Social Cohesion: Report of the Young Adult Workshop – Accessible Version

RESEARCH PAPER No.37 June 2026

Colette Bennett
Noel Cahill
Dr Gráinne Collins
Niamh Garvey

This report compares outputs and themes from a participatory workshop with young adults
aged 18-25 that explored social cohesion. It focuses on the ideas generated, the emphasis
placed on different lenses, and the priorities that emerged through model-building and voting.
This report represents the views of the participants of the workshop only, it does not attempt
to treat the workshops as statistically representative samples, nor does it evaluate facilitation
performance.
The NESC Secretariat wish to extend our thanks everyone who gave of their time, expertise and
experience to join us in our workshops.

NESC previously held workshops in Dublin (February 2026) and Cavan (March 2026) on
the theme of Social Cohesion. Following feedback from these workshops that more youth
participation was needed, the Secretariat invited representatives from 28 organisations who
regularly engage with young people, including the youth wing of political parties, organisations
supporting young people in care, organisations supporting LGBTQI+ youth, students’ unions,
youth advocacy organisations and representatives of government Departments and State
agencies to join us for a co-design meeting to shape the workshops to something that would be
attractive for young people to participate in.
Following this meeting, the methodology of two sections were changed – the pre-workshop
questionnaire and the social cohesion rating. Participants were asked to select the best location
for a meeting (central Dublin, near public transport), and time (later morning). Invitations were
circulated through the representatives to young people participating in their organisations.
The workshop took place on the 25 May 2026.
There are limitations to this work. The representatives do not comprise of a statistical
representation of young adults aged 18 to 25.

A short survey and explanatory video were circulated in advance of the workshops to aid
attendees in their thinking on the overall theme of social cohesion and the three lenses through
which it was being considered. This also provided facilitators with a general overview of
participant sentiment.

In advance of the workshops, participants were divided into three groups – Blue, Red, and
Yellow. Each group was selected by sorting the registered attendee list by alphabetical order
and assigning alternating colours down the list. A facilitator and note taker were present at each
of the three groupings to facilitate discussions and capture the outputs.
To support participant comfort, sensory toys were made available on the tables, and the
availability of quiet spaces was pointed out at the beginning of the day.
The day began with an introduction to the theme of social cohesion. Participants were asked
to discuss amongst themselves what ‘social cohesion’ meant to them. In plenary session,
participants were asked to provide some descriptions of what makes a cohesive society.
Participants were then asked to rate their personal perspective of social cohesion from poor
to excellent by standing between two pictures on the wall representing these sentiments.
Participants themselves chose to give their sense of social cohesion a number out of 10.
The workshops then moved into World Café-style breakouts to explore social cohesion through
three lenses: the Left Behind, Intergenerational Fairness, and Trust/Democracy. For each lens,
groups considered three questions: what they understood each term to mean, the current state
of social cohesion in this area, and what could improve social cohesion. The colours assigned to
participants on registration was the colour of the first table at which they sat. After discussing
one lens (30 minutes), participants would move in groups (tables) to the next lens, until all three
lenses had been discussed by all participants.
Participants then used Lego® Serious Play¹ [footnote 1: For more information on the research and pedagogy underpinning this methodology: https://www.lego.com/cdn/cs/set/as
sets/blt8ec1d6ff766ddfd4/LEGO_SERIOUS_PLAY_OpenSource_14mb.pdf (page 8).] to build and explain representations of what a
socially cohesive society might look like. This could include tangible infrastructure, or intangible
concepts such as trust, pride, or belonging. This approach aims to support equal participation,
regardless of organisational position, status, or use of English as a first language, by giving
each person a concrete way to contribute. It can support surfacing tacit assumptions that can
remain hidden in discussion, and helps translate abstract concepts such as social cohesion into
tangible, discussable proposals that can be compared and prioritised.
While participants were working on their models, the proposals made by the participants in the
third round of the World Café exercise were grouped and put on display. Finally, each participant
received three stickers to vote for the proposals they most wanted to see prioritised. All three
stickers could be used on the same proposal or spread across up to three areas.

3. What Is Social Cohesion?

The group proposed a fluid, multidimensional definition of social cohesion that moved from the
individual level to the community level, and to the national level.
At the individual level it includes subjective happiness and feelings of safety, being empowered,
being supported by others, and a sense of belonging – “we’re all in the same community, but
we are our own person”.
At community and national levels it involves teamwork, people understanding each other,
reducing inequality – creating solidarity between people moving towards the common good.
Diversity, and a willingness to learn about other cultures and listen to each other, to create unity
with space for difference, and to support intersectionality. Distinct from an individual sense of
belonging, the group saw inclusion and belonging being fostered by the creation of safe spaces,
“third spaces” – free and accessible spaces where people can meet and gather, that is not
work or their home, and where there are no barriers to participation, both online and in-person.
The creation of a feeling of welcome both locally and nationally in the infrastructure of social
cohesion.
Creating social cohesion was acknowledged as involving, but being broader than, government,
that a whole of society approach was needed. Its fluid nature involves a different sense of
cohesion at different levels – “one may belong in one community but not another”. Participants
also felt that a “ground up” approach to support social cohesion would be beneficial, with young
people being involved in decision-making, and having a voice.
Finally, in creating the conditions that foster social cohesion, the group felt that values were
important, particularly fairness, empathy, and respect, and the capacity for everyone to have
what they need.

