Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Thursday, 21 March 2013

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children

Tackling Childhood Poverty: Discussion (Resumed)

9:35 am

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Ms Moira O'Mara, who is a director in the Department of Children and Youth Affairs; Mr. John Bohan, who is a principal officer in the Department of Social Protection; and Ms Caitríona O'Brien, who is a principal officer in the social inclusion section of the Department of Education and Skills. This is the third in a series of meetings examining the need to tackle childhood poverty. I compliment and thank the Vice Chairman of the committee, Deputy Conway, for requesting that we include this issue in our work programme and for acting as rapporteur on the topic. We heard some challenging, interesting and enriching presentations at our first two meetings in this series. I hope that will continue today. I thank all of our witnesses most sincerely for taking the time to attend this morning's meeting.

I remind witnesses that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they will be entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice, or ruling of the Chair, to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I welcome our witnesses again. I ask Ms O'Mara to make some opening remarks.

Ms Moira O'Mara:

The Department of Children and Youth Affairs was established in June 2011 as the first senior Ministry for children and young people. Its mission statement is to lead the effort to improve the outcomes for children and young people in Ireland. Therefore, by its nature, the Department has a cross-departmental focus and remit. I will outline some of the key areas that might be of interest to the committee with regard to what we are doing to tackle child poverty. The Department is currently developing a high-level national policy framework for children and young people from birth to the age of 25. This is expected to include inputs from all relevant Departments and to be approved by the Government later this year. It will be supported by three detailed strategies which will focus on specific and overlapping age cohorts: children in the early years from birth to the age of six, children from birth to the age of 18 and young people from the age of 12 to the age of 25. This reflects the different emphases at different stages of young people's lives and the key transitional points between each stage. It is intended to have a single implementation plan which will be monitored and reported on to the Government over the lifetime of the three strategies from 2013 to 2018.

The issue of child poverty will be addressed by the Department through its policy framework by linking in with key Departments such as the Departments of Social Protection and Education and Skills, both of which are represented at today's meeting. In addition, the Department oversees a number of policy areas and forms of service provision which help to address the cycle of poverty. I will speak briefly about them in a moment. Early childhood care and education is provided through the free preschool year programme. Subsidised child care is provided to low-income parents. The Department is responsible for the National Educational Welfare Board and for youth work programmes. It encourages inter-agency work and implements prevention and early intervention programmes in areas of high disadvantage to break the cycle of poverty. This has the effect of encouraging more effective service provision at national level in the longer term. The free preschool year and early childhood care and education programme was introduced in January 2010 as a universal free programme to provide equal access to early education for all children, particularly the most disadvantaged who might otherwise not attend preschool. It has a take-up of 95% and currently costs €175 million per annum. It is availed of by approximately 66,000 children at the moment.

The Department implements two child care schemes which subsidise child care places for low-income parents. First, the community child care subvention scheme is operated through approximately 900 community child care services. Some 25,000 children receive subsidised child care under the scheme. The weekly subsidy - €95 for full day care - is paid to such services in respect of parents who are in receipt of social welfare payments such as family income support and who also have medical cards. A lower subsidy of €50 per week is paid to services in respect of parents who have medical or GP visit cards. The community child care subvention scheme costs approximately €50 million per annum. Second, the child care education and training scheme subsidises child care places in approximately 1,450 community and privately operated child care services. This scheme is open to qualifying FÁS and VEC trainees and students who are required to contribute up to €25 per week for a full day care place. Some 2,500 full-time equivalent places are available at any time under the scheme. It is estimated that this equates to some 8,000 students and trainees benefitting from the provision of places each year. Obviously, not everybody needs a full day care place, or a place for the full year. The child care education and training scheme costs approximately €20 million per annum.

The Department is responsible for the National Educational Welfare Board, which is due to become part of the new child and family support agency when it is established later this year. The board is responsible for supporting regular school attendance and advising and assisting schools, children and parents in cases of attendance or behavioural issues. The board works with between 8,000 and 10,000 children and families each year. Some €9 million is being provided to it in 2013. The board implements the educational welfare service and is responsible for the school completion programme, which supports 124 projects in 472 primary and 225 post-primary schools, most of which are linked to the DEIS programme. The aim of the programme is to keep young people in formal education until they have completed the senior cycle or equivalent and to improve the quality of their educational participation and attainment. Each project under the programme is tailored locally. The projects provide in-school, after-school and holiday-time interventions to approximately 38,000 targeted children and young people throughout the country who are at risk of leaving school early. This year's provision for the school completion programme is €26.5 million.

