ar report version for website - dlr drug & alcohol task forceintroduc

DLR -‐ DATF

2013 Annual Report

Contents

1.  Introduc<on 2.  Trends: DLR profile and overview of the county’s

drugs problem 3.  Progress 2013 4.  Impact of the DATF funded projects 5.  Drug user fora 6.  DATF governance 7.  Appendix 1 – Maps, figures & tables 8.  Appendix 2 – Funded projects

2

Introduc<on •  This is the 2013 Annual Report of the DLR DATF •  2013 was a challenging year for the Task Force; it had

ambi<ous plans, most of which were realised, but also experienced some setbacks

•  Following the departure of the a/coordinator in June the Task Force went through a period of instability, and there was further uncertainty arising from the funding posi<on and the provision of administra<ve support

•  These maYers were nonetheless resolved but the Task Force has experienced delays in its progress and is only really now (August 2014) achieving catch-‐up

•  This Annual Report 2013 was agreed by the Task Force on July 3rd, 2014

•  The report can be printed and/or viewed on screen/monitor – using pdf slide show viewer

3

Data sources for DLR profile and overview of drug use

a)  Relevant extracts from social inclusion profile of Dun Laoghaire / Rathdown county – Southside Partnership

b)  Na<onal drug treatment repor<ng system – HRB c)  Feedback from TF members and funded projects

4

1.a DLR – Profile data: Southside Partnership

5

Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County lies between Dublin’s outer, southern suburbs and the Dublin/Wicklow Mountains and covers the electoral areas of Dundrum, Glencullen, Stillorgan, Blackrock, Dun Laoghaire and Ballybrack (pop. 200,000 approx.) (see map 1 -‐ Appendix). Key socio-‐demographic features include the following: §  Based on 2011 relative deprivation Migures, it is the most afMluent county in

Ireland although it has signiMicant internal differences in wealth and deprivation (see map 2 -‐ Appendix)

§  Using relative deprivation index scores, several areas targeted for inclusion by Southside Partnership are classed as ‘marginally below average’ (8.4% of small areas – SAs), ‘disadvantaged’ (4.7% of SAs) or ‘very disadvantaged” (0.1% of SAs) (see Migure 1-‐ Appendix )

§  Of the 37 SAs classed as being ‘Disadvantaged ‘ and ‘Very Disadvantaged’, 19 experienced a negative shift in their relative position from 2006 -‐11: becoming increasingly excluded from more afMluent areas, whose relative position improved during the recession.

1.a DLR – Profile data: Southside Partnership (contd.)

§  DLR has the country’s highest 3rd level education participation: at 45% it is almost double the national rate; the rate of primary school only participation is relatively low at 8.1% (national Migure is 15.2%), although in targeted areas it is 14.5%, i.e. higher than that in Dublin as a whole, at 13.4%.

§  DLR has the lowest rate of population in the country within Social Class 5/6 – semi-‐skilled / unskilled -‐ at 7% is half the national Migure of 14% .

§  Fifteen per cent of housing units in the DLR target areas are social housing, which compares to 6.6% for DLR county.

§  Although DLR has a less percentage of non-‐Irish nationals (12.2%), compared to national (13.0%) and Dublin (16.9%) percentages, target areas show higher percentage (13.3%) than national

§  The percentage of lone parents in target areas at 22.1% is higher than both national (18.3) and Dublin (20.8) and 6 points above the DLR county percentage. See Table 1 -‐ Appendix

It is clear that while DLR is a wealthy county, it has both areas and social groups of signi@icant social disadvantage.

6

The National Drug Treatment Reporting System (NDTRS) is an epidemiological database on treated drug and alcohol misuse and this is compiled by the Health Research Board (HRB). Currently NDTRS data is available online 2004-‐12. §  Between 2004-‐12, individuals entering drug treatment increased by

53.3% from 4,802 to 7,363: an annual average increase of 6.7%. §  Individuals entering opiate treatment increased by 23.7%, from 3,119 to

3,857: an annual average increase of 3.0%. §  Average annual increases in non-‐opiate cases of treatment are at 13.5% a

4.5 mul<ple of opiate increases, from 1,683 to 3,506, which is an increase of 108.3% over the period.

