I will read a note on privilege and housekeeping matters before we begin. Witnesses and members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction I might make.

Members attending remotely are reminded of the constitutional requirement that in order to participate in public meetings, they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex. This is due to the constitutional requirement that in order to participate in public meetings, members must be physically present within the confines or place where the Parliament has chosen to sit. In this regard, I ask any members participating via Microsoft Teams to confirm they are on the grounds of Leinster House if they want to contribute to the meeting.

I remind all those in attendance to make sure their mobile phones are switched off or put on silent mode.

Today's meeting concerns pathways to inclusive employment and WorkAbility programmes. The WorkAbility programme funds local, regional and national projects that provide progressive pathways and employment through education, training, skill development and work supports for people based on their needs, their ability and their potential. The committee looks forward to engaging with representatives of three programmes across three regions. We look forward to hearing the witnesses' insights and experiences and discussing both challenges and opportunities for the programmes going forward. I am mindful that today presents an opportunity to make both participants and employers aware of the opportunities and supports available to engage with at the WorkAbility projects.

With that in mind, I welcome the following witnesses to this morning's meeting: from Youth Work Ireland Tipperary, Mr. Donal Kelly, CEO, and Ms Dearbhla Hall, WorkAbility project worker; from Fastrack into Information Technology, FIT, CLG, Mr. Andrew Finn, director of academic affairs and programme development, and Ms Clodagh Kearns, well-being, diversity and inclusion manager; and from Galway Rural Development Company, Mr. James Applegate, WorkAbility programme manager, and Mr. Steve Dolan, CEO. Thank you all for your attendance this morning. We very much appreciate it.

I now invite the witnesses to make their opening remarks.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before it and to contribute to its examination of the WorkAbility programme. I was here in 2013 with the previous CEO giving a presentation on the youth guarantee. It is really nice to be asked back. I am the CEO of Youth Work Ireland Tipperary, an integrated youth service working across Tipperary and east Limerick. Alongside the Ability and WorkAbility programmes, we deliver a broad range of youth services, including UBU, youth justice, youth information, drug and alcohol programmes and Comhairle na nÓg, and a range of targeted and universal youth initiatives. Through the Ability and WorkAbility programmes, we have spent the past eight years supporting young people with disabilities and additional support needs to progress towards education, training, employment and independent living.

I want to make it clear that our experience is that the WorkAbility programme is a significant success. We see young people progress into employment, further and higher education, training, independent living and fuller participation in their communities. These outcomes are well evidenced through participant progression data and programme-monitoring systems and are reflected in the lived experiences of the young people we support. The outcomes we achieve and that are being achieved are real, meaningful and life changing. The key question for the committee is not whether the programme is successful. Our experience is that it most definitely is. The more important question is what makes it successful.

Our experience demonstrates that employment is often the outcome of a much wider process of personal, social and educational development. Many of the young people who engage with WorkAbility are not simply unemployed. They are often experiencing a combination of disability, anxiety, social isolation, educational disengagement, family difficulties, low confidence, rural disadvantage and rural isolation.

What has made WorkAbility very effective in Youth Work Ireland Tipperary is that it is delivered through an integrated youth service model, with the young person at the centre of all decision-making. Young people engaging with the WorkAbility programme can also access wider opportunities through youth work programmes, youth information services, well-being supports, volunteering, participation structures and community-based activities. These opportunities help young people to build confidence, social capital, networks and a sense of belonging, all of which contribute to successful progression outcomes.

One of the strongest lessons from our experience is the importance of youth work values and practice. Youth work is based on voluntary participation so, unlike formal education, it is voluntary. Young people are active participants in shaping their own journey, so everything is youth centred and they drive the decision-making. They are met where they are at and supported through relationships built on trust and respect. The flexibility of youth work allows support to be tailored around the individual rather than expecting the individual to fit a predetermined pathway or programme.

Across all our experience, progress begins not with a programme but with a relationship. That is incredibly important.

The second lesson is that many of the interventions that make progression possible are often invisible. Staff support young people to navigate systems, access services, engage with employers, develop practical life skills and build confidence in everyday situations. These may appear to be small interventions, but collectively they build the confidence, independence and resilience that make participation in education, training and employment possible.

The third lesson is the value of integrated youth services. Young people do not experience their lives in separate categories such as education, employment, mental health or family support. The integrated youth service model allows us to respond to the whole young person and create pathways that are flexible, co-ordinated and responsive to individual needs. The programme has also highlighted a number of ongoing challenges, particularly around rural transport, transitions from school to adulthood, the complexity of systems, and anxiety among some young people and families regarding the potential loss of disability-related supports.

Based on our experience, we ask the committee to consider three priorities. First, strengthen transition planning for young people with disabilities moving from school into adulthood. Second, invest in transport solutions for rural communities where access to employment and training opportunities remains a significant barrier. Third, continue to support relationship-based and integrated models of delivery that recognise confidence, independence and participation as essential foundations for employment.

If there are three messages we want to relay from our experience of doing this work for eight years in Youth Work Ireland Tipperary, they are that employment is often the outcome, and probably always the outcome, of wider personal and social development, that relationships are the engine of change, and that an integrated youth service model creates the conditions in which young people can participate, belong, grow and ultimately succeed in education, training and employment.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and the members of the committee for the opportunity to attend and to address them this morning. For over 25 years, as a not-for-profit entity, FIT has been a steadfast representative organisation of the technology and related sectors, committed to growing Ireland’s tech talent pipeline through engagement with the broadest possible cross section of society. To date, FIT’s initiatives have encompassed over 250,000 individuals participating in a variety of upskilling and reskilling opportunities that advance employability towards and into tech-related employment, focused within the further education and training ecosystem. FIT’s efforts have supported a diverse array of training provision, full-time courses, internships, traineeships and statutory apprenticeships.

Throughout our organisation's history, and particularly since 2018 in our role as national co-ordinating provider of a suite of technical apprenticeships, FIT has seen at first hand the array of obstacles faced by people with disabilities and the associated challenges of accessing and participating meaningfully in the workforce. In recent years, and in the context of a headline statistic I read while travelling in this morning, the European Disability Forum documented that only 32% of those with disabilities in Ireland are in work, compared with an EU average of 51%. That is a stark reality, and it must constitute a continued call to action for this committee. It also highlights the responsibilities that still lie ahead for leaders and policymakers.

FIT commends the collective efforts of the nearly 60 projects that have grown from the WorkAbility funding mechanism, administered and led by Pobal. However, notwithstanding these efforts, we must acknowledge that the route to quality employment, and I highlight the phrase “quality employment”, for those with a disability is increasingly a challenge, compounded by the changing nature of work, due in part to AI transformation - we all understand that - but also the emerging disproportionate impact on the availability of early-career roles, as recently documented by both the Central Statistics Office, CSO, and the Department of Finance. In this regard, the Department of Finance’s economic insights report published in February was particularly sobering.

It was against this emerging backdrop, towards the latter end of the Covid-19 pandemic, that FIT felt the need to double down on our efforts to support those who identify as neurodiverse and those with a disability by creating the Cuimsiú programme - "cuimsiú" meaning inclusion in Irish. When I think about Cuimsiú's ambitions, I am reminded of a Francis Bacon quote, "We rise to great heights by a winding staircase of small steps,” because that is what this programme is about, small steps.

Cuimsiú was designed to support people who are neurodiverse or disabled, facing significant barriers to employment, by providing supported, tailored pathways for skills development, work readiness and sustainable employment opportunities in the tech and related sectors. The programme aligns closely with national policy, including the Human Rights Strategy for Disabled People 2025-2030 and the WorkAbility initiative’s focus on person-centred supports and employer engagement. At the heart of Cuimsiú is the belief that inclusive employment is not about lowering expectations but about removing barriers so that people can participate on equal terms. If there is any takeaway by the committee members from my presentation, I hope that it is the concept of participation on equal terms.