The third area for which the National Educational Welfare Board is responsible is the home school community liaison scheme, which is a school-based preventative strategy that targets children and young people who are at risk. As the 408 co-ordinators under the scheme are seconded teachers, their staffing costs are borne by the Department of Education and Skills. They work with parents, teachers and local voluntary and statutory groups to tackle issues that impinge on learning. Rather than providing support directly to children, they tend to favour more indirect forms of support. The National Educational Welfare Board is working to integrate the three services I have mentioned under the "one child, one team, one plan" model. It is intended to bring the three services together as a single seamless service for children, young people and families. The unified service will record assessments of need, provide intervention plans and take inputs into those plans from all three services.

The Department also has a significant youth work programme, which supports the youth sector in providing effective non-formal education and development opportunities to young people, thereby allowing them to enhance and develop their personal and social skills and competencies. Some €53 million is available for these universal and targeted schemes this year, of which €40 million is targeted at more disadvantaged youth. Youth work programmes and services are delivered to some 400,000 young people by approximately 1,400 youth workers. We also have a volunteer base of approximately 40,000. The Department also funds the development of youth cafes, of which there are approximately 75 across the country. These successful interventions are provided to young people in an alcohol-free environment. Another major concern of the Department is to promote inter-agency working at local level. To date, we have established children's services committees in 16 counties. These committees are important because they bring statutory and non-statutory service providers in local areas together to adopt a co-ordinated approach to their planning and delivery. This results in more effective service delivery as well as being more cost-effective. The work that has been done to date is being consolidated this year by the Department. We intend to standardise the process and, subject to Government approval, roll out children's services committees as a national system from next year.

In budget 2013, the Government announced two initiatives to support children and families that are being implemented by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. The first of these involves an area-based response to child poverty. It has been given funding of €2.5 million this year, to increase to approximately €5 million in each of the subsequent years up to 2016. The initiative has been developed jointly by the Department and the Tánaiste's office. It continues and builds on work that was previously done by a previous initiative of the office of the Minister for children, which has been delivered in partnership with Atlantic Philanthropies since 2007.

This initiative, known as the prevention and early intervention programme, PEIP, tested a number of service interventions for children and families in Tallaght, Ballymun and Darndale. It was essentially the pilot phase of the area-based approach to child poverty. The programmes in the three areas in question have been evaluated and the impact on outcomes for children in an Irish context assessed.

The work of the prevention and early intervention programme will be continued in the new initiative, which will focus on the programmes that have been proven and found to be cost-effective. Commencing later this year, the initiative will be rolled out to a number of additional sites where there are high levels of disadvantage and poor outcomes for children. We also hope to begin the process of mainstreaming the proven and cost-effective programmes at national level. I hope this process will be assisted by the new child and family support agency when it is established later this year. It is hoped the agency will lead the charge on mainstreaming. The Department has been working on implementing the initiative since January and is being assisted by an interdepartmental project team. It is hoped to launch the application process for the initiative in April and, if possible, have projects selected by the end of June. The three sites which were under the PEIP are expected to continue in the new initiative, with the focus, as I noted, on proven and cost-effective programme delivery.

The second initiative announced in budget 2013 is a school age child care scheme, which will have a provision of €14 million in a full year. This funding is being transferred from the Vote of the Department of Social Protection to the Vote of the Department of Education and Skills. Work is under way between the two Departments to introduce the scheme, which will provide more than 6,000 school age child care places to primary schoolchildren of targeted social protection clients who are entering employment. Similar to existing schemes, parents will receive subsidised after-school care, resulting in their contribution being limited to approximately €18 per week. We hope to pilot the scheme from next month and have it fully operational from September. In addition to it being an additional scheme operated by the Department, we are also planning for it to fit into the continuum of our existing child care supports for low income parents in order that they can move from one scheme to another, as appropriate.

9:45 am

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. John Bohan, principal officer in the Department of Social Protection.

Mr. John Bohan:

I thank the joint committee for the invitation to attend this meeting to discuss with my colleagues from other Departments the important issue of how best to address the State's efforts to tackle childhood poverty. I understand the joint committee first invited the relevant Departments with a role in children and youth affairs that are best placed to contribute to a cross-departmental strategy on childhood poverty and that it seeks an update on the work being done in this area by the relevant Departments.

