information and guidance, counselling) and follow-up supports An operational protocol was agreed between the Department of Social Protection and the Department of the Environment regarding referrals to SICAP ‘Low income workers/households’ was added to SICAP target groups Two SICAP ‘focus’ groups were named in order to highlight the need to engage with individuals who may not be specific target groups but have been identified as in need. These were disadvantaged women and people who are homeless or experiencing housing exclusion 2016 target for disadvantage was revisited for each lot in recognition of the issues emerging in meeting this target Headline Indicator 15 was revised for 2016 to reflect the increased priority given by Government to assisting social enterprises. The indicator measures the number of social enterprises supported by the programme rather than the number of initiatives, and should result in actions being more targeted towards directly engaging with social enterprises.

10. O THER R ELEVANT UPDATES ESF co-fund and control and accountability requirements. ESF MA evaluation findings, next evaluation (a full evaluation) due in 2018. Need for not only quantitative data but robust qualitative data on the programme. SICAP tabled for a VFM review in 2016. Underspends.