Beyond the varied project objectives, FIT seeks to better understand how employers can instigate disability-inclusive systems and processes that are sustainable and scalable in this rapidly changing world of work. Many of the individuals FIT supports through the Cuimsiú programme possess valuable skills, abilities and aspirations. In the technology sector, those who can solve business problems from different perspectives and vantage points are particularly valuable, but in many cases those who indicate they have a disability or are neurodiverse often encounter barriers that can prevent them from accessing these valuable employment opportunities. Specifically, challenges can include simple physical accessibility issues, gaps in confidence stemming from prior experiences, limited opportunities to gain workplace experience, concerns about transitioning from social protection supports to employment and, in some cases, employers' lack of understanding of disability inclusion. That is a message we have taken from this programme.

With this in mind, Cuimsiú's core objectives include supporting individuals with disabilities into sustainable, meaningful employment; providing tailored pathways into the digital and technology economy; reducing barriers to participation in education, training and work; and engaging with employers in building inclusive and accessible workplaces. A defining strength of Cuimsiú is its integrated, person-centred approach, combining three elements: individualised participant support and industry-relevant skills, coupled with direct employer engagement. That is a key part of this initiative. Through the Cuimsiú programme, FIT has built organisational capacity to provide person-centred supports that meet Cuimsiú participants where they are rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach, which, in some respects, has been the history of large-scale initiatives for which people have to fit into a particular box. Cuimsiú is different.

FIT works with individuals to identify their goals, build confidence, develop relevant skills and, crucially, connect them with employers who are committed to inclusive hiring practices. However, success is not always immediate employment. For many participants, success begins with increased confidence, improved well-being, greater social participation or the development of job-ready skills. These outcomes are often essential stepping stones for sustainable employment and should continue to be recognised as valuable measures of progress. Given the varied nature of the supports FIT has deployed on this programme, it has in truth been an operationally challenging initiative to implement, but one that has been worthwhile for all involved.

The programme is essentially the pursuit of addressing long-standing systemic barriers. Specifically, Cuimsiú has proven effective in overcoming barriers such as the limited access to tailored training routes, the low employer confidence in recruiting people with disabilities, the fragmentation across support services, which is huge in terms of the work we are doing, and individual challenges relating to accessibility, confidence and progression.

By offering a wraparound, co-ordinated support model, Cuimsiú bridges gaps that often prevent successful labour market participation, such as matters around low confidence; concerns about the potential impact of employment on social protection payments, which is a big thing, the need for longer term supports as progression towards employment is often not linear and may require sustained engagement - that is, when we look a bit longer term to see what Cuimsiú could become - and structural barriers in access to training, including the full-time nature of many apprenticeships and courses. It is hard to believe, but as a provider of three national statutory apprenticeships, we cannot enrol a person of disability who wants to do a programme on a part-time basis over a longer period. It is a real structural issue.

Cuimsiú proactively delivers directly on key national priorities, including increasing employment rates among people with disabilities and supporting Ireland’s digital skills and talent needs while also advancing the agenda for inclusive economic growth. Importantly, Cuimsiú demonstrates how targeted public investment, delivered through strong partnerships, can translate into real employment outcomes.

The programme also highlights relevant areas where further development could strengthen outcomes. First, continued investment in employer engagement is critical. While many employers are eager to create more inclusive pathways, they often require practical guidance, information and support to do so successfully. Second, sustained and flexible funding is important. Building trust, confidence and work readiness takes time; there is no getting away from this aspect, particularly for individuals who may have been out of the labour market for long periods. Third, greater awareness and clarity around the interaction between employment and social protection supports would help reduce uncertainty and encourage more individuals to explore employment opportunities.

As we consider the future of inclusive employment initiatives, it is important that successful programmes such as Cuimsiú, funded by WorkAbility, are further embedded, resourced and scaled nationally, ensuring people who are neurodiverse or disabled can access high-quality supports.

The Cuimsiú initiative clearly demonstrates that, with the right support, individuals with disabilities can succeed in employment and contribute meaningfully to the economy. It is a model that delivers for participants, employers and society, and offers strong potential for further national scaling. We are really excited about that aspect in the context of FIT.

FIT looks forward to continuing to work with all stakeholders to build on this success. In closing, I acknowledge the work and efforts of Clodagh Kearns, Claire Hayes, Alanna Geraghty and Dr. Linda Greene, and their expert input and support for this project to date. I thank the committee. We look forward to members' questions.

I am the manager of the Galway Rural Development Company's WorkAbility inclusive pathways to employment programme, journey ahead. I am joined by our CEO, Steve Dolan. We are pleased to be here and we would like to take this opportunity to make the most effective use of the committee's time.

Galway Rural Development Company is one of 45 local development companies, LDCs. We deliver a range of enterprise, social inclusion and community development initiatives across east County Galway. One of these programmes is the WorkAbility inclusive pathways to employment programme, journey ahead. Our WorkAbility programme works with a variety of people aged from 16 to over 60 who are currently not work ready and are distant from the labour market. Our participants have a diverse range of disabilities including intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities, acquired disabilities, neurodiversity and hidden disabilities such as poor mental well-being and depression. The journey ahead programme aims to ensure that people are fully supported on their progression into the labour market, find meaningful and sustainable employment, and that organisations that employ programme participants are supported to make sure their employment is successful.

By delivering a person-centred approach to providing progressive pathways to employment, using a tailored design, recognising that participants are at different stages of readiness, and working with everyone at their own pace and from their unique starting points, we help participants improve their employment outcomes through such supports as vocational assessment and planning, skills development and training, removal of barriers, ongoing support and job matching, work experience, personalised job matching, utilisation of schemes and placements such as Tús and the CE scheme, tailored training, continual information provision and ongoing support. In summary, the approach is holistic, combining personalised planning, direct skills training, practical support to overcome barriers and continual engagement with the labour market to connect participants with job opportunities.

To build the capacity of employers to recruit, retain and progress people with disabilities within their workforce, the journey ahead programme provides a variety activities to support employers, including employer handbooks, which contain information on the wage subsidy scheme and other schemes such as work and access grants available to employers. These highlight the benefits of hiring employees with disabilities. It provides employer information events, offering opportunities for employers to meet and network while learning information that may benefit their business and employees, liaises with employers to discuss their apprehension about hiring people with disabilities and explore what it means when someone identifies as having a disability, and facilitates free certified disability awareness training for employers to attend.

Challenges and barriers to programme delivery can be broken down into three areas: participant barriers, employer challenges and funding. Participant barriers are issues such as a lack of access to transport, services and training; digital poverty; limited job opportunities; social isolation; capacity; and managing expectations of individuals and employers. In addition, a significant barrier for participants is their fear of losing their disability allowance if they begin paid work, while they often struggle to live off disability allowance. These are people in the welfare cycle. This worry is also relevant to participants with secondary benefits like medical cards, free travel and carer's allowance for their carers.

One challenge to employer engagement identified was meaningful, continued engagement from employers. Employers are often enthusiastic about unpaid placements, but it is a challenge to bridge the gap between work experience and paid employment. Although we inform employers about all the grants and subsidies available for paid employment and discuss the prospects of this at the start of the placement, we are often let down when it comes to progressing a placement to paid employment. Another challenge we face in our programme with employers is poor engagement in information events. This unwillingness to engage in events can be because of fear or a lack of information or exposure to people with disabilities. Often meaningful engagement from employers comes from people who have a personal connection or first-hand experience of the capabilities of people with disabilities and how they can enhance the workforce.

A third challenge is that programmes are constantly trying to build meaningful rapport and connections with businesses. Trying to find direct contacts with whom to engage in businesses is a challenge. For a lot of large businesses chains, it is hard to find direct contacts for their HR departments. This is a barrier to reaching these businesses, which may have the capacity to employ our participants. On the other hand, smaller businesses are easier to access in terms of management and owners. The challenge here is, as they are smaller with fewer staff, they often do not have the capacity or HR resources to employ someone with a disability.

