1. Community Employment Mary Murphy, May 5 th 2016

2. The problem? A Perfect Storm Cuts to C+V and political restructuring of civil society advocacy (Harvey) Marketisation, NPM, ‘Commissioning’ & Procurement (ICW) Crisis, Unemployment, Activation (work first and STU oriented) (Murphy) Tendering Civil Society Cuts Labour Market CE

3. CE in context of Civil Society Crisis - reduction in C+V core funding (40%+, Harvey 2014) Department of Public Expenditure and Reform -- move towards lead core funding of all community projects by the public agency responsible for the relevant kind of service delivery. CE supporting only part – generally a minority – of staff in any individual organisation / project

4. But what method of core funding Department of Public Expenditure - Commissioning for Better Outcomes, to the Community & Voluntary Pillar in 2015 Public Service Reform Plan 2014-2016, focusing on better outcomes for the public and end-users in the delivery of services. Move from traditional ‘block grants’ method of funding public services to releasing funds in return for the delivery of agreed outcomes. Impact on SICAP, LCD In Whose Interest? (ICW, 2016)

5. Job Path - Exploring the impact Clients are not being given the time they need and are being forced into any type of work to get them off the live register (Local Development Company CEO) We are getting fewer and fewer referrals to our [Local Employment] service. All the clients are being sent to JobPath as there is a vested interest in them succeeding. We are being weakened further and further and really set up to fail. (Local Development Company CEO) The way that the programme is designed means that we have to prioritise work that maximises the numbers of people involved – we have had to focus on quantity rather than quality to hit the targets that we were given, and most of it is individual work – not collective work. It’s not even the greatest priority of the community – they really don’t get a say anymore. (Community Worker under the SICP programme ‘We do not yet know what the tendering will look like but it has already caused an unhealthy sense of competition at local level’ (Domestic Violence Organisation)

6. STU and LTU both down LTU 60% + (2012), 56% (2015) CE in context of LM challenges

7. Structural LTU Trap – deferred to date ….but expectation of decline in exit (PEX, 1990s), competition (migrant, women, students)

8. Who are they?

9. NERI 2013 CE tends to hit existing target groups but (inevitable) low progression – will target group change Clearly lower education level in LTU, other factors including gender and age

10. Arguments about CE Lost its way… High-cost… Too long – extensions Less progression success Too little accreditation Labour market and skills relevance Ignores ‘dual role’ Social outcomes, Micro-Macro Cost to state replacing services Level of LM difficulty CE providers absorb within existing resources (not proportional) Danger of shortage of CE hosts More comprehensive evaluation approach needed (RSS) NERI 2013 - retain the dual role, but formalise two streams: (i)Specific Skill (Re)Training focused on the LT Unemployed (ii)The Provision of Local Services

12. Number of Participants on ALMPs, November 2015 2/3 rds on programmes with weak market links 1/3 rd on direct employment schemes Market Linkages Weak Strong Total Supply General Education and Training 23,459 (28%) Skills Training 7,304 (9%) 30,763 (36%) Demand Direct Employment 33,400 (39%) Employment Supports 21,135 (25%) 54,535 (64%) Total56,859 (67%)28,439 (33%) 85,298

13. CE Review 2016 1988 SES, 1994 CEDP -both in FAS – politically protected, 2012 CE transferred from FÁS to DSP Facilitate the delivery of a more effective and streamlined response to the needs of the unemployed. Allow for a more coherent treatment of individuals in terms of income support, career guidance and assistance, and referral and access to training and employment programmes to assist progression into the labour market DSP agenda to reform CE to ensure delivery of service, value for money and progression of the individual - CE Financial Review of Schemes 11th October 2012 2015 – DRAFT T ERMS OF REFERENCE FOR A REVIEW OF THE VALUE OF SERVICES PROVIDED UNDER COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT 2015 SDP CE Policy Unit - scoping to examine social impact, but KS ‘in a minority’.

14. CE review – DSP PTW 2016 – CE in context of AMLP – LR↓, LTU, Expansion, Employers, Skills Shortages ALMP - 10% of 250,000 - 37,000 to 25,000, 12,000 less in 2017 2015 BTEA, Job Bridge, Intreo, 2016 CE, TUS, Gateway, RSS, 2017 JobPath BTEA evaluation showed DSP danger of narrow evaluation process

15. PtW 2016-2020

16. Consolidation and Expansion ---but also scale back

17. Expansion of reach of PtW Challenges - expanded target group is very heterogeneous What measures are most likely to work best PES - learn from NGOs, LDC’s Culture of active inclusion and equality and capacity, resources, skills to constructively and effectively engage International experience – e.g. affordable childcare for lone parents Need for realism ( Philip O Connell 2016)

18. Expansion/extension Qualitative research – people want to work, supports required, absence of appropriate work especially decent part time work --- public services to support work Insecurity, vulnerability of individuals/households – mental health significant LP’s – part time work, childcare, time QA’s – part time work, emotional care, health, stress DA - issues of supporting costs of participation, reality of mental health and addiction, refusal to treat as integrated Sanctions/threats impact on capacity to take risks (UK experience) Do no harm