Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October...

38
Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012

Transcript of Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October...

Page 1: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

Local and Community Development Programme

2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis

Aileen Gilchrist 4th October 2012

Page 2: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

Outline of presentation

• General Overview Goal 2 & LCDP Caseload

• Profile of Goal 2 Beneficiaries • Interventions • Analysis of ETIs (Courses)• Accreditation/Funding/Outcomes• Other Adults /Youth Work provision• Data Recording • Summary Points

Page 3: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

GOAL 2 AIM

To increase access to formal and informal educational, recreational and cultural activities.

Page 4: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

Overview - Goal 2

• IRIS data up to date as of April 2012• €50.5m allocated to 53 LDCs in 2011. • €11.09 million spent on Goal 2 actions. • €3.7m spent on direct action costs • €7.39m spent on salary and support costs• 37% was allocated to Goal 2 as a percentage

of the total of the four goals • 667 actions across 53 LDC plans

Page 5: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

OVERVIEW - LCDP CASELOAD

• 2010 LCDP Caseload: 30,140 Individuals • 2011 LCDP Caseload: 40,292 Individuals • 34% increase in 2011 from 2010

• 9505 Individuals on Goal 2 Case load• Gender - 61% Female and 39% male • Goal Two Individuals account for 24% of the

total number of LCDP clients across all goals (40,292)

Page 6: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

Goal 2 Individual Interventions• Caseload - 9505 Individuals • 15,314 interventions

• 5,975 individuals received only one intervention (62%)

• 2,919 individuals received more than one intervention (31%)

• No intervention was recorded for 611 individuals

6

Page 7: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

7Goal 2 Individual Beneficiaries by Age Band

16-18 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 Over 550

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

249

1859

2237

1974

1434

1752

Page 8: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

Goal 2 Individual Beneficiaries by Age Band

• There are six ‘age band’ groups• The largest group ‘26-35 Group’ (23.5 %) 2,237• This was followed by ‘36-45 Group’(20.3%) 1,934 • The fourth largest group of individuals was

occupied by the ‘Over 55 Group’ which comprises of 18.4% or 1752 individuals.

• This is 5% higher than the overall programme caseload for this category.

8

Page 9: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

9

No formal education

Primary Education Only

FETAC / Further Level Education (NFQ 1/2)

Junior/Intermediate/Group Cert. (NFQ 3)

FETAC / Further Level Education (NFQ 3-6)

Leaving Cert. Vocational (NFQ 4/5)

Leaving Cert. Standard (NFQ 4/5)

Leaving Cert. Applied (NFQ 4/5)

Traineeship (NFQ 5/6)

Apprenticeship (NFQ 6)

HETAC / Third Level (NFQ 6-10)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

200

1265

338

2141

921

103

2969

239

79

99

1150

Goal 2 Individuals by Education Status

Page 10: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

Education Status of Goal 2 Caseload

• 3311/ 35% of individual beneficiaries had Leaving Cert education NFQ4/5.(Standard/Vocational/Applied)

• 2141/ 22.5% of individual beneficiaries had Junior/Intermediate/ Group Cert education NFQ 3.

• 1465/15.5% of individual beneficiaries had a primary school education only or no formal education.

• 1150/12 % of individual beneficiaries had HETAC Third Level education NFQ 6-10 qualification.

10

Page 11: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

11

Unemployed but not on Live Register

Low Income Family Unit

Live Register (< 1 year)

Live Register (> 1 year)

Live Register (> 3 years)

Live Register (> 5 years)

Full-time student

Underemployed/Seasonally employed

Employed: Work Experience

Employed: Social Employment (RSS)

Employed: Labour Market Scheme

Self-Employed

Employed Part-Time

Employed Full-Time

Retired

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

1551

1073

981

1785

684

327

534

216

6

82

393

115

637

503

617

Goal 2 Individuals by Employment Status

Page 12: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

Goal 2 Individuals by Employment Status

• The largest category were those individuals that were on the live register for more than 1 year, 1785 individuals (18.7%)

• 29% of individuals were Long Term Unemployed (2796)

• If you also include those less than 1 year Unemployed and those Unemployed and Not on the live register this figure increases to 56% of the caseload.

• 11% of the case load considered themselves from a ‘Low Income Family Unit’ (1073)

12

Page 13: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

13

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people

Homeless People

Prisoners/Ex-Prisoners

Family Carers

Offenders

Disadvantaged Young people

Drug/Alchohol Mis-users

Travellers

Asylum Seekers/Refugees

People with Disabilities

Underemployed (Seasonal workers /smallholders etc.)

Disadvantaged Men

Early School Leavers

Lone Parents

Non-Irish Nationals

Individuals who are unemployed (> 3 years)

Individuals who are unemployed (< 1 year)

Older people (> 55 years)

Disadvantaged Women

Individuals who are unemployed (> 1 year)

Low Income Families

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

4

11

35

59

63

106

116

221

276

353

382

394

447

533

601

645

646

773

1137

1232

1879

Goal 2 Individuals by Beneficiary Group

Page 14: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

Goal 2 caseload by Beneficiary Group • The largest groups

– ‘Low Income Families’– ‘Unemployed for more than 1 Year’ – ‘Disadvantaged Women Group’

• 2 of these beneficiary groups i.e. Low income families & unemployed more than 1 year are also in the top 3 beneficiary groups/programme caseload.