There are also funding-related issues. Due to budgetary constraints, the programme has limited capacity to deliver the necessary and targeted supports. For example, an increased programme budget would support an employers liaison officer and allow for increased bespoke labour market training for participants.

The delivery of the WorkAbility programme through local community development companies is a strategic and effective method of supporting people with disabilities to progress towards the labour market and gain meaningful employment, because it leverages the collective resources and networks within the community. It allows for a tailored and personalised support system and creates a feeling of social inclusion and a sense of belonging. Continued and increased funding for the WorkAbility programme is essential to ensure that challenges to employment are addressed; that the capacity of services, employers and the supports offered are increased; that barriers to progression and gaps in support are identified and tackled; and that people with disabilities are included in society. In addition, the continued empowerment of people with disabilities who are furthest from the labour market, by engaging them in sustainable employment, reduces their dependence on Government supports and payments. This committee has major influence over Pobal and the budgetary decisions that will determine the direction and what happens to the WorkAbility inclusive pathways to employment programme next. We look forward to members' questions.

I thank Mr. Applegate. I now invite members to discuss the topic. I remind those participating remotely to use the raised-hand feature on MS Teams and cancel it when they have spoken. I will now offer members the opportunity to use seven minutes for questions and answers with our witnesses.

My husband used to work for Fastrack into Information Technology. That is not massively relevant this morning, but I mention it nonetheless.

My first question is for all three witnesses. I will start with an observation. There are obligations on the State to lead by example. If we could say there had been an appreciable improvement in the number of people with disabilities employed directly by the Government and Government agencies, that would bring us some way down the road. It is unfortunate that we cannot, because all the programmes and the efforts made by the witnesses are sometimes not matched by the response of the State. That is a failing. The targets have been set. They should at least be hit by the Government and State agencies.

All three witnesses referred in one way or another to the cliff edge, the protection of entitlements and the fear of losing one's medical card and other supports, which is putting a barrier in place. What would the elimination of the cliff edge look like and what kind of comfort would it bring?

My second question again relates to a common theme in all three presentations. I should have started by thanking the witnesses for being here, for the work they do and for sharing the information with us. They all expressed, to one degree or another, a lack of understanding on the part of employers and indicated that there can be some hesitance among them. I suspect that an information campaign might not be enough, so what can be done? Employers might look at an information campaign and think it is good, but might also reflect that they have a small HR department and think they will not be able to manage it. They might think employing people with a disability is much more difficult than it is.

How can those barriers be broken down? Those are my questions. I am directing my questions to all three organisations.

Regarding the barriers, the Cuimsiú programme demonstrates to us that we need to engage individuals. We are not saying on day one that someone needs to be in a job by Friday week. It is about what that first step looks like for that person, who has a wide variety of needs and requirements. Beyond that, there is a real worry regarding social welfare payments. I suggest that some sort of transition pathway for people to carry those payments would sound like a very common-sense approach for the future.

In the FIT context, we have done a lot on disability and inclusivity awareness with employers. Within the context of the apprenticeship programmes, we published a document a few years ago - a tip sheet for employers. It demonstrated that while there might be accommodation requirements, the employers would get a very competent employee who would have a lot of stickiness within that organisation. It is about building that up. Ms Kearns might come in on the tip sheet.

The tip sheet was in collaboration with AHEAD. It specifically looked at supporting people's transition into apprenticeships as part of employment. In the FIT apprenticeships, 70% of their time is in employment, so it is giving them that opportunity to be mentored and supported within the Cuimsiú team, but also with other members of FIT able to support them. We have been able to share that with employers, but also on our social media to keep it at the forefront. It is about having those open conversations to bring down any worries. These are people, at the end of the day. It is about listening to them as to what they need. They are often not expensive needs, and the smallest of changes can make a difference to them.

On the first question, as pointed out by Mr. Finn, losing payments is a very real fear for people. They have a lifestyle, but they may be struggling, and they are afraid of losing something. We would engage and try to utilise the company’s wider supports. We use employment schemes, such as Tús and the CE scheme, to help to support people progressing into or back into the labour market. They are supported through the scheme by their supervisor. We have very good links with our local Intreo office and the Department of Social Protection. A simple but very real fear that we regularly come across arises where someone is progressing from, say, a Tús scheme to a CE scheme. The moment they transition, there is a fear that because they are viewed slightly differently, they may lose the secondary payments that they have on the Tús scheme. They are then potentially available for a review of their situation. That does not mean they will lose payments but the initial fear is a barrier to someone progressing. We find that people make a lot of progress, but they then have these barriers when transitioning. There is the initial barrier, where people ask: “Can I move towards the labour market?” Then, when they are on their journey, they ask what the next step into the labour market is.

Those transitional points cause fears that need to be addressed. The supports are there, but the fears are real. Potentially, greater information and clarification from the Department of Social Protection and Intreo may clear that up. A lot of good work has been done in providing that information, so I am not saying anything negative.

Getting the information out is the important thing. I hear that.

The issue of entitlements is a serious problem. We have had young people who were working, but when they see some of these benefits being threatened or reduced, they pull back from employment. It is not about money, and they were losing money by making the decision, but it is an ingrained fear. It can come from the family or from the fight to get that payment. Family members may be saying that whatever someone does, they should protect that. We have often discussed this. It is not a financial thing. It was ingrained in their development when they were younger, given all of the different issues they would have had in school. To lose that is a genuine fear. It stops transition and progression.

We have often speculated about the possibility of a three-year or five-year window, whereby somebody could give this a go and it would remove it as an obstacle from their head. Psychologically, it would allow them to walk through the doors in a different way, and they would not have this fear that they could lose that money next year or next month. There would also be more support from family members. Genuinely, parents are concerned that the payment could be gone.

That is certainly the case if they had to fight for it.

That also pulls the young person back.

I will ask some rapid-fire questions. I have the same question for all of the organisations. Were they in the initial WorkAbility programme?

Yes.

No.

No.

They are now part of the 60 projects. They are part of the next cohort at this moment in time. How much funding do the organisations receive on an annual basis as part of the WorkAbility programme?

It is approximately €200,000 per year.

We receive about €180,000 per annum.

We commenced in 2024, and in respect of that calendar year, it was €155,000. In 2025, it was €172,000.

This year, in relation to the WorkAbility programme, how many new entrants or new cohorts did the organisations have as part of their intake?

We still have offers for our 2026 intake.

What about 2025?

For 2024 and 2025, it was about 30 each year.

What of Galway Rural Development?

Since the inception of the programme in 2024, we have had 220 people, which is approximately 80 per year.

In this calendar year, we have 30, but we have a number of KPIs in terms of the different supports for those individuals.

To go back to the 2024 intake, I know it is based on confidence and everything else, so the progression is different for everybody. How many of the intake of 30 has Ms Hall seen progress meaningfully into employment?

For full-time employment, in 2024, I would say that nine young people progressed. In 2025, 15 of the 30 progressed.

What was the situation at Galway Rural Development?

In the first year, 2024, 11 people progressed into part-time employment and five into full-time employment. Approximately 20 individuals progressed into work experience. We had similar figures last year.

In the context of 2024, we were only getting going towards the latter part of the year, and there were three that year. It was 12 in 2025, and 15 in 2026. We have a total to date of 39.

I have a further question for Ms Hall. How many provided free work experience to the WorkAbility cohort?

It was a small cohort. Out of the 15 in 2025, I would say that five of them started.

That is interesting. I have the same question for the other witnesses. How many provided work experience? I call it “free” work experience.

To clarify, does the Deputy mean how many employers?

Yes.

We would have had ten to 12 employers.

I have the same question for Mr. Finn.

All of our participants are in full-time employment. They are employed positions.

They are not unpaid work experience. That has not been a part of the offerings for us.

Anybody who gets work experience with FIT gets paid.

