2. Clodagh McDonnell Social Inclusion and Communities Unit SICAP
Contract with Pobal
TidyTowns
Control of Dogs
Management of burial Grounds

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

4. Overview of Progress in 2015 – KP1 and KP2
Ref
Headline Indicator
Annual Target
Actuals
Actual % 1.
Total number of disadvantaged individuals (15 years upwards) engaged under SICAP on a one-to- one basis (KPI)
41,109
36,854
90%
1.b
% of disadvantaged individuals (15 years upwards) engaged under SICAP on a one-to-one basis living in a disadvantaged area
50%
11,296
31% 2.
Number of local community groups assisted under SICAP (KPI)
2,600
2,506
96%
The programme’s performance is measured against two Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) .The table presents the annual targets (excluding Galway County) alongside the actual achievement towards these targets in the period between 1st April and 31st December The contract for Galway County has not been finalised in 2015 and therefore no results from Galway County have been included in this report. The original target for the programme included targets set up by Galway County - the % of Actuals were calculated against the programme targets excluding Galway County.
KPI 1 is the total number of disadvantaged individuals (15 years upwards) engaged under SICAP on a one-to-one basis and the target for 2015 was 41,109 individuals.
In the nine months of 2015, SICAP supported 36,854 individuals, which constituted 90% of the target. KPI 2 is the number of local community groups assisted under SICAP. The target for this KPI was 2,600 groups and 2,506 groups were supported (96% of the target).

5. OVERVIEW OF PROGRESS – OTHER HEADLINE INDICATORS
Ref
Headline Indicator
Annual Target
Actuals
Actual % 3.
Number of local community groups whose members have been assisted by SICAP to participate in local, regional or national decision-making structures
892
867
97% 4.
Number of individuals (15 years upwards) in receipt of a Goal 2 educational support
23,024
16,705
73%
4.a
% of those targeted should have educational attainment of Leaving Certificate or lower
70%
13,464
81% 5.
Number of individuals who have progressed along the education continuum after registering with SICAP
1,384
3,102
224% 6.
Number of young people (aged 15-24) in receipt of a SICAP, ESF and YEI Goal 2 educational support
2,758
4,038
146%
6.a
80%
3,758
93% 7.
Number of young people (aged 15-24) who have progressed along the education continuum after registering with SICAP
348
737
212% 8.
Number of children in receipt of a Goal 2 educational or developmental support
39,875
49,988
125% 9.
Number of individuals (15 years upwards) in receipt of Goal 3 employment supports
23,060
23,546
102%
9.a
60%
15,612
66%
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
1,759
1,337
76%
11.
Number of individuals (15 years upwards) progressing to self- employment up to 6 months after receiving a Goal 3 employment support
5595
4,687
84%
12.
Number of young people (aged 15-24) in receipt of a SICAP, ESF and YEI Goal 3 employment support
3160
2,975
94%
12.a
2,561
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
515
352
68%
14.
Number of young people (aged 15-24) progressing to self-employment up to 6 months after receiving a Goal 3 employment support
292
156
53%
15.
Number of initiatives aimed at promoting, developing and/or sustaining social enterprises 87 97
111%
Targets for six headline indicators were achieved and many of them were significantly exceeded.
The programme reached its targets for the number of individuals (15 years upwards) in receipt of Goal 3 employment supports (HI 9), however, the number of individuals (15 years upwards) in receipt of a Goal 2 educational support (HI 4) was significantly below the target - 73%. Programme Implementers in their end of year progress reports indicated that the fact that the programme started in April had an impact on their ability to deliver activities under Goal 2, as many of them are closely linked to the academic calendar
The targets were also exceeded for indicators measuring the number of young people (HI 6) and children (HI 8) receiving supports under Goal 2, and the number of initiatives aimed at promoting, developing and/or sustaining social enterprises (HI 15).
For four indicators the actual figures were below 80% of the target . Three of them were related to the progression to employment or self-employment( H110,13and 14). Programme Implementers indicated that progressing individuals into employment and self-employment was a significant challenge. Some PIs, especially in rural areas, pointed to the lack of local employment opportunities, while others felt that they were unlikely to see many results of their actions within the timeframe of nine months and also highlighted the fact that SICAP is targeting the most difficult to reach clients requiring longer and more intense engagement to achieve the progression.

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.
To ensure appropriate targeting of the core SICAP target groups it is critical that all actions across all 3 goals are underpinned by the three horizontal principles of Equality, Community Development and Collaboration.
In the afternoon you will hear an input from the Monitoring and Analysis Unit in Pobal where they will present the relevant data on the extend of the targeting in 2015, as part of my presentation I will present the progress reported by Pis in delivering the three horizontal themes

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. Other Relevant updates
ESF co-fund and control and accountability requirements. ESF MA evaluation findings, next evaluation (a full evaluation) due in Need for not only quantitative data but robust qualitative data on the programme. SICAP tabled for a VFM review in Underspends.
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.