An Oifig Buiséid Pharlaiminteach Parliamentary Budget Office

The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in theRevised Estimates for Public Services 2018

Briefing Paper 4 of 2018

Séanadh

Is í an Oifig Buiséid Pharlaiminteach (OBP) a d’ullmhaigh an doiciméad seo mar áis do Chomhaltaí Thithe an Oireachtais ina gcuid dualgas parlaiminteach. Ní bheartaítear é a bheith uileghabhálach ná críochnúil. Féadfaidh an OBP aon fhaisnéis atá ann a bhaint as nó a leasú aon tráth gan fógra roimh ré. Níl an OBP freagrach as aon tagairtí d’aon fhaisnéis atá á cothabháil ag tríú páirtithe nó naisc chuig aon fhaisnéis den sórt sin ná as ábhar aon fhaisnéise den sórt sin. Tá baill foirne an OBP ar fáil chun ábhar na bpáipéar seo a phlé le Comhaltaí agus lena gcuid foirne ach ní féidir leo dul i mbun plé leis an mórphobal nó le heagraíochtaí seachtracha.-

Disclaimer

This document has been prepared by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) for use by the Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas to aid them in their parliamentary duties. It is not intended to be either comprehensive or definitive. The PBO may remove, vary or amend any information contained therein at any time without prior notice. The PBO accepts no responsibility for any references or links to or the content of any information maintained by third parties. Staff of the PBO are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members and their staff, but cannot enter into discussions with members of the general public or external organisations.

2

4

7

8

10

12

14

16

18

Introduction

Executive Summary

PBO analysis of the pilot – key points

Vote 26 – Education and Skills

Vote 31 – Transport, Tourism and Sport

Vote 32 – Business, Enterprise and Innovation

Vote 33 – Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht

Vote 38 – Health

Vote 40 – Children and Youth Affairs

Appendix – Overview of Gender and Equality Budgeting theory 20

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18

1

The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

Contents

The Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018 (the ‘Revised Estimates 2018’) includes a pilot programme in respect

of Gender and Equality Budgeting. Gender and Equality Budgeting are discussed in greater detail in the PBO’s Note

on Gender Budgeting (November 2017) and in the appendix to this paper. The Department of Public Expenditure and

Reform has stated that progress in respect of this pilot will be published in its Public Service Performance Report 2017

(anticipated publication date: April 2018). The PBO intends to publish a Note and/or Briefing Paper in respect of that

Report in due course.

The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, when publishing the Revised Estimates 2018, stated that:1

“The Programme for Partnership Government contains a commitment to ‘develop the process of budget

and policy proofing as a means of advancing equality, reducing poverty and strengthening economic and social

rights’. Utilising the performance budgeting framework, a pilot approach to gender budgeting has been adopted

in the REV [Revised Estimates for Public Services] with a number of Departments including indicators relating to

equality objectives.”

Table 1 illustrates that five of the six Departments participating in the pilot published metrics and indicators relating to

high level gender goals, while two Departments published metrics and indicators relating to high level socio-economic

goals.

Table 1 – Pilot Departments and whether their focus is on gender and/or socio-economic goals

Department Gender Socio-economic

Education and Skills √

Transport, Tourism and Sport √

Business, Enterprise and Innovation √

Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht √

Health √

Children and Youth Affairs √ √

Source: PBO based on the Revised Estimates 2018.

1 Department of Public Expenditure and Reform press release of 14th December 2017, ‘Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018 published’.

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18

2

The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

Introduction

The analysis carried out by the PBO indicates that the quality of the ‘Key High Level Metrics’ and ‘Context and Impact

Indicators’ produced by Departments varied. Those produced by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, in

particular, are relevant, useful and addressed equality in relation to both gender and socio-economic goals.

This Briefing Paper is structured as follows:

nExecutive summary;

nKey points based on the PBO analysis of the pilot;

nAn analysis of the metrics and the indicators employed by each individual Department in the pilot; and

nAn appendix summarising the theory behind gender and equality budgeting.

The analysis focuses on each Department individually and consists of the relevant ‘High Level Goal’ and of a table

containing the ‘Key High Level Metrics’ and ‘Context and Impact Indicators’ set out in the Revised Estimates 2018,

followed by the PBO’s analysis.

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18

The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

3

The Revised Estimates 2018 includes a pilot in respect of Gender and Equality Budgeting. The mechanism for achieving

this is to state gender and/or equality specific ‘High level Goals’ and associated ‘Key High Level Metrics’ and ‘Context

and Impact Indicators’.

