VALUE FOR MONEY AND POLICY REVIEW OF THE
CLÁR AND RAPID
LEVERAGED EXPENDITURE APPROACH
© Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, 2011.
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Introduction
2. Efficiency
3. Effectiveness
4. Other observations
5. Performance measurement
6. Alternative approaches
7. Conclusion
CHAPTER 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE, INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. Background to the value for money and policy review initiative
2. Background to this VFM review
3. Terms of Reference
4. Brief introduction to the CLÁR and RAPID programmes
5. The rationale for the CLÁR and RAPID leveraged expenditure approach
6. Review steering group
4
4
5
6
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
13
14
CHAPTER 2: EVALUATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE KEY OBJECTIVE WAS ACHIEVED AND
COMMENT ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LEVERAGED EXPENDITURE APPROACH
15
1. Introduction
15
2. CLÁR primary schools outdoor play facilities scheme
15
3. CLÁR group water scheme
19
4. CLÁR and RAPID sports capital top-up schemes
22
5. CLÁR class II and III roads and bridges scheme
25
6. RAPID playgrounds scheme
28
7. The compatibility of the leveraged expenditure approach objectives with
the eligibility criteria for the leveraged schemes
38
8. Overlaps / complementarities between the CLÁR / RAPID leveraged schemes
and selected relevant schemes / programmes operated by DCRGA
38
9. Conclusion
38
CHAPTER 3: EFFICIENCY
1. Introduction
2. CLÁR primary schools outdoor play facilities scheme
3. CLÁR group water schemes
4. CLÁR and RAPID sports capital top-up schemes
5. RAPID playgrounds scheme
39
39
39
43
45
45
2
CHAPTER 4: COSTS, COST EFFICIENCY AND PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
1. Introduction
2. CLÁR and RAPID sections’ total costs
3. Costs in relation to other selected State organisations
4. Outputs of the schemes examined by this review
5. Cost efficiency of the outputs produced for schemes analysed under
this review
6. Performance measurement
7. Conclusion
CHAPTER 5: CONTINUED ALLOCATION OF LEVERAGED FUNDING; ALTERNATIVE
APPROACHES; AND MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Continued allocation of leveraged funding
2. Alternative approaches
3. Main conclusions and recommendations
4. Recommendation
46
46
46
48
49
51
53
53
55
55
58
58
61
APPENDICES
62
APPENDIX I: A full list of the current RAPID areas
APPENDIX II: RAPID leveraged schemes and details of the amounts paid from 2006 to
2009 inclusive
APPENDIX III: A RAPID programme flowchart incorporating Pobal’s role
APPENDIX IV: CLÁR leveraged schemes and details of the amounts paid from 2006 to
2009 inclusive
APPENDIX V: Membership of the review’s steering committee
APPENDIX VI: A brief description of CLÁR and RAPID schemes that have not been
outlined in the report
APPENDIX VII: Eligibility criteria of the schemes being examined in this review
APPENDIX VIII: Extract from the revised RIA guidelines re: calculating public service
implementation costs
APPENDIX IX: Abbreviations
62
REFERENCES
81
63
65
66
70
71
75
77
80
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Introduction
This is a review of the Ceantair Laga Árd Riachtanais (CLÁR) and Revitalising Areas by Planning,
Investment and Development (RAPID) leveraged expenditure scheme which is in place to increase
investment into those areas. The review’s objective is to analyse the leveraged schemes from 2006
to 2009 inclusive and to inform future policy-making regarding its future relevance and
applicability.
1.1 Background to CLÁR and RAPID
CLÁR
Rural areas are included in the CLÁR programme as a result of substantial population decline. For
CLÁR areas, the cost of providing such infrastructure into these disadvantaged areas could
sometimes be prohibitive due to high unit costs and low population density issues. It leveraged
funding from other public and private sources which enabled infrastructure to be provided that
may not otherwise have been possible.
RAPID
RAPID areas are urban areas designated as disadvantaged by reference to a range of socioeconomic criteria including the levels of early school leaving; the proportion of one parent
households; the unemployment rate; the proportion of social housing; and the age dependency
rate. The RAPID programme was in existence a few years before the Department of Community,
Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (DCRGA)1 introduced the RAPID leveraged schemes. It was felt that
other State bodies needed encouragement to entice them to invest in RAPID areas.
CLÁR and RAPID were programmes targeted to accelerate investment to these areas. They aimed
to create a more level playing field for the allocation of funds to these areas, as it was felt that the
CLÁR and RAPID areas were not getting the same levels of investment, in comparison with nondesignated areas.
Over the period, there were 21 such schemes in CLÁR areas and 7 in RAPID areas. In order to
assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the leveraged approach, it was decided that the review
would examine a subset of schemes. One of the main criteria used in selecting this subset was the
relative volume of expenditure involved:





CLÁR Primary Schools Play Facilities;
CLÁR Group Water Scheme;
CLÁR Class II and III Roads and Bridges;
CLÁR and RAPID Sports Capital Top-Ups; and
RAPID Playgrounds.
1
DCRGA was renamed DCEGA following a restructuring of Government Departments in March 2010. Subsequently, the
Community function transferred to the DECLG in May 2011, following the disestablishment of DCEGA. DCRGA will be
used in this document as this was the Department’s name for the review period being analysed.
4
2. Efficiency
The Dept. of Finance Value For Money (VFM) Guidance Manual (2007) describes efficiency as the
ratio of Outputs to Inputs, which can be viewed in two different ways:


Whether the same level of Output can be achieved with fewer Inputs i.e. at a lower cost; or
Whether a better quality or higher quantity of Outputs can be delivered from a fixed
amount of Input.
In normal evaluation circumstances, the total value of overall approvals into an area would be an
Input and not an Output. However, the review found that given the nature of the leveraged
approach, the overall approvals into an area should be regarded in these circumstances as an
Output.
Apart from the amounts of leveraged funding spent by DCRGA and its relevant co-funding partners,
the main Input was the administration effort (in terms of staff and other resources) by CLÁR, RAPID
and the co-funding partners. There were also additional costs associated with the leveraged
approach.
The review found that RAPID/Pobal costs taken as a percentage of the expenditure by RAPID
section on the leveraged schemes were high when compared to the equivalent CLÁR costs.
However this is also reflective of the different approach that was taken in relation to the RAPID
leveraged schemes due to the role of the Area Implementation Teams (AIT) in signing off on all
applications. In some instances, the relatively small grant amounts involved contributed to higher
cost:approval ratios. The administration costs associated with the leveraged approach were found
to be approximately 3%. Notwithstanding the fact that the figure is only 3%, the administrative
costs associated with the approach raise a question about whether leveraged schemes can be
efficient, compared to when funding is administered by one Government Department / Agency.
2.1 Multiple sources of funding
Introducing a leveraged approach means introducing an additional statutory source of funding. In
relation to the RAPID Playgrounds scheme, the review found that there were multiple sources of
statutory funding available. The RAPID funding added to the other multiple sources of funding that
were available. This leads to an overly complex funding mechanism which is wasteful on the
administrative side, runs the risk of poor allocation, and lacks transparency. This particular point
highlights one of the advantages associated with single point funding.
In relation to the CLÁR Group Water Schemes, the Local Authorities received funding from both
DEHLG and CLÁR section. The review found that the administration of this leveraged scheme was
more difficult for the Local Authorities than if funding was being provided by a single body. In
addition, certain administrative efficiencies would have resulted if the Department of Arts, Sport &
Tourism (DAST) had handled all payment aspects of the Sports Capital Top-up schemes. There
would have been one payment to successful applicants as opposed to one from DAST and one from
either CLÁR or RAPID.
2.2 High costs for projects supported by leveraged funding
The review found that some of the costs per house for Group Water Schemes supported by the
leveraged approach, following the removal of the cap on the top-up, were very large. For example,
5
forty schemes had an average cost per house of more than €14,000, whereas the maximum
payable in non-CLÁR areas by DEHLG was €6,475.66. Adequate structures were not put in place in
order to assist CLÁR with the evaluation of each high cost project prior to approval taking place.
Therefore, there is a danger with this approach that funding solutions which may not be the best
value options may be chosen in order to utilise the incentive available.
2.3 Undefined responsibility
One co-funding partner, DEHLG, outlined that it was only responsible and accountable for the fixed
contribution funding of €6,475.66 per house that it was providing towards each Group Water
Scheme. The presence of the CLÁR scheme meant that DEHLG was not responsible and
accountable for any sums in excess of its own contribution. Although proposed projects were
referred to them for comments/observations in accordance with good practice, they were adamant
in stressing that no approval for the overall cost of individual projects was ever given. Approval of
the CLÁR amounts rested solely with the section. In such circumstances, CLÁR had to be careful in
relation to the overall amounts to be provided in relation to each project.
CLÁR section could not be expected to have expertise in relation to each of the areas encompassed
by each leveraged scheme. While CLÁR did not progress certain individual projects under the CLÁR
Group Water Scheme without DEHLG expert advice, it was left to approve the CLÁR scale of
funding for each project. The advice being provided by DEHLG was based on their responsibility
and accountability for their fixed contribution funding only i.e. €6,475.66 per household.
In a case where DEHLG is required to match on a € for € basis, all amounts per house over a certain
amount, DEHLG would have been a full partner in the decision making process. However, this may
have resulted in very few schemes actually proceeding, as DEHLG may not have been agreeable to
these conditions. It must be remembered that projects funded under the leveraged approach
would have been unlikely to have proceeded without the financial intervention from CLÁR and
RAPID.
3. Effectiveness
CLÁR and RAPID leveraged schemes offer a percentage of the total cost of specified investments in
these areas. This is contingent on partner organisations providing matching funding.
3.1 How did partner organisations respond to the availability of leveraged funding?
The review found that the approach increased investment into the disadvantaged areas over the
period analysed and facilitated projects proceeding where it would be unlikely that they would
have proceeded under normal circumstances. In other words, the co-funding partners would not
have financed these projects without the financial intervention from CLÁR or RAPID. In relation to
the CLÁR Group Water scheme, potential future infrastructure requirements may also have been
catered for, as more houses in rural disadvantaged areas can be connected to it, as and when the
need arises.
Designated areas benefit when the leveraged funding is available. The review found that when it is
no longer available, in the main, the allocation of funding between disadvantaged and nondisadvantaged areas reverts to its normal position (i.e. co-funding partners go back to their normal
pattern in relation to the allocation of funding). Therefore, the leveraged approach did not cause a
permanent shift in the way that funds are allocated by partner organisations between
6
disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged areas. The intervention of the leveraged expenditure
approach was to facilitate projects proceeding in these disadvantaged areas, where it was unlikely
that they would have proceeded under normal circumstances. One of the overall aims of this
approach was that the co-funding partners would mainstream the treatment of such projects from
these disadvantaged areas following the cessation of the leveraged funding approach. However,
there was always a risk that co-funding partners could revert back to their normal funding patterns
once an incentive such as this was removed.
Analysis of the CLÁR and RAPID Sports Capital Top-up schemes and the RAPID Playgrounds scheme
showed that the leveraged approach provided co-funding partners with the option to allocate their
funding to other areas or programmes on the basis that the leveraged monies being provided by
DCRGA would compensate for such a movement in funding. The co-funding partners use all
funding sources in order to optimise their own expenditure allocation decisions. In some cases,
this is not to the full benefit of the disadvantaged areas, as would have been the intention in
initiating a leveraged approach. In other words, it can lead to there being extra investment into
non-disadvantaged areas rather than disadvantaged areas.
4. Other Observations
There was evidence that CLÁR and RAPID sections were not comprehensively evaluating the needs
of their respective areas on an ongoing basis, in respect of whether the leveraged schemes in situ
should remain or whether they should be replaced by new schemes to address any changing
infrastructural needs of the areas. Inadequate levels of monitoring in relation to the RAPID
Playgrounds scheme resulted in leveraged funding continuing to be made available to certain
RAPID areas when it was no longer required following three cycles of the scheme having taken
place.
It was found that the leveraged approach was dependant on matching funds being provided by cofunding organisations. If the co-funding organisation does not have a sufficient budget available or
is not encouraged to participate by the amount of leveraged funding available, the leveraged
approach does not lead it to invest further in the designated areas.
The CLÁR Primary Schools Play Facilities scheme was administered by CLÁR section, which was
different to how the other schemes examined by this review were administered. The review found
that Primary Schools were funded concurrently from both the CLÁR scheme and the Department of
Education and Science (DES) Summer Works Scheme Play areas measure, even though both
Departments were aware of this danger prior to the initiation of the CLÁR scheme and had a
control mechanism in place to deal with it. It was never intended that this concurrent dual funding
would occur.
The maximum amount of funding that DES had to provide to each school under this scheme was
low compared to what DES provides under its Summer Works Scheme. Consequently, this resulted
in a larger number of much smaller grants under the CLÁR scheme. The review found that if the
total amount of funding for Play Facilities had been available to DES to administer, then it would
likely have continued to pay larger grants to a smaller number of Primary schools.
7
5. Performance Measurement
There was no evidence of appropriate levels of Performance Indicators or a detailed Performance
Measurement system being in place in relation to each of the schemes analysed as part of the
review. No dedicated Performance Indicators were identified in relation to the leveraged approach
itself. The leveraged schemes merited considerably greater monitoring, verification, performance
and evaluation controls in place than was the case, in order to counteract to the greatest extent
possible the weaknesses already outlined. For example, the CLÁR Class II and III roads and bridges
scheme was difficult to analyse as the result of a lack of data being available. The provision of such
data from co-funding partners should have been a prerequisite condition in order for partners to
qualify for leveraged funding.
6. Alternative Approaches
A number of alternative approaches were considered by the review, all of which had shortcomings.
The main alternative approach analysed was in relation to adopting a ringfenced approach for
funding relating to both areas. Following consideration, the steering committee decided that none
of the alternative approaches considered could be proposed as an alternative to the leveraged
approach.
7. Conclusion
The leveraged approach did succeed in bringing extra investment into CLÁR and RAPID areas.
However, the weaknesses observed in relation to that approach are of real concern. Therefore, it is
the conclusion of the review that the leveraged schemes, in their current format, cannot be
recommended to continue.
If it was to fall for consideration in the future, it is acknowledged that it is very difficult to design an
effective and efficient leveraged approach that would address the weaknesses outlined. At a
minimum, the approach would have to be introduced in conjunction with appropriate monitoring,
verification, performance and evaluation controls. There would be additional costs associated with
these controls. Any new scheme would have to be scoped, researched, and planned, to include
parameters and timeframes.
8
CHAPTER 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE, INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
At the outset, it should be explained that DCRGA was renamed the Department of Community,
Equality & Gaeltacht Affairs (DCEGA) following a restructuring of Departments announced by the
Taoiseach on the 23rd March 2010. In May 2011, the community function transferred to the
Department of the Environment, Community & Local Government (DECLG), following the
disestablishment of DCEGA. DCRGA will be used throughout this document as this was the name of
the Department throughout the period being analysed. Furthermore, in order to avoid confusion,
references to other Government Departments in this document will use one name with the caveat
that the name chosen may have been subsequently changed in recent times. Please note that the
Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government (DEHLG) became DECLG in May
2011.
1. Background to the value for money and policy review initiative
The VFM and policy review initiative is part of a framework introduced to secure improved VFM
from public expenditure. Its objectives are to analyse Exchequer spending in a systematic manner
and to provide a basis on which more informed decisions can be made on priorities within and
between programmes. It is one of a range of modernisation initiatives aimed at moving public
sector management away from the traditional focus on inputs to concentrate on the achievement
of results
2. Background to this VFM review
This VFM and Policy Review is one of the reviews to be undertaken as part of the 2006-2008 round
approved by Government. Each Department’s programme of reviews focuses on significant areas
of expenditure and major policy issues and as a general rule, they have a minimum coverage of
10%-15% of each Department’s Budget. During that period, the CLÁR and RAPID leveraged
expenditure schemes would have satisfied such criteria.
3. Terms of Reference
1. Identify the objectives of leveraged expenditure under the CLÁR and RAPID programmes;
2. Evaluate the extent to which these objectives have been achieved and comment on the
effectiveness of the leveraged funding strategy in the achievement of these objectives;
3. Examine the compatibility of the objectives of leveraged expenditure under the CLÁR and
RAPID programmes and the eligibility criteria for the leveraged schemes and confirm that
these eligibility criteria were properly and consistently applied;
4. Identify the level and trend of costs, staffing, management and other resources,
associated with leveraged expenditure under CLÁR and RAPID, input by the Dept. of
Community, Equality & Gaeltacht Affairs and by other selected relevant State organisations.
Identify the outputs and comment on the efficiency with which these outputs have been
produced;
9
5. Examine and evaluate existing performance and impact indicators and specify potential
future performance indicators that might be used to better monitor leveraged funding
under the CLÁR and RAPID programmes;
6. Evaluate the degree to which the objectives warrant the continued allocation of
leveraged funding and consider alternative approaches to achieving the same objectives;
7. Examine the overlaps and complementarities, if any, between the leveraged schemes and
selected relevant schemes/programmes operated by the Department of Community,
Equality & Gaeltacht Affairs; and
8. Make recommendations in relation to the continued relevance of the leveraged funding
approach, the strategies employed and the efficiency of implementation.
4. Brief introduction to the CLÁR and RAPID programmes
4.1 Introduction to RAPID
The RAPID Programme was launched in 2001. It is a focused Government initiative which targets
51 of the most disadvantaged urban areas in the Country. It was introduced on foot of
commitments in the Programme and Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) (2000) for a targeted
investment programme in urban disadvantaged areas. Fitzpatrick Associates (2006) in their
evaluation of the RAPID programme noted that it is a reactive programme, operating in areas
already exhibiting the results of decades of underinvestment.
The RAPID Programme aims to ensure that priority attention is given to tackling the spatial
concentration of poverty and social exclusion within these areas, through the targeting of State
resources available under the National Development Plan (NDP). RAPID is built on the recognition
of the existence of a range of planning, coordination and development structures in Ireland. It is
designed to effectively work with and build on these existing structures. The programme requires
Government Departments and State Agencies to bring about better coordination and closer
integration in the delivery of services.
Initially, the programme covered 25 of the most disadvantaged areas in Cities and other large
urban areas. In 2002, the second strand of the programme extended its coverage to a further 20
provincial towns. In June 2006, RAPID status was extended to Ballyfermot in Dublin, bringing the
total number of areas to 46.
Since 2008, DCRGA focused on an analysis of 2006 Census data with a view to ensuring that the
boundaries of existing RAPID areas were appropriate. A key concern was to ensure that the
effectiveness of the programme was not diluted and that Government action continued to
prioritise and target communities with the greatest needs. In May 2009, following an independent
review of relevant 2006 Census data, the towns of Ballina, Dungarvan, Enniscorthy, Mullingar and
Rathkeale were included in the RAPID programme bringing the number of areas to 51. A full list of
the areas is in APPENDIX I.
10
The areas selected for inclusion in the programme have been identified by objective criteria as
being the most deprived areas in the Country. The criteria include the levels of early school
leaving; the proportion of one parent households; the unemployment rate; the proportion of social
housing; and the age dependency rate.
The RAPID leveraged schemes were introduced in 2004. They supported small scale local actions
through co-funding with other Departments, State Agencies, and Local Authorities. All leveraged
schemes related to capital projects2.
All seven schemes under the programme were leveraged, acting as a lever to elicit money from
other Government Departments, State Agencies and Local Authorities through co-funding
arrangements. The RAPID leveraged schemes from 2006-2009 inclusive are outlined at APPENDIX II
along with details of the amounts paid under each scheme over the same period.
Responsibility for delivering the programme is with DCRGA, with Pobal3 coordinating its
implementation on behalf of DCRGA. However, it is a matter for each individual Department to
respond to issues of funding within its area of responsibility. Pobal also acts as a conduit between
DCRGA and each RAPID AIT by means of a number of liaison officers based throughout the Country.
These officers assist each area in the implementation of their projects.
A multi-tiered implementation structure is in place to ensure that the RAPID programme
progresses as originally envisaged and results in real benefits for local communities, consisting of a
National Monitoring Committee (NMC); City / County Monitoring Group (CCMG); and AIT
supported by a full time RAPID coordinator who is employed by the Local Authority. Each AIT
prepares a plan identifying the needs of its area. A short description of the role of the NMC, CCMG
and AIT is provided as part of a RAPID Programme Flowchart at APPENDIX III.