These figures illustrate that while there was an increase in numbers entering treatment for drugs over the period, 2004-‐12, the increase is accounted for primarily by treatment for non-‐opiate drugs; indeed treatment cases for opiate drugs in Dublin (city and county) where this problem was most parHcularly pronounced right through the 1990s when task forces were set up, decreased by 25.7% over the period, from 2,446 in 2004 to 1,818 in 2012, an average annual decrease of 3.2%.

1. b NaBonal drug treatment reporBng system

7

§  Individuals entering drug treatment in DLR increased from 118 to 178 over the 2004-‐12 period – an increase of 50.8% and an average annual increase of 6.4%

§  The percentage increase in treatment cases for opiates is 4.7%, from 107 to 112 (an average annual increase of 0.6%)

§  The percentage increase in treatment cases for non-‐opiates is considerably higher at 500%, represen<ng an increase from 11 in 2004 to 66 in 2012; while rela<vely small these figures signify a trend, and an indica<on that the drug problem, as represented by treatment cases, shows a decided shi` from opiate drugs – as a problem for older drug-‐users to non-‐opiates, as a problem for younger people.

§  The situa<on with respect to alcohol treatment is also consistent with this trend with an increase of 62.1% over the period from 5,143 to 8,336 and an average annual increase of 7.8%.

§  The DLR figures show even higher percentage increases, from 54 in 2004 to 144 in 2012, an average annual increase of 20.8%, providing further evidence of a changing trend.

1. b NaBonal drug treatment reporBng system (Contd.)

8

1. c Feedback from TF members and projects

•  Perception that the heroin drug problem has quieted; not as visible, although there is still evidence of young people in areas of social deprivation using illegal drugs, getting high on cannabis, cocaine and alcohol and engaging in anti-‐social behaviour

•  Continued concern about under-‐age drinking and open social drinking in estates, particularly during hot summer months

•  There is a lack of knowledge about trends and the type and effects of illegal drugs currently being consumed by young people

•  There is an absence of outreach support and drop-‐in facilities for drug users, across all ages

•  Many older persons on methadone don’t have alternative rehabilitation prospects

•  There is widespread concern about the cumulative impact of alcohol and drug problems on the social, psychological and learning outcomes for vulnerable children

9

1. d Summary of DLR trends

§  Although DLR is an afMluent county , it includes a number of small areas with high levels of social deprivation and whose relative socio-‐economic position has worsened in recent years during the recession

§  It is clear on the basis of information provided by the projects that these disadvantaged areas continue to experience drug-‐related problems, particularly arising from drug-‐related anti-‐social behaviour, under age drinking and complex family and child welfare issues

§  The demand and use of drug treatment services within the county reMlects developments at both national and regional (Dublin) levels., namely: §  that demand for treatment continues to grow. §  while the demand for treatment grows, it is clear that demand for the treatment of opiates is reducing, particularly at a regional level, and there is some evidence it is ageing out.

§  the expansion in treatment relates mainly to alcohol and other (non-‐opiate) drugs

10

1. d Summary of DLR trends (contd.)

§  The percentage average annual increase in demand for treatment is higher in DLR than nationally or regionally; in this respect DLR is leading this trend

§  The expansion in treatment demand for alcohol and non-‐opiate drugs is particularly evident in DLR, and it is clear that DLR’s strategy moving forward needs to reMlect these changes

11

§  There is a need for a concerted effort to assist the older group of persons on methadone more intensive and where appropriate, alternative rehabilitation pathways

§  An increasing demand for non-‐opiate based treatments, especially for younger persons, needs to be addressed, particularly in planning for future years

§  Additional outreach support, both in terms of reducing individuals’ drug use and in mitigating the wider social effects on communities, needs to be provided

§  There is no dedicated under 18s treatment service nor is there an appropriate outreach service for this group