Yes.

That brings me to my question for Ms Hall. Do the young people who get work experience with her organisation get paid?

Those I mentioned who started off, no.

I pose the same question to Mr. Applegate.

Some have progressed from a work placement or work experience into part-time work.

Okay. Turning to Steve Dolan, from Galway, in the context of the Tús and RSS schemes where the Department brought about the acceptance of the disability allowance as part of the criteria, has that brought more people into that space to be able to participate in meaningful community involvement? What is seen as being an enabler to ensure we could bring more people into this space?

There is no doubt but that it has a very positive impact. It was badly needed in Tús at the time, as the Senator knows, because we were struggling for numbers. Credit is due to the Department and to Pobal, because we have definitely turned a corner in this regard. Very good progress has been made over the last year or so.

Turning to the question of how to enable and empower this approach further, it takes time. There has been progress. Just like for employers, there is a challenge for those sponsors and community groups. It means giving extra time. It means we have a range and a spectrum of challenges - as all the speakers have touched on - with taking somebody who has certain types of disabilities versus others. It is very much about meeting those individuals where they are at and finding the proper placement for them. I have to say that good progress has been made.

We know that the WorkAbility funding is more than likely coming to an end as we speak. If this funding is not received again, what will this mean for the companies? More importantly, what will it mean for the individuals who potentially need to access it?

We only have time for one answer.

I think it would have a detrimental effect. WorkAbility has done so much for young people. In north Tipperary, we have so many young people who are really struggling. As Mr. Kelly said, WorkAbility meets those young people where they are at. It is not as simple as them coming into us and getting employment as much groundwork has to go into it. It can be something as small as meeting them weekly and building a rapport and trust, and this can include opening email addresses, bank accounts and supporting them with getting into rehab and with upskilling and training. A great deal goes into it. There is also job shadowing, part-time work and full-time employment. Additionally, it is about supporting those young people when they are in those employment roles. It is not as simple as them getting a role and then they are fine. They need continuous support from the likes of us. Without us, I think there would be a huge effect.

I welcome everybody. I thank them for the great work they are doing. It is a very difficult job. I reiterate what was said earlier about State agencies. They have to be at the forefront, and I think they should be called out if they are not doing that. That is my first point.

I have a few questions. Across the programmes delivered by the various groups represented here today, what measures are used to define a successful employment outcome and how do we ensure that these measures cover job quality and sustainability and not just job entry? I would like to get an answer from one person.

I will take this question. In terms of the Cuimsiú programme, there are a number of key performance indicator, KPI, outcomes. The employment piece is one of those outcomes. In terms of the wider variety of KPIs, full-time employment is one of them. People with disabilities reported an improvement in soft skills and development in terms of those capacities to communicate. I refer to participants who completed NFQ-accredited training as part of the programme, and participants who completed non-NFQ-accredited training who attended networking events. One of the things about Cuimsiú concerns employers who have specifically reported an increase in confidence derived from participating in and engaging with our programme. If we talk about employability and disability inclusiveness, there are two sides to this coin that have to be married. This is a key KPI.

How do FIT programmes ensure that training provided under WorkAbility is in line with real-time labour market demand? What evidence do the organisations have that participants are securing employment that matches the level and type of training that they received, rather than lower-skilled or temporary work?

In terms of our participation in the WorkAbility scheme, some of the upskilling, if we want to call it that, is somewhat shorter term in respect of enabling people to get into employment. In terms of the nature and format of those training options taken up, FIT’s mission is to support roles in the tech sector. The whole fulcrum of it is, and I made this point in my opening statement, about quality employment. Too much credence is given to just employment as a banner. We are about looking at quality employment and targeting people into those roles that could be meaningful. For example, and very briefly, we have apprentices active on our apprenticeship programme, software developers, who are functionally blind. They have been able to work as software developers, though, because we have been able to put supports in place with employers who are genuinely inclusive in that way.

That is great. Given the ongoing structural barriers in rural labour markets, such as transport, broadband and limited employment, what specific interventions under the WorkAbility scheme have improved employment outcomes in rural Galway and how are these being independently verified?

That is a very good question. The rural barriers are an additional issue in terms of supports for people with the WorkAbility scheme. The whole programme is fundamentally about empowering individuals. One aspect we look at is to empower people to become independent in terms of transport. That is one area. It looks at how the existing transport structures can be utilised to get people to look for employment. All of that work is going on around that aspect. We have people who are looking for and progressing into employment in the transport sector. They are looking to become D1 and C1 licence-holders. There is that progression there but it is a significant barrier because people may be living in a rural area of the county and their employment may be an hour’s journey away.

This would be in rural parts of Galway.

Galway is the second largest county.

One thing that has worked best for us in Galway has been linking with employer groups. There is a group in Ballinasloe called the Pulse Club and a similar group is being established in Loughrea. This means we are meeting employers where they are at and listening to them. The advantage of this range of programmes, whether in Laois and Offaly or in Galway, Tipperary or wherever, is that when employers are looking for an added staff member or to provide employment to somebody who does have a disability, as well as knowing the individual, it is of great assistance to us to know what the employer is seeking. If we were focused on tech, obviously, that would be a big advantage because it is a narrower niche. We try, however, to have as wide a spectrum as possible. The advantage local development companies have, as well as the great work my colleagues do, is that we have a range of different supports through SICAP, LEADER and the different programmes. We have a range of assists and knowledge that can be leveraged to meet what the employer needs and meet what the individual needs in terms of having proper work and not just something tokenistic.

How is long-term progress being tracked for young participants, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds? What safeguards are in place to ensure that participants are not simply going between short-term training schemes without eventually progressing to stable employment?

Each programme that local development companies operate, and I will just focus on the local development companies for a moment, has individual KPIs. It is quite important. The aims they have and the supports needed in regard to social inclusion and community activation programme, SICAP, have to be uploaded to the IRIS database, which tracks all of this. It is an internal system for doing that, and it sets KPIs for progression. The local development companies that have local employment service, LES, initiatives to get people back into work partner a lot with the Intreo offices. Again, they all have their own individual progression targets.

The key thing is tracking individuals.

It is a very good question because it is not just enough to tick the box. One of the very good things WorkAbility does is that it actually does that. It is not a case of us meeting five people today and some of them now find themselves in employment. There is a real earnestness in how this programme has been established and there is a real follow-through and that is very important.

The follow-through. That was my question.

Without that, we cannot make a case for WorkAbility.

That is grand. I presume the Chair will have a second round-----

Yes.

-----and a third, if necessary. Thank you.

I thank the witnesses for coming in today and for the work they do. I have a couple of questions. What practical supports do employers need in order to recruit or maintain more people with disabilities? Do they believe there should be stronger incentives for employers who actively recruit and retain workers with disabilities? In a lot of cases, State bodies and local authorities do not even retain the people they should. There seem to be ways around it. What do the witnesses think?

I will take this and I will get Ms Hall to come in on it as well. I would have been in this space from 2009 for maybe a decade doing youth employment programmes. The one thing that I would always have said about employers is that they are very generous and very willing to work. The one thing they want is support. They want somebody they can talk to. They want to know about the young person. They want to know "what happens if" and they want to know that person is there. Departments are brilliant at coming out with programmes, schemes and things like that but Ms Hall and the WorkAbility programme steps into that relationship piece and gets into the grey area of what it is we are talking about here. Ms Hall would understand the young people so, if it is a case that this person needs to take time out at different times during the day, the employer needs to realise that this what they are looking at here - what kind of hours they can do, timekeeping and things like that. It is about being able to have a really honest conversation with an employer and the employer being able to have one with you, where they can pick up the phone and say, "Look, Johnny did not show up today; this is not working out; let us see what we can do" and all the pressure is not on the employer. I did this work for a decade and, predominantly, employers were amazing and they would put themselves out. Ms Hall will say more on that.