4.2 Pobal
Pobal plays a coordination, support, administration and monitoring role in relation to the RAPID
programme. Three levels of support are provided from within Pobal:
Direct training is provided on a National basis on issues relevant to all local coordinators. As
the programme develops, information exchange on successful approaches and best practice
are also provided to all coordinators;
Regional support clusters are organised. These look at issues of particular relevance to a
region (e.g. the mechanisms of State service delivery within a region) and at particular
strands of work taking place across a number of RAPID areas (e.g. community safety
projects); and
Contact is maintained on an individual basis with local coordinators to facilitate information
exchange on operational matters and to identify the key issues of concern to them within
their area.
2
Routine maintenance works were considered ineligible
Pobal is a not for profit company with charitable status that manages programmes on behalf of the Irish Government
and the EU. It is an intermediary that works on behalf of Government to support communities and local agencies
toward achieving social inclusion, reconciliation and equality.
3
11
4.3 Overall objectives of the RAPID programme
The RAPID programme’s primary objective was to address the infrastructural deficit that had
developed in the poorest urban areas. Despite the Celtic Tiger many areas had not benefited and
these areas in addition to having very old and outdated community infrastructure, also had many
social problems such as drug abuse, vandalism and graffiti. These areas also had a much higher
than average population on Social Welfare payments and very high unemployment rates.
In addressing the infrastructural deficits that had developed, it was hoped that the social problems
would be improved. For example, if teenagers had adequate recreational facilities then many will
use these and spend less of their time engaging in anti-social practices. Schemes such as Closed
Circuit Television (CCTV) and other schemes would obviously lead to a reduction in this kind of
behaviour, however to succeed, the schemes also had to include progressive elements such as
playgrounds and additional sports facilities.
4.4 Introduction to CLÁR
The rural strand of the RAPID Programme, to be known as CLÁR, was launched in 2001. The CLÁR
Programme was targeted at a number of rural areas where population decline had been the most
significant over the 1926 to 1996 period, based on census of population data and was introduced
to address depopulation and deficits in infrastructure and services in rural areas. It is a programme
for revitalising rural areas.
It provided co-funding together with other Government Departments, State Agencies, Local
Authorities, and in some instances local communities, aimed at accelerating investment in selected
priority developments under the NDP in order to tackle the decline in the regions identified. These
investments supported physical, economic and social infrastructure across a variety of schemes.
The schemes under the Programme covered a wide variety of developments such as Water &
Sewerage Schemes, Sports capital projects, Health projects, School Outdoor Play facilities, Bilingual signage, and Coastal projects.
The areas originally selected for inclusion in the CLÁR Programme were those which suffered the
greatest population decline from 1926 to 1996, with the exception of the Cooley peninsula (which
was included based on the serious difficulties caused there by Foot and Mouth disease). The
average population loss in these regions was 50% and the total population benefiting was 284,000
across 17 counties.
Following an analysis of the Preliminary 2002 Population Census data, the CLÁR areas were
reviewed and extended in January 2003 arising from a commitment in the Agreed Programme for
Government. The total population covered increased to 362,000 (from 284,000) across 18 counties
with part of one other county added.
The Programme was further extended in April 2006 to include areas with an average population
loss of 35% per county between 1926 and 2002. Parts of five new counties were added,
increasing the population benefiting from the Programme to nearly 727,000. The Programme
covers parts of 22 counties and all of Co. Leitrim, with Counties Kildare, Wexford and Dublin being
the only Counties without districts included in the Programme.
12
The CLÁR leveraged schemes from 2006-2009 inclusive are outlined at APPENDIX IV along with
details of the amounts paid under each scheme over the same period.
4.5 Overall Objectives of the CLÁR programme
1. To target investment in rural areas. These areas would not normally attract investment due to
depopulation, isolation and the expense involved in providing infrastructure and services.
2. To leverage other funding from lead departments and agencies that normally would not be
provided due to the reasons outlined in point 1 above.
3. Balanced provision of infrastructure and services in rural areas.
5. The rationale for the CLÁR and RAPID leveraged expenditure approach
5.1 Rationale for the CLÁR leveraged expenditure approach
1. To provide infrastructure and services not normally provided.
2. To provide a financial incentive to other Departments and agencies to make funds available for
the provision of infrastructure and services.
3. Equal access to infrastructure and services.
The cost of providing the physical, economic and social infrastructure required in CLÁR areas could
sometimes be prohibitive due to high unit costs and low population density issues. CLÁR funding
(which leveraged funding from other sources i.e. public and private) enabled physical, economic
and social infrastructure to be provided in CLÁR areas that may not otherwise have been possible.
CLÁR was set up because of a need to influence policy regarding the provision of infrastructure and
services in rural areas. DCRGA was not the lead department for the provision of certain
services/infrastructural projects and was not in a position to provide funding alone but worked in
partnership with the lead departments and agencies to create a wider provision of services to the
benefit of a greater population in rural areas.
5.2 Rationale for the RAPID leveraged expenditure approach
The RAPID Programme was in existence a few years before DCRGA introduced the leveraged
schemes. It was felt that the other State Bodies needed encouragement to entice them to invest
further in RAPID areas.
The leveraged schemes were designed as a stimulus to encourage State Bodies to invest further in
the designated areas. For example, if a Local Authority had €50,000 to invest in either a RAPID or
non-RAPID area, but it was aware that if they spent the €50,000 on RAPID that an additional
€25,000 would be made available to them, so that essentially they were getting €75,000 of facilities
for only €50,000, then they would be more likely to spend the funds in RAPID areas.
13
5.3 The current status of leveraged schemes under both programmes
At present, all leveraged schemes under both CLÁR and RAPID are closed to new applications, with
the majority being closed since 2008. However, after the closure, there remained pre-existing
funding commitments for DCRGA and the relevant co-funding partners in relation to projects that
were approved prior to the closure.
6. Review Steering Group
The review was overseen by a Steering Committee under the direction of an independent
chairperson and comprising officials from DCRGA, Department of Finance (D/Fin) and Pobal. The
composition of the Steering Committee is set out in APPENDIX V. The Steering Committee played
an active role in the review process and met on a number of occasions to review progress on
findings, conclusions and recommendations.
14
CHAPTER 2: EVALUATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE KEY OBJECTIVE WAS ACHIEVED
AND COMMENT ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LEVERAGED EXPENDITURE
APPROACH
1. Introduction
The key objective of the leveraged expenditure approach under both programmes was to increase
investment in the designated areas of each programme. This review attempts to evaluate the
extent to which this objective was achieved over the 2006 to 2009 period inclusive, by examining
how partner organisations responded to the availability of leveraged funding in the case of the
following selected CLÁR and RAPID schemes:





CLÁR Primary Schools Outdoor Play Facilities;
CLÁR Group Water Scheme;
CLÁR and RAPID Sports Capital Top-up;
CLÁR Class II and III roads and bridges; and
RAPID Playgrounds.
One of the main criteria used in selecting this subset was the relative volume of expenditure
involved. In relation to CLÁR, the selected schemes accounted for approximately 54%, 59%, 56%,
and 57%, respectively, of total expenditure for each of the years in the 2006 to 2009 period. In
relation to RAPID, the selected schemes accounted for approximately 61%, 65%, 27%, and 53%,
respectively, of total expenditure over the same period.
A brief description of other CLÁR and RAPID leveraged schemes in existence during the period is
provided at APPENDIX VI.
2. CLÁR Primary Schools Outdoor Play Facilities Scheme
2.1 Introduction
This scheme had been in operation prior to 2006. This review considers the scheme for the period
from 2006 to 2009 inclusive. It aimed to improve outdoor play facilities in small rural primary
schools in CLÁR areas. In 2006 and 2007, this scheme was co-funded by CLÁR section:DES:local
sources on a 1.5:1.5:1 basis. DES withdrew as a co-funder from the beginning of 2008.
In the main, from 2008, new approvals were funded by CLÁR and the local community on a 3:1
basis. There was evidence in some instances that the local contribution was coming from other
State grants. Controls should have been put in place for this scheme to ensure that the local
contribution was not provided from sources other than local ones. This scheme was closed to new
applications in 2010.
The type of projects funded cover the landscaping of play areas; the supply of goalposts, nets,
basketball hoops etc.; and other recreational facilities for outdoor play areas.
Since 2008, the maximum level of funding provided by CLÁR was €7,500 with a minimum matched
funding of €2,500 from local sources. Prior to this funding of €3,750 was provided by both DCRGA
15
and DES. Applications for funding were made directly to CLÁR section. Each school could only avail
of funding from this scheme on a single occasion.
Before looking at the effect of the CLÁR scheme itself, it is necessary to look at other relevant
schemes that support the development of play facilities / areas in primary schools.
2.2 Other DCRGA Schemes in relation to Play Facilities
From the 1st January 2002, projects approved under the Gaeltacht Improvements Grants scheme,
automatically attracted top-up funding of up to 20% from the CLÁR programme, where applicable.
Some play facilities were sanctioned for funding. Updated lists of Gaeltacht sanctions were sent to
CLÁR section on a regular basis. Details of all approvals under the CLÁR Play Facilities scheme over
the 2006 to 2009 period inclusive were forwarded to the Gaeltacht section of DCRGA4 for
crosschecking purposes in relation to any duplication that may have occurred. The Gaeltacht
section informed the review that no duplication occurred.
2.3 Other DES Schemes that support Play Facilities/Areas
These are the Minor Works Grant and the Summer Works Scheme. In addition, when DES is
providing funding for new Primary Schools on ‘green field’ sites, some funding is also set aside for
playground facilities/areas.
Minor Works Grant Scheme
The DES Minor Works Grant is intended to provide a school with the capacity to carry out day to
day capital spending on the physical infrastructure of the school (e.g. items such as broken
windows, broken doors etc.), without having to seek approval for each item from DES. Funding
under this scheme also facilitates improvements to school grounds and the purchase of Physical
Education equipment.
The funding provided to each primary school under the Minor Works Grant scheme from 2006 to
2009 inclusive is calculated as follows:
TABLE 1
Block allocation to each school
€5,500
Additional allocation for each pupil
€18.50
Additional allocation for each special needs pupil €74
Summer Works Scheme
DES also operates the Summer Works Scheme. This scheme facilitates smaller works to be carried
out by schools. Commensurate with the level of funding available, demonstrably necessary
projects which command the highest priority rating are approved to proceed by DES. The ten
priority ratings are as follows:
1. Gas Works;
2. Electrical Works;
3. Mechanical works;
4
The Gaeltacht functions were transferred to the Dept. of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht with effect from May 2011,
following the disestablishment of DCEGA.
16
4. Projects to facilitate inclusion and access for special needs pupils;
5. Toilet facilities;
6. Roof works;
7. Window projects;
8. Curricular requirement projects;
9. Other structural improvements; and
10. External environment projects.
The provision or upgrade of a play area was under Priority 10. As DES is only in a position to fund
all categories when sufficient funding is available, de facto funding for Priority Rating 10, external
environment projects, is occasional. There was no Summer Works Scheme in 2008. Please see the
TABLE below, which provides information specifically in relation to the Provision or Upgrade of a
Play area under Priority 10 of the Summer Works Scheme.
TABLE 2
Year
2006
2007
2009
Total
Number of
schools
assisted in
CLÁR areas
Funding for
CLÁR areas
€
12
3
18
33
522,785
82,685
640,387
1,245,857
Number of
schools
assisted in
non-CLÁR
areas
Funding for
non-CLÁR
areas
€
37
8
48
93
2,251,908
360,125
2,566,057
5,178,090
Total
number of
schools
assisted
49
11
66
126
Total
funding
provided
€
2,774,693
442,810
3,206,444
6,423,947
2.4 Looking at the Summer Works Scheme on its own
Analysing the Summer Works Scheme data on its own using the data provided in Table 2,
approximately 24% of schools funded in 2006 were in CLÁR areas; approximately 27% in 2007, and
approximately 27% in 2009 (giving an average of 26%). It was not possible to determine the spend
per pupil across schools in CLÁR and non-CLÁR areas. Approximately 37% of Primary Schools in
Ireland are located in CLÁR areas (1,207 out of 3,275). In all three years, the percentage of schools
funded in CLÁR areas is below the percentage of schools that are located in CLÁR areas nationally.
This shows a tendency for projects from disadvantaged areas to lose out when compared to nondisadvantaged areas, particularly as this scheme was not in receipt of any leveraged funding.
The amount of funding provided to CLÁR areas in 2006 and 2007 was 19% of the total amount
provided nationally. The figure was 20% in 2009. DES confirmed that the monies required for the
CLÁR scheme came from the overall Primary Schools Capital allocation and did not specifically
come from funding that was meant to be apportioned to the Summer Works Scheme Play Areas
measure.
Therefore, from the evidence gathered, DES continued to fund the same proportionate number of
schools in CLÁR areas and continued to provide the same proportionate levels of funding to
Primary Schools in CLÁR areas, while the CLÁR Play Facilities scheme was also in place. It was as if
DES continued as it normally would have in its Summer Works Scheme Play Areas measure and was
not influenced by any additional expenditure that it was paying towards the CLÁR scheme. In other
17
words, there was no policy shift from DES arising from the introduction of the CLÁR Play Facilities
scheme. This was positive from a CLÁR area perspective.
2.5 Looking at the CLÁR scheme and the Summer Works Scheme measure together
TABLE 3
Year
2006
2007
2009
Total
Funding by DES
to the CLÁR
scheme
Funding by DES
to play areas in
CLÁR
€
€
1,026,540*
593,554*
0
1,620,094
522,785
82,685
640,387
1,245,857
Total to
CLÁR areas
€
Funding by DES to
play areas in nonCLÁR
€
1,549,325
676,239
640,387
2,865,951
2,251,908
360,125
2,566,057
5,178,090
Total to all
areas
€
3,801,233
1,036,364
3,206,444
8,044,041
* This amount was matched on a 1:1 basis as part of the CLÁR scheme
It is interesting to provide a comparison of 2006 and 2007 (when the CLÁR incentive was availed
of), with 2009 when the incentive of the CLÁR scheme was not availed of by DES.
In overall terms, approximately 41% and 65%, respectively, of overall DES expenditure went to
CLÁR areas in 2006 and 2007. In 2007, when DES had a much lower spend of just over €1m, the
influence of the leveraged scheme was evident with CLÁR areas capturing 65% of the funding.
When the leveraged scheme was no longer in place in 2009, approximately 20% of DES funding
went to CLÁR areas. Across the period analysed, CLÁR schools got approximately 36% of the
overall funding available from DES and CLÁR areas have 37% of the schools Nationally. However,
had the CLÁR Play Facilities scheme not been in place, it is unlikely that Primary Schools in CLÁR
areas would have achieved approximately 36% of overall funding.
2.6 Increased investment
DCRGA succeeded in obtaining a leveraged funding amount of €1,620,094 from DES in the years
2006 and 2007, which DCRGA matched. On that basis, it can be said that the leveraged approach
did increase investment in CLÁR areas in these years. There was a reduction in applications for this
CLÁR scheme in 2008 and 2009. Therefore, it can be concluded that this scheme was effective in
obtaining matching funding from DES to fund the majority of schools that wanted to avail of this
scheme. Over the lifetime of the scheme, approximately 73% of primary schools in CLÁR areas
were funded (DES provided information that there are 1,207 primary schools in CLÁR areas, which
is approximately 37% of the total number in the whole Country).
2.7 Effectiveness
No longer a priority for DES
It appears that the provision of play facilities under the CLÁR scheme was not of sufficient priority
to DES from 2008 onwards. It may have been a possibility that the overlap between the CLÁR
scheme and the Summer Works Scheme play areas measure would have made it less of a priority.
18
Sole Statutory Funder
When DCRGA became the sole statutory funder of this scheme, it could no longer be considered as
a leveraged scheme. DCRGA did not get the same levels of matched extra investment in relation to
the primary schools that it funded from 2008 onwards as it was now covering the funding that DES
had been providing to the scheme.
Leverage not matched
Priorities can change very quickly for Departments and they must be adaptable in dealing with
those changes from a financial perspective, by means of the yearly estimates allocations that are
provided to them. Therefore, incentives of leveraged expenditure from other Departments could
be matched in one year and not the next depending on priorities and circumstances.
There is also the possibility that the overlap that existed between the CLÁR scheme and the
Summer Works Scheme play areas measure may also have been a factor. There is always a level of
uncertainty attached to a leveraged funding approach as it is dependant on the budget allocation
of each of the co-funding partners. This uncertainty can be mitigated by advance agreement with
co-funding partners on terms and funding.
3. CLÁR Group Water Scheme
3.1 Introduction
This CLÁR scheme dealt with the construction of new group water schemes and the extension of
existing schemes. Group Water Schemes consist of private entities involving two or more premises
abstracting water from a common water source and sharing a pipe distribution system.
Normally, these schemes are funded entirely through a DEHLG grant and a household contribution.
However, in CLÁR areas, this funding would sometimes not cover the total cost of the schemes. In
normal circumstances, Local Authorities do not consider the construction or extension of Group
Water Schemes where the total cost of the schemes is not covered by this funding.
If the total cost is greater than the DEHLG grant available and the household contribution, a
shortfall arises. Whether individual Group Water Schemes go ahead or not once a shortfall
develops, depends on how much funding a local community is prepared to put into a scheme.
This scheme provided a top-up for group water schemes in CLÁR areas where the cost per house
exceeded €7,618.42 (€6,475.66 DEHLG grant and €1,142.76 household contribution). The CLÁR
funding was determined by taking the DEHLG grant and household contribution from the total cost
of the scheme. This top-up facilitated the development of many more group water schemes in
CLÁR areas which would not normally have proceeded due to high costs. CLÁR was attempting to
contribute towards the provision of quality drinking water in these disadvantaged rural areas, as in
the main, significant shortfalls would have arisen which would not have been funded by additional
community contributions.
Schemes were selected by the local authority on foot of applications received from groups. The
applications in respect of this CLÁR scheme were submitted by the local authority to CLÁR section
and the CLÁR funding was issued to the local authority.
19
Up until the end of 2006, the maximum CLÁR grant per house for each scheme was €8,382. From
2007 on, the cap on the grant was removed. The removal of the cap on the grant per house was to
support the development of Group Water Schemes in CLÁR areas which would not normally go
ahead due to high costs. If the cost per house was greater than €20,000, then the scheme was
referred, in accordance with good practice, to DEHLG for comments/observations. DEHLG was also
consulted by CLÁR section on all schemes costing more than €250,000 to CLÁR, or randomly on
other schemes.
3.2 Other DEHLG Schemes that support the provision of water in Rural areas
DEHLG Individual Water Supply Grant Scheme
A grant of up to 75% of total cost, subject to a maximum grant of €2,031.58 is available for
upgrading a private individual water supply.
This grant is less than one third of the DEHLG grant towards the provision of a Group Water
Scheme (i.e. €6,475.665 per household). Therefore, through these figures, DEHLG is highlighting
the greater priority that it was affording to a Group Water Scheme when compared to a private
individual water supply. DEHLG only fund private individual water supplies in instances where
there is no alternative group or public supply available.
3.3 Other grants provided by DCRGA
Supplementary Gaeltacht Grant
Along with this CLÁR scheme, DCRGA also provided funding by means of a supplementary
Gaeltacht grant for qualifying households with relevant proficiency in Irish of not more than €762
per house (i.e. two thirds of the household contribution) or 10% of the fixed cost per house,
whichever was less. In weaker linguistic Gaeltacht areas, a reduced supplementary grant of
generally 50% of the normal grant was permitted.
3.4 Schemes unlikely to have proceeded without CLÁR intervention
All approvals under this CLÁR scheme from 2006 to 2008 inclusive have been examined and the
following analysis has been produced in the TABLE below.