§  There are persistent child and family welfare problems associated with years of addiction, poly drug-‐abuse and social deprivation and these pose signiMicant challenges in terms of developing professional capacities and interventions to improving outcomes for children

12

1. e Issues arising from data trends & other inputs

2. Progress 2013

During 2013, the Task Force endeavored to make progress in relation to the above issues; while progress overall was good, in some instances, for reasons previously referenced, it was limited

§  Progress: §  Supply reduction §  Prevention and education §  Treatment and re-‐habilitation §  Research 13

The Task Force’s main engagement with supply reduc<on was through Development Worker (DLR 2-‐15) par<cipa<on in SARA, a mul<-‐agency process to improve community safety and reduce the open dealing of drugs in public areas, to reduce public drinking, and to reduce under-‐age sales of alcohol – par<cipa<on involved the following for the Task Force: §  Lead agency, under SARA, in establishing a sub-‐group to explore the

development of a drop-‐in service or space – other par<cipants in the ini<a<ve included HSE, DROP, DLRCC, Gardai and the Business community; this ini<a<ve achieved considerable exploratory progress during 2013 but was wound down in the absence of targeted funding

§  Provided support to the Gardai in implemen<ng a programme of control of alcohol to youths, including test purchasing. The ini<a<ve included the circula<on of a Garda leYer to all retail sellers of Alcohol informing them of SARA and reques<ng their full support in responsible sale of alcohol.

§  In due course SARA dovetailed into a Local Policing Forum for Dun Laoghaire and the Task Force provided con<nued support into 2014

§  Disseminated relevant informa<on on the issues of the in<mida<on of low-‐level dealers and their families

2. a Supply reduction

14

Families, children & youth The Task Force’s preventive strategy is premised on targeting at-‐risk families, groups and individuals and engaging them in relevant social, developmental and learning programmes that have impact on reducing their vulnerability to substance misuse. This strategy is developed by:

ü  Supporting the DL Youth service to operate a range of play, arts-‐ and drama-‐based preventive programmes for targeted children and young people (DLR 2-‐8)

ü  Supporting the Community Training Centre to identify, target and track early school-‐leavers, who are potentially vulnerable to substance misuse (DLR 2-‐10)

ü  Supporting Mounttown Neighbourbood and Youth Family Project to increase their capacities to target children of drug-‐using families in the context of intensive, child welfare programmes (DLR 2-‐11)

ü  Supporting Ballyogan FRC to operate targeted programmes for early school leavers (DLR 2-‐9)

(See individual project outlines on DATF website)

2. b Prevention and education

15

Families, children & youth In addition to supporting LDTF projects the Task Force, through DETU (DLR 2-‐6) also supported a number of small initiatives, including:

ü  continued support for Infant Matters, which provides workshops for young parents aimed at strengthening parent-‐infant communications and relationships, and

ü  two community-‐based life-‐skills programmes: the Mirst for young Travellers, was undertaken with the support of Southside Travellers, and the second for young people who had left state care was supported through Smylys After Care service

ü  A sibling support group operated through Mounttown Community facility and OASIS

16

2. b Prevention and education(contd.)

Training SCTN (DLR 2 – 19) provided or supported training as follows: ü  FETAC L 5 accredited Restora<ve Prac<ce Conflict Resolu<on course ü  Myers Briggs Personality Type ü  Personal Development /Community Health Training for Traveller Women ü  The Best of Me (Mental Health support for young people) ü  Fetac L 5 courses on Substance Use and Youth Work ü  FETAC L 5 Addic<on Studies Course with CASCP ü  IT training courses for homeless people in Bentley House ü  Personal Effec<veness for homeless ü  Restora<ve Prac<ce Train the Trainer workshop ü  Occupa<onal First Aid Fetac L 5 ü  Child Protec<on Training ü  Substance Misuse in Schools (policy review and development) ü  Therapeu<c Crisis Interven<on ü  Data Protec<on ü  Train the Trainer Fetac L 6 ü  Crea<ve Facilita<on Skills

17

2. b Prevention and education (Contd.)