They definitely are. Mr. Kelly is right in what he says. I think there is a huge fear of working with young people with disabilities. There is a fear of not having the time. It is going to be extra pressure and they might say the wrong thing. Having us there as a support system for both the young person and the employer means that, like Mr. Kelly said, if the young person is struggling and the employer does not know how to address them or they do not have the time, then we can come in and support both parties with it.

I think it is very important that State bodies, local authorities and organisations like that hire their fair share of young people with disabilities.

The witnesses have called for a national scaling of Cuimsiú. What level of funding would be required to expand the programme to cover the entire State? Could I ask all three witnesses about expanding their own programmes? What level of funding is needed?

Cuimsiú is a pilot programme. We have delivered it for a number of years. In regard to a national ambition, we would look at significantly increasing the infrastructure and resourcing around it. It would be significantly more; I would say three to four times more. I have to say FIT is working on early-stage proposals in regard to what the scale-up of this could look like, and not for maybe very obvious reasons. The reason is we are looking at the people we have supported along the way. I talked today about tailored supports. There are a lot of relationships built up with people on our programmes and we have an onus of responsibility now to carry this forward. We can really feel that in quite a tangible way.

Very briefly, I will speak about the whole piece on employers and what it takes for them to get into the mix of this. Within Cuimsiú, 46% of employers are categorised in the large category of employer. One of the things that really strikes me is the piece around increasing institutional capacity, particularly in those larger entities, to be able to accommodate this on a constant and at-scale type scenario. That is very much what the future considerations would look like in regard to us going to build this out and assistance with that aspect.

Mr. Kelly mentioned difficulties with mental health challenges and the complexity of the system in securing rural work placements. What practical changes to Intreo services, interagency protocols or employer incentives would help to overcome these barriers?

I think WorkAbility ticks a lot of that. Intreo is limited as regards what it can do and we would see that relationship piece as being very effective. We work with the Intreo officers. Ms Hall might even be better to answer on this. It is that piece.

As regards rural transport, which the Deputy referenced there as well, it is a constant cry. We have a junior board in our organisation that is meeting the county council to advocate on behalf of that. It often does not match with real EmployAbility roles. You cannot get from Cashel to Thurles to be there at 9 a.m. so it limits what you can do. Then you are in a situation where your only way to be mobile is to have a car. You may be coming from a family that has not got the capacity to purchase a car. It makes your world very small.

One thing we are not talking about when we talk about this is something like the housing crisis, which has had an enormous effect on delayed adolescence. It is very hard for young people to develop and grow if they are stuck at home as well.

If the witnesses could recommend one policy change in the Department of Social Protection to encourage more people with disabilities into work, what would it be? That is for all three witnesses.

I would look at the transition from scheme to scheme. The point was made about people rolling from schemes. However, if people are supported all the way through this, it is a progressive pathway because everything is relative to where a person is starting. There could be more support and clarity around progressing from a Tús scheme to a community employment, CE, scheme and how that can be utilised, with the points that were made around the fear of people losing payments and consequences. That would be where I would suggest, and maybe potentially looking at employment schemes that support people with disabilities specifically or broadening that remit not just into community organisations that we work with - similar to the apprenticeship-type thing that FIT is working on - but into employers, businesses and enterprises, not just the community. That would potentially be beneficial.

We are out of time now. I call Senator Sarah O'Reilly.

I thank the witnesses for coming in today. By the sounds of it, everybody is doing great work. When the witnesses were giving their presentations, I was thinking about a few people I have tried to help, particularly one person who is blind. There seems to be an unending circle of programmes and upskilling that any one person can do. On the disability side of things, there are lots of people who are in that cycle of constant upskilling and programmes. I had questions on the funding. Senator Rabbitte stole my questions on it and the witnesses have answered those and how they capture and measure the success. I think the success is important. Somebody said that it is not all about success and that these people need supports but, to the person availing of these, the success is important.

I have a question on retention. Once the schemes are gone through and they have volunteered, how are the retention figures? I refer to the retention of people in these employments. If you are running a programme three years, are they lasting the full three years?

Mr. Applegate explained very well what Galway Rural Development Company does to interact with employers but I did not get a sense from the other witnesses' presentations on what they do to go out and interact with employers and talk to them. As a former employer, I would have been very busy. If you came to me and told me about something I would listen to you but, normally, if it is not in my head to go out looking for it, I will not. Employers do engage but they nearly need it brought to them. I refer to the handbook and all the things Mr. Applegate talked about on going out to employers. It is often about matching because every individual is so different. It is about matching and talking. What do the witnesses do to engage with employers?

We put a lot of work into meeting with employers. We will go out and we have employers who are regular to us.

We can bring a new young person where a placement has worked before with other young people, so we have someone new in and we know it will work again. Once we have an employer on board and a good relationship and rapport with them, they are very good at taking on other young people and coming to us if there are any issues.

Regarding the first question about retention, we are very lucky that our retention is very high. With the WorkAbility project, it is not that the young people come in and stay with us at the likes of Jigsaw for a certain number of weeks. They can stay with us for however long they need. Some young people come in and engage with us for a few weeks, we do what needs to be done, and they are fine to go out if they get employment, training, upskilling or whatever it is that they need. There are other young people who need a lot more support. That is where we come in. We work really hard on the basis that it is person-centred. We meet the young people where we are at and work really hard to build relationships and trust with them so, even if they are okay and thriving for a certain length of time, if something happens, they can always come back to us and we can support them with whatever it is that they need.

How many people are on the team?

There are three.

We have a lot of events we attend. We recently did AHEAD: Bridging the Gap, the disability show. Not only are we there to encourage potential participants into the programme but we are also networking with the employers. We have the advisory council for Cuimsiú as well that has employers and other representatives on it. We are always trying to tag team with each other, sharing contacts and connecting each other with people. We also utilise our tech apprenticeship programme, which has a lot of employers that have gone through it over the years. We are trying to connect the Cuimsiú team with the tech apprenticeship team to share those contacts and to utilise what is already there.

I agree that it is about meeting those employers where they are at and giving them the reassurance that it is not as scary as it might be. Ms Hall mentioned being present with people, doing needs assessments with them, supporting people and employers at interview stage to support Cuimsiú mentees to get onboard.

I agree. I think it was Mr. Finn who said there is not a lot of awareness among employers. That is because they are usually very busy and you need to go and be in front of them. I had asked about the retention of people.

We have only done the full-time employment. The 39 participants to date are still in employment.

That is very good.

To add to the earlier point, I am quite aware of my role in our organisation. There are courses people can do ad nauseam but align to what can happen structurally to improve people's prospects of moving into employment. Certainly, in the FIT context, we feel that structurally there could be far more done around building confidence in individuals with respect to having a different future. With regard to having identified an area of interest, a lot of the clients we deal with do not end up in tech roles. They go to other areas because we have, hopefully, spurred something in the time they are with us to say, "that is an area of interest."

If there is a young person out there, that can be a really great stepping stone in itself. Get them interested. Get them identifying the path they want to choose themselves. This is not about putting people into a funnel. It is about trying to open up that potential. Cuimsiú tells us that if we can get this deep level of engagement it can improve the outcome in terms of training, employment and so forth.

How many people work on WorkAbility in FIT?

There are four.

All the witnesses are very welcome. Obviously, as a Tipperary man I want to welcome Mr. Donal Kelly and Ms. Dearbhla Hall. I want to acknowledge all the witnesses but in particular Youth Work Ireland Tipperary because I am familiar with its work.

I want to zone in on that second key priority in terms of connectivity and rural transport being a barrier. I am not a member of this committee and I thank the Chair for facilitating me. I chair the Oireachtas committee on transport so this is a key area of interest for me. Indeed, we have the NTA before that committee next week, which has responsibility for the Connecting Ireland programme. Could I ask Youth Work Ireland Tipperary to flesh out that second key priority referred to in the opening statement? Could I also ask for practical examples of barriers in terms of County Tipperary in particular? What is the extent of engagement they have with Local Link and with the NTA collectively at a national level? Do they ever have the opportunity to feed into the Connecting Ireland programme?

