In January 2019 the Government set up an Inter-Departmental Group (IDG) to explore the most appropriate organisational arrangements for the Community Employment Programme (CE). In particular to address the question as to which Department should host the CE social inclusion schemes, for example the Drug Rehabilitation and Childcare CE schemes; the Rural Social Scheme (RSS); and the Job Initiative (JI) scheme, which has been closed to new entrants since 2004. The report of this work was published in December 2021.
The Department of Social Protection (DSP) acquired responsibly for these programmes when it absorbed the National Employment Services and employment programmes from FÁS in 2011. Community Employment is the biggest of these schemes. According to the Department’s Annual Statistical Report 2020, there were 19,440 recipients on CE; 3,076 on RSS; and 558 on JI in that year.
In the Department’s Operational Manual for Community Employment they note that “The aim of CE is to enhance the employability and mobility of disadvantaged and unemployed persons by providing work experience and training opportunities for them within their communities. In addition, it helps long-term unemployed people to re-enter the active workforce by breaking their experience of unemployment through a return to work routine. CE projects are typically sponsored by groups wishing to benefit the local community, namely voluntary and community organisations and, to a lesser extent, public bodies involved in not-for-profit activities. Such projects provide a valuable service to local communities while at the same time providing training and educational opportunities to jobseekers. The Department’s priority in supporting CE is having access to schemes that can provide job seekers and other vulnerable groups with good quality work experience and training qualifications to support their progression into employment.” (p8)
In the Inter-Departmental Group report they note “Over time, as the numbers on the live register are falling the proportion of social inclusion placements on the schemes is increasing. This is because the schemes are increasingly supporting people ‘who are most distant from the labour market’ and also because the schemes are supporting communities isolated or disadvantaged in rural and urban areas.” (p3)
In response to Do you think potential scheme participants should be categorised as activation or social inclusion?,which was in the online Consultation Questionnaire undertaken as part of the IDG’s work in May 2019, the INOU noted The reality is that a participant may present as one, be categorised as one by a Case Officer, while the Supervisor and organisation where the participant is based may develop a different assessment over time. The participant may also move from one to the other as they progress through the scheme, and so defining them too rigidly initially may not be to their long-term advantage. However, there may be other incidences when clarity from the start, the potential of a longer duration on the programme, may assist in planning the person’s participation and learning in a more holistic and constructive manner. Local flexibility and good engagement between the Supervisor, sponsoring organisation and DEASP are critical. Similarly there are existing schemes where such a question does not arise as the participants face a complex range of challenges, which not only leave them facing personal barriers, but result in barriers in the labour market, and so many of these participants are a long way off ‘activation’. Then there are other schemes where people may be deemed part of a ‘social inclusion’ strand, but may in fact welcome an ‘activation’ approach and in particular one where the discrimination they and their community face in the labour market is properly addressed.
Amongst the recommendations in the IDG’s report was “Given the complexity of CE Schemes the IDG does not recommend that the schemes should be split. Attempting to separate the social inclusion element from the activation strand would be disruptive for the schemes, remove the support provided by activation participants and also lessen the ease of progression from a social inclusion placement to an activation one. The schemes should remain within the remit of the” DSP. (p30-31)
On the same day this report was launched the Minister for Social Protection announced that “The age from which participants can remain on CE until reaching pension age is now lowered to 60 years, (down from 62 years). This rule will also now apply in respect of people aged 60 and over on the Rural Social Scheme.”
On the CE Childcare schemes the IDG recommends that they remain with the DSP, and that the Department works with the Department now called Children, Equality Disability, Integration and Youth “so that the training programme provided under the CE childcare scheme aligns with the regulatory reform being undertaken by” DCEDIY.
On the Drugs Rehabilitation projects “The IDG recommends the transfer of the projects to the health sector provided both Departments can be satisfied that the service is not put at risk. Further discussions can continue at official level with all relevant Departments and Agencies.” (p34)
On the Rural Social Scheme the recommendation was that the Department of Rural and Community Development and the DSP “complete their examination of the operational and systems issues involved in transferring the RSS”. (p28) While on the Jobs Initiative programme the recommendation was “that the Jobs Initiative scheme remain with” the DSP.
The full report is linked here.