4. The Left Behind

4.1 What is it?

Participants were asked to provide their understanding of what this term meant. Several
concepts were identified. One participant said that to be left behind is to be excluded or
viewed as ‘less than’. This was felt to be the case for people with a disability, that may curtail
opportunities in education and careers. The participant felt that a visible disability is better
accommodated than hidden disabilities, where the symptoms of chronic illness, such as
tiredness, can be misunderstood and criticised.
Another concept was that to be left behind is the inverse of social cohesion. To be left behind
is to not feel a sense of belonging and lacking access to jobs and social settings. Being left
behind can lead to isolation which leads to further problems.
Participants identified many groups of people who are left behind. The group most consistently
identified was people living in disadvantaged urban areas, although rural areas were also
mentioned with the transport difficulties of those in rural areas highlighted. Rural link transport
services were acknowledged but it was noted that it takes a multiple of the time to travel a
given journey this way compared to a car. One contributor identified native Irish speakers
as left behind. Young people were considered by participants to be left behind in that their
circumstances are not addressed in terms of cost of living, housing etc. Reference was made
to the possibility of emigration as an unsatisfactory response to difficulties.
Other groups identified as being left behind were: people may be left behind on basis of age,
race, sexual orientation, disability; people with addictions; unaccompanied minors; asylum
seekers and refugees; homeless people; people in prison; longer term residents without the
right to vote; people in low paid work; home care workers; precarious workers who don’t know
what their hours will be; those who can’t afford a day off or an unexpected bill; some public
service workers; Irish Travellers and Roma; the unemployed; those who with literacy difficulties,
including those lacking digital literacy; and elderly people.
Intersectional groups were noted as being particularly left behind. These are people
experiencing more than one disadvantage. For example, living in a disadvantaged area and
experiencing drug addiction or having a family member in prison.
One group discussed the experience of being left behind as teenagers. One participant said she
felt judged as a teenager. This was acknowledged by the group, but another said she didn’t feel
this personally. Another said he felt that as a teenager it was difficult to be accepted by other
teenagers.
The breadth of the groups named by participants in the workshop demonstrated an empath
among participants with groups to which they may not personally belong, but with whom they
share a sense of solidarity.
An interesting aspect of the left behind, articulated by this group, was in that of comparative
advantage / disadvantage. One participant articulated how some people have stronger social
capital from their family background or the family network giving them a head start over others.
While they, in turn may have advantages over others (e.g. they may not be from a disadvantaged
area or have a disability), they are comparatively left behind compared to others with more
social capital or ability to bridge capitals to become upwardly socially mobile.

Overall, participants understood being “left behind” as a broad and relational experience
of exclusion, disadvantage, and reduced belonging, shaped by barriers to participation in
education, work, housing, transport, and community life. They identified a wide range of
affected groups, from people with disabilities and those in disadvantaged urban or rural areas
to migrants, precarious workers, and young people facing housing and cost-of-living pressures,
while also emphasising that overlapping forms of disadvantage and intersectionality can deepen
exclusion.
The discussion highlighted both empathy and solidarity across different experiences of
marginalisation, and pointed to the role of unequal social capital in creating comparative forms
of disadvantage, where some people are left behind not only by deprivation itself but by unequal
access to support, networks, and opportunity.

4.2 What is the current state?

The group identified a large number of groups who were left behind, including those who
perceived that they were left behind in comparison to others. This was carried through to their
reflections on the current state of play for the Left Behind.

While the breadth of groups identified as left behind was quite extensive, the general sense was
that the position was bad for the left behind collectively, due in part to an insufficient response
to their situation, indicating a failure of systems and institutions to deliver across a range of
areas. One participant referred to a “complacency” with policy and society not moving as
quickly as it should. This “policy drag” was also identified by another participant as leading to the
left behind feeling further behind.

Educational disadvantage was agreed to be a significant way in which people are left behind,
and reference was made to how this is illustrated by national newspapers listing of schools’
results. This not only ranks schools but potentially adds to the stigma experienced by students
in schools at “the bottom”. It also adds pressure to students at a critical time. One positive
aspect of the education system was noted by one participant who pointed to DEIS plus as a
positive response to students experiencing the most severe disadvantage.

Concern was expressed at the current homelessness and precarious housing position of many.
Leaving direct provision was felt by participants to be the biggest driver of homelessness, and
concern was expressed at asylum centres being located in remote, inaccessible locations.
Participants also linked homelessness to heavy drug use and addiction, with additional stigma
attached to substance addiction.
Another aspect of current housing precarity identified by participants was the “sex for rent”
problem, where predatory landlords use rent hikes and scarcity to extort sexual acts from
tenants.