With the practical examples as a worker on the ground, a lot of our funding goes to transport. We spend a lot of time and a lot of our money trying to get our participants to upskilling events and to training. For example, I had a young male in Roscrea who needed to get to CWS in Portlaoise to do a forklift driving course for three mornings. There was no bus from Roscrea that could get him to Portlaoise and the only bus that ran meant he was going to be dropped in the town and was going to have to walk for an hour out to CWS. Obviously, we had to organise a taxi for the three mornings to get him there. This is just one example.

We work really hard on a daily basis supporting young people doing the driver theory test so they can gain independence because, living in rural Ireland, if someone is depending on transport it is going to be a long time before they get there. The way we work is to support them on a weekly basis as they do their driver theory. From that we pay for six of the 12 driving lessons. We organise it and, like with the employers, we work closely with the driving instructors to make sure everything goes smoothly.

Coming back to the transport, as I said, a lot of our money goes on-----

What percentage goes on transport?

I would say definitely 30% of it would go into it; a huge amount of the participation. Once we have built the relationship and the trust, the main aim of the WorkAbility project is to get the lads into employment. So, we need to do the likes of Safe Pass, manual handling courses and forklift driving courses. That means we need to get them to the premises at FRS Training, CWS or wherever they need to be to do the upskilling and training. We just do not have the facilities.

Where there are gaps, is there the opportunity to sit down with the likes of Anthony Moroney in Local Link? Is there good engagement there in terms of exploring solutions?

Yes, it is being explored at the end of the summer with Anthony Moroney but that is probably as far as we have taken it. He is meeting with me later in the year, and our junior board of management, who would have representation from the ability programme as well. The Deputy is very familiar with how rural County Tipperary is.

If there are gaps, I ask that Youth Work Ireland Tipperary engage with me and keep me in the loop. My time is limited here and I want to move on to a second question. To what extent is the WorkAbility programme integrated with other State support schemes? For example, I am a big fan of, and do a lot of work with, the Moorehaven Centre and the wage subsidy scheme. My question to all the witnesses is this: to what extent are all these schemes integrated? Can we do more to better integrate all these different schemes? To what extent are employers aware of these schemes? Are there certain schemes that require simplification or reform? Could all the groups comment briefly on that?

I may not have mentioned earlier the situation with regard to statutory apprenticeships. A person who has a disability who wants to undertake an apprenticeship on a part-time basis cannot do so because the prerequisite of participation is a full-time programme. That is a really significant structural issue. Regarding FIT's view on Cuimsiú, it was about originating this programme but having those progression pieces. Certainly, we see our suite of tech apprenticeships as a very relevant area in the tech space for people to flow into. FIT supports 3,500 learners in further education and training across the country every year with a suite of EmployAbility supports. We are also advocating for clients to engage with those varied services from the viewpoint of having a fairly in-depth knowledge on a county-by-county basis. Again, that goes back to trying to identify people's area of interest, pushing it out from there and trying to spur interest and get them active in a particular region.

Regarding the Deputy's earlier comment on commuting, there is one thing that is structurally very important in this context. I appreciate the fellow witnesses' discussion on the rural end and commuting, but one of things we have found in FIT in recent years is that the nature of how people and clients perceive a willingness to travel, commute, undertake training and even to undertake work, has changed. Through the Covid piece, there are changed mindsets there. Behind it, there is some hard stuff. There is access to accommodation-----

I am caught for time. The Cathaoirleach will be jumping at me.

The Deputy has one minute left.

I will be as brief as I can. There are two other community development projects that run WorkAbility in County Galway. There is FORUM Connemara and Galway City Partnership. We have great links across all the programmes. There is great information, transfer and integration of supports. On integration to other agencies, we have a very strong relationship with our local Intreo and Department of Social Protection office and workers. There is a lady called Yvonne Kenny there. She is very supportive, but she will also link into supports for businesses. Around that wage subsidy and work and access, she helps us to provide the information and supports to employers. We link heavily with our local education and training board - the Galway and Roscommon Education and Training Board, GRETB. As I referenced a number of times, we also link to employment supports and internal programmes, such as SICAP and all the other bits. There is good cohesion-----

I wish to go back to Mr. Kelly, or maybe anyone can address this, on awareness among employers.

We can work with the chamber. The chamber is very strong in Tipperary. A lot of the time when we are addressing that with employers it is on a one-to-one basis and our conversations we have had with the Department. We go out and present and try to match a young person with a scheme or an opportunity and make them aware of what is there. From where we are, and we can only talk from Youth Work Ireland Tipperary's point of view, it is individual conversations with an employer. We have often linked in with job fairs and chambers where we have given a presentation, but most of the real progress happens when we are sitting with an employer on our own and explaining that this is what we are looking at and this is benefit of it.

Does your organisation link in with the chamber?

We would.

The witnesses are most welcome. I take pleasure in welcoming my two colleagues from Galway East, Mr. Dolan and Mr. Applegate. For the years that I was involved with Galway rural development on that board working alongside the witnesses, the stuff that goes on is compelling in relation to providing opportunity. I am sure the same goes for all the witnesses. One of the remarkable things about what the witnesses do regarding WorkAbility and providing opportunity is that piece of inclusion. We can never have enough done in that regard. I sometimes ask myself, "Can you imagine how the person that is fitted into an employment opportunity feels?", never mind how the witnesses feel or we as public representatives. We hear these great testimonials about how people are matched, if you like, with employment opportunities and the good that it brings. That is immeasurable. I ask the witnesses to continue on with their great work. It takes people from what can be quite a lonely place where they might be at home full time. It might be the only opportunity they have to get out and about to prove themselves. Sometimes, it is about people like the witnesses tapping into what it is that they have. I have encountered people who have been there and done just that. It is a remarkable success story.

The only thing that I wonder at times is how those initiatives are not matched with more goodwill in terms of finance and funding from the Department. This is not least for the organisations and development companies that are doing just that, but also for the employer who might want to do just what the witnesses are asking, which is to take a leap of faith. They have somebody who has the skill set to match a job that the employer has and there might be an obstacle there in terms of access. The employer might have to manoeuvre a stairs if the person has disabilities. It is about the relevant Departments or entities with a coming together of minds and a plan to do what I am talking about. That model should be rolled out more. I am sure it is there. I am sure the supports are there. I am sure there are very decent businesspeople who will say that they will make provision for that and they will do just what they are being asked to do. Of course, there are others who will not.

I thank Deputy Roche who was a brilliant chair of our organisation for many years. I could not be as eloquent as Mr. Finn a few moments ago or Ms Hall. The question was what the impact would be if the WorkAbility budget were cut. The Cathaoirleach knows better than anybody that the greatest failing any Government or Department can do is provide funding for something, that thing to be a huge success and then that funding to be pulled. Ms Hall put it so well. It would leave a chasm for these people in their lives. All the great progress that has been made will have been for naught if the funding for WorkAbility is not continued beyond. The progression is evident. Every target that has been set has been met.

This is not to talk down to anybody but we do not want to go down the road of the UK where the percentage of those who are on disability benefits is growing every year. They do not know where to begin with it. We have not had that in this country. We have had very good success. That has been appreciated by all the members today. The figures evidence the great work that my colleagues are doing either side and, hopefully, the work that we are doing. I put that to the Cathaoirleach to use any influence he has to make that case on our behalf after what he has heard today. I thank the Cathaoirleach and the Deputy very much.

Mr. Dolan is most welcome. Does Mr. Kelly wish to comment?

It has been said - it would be detrimental. There were questions around progression and things like that. We should point out that all the data is gathered and evidenced. As an organisation, we have brought in external people to do it. Quality Matters also carried out an evaluation on the first programme. Empirically, it is provable and factual. We can meet the young people who are involved, but we can look at the data and figures. An exercise that we do for our board is we go back two years after an employment programme has closed to check on people to see if they are still in employment. On the question of progression and evidence, this is a programme that works. It has been working for a long time. The models and everyone here at the table can back it up with evidence.