The Task Force’s Treatment and Rehabilitation strategy is premised on developing and supporting community-‐based, and community –managed, accessible services. The Task Force provides direct support to relevant service providers, as outlined below (See also individual project outlines in Appendix 2): 1. DLR-‐CAT (DLR 2-‐2) §  A substantial operational grant for management, service provision, overheads and facilities

ü  Drop-‐in facilities, harm-‐reduction advice and information, and pre-‐assessment contact

ü  Initial and comprehensive assessments ü  Individual counseling ü  Therapy groups ü  Mindfulness and complementary therapies ü  After-‐care support ü  Family support services

2. c Treatment & rehabilitaBon services

18

2. DROP (DLR 2-‐4) §  A support grant to assist the project to manage, administer and develop its various strands, which are funded through a range of funding agencies

§  A grant to support the project in rolling-‐out and developing a cocaine outreach project

3. Bursary (DLR 2-‐12) §  A Bursary scheme to support recovering drug users in education

4. SWAN (DLR 2-‐5) Counselling and group support for women affected by substance misuse 4. Barnardos (DLR 2B-‐1)

§  Providing intensive supports to children and families where there are serious alcohol and/or drug problems

19

2. c Treatment & rehabilitaBon services (contd.)

§  The Task Force, through Development Worker (DLR 2-‐15), and with the support of individual projects and agencies, continued to collect data from projects and other sources on emerging trends and developments and to analyse relevant national reports on drug-‐related activities

§  The Task Force also identiMied the need to: ü  conduct a research study on the trends, effects and patterns of youth drug use, and this will be taken up in 2014

ü  undertake a data-‐driven review of its projects and activities, and this also will be taken up in 2014

§  During 2013 however, the Task Force did not engage in any direct, original research activities

2. d Research

20

Treatment & rehabilitation committee §  In addition to its support to LDTF projects the Task Force has an active Treatment & Rehabilitation committee, with representation from the DATF, HSE, DLR-‐CAT, DROP, OASIS and Barnardos, and this committee provides a strong basis for collaborative, focused actions

§  During 2013 the committee supported the roll-‐out of NDRIC, as per Action 32 of the NDS, 2009-‐16

§  Although client numbers participating in NDRIC were small the Task Force nonetheless believes than an initial framework has been established for closer and more effective collaborative case management and it believes the projects are primed to participate in further NDRIC developments, as appropriate

§  The Task Force in particular believes that this framework will help participating agencies to bring more focus to developing and providing alternative rehabilitation supports for persons who are long-‐term on methadone.

21

3. a Projects as a group – T&R

Under 18s treatment §  During 2013 the Task Force, through P&E worker, Development Worker (DLR -‐15) and funding from DETU (DLR 2-‐6) initiated a pilot Under 18s treatment programme, in conjunction with Dundrum Youth Services, DLR-‐CAT, DROP as per Actions 37/38, in the NDS.

§  A selection of members from respective agencies participated in Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach training

§  20 separate young people were referred to the service during the year; most referrals were through agencies and parents

§  Less than half attended, and fewer again sustained their participation §  A facilitated self-‐evaluation of this initiative was conducted and concluded that while the need for a service was there, the response needed to be through a single dedicated agency

§  A Steering Group, now operating as a Task Group under the aegis of the T&R committee has been formed to bring this project to its next stage, which will involve undertaking more in-‐depth needs assessment and also assessing existing service capacities to provide a comprehensive, professional response.

22

3. b Projects as a group – Under 18s

Prevention and education committee §  During 2012/2013 the Task Force did not have a P&E sub-‐committee, due mainly as a result of changes in key personnel/representatives.

§  Not having a P&E committee limited the Task Force’s capacity to give direction to its prevention and education actions, and in particular the DETU project, which was originally under the aegis of the P&E committee was unable, during the year, to fully expend its budget in the manner that was previously envisaged

§  Meanwhile, the DDETB funding that was used to employ a Prevention & Education (P&E) worker – through DROP – continued to experience reductions; the P&E worker was on 4 days per week, with reduced salary, and with a reduction in the management and hosting costs also, the situation contributed to budgeting difMiculties for DROP.