I will first comment on the general role of the Department of Social Protection. According to its statement of strategy, the mission of the Department is to promote active participation in society. It does this mainly through providing a range of income support and other payments and through the provision of employment services such as job assistance, job search and other supports aimed at allowing persons to improve their living standards and life chances. The Department administers more than 70 separate schemes and services which impact on the lives of almost every citizen. Expenditure in 2013 is expected to be in the region of €20 billion. These payments play a key role in supporting those most in need, including children and their parents, persons who are unemployed or sick, carers, people with disabilities and older people. Specific roles provided by the Department include the development of social protection and social inclusion policy; promoting and supporting the incorporation of anti-poverty and social inclusion objectives in policy development; monitoring the implementation of these strategies; administration of a wide range of social insurance and social assistance schemes for children, persons of working age, carers, persons with disabilities and pensioners; and activation, employment and community services and programmes to promote development, progression, participation and social involvement of our clients.

These payments and functions set the context for considering the Department's specific role in tackling childhood poverty. The most obvious role is to pay benefits to families with children, with specific supports directed at such families. While the best known of these supports is the child benefit payment, there are also a number of other payments such as increases for qualified children to the main adult weekly payments, the family income supplement and the back to school clothing and footwear allowance. The Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection only yesterday held a meeting with the chair of the advisory group on tax and social welfare on the issue of payments to families with children. The meeting was held to discuss the group's recently published report on child and family income support payments.

An increasingly important role for the Department is the activation of parents and the provision of assistance to allow them to take up employment. While this is a long-standing objective of the social welfare system, the recent merger of the Department with the employment services of FÁS and the community welfare services of the Health Service Executive has had major implications for this role and the future potential of the Department in addressing parental and child poverty through employment and measures to improve parental employability. The Department also has a role in monitoring its national action for social inclusion, in particular the Government's target to reduce the number of people in poverty. Following a review by the Department last year, the Government set a new poverty target and announced its intention to introduce a specific sub-target for children to refocus efforts on this issue. Practical discussions on how to implement this decision are under way with interested stakeholders.

The Department does not work alone in this area and participates in a number of interdepartmental bodies, including the national children's strategy implementation group led by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. Through this work, it seeks to participate in a joined-up way in tackling issues of child poverty. The Department also represents Ireland on international bodies involved in social policy, notably the Social Protection Committee of the European Union, which played a major role in drafting the Council of Ministers conclusions on preventing and tackling child poverty and social inclusion and promoting children and well-being, which were published in October 2012. The Department is also co-ordinating the preparation of Council conclusions on the European Commission's recently published social investment package. One element of the package was the Commission recommendation in the area of investing in children. I will be pleased to elaborate on any of the issues I have outlined.

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Bohan for making the effort to attend the meeting as I am aware he attended the meeting held yesterday to which he referred. I welcome Ms Caitriona O'Brien, principal officer, social inclusion, Department of Education and Skills.

Ms Caitriona O'Brien:

I thank the Chairman and members for the invitation to attend and the opportunity to present to the joint committee. Members will have noted the links in this area from the presentations made by my colleagues, particularly that of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs.

The Department of Education and Skills has a strong focus on tackling educational disadvantage and social inclusion generally. I will speak about the DEIS programme, which is the central plank of the Department's policy in this area. While some of those present who have a background in the education sector or in working with children will be familiar with the programme, it is useful to give some context to the later discussion. DEIS, Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools: An Action Plan for Educational Inclusion, is the policy instrument of the Department of Education and Skills for addressing educational disadvantage. Since its introduction in 2006, DEIS has focused on addressing and prioritising the educational needs of children and young people from disadvantaged communities, from preschool through to second level education. Its frame of reference is based on the definition of educational disadvantage in the Education Act 1998, according to which educational disadvantage involves the "impediments to education arising from social or economic disadvantage which prevent students from deriving appropriate benefit from education in schools". These impediments are complex and multifaceted and are underpinned by a range of factors, which includes family poverty.

Research carried out by the Educational Research Centre prior to the introduction of DEIS found strong evidence that the disadvantage associated with poverty and social exclusion assumes a multiplier effect when large numbers of pupils in a school are from a similar disadvantaged background. This is known as the social context effect. In recognition of this, DEIS included a standardised system for identifying schools on the basis of their relative levels of disadvantage and prioritised supports in schools serving the most disadvantaged children and young people. The objective of DEIS is clear; it provides supports to schools to combat the underlying cause of educational disadvantage, in other words, to level the playing pitch in order that young people have an opportunity to derive maximum personal benefit from the education system. Enhancing attendance, progression, retention and attainment are central elements of DEIS. Interventions include a concentration on literacy and numeracy from an early stage, strong links between home, school and community, strong links between schools working co-operatively together and added value from links between education and other services working with children and families.