The insufficiency of public mental health services was discussed by several of the participants.
Reference was made to the difficulty of accessing therapy and the long waiting lists for
CAMHS. Participants felt that the youth mental health charity Jigsaw was overrun with demand
for its services and also expressed for the staff in mental health services who risk burnout due to
high demand.
Addiction and mental health were also discussed, with neurodivergent people being identified
by the group as more at risk of drug addiction.
Gender affirming care was also raised in respect of trans people, with participants of the
workshop referring to a ten-year waiting list for care leading some people to resort to using
substances from unknown or unlicensed services.

It was noted that people who are not Irish now constitute a substantial share of the population
but that it is difficult to get into a position of power if one comes from an ethnic minority, and
those who enter public life, whether through politics or celebrity, experiencing specific attacks
for their race. Reference was made to specific individuals – a minority candidate in a political
election who was attacked on social media, and online criticism of another person of colour who
was born and raised in Dublin.

One participant raised the ease with which non-disabled people will speak to and about the
disability of others. This can be experienced as overly personal and intrusive, particularly when it
involves relative strangers.
The group also identified safety concerns of specific “left behind” groups, e.g. LGBTQI+ people,
African people, and Brazilian people, leading groups to “stick together” for safety and creating
obvious difficulties for social cohesion more broadly.

In addition to the specific response of the groups identified above, that is, as “sticking together”,
the group identified two general ways in which people may respond when they feel left behind:
apathy (they give up, don’t vote etc.) and acting outside of the system (the recent fuel protests
was raised as an example). “People can either disengage or rebel.”

Overall, participants described the current state of being “left behind” as one of widespread and
deepening exclusion, driven by systems and institutions that are not responding adequately
across key areas of life. Educational stigma, homelessness and housing precarity, overstretched
mental health and healthcare services, racism, discrimination, and safety concerns were all seen
as reinforcing marginalisation for different groups, while some issues, such as addiction,
disability, and barriers to gender-affirming care, highlighted how multiple disadvantages can
intensify exclusion.
The discussion also suggested that when people feel persistently unheard or unsupported, the
result can be disengagement, loss of trust, or resistance outside formal systems, with wider
consequences for social cohesion.

5. Intergenerational Fairness

5.1 What is it?

By its nature, intergenerational fairness refers to the relationships between groups. In providing
their understanding of what this term meant, participants referred to mutual respect, with each
generation listening to each other and learning, involving active listening and really being heard.
The group also included the concept of tolerance – tolerance of difference, where different
generations may have different views (e.g. the perception that older people are more
conservative while younger people are more free thinking).
The perception that the “next generation should do better than their parents” persists, with the
group identifying this as an aspect of the definition of intergenerational fairness. With everyone
having adequate resources, housing and employment.
The group further identified systems that would support their definition of intergenerational
fairness, including two-way education where younger people teach older people and vice versa;
the availability of spaces to engage with each other, and pay rises which reflect the cost of
living.
Civic participation was also raised as an important aspect of intergenerational fairness, with
the views of younger persons being taken into account in decision-making and policy-making
spaces. A Department of Future Generations would ensure fairness for the generations to come,
with long-term thinking e.g. in relation to climate crisis.
In terms of the mental modes required to deliver intergenerational fairness, the participants
identified a need for a mutual understanding of needs, perspectives, and experiences of
different generations, and empathy and communication between generations. Central to
this was a strong call for open and ongoing communication between generations, enabling
dialogue, empathy, and the building of trust. Through this, participants felt entrenched biases
and stereotypes about young people would be challenged. In such a society, every generation
would possess the skills, opportunities, and access to technology necessary to participate fully
and confidently in modern life. This essential communication ideally should be both in person
and online so people will need the skills, and access to technology, required to participate in a
modern society.

Overall, participants understood intergenerational fairness as a relationship built on mutual
respect, listening, and tolerance across age groups, where each generation is heard and
supported to do at least as well as the one before it. They emphasised that this requires not only
adequate resources, housing, employment, and cost-of-living supports, but also spaces and
systems that enable meaningful exchange, two-way learning, and civic participation between
generations.
The discussion also pointed to the importance of empathy, openness, and long-term thinking
in policymaking, so that all generations have the skills, opportunities, and voice needed to
participate fully in society.

5.2 What is the current state?

The group felt that ageism is very prevalent in Ireland, with young people not being valued
enough, and older persons not getting access to communities. They referred to younger
people’s views not always being taken seriously, that they did not feel heard and often felt
stigmatised. They also referenced work culture, with younger generations being labelled as lazy,
but insufficient recognition that it is harder to get a job. Some policies were felt to perpetuate
this, e.g. the sub-minimum wage rates for under-20s, lack of pension entitlements.
They also pointed to what was felt as a lack of understanding of older persons about the
struggles of younger people, and negative references to spending money on “avocado toast”
without the recognition that luxury items (the toast) are accessible to many, while the basics
(e.g. housing) are becoming more expensive.
A positive note on this theme was the improvement in minority rights in Ireland. However, one
participant did note the difficulties in accessing disability and jobseeker payments.