From a FIT context, we are proud of the Cuimsiú programme. As a provider, we have a responsibility around innovation and driving that. What does our next evolution of this look like? It is going to be an enhanced version of Cuimsiú, but we also have to be to prove where the extra added value is and how that is going to be sustainable over time. We have great ambitions for scale. That is how we come to this. That is what gets us up in the morning. If we are going to deliver something flat year after year, that is no good to anybody. It is about how this evolves in the future. There are so many changing needs out there in terms of young people today. That is going to inform what these look like into the future.

To follow on from Mr. Dolan's point, that is why we have all the witnesses here. WorkAbility is a very interesting topic for this committee and its members. Certainly, we will be engaging with the Minister and Department on the future of the WorkAbility programme and to see that it is continued for more settings.

I have a few questions. A good few of the witnesses mentioned that the age profile was quite young but in their presentations, they said that it is anything from 18 to 60-plus years of age. We will run through the three organisations quickly. What is the age profile in Tipperary, for example?

We take on 16- to 29-year-olds. A lot of the young people we work with are referred to us by CAMHS. Going back to that question, a lot needs to be put into mental health services as well. As I said, it is a process working with the young people we work with. There are not enough services to support young people aged 18 and over who have aged out of CAMHS and then come in to the likes of us. They need more support. Getting back to your question, it is 18 and up.

What about Galway?

We work with people aged 16 to nearly retirement age, and over-65s.

What age group is the bulk of your profile in? Is it predominantly young, middle-aged or older?

I would say it is 40% younger people, 40% middle-aged and 20% over middle-aged. We work with a lot of people who have acquired disabilities over their lifetime and there is a lot of work on supporting those people back into the labour market.

What about Mr. Finn and Ms Kearns?

We work with people from 16 up to the retirement age. For 16- to 25-year olds we are looking at about 38%, 26- to 32-year-olds make up about 25% of our participants and then 33 and older make up another 38%. The gender breakdown is 71% male, 25% female and 4% non-binary.

Okay. On general employment, we know exactly where the officials are coming from but what type of employers do the witnesses deal with in Galway? Are they in retail, manufacturing or what?

It is very much across the spectrum.

Okay. What is the most popular one?

The most popular are the service industries and back towards the construction industries as well. However, that does not truly show the picture. One of the things I hope all of us have got across to the committee is it is a person-centred approach, which means taking it from where the person is starting but also their capacity. You may have people who have the capacity for full-time employment. You may have people who have a capacity for two hours a week of employment. The important bit is that none of it is tokenistic and none of it is taken for granted. Once someone is in an employment, we are there to support them to progress from two hours a week to four hours a week, if that is in their capacity, or to move from a job where they are working 30 hours a week to 40 hours a week, and increase their earnings and income so they are sustainable and supported.

What type of employers are dealt with in Tipperary?

Retail, hospitality and construction.

That is perfect. The clerk and I attended, following an invitation to the committee, a very inspiring showcase event for employers in Dublin Docklands last week. I think it was showcased by Mr. Price and was a really attractive event to try to encourage employers to get involved in the programme. There was lots of showcasing of people who had transitioned from the WorkAbility programmes into employment and there were some amazing stories there. That could be replicated across the country.

I am from Cork and having Dublin, Cork, Tipperary and Galway events would be very important because sometimes it is about explaining it to the employer, and giving that support and back-up is hugely important. There was such inspiration in the room the last day for people. There was a young fellow whose dad came up with him as he could not communicate; his dad was communicating for him. He was so inspiring. His parents were so emotional every morning that he left, drove his own car and went to work. They had been constantly reminded that could not happen but with the WorkAbility programme, and the supports he got from the company he was working for, he was able to drive to work every morning. He worked in front-line retail and he cannot speak and he cannot hear. He was able to have a full-blown employment and be so proud he was able to do it. That kind of story resonates with people and having it showcased is important. The Minister spoke at the event. There is huge interest in that and it is something the committee are going to keep very much to the fore in the weeks and months ahead.

There was reference by a number of members to State agencies having to come to the fore. We all come from different constituencies and from urban and rural areas but State bodies, whether Departments, State agencies or semi-State bodies, have a presence in many of our towns and villages. What is the witnesses' experience of their involvement to date? Would they give them any advice? I will start with Mr. Kelly.

I cannot speak specifically to WorkAbility but we have found other employment programmes to be quite good. We have had a couple of people from the Roma community and the Travelling community recently employed in statutory bodies in the county and we found them very open to it. We would have had a lot of work, the very same as Ms Hall, but regarding WorkAbility I cannot speak specifically to any one example.

We would commend the local authority. Galway County Council is quite good. We practise what we preach ourselves. One of Mr. Applegate's WorkAbility team was previously on a disability payment. As was so eloquently put by several members, you have to practise what you preach. If you believe in what you do-----

What about other agencies apart from the local authority? There are a lot of other State bodies in Galway.

To be honest, Chair, I am not sure I can speak with enough authority on it. We engage with them and, as Mr. Kelly said, there is no doubt progress has been made. Huge progress has been made but we can do better.

FIT has some really excellent relationships with various Intreo offices around the country. Being part of that heartbeat of things has been really important. On inputs from various State agencies, the topic of interconnectedness between those bodies is really critical into the future. I can give a very brief example. In the last few months, the National Apprenticeship Office published for the first time a disability inclusivity tip-sheet, for want of a better phrase, not dissimilar to FIT's earlier efforts. The difference there was it went out to thousands of employers across the State. We talk about how we get that penetration but I understand that with respect to the entities involved in that, it was a multi-agency effort to see how to best go about that task. It is about anything in that space that can improve that interconnectedness. We talk about projects seaming one into the other, but really the prerequisite is that is happening behind the scenes with those agencies and that they are the driving force of the narrative because otherwise things can fragment.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Deputy Aird has a supplementary.

Thank you. What formal mechanisms exist to avoid duplication of employment supports and what structures are in place to prevent participants being moved between programmes without clear outcomes, as in going from programme to programme?

The FIT context of Cuimsiú is very directed within the context of a single initiative. Some of our fears, as I mentioned, are a little to do with how we are going to support these things when the project ends. We have really good employment outcomes and at the moment that is steady, but I am not naïve. There can be cliff faces in terms of things like that.

I understand that. What is the average cost per participant and per sustained employment outcome across the witnesses' WorkAbility-related programmes? How does this compare with mainstream further education and training pathways funded by the State?

We just have the yearly totals with us today but we can provide that information separately, if that is okay. We can send in the response.

I would not be able to tell the Deputy what the cost per individual is. Part of that is because that would skew the relevance of the supports. Some people's need, as was referenced, can be as short as two to four weeks but another person might stay with our supports for 18 months and then progress.

The reason for the question was to try to make a comparison to show how much money is spent on mainstream as well, and why we should be supporting what we are doing. That is all it really was.

If I may, one of the Deputy's earlier questions was about progression and how that is monitored. It has been referenced by all the projects here but it is to do with the relationship and that connection with the individual. We all do follow-ups with an individual once they have left the programme but also while they are consistently in there.

We engage with them four weeks after the programme and six months after that in order to discover whether that employment is still sustainable and what issues there are. I mentioned the word "tokenistic" earlier. Procedures are put in place to make sure that is not the case and that there is no duplication. There are a number of supports for people with disabilities in this environment. Coming back to the earlier question about linking in, the fact that there is good communication and good crossover minimises any of that.

How are employers engaged in the design and delivery of WorkAbility pathways? What evidence is there that employers are offering inclusive, adequately paid roles rather than short-term placements that do not lead to long-term employment?

How are the employers engaged in the process?

Yes.