• Exception is Disadvantaged women which accounts for 6% of the overall programme caseload but is double that in Goal 2.

• ‘Older People over 55 Years ’ accounts for 8 % of the Goal 2 caseload. Programme caseload (3.8%) -nearly double

14

Page 15: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

15

Dept. Agriculture & Rural Development

EU Programme

Farming Org.

Teagasc

Other LDC

HSE

VEC

LES

FAS

Unknown

Other State Agency

Outreach Office

Dept. Social Protection

Outreach Visit

Internal Referral

Publicity/information campaign

Local Community Group

Self Referral

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

2

5

18

21

34

163

171

173

197

244

288

375

383

391

418

1857

1965

2800

Individuals Referred From

Page 16: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

Goal 2 Caseload - Referral sources

Referred from Count %Self Referral 2,800 29 %Local Community Groups 1,965 21 %Publicity/information Campaigns

1,857 19.5%

Outreach 766 8 %State agencies/Dept’s 1398 14.7%

16

Page 17: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

17Individuals Referred to non LCDP services

Schools

Volunteering Centre

Youth Organisations

Independent Charitable Organisation

Other

Third and Further level Institutions

Community Sector

Employment and Local Development Initiatives

Statutory Sector

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

2

3

6

9

38

44

69

247

358

Page 18: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

18

Childcare services

Enterprise Programme

Financial services

Local authority services

Advocacy services

Family support services

Employment Programme

Unknown

Other

Health services

Unaccredited Education/Training

Accredited (NFQ) Education/Training

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

2

2

2

3

7

8

9

38

41

42

201

652

Individuals uptake of other services/non LCDP

Page 19: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

• 6388 individuals participated on Goal 2 related ETI’s.

• Gender breakdown 66% Female - 33 % Male

Variety of courses- Education/Employment/Comm Dev

19Goal 2-Summary of ETIs( Courses)

Page 20: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

20Goal 2 ETIs by Sector ( Courses )

Law

Other

Business and commerce

Administration / Office skills

Committee and group work skills

Management and org. dev. /project planning and dev.

Research skills

Communication skills

Sport, leisure and tourism

Construction and trades

Specific skills sampling

Parenting / Parents in education

Literacy / Numeracy

Agriculture and food

Arts, craft and design

Languages

Social, community and youth studies

Care and health services

Personal development

Education skills/studies

IT and telecom. / Science and tech.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

3

4

28

29

32

42

74

95

119

136

188

192

197

225

272

363

505

628

699

1184

1373

Page 21: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

Individuals participating on ETIs by Education Status

No formal education

Primary Education Only

FETAC / Further Level Education (NFQ 1/2)

Junior/Intermediate/Group Cert. (NFQ 3)

FETAC / Further Level Education (NFQ 3-6)

Leaving Cert. Standard (NFQ 4/5)

Leaving Cert. Applied (NFQ 4/5)

Leaving Cert. Vocational (NFQ 4/5)

Traineeship (NFQ 5/6)

Apprenticeship (NFQ 6)

HETAC / Third Level (NFQ 6-10)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

132

891

236

1496

691

1681

130

87

41

69

934

Page 22: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

Education status of Goal 2 ETIs

• Similar pattern to the overall LCDP Caseload & Goal 3

• The largest category are those individuals with a starting educational status of Leaving Certificate standard (NFQ 4-5) 26.3%,

-Followed by ‘Junior Certificate Group’ (NFQ 3) 23.4%,

-Those with HETAC level education (NFQ 6-10) 14.7%.

• 16% of those entering courses had either ‘Primary Education only’ or ‘No Formal Education’’

22

Page 23: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

23

Unemployed but not on Live Register

Low Income Family Unit

Live Register (> 5 years)

Live Register (> 3 years)

Live Register (> 1 year)

Live Register (< 1 year)

Full-time student

Underemployed/Seasonally employed

Employed: Work Experience

Employed: Social Employment (RSS)

Employed: Labour Market Scheme

Self-Employed

Employed Part-Time

Employed Full-Time

Retired

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

1120

563

247

518

1016

620

45

111

5

53

434

72

535

547

502

Individuals participating on ETIs by Employment Status

Page 24: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

Individuals participating on ETIs by Employment Status

• The largest category were ‘Unemployed but not on Live Register’ (18%).

Followed by those on ‘Live Register > 1 year’ ( 16%) Followed by those on the ‘Live Register (< 1 year)’ (10%)

• This mirrors the overall programme caseload as they both have similar categories in the top three.

• 28% were long term unemployed

• 55% were unemployed whether on the live register or not

24

Page 25: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

25

Homeless People

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people

Prisoners/Ex-Prisoners

Offenders

Disadvantaged Young people

Drug/Alchohol Mis-users

Family Carers

Asylum Seekers/Refugees

Travellers

Disadvantaged Men

Underemployed (Seasonal workers /smallholders etc.)