Participants referred to the position of previous generations who were able to get a home, have
children, afford a pension, as being out of reach for current young generations. Specifically
relating to housing, previously it was possible to own a house on one salary, and have a general
level of affordability, participants felt it was not possible to do this now.
When it comes to contact with other generations, the participants felt that they don’t often get
the opportunity to do this outside of their own family unit. One person outlined that they had
never talked to an old person outside of their family.

The group felt that the increased cost of living was causing young people to be left behind older
generations “as if a ladder has been pulled up”. Housing costs were particularly mentioned here
in the context of a housing crisis and the “guarding of resources by older generations”. When
asked about intergenerational transfers of wealth that would benefit young people, the group
felt that this did not apply to everyone and inequalities still persisted and indeed were being
exacerbated.
The participants did refer to the standard of living for younger people as being better than that
of their parents, with better opportunities overall, including the ability to travel, see the world,
experience other cultures etc.
However, it was also felt that the quality of services in Ireland is poor given the costs of those
services. The participants referred to emigration from Ireland as allowing young people to
experience a better quality of life elsewhere.

Participants felt that politicians only considered the next election cycle, and cited the recent
postponement of the carbon tax as an example of a short-term policy intervention that ignored
the longer term.

Participants did acknowledge that there had been positive developments, and that current
young generations have better access to technology, although AI is replacing the work once
available to graduates. This, it was felt, results in a loss of social mobility opportunities for young
people. There is also the risk of bias in AI that was felt needed to be better understood.

Participants referred to easier access to education and apprenticeships, although they did refer
to the increased financialisation of third level education. They also expressed the view that
increased educational attainment among the population no longer equates to the capacity to
afford a reasonable standard of living on its own, and the increase in post-graduate students
studying for Masters or PhDs to distinguish themselves from their peers creating a consequent
delay into adulthood.

It was also acknowledged that there was better access to healthcare and medicine now.
However, mental health supports are under-funded, and there was a perceived lack of
understanding by older persons around mental health diagnoses in younger persons.
Participants felt that what was needed was a better distribution of resources across generations,
and less stigma surrounding mental health, allowing younger people to name it more easily.

Overall, participants described the current state of intergenerational fairness as marked by
persistent imbalance, where younger people face stigma, reduced recognition, and weaker
access to housing, insecure livelihoods, and less decision-making power compared with
previous generations.
While participants acknowledged progress in areas such as rights, education, healthcare, and
access to technology, these gains were seen as undermined by high living costs, poor public
services, underfunded mental health supports, and policy choices that prioritise short-term
pressures over long-term fairness. The discussion also highlighted a widening sense of distance
between generations, shaped by limited opportunities for meaningful contact, unequal resource
distribution, and concerns that current economic and political systems are making it harder for
younger people to achieve stability, social mobility, and a comparable quality of life to that of
older generations.

6. Trust/Legitimacy

6.1 What is it?

The group focused on what effective representation looks like – where the views of everyone
invited to participate are given equal weight, where lived experience is taken as evidence, where
all geographic areas are represented and that decisions are not Dublin-centric.
The participants also felt that there should be transparency and accountability, with
repercussions for bad policy decisions that had negative consequences, and a system that
could safeguard against corruption.
Transparency was not only discussed in terms of process, but of values and intent. Where
policymakers are seen to work to better the lives of all people, and can communicate that
effectively across a range of communication channels.
Finally, that policymakers engaged in active listening, and fed back to participants who engaged
in a dialogue.

For policy to have legitimacy, the participants felt that it should be community or people
centred. That there should be trust built into the process – generational trust which builds over
time, trust in institutions, and inclusive dialogue. There would be a general understanding of the
common good, and people could trust that government is working to deliver it.

Participants also referred to the role of civic participation, – with citizens “turning up” and people
really engaging with the system. This would extend to all relevant sections of society coming
together to build social cohesion. There was some discussion amongst participants on what
constitutes legitimate engagement – some referred to the disruption caused by recent fuel
protestors “parking trucks on O’Connell Street” as damaging social cohesion, while others felt
that disruption can be a necessary part of the process if it means that things will change (an
example was given where citizens engaged with an elected representative on a particular policy
issue only to be told that the representative had not known about the issue and it was now too
late to do anything). It was, however, agreed that engagement in protests is a healthy part of
civic participation.

Communities are able to rely on and support each other, sharing a sense of being a “good
neighbour”. This can extend beyond individuals and small groups to organisations and
institutions – taking the example of organisations that are already excelling in this area.

Where there is mistrust of institutions by particular groups, or perceived exclusion of particular
groups by institutions, those institutions would strive to ensure that the voices of those groups
are heard.