§  The Task Force supported the formation of a Strengthening Families committee to undertake a SFP programme in Ballyogan; however the expected funding for this programme did not materialise although the committee remained in place to process further ideas and suggestions

23

3. c Projects as a group – P&E

§  The Task Force informed project personnel in relation to all training provided through SCTN and CASP, and encouraged and supported their participation

§  The Task Force informed project personnel in relation to the Bursary Scheme and encouraged and supported applications to the scheme

§  During late 2013 the Task Force conducted a consultation exercise with all projects and TF members to ascertain key issues of concern – these are listed on Slide 12

§  During 2013 Interim-‐funded projects provided 6-‐month Minancial reports and also provided DTF1 forms for 2014 funding

24

3. d Projects as a group – General

§  In June 2013 the Task Force a/coordinator resigned and it was not possible to have a replacement in place until late November.

§  Meanwhile, administrative support to the Task Force was provided through the Southside Partnership on a tenuous and part-‐time basis. This latter situation was eventually regularised towards the end of 2013 and the Task Force put a half-‐time admin support person into position on a continuous basis.

§  Also changes in Task Force membership had impact; the Task Force chairperson resigned in late 2012, as did Mive other representatives during 2013, and it was difMicult for a new chairperson to take up this role in circumstances where the a/coordinator was about to resign

§  A lot of momentum therefore, was lost during 2013 and for a considerable part of 2014 also the Task Force indeed, was playing catch-‐up in relation to several ongoing matters.

25

3. e Projects as a group – LimitaBons

§  During 2013 the Task Force planned a set of development actions that were premised on the availability of funding through its Development budget: These included: §  Strengthening families Programme §  Expansion of Infant Matters §  Expansion of Lifeskills Programmes §  Initiation and development of Under 18s service §  Inserting new data management software into projects

§  It emerged, during early Autumn 2013, that the funding being relied upon within this budget was in fact an accumulated surplus and could not be used for the intended purposes; this development caused a lot of difMiculty for the Task Force both in terms of reporting to the DPU and in dealing with local projects and personnel who had an expectation that all these developments would take place as promised; developments were curtailed as a result.

§  Also, at the time the Task Force did not have a coordinator it also meant that the voluntary Task Force committee had to expend considerable efforts dealing with the subsequent shortfall and in re-‐balancing budgets.

26

3. e Projects as a group – LimitaBons (contd.)

27

3. f Projects as a group – Form A (SR)

!!

!!!!!!!!DRUGS!TASK!FORCE:!! !DLR!DATF!

!!!!!Pillar!*!!:! Supply!reduction!

!!!!!DTF!objective!:!

To participate in multi-agency partnerships for improving community safety and for reducing the illegal sale and supply of drugs and alcohol !

!!!!!Outcomes!:!

Establishing!and!supporting!groups!to!deal!with!the!need!for!dropCin!spaces!

Supporting!Gardai!in!test!purchasing!Supporting!Local!Policing!Forum!Disseminating!information!!

Category!**! Project!Code! Project!Name!

Organisation!facilitation! DLR!2C15! Development!worker!

Project!changes/!terminations!in!2013!

Category!**! Project!Code! Project!Name!&!Reason!!!! ! !*"A"separate"form"should"be"completed"for"each"Pillar"**"Category"should"be"as"per"Section"7"of"the"L/RDTF"1"form"

!!

!Form!A!


!!!!!Pillar!*!!:! Education/Prevention!

!!!!!DTF!objective!:!To#reduce#the#numbers#of#people#who#misuse#alcohol#and/or#drugs,#through#targeted#education#and#prevention#with#most#vulnerable#groups!

!!!!!Outcomes!:!

Improving!parenting!capacities!Strengthening!family!relationships!and!functioning!Improving!community!body!capacities!Increasing!proximal!community!supports!to!those!at!highest!risk!Increasing!proIsocial!youth!behaviours!and!attitudes!Increasing!wider!family!engagement!in!supporting!recovery!Improving!an!integrated!approach!by!different!preventive!agents!Improving!engagement!between!preventive!and!treatment!services!