TABLE 4
CLÁR Group Water Scheme Approvals
Year
Number where
Number where
Number where
the shortfall was the shortfall was the shortfall was
> €500 and
> €1,000 and
>€3,000 and
<€1,000 per
<€3,000 per
<€5,000 per
house*
house*
house*
2006
0
3
6
8
2007
3
1
10
16
2008
0
3
2
3
Total
3
7
18
27
* Schemes were chosen where all houses were located in CLÁR areas
5
Number
where the
shortfall was
<€500 per
house*
Number where
the shortfall
was >€5,000
per house*
13
32
11
56
In February 2011, this was further increased by another €1,000
20
The information provided in TABLE 4 above leads to the following analysis. It is justifiable to say
that it would have been unlikely for the 108 Group Water Schemes with a shortfall per house of
>€500 to have proceeded, without the CLÁR scheme being in place. In such instances, each
household is being asked to pay at least €500 more than the standard household contribution for a
Group Water connection. One of the objectives of the CLÁR programme is to address deficits in
infrastructure and services and this was done in this instance.
There were a total of 3 schemes with a shortfall per house of less than €500 (the figures being €77,
€120, and €160 per house in the respective schemes, with the number of houses being 16, 29 and
33 respectively). For example, Clare County Council returned the CLÁR grant in relation to one of
these schemes, as it was not required. CLÁR section indicated that it was not uncommon for more
houses to opt into schemes, after the initial application, resulting in a larger fund for a particular
scheme, from an increased contribution from DEHLG and households. In some cases, this resulted
in the CLÁR element being reduced or no longer being required.
For the period 2006 to 2008 inclusive, approximately €42.2m was spent on this scheme in total
with CLÁR section contributing approximately €15.9m and approximately €26.3m coming from the
DEHLG grant and the household contribution. Therefore, investment in Group Water Schemes was
increased as most schemes would probably not have proceeded without CLÁR intervention. A total
of 122 schemes were supported in the period 2006 to 2008 inclusive. The average CLÁR funding
approved per scheme between 2006, 2007 and 2008 was 36% of the total cost of the scheme.
3.5 DEHLG maintained its grant level at the same amount for CLÁR areas
On an initial look at this scheme, one of the disappointments is that DEHLG kept its grant at the
same level for both CLÁR and non-CLÁR areas at €6,475.66 per household throughout the period,
despite approximately €15.9m being provided by CLÁR. However, it was never the intention of
CLÁR section to cause an increase in this per household allocation by DEHLG. The funds that were
provided by DEHLG for the Group Water schemes under this scheme could be said to have been
leveraged as most of the schemes would not otherwise have proceeded.
In 2002, Ireland was found by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to be in breach of its obligations
under the Drinking Water Directive by failing to ensure compliance with the quality standards and
failing to reflect the binding nature of the Directive in relation to Group Water schemes. In
response to the ECJ case, and in order to avoid imposition of financial penalties, a Rural Water
Action Plan (An Action Plan for Rural Drinking Water Quality 2003-2006) was drawn up for the
provision of treatment facilities for schemes identified as needing improvement.
This represented a comprehensive and targeted response aimed at achieving compliance with the
Directive within the shortest possible timeframe. The strategy being implemented to resolve
deficiencies in these schemes was based on connecting poor quality schemes to a Local Authority
public supply or, where this was not feasible, to provide standalone water treatment and
disinfection equipment. DEHLG has outlined that it was still dealing with this priority over the 2006
to 2009 period, which is the period being considered by this review.
21
3.6 Increased Investment
A total of 122 Group Water Schemes were approved for support in the 2006 to 2008 period
inclusive, and it is unlikely that the vast majority of these schemes would have gone ahead without
the CLÁR measure being in place.
4. CLÁR and RAPID Sports Capital Top-up schemes
4.1 Introduction
DAST provided funding under the Sports Capital Programme. The Programme, which was managed
by DAST, aimed to foster an integrated and planned approach to developing sports and physical
recreation facilities throughout the Country. DAST has not run a Sports Capital Programme since
2008.
The DAST Sports Capital Programme funding had been in place for some years prior to the
introduction of the CLÁR and RAPID leveraged top-up funding mechanisms. This analysis considers
the Sports Capital Programmes of 2006 to 2008 inclusive. The maximum CLÁR top-up was 20% of
the DAST grant, with the RAPID figure being 30%.
In 2006 and 2007, CLÁR section provided a top-up of the DAST sports capital grant to sports clubs in
CLÁR areas that had been successful in securing this grant. The maximum top-up was 20% of the
DAST grant, subject to overall CLÁR and DAST funding not exceeding 80% of the overall cost. The
CLÁR Sports Capital top-up scheme did not have any new approvals from the end of 2007.
From 2006 to 2008 inclusive, grant top-ups of 30% of the DAST approved grants, subject to overall
funding not exceeding 80% of the total cost or the amount originally requested by the sporting
body, were approved and paid by RAPID upon receipt of confirmation from DAST that its grants had
been paid.
In 2006 and 2007, the minimum level of ‘own funding’ to be provided by applicants was 20% of the
total cost of the project for both CLÁR and RAPID areas. In 2008, the RAPID ‘own funding’ level was
further reduced to 10%. The figure for all other areas was 30%.
One of the criteria that DAST applied to applications was whether evidence had been provided that
the project was located in a disadvantaged area. Applicants from CLÁR and RAPID areas were given
additional points in the assessment process, with further additional points being available to RAPID
applications if they had also been endorsed by an AIT.
In order to provide full clarification, Sporting clubs in Gaeltacht areas did not apply to DAST for
Sports Capital funding. Instead, they applied to the Gaeltacht section of DCRGA. This was a
completely separate scheme to the one being provided by DAST. A further 10% top-up was
provided to successful applicants who were located in CLÁR areas, giving an 80% total grant. The
Gaeltacht section of DCRGA would pay the grant in full and reconcile with CLÁR section in relation
to the 10% top-up. This top-up was paid from within the CLÁR subhead.
22
4.2 Amendments to scheme conditions in favour of CLÁR and RAPID areas
The level of ‘own funding’ required from a non-disadvantaged area was 30%. In order to ‘level the
playing field’ somewhat in relation to sporting bodies from CLÁR and RAPID to enable access to
funds from the DAST Sports Capital Programme, the minimum level of ‘own funding’ required for
local projects, when applying for funding from the programme, was reduced to 20% of the total
cost of the project for CLÁR and RAPID areas in 2006 and 2007. In 2008, the RAPID ‘own funding’
level was reduced further to 10%.
If a project had already been allocated a grant from another State funded source, it still had to
provide at least 5% of the total cost of the project from its own funds. Although it was the case
that the CLÁR and RAPID top-ups were paid after a project had successfully obtained a DAST Sports
Capital Programme grant, DAST did acknowledge that it would have been aware of the CLÁR and
RAPID top-ups when considering applications from CLÁR and RAPID areas.
The National Institute for Regional Spatial Analysis (NIRSA) CLÁR statistics outline that
approximately 18% of the population are located in CLÁR areas. Pobal population statistics outline
that the population in RAPID areas is approximately 8% of the overall population.
The adjustments made to the project selection process that were adopted by DAST following
discussions with DCRGA appears to have worked in terms of the percentage of successful
applicants who came from CLÁR and RAPID areas in 2006 to 2008 inclusive. The details in the
tables below are based on information received from DAST.
TABLE 5
% of Overall Successful Applications
2006
CLÁR
RAPID
ALL other areas
Total
2007
16
13
71
100
2008
29
11
60
100
26
11
63
100
In 2006, CLÁR applications made up 16% of the total. At all other times over the three years, the
percentage of applications from CLÁR and RAPID areas were in excess of the percentage of total
population figures for these areas. Therefore, the stance adopted by DAST following negotiations
with DCRGA can be said to have contributed to the position where the levels of successful
applications from CLÁR and RAPID areas were in most cases, in excess of the population statistics
for these areas. This is an example where changing the qualification rules for a particular grant can
be used to favour disadvantaged areas. This was a very good result, but it cannot be attributed to
the leveraged expenditure approach.
4.3 Increased Investment
398 sports clubs in CLÁR areas were provided with sports capital top-ups in 2006 and 2007 and 290
sports clubs in RAPID areas got sports capital top-ups under this RAPID scheme over the 2006 to
2008 period inclusive.
23
Overall levels of DAST Sports Capital Programme expenditure into CLÁR and RAPID
areas
Approximately 15% of overall Sports Capital Programme expenditure over the 2006 to 2008 period
inclusive was approved for projects in CLÁR areas, with the corresponding figure for RAPID areas
being 16%. This is a disappointing return for CLÁR areas considering that it has over double the
population in its area compared to RAPID areas, along with the fact that there was a leveraged topup in place also. However, CLÁR section outlined that in CLÁR areas, it can be more challenging to
develop the critical mass to pull together an infrastructural project proposal. Please see the table
below.
TABLE 6
OVERALL LEVELS OF DAST SPORTS CAPITAL PROGRAMME EXPENDITURE
Year
ALL other areas
CLÁR
€
2006
54,684,500
2007
55,878,700
2008
33,525,365
Total
144,088,565
RAPID
€
€
7,675,000
17,519,800
7,049,635
32,244,435
12,640,500
11,601,500
9,675,000
33,917,000
4.4 Effectiveness
Comparing the levels of grants approved with the levels of grants that were sought
This analysis is based on the levels of DAST Sports Capital grants approved as a percentage of the
levels of grant sought.
TABLE 7
Grant Approved as a % of Grant Sought
Year CLÁR areas %
2006
2007
2008
RAPID areas %
55
47
39
All other areas %
37
41
37
59
48
45
For all three years, the percentages in ‘ALL OTHER AREAS’ are in excess of the CLÁR and RAPID
figures, although there is only a single percentage point between CLÁR and ‘ALL OTHER AREAS’ in
2007. If the CLÁR and RAPID Top-ups were to be an added benefit for the designated areas, then
the percentage figures outlined in Table 7 for CLÁR and RAPID areas should have been on a par
with the percentage figures for ‘ALL OTHER AREAS’.
If the CLÁR and RAPID top-ups are added to the information provided in the table above, the
figures change as follows:
TABLE 8
Grant Approved Plus Relevant Top-Up as a % of Grant Sought
YEAR CLÁR areas %
2006
2007
2008
RAPID areas %
66
56
46
All other areas %
48
53
48
59
48
45
24
In all but one case, the CLÁR and RAPID percentage figures are now in excess of the ‘ALL OTHER
AREAS’ percentage figures. Overall, it is striking that while the percentage figures for CLÁR and
RAPID areas were below the percentage figures for ‘ALL OTHER AREAS’ prior to the leveraged topups being applied, post top-up they are not greatly in excess of the figures for ‘ALL OTHER AREAS’.
In fact, in one case post top-up, the figure remains below the ‘ALL OTHER AREAS’ figure.
Unintended incentive provided by the CLÁR and RAPID schemes
The organisation deciding on the levels of grant aid can decide to allocate lower percentage levels
of grant for areas that will be in receipt of a leveraged top-up. This allows the co-funding partner
to fund more projects including projects that are in non-CLÁR or non-RAPID areas.
In scenarios such as this, where the level of approvals are artificially low because relevant top-ups
are due, then the top-up monies are effectively contributing to grants for non-designated areas,
which is totally contrary to the objective of the scheme.
5. CLÁR Class II and III roads and bridges scheme
5.1 Introduction
CLÁR co-funded Class II, Class III Local Roads and Bridges schemes on a 50:50 basis with the
Department of Transport6, up to a maximum of €50,000 per project. The Local Authority selected
the schemes and submitted applications to CLÁR. This additional funding under CLÁR was designed
to upgrade or repair roads or parts of roads in isolated areas, which would not have been possible
for Local authorities to do in normal circumstances. CLÁR approved funding and issued payments
on receipt of claims and appropriate certification from the Local Authority.
The rationale for CLÁR intervention in this scheme was to ensure that Class II and III roads and
bridges in CLÁR areas were competing on a level playing pitch in relation to obtaining investment,
when compared to the same roads and bridges in non-CLÁR areas. In this case the Local
Authorities were already providing funding for Class II and III roads and bridges and CLÁR section
was seeking to maximise investment into this area.
The analysis produced in relation to this scheme is based on information received following the
issuing of questionnaires to certain Local Authorities throughout the Country. Five Local Authorities
were contacted in relation to providing information by means of questionnaire in relation to the
analysis of the CLÁR Class II and III roads and bridges scheme. However, in three cases, either
responses were not received or the information received was of insufficient quality in order to be
used as part of the analysis. The main reason provided to us was there were hundreds of class II
and III roads and bridges in the jurisdiction of the Local Authorities that had been approved for
funding, particularly in the 2006 to 2008 period. The volume of data would have been large and
would have been very time consuming to extract.
The Gaeltacht section of DCRGA did confirm that they had a similar scheme in operation for Class II
and III roads and bridges in Gaeltacht areas. Details were provided to the Gaeltacht section in
6
This Measure was funded on a 50:50 basis between DCRGA and DEHLG until there was a transfer of responsibility for
roads to the Department of Transport. They continued with the 50:50 basis for funding with DCRGA.
25
relation to approvals over the period under the CLÁR scheme in order to crosscheck with the
Gaeltacht scheme for duplication. The Gaeltacht section confirmed that no duplication occurred.
5.2 Increased Investment
712 Class II and III roads and bridges were approved for assistance over the 2006 to 2008 period
inclusive.
Analysis of County Sligo
Sligo County Council’s response to the questionnaire is analysed below.
TABLE 9
COUNTY SLIGO
Year
Total
Cost
€
2006
2007
2008
2009
3,519,814
4,661,222
4,527,125
2,050,040
Amount
of CLÁR
funding
€
Amount
of CLÁR
funding
in %
terms
387,784
223,967
221,375
N/A
11
5
5
N/A
Amount of
Local
Authority
funding to
CLÁR areas
exclusive of
CLÁR
funding
€
2,559,030
3,688,755
3,573,450
1,472,665
Amount of
Local
Authority
funding to
CLÁR areas
exclusive of
CLÁR
funding in %
terms
73
79
79
72
Amount of
Local
Authority
funding to
non-CLÁR
areas
€
573,000
748,500
732,300
577,375
Amount of
Local
Authority
funding to
non-CLÁR
areas in %
terms
16
16
16
28
The level of funding, in each of the years that the CLÁR scheme was in place, was 84% in CLÁR
areas. When the CLÁR scheme was no longer in place in 2009, the level of funding in CLÁR areas
dropped to 72%. However, the first of these percentages includes CLÁR funding and the other does
not.
The table below outlines the percentage splits for Sligo County Council funding for CLÁR and nonCLÁR areas, when CLÁR funding was excluded in the years from 2006 to 2009 inclusive.
TABLE 10
Year % funding in CLÁR areas
2006
2007
2008
2009
% funding in non-CLÁR areas
82
83
83
72
18
17
17
28
On the basis of the figures in this table, it is evident that the percentage levels of funding being
provided by the Local Authority to CLÁR areas fell significantly in 2009 compared to the 2006 to
2008 period inclusive, when the CLÁR incentive was in place. This provides evidence that Sligo
26
County Council was incentivised by the CLÁR scheme to increase the levels of funding in CLÁR areas
to match the leveraged funding that was being provided by DCRGA for this purpose.
The drop from 82%-83% in the 2006 to 2008 period inclusive to 72% in 2009 is quite significant.
There are factors that may have impinged on such a drop, aside from the removal of the CLÁR
scheme. For example, once the CLÁR scheme was no longer in place, roads and bridges in nonCLÁR areas may have been in a worse state of repair than comparable ones in CLÁR areas and were
therefore prioritised.
Analysis of County Kerry
The information provided by Kerry County Council is analysed below.
TABLE 11
COUNTY KERRY
Year
Total
Cost
2006
2007
2008
2009
7,020,009
5,894,645
5,713,521
3,911,634
Amount
of CLÁR
funding
€
Amount
of CLÁR
funding
in %
terms
248,496
299,209
295,745
N/A
4
5
5
N/A
Amount of
Local
Authority
funding to
CLÁR areas
exclusive of
CLÁR
funding
€
6,063,857
5,111,836
4,736,609
3,302,279
Amount of
Local
Authority
funding to
CLÁR areas
exclusive of
CLÁR
funding in %
terms
86
87
83
84
Amount of
Local
Authority
funding to
non-CLÁR
areas
€
707,656
483,600
681,167
609,355
Amount of
Local
Authority
funding to
non-CLÁR
areas in %
terms
10
8
12
16
The level of funding, in the three years that the CLÁR scheme was in place, were 90%, 92% and
88%, respectively, in CLÁR areas. When the CLÁR scheme was no longer in place in 2009, the level
of funding in CLÁR areas dropped to 84%. However, the latter percentage does not include CLÁR
funding and the others do.
The TABLE below outlines the percentage splits for Kerry County Council funding for CLÁR and nonCLÁR areas, when CLÁR funding was excluded in the years from 2006 to 2009 inclusive.
TABLE 12
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
% funding in CLÁR areas
% funding in non-CLÁR areas
90
91
87
84
10
9
13
16
The percentage levels of funding being provided by Kerry County Council to CLÁR areas fell from an
average of 89% in the 2006 to 2008 period to 84% in 2009. Although it is not a very significant shift
in funding, it provides evidence that Kerry County Council was incentivised by the CLÁR scheme to
27
increase the level of funding in CLÁR areas to match the leveraged funding that was being provided
by DCRGA for this purpose.
6. RAPID Playgrounds scheme
6.1 Introduction
This scheme was co-funded with the Health Service Executive (HSE) on a 1:1 basis. Its aim was to
increase the range of public play opportunities available to children and young people in
designated RAPID areas. It provided funding for the provision of new playgrounds or the
refurbishment of existing ones or the provision of Multi Use Games Areas (MUGA), in RAPID areas
or areas that primarily served a RAPID area. The main objective of this scheme was the provision of
community based play facilities in individual housing estates in RAPID areas. Attempting to achieve
this concentration of playgrounds was always going to be perceived as being costly when compared
to the normal number of playgrounds that are provided to communities in Ireland.
In March 2004, the National Children’s Office published ‘READY, STEADY, PLAY!, A National Play
Policy’. When the RAPID scheme was launched in 2004, co-funding was provided by the Dept. of
Health and Children. The Dept. of Health and Children felt that this was a way of meeting their
own strategic goals as well as those of DCRGA. Co-funding for this scheme was provided by the
HSE from 2005 onwards.
In 2006 to 2008 inclusive, each RAPID area could receive up to €66,000 in funding under this
scheme, for each funding cycle that took place. For example, there was a funding cycle for this
scheme in 2006/2007 and 2007/2008.
Only capital projects were eligible for funding, with the site having to primarily serve a RAPID area
and be in the ownership of the Local Authority. Universal design and safety standards were
required to be adhered to. Appropriate recognition was to be given to the involvement of RAPID in
the project.
The relevant Local Authority in conjunction with the AIT for the appropriate RAPID area selected
applications for approval. Pobal examined these applications on behalf of DCRGA and if they were
in order, the applicants were invited to proceed with the projects. Monies were paid by the
relevant Local Authorities, who then claimed from DCRGA in full. DCRGA recouped the relevant
amounts from the HSE. Any amount over €66,000 had to be provided by either the relevant Local
Authority or from other sources of funding. Given the disadvantaged nature of RAPID areas, such
areas could not be expected to contribute any funding towards the provision of playgrounds in
their areas.
The analysis produced in relation to this scheme is based on information received following the
issuing of questionnaires to certain Local Authorities throughout the Country.
6.2 Increased Investment
124 playgrounds were approved for support under the 2006/2007 and the 2007/2008 phases of
the RAPID Playgrounds scheme.
28
The information provided by Sligo County Council and Sligo Borough Council is analysed below.
Analysis of County Sligo
TABLE 13
COUNTY SLIGO
Year
Number of
playgrounds*
How many playgrounds*
approved for construction,
refurbishment or expansion in
RAPID areas
How many playgrounds* approved
for construction, refurbishment or
expansion in non-RAPID areas
2006
2
1
1
2007
5
2**
3
2008
2
1**
1
2009
0
0
0
Total
9
4
5
* MUGA were not included in the return regarding County Sligo
** 9 playgrounds were included in the return with one playground in Doorly Park, Sligo Town being
included only once even though it was funded in both 2007 and 2008 for different aspects of work
to the playground itself.
Using the Pobal estimated population figures for RAPID areas, it can be ascertained whether the
development of playgrounds in RAPID and non-RAPID areas over the period was in proportion to
the population of these areas.
