Mr. David Taylor:

On the question of the comparison of models, I introduced the issue quite deliberately in order to make the committee aware that there are two systems and to highlight the benefits of having alternative models. In other words, it is not a question of which is better. The fact that there is not a total monopoly enables both to learn. I will give one example. Insofar as the six players are all subcontracted or service providers to Tusla, the agency can then exercise its own judgment as to how well or not these agencies are performing. Inevitably, it raises the bar for them because it insists on full compliance with all the standards. The success in doing this is illustrated by the fact that looking at the results HIQA inspections, we can see that the six non-statutory agencies score higher than Tusla regions do under the same tests. The point I am making is that there is value in this model. It empowers Tusla in certain ways. It also provides learning for the overall system. I am not trying to say that one model is superior to the other, but that a level of competition that is appropriate in the areas where it is public is useful.

We had a worry ourselves as non-statutory agencies that we were perceived as being expensive or in it for the money. Those are both very pejorative comments to apply to us and, as the Senator suggested, they could be applied to the people who do it but that is not the case. My agency was founded to prevent children from going into 24-hour care at a higher cost to the State, motivated by an earlier intervention. That said, in the context of the service delivered, there are two aspects to a fostering placement, namely, that of the child, which is monitored by his or her social worker, and that of the foster carer, which is monitored by the link worker. In the Tusla model, Tusla from separate Departments will provide both those inputs in order that it will have a rounded view rather than one person's view. In the case of the non-statutory model, we provide the link worker and Tusla continues to provide the child's social worker, so the rapport between those two is very important for the health of the placement. As a link worker, a case worker in Tusla could hold more than 20 placements, while in the private agencies it ranges from eight to 12. The level of service delivered to the foster carer, therefore, is higher under the non-statutory model and it is not surprising the inspection results show full compliance. Part of Tusla's issue relates to a staffing problem.

On the final question, which I have alluded to, the number of placements at non-statutory agencies is growing while that in Tusla is shrinking. That has to do with the level of service foster carers experience. Those trends should result in both Tusla's level of service and the overall level of service improving. To return to the Chairman's question relating to how the costs of all this are paid for, we commissioned a study, given the accusation the cost was too high, that examined the value for money. We asked whether, in comparison with Tusla, we were offering value for money and the answer was an unequivocal "Yes". It would have cost Tusla more to deliver the level of service we were offering.