We would perhaps start with a different position from FIT. If an individual expresses an interest in a particular subject, we work with them. We also work to build the capacity of the young person. We talk to an employer and we link it like that. We never put the employer at the centre of things. The young person is kept at the centre. The young person chooses a particular job, and we work with the employer and explain that the person is short whatever number of skills. It could be role-playing a scenario on the phone. It could be the guy's job for two weeks where we make a phone call; we are inside in the office and we do it over and over again.

Yes. Just going back to what was said earlier about the fork-lift course in Portlaoise, which is where I am from, it is great.

There is a three-way conversation. There is the young person, the employer and ourselves.

Is it correct that a person would go to that location because the service knew there was somebody there who was available to employ them?

Yes. Deputy Aird referred to progression. It is about planning for the future as well and always having a plan in place for the young person, whether it is to start off with manual handling and Safe Pass, and then getting them fork-lift training, knowing that there is an employer down the line who will give them paid work.

I will just make a point on that, because it is really important. There is never a scenario where we put 15 people on a Safe Pass course. It is the complete opposite. The young person is always at the centre, and we work out from that.

What evaluation methodologies are used to demonstrate additionality? In other words, how is it shown that outcomes would not have occurred without the programmes being in place? Do the witnesses have any tracking data beyond 12 to 24 months to assess whether the participants remain in employment or progress even further in their career?

We use the customer relationship management system to track the progress of the young people. We are constantly putting in training courses and whatever it is they do when they are with us, so we have all of their progression when they are with us. As well as that, it is about having a relationship with the young person as well. They know - we make it very clear - that they can communicate with us and call us for whatever it is that they need, even if they have progressed out of our programme. The door is always open for them to come back if they need to.

My final question is about disability allowance. The committee is not just a talking shop. We need to go back and discuss this with the Minister. One of the most important points I am getting from this meeting relates to the disability allowance and the fact that there has to be a safeguard in respect of it while we encourage people to go ahead with all the different schemes. I dealt with it a good bit as a public representative. In the majority of cases, especially when it comes to younger people from the aged of 18 to 25 or from 16 to 25 or 30, they are all living at home or whatever the case may be. After that they go into different accommodation. I have been involved in it many times. The big ask here is how we ensure that if things do not work out that people do not go through all the rigours they went through before to get the disability allowance. That is hugely important.

I agree. There needs to be a window and it needs to be three to five years to give somebody the opportunity to have a genuine go at something and maybe to fail and to go again.

They must drop straight back to the disability allowance.

Yes, exactly. Three to five years would be the minimum we should be looking at.

Three to five years. On behalf of everybody here today, one constructive thing we could do is ask the Cathaoirleach of the committee to arrange a meeting with the Minister to discuss that. We need to get something concrete from today's meeting. What is coming across from the replies to all the questions about progress and everything else is the disability allowance. Am I right in saying that?

Yes.

That is fair enough.

My esteemed colleague stole my question.

I will share it with the Deputy. Is that all right?

I like the concept of the journey ahead. One of the things I can honestly say is that it behoves us to do what Deputy Aird mentioned, namely champion the cause. We should not leave the conversation here. That is critically important. As I mentioned earlier, there is so much benefit in doing what the witnesses are doing. However, there is also much benefit to be gained by developing it further. There is no glossy way to describe it other than to say that for many people, this would be transformative if it was to work in a way whereby anyone who has a disability would be provided with an opportunity to make them feel that they are integrated as opposed feeling isolated. Anyone who, God bless us, has a disability is entitled to a payment of sorts. There is no question about that. Unless they can demonstrate that they have the full capacity to go and do a perfectly normal day's work, and that includes gaining easy access to their place of employment. Transportation is a really big element as well.

As I mentioned earlier, we cannot leave the conversation here. We need to push it on, and we need a follow-up. The witnesses have done a remarkable job. I apologise that I missed the statements earlier because I was next door at the health committee, which is critically important as well. We should place ourselves in a position where we should be able to come back to the witnesses, let us say in a couple of weeks or months and say that this is what has happened as a consequence of their visit to the Oireachtas committee. I will not say we are failing if we cannot do that but we are not cutting it if we cannot move it on to the next level in support of what the witnesses put forward today.

The EU average is 51% of people with disabilities are involved in the workforce. In Ireland, it is 32%. We are lagging a good bit behind. There is huge optimism and there are opportunities available to the Government to see if we can improve that.

This is the last round-up. In the experience of the witnesses, what are the biggest gaps that need to be addressed in forthcoming budgets? Given that our average is 32% and that the European average is 51%, we have a lot of work to do. Collectively, we can try and achieve that as best we can. Could the witnesses outline examples of what their organisations believe are the most important things for us to achieve?

There are two things. The first is to maintain the funding we are getting at the moment. The second is the protection of the disability allowance. This is incredibly important. If that is a barrier, we know there is quite an easy fix. Maybe that is why the percentage goes from 30% to 50% across Europe. We must look at how we could remove that. It is not about paying anybody more or less; it is just allowing somebody to take that barrier away and to work. Psychologically, it would have a huge impact on young people facing into these programmes and doing training when they walk into a job. Getting a job or being employed is magic. The way it has been described shows how close members have been to it. We see people grow. Likewise, when we see young people who are at home who are unemployed, they diminish. Once they are out of school, when they walk down the street and someone asks what they are doing, each time they get asked that question, they get a bit smaller. If there was one thing, that would be it. It seems like something we could do. It would remove that barrier, which is a real barrier. It is ingrained in young people since they got the allowance.

Like all good Tipperary people, if you ask them for one thing they give you two.

Addressing the fear of losing payments would help people to progress. As has been stated so many times this morning, it is the fear of "If I engage with the labour process, will I be back to square one and have to go through the whole process again if it does not work out?" A lot of the time, it does work out. However, there is fear about what happens if it does not. Additional supports to allow people in supported employment to progress would also be helpful. What that model would look like, I do not know. From what I have seen, however, done right, supported employment is a great pathway to allow people to progress.

I agree with all the other comments in that regard. Moving into the future, one thing that would be important would be more formal recognition of the entities involved in delivering these supports. There is work to be done around what the national cohesion of that would look like. If we are transitioning social protection payments into that space, it must happen in the form of a dialogue within the context of a bounded, structured project initiative in terms of having a safety net for everyone involved, and those supports always being guaranteed. That would be really important.

It would be important to send the transcript of this meeting to the Minister’s office. That would indicate the importance of the discussion that has taken place here this morning and the witnesses’ contributions. Is that agreed? Agreed.

One other thing I found interesting in the comments on the payment was that relating to having a pause mechanism as opposed to abandoning the payment. It could be paused in order that if the person involved wanted to go back on disability at any time, they could do so. There are some disabilities that might be progressive and the people involved might not be able. Conversely, some people might park their disability payment forever. If there was a pause mechanism, that would allow easy access again rather than having to start the whole process from start to finish.

The point is well made.

There are people who can be great for six, seven or nine or ten months. Then, all of a sudden, they have a downer for a couple of months and this kicks back in. We are dealing with something that is very delicate for both employers and those seeking employment. The witnesses are working with these people. There has to be huge flexibility. These are not statistics. It is not like taking someone out of unemployment; it is completely different. There has to be joined-up thinking in respect of this matter. We need to move away from statistics. This is not about statistics; it is about a quality of life for an individual who has a disability of whatever sort. We should not get into statistics from that point of view. I asked that we have a genuine conversation with the Minister on this matter in order that we can put forward a solution that is workable.

I thank the Deputies. I also thank Ms Hall, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Dolan, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Finn and Ms Kearns for their contributions and for providing the briefing materials in advance. We very much appreciate it. I urge any individual families and employers watching today’s meeting to seek out and engage with what is clearly a very important and life-changing experience. Expertise and supports are available. The committee would encourage individuals and employers to get involved and to support the underlying premise that the activities support, namely inclusive employment.