TABLE 14
COUNTY SLIGO
Area
Estimated
population
Playgrounds approved for
construction, refurbishment or
expansion from 2006 to 2009
inclusive
Population per each playground
approved for construction,
refurbishment or expansion
RAPID
4,645
4*
NON56,249
5
RAPID
* The Doorly Park playground has only been counted once for this analysis
1,161
11,250
The results of this table provide evidence that RAPID areas were favoured in terms of the work that
took place over the period in comparison with the non-RAPID areas of the County. As the
population of the RAPID area is only approximately 8% of the population of the whole County, a
ratio of far less than 4:5 would have been expected in normal circumstances. It must be
emphasised that the main objective was to provide community based play facilities in individual
housing estates in RAPID areas.
29
The levels of funding provided by the Sligo Local Authorities to each of the playgrounds in the Sligo
RAPID area is analysed below.
TABLE 15
COUNTY SLIGO
Year
Total
cost
2006
2007and
2008
2007
2008
Total
Amount of Local
Amount of local
Amount of
Amount of funding
Authority funding community
RAPID
approved from any
approved
funding
funding
other sources
€
€
€
€
€
175,508
72,908
0
66,000
36,600
373,000
116,000
0
36,000
221,000
40,000
60,000
648,508
10,000
0
198,908
0
0
0
30,000
60,000
192,000
0
0
257,600
In one instance, the total cost of the project was met by the RAPID scheme funding and there was
no contribution made from Sligo Borough Council. For other playgrounds, RAPID provided three
times as much, an equal amount, and one third of that provided by Sligo Borough Council. The
pattern of RAPID contributions did not match what might be expected of a leveraged fund.
However, this pattern of leveraged funding from RAPID/HSE gave flexibility to the relevant Local
Authorities to find the appropriate solution for its RAPID areas.
In overall terms, approximately 31% of the total cost of all RAPID projects was met by the Local
Authority with 30% being provided by RAPID playgrounds scheme funding (i.e. RAPID/HSE). Given
the overall levels of funding provided by the RAPID scheme, it is reasonable to say that it is unlikely
that all 4 playgrounds in the Sligo RAPID area would have proceeded without the intervention
being provided by the RAPID scheme, particularly the playground where all funding was met by the
RAPID scheme, and the playground where 75% of the total cost was met by the RAPID scheme.
Looking at the non-RAPID areas.
TABLE 16
COUNTY SLIGO
Year
2006
2007
2007
2007
2008
Total
Total
cost
€
105,000
85,976
180,000
133,000
236,000
739,976
Amount of Local
Authority funding
approved
€
44,523
0
67,500
0
0
112,023
Amount of local
community funding
€
477
6,878
45,000
0
0
52,355
Amount of funding
approved from any other
sources
€
60,000
79,098
67,500
133,000
236,000
575,598
In three cases, no funding was provided by the Local Authority towards the overall cost of the
project. The largest percentage amount of total cost that was met by a local community was 25%.
30
In overall terms, the Sligo Local Authorities provided approximately €199,000 to RAPID areas with a
provision of approximately €112,000 to non-RAPID areas, over the period being analysed. The
funding to RAPID areas equates to approximately 64% of the overall funding provided by the Sligo
Local Authorities. This is an excellent return for the Sligo RAPID areas, considering that the RAPID
areas represent approximately 8% of the County’s population. It outlines that the incentive being
provided by the RAPID Playgrounds scheme worked in drawing expenditure to RAPID areas when
compared to non-RAPID areas.
Analysis of County Louth
The next analysis is in relation to County Louth. The results of its questionnaire is analysed below.
TABLE 17
COUNTY LOUTH
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
Total
Number of
playgrounds
3
1
2
4
10
How many playgrounds approved How many playgrounds approved
for construction, refurbishment or for construction, refurbishment or
expansion in RAPID areas
expansion in non-RAPID areas
3
0
1
0
1
1
0
4
5
5
Using the Pobal estimated population figures for RAPID areas, it is possible to examine whether the
development of playgrounds in RAPID and non-RAPID areas over the period was in proportion to
the population of these areas.
TABLE 18
COUNTY LOUTH
Area
RAPID
NONRAPID
Estimated
population
7,996
103,271
Playgrounds approved for
construction, refurbishment or
expansion from 2006 to 2009
inclusive
Population per each playground
approved for construction,
refurbishment or expansion
5
5
1,599
20,654
The results of this table provide evidence that RAPID areas were greatly favoured in terms of the
work that took place over the period in comparison with the non-RAPID areas of the County. As
the population of the RAPID area is only approximately 7% of the population of the whole County,
a ratio of much less than 1:1 would have been expected in normal circumstances. It must be
emphasised that the main objective was to provide community based play facilities in individual
housing estates in RAPID areas.
The next analysis will be in relation to the levels of funding provided by the Louth Local Authorities
to each of the playgrounds in the Louth RAPID areas.
31
TABLE 19
COUNTY LOUTH
Year
2006
2006
2006
2007
2008
Total
Total
cost
€
177,648
105,726
179,053
111,937
213,865
788,229
Amount of Local
Amount of local
Authority funding
community
approved
funding
€
€
105,648
39,726
13,053
0
60,806
219,233
Amount of
RAPID
funding
€
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
66,000
66,000
66,000
66,000
264,000
Amount of funding
approved from any
other sources
€
72,000
0
100,000
45,937
87,059
304,996
It is interesting to note the much higher level of funding provided by the relevant Local Authority to
the single project that did not receive RAPID funding.
In one instance, approximately 59% of the total cost of a project was met by RAPID funding and
there was no contribution made from the relevant Local Authority. An additional €13,000 of
funding for this project was provided by the RAPID Housing Estate Enhancement scheme.
In overall terms, approximately 28% of the total cost of all RAPID projects was met by the Local
Authority with 33% being provided by RAPID playgrounds scheme funding. Given the overall levels
of funding provided by RAPID, it is reasonable to say that it is unlikely that all 5 playgrounds in the
Louth RAPID areas would have proceeded without the intervention being provided by the RAPID
scheme, particularly the playground where 59% of the total cost was met by the RAPID scheme.
Looking at the non-RAPID areas.
TABLE 20
COUNTY LOUTH
Year
2008
2009
2009
2009
2009
Total
Total
cost
€
100,891
16,003
22,951
135,003
135,003
409,851
Amount of Local
Authority funding
approved
€
43,428
4,595
13,059
100,003
100,003
261,088
Amount of local
community funding
€
0
0
0
0
0
0
Amount of funding
approved from any other
sources
€
57,463
11,408
9,892
35,000
35,000
148,763
No funding was provided by the local community in relation to any of these projects.
In overall terms, the Louth Local Authorities provided €219,233 to RAPID areas with a provision of
€261,088 to non-RAPID areas. The funding to RAPID areas equates to approximately 46% of the
overall funding provided by the Louth Local Authorities. This is a very good return for the Louth
32
RAPID areas, considering that the RAPID areas represent approximately 7% of the County’s
population.
Another point emerges in relation to 2009 when the RAPID Playgrounds scheme was no longer in
place. In the 2006 to 2008 period, 5 playgrounds were funded in the Louth RAPID areas versus 1 in
non- Rapid areas. In 2009, no playground was funded in RAPID areas versus 4 in non-RAPID.
Analysis of County Kilkenny
The next analysis is in relation to County Kilkenny.
TABLE 21
COUNTY KILKENNY
Year
Number of
playgrounds
2006
2007
2008
2009
Total
1
2
3
3
9
How many playgrounds approved How many playgrounds approved
for construction, refurbishment or for construction, refurbishment or
expansion in RAPID areas
expansion in non-RAPID areas
1
0
1
1
2
1
0
3
4
5
Using the Pobal estimated population figures for RAPID areas, it is possible to see whether the
development of playgrounds in RAPID and non-RAPID areas over the period was in proportion to
the population of these areas.
TABLE 22
COUNTY KILKENNY
Area
RAPID
NONRAPID
Estimated
population
3,259
84,299
Playgrounds approved for
construction, refurbishment or
expansion from 2006 to 2009
inclusive
Population per each playground
approved for construction,
refurbishment or expansion
4
5
815
16,860
The results of this table provide evidence that RAPID areas were favoured in terms of the work that
took place over the period in comparison with the non-RAPID areas of the County. As the
population of the RAPID area is only approximately 4% of the population of the whole County, a
ratio of substantially less than 4:5 would have been expected in normal circumstances. It must be
emphasised that the main objective of this scheme was to provide community based play facilities
in individual housing estates in RAPID areas.
The next analysis will be in relation to the levels of funding provided by the Kilkenny Local
Authorities to each of the playgrounds in the Kilkenny RAPID area.
33
TABLE 23
COUNTY KILKENNY
Year
2006
2007
2008
2008
Total
Total
cost
€
66,000
146,000
25,000
66,000
303,000
Amount of Local
Authority funding
approved
€
Amount of local
community
funding
€
0
80,000
0
0
80,000
0
0
0
0
0
Amount of
Amount of funding
RAPID
approved from any
funding
other sources
€
€
66,000
0
66,000
0
0
25,000
66,000
0
198,000
25,000
In two instances, the total cost was met in full by the RAPID scheme funding and in another case,
the total cost was met by another source. The Local Authority only contributed to the funding of
one playground. As outlined in the analysis of another County, the pattern of funding is not like
that of a leveraged fund. However, this pattern of leveraged funding from RAPID/HSE gave
flexibility to the relevant Local Authorities to find the appropriate solution for its RAPID areas.
In overall terms, approximately 26% of the total cost of all RAPID projects was met by the Local
Authority with 65% being provided by RAPID playgrounds scheme funding. In other words, RAPID
provided 2.5 times more funding to the projects than the Local Authority.
Given the overall levels of funding provided by RAPID, it is reasonable to say that it is unlikely that
all 4 playgrounds in the Kilkenny RAPID area would have proceeded without the intervention being
provided by the RAPID scheme, given that three of the four playgrounds had no funding from the
Local Authority. Playgrounds were provided that would otherwise not have been provided, but
there is little or no evidence of extra funding being provided to RAPID areas.
We will next look at the non-RAPID areas.
TABLE 24
COUNTY KILKENNY
Year
2007
2008
2009
2009
2009
Total
Total
cost
€
44,316
160,000
47,000
70,000
50,000
371,316
Amount of Local
Authority funding
approved
€
3,546
80,000
47,000
35,000
0
165,546
Amount of local
community funding
€
0
0
0
35,000
0
35,000
Amount of funding
approved from any other
sources
€
40,770
80,000
0
0
50,000
170,770
In one case, no funding was provided by the relevant Local Authority towards the overall cost of
the project. In another instance, the percentage amount of total cost that was met by a local
community was 50%.
34
In overall terms, the Kilkenny Local Authorities provided €80,000 to RAPID areas with a provision of
€165,546 to non-RAPID areas. The funding to RAPID areas equates to approximately 33% of the
overall funding provided by the Kilkenny Local Authorities. The €80,000 was provided for one
playground, which was co-financed by RAPID. Of the remaining three playgrounds in RAPID areas,
two were fully funded by RAPID and the other fully funded from another source.
Another analysis can be made in relation to 2009 when the RAPID Playgrounds scheme was no
longer in situ with the previous three years when it was. In the 2006 to 2008 period, 4 playgrounds
were funded in the Kilkenny RAPID areas versus 2 in non- Rapid areas. In 2009, no playground was
funded in RAPID areas versus 3 in non-RAPID.
This would suggest that after the intervention of the RAPID scheme, the priority in Kilkenny was to
provide playgrounds in non-RAPID areas, with the population statistics indicating that there is good
reason for this. Kilkenny has a very small RAPID population (3,259 per the statistics) and four
playgrounds were provided to serve this population. This meant that there was a playground for
every 815 people which would roughly equate to a playground for every 100 children or so. In
contrast, the non-RAPID areas have a playground for every 16,860 people.
Analysis of Fingal
The next analysis is in relation to Fingal County Council
TABLE 25
FINGAL
Year
Number of
playgrounds*
How many playgrounds*
approved for construction,
refurbishment or expansion in
RAPID areas
How many playgrounds* approved
for construction, refurbishment or
expansion in non-RAPID areas
2006
6
0
6
2007
4
1**
3
2008
5
0
5
2009
0
0**
0
Total
15
1
14
* MUGA were not included in the return from Fingal County Council
** The Corduff playground in Blanchardstown has been counted only once even though funding
was provided to it for construction and upgrading in both 2007 and 2009 respectively.
Using the Pobal estimated population figures for RAPID areas, it is possible to examine whether the
development of playgrounds in RAPID and non-RAPID areas over the period was in proportion to
the population of these areas.
35
TABLE 26
FINGAL
Area
Estimated
population
RAPID
NONRAPID
Playgrounds approved for
construction, refurbishment or
expansion from 2006 to 2009
inclusive
11,867
227,525
Population per each playground
approved for construction,
refurbishment or expansion
1
14
11,867
16,252
The next analysis will be in relation to the level of funding provided by Fingal County Council to the
playground in the Fingal RAPID area.
TABLE 27
FINGAL
Year
2007
and
2009
Total
cost
Amount of Local
Amount of local
Amount of
Amount of funding
Authority funding community
RAPID
approved from any
approved
funding
funding
other sources
€
€
€
€
€
107,225
6,164
0
101,061
0
Looking at the non-RAPID areas.
TABLE 28
FINGAL
Year
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2007
2007
2007
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
Total
Total cost Amount of Local
Amount of local
Authority funding
community funding
approved
€
€
€
595,401
595,401
148,188
148,188
136,912
136,912
144,210
144,210
141,520
141,520
129,602
129,602
133,776
133,776
133,545
133,545
159,316
159,316
150,217
150,217
71,824
71,824
504,915
504,915
148,624
148,624
439,242
314,242
3,037,292
2,912,292
Amount of funding
approved from any other
sources
€
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
125,000
125,000
36
The only instance in non-RAPID areas where ‘other sources’ funding was received was from
Malahide Demense, where the €125,000 came from their income from concerts, for the
refurbishment of the Demense’s playground.
In overall terms, Fingal County Council provided €6,164 to RAPID areas with a provision of
€2,912,292 to non-RAPID areas. The funding to RAPID areas equates to approximately 0.2% of the
overall funding provided by the Council. This is a poor return in relation to the RAPID areas
considering that they make up approximately 5% of the population of the Fingal County Council
region, particularly when it is considered that the incentive of the RAPID playgrounds scheme was
in place from 2006 to 2008 inclusive.
In their Questionnaire return, Fingal County Council informed us of the following:
‘The scheme coincided with a large scale Playground Capital Investment Programme which
was driven by the high levels of Development Levies available. On account of this, in the
Fingal area at any rate, the RAPID scheme was less necessary than it is now……………….’
Enough information has been provided above regarding Fingal in order to be able to say that it
appears that the RAPID funding was not required (it appears that all the funding available from
RAPID/HSE under the various iterations of the RAPID scheme were not availed of). The Council had
a large scale Playground Capital Investment Programme which coincided with the RAPID
playgrounds scheme. Therefore, it appears that Fingal had enough capital resources at its disposal
in order to fund the project in the RAPID area that did avail of RAPID funding. The RAPID scheme
leveraged less than expected into the Fingal RAPID area and had no influence on how Fingal
allocated its resources to playgrounds.
6.3 Effectiveness
NPRRC data
The National Play and Recreation Resource Centre (NPRRC) under the auspices of the Office of the
Minister for Children and Youth Affairs was set up to provide information, support, and advice on a
range of issues affecting the development of children's play in Ireland. It provides details on its
website www.nprrc.ie of the number of playgrounds in each County in Ireland. It accepts that the
list may not be up to date and naturally enough, there is no distinction between RAPID and nonRAPID areas. Using the details from the NPRRC website and the questionnaire returns, in relation
to County Sligo, there are 6 playgrounds in Sligo Town (in both the RAPID and non-RAPID parts of
the town), 4 of which received funding under the RAPID scheme over the 2006 to 2008 period. In
Drogheda and Dundalk, the two RAPID areas in County Louth, there are 8 playgrounds (in both the
RAPID and non-RAPID parts of the towns), 4 of which received funding under this Playgrounds
scheme over the 2006 to 2008 period.
These are very healthy returns for these towns, particularly for Sligo town, and it could be
considered that perhaps there is now an overprovision of such facilities in Sligo Town given the
overall population that it supports. Perhaps the funding that was provided over the 4 iterations of
the RAPID Playgrounds scheme contributed to such a scenario arising. Because of this, it was
always going to be likely that the provision of playground facilities in some RAPID areas would
become very concentrated.
37
It is not necessary to look at the NPRRC data in order to see how well the Kilkenny RAPID area did
as a result of this scheme. Kilkenny has a very small RAPID population (3,259 per the statistics) and
four playgrounds were constructed, refurbished, or expanded over the 2006 to 2009 period
inclusive, to serve this population. This meant that in this period alone, there was a playground
constructed, refurbished, or expanded for every 815 people which would roughly equate to a
playground for every 100 children or so.
7. The compatibility of the leveraged expenditure approach objectives with the
eligibility criteria for the leveraged schemes
The eligibility criteria for the leveraged schemes being analysed by this review are provided in
APPENDIX VII. The key objective of the leveraged expenditure approach under both programmes
was to increase investment in the designated areas of each programme. It was found that this
objective was compatible with important eligibility criteria of each of the schemes being analysed
as part of this review.
7.1 Confirmation that the eligibility criteria were properly and consistently applied
The Internal Audit Unit of DCRGA advised that a random sample of 5% of approved applications
should be checked for this purpose, provided that the overall levels of applications were not
excessive. This is a ‘rule of thumb’ that is adopted by this Unit in similar circumstances. Both
sections were visited where a random sample of 5% of approvals over the period (as outlined in the
Outputs section of Chapter 4) were chosen in relation to each selected scheme. On the basis of
this analysis, it can be confirmed that the eligibility criteria for the selected schemes were properly
and consistently applied.
8. Overlaps / complementarities between the CLÁR / RAPID leveraged schemes and
selected relevant schemes / programmes operated by DCRGA
The Rural Development Programme (RDP) 2007-2013 was examined in connection with the CLÁR
leveraged schemes and the new Local and Community Development Programme (LCDP) with the
RAPID leveraged schemes.
In overall terms, it was found that there was no overlap and that there was a complementary
relationship between the CLÁR leveraged schemes and the current RDP. In essence, a
complementary relationship exists between the new LCDP and the RAPID leveraged schemes.
9. Conclusion
This review has found that the leveraged expenditure approach did succeed in bringing increased
investment into CLÁR and RAPID areas in the years in which the leveraged schemes were active.
The costs of bringing this extra investment and other weaknesses found with the approach are
discussed in the following Chapters.
38
CHAPTER 3: EFFICIENCY
1. Introduction
The Dept. of Finance VFM Guidance Manual (2007) describes efficiency as the ratio of Outputs to
Inputs, which can be viewed in two different ways:


Whether the same level of Output can be achieved with fewer Inputs i.e. at a lower cost; or
Whether a better quality or higher quantity of Outputs can be delivered from a fixed
amount of Input.
In normal evaluation circumstances, the total value of overall approvals into an area would be an
Input and not an Output. However, the review found that given the nature of the leveraged
approach, the overall approvals into an area should be regarded in these circumstances as an
Output.
Apart from the amounts of leveraged funding spent by DCRGA and its relevant co-funding partners,
the main Input was the administration effort (in terms of staff and other resources) by CLÁR, RAPID
and the co-funding partners.
Arising from the explanation above, the following efficiency issues arose.
2. CLÁR Primary Schools Outdoor Play Facilities Scheme
2.1 Overlaps with the DES Minor Works Grant Scheme and with DES Summer Works
Scheme for Play Areas
Minor Works Grant Scheme
Schools could use the funding they received under the Minor Works Grant scheme for play
facilities/areas, although it was not specifically for this purpose. Therefore, there was potential for
an overlap between the CLÁR scheme and this scheme, but it was at the discretion of each
individual school as to what to spend their Minor Works Grant monies on. Therefore, any overlap
was dependant on the decisions made by each individual school in a CLÁR area. On that basis,
indirect duplication could arise between the funding being provided by the DES Minor Works Grant
Scheme and the CLÁR Play Facilities scheme.