Table 2 shows that a total of 15 ‘Key High Level Metrics’ and 16 ‘Context and Impact Indicators’ are categorised

as ‘Equality Budgeting Objectives & Performance Indicators’ within the Revised Estimates 2018.

Table 2 – Gender and Equality Budgeting Metrics and Indicators by Vote, Programme and financial allocation

Department (Vote No.)

Programme Programme Allocation (€000's)

Key High Level Metrics

Context and Impact Indicators

Education and Skills (26)

B – Skills Development

376,508 1 1

Transport, Tourism and Sport (31)

D – Sports and Recreation Services

111,380 2 4

Business, Enterprise and Innovation (32)

B – Innovation 356,098 3 4

Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (33)

A – Culture 167,301 2 1

Health (38) Health and Wellbeing

244,000 2 2

Children and Youth Affairs (40)

B – Sectoral Programmes for Children and Young People

567,896 5 4

Total 1,823,183 15 16

Source: PBO based on the Revised Estimates 2018.

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18

4

The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

Executive Summary

The provision of new metrics, if appropriate and of a high quality, is to be welcomed for their potential insight into

the effectiveness of Departments’ policies and the efficiency of their corresponding funding. The PBO notes that

there is scope for building upon and enhancing the metrics and indicators employed in the pilot. Fundamental

to this analysis is the understanding that: 2

“Gender budgeting should address specific and identifiable goals […] that have clear benefits and that

can be measured, even with somewhat crude tools and data.”

The OECD suggested that the PBO should, inter alia, critique performance metrics in order to inform improvements to

performance information.3 In undertaking this critique the PBO recognises that the design and delivery of policies which

are gender sensitive is challenging, as is the subsequent measurement of their impact.4 The PBO’s analysis is thus

intended to inform the future development of this pilot.

The PBO welcomes the development of gender and equality budgeting performance indicators by means of this pilot.

However, the PBO notes that its analysis of the initial ‘Key High Level Metrics’ and ‘Context and Impact Indicators’

indicates that further development of the pilot is required. Box 1 sets out the PBO’s understanding of the definitions

of the metrics and indicators employed in the pilot.

2 Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Equality Budgeting: Proposed Next Steps in Ireland (2017, p.13)

3 OECD, Review of budget oversight by parliament: Ireland (2016, p.109)

4 OECD, Gender Budgeting in OECD countries (2017, p.4)

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18

The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

5

Box 1 – Performance Indicators or Metrics

The Revised Estimates 2018 provide ‘Key High Level Metrics’ against which output targets are set. The PBO

has therefore assumed that these ‘Key High Level Metrics’ represent output indicators. Output indicators track

performance in relation to matters over which the Department has both influence and control and which can be

directly linked to programme expenditure.

There are four main types of indicators which are commonly used to monitor and evaluate public policies

and programmes based on the Programme Logic Evaluation Model.

The types of indicators are structured in accordance with the key steps in the Programme Logic Evaluation

Model and include:

1. Input indicators: these measure the financial or other, non-financial, inputs to the operation of a policy

or programme. Activity, also called processes, are the actions that transform inputs into outputs. Activities

are collections of tasks and work-steps (i.e. management) performed to produce the outputs of

a programme.

2. Output indicators: these capture the immediate product of a policy or programme, or that which

is obtained in exchange for expenditure on the programme – they may be goods or services.

3. Result indicators: these measure the immediate benefit or effects on the beneficiaries brought

about by a policy or programme.

4. Impact indicators: refer to the longer-term effects of a policy or programme.

Result and impact indicators are frequently referred to as outcome indicators.

In the context the Revised Estimates 2018, the input indicators in the pilot are primarily the allocations relating to

the relevant programmes (see Table 2 above). As set out above, the PBO assumes that the ‘Key High Level Metrics’

correspond to the output indicators.

Sources: Value for Money and Policy Review Initiative Guidance Manual, Department of Finance (2007, pp.29-30) and

Oireachtas Library & Research Service Spotlight No.1 of 2016, Parliamentary scrutiny of government performance.