Education!&!Prevention! DLR!2I8! Prevention!through!play!Education!&!Prevention! DLR!2!I10! Youth!choices!Education!&!Prevention! DLR!2!I19! !Southside!Community!Training!Network!Family!support! DLR!2I11! Mounttown!NYFP!Family!support! DLR!2BI1! Barnardos!Family!support! DLR!2I6! Drug!Education!&!Training!Unit!


Category!**! Project!Code! Project!Name!&!Reason!!!Education!and!prevention! DLR!2I9! Was!unable!to!spend!its!2013!allocation!*#A#separate#form#should#be#completed#for#each#Pillar#**#Category#should#be#as#per#Section#7#of#the#L/RDTF#1#form#

!!

28

3. f Projects as a group – Form A (P&E)

29

!!


!!!!!Pillar!*!!:! Treatment!and!Rehabilitation!


To provide a comprehensive, integrated intervention system that is community-based, and community-managed, accessible and links together individual, group and family-based treatment and rehabilitation programmes !

!!!!!Outcomes!:!

Reducing!drug!and!alcohol!use!Achieving!levels!of!control!or!abstinence,!as!appropriate!Reducing!coDrelated!psychoDsocial!problems!Reducing!drugDrelated!harms!(medical,!social!exclusion,!

unemployment,!criminal!activity,!relationship!breakdown,!etc)!Increasing!social!engagement!and!association!with!families!and!

community!Increasing!engagement!with!vocational!opportunities,!education!

and!employment!Improving!family!relationships!and!functioning!Improving!family!members’!wellDbeing!


Treatment!&!Rehabilitation! DLR!2D2! DLR!Community!Addiction!Team!Treatment!&!Rehabilitation! DLR!2!D4! DROP!Treatment!&!Rehabilitation! DLR!2!D12! !Education!Bursary!Family!support! DLR!2D11! SWAN!Organisation!facilitation! DLR!2D15! Development!worker!



!!

3. f Projects as a group – Form A (T&R)

30

3. f Projects as a group – Form A (Research)

!!


!!!!!Pillar!*!!:! Research!


To maintain an up-to-date overview on the nature and extent of drug and alcohol problems and the services available in DLR through gathering and analysing information from relevant bodies and conducting research internally, as appropriate. !

!!!!!Outcomes!:!

Data!from!HSE,!HRB!and!Gardai!collected!and!analysed!from!DLR!perspective!

Data!from!individual!projects!and!TF!memebrs!and!contacts!is!analysed!

Gaps!for!new!data!collection!are!identified!and!acted!onb!!


Organisation!facilitation! DLR!2K15! Development!worker!



!!

§  The Task Force commenced 2013 with an inter-‐agency steering group in place to support a service user development worker whose work was focused primarily on developing an area-‐wide service user forum

§  However this initiative faltered and among the reasons given was that service users seemed reluctant to engage in a forum outside the experience of any single agency; the initiative ceased in March 2013

§  Since then individual projects, DLR-‐CAT and DROP continue to provide mechanisms for service user engagement in project feedback and development, as previously.

§  The issue of a wider service-‐user forum will be addressed during 2014/15, within the context of a strategic review.