Once the CLÁR scheme was introduced, primary schools in CLÁR areas that may have been
considering using part of their Minor Works Grant for playground facilities at that particular time,
could now utilise this funding for other needs of the school.
DES outlined that in 2010, it issued €8m under its Minor Works Grant scheme to all Primary Schools
to address their playground and PE equipment requirements. In its opinion, such devolved funding
allocations would render unnecessary further investment into this CLÁR scheme. The Minor Works
Grant scheme could have been used to administer the CLÁR Primary Schools scheme on the basis
of one off payments to all Primary Schools in CLÁR areas. However, over use of such a method of
allocation is very crude and it does not result in the optimum allocation of resources to those who
require them most.
39
Priority 10 Summer Works Scheme for Play Areas
Prior to the initiation of the CLÁR scheme, both Departments acknowledged that there was a
danger of an overlap between the proposed activities under the CLÁR scheme and activities under
the Summer Works Scheme. In order to protect against this danger, DES was agreeable to the
operation of the CLÁR scheme on the basis that lists of schools approved would be cross checked
between both Departments to avoid dual funding occurring. However, funding in respect of
playground development should only have been available from one source as opposed to the two
outlined above. Rather than providing co-funding in relation to this particular CLÁR scheme, DES
could have used its Summer Works Scheme funding to meet a range of priority needs, whereas the
CLÁR section focus in this area was solely in relation to play facilities.
The activities funded under each were as follows:
TABLE 29
CLÁR scheme
DES summer works scheme play areas
measure
Provision of a play area*
Upgrade of a play area*
Landscaping of play areas
Provision of soft/safety play surfaces
Marking out of surface yard games
Construction of basketball/soccer/tennis courts
Supply of goalposts, basketball hoops and nets
Swings/Slides/Climbing Frames
Supply of nets and posts for tennis, netball, volleyball and
badminton
Provision of storage sheds for play equipment
Fencing
* This includes the landscaping of play areas; the provision of play surfaces; and fencing.
As outlined in TABLE 2, 126 schools nationally were assisted under the Summer Works Scheme for
the provision or upgrade of a play area, with 327 of these being in CLÁR areas. From these 32, 20
received funding from both the Summer Works Scheme and the CLÁR primary schools outdoor play
facilities scheme. Therefore, approximately 63% of the schools funded over the period from CLÁR
areas under the DES Summer Works Scheme play areas measure, also received funding from the
CLÁR scheme. The details are as follows:
7
One school received funding in both 2006 and 2007 from the Summer Works Scheme for the upgrading of a play area
40
TABLE 30
Year of
approval for
the summer
works scheme
County in which
each school is
located
2006
Westmeath 1
Cavan 1
Mayo 1
Monaghan 1
Mayo 2
Galway 1
Westmeath 2*
Donegal 1
Sligo 1
Leitrim 1
Westmeath 2*
Cork 1
Limerick 1
Cork 2
Donegal 2
Mayo 3
Roscommon 1
Monaghan 2
Laois 1
Clare 1
Limerick 2
Amount
approved by DES
for the CLÁR
primary schools
scheme
€
3,059
2,048
3,546
3,750
2,062
3,750
3,063
1,056
912
3,750
Amount approved
by CLÁR section for
the CLÁR primary
schools scheme
€
3,750
3,000
3,750
3,750
3,750
3,750
3,299
3,750
3,729
3,750
3,750
3,000
3,750
3,750
3,750
3,750
3,299
3,750
3,729
3,750
Total
20
779,103
63,274
* Received funding in 2006 and 2007 from the Summer Works Scheme
63,274
2007
2009
Amount approved
from the summer
works scheme play
areas measure
€
4,309
30,229
47,700
30,624
31,572
36,694
63,000
44,555
38,692
17,775
12,373
85,653
67,925
19,000
33,250
48,450
61,384
14,395
29,840
16,720
44,963
3,059
2,048
3,546
3,750
2,062
3,750
3,063
1,056
912
3,750
On examination, some funding from both DES and CLÁR for the same item occurred in relation to 9
of the schools outlined above. The crosschecking control that was introduced to avoid this
happening was insufficient and there is no evidence that dual funding implications were examined.
2.2 Scheme could have been administered by DES
CLÁR section sought and received sanction (2003) from DES to operate and administer the scheme.
However, it would appear that this CLÁR scheme could have easily slotted in as a top-up to the
funding being provided under the DES Summer Works Scheme Play Areas measure to Primary
Schools in CLÁR areas. Had the scheme been administered in this way, there may have been a
more focused allocation of resources to those schools that had been awarded funding by DES.
Primary Schools in CLÁR areas applied to CLÁR section in DCRGA. Payments were made by CLÁR
section, who reconciled with DES in relation to the DES co-funding element. On that basis, it was
41
not incorporated into existing DES primary school schemes structures (e.g. DES Summer Works
Scheme Play Areas measure). This is different to the administrative arrangements for the other
schemes being analysed by this review. The danger of any dual funding arising may have been
lower had the CLÁR Play Facilities scheme been administered by DES.
Had the scheme been administered by DES, there would have been a risk that Priority 10 of the
Summer Works Scheme would not be reached and therefore leveraged funding would not be
released. However, on balance, it may have been better to take this risk in order to avoid any form
of dual funding occurring.
2.3 Low maximum level of grant
The table below outlines the average payment made by DES to primary schools in CLÁR areas
assisted over the period.
TABLE 31
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
Average payment made by DES
Average payment made by DES to primary schools
to the CLÁR primary schools
assisted in CLÁR areas under priority 10 of the summer
scheme
works scheme
€
€
3,388
43,565
3,279
27,562
N/A8
N/A
N/A
35,577
The CLÁR Primary Schools Outdoor Play Facilities scheme was administered by DCRGA with funding
being matched on a 1:1 basis between DCRGA and DES, subject to there being a maximum
payment of €3,750 from each Department. Each school could only avail of CLÁR funding on one
occasion. Because of this, schools would have had to prioritise what they required in terms of
outdoor play facilities when making their application for funding.
As the CLÁR scheme was subject to a maximum payment, the previous table outlines the vast
difference that there was between the average payments made by DES to the CLÁR scheme and to
its Summer Works (play areas) measure. This is heightened by the number of Primary Schools
supported under each scheme in CLÁR areas. In 2006 and 2007, the CLÁR scheme supported 484
schools with the Summer Works play areas measure supporting only 15. The CLÁR scheme may
well have received greater DES funding had the maximum payments been set at much higher
levels.
In the years that it participated in the leverage scheme, DES had to spread its resources widely and
thinly in CLÁR areas which is contrary to the way that it spends Play Areas resources when it has full
control over allocation. A leverage scheme with a low maximum amount per school resulted in
resources being allocated in a manner where a large number of schools got some benefit.
8
DES did not fund all 49 schools under the CLÁR measure in this year. On that basis, any average figure calculated
would not statistically be in line with the 2006 and 2007 figures and therefore cannot be used for analysis.
42
3. CLÁR Group Water Scheme
3.1 Cost per house in relation to each Group Water Scheme analysed
TABLE 32
Year
Number
of
schemes*
with a
cost per
house <
€10,000
Number of Number of Number of Number of
schemes* schemes* schemes* schemes*
with a cost with a cost with a cost with a cost
per house per house per house per house
between
between
between
between
€10,000
€12,000
€14,000
€16,000
and
and
and
and
€12,000
€14,000
€16,000
€18,000
2006
5
11
5
8
0
2007
13
18
7
11
6
2008
6
3
3
4
2
Total
24
32
15
23
8
* Schemes were chosen where all houses were located in CLÁR areas
Number of
schemes*
with a cost
per house
between
€18,000
and
€20,000
0
6
0
6
Number
of
schemes*
with a
cost per
house >
€20,000
1
1
1
3
From the table above the following is evident:
 3 schemes had a cost per house greater than €20,000;
 9 had a cost per house greater than €18,000;
 17 had a cost per house greater than €16,000;
 40 had a cost per house greater than €14,000;
 55 had a cost per house greater than €12,000;
 87 had a cost per house greater than €10,000.
CLÁR section outlined that all schemes with a cost per house in excess of €20,000, and some other
schemes, were referred, in accordance with good practice, to DEHLG for comments/observations
prior to a decision being made in relation to funding such schemes as part of the CLÁR scheme.
DEHLG outlined that it was not providing approval for any of the CLÁR Group Water Schemes to go
ahead.
DEHLG was only responsible and accountable for the fixed contribution funding of €6,475.66 per
house that it was providing towards each Group Water Scheme. The presence of the CLÁR scheme
meant that DEHLG was not responsible and accountable for any sums in excess of its own
contribution. On that basis, the funding being provided by the CLÁR scheme made it easier for
DEHLG to give the go ahead for certain schemes when it was not paying in excess of €6,475.66 per
house. Therefore, despite the caution exercised by CLÁR in contacting DEHLG for its advice in
relation to certain schemes, the amounts paid out by CLÁR in some instances were very high.
In order to protect itself in relation to the overall cost of certain projects, CLÁR section should have
had adequate structures in place in order to evaluate each high cost project prior to approval being
made in relation to the CLÁR element of funding. Such structures could have involved the relevant
co-funding partner, among others, under an ethos of shared responsibility for decision making and
on the basis of those from Government Departments/Agencies using their professional objectivity
43
in seeking to balance VFM with the provision of certain services for disadvantaged areas. However,
the decision on approving CLÁR funding rested with CLÁR section.
Up until the end of 2006, the CLÁR top-up was capped at €8,382 per house. The removal of the
maximum grant per house was to support the development of Group Water Schemes in CLÁR areas
which would not normally go ahead due to high costs. When the grant cap was removed, it gave
Group Water Schemes the latitude to introduce more isolated houses into the scheme, resulting in
an increased average cost per house. It may be that an analysis after a number of years would
reveal lower costs per house than those initially outlaid, arising from new connections.
It could be argued that CLÁR section should have compared the cost of providing funding for
private individual water supplies and Group Water Schemes, and chosen the most efficient option.
However, the comparison of both is not on a like for like basis, particularly given the prioritisation
afforded to Group Water Schemes by DEHLG. Group Water Schemes are the preferred solution,
but there must be a point where the benefit of a water supply from a Group Scheme to a
disadvantaged rural community is outweighed by the cost of that Group Scheme. At that point, an
alternative solution is preferable.
In a case where DEHLG is required to match on a € for € basis, all amounts per house over a certain
amount, DEHLG would have been a full partner in the decision making process. However, this may
have resulted in very few schemes actually proceeding, as DEHLG may not have been agreeable to
these conditions. It must be remembered that projects funded under the leveraged approach
would have been unlikely to have proceeded without the financial intervention from CLÁR and
RAPID.
3.2 Dual funding
Details of the Group Water Schemes that were funded under this CLÁR scheme and the DCRGA
supplementary Gaeltacht grant during the period of this review are in the TABLE below. This
funding was paid to the Local Authorities who reduced the overall household contribution required
from the Group Water scheme by this amount.
TABLE 33
County
Name of scheme
Amount allocated under the supplementary
Gaeltacht grant
€
Donegal Meenmore West GWS (2006)*
Ardcrone Craugheyboyle GWS
(2006)*
Shallogans (2006)*
Galway Cammus (2006)*
Cloughbrack (2006)*
Dooras (2006)*
* Year of approval in the CLÁR Group Water Schemes
19,812
16,764
6,858
110,490
67,056
39,624
Further funding of not more than a maximum of €762 per house was provided by the DCRGA
Gaeltacht section to reduce a household contribution amount of €1,142.76.
44
3.3 Local Authorities
Local Authorities outlined that administration of the funding element of the CLÁR Group Water
Schemes was more difficult than if it was being provided by a single body.
4. CLÁR and RAPID Sports Capital Top-up schemes
Subject to suitable monitoring and control mechanisms being in place, certain administrative
efficiencies would have resulted if DAST had handled all aspects of Sports Capital Grants. For
example, there would have been one payment to successful applicants rather than two payments
(one from DAST and one from DCRGA) on each occasion that a payment was due to them.
5. RAPID Playgrounds scheme
5.1 Multiple sources of statutory funding
In some instances, there were multiple sources of statutory funding available for playgrounds in
both RAPID and non-RAPID areas. The RAPID funding added to the multiple sources of statutory
funding available. This leads to an overly complex funding mechanism which is wasteful on the
administrative side, runs the risk of poor allocation, and lacks transparency. This particular point
highlights one of the advantages associated with single point funding.
45
CHAPTER 4: COSTS, COST EFFICIENCY AND PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
1. Introduction
Staffing/management costs, and other resources costs have been calculated in accordance with the
method of calculating Public Service Implementation costs outlined at APPENDIX VIII. This Chapter
looks at the costs associated with the administration of the leveraged schemes and compares that
to the amounts approved or spent under the leveraged schemes. For example, expenditure figures
rather than approval figures, are being used to obtain trends data because approvals under the
majority of leveraged expenditure schemes ceased in 2008. However, approval figures are used for
the cost: approval ratios. This Chapter also looks at Performance Measurement.
2. CLÁR and RAPID sections’ Total Costs
2.1 CLÁR Staffing/Management costs and CLÁR other resources costs associated with
leveraged expenditure
TABLE 34
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
Expenditure by
CLÁR section on
the CLÁR
leveraged
schemes
€
10,144,312
13,888,014
19,008,879
13,563,664
Estimated CLÁR section
staffing/management costs
associated with leveraged
expenditure
€
349,315
371,001
400,628
334,270
Estimated CLÁR
section other
resource costs9
associated with
leveraged
expenditure
€
109,231
116,840
126,173
104,874
Estimated total
CLÁR section costs
associated with
leveraged
expenditure
€
458,546
487,841
526,801
439,144
The trend of the estimated total CLÁR section costs, taken as a percentage of the expenditure by
CLÁR section on the leveraged schemes over the period were as follows:
A reduction from 4.5% to 3.5% from 2006 to 2007;
A reduction from 3.5% to 2.8 % from 2007 to 2008;
An increase from 2.8% to 3.3% from 2008 to 2009.
2.2 RAPID Staffing/Management costs, other resources costs and Pobal costs
associated with leveraged expenditure
In addition to DCRGA, Pobal are contracted to provide services including administration in relation
to RAPID. Pobal outlined that the overall RAPID administration grant reflected in its Annual
Accounts related to the overall management of the RAPID programme which included an
apportionment directly relating to the RAPID leveraged schemes. This grant was paid to Pobal by
DCRGA.
Management of the RAPID programme would also have involved the following functions:
9
These costs encompass accommodation, utilities, support and back office staff, training, travel, and so on.
46










To work with and support the DCRGA in the delivery of the RAPID Programme;
Training and Support for all RAPID Co-ordinators;
Training and Support for RAPID AIT and other beneficiaries;
Management of the RAPID Community Support Budget;
Liaising with and supporting Government Departments and National Monitoring Committee
on Programme Policy Development and Implementation;
Publishing of Programme Reports such as Case Studies and relevant Programme Guidance;
Co-ordination and implementation of systems to ensure information dissemination and
communication within the Programme;
Collection and dissemination of monitoring information;
Submission of quarterly progress reports to the NMC; and
Organisation/support of NMC meetings.
The steering committee agreed that 15% of the overall administration paid to Pobal for
administering the RAPID programme related to the RAPID leveraged schemes. In relation to this
15%, Pobal had a direct working relationship with RAPID Areas and AIT. They took on a specific role
on behalf of DCRGA to ensure that all leveraged scheme applications went through the AIT process.
This process ensured that all leveraged scheme applications were needs based and was an
additional step in the application process, which differed from the CLÁR process.
In relation to the overall management of the RAPID programme, one of the functions provided by
Pobal was in relation to training and support for all RAPID AIT. This function differed from the
functions that Pobal provided under the RAPID leveraged schemes as this support role with AIT was
primarily about bringing Agency and Community Representatives together on specific thematic
issues, to support them in taking on their roles on AIT, and to enhance their engagement in the
wider programme. For example, community representatives on AIT were brought together at a
National level, AIT were brought together at regional seminars, and specific Agency representatives
(e.g. HSE, Garda Síochána) personnel were brought together at a National level.
Please see the table below outlining the costs to be attributed in relation to the RAPID leveraged
schemes.
TABLE 35
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
Expenditure by
RAPID section on
the
RAPID
leveraged
schemes
€
4,544,554
5,315,989
8,174,277
9,064,602
RAPID section
staffing/management
costs
€
220,453
241,723
205,903
223,050
RAPID
section
other
resources
costs
€
66,783
75,044
64,133
67,860
15% of the
amounts paid to
Pobal for RAPID
grants
administration
€
109,800
122,039
110,936
140,082
Total
costs
€
397,036
438,806
380,972
430,992
47
The trend of the total RAPID/Pobal costs, taken as a percentage of RAPID expenditure on the
leveraged schemes over the period were as follows:
A reduction from 8.7% to 8.3% from 2006 to 2007;
A reduction from 8.3% to 4.7% from 2007 to 2008;
An increase from 4.7% to 4.8% from 2008 to 2009.
3. Costs in relation to other selected State organisations
The focus is on the five schemes that were selected for analysis in this review.
3.1 CLÁR Primary Schools Outdoor Play Facilities scheme
DES outlined that the work undertaken by its staff in relation to this scheme involved seeking
Ministerial sanction for funding and processing payment requests from DCRGA. This work would in
total amount to at most one or two days annually and cannot therefore be registered meaningfully.
On that basis, it can be taken that the DES costs in relation to this scheme were negligible.
3.2 CLÁR and RAPID Sports Capital Top-up schemes
DAST outlined that the management of CLÁR and RAPID top-ups involved a very small amount of
extra work for officials who were already managing the allocations under the DAST Sports Capital
Programme. On that basis, the costs of DAST can be taken as being negligible.
3.3 CLÁR Group Water Schemes
17 Local Authorities were involved with this scheme over the period in question. Of these, four had
only one Group Water scheme and a further four had only two Group Water schemes. On that
basis, the costs of the Local Authorities will be calculated in relation to the remaining nine.
Information was sought from relevant Local Authorities in this regard.
TABLE 36
Year
Estimated staffing/management
costs of Local Authorities
associated with this scheme
€
2006
2007
2008
2009
Total
220,473
260,481
380,975
327,808
1,189,737
Estimated other
resources costs of Local
Authorities associated
with this scheme
€
69,435
82,035
119,983
103,238
374,691
Total estimated Local
Authority costs
associated with this
scheme
€
289,908
342,516
500,958
431,046
1,564,428
3.4 CLÁR Class II and III roads and bridges scheme
24 Local Authorities were involved with this scheme over the period in question. Of these, three
had less than nine schemes. On that basis, the costs of the Local Authorities will be calculated in
relation to the remaining 21. Information was sought from relevant Local Authorities in this regard.
48
TABLE 37
Year
Estimated staffing/management
costs of Local Authorities
associated with this scheme
Estimated other resources Total estimated Local
costs of Local Authorities Authority costs
associated with this
associated with this
scheme
scheme
€
€
€
2006
217,995
68,654
286,649
2007
286,330
90,176
376,506
2008
265,565
83,636
349,201
2009*
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Total
769,890
242,466
1,012,356
*As this scheme ceased in 2008, costs in relation to 2009 were predominately recorded as NIL by
relevant Local Authorities and can be taken to be negligible in an overall context.
3.5 RAPID Playgrounds scheme
During the period under scrutiny in this review, there was a RAPID Playgrounds scheme in
2006/2007 and 2007/2008. The HSE informed us that they had minimal involvement in the
Playgrounds scheme and no staff were assigned to work on it. On that basis, they returned a costs
figure of NIL.
25 Local Authorities were entitled to avail of the scheme over the period covering this review.
Information was sought from relevant Local Authorities in this regard.
TABLE 38
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
Total
Estimated staffing/management
Estimated other resources
costs of Local Authorities associated costs of Local Authorities
with this scheme
associated with this
scheme
€
€
264,935
83,216
184,253
58,028
239,487
75,423
112,810
35,528
801,485
252,195
Total estimated Local
Authority costs
associated with this
scheme
€
348,151
242,281
314,910
148,338
1,053,680
4. Outputs of the schemes examined by this review
The steering committee agreed that the Outputs associated with the leveraged expenditure
approach were the total value of the overall approvals into CLÁR and RAPID areas and the number
of projects successfully supported.