Overall, participants understood trust and legitimacy as depending on inclusive, people-centred
governance in which all voices are heard, lived experience is recognised as valid evidence, and
decision-making is transparent, accountable, and responsive. They emphasised that legitimacy
is strengthened when institutions actively listen, communicate clearly, and demonstrate a
commitment to the common good, while also creating meaningful opportunities for civic
participation, community building, and constructive challenge.
The discussion also highlighted that where mistrust or exclusion exists, trust can only be rebuilt
if institutions make a sustained effort to hear those affected and ensure that engagement leads
to visible recognition and response.

6.2 What is the current state?

Participants felt that trust in politics and public institutions is under strain. Participants
spoke about frustration with political systems, a perception that those in power are not held
accountable, and a sense that public confidence is gradually eroding.
Some described a broader weakening of the social contract, with mistrust intensified when
people see recurring crises in areas such as health, education, housing, and public safety
without clear consequences or visible improvement. This was seen as a direct risk to social
cohesion and democratic legitimacy.

Participants felt that where people feel decisions are made about them rather than with them,
this weakens democratic legitimacy. Some participants expressed the view that view that
policy commitments made at national level are often not experienced in practice at community
level. This was felt to relate particularly to people from marginalised groups, with participants
describing those with direct lived experience as not being listened to but being included as a
token.
This gap between official narratives and lived reality was felt to contribute to cynicism and
reduce confidence that institutions are responsive, fair, or genuinely inclusive.

Participants felt that democratic participation is not equally accessible. Some identified
practical barriers to voting, including transport difficulties, the absence of measures such as
postal or early voting, confusion about registration and polling procedures, and uncertainty
about where and how to vote. They also highlighted additional obstacles for particular groups,
including disabled people, trans people, ethnic minorities, and people facing financial barriers to
citizenship. These issues were seen not simply as administrative problems, but as factors that
shape whether people feel represented and able to participate on equal terms.

Participants linked low trust and weak legitimacy to limited education about politics and
democratic processes. Many felt that people are not sufficiently taught how political institutions
work, how elections function, or even the practical steps involved in registering and voting.
There was concern that learning about politics is too optional, too abstract, or introduced at the
wrong stage in education. As a result, democratic participation can depend heavily on family
background or personal initiative, which may deepen inequalities in political knowledge and
confidence.

Participants pointed to the effects of hate speech, bullying, scapegoating during elections,
racial abuse, and fears about public safety. Some participants felt that these conditions
discourage people from stepping forward into public life or engaging openly in political
processes. A perception that harmful behaviour can occur without consequences was seen as
further undermining trust in institutions and in fellow citizens. Personal safety and respect was
seen as a factor in democratic trust.

There was a sense that youth political participation is being discussed more seriously and
a growing awareness of the need for younger voices in decision-making. Participants felt,
however, that meaningful representation must go beyond just consultation – people need
to see that their input has value, that it influences outcomes, and that pathways into politics
are genuinely open. Greater visibility of diverse leadership and more youth-centred forms
of engagement were seen as important steps toward rebuilding trust and strengthening
democratic legitimacy, with young people having a seat at the decision-making table, rather
than siloed.

Overall, participants felt that trust and democratic legitimacy are fragile and uneven. Participants
described a political system that many people experience as distant, difficult to access, and
insufficiently responsive to lived realities, especially for marginalised groups and younger people.
At the same time, there are openings for improvement through better political education, more
accessible participation, stronger accountability, and forms of representation that are visibly
meaningful rather than symbolic.
The current state, therefore, is best understood as one of concern, but not without possibility
for renewal.

7. Rating of Experienced Social Cohesion

Participants were then asked to rate their current view of social cohesion in Ireland by standing
between two pictures, one representing poor and the other representing excellent. The
participants themselves chose to assign a numerical rating (1-10) to their view. Participants were
advised that they would be asked to do this exercise again closer to the end of the day to see if
anything had changed.

The majority of participants in the first round, early in the workshop, chose somewhere between
3-4 on a 10-point scale.
The lowest rating (3) was based on a sense of a decline in community life, the loss of third
spaces, for example local communities losing their cafes and pubs, or the difficulties associated
with having a disability, such as access to education, care or employment. One participant
also stated that, while Ireland is a great country, we are not there yet. There is a lack of social
cohesion manifesting in risks to safety for some people.
The highest rating in the first round was 7 on the basis that while many people may disagree on
solutions, there is at least broad agreement on the issues that need to be addressed and the
relative resilience of our political system.
Some views from the those giving a middle ranking included that acknowledging problems
is not enough, many groups are being neglected in different ways having regard to culture
background, housing, health etc., scepticism that different demographics being heard or having
their views taken on board, and a loss of hope that some long-term problems will be addressed
(e.g. climate change).