People with Disabilities

Early School Leavers

Lone Parents

Individuals who are unemployed (< 1 year)

Non-Irish Nationals

Individuals who are unemployed (> 3 years)

Older people (> 55 years)

Individuals who are unemployed (> 1 year)

Disadvantaged Women

Low Income Families

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

1

6

11

17

24

37

99

153

166

182

210

234

272

357

398

435

459

643

687

806

866

Individuals participating on Courses by Beneficiary Group

Page 26: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

26

Page 27: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

27

Individuals participating in Goal 2 courses by level of Accreditation (NFQ)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 Unaccredited0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

25 39

875561 478

105 88 36 3

4178

Page 28: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

Level of Accreditation- Goal 2 • 6388 individuals participated on courses in 2011

• 35% individuals participated on Accredited courses (2210 )

• 87% were at the NFQ level 3-5 – Includes Junior/Leaving Cert , through to 3,4 & 5 FETAC level. – NFQ level 3-5 are minor, supplementary and special purpose awards, an

example of which includes ‘Safepass’ and ‘Driving Heavy Goods Vehicles’

• Most popular courses– ‘IT and Telecommunications’ - 53% were accredited. – ‘Education Skills/Studies’ -23% were accredited. – ‘Personal Development’ -19% were accredited– ‘Care and Health Services’ -35% were accredited.

• p61

28

Page 29: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

29

Individuals participating in Goal 2 courses by funding source

100% funded by others with LCDP collaboration

LCDP funded 100%

Partly funded by LCDP

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

855

789

566

1740

1606

832

Accredited

Unaccredited

Page 30: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

Funding source of Courses under Goal 2

• 41% of individuals on courses were 100% funded by others with LCDP collaboration (2595 )

• 37% of individuals on courses were fully funded by LCDP (2395)

• 22 % of individuals on courses were partly funded by LCDP

• Of the 2395 individuals fully funded by LDCP, 33 % were participating on accredited courses.

30

Page 31: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

31

Course outcome for Individuals who have completed a Goal 2 course

Did N

ot Com

plete

Some

module

s co

mple

ted s

ucces

sfully

Succes

sful

Unsucc

essf

ul

Follow-u

p require

d

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

84 75

3338

3

678Accredited

Unaccredited

Page 32: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

Goal 2 Course outcome

• 2210 individuals participated on Accredited courses, • 56% successfully completed the course (1239 ) • 31% require follow up to establish the outcome

• 4178 individuals that participated on Unaccredited courses

• 80% successfully completed the course (3338) • 16% require follow up to establish the actual

outcome

32

Page 33: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

Goal 2 ‘Other Adults’

• 25,676 ‘Other Adults’ were supported in 2011 • Not on the Goal 2 caseload, as no personal details are

recorded of the individuals. • Gender 68% Female and 32 % Male.• ‘Other Adults’ category participate in community,

recreational & cultural and educational activities

52% in Recreational and Cultural activities (13,466).

24% in Educational activities-excludes courses (6,280 )

18% on Unaccredited Education ( 4,542)

4% on Youth Work provision (925)

2% on Accredited education (463)

33

Page 34: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

34

Goal 2 Numbers of ‘Other Adults’ by Action outputs

Page 35: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

Goal 2 Young People 2011

• Over 57,000 Young people supported under Goal 2 • Gender 52% Female 48% Male • €467,000 expenditure for actions targeting ESL /primary

beneficiary group

• Categories – Recreation and Cultural activities - 29%– Educational activities - 56%– Youth Work provision - 15%

35

Page 36: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

36

Number of Young people supported by Goal 2 output

(G2) 2.8 Youth Clubs / Cafes

(G2) 2.8 Other Youth Work

(G2) 2.8 Afterschools/Homework/Breakfast clubs

(G2) 2.8 Advocacy

(G2) 2.4 Psychological & counselling support

(G2) 2.4 Parenting supports

(G2) 2.4 Local Reading Initiative

(G2) 2.4 Intergenerational education/cultural Initiative

(G2) 2.4 Educational activities

(G2) 1.1 Recreational and cultural activities

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

155

5255

2365

923

1498

768

1231

5121

23095

16631

Page 37: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

Data Recording Issues• IRIS - Working tool/ new monitoring system • Accurate and complete data • CES Review/clean up data/ 15th October

– Blanks/ assign client to at least one beneficiary group

• Date of Registration• Level of interventions could be considered low/

should reflect the nature of the on going supports provided to individuals (under-reporting)

• Accreditation –under reported

37

Page 38: Local and Community Development Programme 2011 Goal 2 Output Analysis Aileen Gilchrist 4 th October 2012.

Summary Points

• Promoting access/gateway • Significant number of unaccredited courses• LCDP is prioritising the Long Term Unemployed and

most disadvantaged• Data Recording Issues

– Under-reporting of Individual Interventions– Need good quality data – To inform Pobal reports to various stakeholders

and facilitate CES review & any future evaluations • Significant outputs across Goal 2

38