In normal evaluation circumstances, the total value of overall approvals into an area would be an
Input and not an Output. However, given the nature of the leveraged expenditure approach and
the fact that this review is specifically focused on the leveraged expenditure approach, then
resources committed to a designated area become an Output.
49
The Outputs associated with each scheme being examined by this review are outlined below.
TABLE 39
CLÁR Primary Schools Outdoor Play Facilities Scheme
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
Total
Total amount of
Amount of funding
Amount of
Total number of
approvals from CLÁR
approved by CLÁR
funding
schools approved
section and DES
section
approved by DES for funding
€
€
€
2,053,080
1,026,540
1,026,540
303
1,187,108
593,554
593,554
181
344,055
323,577
20,478
49
59,241
59,241
0
10
3,643,484
2,002,912
1,640,572
543
TABLE 40
CLÁR Sports Capital Top-Up Scheme
Year
Amount of sports capital Amount of top-up Total funding
Number of sports
grants approved by DAST approved by CLÁR approved for
clubs grant aided in
for CLÁR areas
section
CLÁR areas
CLÁR areas
€
€
€
2006
7,675,500
1,535,100
9,210,600
127
2007
17,519,800
3,503,960
21,023,760
271
Total
25,195,300
5,039,060
30,234,360
398
TABLE 41
RAPID Sports Capital Top-Up Scheme
Year
2006
2007
2008
Total
Amount of sports capital Amount of top-up
Total funding
Number of sports
grants approved by DAST approved by RAPID approved for
clubs grant aided
for RAPID areas
section
RAPID areas
in RAPID areas
€
€
€
12,640,500
3,791,650
16,432,150
107
11,601,500
3,480,450
15,081,950
106
9,675,000
2,884,426
12,559,426
77
33,917,000
10,156,526
44,073,526
290
50
TABLE 42
CLÁR Group Water Schemes
Year
Number of
schemes
approved for
funding
Total
Total amount of
Amount of
Amount of the
number of approvals from CLÁR
CLÁR funding DEHLG grant plus
houses*
section, DEHLG, plus
approved
the household
the household
contribution
contribution
€
€
€
2006
30
982
11,602,677
4,121,389
7,481,288
2007
62
1,439
16,799,703
6,027,652
10,772,051
2008
30
1,246
13,819,502
5,779,560
8,039,942
Total
122
3,667
42,221,882
15,928,601
26,293,281
* The majority of houses would be in a CLÁR area, but for some schemes, there would be a
minority of houses in non-CLÁR areas also.
TABLE 43
CLÁR Class II and III Roads and Bridges Scheme
Year
2006
2007
2008
Total
Total funding
approved
€
5,999,913
5,989,569
5,999,369
17,988,851
Amount of funding
Amount of funding
Number of roads and
approved by CLÁR
approved by DEHLG/Dept. bridges approved for
section
of Transport
funding
€
€
2,999,957
2,999,956
224
2,994,785
2,994,784
244
2,999,684
2,999,685
244
8,994,426
8,994,425
712
TABLE 44
RAPID Playgrounds Scheme
Year
Total funding
approved
€
2006/2007 3,000,000
2007/2008 3,000,000
Amount of DCRGA
funding approved
€
1,500,000
1,500,000
Amount of HSE
funding approved
€
1,500,000
1,500,000
Number of playgrounds
approved for funding
Total
3,000,000
3,000,000
124
6,000000
61
63
5. Cost Efficiency of the Outputs produced for schemes analysed under this review
Costs per scheme are made up the CLÁR and RAPID/Pobal section costs. These are looked at in the
next Section. The costs of the co-funding partners are added in Section 5.2, thereby allowing for
the calculation of cost:approval ratios.
51
5.1 CLÁR and RAPID/Pobal sections’ cost per scheme
For these purposes, it will be necessary to estimate a cost per scheme in relation to both CLÁR and
RAPID/Pobal sections.
Expenditure arose on 18 CLÁR leveraged Expenditure schemes in 2006, on 19 in 2007, on 18 in
2008 and on 15 in 2009. On that basis, the cost per scheme on each CLÁR leveraged scheme is as
follows:
TABLE 45
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
Total
Estimated total CLÁR section costs associated with Estimated CLÁR section cost
leveraged expenditure
per scheme
€
€
458,546
25,475
487,841
25,676
526,801
29,267
439,144
29,276
1,912,332
109,694
Expenditure arose on each of the 7 RAPID leveraged schemes in each of the years being examined
by this review. On that basis, the cost per scheme on each RAPID leveraged scheme is as follows:
TABLE 46
YEAR Total RAPID section plus Pobal costs associated with Total RAPID section plus Pobal
leveraged expenditure
cost per scheme
€
€
2006
397,036
56,719
2007
438,806
62,687
2008
380,972
54,425
2009
430,992
61,570
Total
1,647,806
235,401
5.2 Cost efficiency of the outputs produced for schemes analysed under this review
The cost per scheme is added to any cost identified in relation to the co-funding partners.
CLÁR Primary Schools Outdoor Play Facilities Scheme
The overall cost of providing approvals of €3,643,484 over the period of the review was
approximately €109,694. That is a ratio of cost:approval of 1:33.
CLÁR Sports Capital Top-up Scheme
The overall cost of providing approvals of €25,195,300 over the period was approximately
€109,694. That is a ratio of cost:approval of 1:230.
RAPID Sports Capital Top-up Scheme
The overall cost of providing approvals of €33,917,000 over the period was €235,401. That is a
ratio of cost:approval of 1:144.
52
CLÁR Group Water Schemes
The overall cost of providing approvals of €42,221,882 over the period was approximately
€1,674,122. That is a ratio of cost:approval of 1:25.
CLÁR Class II and III roads and bridges scheme
The overall cost of providing approvals of €17,988,851 over the period was approximately
€1,122,050. That is a ratio of cost:approval of 1:16.
6. Performance measurement
The review found that there were no dedicated Performance Indicators in place in relation to the
leveraged expenditure approach. There was no evidence of appropriate levels of Performance
Indicators or a detailed Performance Measurement system being in place in relation to each of the
schemes analysed as part of the review.
Difficulties in obtaining the required data for analysis
Five Local Authorities were contacted in relation to providing information by means of
questionnaire in relation to the analysis of the CLÁR Class II and III roads and bridges scheme.
However, in three cases, either responses were not received or the information received was of
insufficient quality in order to be used as part of the analysis. The main reason provided to us was
the hundreds of class II and III roads and bridges in the jurisdiction of the Local Authorities that had
been approved for funding, particularly in the 2006 to 2008 period. The volume of data would
have been large and would have been very time consuming to extract.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Notwithstanding the bottom-up nature of project selection (e.g. community participation in
decision making etc.) following each yearly cycle of the RAPID Playgrounds scheme, there should
have been monitoring and evaluation in place in order to consider the current levels of playgrounds
in each RAPID area. This would have led to the drafting of a priority list of required playgrounds in
RAPID areas throughout the Country. On this basis, there should not have been a blanket
allocation of €66,000 for each RAPID area. Greater levels of funding could have been provided on a
case by case basis to address the next priorities for playground development throughout the RAPID
areas of the Country. A system such as this would also have helped in determining whether this
scheme had now served its purpose or not.
7. Conclusion
In overall terms, the costs associated with the RAPID schemes are high in comparison with the
costs associated with the CLÁR schemes. This particularly comes to light when looking at the cost:
approval ratios for both the CLÁR and RAPID Sports Capital schemes. However, there are costs
associated with Pobal administering the leveraged expenditure approach in relation to RAPID.
There was also the different approach that was taken in relation to the RAPID leveraged schemes
due to the role of the AIT in signing off on all applications.
Given that the maximum level of approval for the CLÁR Primary Schools scheme was €7,500, this
would have had a negative bearing on the cost:approval ratio for this scheme and would go some
way to explaining why its ratio is well below that of the CLÁR and RAPID Sports Capital schemes.
53
These schemes are being compared with each other as the co-funding partner in each case was
another Government Department.
The costs associated with the involvement of the Local Authorities in the CLÁR Group water
scheme and the CLÁR roads scheme provides some explanation towards the cost:approval ratios
that arise in these instances.
In some instances, the relatively small grant amounts involved contributed to higher administration
cost:approval ratios. This Chapter shows that the administration costs associated with the
leveraged approach were found to be approximately 3%. Notwithstanding the fact that the figure
is only 3%, the administrative costs associated with the approach raise a question about whether
leveraged schemes can be efficient, compared to when funding is administered by one
Government Department / Agency.
The Report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes, Volume
1, (2009) outlined the following in relation to DCRGA:
‘Programme savings
Irrespective of Departmental changes, the Group sees significant scope for reductions in
expenditure allocations in this area. The Group recommends the discontinuation, on a phased
basis, of a number of programmes within the Department which can be better accommodated
under existing schemes in other Departments.
……………………………, RAPID and CLÁR fall into this
category.’
In relation to performance measurement, there was no evidence of appropriate levels of
Performance Indicators or a detailed Performance Measurement system being in place in relation
to each of the schemes analysed as part of the review.
54
CHAPTER 5: CONTINUED ALLOCATION OF LEVERAGED FUNDING; ALTERNATIVE
APPROACHES; AND MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Continued allocation of leveraged funding
Chapter 2 of this review examined how partner organisations responded to the availability of
leveraged funding in the case of selected CLÁR and RAPID measures and Chapter 3 looked at
efficiency issues. The analysis from these Chapters will form the basis of the consideration
regarding continued allocation.
The fundamental question to address is whether we are better off to retain or to dispense with
the leveraged expenditure approach and why.
This review has found that the leveraged expenditure approach increased investment into CLÁR
and RAPID areas in the years in which the leveraged schemes were active.
On the other hand, the leveraged expenditure approach provided co-funding partners with the
option to allocate their funding to other areas or programmes on the basis that the leveraged
monies being provided by DCRGA could compensate for such a movement in funding. The
leveraged funds become another source of funding for the co-funding partners and they may in
some instances, seek to use all funding sources in order to optimise their own expenditure
allocation decisions. In some instances, this is not to the full benefit of CLÁR and RAPID areas, as
would have been the intention of CLÁR and RAPID sections in initiating a leveraged expenditure
approach. This response was observed in particular, in relation to the Sports Capital Top-up
schemes and to a lesser extent in the Playgrounds scheme.
Other unintended consequences of the leveraged approach is that as the leveraged funding is
available, there is a danger that funding solutions that might not be the best value options may be
chosen, or there is a danger that inferior or lower priority projects may be chosen, in order to avail
of the leveraged amounts available, unless a comprehensive oversight and quality control
arrangement is in place. In relation to funding solutions, there were high costs associated with
certain Group Water schemes that were funded under the CLÁR scheme, although the only real
alternative to these schemes was for such communities to rely on their current sources (i.e.
communal village well etc.) or to have their own private water provision. However, there must be
a point where the benefit of a Group Water scheme supply to a CLÁR area is outweighed by the
total costs associated with the scheme.
In order to protect itself in relation to the overall cost of certain projects under the Group Water
Schemes, CLÁR section should have had adequate structures in place in order to evaluate each high
cost project before approval was made in relation to the CLÁR element of funding. Such structures
could have involved the relevant co-funding partner, among others, under an ethos of shared
responsibility for decision making and on the basis of those from Government
Departments/Agencies using their professional objectivity in seeking to balance VFM with the
provision of certain services for disadvantaged areas. However, the decision on approving CLÁR
funding rested with CLÁR section.
55
CLÁR and RAPID sections did not, nor cannot be expected to have expertise in relation to each of
the areas encompassed by each leveraged scheme. This means that both sections required expert
advice from their co-funding partners (e.g. in terms of projects being selected for funding). Such
co-funders only become full partners in the decision making process when they are providing
substantial levels of their own funding to particular projects.
There is a dependence on matching funds being provided by co-funding organisations. If the cofunding organisation does not have a sufficient budget available or is not encouraged to participate
by the amount of leveraged funding available, the leveraged funds are not leading it to invest
further in the designated areas.
After the incentive of leveraged funding is removed or after a co-funding partner withdraws its
funding, the allocation of funding by co-funding partners has been observed, in some instances, to
favour non-disadvantaged areas, resulting in a rebalancing of funding (i.e. designated areas benefit
when the leveraged funding is available. When it is no longer available, the allocation of funding
between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged areas reverts to its normal position. Therefore,
lesser amounts are provided to the disadvantaged areas. With no incentive such as the leveraged
funding approach available, co-funding partners go back to their normal pattern in relation to the
allocation of funding). One of the overall aims of this approach was that the co-funding partners
would mainstream the treatment of such projects from these disadvantaged areas following the
cessation of the leveraged funding approach. However, there was always a risk that co-funding
partners could revert back to their normal funding patterns once an incentive such as this was
removed.
Evidence has been provided that projects have proceeded through the assistance of the leveraged
approach that would not have proceeded in normal circumstances. In other words, the co-funding
partners would not have financed these projects without the financial intervention from CLÁR or
RAPID. However, introducing a leveraged funding approach means introducing an additional
statutory source of funding. One of the problems associated with this is that each partner only
feels responsible and accountable in relation to the amounts that they are putting forward towards
the projects. Given that this is the case, CLÁR and RAPID had to be very careful that the levels of
funding being provided by them for various projects could not be deemed to be very large or
excessive, notwithstanding the benefits being provided to the disadvantaged areas. This points to
the importance of having a comprehensive oversight and quality control arrangement in place
encompassing the expertise of all funders. This may include a maximum top-up level of funding
and relevant matched funding from co-funding partners, where possible. For example, the
evidence provided in relation to the Group Water Schemes was that DEHLG was only responsible
and accountable for the fixed contribution funding of €6,475.66 per house that it was providing
towards each Group Water Scheme. The presence of the CLÁR scheme meant that DEHLG was not
responsible and accountable for any sums in excess of its own contribution. On that basis, the
funding being provided by the CLÁR scheme made it easier for DEHLG to give the go ahead for
certain schemes when it was not paying in excess of €6,475.66 per house.
In relation to funding limits, the following was found:
In the case of the CLÁR Outdoor Play Facilities scheme, the maximum amount of funding to be
provided to each school appeared low, when compared to the level of funding that DES
56
provided under its Summer Works Scheme Play Areas measure. As a consequence, this
resulted in a larger number of much smaller grants under the CLÁR scheme. Contrast this with
the removal of the cap on the grant under the CLÁR Group Water Schemes, which led to some
very large grants per household. If the maximum grant is too low, the danger is that a cofunding partner is forced to spread its resources very thinly, and if it is too high, the amounts
being paid by CLÁR and RAPID may be excessive.
1.1 Department of Finance review of Capital Expenditure
The Department of Finance document Infrastructure Investment Priorities (2010) outlined the
following in relation to the focus of future medium term policy for DCRGA on Infrastructure
Investment Priorities:
“A number of investment programmes under the aegis of DCEGA fund investment which is
analogous to mainstream investment programmes in larger Departments. For instance,
CLÁR funds the same type of infrastructure as the Dept. of the Environment, Heritage and
Local Government;……………………………………………………………………………….
In future, any
residual or ongoing investment needs should be funded by the Government Department
with primary sectoral responsibility, in consultation with DCEGA where appropriate.”
The report outlined the following in relation to CLÁR:
“Clár is designed to target investment in rural areas of greatest population decline. It
provides ‘leverage funding’ for small-scale infrastructure in depopulated areas for which
there is not deemed to be a compelling economic justification or business case by funding
agencies. ……………………………………………. It is imperative that all capital investment yields
maximum value for money and has the widest possible impact in terms of expansion of
infrastructure. For this reason, there is only marginal justification for continued spending
under the Clár programme as resources can be expected to have greater impact if invested
through other programmes. For this reason continued high levels of investment are not
sustainable or appropriate in the current economic context.”
In relation to RAPID, the report says:
“RAPID provides investment for small scale projects aimed at improving quality of life in
areas of high urban poverty and social disadvantage. The programme seeks to ensure that
priority attention is given to the 51 designated areas by focusing State resources available to
best effect. ………………………………………. These programmes, ………………………, have the
important objective of reducing anti-social behaviour, crime and improving public health
outcomes. ………………………………. Continued investment in this programme will be required
into the medium-term.”
1.2 Conclusion in relation to continued allocation
The weaknesses described earlier in this Chapter are a concern when gauged against the positive
outputs produced. While the leveraged schemes did undoubtedly produce positive results, the
range of weaknesses leads to the conclusion that the leveraged schemes in their current format
should not be continued. At present, no new applications are being considered for any of the
leveraged schemes.
57
2. Alternative approaches
The introduction of the leveraged expenditure approach was a recognition that projects in
depopulated or disadvantaged areas may have tended to lose out. DCRGA would be of the opinion
that a return to the pre-leverage situation that does not have incentives for designated areas will
not result in the prioritisation of funding to CLÁR or RAPID areas. At present, all of the CLÁR and
RAPID leveraged schemes are closed to new applications.
A number of alternative approaches were put forward by the Evaluation Unit, all of which had
shortcomings. The main alternative approach analysed was in relation to adopting a ringfenced
approach for funding relating to both areas. Following consideration, the steering committee
decided that none of these alternatives could be considered to be a viable alternative to the
leveraged expenditure approach.
2.1 Conclusion in relation to alternative approaches
No viable alternative was found to the leveraged approach. Therefore, if the leveraged approach
was to fall for consideration in the future, it is acknowledged that it is very difficult to design an
effective and efficient leveraged approach that would address the weaknesses outlined. At a
minimum, the approach would have to be introduced in conjunction with appropriate monitoring,
verification, performance and evaluation controls. There would be additional costs associated with
these controls. Any new scheme would have to scoped, researched, and planned, to include
parameters and timeframes.
3. Main conclusions and recommendations
Effectiveness





The leveraged expenditure approach increased investment into CLÁR and RAPID areas in
the years in which the leveraged expenditure schemes were active, and resulted in projects
proceeding that would have been unlikely to have proceeded under normal circumstances
without an incentive being provided by the leveraged approach;
Following the withdrawal of DES from the CLÁR Primary Schools leveraged scheme, DCRGA
then became the sole Statutory funder and this scheme could no longer be considered to be
leveraged;
In order for the leveraged expenditure approach to work, funding has to be provided by a
statutory co-funding partner. There is always a level of uncertainty attached to a leveraged
funding approach as it is dependant on the budget allocation of each co-funding partner.
This uncertainty can be mitigated by advance agreement taking place with co-funding
partners in relation to terms and funding;
In relation to the Group Water Schemes funded under the CLÁR scheme, as this
infrastructure is now in place, more houses in rural disadvantaged areas can be connected
to it as and when the need arises;
In the Sports Capital Top-up schemes, DAST had the authority to decide on the levels of
grant aid to all successful applicants, while knowing the levels of leveraged top-ups that
would be available to successful applicants from CLÁR and RAPID areas. This provided an
unintended incentive to move funding away from CLÁR and RAPID areas, as the top-ups
would compensate in some way for such movement, thus allowing more funding to be
spent on areas outside of CLÁR and RAPID. The leveraged funds become another source of
funding for the co-funding partners and they may in some instances, seek to use all funding
58


sources in order to optimise their own expenditure allocation decisions. In some instances,
this is not to the full benefit of CLÁR and RAPID areas. This response was observed to a
lesser extent in the RAPID Playgrounds scheme;
For the CLÁR and RAPID Sports Capital Top-up schemes, the percentage figures for CLÁR
and RAPID areas on grants approved versus grants sought were below the percentage
figures for ALL OTHER AREAS prior to the leveraged top-ups being applied;
In some instances, when the RAPID Playgrounds scheme funding ceased, proportionally
more funding went to the non-RAPID areas. The same result was observed in relation to
the CLÁR Class III Roads and Bridges scheme. In contrast, DES continued to fund the same
proportionate number of schools and provide the same proportionate level of funding to
schools in CLÁR areas under its Summer Works Scheme Play Areas measure. In other
words, there was no policy shift from DES arising from the introduction of the CLÁR Play
Facilities scheme. One of the overall aims of the leveraged approach was that the cofunding partners would mainstream the treatment of such projects from disadvantaged
areas, despite the costs involved, following the cessation of the leveraged funding
approach. However, in the main, the evidence is that co-funding partners reverted to their
normal funding patterns once the leveraged expenditure incentive was removed.