After the three rounds of questions, considering Social Cohesion through the lenses of the Left
Behind, Intergenerational Fairness, and Trust / Legitimacy, participants were again asked to rank
their perception of Social Cohesion.
Compared to the original ranking earlier in the day, no participant moved up, but several moved
down. When asked the reasons behind these moves, participants referred to the
development in their understanding of the left behind from listening to other participants and
the need to be asked throughout the workshops if they could think of something positive – “if
you need to be reminded to think of something positive, you know something is wrong”.
When asked about their sense of optimism or pessimism, there was more of the latter. While a
lot of positive change was acknowledged, the scale of the challenge was a cause for pessimism
and overwhelm for some. While some participants did express optimism – “change is possible,
but we have to start listening to each other”, optimism was more likely to be linked to trust –
“we move at the pace of trust”. While others referred to a sense of realism – “Not optimism or
pessimism, it’s realism, if we don’t work for it then we won’t get it”.
One participant raised a call to action to build a more positive future “we should not wait for our
turn. Everyone had positive ideas for the future. Bang on the table now.”

8. Workshop Recommendations

The third question for the World Café to consider was ‘What policies/proposals/solutions
might support building or preserving Social Cohesion in this area?’. Participants considered
how to get from where we are now, to where we want to be. What follows are the
recommendations made during the workshop under each of the three lenses of the Left Behind,
Intergenerational Fairness, and Trust/Legitimacy.
These recommendations represent the views of the participants of the workshop and are
not the recommendations of the National Economic and Social Council. The Council’s
recommendations will be set out in a forthcoming Council report.

8.1 The Left Behind

A number of proposals were made in respect of the groups identified as being left behind.
These can be grouped into two categories: policy change and institutional change.

The issue of drug addiction was discussed. It was felt that it is currently treated as a criminal
issue, rather than a healthcare one. Participants proposed a care-first approach where health
supports were provided in the first instance.
Participants also referred to the 10-year waiting list for gender affirming care for transgender
people, proposing that this medical intervention and wraparound supports should be made
available locally.

Income adequacy was seen as an issue, with agreement among participants that everyone
should have access to sufficient income. Proposals to support this included the introduction
of a living wage, adequate social welfare payments, stronger employment regulation where
all workers have regular working hours, a prohibition on zero hours contracts, and mandatory
recognition rights for trades unions.
Specific reference was made to working conditions for nurses, which participants felt should
be improved to stem the flow of outward migration of this critical skill.
The discussion also extended to a tax policy which impacts work, the VAT reduction for
hospitality. Participants criticised its universal application within this sector and proposed that it
be targeted at smaller businesses.

Participants proposed the strengthening of regulation in the private rented sector to afford
greater protections to tenants, the extension of those regulations to the rent-a-room scheme
so that students could not be forced to leave their accommodation at weekends, and to
strengthen regulation of AirBnBs.
The role of student unions in providing accommodation was discussed, with some participants
proposing that contributions paid by students for amenities such as sports facilities could
instead be used for the provision of accommodation.
One participant called for a specific youth housing policy, following the discussion of social
housing. The group proposed that social housing be standardised across all Local Authorities,
with choice-based lettings being widely available and greater availability of youth social
housing than currently exists.

Participants proposed increasing investment in early years education, and meaningful
engagement with those who are experiencing educational disadvantage to allow them to
shape education policy and for the system to benefit from their lived experience.

Participants called for greater investment in local government, an increase in its governing
powers, and more support to empower local communities. This investment would include better
salary and conditions for local Councillors to try to attract stronger candidates.

Participants proposed an increase in the provision of community-led “third” spaces to support
community engagement, provide safe spaces for marginalised groups such as members of the
LGBTQI+ community, and provide opportunities for English-language classes for migrants.

While the Women’s Health Action Plan was seen as positive, concern was expressed that
women’s medical conditions continue to be underdiagnosed and that women are not listened
to by doctors. Participants felt that this should be addressed at the institutional level.
Reference was also made to the number of children awaiting assessments of needs for ASD and
other neurodivergence, and the cases being brought through the High Court at the moment
so that parents and children can access the supports that they need. Participants felt that wait
times should be accelerated given the impact of obtaining the right supports at the right time.

One participant proposed having more guest speakers in schools to encourage tolerance of
other cultures and experiences. Another participant identified a need to teach teachers about
bullying, identifying an unrecognised issue with some teachers bullying their pupils.

8.2 Intergenerational Fairness

Participants raised issues of income adequacy, with one referring to accessing to social welfare
payments such as Disability Allowance and applying for the SUSI (Student Universal Support
Ireland) grant, resulting in a loss of some or all of the social welfare payment. A proposal was
made to broaden eligibility criteria beyond income thresholds alone to other metrics such as the
Pobal index and measures of area-based deprivation.
Another area of income-based inequality between generations raised was in relation to the
reduced rate of working age payments (Jobseekers’ Benefit / Allowance) for young people living
at home. Participants proposed equalising the payment irrespective of age.
Participants also raised a question for policymakers – “We need to ask why, why does someone
find themselves in the position they are?”. If we understand the causes of income inadequacy,
we may be better able to address it.