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

6

nThe ‘Key High Level Metrics’ provided within the pilot are not clearly linked to specific allocations (at subhead

level) in most cases. In the context of the Revised Estimates for Public Services it is important that metrics have

a clear link to specific allocations. This is consistent with the OECD’s definition of performance budgeting as

“budgeting that links the funds allocated to measurable results.”5 The OECD further states that development

of gender budgeting would be supported by linking measurable outputs to budget allocations identified by

their gender responsive character.6

nThe PBO suggests that ‘Key High Level Metrics’ for Gender and Equality Budgeting should, if possible,

be linked to those subheads which form a significant portion of overall programme expenditure.

nThe ‘Key High Level Metrics’ used in the pilot are frequently more accurately described as ‘Context and Impact

Indicators’, i.e. they reflect the outcomes that the Department wishes to achieve rather than metrics that reflect

the specific outputs that the Department is directly funding.

n‘Key High Level Metrics’ are not always attributable to the activities and inputs of the Department in question

i.e. metrics are not necessarily measuring performance or changes that are related to the policies and

programme expenditure in question.

nSome ‘Key High Level Metrics’ used include targets, i.e. the target forms part of the metric. Such metrics are not

conducive to long-term use as they cease to provide useful information once the target or target date has been

reached. Care should be taken to separate the description of the metric from specific targets.

n‘Key High Level Metrics’ should track performance which can only be achieved through positive action on the part

of the Department in question, i.e. the metric should not imply successful outcomes where such success is linked

to negative outcomes in comparator groups.�7

nIn the context of maximising the transparency and utility of both the Revised Estimates 2018 and the Gender

and Equality Budgeting pilot, the PBO would recommend that the formatting and presentation of the pilot

be improved – at present, the pilot goal, metrics and indicators are in a low visibility position and are difficult

to distinguish from the pre-existing programme metrics.

5 Ibid p.25.

6 Ibid p.26.

7 See, for example, 2nd bullet point in PBO analysis of the Department of Health metrics and indicators (p.17).

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18

7

The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

PBO analysis of the pilot – key points

High Level Goal: To increase the attractiveness of the apprenticeship model to women through the promotion

of apprenticeship opportunities to women and girls, increased awareness of incentives to employers to employ

female apprentices and the expansion of the apprenticeship system into new sectors of the economy.

Table 3 – Equality Budgeting Metrics and Context and Impact Indicators in Vote 26

Key High Level Metrics 2018 (Output Target)

Females registered on apprenticeship programmes 300

Context and Impact Indicators 2015 2016 2017 (Output target)

Number of female apprentices 26 60 145

Source: Revised Estimates 2018, p.99

The ‘Key High Level Metric’ chosen to measure activities that make progress towards the High Level Goal is “[f ]emales

registered on apprenticeship programmes”.

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18

8

The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

Vote 26 – Education and Skills

PBO Analysis

nThis ‘Key High Level Metric’ does not reflect the breadth of the high level goal; it relates to the attractiveness

of the apprenticeship model. There are no metrics reflecting the promotion of apprenticeships, increasing

awareness of incentives to employers, or explicitly to the expansion of the apprenticeship system.

nThe metric itself does not appear to be different from the ‘Context and Impact Indicator’ chosen. The chosen

metric provides one ‘snapshot’ of the apprenticeship process. However, in order to evaluate the effectiveness

of measures to achieve the ‘High Level Goal’, it is necessary to provide additional metrics and indicators

which capture other dimensions of the apprenticeship process.

nAdditional metrics related to completion of apprenticeships and subsequent employment of qualified female

tradespersons could be added over time. In addition, a useful ‘Context and Impact Indicator’ could be the share

of female apprentices.

nThere are additional ‘Key High Level Metrics’ listed in the Revised Estimates 2018 (2017, p.99) which provide

additional context to this metric (i.e. number of apprentices registered on new and old programmes).

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18

The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

9

High Level Goal: To ensure a significantly higher proportion of Irish girls and women from all sectors of society

are regularly involved in all forms of active and social participation in sport.