Efficiency






Concurrent dual funding arose in the CLÁR Primary Schools Play Facilities scheme with
funding being provided under the DES Summer Works Scheme Play Areas measure. From
an administration perspective, funding should only have been available from one of these.
Although both Departments were aware of possible dual funding and had a control
mechanism in place to deal with it, dual funding occurred;
Local Authorities outlined that administration of the funding element of the CLÁR Group
Water Schemes was more difficult than if it was being provided by a single body;
In relation to the CLÁR Group Water Schemes, CLÁR section outlined that all schemes with a
cost per house in excess of €20,000, and some other schemes, were referred, in accordance
with good practice, to DEHLG for comments/observations prior to a decision being made in
relation to funding such schemes as part of the CLÁR measure. DEHLG outlined that it was
not providing approval for any of the CLÁR Group Water Schemes to go ahead;
DEHLG was only responsible and accountable for the fixed contribution funding of
€6,475.66 per house that it was providing towards each Group Water Scheme. The
presence of the CLÁR scheme meant that DEHLG was not responsible and accountable for
any sums in excess of its own contribution;
Removal of the cap on the top-up in the CLÁR Group Water Schemes gave latitude for the
introduction of more isolated houses to schemes, resulting in some very high average costs
per house. For example, forty schemes had an average cost per house of more than
€14,000, whereas the maximum payable in non-CLÁR areas by DEHLG was €6,475.66;
CLÁR and RAPID sections did not, nor cannot be expected to have expertise in relation to
each of the areas encompassed by each leveraged scheme. This means that both sections
required expert advice from their co-funding partners. Such co-funders only become full
partners in the decision making process when they are providing substantial levels of their
own funding to particular projects. It is concluded that a lack of expertise on the CLÁR side
combined with a capped grant from DEHLG led to some very high CLÁR grant amounts per
house on some Group Water Schemes;
59




Subject to suitable monitoring and control mechanisms being in place, certain
administrative efficiencies would have resulted if DAST had handled all aspects of Sports
Capital Grants. For example, there would have been one payment to successful applicants
rather than two payments (one from DAST and one from DCRGA) on each occasion that a
payment was due to them;
In some instances, there were multiple sources of statutory funding available for
playgrounds in both RAPID and non-RAPID areas. The RAPID funding added to the multiple
sources of statutory funding available. This leads to an overly complex funding mechanism
which is wasteful on the administrative side, runs the risk of poor allocation, and lacks
transparency. This particular point highlights one of the advantages associated with single
point funding;
In overall terms, the costs associated with the RAPID schemes were high when compared
with the costs associated with the CLÁR schemes. The costs Chapter showed that the
additional amount added to administration costs associated with the leveraged approach
was approximately 3%. This raises a question about the efficiency of the leveraged
approach compared to when funding is administered by one Government
Department/Agency. In some instances, the relatively small grant amounts involved
contributed to high cost:approval ratios;
As the leveraged funding is available, there is a danger that funding solutions that might not
be the best value options may be chosen, in order to avail of the leveraged amounts
available, unless a comprehensive oversight and quality control arrangement is in place. For
example, there must be a point where the benefit of a Group Water Scheme supply to a
CLÁR area is outweighed by the total costs associated with the scheme. However, it was
difficult for CLÁR and RAPID to set their maximum level of funding figure for each scheme.
In the case of the CLÁR Play Facilities scheme, the maximum amount of funding to be
provided to each school appeared low, when compared to the level of funding that DES
provided under its Summer Works Scheme Play Areas measure. As a consequence, this
resulted in a larger number of much smaller grants under the CLÁR scheme. Contrast this
with the removal of the cap on the top-up level under the CLÁR Group Water Schemes,
which led to some very large grants per household. If the maximum grant is too low, the
danger is that a co-funding partner is forced to spread its resources very thinly, and if it is
too high, the amounts being paid by CLÁR and RAPID may be excessive.
Other Observations


If the total amount of funding for Play Facilities had been available to DES to administer as it
saw fit, then it would likely have continued to pay larger grants, as it does under the
Summer Works Scheme Play Areas measure when compared to the CLÁR scheme. More
Primary schools would have got a larger grant but equally, other schools would have got
nothing. It could be argued that this approach would have seen a more optimal use of
resources;
Approximately 26% of Primary schools funded under the DES Summer Works Scheme Play
Areas measure over the three years 2006, 2007 and 2009, were from CLÁR areas, while
approximately 37% of Primary schools are located in CLÁR areas. This shows a tendency in
normal circumstances for projects from disadvantaged areas to lose out when compared to
non-disadvantaged areas, as this scheme did not have a leveraged expenditure incentive
attached to it;
60



Perhaps there is now an overprovision of playground facilities in some RAPID AREAS. The
number of playgrounds per head of population in the Sligo and Kilkenny RAPID areas is very
high. Perhaps the funding that was provided over the 4 phases of the RAPID Playgrounds
scheme contributed to such a scenario arising. It appears that this scheme was no longer
required while it was still in existence and points to the need for continued prioritisation of
funding to the real needs of RAPID areas from one year to another. However, it should be
noted that this scheme sought to secure playground facilities for individual estates in RAPID
areas;
There was evidence that CLÁR and RAPID sections were not comprehensively evaluating the
needs of their respective areas on an ongoing basis, in relation to whether the leveraged
schemes in situ should remain or whether they should be replaced by new schemes to
address any changing infrastructural needs of the areas. On this basis, perhaps the number
of leveraged schemes should have been limited to between 4 and 8 in order to provide the
greatest levels of targeted investment to these disadvantaged areas;
DCRGA’s opinion is that a return to any form of a pre-leverage situation that does not have
incentives for designated areas would result in CLÁR and RAPID areas losing out.
Performance Measurement

In relation to the CLÁR Roads and Bridges scheme, there was a lack of data available in
relation to expenditure levels in CLÁR versus non-CLÁR areas. The lack of such available data
made the analysis of this scheme difficult. Such information should have been available to
CLÁR section on a regular basis over the course of this CLÁR scheme as a control mechanism.
The provision of such information from the Local Authorities should have been one of the
conditions for availing of CLÁR funding;
 Notwithstanding the bottom-up nature of project selection (e.g. community participation in
decision making etc.) following each yearly cycle of the RAPID Playgrounds scheme, there
should have been monitoring and evaluation in place in order to consider the current levels of
playgrounds in each RAPID area. This would have led to the drafting of a priority list of
required playgrounds in RAPID areas throughout the Country. On this basis, there should not
have been a blanket allocation of €66,000 for each RAPID area. Greater levels of funding
could have been provided on a case by case basis to address the next priorities for playground
development throughout the RAPID areas of the Country. A system such as this would also
have helped in determining whether this scheme had now served its purpose or not;
 The review found that there were no dedicated Performance Indicators in place in relation
to the leveraged expenditure approach. There was no evidence of appropriate levels of
Performance Indicators or a detailed Performance Measurement system being in place in
relation to each of the schemes analysed as part of the review.
4. Recommendation
From the analysis of the leveraged schemes in their current format, the leveraged approach cannot
be recommended to continue. If it was to fall for consideration in the future, it is acknowledged
that it is very difficult to design an effective and efficient leveraged approach that would address
the difficulties and challenges outlined. At a minimum, the approach would have to be introduced
in conjunction with appropriate monitoring, verification, performance and evaluation controls.
There would be additional costs associated with these controls. Any new scheme would have to be
scoped, researched, and planned, to include parameters and timeframes.
61
APPENDIX I
A FULL LIST OF THE CURRENT RAPID AREAS
A. Urban areas
B. Provincial areas
1. Bray;
Cork:
2. Blackpool, The Glen, Mayfield;
3. Fairhill, Gurraneabraher, Faranree;
4. Knocknaheeny, Churchfield
5. Togher, Mahon;
6. Drogheda;
Dublin:
7. Ballyfermot;
8. Ballymun;
9. Blanchardstown;
10. Clondalkin;
11. Dún Laoghaire Rathdown
12. Fettercairn;
13. Finglas;
14. Jobstown;
15. Killinarden;
16. North East Inner City;
17. Northside;
18. North West Inner City;
19. South East Inner City;
20. South Inner City;
21. South West Inner City;
22. Dundalk;
Limerick:
23. Ballynanty, Kileely;
24. King’s Island, Bishops Palace;
25. South Limerick City;
B.1 Larger Towns
27. Athlone
28. Carlow
29. Clonmel
30. Ennis
31. Galway
32. Kilkenny
33. Navan
34. Sligo
35. Tralee
36. Wexford
B.2 Smaller Towns
37. Athy
38. Ballina
39. Ballinasloe
40. Carrick on Suir
41. Cavan
42. Dungarvan
43. Enniscorthy
44. Longford
45. Mallow
46. Mullingar
47. New Ross
48. Rathkeale
49. Tipperary
50. Tuam
51. Youghal
26. Waterford.
62
APPENDIX II
RAPID LEVERAGED SCHEMES FROM 2006 TO 2009 INCLUSIVE
Leveraged schemes 20062009
1. Housing estate
enhancement
2. Playground grants
3. Traffic easing schemes
4. CCTV and similar schemes
5. Small scale capital grants
scheme for schools
6. Sports capital top-up
Co-funding partner(s)
Funding split %
RAPID:DEHLG and
Local Authorities
RAPID:HSE
RAPID:DEHLG and Local Authorities
RAPID: Department of Justice,
Equality & Law Reform (DJELR)
RAPID:DES and the Dormant
Accounts Fund
RAPID:DAST*
45:55
50:50
50:50
50:50
33:67
A top-up of the DAST grant by RAPID. The topup was 30% of the total funding figure.
7. Health schemes
RAPID:HSE
50:50
* DAST utilises monies granted by the Oireachtas that have been part-funded by the National Lottery.
DETAILS OF THE AMOUNTS PAID FROM 2006 TO 2009 INCLUSIVE
2006
Leveraged scheme
1. Playground grants
2. Sports capital top-up
3. Health schemes
4.Housing estate enhancement
5. Traffic easing schemes
6. CCTV
7.Other schemes with DJELR
Total
Amounts paid by RAPID section
€
1,269,219
1,220,238
1,157,630
446,829
385,666
40,000
24,972
4,544,554
Amounts paid by co-funding partners
€
1,269,219
2,847,222
1,157,630
546,125
385,666
40,000
24,972
6,270,834
2007
Leveraged scheme
Amounts paid by RAPID section
€
1. Sports capital top-up
1,674,523
2. Playground grants
1,479,561
3. Housing estate enhancement
602,036
4. CCTV
510,301
5. Health schemes
485,744
6. Traffic easing schemes
388,493
7. Small scale capital grants for schools*
175,331
Total
5,315,989
* This leveraged measure was introduced in 2007
Amounts paid by co-funding partners
€
3,907,220
1,479,561
735,822
510,301
485,744
388,493
355,975
7,863,116
63
2008
Leveraged scheme
Amounts paid by RAPID Section* Amounts paid by co-funding partners*
€
€
1. Small scale capital grants for schools
3,967,712
8,055,657
2. Sports capital top-up
1,209,032
2,821,075
3. Playground grants
1,013,758
1,013,758
4. CCTV
989,047
989,047
5. Housing estate enhancement
425,027
519,780
6. Traffic easing schemes
302,278
302,278
7. Health schemes
267,423
267,423
Total
8,174,277
13,969,018
* A further €58,080 was spent on signage, which was introduced in 2008. This cost was split on a 1:1 basis by DCRGA
and its co-funding partners
2009
Leveraged scheme
Amounts paid by RAPID section* Amounts paid by co-funding partners*
€
€
1. Sports capital top-up
2,672,549
6,235,945
2. Playground grants
1,699,985
1,699,985
3. Small scale capital grants for schools
1,388,703
2,819,488
4. Housing estate enhancement
1,296,816
1,584,997
5. CCTV
1,055,265
1,055,265
6. Traffic easing schemes
911,284
911,284
7. Health schemes
40,000
40,000
Total
9,064,602
14,346,964
* A further €3,888 was spent on signage. This cost was split on the same basis as in 2008 above.
64
APPENDIX III
A RAPID PROGRAMME FLOWCHART INCORPORATING POBAL’S ROLE
65
APPENDIX IV
CLÁR LEVERAGED SCHEMES FROM 2006 TO 2009 INCLUSIVE
Leveraged schemes 2006-2009
1. Forestry access roads
2. Class II & III roads and bridges
3. Small public water and sewerage
schemes
4. Group water schemes**
Co-funding partner(s)
CLÁR:Coillte
CLÁR:Department
Transport
CLÁR:DEHLG:
Local Authority
CLÁR/DEHLG/local
contribution
of
5. Group sewerage schemes
CLÁR/DEHLG/local
contribution
6. Water & sewerage – Shannon tax
incentive areas
7. Design, Build, Operate (DBO) water
conservation scheme
CLÁR:DEHLG:local
contribution
CLÁR/DEHLG/local
contribution
8. CLÁR/ Liaison Entre Actions pour le
Développement de L’Economie
Rurale (LEADER)*** village and
countryside enhancement scheme
9. Local Authority housing estate
enhancement scheme
10. Bi-lingual signage scheme
CLÁR: Local Action Groups
(LAG):Local Authority:local
contribution
Funding split %
50:50
50:50 with each road project to be capped at
€50,000
50:25:25*
Top-up of the DEHLG grant and household
contribution on a scheme by scheme basis.
The average CLÁR funding provided was 37.5%
of the total scheme costs.
Top-up of the DEHLG grant and household
contribution on a scheme by scheme basis.
The average CLÁR funding provided was 44.7%
of the total scheme costs.
50:25:25
Top-up of the DEHLG grant and household
contribution on a scheme by scheme basis, to a
maximum CLÁR payment of €200 per
connection.
The average CLÁR funding
provided was 35% of the metering costs.
33.3:16.7:33.3:16.7
The maximum project cost funded under this
scheme was €100,000
CLÁR:Local Authority:local
contribution
(1) CLÁR:local community
sources****
47.5:47.5:5
(2) CLÁR:local private
sources*****
(1) CLÁR:DES:local sources
in 2006 and 2007
(2) 50:50, the maximum CLÁR payment was
€1,000
(1) 37.5:37.5:25
(2) CLÁR: local sources
(2) 75:25.
12. Sports capital grants
13. Gaeltacht sports and community
grants
14. CLÁR/LEADER community
initiatives
15. Coastal Scheme
(1) Marine development for
piers and harbours up to
€200,000
CLÁR/DAST
CLÁR/Gaeltacht Division of
DCRGA
CLÁR:local sources
The maximum CLÁR payment was €7,500
CLÁR provide a 20% top-up of the DAST grant.
The CLÁR top-up was 20% of the total funding
figure.
50:50
(2) Marine Development for
piers and harbours
over €200,000
16. Ambulance scheme
CLÁR:DAFF:Local Authority
11.Primary school outdoor play
facilities enhancement scheme
CLÁR:Department of
Agriculture, Fisheries &
Food (DAFF):Local Authority
(1) 50:50, the maximum CLÁR payment was
€2,000
37.5:37.5:25
12.5:75:12.5
CLÁR:Irish Red Cross and
Order of Malta
80:20
66
17. Health Scheme
(1) Minor health projects
CLÁR:HSE
33.3:66.7
(2) Major health
projects
18. Regional Airports scheme
CLÁR:HSE
50:50
(1) CLÁR:local
90:10
contribution******
(2) CLÁR:local
75:25
contribution*******
19. Broadband scheme
CLÁR: local contribution
80:20
20. Courthouses
CLÁR:Courts service
33.3:66.7
21. Fibre Optic scheme
CLÁR:Údarás na Gaeltachta
50:50
*
The CLÁR funding split changed from 37.5% to 50% from 2007;
**
The average CLÁR funding approved per scheme between 2006 to 2008 inclusive was 36% of the total
cost. 2009 was not used for these purposes as only 1 scheme was approved.
***
LEADER companies are also known as LAG;
****
For village/townland signage;
*****
For private individuals signage;
******
For a fire tender;
*******
For a car park.
DETAILS OF THE AMOUNTS PAID FROM 2006 TO 2009 INCLUSIVE
2006
Leveraged scheme
1. Class II, Class III local roads
2. Public water schemes
3. Sports capital grants
4. Minor health
5. Group water schemes
6. CLÁR / LEADER community initiatives
7. Local Authority housing estate enhancement
8. Airports
9. Major health
10. Primary school outdoor play facilities
enhancement
11.Forestry access roads
12. Leitrim water & sewerage – Shannon tax
incentive areas
13. Marine development for piers and harbours
14. Group sewerage schemes
15. Gaeltacht sports and community grants
16. Bridges
17. Broadband
18. Bi-lingual signage scheme
Total
Amounts paid by CLÁR
section
€
2,772,506
1,300,227
1,053,600
800,611
759,888
736,635
516,262
509,894
300,000
Amounts paid by co-funding
partners
€
2,772,506
2,167,045
5,268,000
1,601,223
1,436,319
736,635
570,605
56,655
300,000
260,790
258,618
434,650
258,618
254,732
153,750
150,522
140,261
134,620
32,169
9,227
10,144,312
254,732
256,250
186,216
561,043
134,620
8,042
9,227
17,012,386
67
2007
Leveraged scheme
Amounts paid by CLÁR section
€
1. Class II, Class III local roads
2. Public water schemes
3. Sports capital grants
4. Group water schemes
5. Primary school outdoor play facilities enhancement
6. CLÁR / LEADER community initiatives
7. Village and countryside enhancement
8. Sewerage – Shannon tax incentive areas
9. Forestry access roads
10. Gaeltacht sports and community grants
11. Ambulance measure
12. Local Authority housing estate enhancement
13. Minor health
14. Bridges
15. Marine development for piers and harbours
16. Courthouses
17. Bi-lingual signage scheme
18. Broadband
19. Fibre optic
Total
2,826,863
2,782,488
1,754,642
1,426,854
1,020,156
876,876
807,258
594,374
491,066
423,784
241,590
233,548
117,197
116,616
82,500
50,000
20,796
16,064
5,342
13,888,014
Amounts paid by cofunding partners
€
2,826,863
2,782,488
8,773,210
2,279,260
1,700,260
876,876
1,614,517
594,374
491,066
1,695,136
60,397
258,132
234,393
116,616
137,500
100,000
20,796
4,016
5,342
24,571,242
2008
Leveraged scheme
Amounts paid
by CLÁR section
€
5,332,499
3,620,102
2,870,435
1,672,300
774,683
697,190
619,394
542,260
Amounts paid by
co-funding partners
€
8,518,148
3,620,102
2,870,435
8,361,500
1,291,138
4,880,329
619,394
2,169,041
1. Group water schemes
2. Public water schemes
3. Class II, Class III local roads
4. Sports capital grants
5. Marine development for piers and harbours up to €200,000
6. Marine development for piers and harbours over €200,000
7. CLÁR / LEADER community initiatives
8. Gaeltacht sports and community grants
9. Primary school outdoor play facilities enhancement for CLÁR : local
sources
161,868
53,956
9. Primary school outdoor play facilities enhancement for CLÁR : DES: local
376,219
627,031
sources*
10. Ambulance scheme
535,526
133,882
11. Village and countryside enhancement
465,611
931,222
12. Forestry access roads
456,619
456,619
13. Local Authority housing estate enhancement
365,150
403,587
14. DBO water conservation scheme
245,533
455,990
15. Group sewerage schemes
131,937
163,224
16. Bridges
94,255
94,255
17. Bi-lingual signage scheme
38,003
38,003
18. Broadband
9,295
2,324
Total
19,008,879
35,690,180
* Although new approvals were no longer co-funded by DES from the end of 2007, there were still pre-existing funding
commitments in relation to projects that were approved prior to this date
68
2009
Leveraged scheme
Amounts paid by CLÁR
section
€
5,122,492
3,386,028
1,389,164
1,319,000
828,326
505,035
373,196
Amounts paid by co-funding
partners
€
8,182,682
3,386,028
2,315,273
6,595,000
1,656,651
624,797
1,492,784
1. Group water schemes
2. Public water schemes
3. Marine development for piers and harbours
4. Sports capital grants
5. Minor health
6. Group sewerage schemes
7. Gaeltacht sports and community grants
8. Primary school outdoor play facilities enhancement
CLÁR: local sources
145,820
48,607
8. Primary school outdoor play facilities enhancement CLÁR
: DES : local sources*
161,841
269,735
9. CLÁR / LEADER community initiatives
100,000
100,000
10. Bi-lingual signage scheme
84,411
84,411
11. Local Authority housing estate enhancement
61,354
67,813
12. Forestry access roads
44,606
44,606
13. DBO water conservation scheme
31,416
58,344
14. Broadband
8,201
2,050
15. Ambulance measure
2,774
694
Total
13,563,664
24,929,475
* Although new approvals were no longer co-funded by DES from the end of 2007, there were still pre-existing funding
commitments
in
relation
to
projects
that
were
approved
prior
to
this
date
69
APPENDIX V
MEMBERSHIP OF THE REVIEW’S STEERING COMMITTEE
Ms. Dympna Butler (Chairperson);
Mr. Pat Boyle, DCRGA;
Ms. Caroline Carey, DCRGA; *transferred to the Department of Social Protection in August 2010
Ms. Caroline Clarke, DCRGA;
Ms. Eileen Cunnane, DCRGA; * retired in October 2009
Mr. Trevor Donnelly, DCRGA; *transferred to the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht in
May 2011
Mr. Kevin Fadden, DCRGA;
Mr. Steven Fadian, DCRGA;
Ms. Catherine Fahy, DCRGA;
Ms. Karen Flynn, DCRGA;
Mr. Seamus Jackson, DCRGA; *retired in June 2010
Mr. Paul Kelly, DCRGA; *transferred to the Department of Social Protection in May 2011
Ms. Caitriona King, DCRGA;
Mr. Paddy Langan, DCRGA; *transferred to the Department of Justice and Equality in May 2011
Mr. Aidan O’Reilly, DCRGA;
Mr. Don Sexton, DCRGA;
Mr. Larry Dunne, D/Fin;
Mr. Pat Kiernan, D/Fin;
Mr. Nelius Lynch, D/Fin;
Ms. Maria Farry, Pobal.