Participants were frustrated that Ireland’s GDP is “healthy” and yet many don’t feel wealthy,
particularly when it comes to poor public services.
The group focused on economic policies that would lead to real measures to support
intergenerational fairness. This would include having Government intervene in the housing
system to curb current market-based policies which result in single-adult households being
unable to buy their own home.
In terms of work, participants referred to retaining the current retirement age and maintaining
existing levels of State-pension on retirement.
To generate additional revenue for the Exchequer, participants proposed additional taxes on the
wealthy, e.g. the introduction of new tax brackets for earners above €400,000, an additional tax
on multi-nationals, reform of local property tax, and the introduction of a land tax.

Investment in more collective spaces was also proposed in respect of intergenerational fairness.
Spaces that support younger generations to interact more with older generations, which is
not often done outside the family unit; and intergenerational third spaces such as cafés and
book clubs. These need to be accessible so as not to limit participation by people with reduced
mobility.

Proposals for housing concentrated on affordability issues, with participants calling for greater
investment in affordable housing, more supports for tenants, the introduction of effective rent
stabilisation measures, to keep housing costs down.
There were also calls for other infrastructure projects, such as electrifying the rail network and
de-centralising infrastructure delivery outside of Dublin.

Participants acknowledged the importance of the role of education, calling for free and
accessible education for all, in addition to lifelong learning for those who did not have previous
opportunities for further education.
Lifelong learning extended particularly to media literacy for all, especially older people to
prevent them falling prey to scams.

The final set of proposals for intergenerational fairness centred on good governance.
Participants called for an increase in youth participation in decision-making to bring more
youth voices and experiences to bear on issues which affect young people. This might include
targeted access for young people, such as a quote or reserved seat for younger people on
decision-making bodies, quotas for 20- or 30-year-olds in the Dáil, mandatory retirement ages
for holders of public office, and cognitive testing for public representatives who reach a certain
age threshold.
Participants also valued volunteering as a form of civic engagement. It was proposed that
this should include accessible, well-supported programmes that reduce financial and practical
barriers to participation.
As a general comment, rather than proposal, participants felt that a “floor of decency has to
be maintained” in political and civic life. Notably, while participants emphasised representation,
communication, participation, and engagement with politics, they made few references to
broader collective efforts, focusing instead on institutional reforms and individual opportunities
for engagement.

8.3 Trust/Legitimacy

Participants proposed clearer, more accessible civic education on politics, voting, and
government processes. They emphasised the need for unbiased information in plain language,
better provision in schools, supports through youth groups, and free local workshops to help
young people understand how government works in practice, including how policy is developed
and why change can be slow.

Participants called for stronger local decision-making powers and greater trust in local
institutions. Suggestions included giving Local Authorities more capacity to deliver community
infrastructure, expand shared public spaces, and take a more active role in housing delivery,
alongside measures to rebuild confidence in councillors and councils.

Participants highlighted the importance of reducing undue influence in politics in order to
strengthen public trust. Proposals included tighter restrictions on post-political employment (no
consulting, no lobbying, no boards of directors with political influence), greater transparency
around political funding – “need to understand where political money comes from”, and
broader efforts to limit the role of money in political decision-making – taking “money out of
politics”.
One participant also referred to the need for politicians to understand the position their
constituents find themselves in, with a question as to whether earning a minimum wage might
aid understanding.

Participants proposed creating more meaningful opportunities for young adults to engage
directly in political processes and policymaking. Suggestions included dedicated youth
forums or parliamentary mechanisms (such as the UK Youth Parliament) for those aged 18 to
23, structured opportunities to contribute to policy discussions, and measures to ensure that
access to these opportunities is inclusive.
Some participants also raised quotas or other diversity measures as possible ways to strengthen
representation.

One participant referred to the need to build interpersonal trust between people, not just
between people and institutions. Aiding this, participants proposed increased investment in
inclusive community spaces where people can meet, connect, and participate in local life.
Suggestions focused on expanding access to third spaces such as libraries and community
centres, including longer opening hours – with libraries open until 10pm, wider geographic
availability, and secure multi-annual funding to support welcoming and well-resourced,
welcoming environments (e.g. the provision of tea/coffee making facilities).

Participants called for stronger action to address hate speech, discrimination, and harmful
online content. Proposals included hate speech legislation, greater regulation of social media
and digital platforms, scrutiny of how algorithms shape access to information, and stronger
accountability for news platforms, political actors, and emerging technologies such as artificial
intelligence.

8.4 Priority actions

The final exercise of the day was to give participants three (3) stickers and ask them to ‘vote’ for
the actions which they felt would deliver social cohesion. Participants could use all three ‘votes’
on the same priority or spread them across up to three priority actions. The priority actions are
set out in Table 1.

The Left Behind – Deliver more affordable, social, and youth housing and strengthen homelessness supports. Invest in community spaces
and supports for marginalised groups.
Intergenerational Fairness – Increase youth participation in politics. Increase taxation of wealthy and high-earning individuals.
Trust/Legitimacy – Reduce corporate influence on politics. Education on political process and voting.
Note: The above is the authors’ synopsis of the grouped priorities selected by workshop
participants.