Table 4 – Equality Budgeting Metrics & Context and Impact Indicators in Vote 31

Key High Level Metrics 2018 Output Target

Number of National Governing Bodies supported by Sport Ireland’s Women in Sport Programme

26

Ratio of female to male participants in sport as measured by the Irish Sports Monitor

0.85

Context and Impact Indicators 2015 2016 2017

Amount spent on the Sport Ireland Women in Sport programme

�600,000 �600,000 �600,000

Levels of participation by women in sport and physical activity, as measured by Irish Sports Monitor (% adults)*

39.3% 39.3%* TBC*

Ratio of female to male participants in sport as measured by Irish Sports Monitor*

0.83 0.83* TBC*

Number of medals won by females or mixed teams with female member(s) in international competition at elite level (in sports supported by Sport Ireland)

33 27 37

* The Irish Sports Monitor is produced every second year. It was produced for the years 2013 and 2015 and will be

produced for the year 2017. 2015 figures are therefore also used for 2016 as no interim figures are available between

reports. Source: Revised Estimates 2018, p.140

The ‘Key High Level Metrics’ chosen to measure activities that make progress towards the ‘High Level Goal’ relate to the

number of governing bodies supported by a specific programme and the ratio of female to male participants in sport as

measured by the Irish Sports Monitor.

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18

10

The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

Vote 31 – Transport, Tourism and Sport

PBO Analysis

nMetrics should be attributable. In the context of the above metrics, the ‘Ratio of female to male participants in

sport as measured by the Irish Sports Monitor’ is not strictly within the control of the Department. Even if this

were the case, rather than a ratio it may be more useful to measure reductions in the participation level gap (%).

nIn the case of the ratio of female to male participants, improvements to the ratio could potentially be achieved

by a reduction in male participation. While this is clearly not what is intended, this possibility suggests that

the metric itself is not optimal.

nThe ‘Ratio of female to male participants in sport as measured by the Irish Sports Monitor’ may also be

more appropriately considered a ‘Context and Impact Indicator’ (where it is also listed by the Department).

nIndicators such as the absolute numbers of female participants in sport and/or their growth over time may add

useful context. In addition, further metrics directly associated with the activities funded by the Department to

achieve the High Level Goal may be warranted. The goal includes both “girls and women” but the metrics do

not differentiate between them.

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18

The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

11

High Level Goal: Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) aims to play a strong role in addressing the imbalance by committing

to increase the representation of women among SFI award holders to 30% by 2020 and to improve the representation

and progression of women in all aspects of STEM careers in Ireland through the implementation of the Science

Foundation Ireland Gender Strategy 2016-2020.

Table 5 – Equality Budgeting Metrics & Context and Impact Indicators in Vote 32

Key High Level Metrics 2014 Outturn

2015 Outturn

2016 Outturn

2017* 2018 Output Target

Percentage of Research Award Holders that are female

20% 21% 25% N/A 28%

Achieve gender balance in Research Teams

37% 33% 35% N/A Minimum 40% (Male & Female Research Team Members)

At least one female Research Professor by 2020

0 0 0 N/A 1

Context and Impact Indicators 2014 Outturn

2015 Outturn

2016 Outturn

2017**

Number of institutions with Athena SWAN gender equality accreditation

0 2 3 5

SFI Female Research Applicant Success Rates

34% 27% 35% N/A

Number of SFI Maternity Supplements to Research Grants

N/A 21 17 20**

Achieve gender balance on Review Panels

25% 25% 19% 22%

* The 2017 year-end SFI data will be determined through the annual SFI Census of award holders. These data are

typically not available until the end of Q1 in the subsequent year.

** Data recorded as at 08/12/2017. Source: Revised Estimates 2018, p.145

The ‘Key High Level Metrics’ chosen to measure activities that make progress towards the High Level Goal relate to the

percentage of female research grant award holders, the gender balance in research teams awarded grants and ‘At least

one female Research Professor by 2020’.

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18

12

The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

Vote 32 – Business, Enterprise and Innovation

PBO Analysis

nThe ‘Key High Level Metric’, ‘Percentage of Research Award Holders that are female’ is specifically related

to the ‘High Level Goal’.

nWith regard to this metric, it could be complemented with the actual targeted number of awards for females

in addition to the target percentage share to give a more rounded view.

nMetrics should not explicitly state their target; in the case of ‘At least one female Research Professor by 2020’

the metric should be re-phrased as ‘Number of female Research Professors’ – with the target being one in 2018,

2019 and 2020.

nThe ‘Achieve gender balance in Research Teams’ metric would seem to be more appropriately described

as a ‘Context and Impact Indicator’.

n‘SFI Female Research Applicant Success Rates’ is a useful ‘Context and Impact Indicator’; however, it is

necessary to determine how this differs from success rates for male applicants. This indicator can clearly

track improving (or worsening) outcomes for female applicants but without the context of male success rates

it is not possible to appreciate the full significance of such changes.