* For various reasons, there were some changes in the membership of the committee over the
lifetime of the review process.
70
APPENDIX VI
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CLÁR AND RAPID SCHEMES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN OUTLINED IN THE
REPORT
CLÁR SCHEMES
1. Forestry Access Roads
Projects are selected by Coillte following consultations with the Local Authorities. Coillte submit to
CLÁR section a list and maps of roads that have been agreed with Local Authorities and Local
Authority engineers. This scheme is now closed.
2. Small Public Water and Sewerage schemes
The Local Authority selects the schemes and submits applications to CLÁR section. CLÁR section
processes the applications, approves funding and issues payments on receipt of claims and
appropriate certification from the Local Authority. This scheme has been closed to new
applications since August 2008, but there are still a number of projects underway.
3. Group sewerage schemes
CLÁR provides top-up funding for the DEHLG grant of €2,031.58 per house and the household
contribution of €1,000 per house in respect of group sewerage schemes. This top-up grant
facilitates the development of many more schemes in CLÁR areas which would not normally go
ahead due to high costs. The schemes are selected by the Local Authority on foot of applications
received from groups and the applications are submitted to CLÁR by the Local Authority. CLÁR
section processes the applications, approves funding and issues payments on receipt of claims from
the Local Authority. This scheme has been closed to new applications since August 2008, but there
are still a number of projects underway.
4. Water & sewerage - Shannon tax incentive areas
Leitrim County Council selects the schemes and submits applications to CLÁR section. CLÁR section
processes the applications, approves funding and issues payments on receipt of claims and
appropriate certification from the Local Authority. This scheme is now closed.
5. DBO Water conservation scheme
A top-up is provided under the CLÁR programme where necessary and on a case by case basis, in
instances where the funding available from the DEHLG for water conservation and demand
management measures is not sufficient to cover the cost. The total grant available, including CLÁR
top-up is €553 per domestic and €494 per non-domestic connection. The maximum CLÁR top-up is
€200 per connection. This scheme has been closed to new applications since August 2008.
6. CLÁR / LEADER village and countryside enhancement scheme
This scheme covers small scale infrastructural projects (e.g. environmental works, walks,
playgrounds, car parks, monastic settlements. The maximum project cost funded under this
scheme is €100,000. Under the new RDP 2007-2013, co-funding with CLÁR was not permitted and
on that basis, this scheme is now closed.
71
7. Local Authority housing estate enhancement scheme
The works covered under this scheme include landscaping, paving, play / amenity areas,
development of open spaces, seating areas, lighting, boundary walls etc. This scheme is now
closed.
8. CLÁR / LEADER community initiatives
These are community based projects of an infrastructural nature. Projects attracting less than 50%
public funding under LEADER qualified for CLÁR funds subject to certain conditions. This made it
possible for the local LEADER companies to undertake more projects in CLÁR areas as their funding
provision reduced from 50% to 25% for CLÁR / LEADER co-funded projects.
The maximum amount of CLÁR and LEADER funding is €65,000 each (€130,000 in total). In
exceptional circumstances, aid up to €100,000 from each could be approved as long as the project
did not involve economic activity.
9. Coastal scheme
This scheme facilitates minor repair and safety works on small piers and slipways, along with
coastal erosion works in CLÁR areas (including Gaeltacht areas and the Islands). Projects are
selected for funding by DAFF. CLÁR has no input into the selection or monitoring of projects. CLÁR
payments are made on notification of the completion of works by DAFF. This scheme is now closed
to new applications, but there are still a number of projects underway.
10.Ambulance scheme
The scheme provides funding for the purchase of fully fitted ambulances and the provision of
garages for the vehicles, where required. The vehicles are to be of a standard specification, and to
be agreed by the Voluntary Ambulance Service and the National Hospitals Office. The vehicles
must be housed within a CLÁR area. This scheme is now closed.
11. Health schemes
Minor and major health projects under this scheme are recommended by the HSE. The types of
projects funded are the development, refurbishment and improvement of health centres and
facilities (including ambulance services, the provision of people carriers, and upgrades to social
centres, day care centres etc.). CLÁR payments under this scheme are made on a phased basis on
vouched expenditure and certification by the HSE. This scheme is now closed to new applications,
but there are a number of projects still underway.
12. Regional airports scheme
CLÁR funding of €353,400 (75% of the cost) was provided in 2003 to upgrade the car park facilities
at Ireland West Airport Knock, Charlestown, Co. Mayo.
In 2005, CLÁR funding of €1,006,500 (90% of the cost) was provided for the purchase of two fire
tenders at the Airport. This scheme is now closed.
13. Broadband scheme
This scheme is a pilot trial project of broadband technology in selected industrial estates, business
and educational / training centres in CLÁR areas to promote the rollout of broadband infrastructure
to facilitate the development of the Information Society. This scheme is now closed.
72
14. Courthouses
This scheme is in relation to the cost of refurbishment / enhancement works to courthouses in
CLÁR areas selected by the Courts Service. This scheme is now closed.
15. Fibre optic scheme
Following the announcement by the Department of Public Enterprise of a major programme to
bring high speed Internet access to 67 towns around the country, CLÁR funding was announced in
2002 for the delivery of fibre optic networks to Industrial Parks in Belmullet, Co Mayo and Dungloe,
Co Donegal. This scheme is now closed.
16. Bi-lingual signage scheme
The aim of the scheme is to provide funds for the erection of village / townland, and private bilingual signs in CLÁR areas. Applications are made to the LAG / County Development Board (CDB)
who act as a coordinator for this scheme.
For the village / townland signage, funding is provided by CLÁR section, with a contribution from
the local community on a 1:1 basis. The maximum level of CLÁR funding is €2,000.
For the private individual’s signage, funding is provided by CLÁR section, with a matching private
contribution on a 1:1 basis. The maximum level of CLÁR funding is €1,000.
17. Gaeltacht sports and community grants
The aim of the scheme is to tackle critical infrastructural deficiencies in the Gaeltacht and to
enhance the social, cultural and economic fabric of the region. Infrastructure projects within
Gaeltacht areas, which are also CLÁR areas, and which qualify for a grant under the terms of the
DCRGA’s Gaeltacht Sports and Recreation Grant scheme qualify for this grant. It is paid at a rate of
20% of the amount of the Gaeltacht grant approved, up to a maximum total grant of 80% of the
cost of the project.
73
RAPID SCHEMES
1. Housing estate enhancement
The aim of this scheme is to support small scale capital works to enhance the physical environment
within Local Authority housing estates and flat complexes. Eligible works will include landscaping,
paving, improvement of open spaces, seating areas, lighting, boundary walls and works to make
open spaces in flat complexes amenable to recreational use. This scheme is funded by the DCRGA
and Local Authority Internal Capital Receipts and Local Authority Internal Revenues. Monies are
paid by the Local Authorities and then claimed from DCRGA.
2. Traffic easing schemes
The aim of the scheme is to support small scale capital works to improve road safety in RAPID
areas. Eligible works include speed ramps, pedestrian lights, dishing and improvement of footpaths
and road improvement works. Monies are paid by the Local Authorities and then claimed from
DCRGA. The relevant Local Authorities deal with ongoing running costs.
3. CCTV and similar schemes
In relation to these schemes, monies are paid in advance to Pobal by DCRGA and DJELR. Pobal pay
grantees on the completion of works.
 CCTV
The aim of the scheme is to support local communities in the provision of CCTV systems. It is
administered by Pobal on behalf of DJELR.
 Justice, Equality and Law Reform Scheme
The aim of the scheme is to provide funding for community safety, youth and probation related
projects and initiatives in RAPID areas.
DJELR administers the scheme.
 Graffiti
The aim of this scheme is to address the problem of graffiti in RAPID areas through abatement,
enforcement and education. It is administered by Pobal on behalf of DJELR.
4. Small scale capital grants scheme for schools
This scheme provides small scale capital grants for both the enhancement of existing and the
provision of new outdoor play areas, school libraries, dining areas and parent rooms. Monies are
paid by DES / Dormant Accounts Fund and then claimed from DCRGA.
5. Health schemes
The aim of the scheme is to fund projects providing community health facilities. Eligible projects
include the purchase of a van for meals on wheels, a play area for a special needs playgroup,
premises for youth facilities, improvement of a women’s refuge and facilities for the elderly.
Monies are paid by the HSE and then claimed from DCRGA.
74
APPENDIX VII
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA OF THE SCHEMES BEING EXAMINED IN THIS REVIEW
2.1. CLÁR Primary Schools Outdoor Play Facilities
- The school had to be a Primary School located in a CLÁR area;
- The school could not have been funded previously under this Scheme;
- The facilities were to be outdoors and for the purposes of play;
- The maximum contribution from the Scheme would be 75% of the total cost subject to a
maximum payment of €7,500;
The facilities that could be grant aided were:
 Landscaping of play areas;
 Construction of basketball / soccer / tennis courts;
 Supply of goal posts and nets;
 Basketball hoops and nets;
 Supply of nets and posts for tennis, netball, volleyball and badminton;
 Play equipment – swings / slides / climbing frames;
 Netting around an area to keep the ball in play;
 An amount of the funding approved could be used for the purchase of a storage shed to
store play equipment (maximum amount of €2,000);
 Fencing; and
 Soft / safety play surfaces.
2.2 CLÁR class II and III roads and bridges Scheme
- The roads / bridges had to be located in a CLÁR area;
- DEHLG had to clear the list of selected projects that were sent from each Local Authority to CLÁR
section. When this clearance was received, CLÁR section notified the Local Authorities of the
approved projects.
2.3 CLÁR Group Water Scheme
- The schemes were selected by the Local Authority on foot of applications received from groups;
- Only houses located in CLÁR areas qualified for CLÁR funding. Where only some of the houses in
a scheme were located in a CLÁR area, the CLÁR funding was approved on a pro-rata basis;
- Contingency costs were not to be included in the scheme costs on the CLÁR funding application;
- Ancillary costs over the tender price must be kept to a minimum. Such costs would be examined
critically and had to be less than 25% of the contractor’s tender price;
- The Local Authority was required to certify on the application form that the scheme met the
following:




A minimum of 90% of eligible houses must join the scheme;
Only schemes with minimum Dept. of the Environment specifications would be funded with
no upsizing above these specifications allowed;
the DEHLG grant had been approved;
Tenders had been received for the scheme;
75


The contractor had been selected; and
The scheme represented good value for money in terms of the prices tendered and the
standard costing for such schemes.
2.4 CLÁR Sports capital top-up scheme
 The facility had to be located in a CLÁR area;
 The sporting body had been successful in being approved for a Sports Capital Programme
grant from the Dept. of Sport;
2.5 RAPID Sports capital top-up scheme
 The facility is located in or serves the community in a RAPID area;
 The sporting body had been successful in being approved for a Sports Capital Programme
grant from the Dept. of Sport;
2.6 RAPID Playgrounds Scheme
 The Playground must be in a RAPID area
 Projects are selected by the Local Authority in conjunction with the RAPID AIT.
 The Local Authority in conjunction with the AIT for the RAPID area will be required to
submit an application for each project selected for their area
 The site must already be in the ownership of the local authority.
 In line with the National Children’s Strategy and the National Play Policy, children should be
consulted in relation to the design and development of the play facility.
 The principles of Universal Design (as outlined in Ready, Steady, Play: A National Play Policy)
should be incorporated in all projects to ensure that the facilities are as accessible as
possible to all children.
 The local authorities must agree to carry out the on-going maintenance.
 Each RAPID area can claim up to €66,000. This can be used to support one or more
projects, selected by the Local Authority in conjunction with the RAPID AIT
 All applications had to have the signature of the AIT chair and the relevant Director of
Services with the Local Authority before they would be considered.
76
APPENDIX VIII
EXTRACT FROM THE REVISED REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS (RIA) GUIDELINES RE: CALCULATING
PUBLIC SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
Regulations and their implementation often result in considerable costs to the public service
and it is important that these costs are taken into account in the context of RIA. This
appendix has been prepared to assist officials in identifying the type of public service
implementation costs which may need to be assessed as part of the consideration of different
options. Such options may, for example, involve the establishment of a new Agency or the
creation of new functions for a Department or Agency which may, in turn, result in a need for
additional staff.
Staffing Costs
The following issues are intended to be indicative only and where you are attempting to
assess public service implementation costs it is important that you discuss any issues arising
with the Department of Finance at an early stage. In line with Government policy on the
modernisation of the public service, opportunities for efficiencies such as those associated
with the use of shared services should be identified in the context of your analysis of public
service implementation costs. The figures used in this exercise are an important part of
insuring an informed RIA is carried out, however these figures do not in any way prejudice
any subsequent Government Decisions in relation to the allocation of resources for any
services subsequently approved for implementation.
Direct Salary Cost
Direct salary cost is defined as the gross wage or salary paid to an individual at the relevant
grade plus the associated employers’ Pay Related Social Insurance (PRSI) payment. An average salary cost
should be
worked out for each grade based on the current salaries Circular issued by the Department of
Finance by taking a cash value mid way between the scale minimum and the highest point, or
Long Service Increment (LSI), as appropriate. The appropriate PRSI charge should be added to this figure.
Total Salary Cost
Total salary cost is defined as direct salary cost plus an imputed pension contribution.
Employing civil/public servants normally results in the creation of entitlements to pensions
which are payable in the future. In estimating the total cost of employing a civil servant,
allowance must be made for this deferred cost. The pension contribution is based on gross
salary, and not direct salary cost, because employers’ PRSI is not reckonable for pension
purposes. For further details on how to calculate pension contributions please contact your
Departmental Vote section in the Department of Finance. In general a further cost of the order
of 25% will be recommended as an appropriate additional charge. This figure may need to be
varied, particularly if any staff involved would have enhanced pension accrual rates.
Total Staff Cost
Total staff cost is defined as total salary cost plus an allowance for overheads. Each officer
requires office space, materials, use of telephones, fax, postage service, etc. In addition,
security services have to be provided, recruitment and training expenses are incurred,
personnel services are provided, and so on. It is usually easiest to include provision for these
by applying a proportionate increase in salary costs. It is estimated that an addition of 40% to
direct salary cost is required to recover overheads. This is a composite figure applicable to the
generality of civil service situations and encompasses costs for accommodation, utilities,
77
support and back-office staff, training, travel, and so on.
It is important to note that these are average costs and are applicable only on a general
basis. When preparing estimates of staff costs, sections will be required to consult with
their departmental corporate services in the first instance.
Where more specific information is available, it should be used, particularly if there are
additional costs in respect of specialist equipment or accommodation, or higher levels of
travel and subsistence, for example. However, care should be taken that appropriate
allowances are made for cost elements like pension rights and direct and indirect overheads.
This is set out in summary form in the table below:
A
B
C
D
Pay
Direct salary cost
Total salary cost
Total staff cost
Mid point of pay range using formula above
Pay + Employers PRSI
B + Imputed pensions cost (typically 25% of A)
C + 40% of A in respect of ‘overheads’
Daily and Hourly Rates
Daily and hourly staff costs in respect of any grade conditioned to a 41 hour week (gross) can
be calculated by using the following general formulae:
Daily rate for a grade
Annual cost for grade
_______________________
(249 - annual leave entitlement)
Hourly rate for a grade
Annual cost for grade
________________________________
(249 - annual leave entitlement) x 6.95)
(April 2008)
The figures above relate to situations where new services, programmes or agencies
requiring new staff are envisaged. Where proposals involve the abolition of services,
programmes or agencies, it will be necessary to consult the relevant Vote Section of the
Department of Finance in order to derive costings based on the time scales involved.
Accommodation Costs
Where dedicated new office accommodation may be required, for example where a new
Agency is being established, it is important that consideration is given to the actual costs
involved in the context of the costing of total cost staff time. The factors to be taken into
account will include the number of staff to be accommodated, the proposed space allocation
per head, the ancillary functions proposed such as public spaces and meeting rooms, the
location considered appropriate, the availability of suitable accommodation and the balance
between supply and demand in the office accommodation market which will affect the cost
per square metre which can be agreed. If you are unsure as to the level of accommodation
78
costs which may be involved, or if specialist accommodation is required, you should seek the
advice of the OPW.
Contact details are as follows:
Property Management Services
Office of Public Works
51 St. Stephen’s Green
Dublin 2
Tel: 6476000
79
APPENDIX IX
ABBREVIATIONS
AIT:
CCMG:
CCTV:
CDB:
CLÁR:
DAFF:
DAST:
DBO:
DCEGA:
DCRGA:
DECLG:
DEHLG:
DES:
D/Fin:
DJELR:
ECJ:
HSE:
LAG:
LCDP:
LEADER:
LSI:
MUGA:
NDP:
NIRSA:
NMC:
NPRRC:
PPF:
PRSI:
RAPID:
RDP:
RIA:
VFM:
Area Implementation Team
City/County Monitoring Group
Closed Circuit Television
County Development Board
Ceantair Laga Árd-Riachtanais
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food
Department of Arts, Sport & Tourism
Design, Build, Operate
Department of Community, Equality & Gaeltacht Affairs
Department of Community, Rural & Gaeltacht Affairs
Department of the Environment, Community & Local Government
Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government
Department of Education and Science
Department of Finance
Department of Justice, Equality & Law Reform
European Court of Justice
Health Service Executive
Local Action Groups
Local and Community Development Programme
Liaison Entre Actions pour le Développement de L'Economie Rurale
Long Service Increment
Multi Use Games Areas
National Development Plan
National Institute for Regional Spatial Analysis
National Monitoring Committee
National Play and Recreation Resource Centre
Programme for Prosperity and Fairness
Pay Related Social Insurance
Revitalising Areas by Planning Investment and Development
Rural Development Programme
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Value for money
80
References
Department of Finance, Value for Money and Policy Review Initiative Guidance Manual, (2007)
Department of Finance, Infrastructure Investment Priorities 2010-2016, A Financial Framework,
(2010)
Department of Finance, The Report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure
Programmes, Volume 1, (2009)
Fitzpatrick Associates, Economic Consultants, Evaluation of the RAPID programme- Final report,
(2006)
Government of Ireland, Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF), (2000)
81