Ms Eleanor McClorey:

To pick up on what Mr. Kelly and Ms Quinn were emphasising, the cohesive nature of the thinking underpins the unique way in which each strategy was developed. One can get lost in the individual differences at surface level between Tallaght, Darndale and Young Ballymun, but we welcome these differences because they have allowed us to develop various types of learning which we can contribute to the collective pot. It would have been deeply regrettable if this money had been invested in doing the same thing three times over. Without getting into the detail, which my colleagues have covered very well, there are cohesive factors, particularly with regard to strategic planning, evidence of need, evidence-based responses to these needs and ways of engaging with an entire community, whether we are talking about children aged up to three years, people across the life-cycle or any other combination.

Deputy Ó Caoláin made observations about concentrated areas, mainstreaming throughout the country and rural disadvantage. We must first ask what the evidence tells us. I will not stray too far from the territory I am confident I know, having worked in this area since 2007, because I do not want to make overreaching statements that I cannot verify. I can state that in concentrated urban areas of disadvantage, as Mr. Candon, Ms Quinn and Mr Kelly have articulated, significant State investment is made in dislocated silo-based health, education and community and voluntary service strategies. In our view it is not so much that the State does not spend enough money - although additional investment will always be welcome - but that there is a fundamental question about how this money is strategically managed and whether an integrated service strategy is in place. We know integrated service strategies are not in place in areas of rural or urban disadvantage throughout the country. In the mainstream sectors of health, education and youth and community services, it is a question of embedding in various ways the evidence-based practices that will change outcomes. With at least two former school principals sitting in the room, I state very cautiously that we know that changing teaching practice in the classroom will change literacy levels. We know investing in children's social and emotional development, particularly from birth or very early in childhood, will demonstrably improve their learning outcomes and mental health outcomes.

The Incredible Years programme is one example but there is also the Doodle Den programme in Tallaght. There are examples of improving literacy in the classroom and parallel initiatives to improve literacy with classroom and teacher efforts. I make the assumption that the international evidence on teaching practice could be transferred to any school or community, regardless of whether it is urban or rural. That is based on rational assumptions rather than hard evidence.

Childhood Development Initiative, Preparing for Life and ourselves collaborated extensively on the Síolta process. It would be reasonable to assume, based on evidence, that early years centres in rural settings - if they embody an evidence-based curriculum like High Scope and the Síolta quality assurance framework - will almost definitely improve child outcomes with the quality of early years provision. The nature of services and populations are dispersed. For example, in an urban environment in Ballymun, families in the community were traditionally described as not engaging with service providers. When we set up the child development clinic, the conventional wisdom was that families would not engage, which is completely untrue, as families will absolutely engage with services if they are relevant to their needs and delivered respectfully. That culture of respect, equality and participation is required, with the parent seen as an expert on their child. There must be respect for what parents know, their capacity and their commitment in very difficult circumstances. That can be transferred across other areas.

Senator van Turnhout commented on how to bring all this learning together. There are diverse ways of implementing area-based strategies and, for example, in Young Ballymun, we focused mainly on embedding practice in mainstream services. We put much of our time and attention into that. Other strategies can go with this, and in Preparing for Life there was an emphasis on home-based visitation. We did not test that as we tested clinic-based services. It is about really considering in a coherent way the programme rather than asking if this or that works.

What we have collectively stated is that there must be a collaborative planning process that engages all key stakeholders before making a decision on what is being done. The process is as important as the programme. The programme is the evidence-based strategy that the community decides to implement but the process is how to get there. The process will significantly influence the level of participation, ownership and buy-in, which is another important lesson.

There must be strong national leadership with samples of anonymised records. The point was made that child poverty cannot be addressed without addressing family poverty. Children live in families so a child will not emerge from being poor on its own; the child will only become "not poor" if there is an integrated economic strategy. There is an opportunity in the Government, a new focus on jobs and where economic investment has not been made, to integrate children services strategies with economic investment. Others on the panel have made that point clearly. Children do not end up poor accidentally and we tried to emphasise in our presentation the causal aspects.

We can respond to points collectively. There were points about maternal depression and children finding their own bedtimes, etc. When we really engage with families during pregnancy and the early stages after birth, as we have through our Ready, Steady, Grow service and the child development clinic, along with the efforts of partners, we really get a sense of the struggle. Maternal depression can be a biological and medical factor in any pregnancy or birth but environmental stress and financial anxiety, as well as conflict in the family and domestic violence, can massively compound maternal depression. It is a critical risk factor for child outcomes. Rather than assumptions on children going to bed on their own, there is really a need to consider holistically the needs of parents and responses, where possible, to support parents and children's well-being.

There is the issue of investment and sustainability. We have designed Young Ballymun as a ten year change strategy. There will be embedding of mainstream practice across the community, which is why sharing models with other communities is so important. One must build up synergy and a movement across the country to build sustainability in future. The emerging policy context around children is very important and if that could be matched with an economic and employment strategy for extremely disadvantaged areas, it would be all the better.