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18

The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

13

High Level Goal: To work to achieve enhanced levels of representation of women and girls in films and screen content

supported by the Irish Film Board

Table 6 – Equality Budgeting Metrics & Context and Impact Indicators in Vote 33

Key High Level Metrics 2018 Output Target

Increase level of applications received with female talent* attached

+5%

Increase level of successful applications with female talent* attached

+5%

Context and Impact Indicators 2015 2016 2017 Output Target

Number of Irish Film Board applications received 430 457 488

* Female talent refers to either female writers, producers or directors attached to the project.

Source: Revised Estimates 2018, p.149

The ‘Key High Level Metrics’ chosen to measure activities that make progress towards the ‘High Level Goal’ relate

to the number of applications and successful applications for Irish Film Board (IFB) funding.

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18

14

The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

Vote 33 – Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht

PBO Analysis

nThe ‘Key High Level Metrics’ chosen seem a reasonable way to measure the IFB’s contribution to achieving

the ‘High Level Goal’.

nHowever, the number of IFB applications is increasing year on year – therefore a target based on a percentage

increase in applications may be less useful and transparent than a numerical target and/or one based on the

share of applications with female talent attached.

nThe ‘Context and Impact Indicators’ should facilitate the interpretation of the ‘Key High Level Metrics’. It is

unclear how many applications (from the figures provided) are currently received with female talent attached

and how many are successful. Both of these indicators would be useful ‘Context and Impact Indicators’ as

would the success rate for applications with male talent attached.

nThe IFB has a number of gender-focused funding initiatives which could be the subject of metrics. These

include training courses and enhanced production funding for female initiated and driven feature films.8

Additional metrics based on these activities would be useful to explicitly link to IFB expenditure and

clearly reflect the aim to provide for equality of opportunity for female filmmakers.

8 Irish Film Board, ‘IFB Gender & Diversity Policy’

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18

The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

15

High Level Goal: To reduce overall prevalence of smoking in the population, and in particular to narrow the gap between

the highest and lowest social class groupings.

Table 7 – Equality Budgeting Metrics & Context and Impact Indicators in Vote 38

Key High Level Metrics 2017 Outturn

2018 Output Target

Smoking prevalence (% population aged 15 and over who are current smokers) as measured in Healthy Ireland Survey.

22% 21%

Gap between smoking prevalence in social class 1+2 and in social class 5+6

16% 15%

Context and Impact Indicators 2015 2016 2017

Increase in excise duty on tobacco products (indicator for pack of 20 cigarettes with pro rata increase on other products)

50c 50c 50c

Additional increase in excise duty on 30g ‘roll your own’ tobacco products to narrow price differential with cigarettes and reducing attractiveness to younger smokers in particular

0c 0c 25c

Source: Revised Estimates 2018, p.187

The ‘Key High Level Metrics’ chosen to measure activities that make progress towards the ‘High Level Goal’ relate

to smoking prevalence and the gap between smoking prevalence in different social classes. These metrics reflect

the broader equality budgeting initiative rather than the gender budgeting pilot.

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18

16

The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

Vote 38 – Health

PBO Analysis

nThe ‘Key High Level Metrics’ should clearly relate to the activities of the Department, i.e. smoking prevalence is

more accurately described as a ‘Context and Impact Indicator’. The activities of the Department which help bring

about changes in the prevalence of smoking should be reflected by the metrics, e.g. metrics related to the Health

Service Executive’s QUIT campaign.

nEven as a ‘Context and Impact Indicator’ the ‘Gap between smoking prevalence in social class 1+2 and in social

class 5+6’ could potentially be seen as problematic, i.e. this goal could, in theory, be achieved by an increase in

the smoking prevalence in social class 1+2 with the smoking prevalence in class 5+6 remaining static, lowering or

growing at a slower rate. This is obviously not the goal – thus specific targets around smoking prevalence in

different social classes would be better than targets related to the gaps between them. If the targets were

achieved the outcome would be a reduced gap.

nThe ‘Context and Impact Indicators’ provided are directed by the Department of Finance (taxation); therefore,

the implication is that the measurable metric is affected by policy outside the control of the Department of

Health/Health Service Executive. Thus, there are no metrics that are directly under the control of the Department.

There is scope to improve both the ‘Key High Level Metrics’ and the ‘Context and Impact Indicators’ provided in

order to link performance by the Department to outputs.