31

4. Service user fora 2013

32

5. a Governance -‐ TF Membership & attendance Status Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Chairperson CancJenny( Storey Community(representative X X X X X X X X elled X XMembersMarie Carroll Southside(Partnership X A A X A X X X X XLorraine( Doyle Community(representative X X X A A A X A A AGeraldine( Dunne Community(representative X X X A X X X X X XCollette Farrington Community(representative X X X X X A X X X AAdele Fennell Community(representative A X X X X A X X A AMary Flynn Garda(representative A A X A X A X A X AChris Furlong DLR(CC(representative A X A X A X XDeirdre Baber DLR(CC(representative X X XZuleika Jamieson VEC(representative X X X X A A X A ASamantha McCaffrey Community(representative A X A A A APeter McDonnell Community(representative X A X A A A XRóisín McLindon VEC(representative A A X X A A A A A AJoan McNamara Probation(service X X X X A A A X A ACllr.(Denis O'Callaghan Elected(representative A X X X X X X X A AAngela Tierney HSE(representative A A A X A A A X X XTheresa Waters Community(representative A X X X X A X X X XIn=attendanceMiriam Conway Dept.(of(Social(Protection A A A A A A A A X ABarry Cullen a/coordinator(LDTF Commenced(nov(18 X XEamonn Gillen P&E(LDTF X X X A X X X X X XMarie Kavanagh Admin(support(LDTF X X X X X X X X X XAoife Stack a/coordinator(LDTF X X X X X X Aoife(left(mid(June

X = aYendance; A = apologies

•  Ops Group: execu<ve group for TF –  Jenny Storey (chair) –  Marie Carroll (Southside partnership) –  Theresa Waters (Community representa<ve) –  Aoife Stack / Barry Cullen (a/coordinator)

•  Treatment & Rehabilia<on commiYee –  Angela Tierney (HSE) –  Geraldine Fitzpatrick (DLR-‐CAT) –  Sandra Kelly (DROP) –  Mary Daly (Barnardos) –  Aoibhinn King (HSE) –  Aoife Stack / Barry Cullen (a/coordinator)

33

5. b Governance -‐ Committees

The DLR DATF is an unincorporated en<ty and does not therefore have legal status, nor does it have employees, as it is not an employer. It does have staff assigned to assist it with its work. Personnel assigned as staff to DLR DATF include the following: •  Aoife Stack (un<l mid June 2013) Barry Cullen (from mid November, 2013) were in

the posi<on of a/coordinator & development worker during 2013, and assigned full-‐<me to provide an overall coordina<ng func<on to the task force and to ini<ate, promote and develop new ac<ons. The post holder is employed by Southside Partnership, who are funded for this purpose under DLR 2-‐15 via HSE as a Channel of Funding; the HSE also separately funds an ac<ng-‐up allowance.

•  Marie Kavanagh is admin support worker, assigned part-‐<me to provide administra<ve support and financial bookkeeping to the task force. She is employed by Southside Partnership, who are funded for this purpose under DLR 2-‐15 via HSE as a Channel of Funding.

•  Eamonn Gillen is preven<on and educa<on worker, assigned 4/5 to ini<ate and develop preven<on and educa<on ac<vi<es and programmes for young people. He is employed by DROP, who are funded for this purpose under YPFSF, via Dublin and Dun Laoghaire Educa<on & Training Board (DDETB).

34

5. c Governance -‐ TF Assigned staff

Appendix 1 – maps, figures & tables

Maps Map 1. Dun Laoghaire / Rathdown Electoral Areas Map 2: DLR Rela<ve Depriva<on, 2011 Figures Figure 1: classifica<on of small areas according to levels of affluence / disadvantage Tables Table 1: Select, relevant DLR profile data

35

�� !�� "�� $��!��%��!��#�� "�!$� �"��

�!!��###��"!" ��"��" �� !��"�� $��!��

��

��

Map 1. Dun Laoghaire / Rathdown Electoral Areas

36

37

10 11Social Inclusion Profile, 2011 All-Island Research Observatory

DúnLaoghaire

Monkstown

Blackrock

Booterstown

Churchtown

Columbanus

Dundrum

Ballinteer

Marlay Park

Stillorgan

UCD

Ticknock Hill

Sandyford Business District

Leopardstown

Cornelscourt

Kill of the Grange

Sallynoggin

Dalkey

Killiney

Cabinteeley

Carrickmines

Loughlinstown

Ballybrack

ShankillRathmichael

KiltiernanGlencullen

Stepaside

Ballyogan

Glasthule

KilcrossM50 M50

M11

N11

16

18

19

2117

201

2

13

15

14

12

3

411

5

6

7

10

8

9

Mounttown

Rosemount

Hillview

Balally

Nutgrove

Wyckham Point

.