9. ‘Building’ Social Cohesion

Having spent time discussing how social cohesion might be defined, and the state of social
cohesion through the three lenses of the Left Behind, Intergenerational Fairness, and Trust/
Legitimacy, participants in the workshops were asked to ‘build’ social cohesion using Lego®
bricks. The bricks could symbolise tangible structures, such as housing, transport, or green
spaces; or could be used to represent intangible concepts such as trust and solidarity.
What follows are photographs of the models made by each group, with explanations of the
components that make up their representations of social cohesion.

The ‘Republic of Social Cohesion’ is a society where education is lifelong with a
breadth of subjects from traditional education curricula, to life skills, finance, and kindness;
where people are employed in meaningful jobs that they enjoy and which have safe conditions
and a liveable wage; that has ample services such as public transport, free healthcare, free and
clean public toilets, clean water, playgrounds and outdoor exercise equipment, swimming and
recreation facilities; where a diverse population can come together in green and third spaces
with facilities such as tea/coffee and snacks and can chat or learn about politics, intercultural
classes, awareness and community; and where government is close to the community.

A socially cohesive society is one which values diversity, as represented by the
dove made up of different colours and carrying an olive branch. It involves all of society moving
forward together with room for everyone. It involves bridging communities and getting to
understand each other.

This model shows two sides of society – a highly cohesive society and a society
without social cohesion.
A socially cohesive society is one where everyone has a place at the table, with strong links
between civil society and government and decisions are made by bringing society and
government together. It involves the building of a broad coalition across society to work
together. Government is accountable to citizens.
On “the other side of the bridge” where social cohesion is not present, Government and society
are on opposite sides of an insurmountable mess.

The three models represent different aspects of social cohesion for the participants. Figure
1.1 presents the most institutional and material vision of social cohesion. It emphasises the
practical services, infrastructure and conditions that that participants felt were needed to
build a cohesive society – lifelong education, meaningful and fairly paid work, public services,
healthcare, transport, recreation, and accessible shared spaces. Social cohesion here is
grounded in the idea that people need the shared infrastructure, both physical and social, to
flourish. Government is also imagined as being close to communities, both in proximity and
understanding.
Figure 1.2 provides a more symbolic and relational understanding. Its focus more on values –
diversity, inclusion, peace, understanding, and the bridging of communities. The dove and olive
branch suggest peace and acceptance of diversity, while the emphasis on “room for everyone”
and people “moving forward together” frames social cohesion as a shared movement involving
mutual recognition. Compared with Figure 8.1, this figure is less concerned with physical
structures and more with the mental modes, the social and cultural norms, that enable people to
live together well.
Figure 1.3 introduces a more explicitly political and contrasting perspective. It seeks to
represent both what social cohesion looks like, and what its absence looks like. On the cohesive
side, the figure stresses participation, accountability, and collaboration between society and
government, with “everyone having a place at the table.” On the other side of the bridge, social
breakdown is depicted as separation, dysfunction, and a mess. This figure therefore highlights
the importance of democratic legitimacy, collective problem-solving, and trust between
institutions and society, making it the most overtly governance-focused of the three models.
Taken together the models represent the various components of the definitions of social
cohesion identified by participants at the beginning of the workshop – feelings of safety, and
community, supported by community spaces and facilities; diversity and willingness to learn
about other cultures and support intersectionality; and participation in decision-making and
working together with institutions and governments.

10. Conclusion

As stated at the outset, the workshops were not designed to be statistically representative,
and the outputs should be read as a structured account of perspectives generated through a
common participatory process in two different settings. Nonetheless, the consistency of several
themes across both locations, and of the contrasts where they arise, provide useful direction for
the development of policy thinking on social cohesion. The insights and priorities captured here
will feed into the National Economic and Social Council’s forthcoming work on social cohesion
and the Council’s own recommendations.
Across the discussions, participants consistently linked social cohesion to inclusion, fairness,
trust, and the ability to participate meaningfully in society. While the three lenses explored
different dimensions of the issue, they repeatedly converged on a common message: social
cohesion is weakened when people feel excluded from housing, services, decision-making,
community life, or opportunities to shape their futures. In this sense, the themes of the Left
Behind, Intergenerational Fairness, and Trust/Legitimacy were not separate concerns, but
interconnected expressions of how young people experience belonging and exclusion in
everyday life, as was evident in the overlapping proposals for change under each of the three
themes.
The workshop also highlighted the importance of listening to young people not only as
consultation invitees, but as participants with lived experience, practical insight, and clear
views on what a more cohesive society would require. Their proposals placed strong emphasis
on decent housing, accessible services, inclusive public spaces, democratic participation, and
institutional accountability. Taken together, these outputs suggest that participants felt that
building social cohesion requires both practical policy measures and sustained attention to
the relationships, values, and processes that enable people to feel recognised, respected, and
included.
Ultimately, the report points to a shared aspiration among participants for a society in
which social cohesion is not assumed, but actively created through fairer systems, stronger
communities, and more meaningful participation. These workshop findings provide a valuable
contribution to the wider policy conversation and underline the importance of ensuring that
young people’s voices are heard.