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18

The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

17

High Level Goal: Make childcare more affordable so as to reduce the barriers to women’s labour market participation (in

addition to supporting other high-level goals, which include positive child outcomes, narrowing the attainment gap, and

poverty reduction).

Table 8 – Equality Budgeting Metrics & Context and Impact Indicators in Vote 40

Key High Level Metrics 2018 Output Target

Number of children receiving financial support under childcare support schemes

184,000*

Number of childcare services in contract to deliver childcare support schemes

4,450

Proportion of childcare services in contract that offer full-time childcare

33%

Maximum subsidy as % of average full-time fees 80%

Universal subsidy (under-3s) as % of average full-time fees

11%

Context and Impact Indicators 2015 2016 2017

Employment-rate of women with children 60.7% 61.6% 63.5%

% of under-3 year olds in formal childcare 30.6% Not yet available

Not yet available

% of 3-5 year olds in formal childcare 92% Not yet available

Not yet available

% of 6-14 year olds in childcare services in contract with DCYA

3.9% 4.2% 4%

* Given the change to annual entry-points for ECCE that will take place in September 2018, the target relates to the

period September-December 2018, to allow direct comparison with future years. In this regard, the target differs from

the main output targets for ECCE and CCS, which are targets for the full year 2018. The equality target also differs in

including the TEC programmes and ACS.

Source: Revised Estimates 2018, p.192

The ‘Key High Level Metrics’ chosen to measure activities that make progress towards the ‘High Level Goal’ include

the number of children receiving financial support through various childcare schemes, the number of childcare

service providers under contract and the percentage that offer full-time childcare.

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18

18

The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

Vote 40 – Children and Youth Affairs

PBO Analysis

nThe Department of Children and Youth Affairs provides ‘Key High Level Metrics’ which appear to be closely

associated to subhead expenditure (B.3-B.5) – totalling �485 million which amounts to 85% of programme

allocation and 35% of total gross Vote allocation.

nThe ‘Key High Level Metrics’ provided appear relevant and to relate to the programme outputs while the

‘Context and Impact Indicators’ provide necessary context (‘% of age group in formal childcare/childcare

services in contract with DCYA’) and impact (‘Employment-rate of women with children’).

nThe ‘Key High Level Metrics’ provided relate to both socio-economic equality and gender equality. The

Department of Children and Youth Affairs have provided three metrics which address issues of equality which

are supplemented by informative ‘Context and Impact Indicators’, in particular, ‘Employment-rate of women

with children’.

nTwo of the ‘Key High Level Metrics’ would appear to be more appropriately described as ‘Context and Impact

Indicators’ – ‘Maximum subsidy as % of average full-time fees’ and ‘Universal subsidy (under-3s) as % of average

full-time fees’. It is also slightly unclear what these metrics refer to – the description used for a metric should be

detailed enough to allow a non-expert in the area to easily understand how the metric relates to the output and/

or the goal.

nThe usefulness of the ‘Context and Impact Indicators’ is reduced by the absence of timely data. It is not clear

why 2016 data is missing as the Revised Estimates 2018 were published in December 2017. Performance

budgeting requires timely data in order to be effective.

nThere is scope for improvement through refining the ‘Key High Level Metrics’ and the ‘Context and Impact

Indicators’ provided and the provision of additional metrics which could be linked to some of the ‘High Level

Goals’ such as “positive child outcomes, narrowing the attainment gap, and poverty reduction.”

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18

The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

19

Definitions of Gender Budgeting vary; however, there is a broad consensus that it represents a process whereby analysis

is undertaken to assess the gendered impact of expenditure and revenue raising policy choices to inform policy design

and implementation, i.e. the OECD defines gender budgeting as “integrating a clear gender perspective within the

overall context of the budgetary process, through the use of special processes and analytical tools, with a view to

promoting gender-responsive policies”.9

Gender budgeting frequently focuses on expenditure; however, it is necessary to include revenue and income transfers

and macro-level budgetary decisions in order to avoid excluding important issues which affect gender equality.10 The

objective of gender budgeting is to “raise awareness of the different impact on women and men of publicly funded policies

and programmes”11 and to enhance policy design in order to reduce or eliminate these differentials insofar as is possible.