Ordnance Survey Ireland Licence No. EN 0063512© Ordnance Survey Ireland/Government of IrelandData Source: Pobal HP Deprivation Index, AIROProduced by: All-Island Research Observatory (AIRO)Not to be reproduced without permission from AIRO.

Small Areas (SAs)Pobal HP Deprivation Index 2011

Extremely Disadvantaged

Very Disadvantaged

Disadvantaged

Marginally below Average

Marginally above Average

Affluent

Very Affluent

Extremely Affluent

Target Neighbourhoods

Pobal HP Deprivation IndexMap 1 Relative Deprivation, 2011

Figure 2 Relative Deprivation, 2011

0 136

64

185

360

110

40

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

# of

Sm

all A

reas

Source: All-‐Island Research Observatory (AIRO) (2012) A Social Inclusion Profile of Dún Laoghaire-‐Rathdown. Blackrock, Dublin: Southside Partnership., Map 1.

Map 2: DLR RelaJve DeprivaJon, 2011

37

Figure 1: classifica<on of small areas according to levels of affluence / disadvantage

Source: All-‐Island Research Observatory (AIRO) (2012) A Social Inclusion Profile of Dún Laoghaire-‐Rathdown. Blackrock, Dublin: Southside Partnership. Figure 2.

38

NaBonal Dublin DLR DLR targeted

EducaBon 3rd level

24.6 32.0 44.8 35.5

EducaBon primary

15.2 13.4 8.1 14.5

Social class 5/6

14.3 12.1 6.8 11.5

Social housing

8.7 10.2 6.6 15.0

Non-‐naBonal 13.0 16.9 12.3 13.3

Lone parents 18.3 20.8 15.8 22.1

Source: All-‐Island Research Observatory (AIRO) (2012) A Social Inclusion Profile of Dún Laoghaire-‐Rathdown. Blackrock, Dublin: Southside Partnership. Figure 2.

Table 1: Select, relevant DLR profile data

39

Appendix 2 – funded projects *

40

!!Code% Project% Promoter% Channel%%

%Amount%(€)%

Contact%

DLR!!2&2!

DLR!–!CAT! DLR!–!CAT! HSE! 482,057! Geraldine!Fitzpatrick!01&[email protected]!

DLR!!2B&1!

Childcare!project!

Barnardos! HSE! 18,802! Mary!Daly!01&[email protected]!

DLR!!2&4!

Mgt!Fund!&!Cocaine!polydrug!!

DROP! HSE! 147,523! Sandra!Kelly!01&[email protected]!

DLR!!2&5!

Family!Support!!

SWAN! HSE! 34,518! Pauline!Davy!01&[email protected]!

DLR!!2&6!

Drug!Education!Training!Unit!

Drug!&!Alcohol!Task!Force!

HSE! 8,139! Barry!Cullen!01&[email protected]!

!DLR!!2&8!

Prevention!through!play!–!Parachute!programme!

DL&!Youth!Service!!

HSE! 29,203! Emma!Campbell!087&[email protected]!

DLR!!2&9!

Ballyogan!ESL!

Ballyogan!FRC!

DDETB! 14,157! Collette!Farrington!01&[email protected]!

DLR!!2&10!

Youth!Choices!

DLCTC! DDETB! 55,093! Gerry!O’Shea!01&[email protected]!

DLR!!2&11!

MNYFP! MNYFP! HSE! 19,314! Una!Kenny!01&[email protected]!

DLR!!2&12!

Bursary! DATF! HSE! 9,551! Barry!Cullen!01&[email protected]!!

DLR!!2&15!

Development!Worker!

Southside!Partnership!

HSE! 51,671! Cormac!Shaw!01&[email protected]!

DLR!!2&19!

Southside!Community!Training!Network!

Southside!Partnership!

DDETB! 28,354! Sandra!Campbell!01&[email protected]!

!

Note 1

•  A summary profile of each funded project is available on DLR-‐DATF website 1. Ballyogan ESLI did not operate its programme during 2013

ar report version for website - dlr drug & alcohol task forceintroduc

Documents