Written answers

Thursday, 21 September 2017

Department of Rural and Community Development

Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme

Photo of Clare DalyClare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

205. To ask the Minister for Rural and Community Development if the index traditionally being used to allocate SICAP funding remains weighted by the presence of local authority housing in view of the fact that since the early 1990s housing for persons in need has generally been provided through the private sector creating a deep anomaly for areas for example which have seen large population growth; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40045/17]

Photo of Michael RingMichael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I assume the Deputy is referring to the Pobal HP Deprivation index employed for the allocation of funding to areas, through my Department’s Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP).

In 2017, the SICAP programme has a budget of €37.5m, to be distributed across Ireland’s 51 geographic SICAP Lots. The geographic distribution and allocation of resources for the SICAP programme uses the Pobal HP Deprivation index (or SICAP RAM- Resource Allocation Model).

The Index - SICAP RAM- takes into account the HP deprivation score as well as the population of each Lot area, and identifies an allocation of the national budget determined by these two figures. The model is a widely used social gradient metric, used across Government Departments and state agencies for the targeting of services as well as the allocation of resources. The index is recognised as a robust and reliable tool for the identification of relative levels of affluence or disadvantage across geographic areas, by utilising existing data from the national census. In the model, social deprivation / affluence is conceptualised as being driven by three key concepts; demographic profile, social class composition and labour market situation, each of which is measured through a set of observable indicators taken from the census. These include demographic profile, social class composition and labour market profile.

It is recognised that the issue of housing, and in particular, social housing is an area of particular importance. However, the inclusion of the percentage of individuals living in social housing, or in schemes such as Housing Assistance Payment, HAP, (which is not measured in the Census), is not specifically included in the RAM to ensure an equity of funding allocations and to avoid double counting within the index.  The model itself has been designed to avoid the double counting of predictive deprivation indicators. That is to say, the personal attributes of individuals within an area are already factored into the index.  The inclusion of, for example, the percentage of individuals living in social housing, would serve only to double count disadvantage in certain areas where social housing is more prevalent.

I am satisfied that the current application of the RAM is a fair and equitable approach to allocating funds.

It is important to recognise that the current SICAP, while targeting areas where there is clear evidence of high levels of deprivation, is by no means confined to those areas.  The Local Community Development Committees (LCDC) and Programme Implementers, in each area, have significant opportunity to look to members of the target groups that do not live in an area classed as disadvantaged.  The next iteration of the Programme sees no significant change in that regard. 

Further information on the construction of the index and the rationale for inclusion or exclusion of certain variables can be found on the Questions and Answers page on Trutz Haase’s website

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.