Gender budgeting does not assume that policies are designed to perpetuate gender inequality; rather, it recognises

that policies are often developed in a gender-blind environment, i.e. without specific regard to the potential for policy to

affect genders differently.12 This gender-blind approach, as commented upon by the ESRI, largely treats genders equally

without consideration as to the specific results arising from changes to taxation or benefits.13 Gender budgeting goes

beyond abolition of formal barriers and includes addressing unstated assumptions underpinning policies.14 Analysis

thus informs subsequent resource allocation in order to affect economic and social opportunities and eliminate unequal

gendered outcomes.15

Gender budgeting encompasses assessment of policies in the context of their gendered impacts and restructuring

revenues and expenditures in order to promote equality.16 Indeed some commentators describe gender budgeting

as activating “gender mainstreaming by implicating all aspects of policy and programmes, revenue generation and

expenditure by locating gender in the principal expression of a government’s priorities – the budget”.17

The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has recently reported that, “the term ‘equality budgeting’ has

been expanded to include other areas of possible discrimination. Rather than solely analysing the budget’s impacts

on gender; it proposes that this analysis be expanded to include all nine grounds of discrimination under Ireland’s

Equality legislation, as well as socio-economic status.”18

9 OECD, Gender Budgeting in OECD countries (2017, p.7).

10 Administration, vol. 65, no. 3 (2017), pp.101-121 doi: 10.1515/admin-2017-0026 p.109.

11 Ibid p.19.

12 Ibid.

13 ESRI, Gender Impact of Tax and Benefit Changes: A Microsimulation Approach (2014) p.17.

14 National Women’s Council of Ireland, Towards gender responsive gender budgeting in Ireland (2017) http://www.nwci.ie/images/uploads/Gender_Budgeting_is_Good_Budgeting_NWCI.pdf p.46

15 Administration, vol. 65, no. 3 (2017), pp.17-39 doi: 10.1515/admin-2017-0022 p.20.

16 ‘Gender Budgeting’ European Institute for Gender Equality.

17 Angela O’Hagan, ‘Challenging the Norms: Gender budgeting as feminist policy change’ in Jim Campbell and Morag Gillespie (eds), Feminist Economics and Public Policy: Reflections on the work and impact of Ailsa McKay (Routledge 2016) p.39.

18 DPER, Staff Paper 2017 Equality Budgeting: Proposed Next Steps in Ireland (p.3).

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18

20

The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

Appendix – Overview of Gender and Equality Budgeting theory

PBO Initial Objectives & Services 4 October 2017

Commentaries

Quarterly Economic and Fiscal Commentary (Q4 2017) 23 January 2018

Post-Budget 2018 Commentary for the Committee on Budgetary Oversight 24 October 2017

Briefing Papers

Briefing Paper 3 of 2018 Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018 20 February 2018

Briefing Paper 2 of 2018 Local Property Tax: Issues to be considered with the revaluation of the base 15 January 2018

Briefing Paper 1 of 2018 European Semester 2018 and how it interacts with Ireland’s Budget 2019 15 January 2018

Briefing Paper 3 of 2017 Rainy Day Fund 19 December 2017

Briefing Paper 2 of 2017 Supplementary Estimates 2017 4 December 2017

Briefing Paper 1 of 2017 The role and functions of Ireland’s Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) 24 November 2017

PBO Notes

Note 3 of 2018 The Multiannual Financial Framework of the EU 9 February 2018

Note 2 of 2018 Note on Revaluation of the Local Property Tax base 15 January 2018

Note 1 of 2018 Note on Ireland’s budgetary process and the European Semester 2018 15 January 2018

Note 3 of 2017 Note on rainy Day Fund Proposals 19 December 2017

Note 2 of 2017 Note on Public Service Performance Report 2016 17 November 2017

Note 1 of 2017 Note on Gender Budgeting 17 November 2017

Infographics

Budgetary Cycle 2018 10 January 2018

Exchequer revenue – Significant months 6 December 2017

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18

21

The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

Publications

Notes

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

22

Notes

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18

The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

23

Notes

The

Gen

der a

nd E

qual

ity B

udge

ting

pilo

t in

the

Revi

sed

Estim

ates

for P

ublic

Ser

vice

s 20

18The Gender and Equality Budgeting pilot in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2018

24

Contact: PBO@oireachtas.ie Go to our webpage: www.Oireachtas.ie/PBO Publication date: 27 February 2018

Houses of the Oireachtas Leinster House Kildare Street Dublin 2 D02 XR20

www.oireachtas.ie Tel: +353 (0)1 6183000 or 076 1001700 Twitter: @OireachtasNews

Connect with us

Download our App