1. Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP)
Evaluation & research
Dr Ela Hogan
Monitoring, Analysis & Outcomes Unit, Pobal
6th June 2019

2. Outline
Introduction to Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP)
SICAP Evaluation Programme
Other research under SICAP
Research on NEETs: Kickboxing, kindness and going the extra mile – good practice for working with NEETs under SICAP

3. About SICAP
SICAP 2018 – 2022 provides funding to tackle poverty and social exclusion through local engagement and partnerships between disadvantaged individuals, community organisations and public sector agencies.
Funded by the Department of Rural and Community Development (DRCD), with co-funding from European Social Fund (PEIL ) and managed by 33 Local Community Development Committees (LCDCs).
Annual budget of €37 million in 2018.
In 2018, 31,967 individuals and 2,558 Local Community Groups supported under the programme.

4. SICAP Evaluation Research Programme
Commenced on 1st January 2017, initially for a period of 2 years.
Aim: to inform the DRCD overarching strategic goals and objectives in relation to SICAP and evaluating projects, actions and activities conducted as part of the programme.
Delivered by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) and overseen by the Steering Group (DRCD, Pobal, ESRI & independent academic expert)
Supported by Stakeholder Advisory Panel.

5. SICAP Evaluation Research Projects
The goals and governance of the social inclusion and community activation programme (SICAP) : a mixed methods study (published on 19th July 2018) social-inclusion-and-community-activation-programme
Valuing community development through the social inclusion programme (SICAP) : Toward a framework for evaluation (published on 26th February 2019) development-through-the-social-inclusion-programme-sicap

6. SICAP Evaluation Research Projects – cont.
The evaluation of SICAP pre-employment supports (the final research project commenced in January 2019)
Explores the part played by the programme in assisting those who are further away from the labour market.
Mixed methods study:
recipients of pre-employment supports are compared with a similar group of claimants not receiving such supports using the DEASP database to assess their rates of progression to further education, training and employment.
in-depth case-study studies are used to unpack the impact of programme participation on the development of soft skills (such as self-confidence, self- presentation etc.) and on participant plans for the future.

7. Other research under SICAP
Profiling barriers to social inclusion in Ireland: the relative roles of individual characteristics and location (published on 25th July 2018)
Study carried out under a joint research programme between Pobal and ESRI.
Used data from SICAP to examine who is most likely to experience at least one of five barriers to social inclusion (i.e. belonging to a jobless households, being a lone parent, having a disability, being homeless or affected by housing exclusion and belonging to an ethnic minority).

8. Research on NEETs under SICAP

9. Research on NEETs under SICAP
Aimed at identifying good practice in Ireland for engaging and working with young people Not in Employment, Education or Training (NEETs) (aged 15-24).
Funded under SICAP by the Department of Rural and Community Development (DRCD) and European Social Fund (ESF).
Carried out by Quality Matters on behalf of DRCD/Pobal between January and October 2017.

10. Why NEETs?
Programme Implementers (PIs) reported NEETs as the target group hardest to reach and engage with – diversity of the group.
NEETs are the focus of European and international policy.
Need for evidence and best practice to inform policy makers and practitioners about the approaches that work best.
The cost of being NEET is very high for individuals and societies.

11. Potential consequences of being NEET
For an individual
Wage scarring and penalties
Reduced employability
Increased risk behaviour
Poorer well-being
For society
Public expenditure
Disengaged citizens

12. Research methodology Qualitative in nature 95 interviews in total:
Programme Implementers (40 SICAP PIs)
young people supported under SICAP (as part of case studies, 42)
partner organisations (as part of case studies, 13)
Case studies
To explore engagement in greater depth and identify further examples of good practice.
Selection based on analysis of data held on IRIS for two criteria: outcomes achieved and number of NEETs with the highest risk.

13. SICAP NEETs 8,069 NEETs supported by SICAP in 2015 & 2016
All aged between 15 and 24 years old
60% were male
Four in five educated to a Leaving Cert level or lower when registered with SICAP
8% belonged to a minority group
6% were a lone parent
7% were disabled
4% were homeless or at risk of homelessness

14. Working with NEETs: good practice
19 good practice recommendations identified under four themes:
Engaging young people
Working with young people
Partnership working
Organisational development

15. Conclusion
Young people regarded SICAP services as having met their needs.
The vast majority found the service to be of high quality, with staff going the extra mile, showing care and being non-judgmental and engaging.
Efforts of staff were noted and appreciated by young people.
A flexible, individualised approach was considered key by service providers.
Young people supported under SICAP felt that the programme had positive impacts on their lives.

16. Thank you! Questions?
working-with-NEETs-under-SICAP-Summary-Report.pdf