A key focus of current policy is to prioritise investment in favour of those most at risk and optimise access, participation and outcomes at every level of the system for disadvantaged and marginalised groups. Therefore, the additional resources available in DEIS schools should be used to achieve good outcomes for those children who are identified as the most at risk of not achieving their potential through education.

It should be noted that DEIS is part of a continuum of interventions to address educational disadvantage. These include early childhood care and education, through the universal preschool provision scheme, early child care education, ECCE, second chance education and training and access measures for the minority of our young people, who for various reasons leave education early without the knowledge and skills they need to support them in later life. A further element of this continuum is the ongoing development of provision for pupils with special educational needs.

Since the implementation of DEIS, there has been an ongoing evaluation of the programme and the findings indicate encouraging evidence that the DEIS programme is having a positive effect on tackling educational disadvantage. Separate Educational Research Centre, ERC, and inspectorate reports published in January 2012 show some encouraging results to date. For example, there have been significant improvements in both maths and reading ability in primary schools. Progress appears most marked among pupils with the lower levels of achievement, which is encouraging. Practically all of the primary schools reported significant measurable improvements in the attendance levels of their pupils, while the majority of post-primary schools had effective measures in place to improve attendance. There is increased positive engagement with education on the part of parents in school life and in their children's education. A recurring theme when one talks about this area is that the involvement of parents in the school life and education of their children and the valuing of education by parents is key to this issue.

The reports also point to where improvements are needed in some schools with regard to planning and outcomes. Acting on this, in 2012 the Department issued revised guidelines on the appropriate use of the DEIS grant, emphasising that DEIS funding should be used to obtain the outcomes identified in the schools DEIS action plan, the importance of each school having a DEIS action plan and that it should be available for inspection by the Department's inspectorate. In other words, schools should do what the DEIS programme asks them to do. The Department also emphasised in grant payment letters issued to all DEIS schools the link between inputs and outcomes in the context of the evaluation of the programme. It is also surveying selected schools on the spending of their DEIS grant in order to identify supports and interventions which are key to the schools' delivery on their DEIS action plans.

During 2013, the ERC will undertake further research in DEIS post-primary schools to review the implementation and outcomes of DEIS supports at post-primary level. It will also carry out further testing at primary level to ensure that the longitudinal element of the evaluation can be maintained, adding to data already collected in 2007 and 2010. The Department is focused on ensuring that existing resources are deployed in the most cost efficient way and it is currently undertaking a review of the delivery of the existing programme, with a view to ensuring that schools make the best use of current funding. The findings of completed and current studies will provide the basis, in terms of programme implementation and outcomes, to inform an exploration of future policy on educational disadvantage generally. While the outcomes of DEIS are largely positive and achievement levels are improving, the performance in DEIS schools still falls below the standard norm. This points to a requirement for continued support for these schools, to build on the gains identified in the evaluation of achievement testing.

I would like to give the committee some idea of the kind of money made available for educational disadvantage so as to illustrate the financial commitment being made by the Department to tackling this area. Overall funding in 2012, on interventions ranging from early childhood to supports for third level students, was in the order of €690 million. Some €94 million is allocated to the DEIS programme to support over 165,000 pupils. This funding provides for reduced class sizes, a home-school liaison service, the support teacher project, DEIS and book grants to individual schools. DEIS schools also receive further support from the colleague Departments of Children and Youth Affairs and Social Protection through the school meals programme and the school completion programme. I will be happy to deal with questions on this in our discussion. The Department has also been involved in some of the PE initiatives that have been in place for a number of years and will also be involved in the area-based poverty initiative to be rolled out later this year.

9:55 am

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Ms O'Mara, Mr. Bohan and Ms O'Brien and thank them for their contributions. I probably reflect the situation for most of us when I say that we did not have prior sight of the contributions that they were going to make, which normally help us to concentrate and prepare for our discussion. I am winging it here in terms of what has been said, but there are some broader points I would like to make in the context of tackling child poverty.

It is great that we have representatives from the three Departments here together. The Department of Children and Youth Affairs is a new Department and I am hugely enthusiastic about it and believe it will, given the fullness of time, prove its worth. Mr. Bohan is the unfortunate holder of the responsibility for the Department of Social Protection here today. Many of our concerns are reflected in that area, particularly due to the austerity programme and the cuts and impacts of it for our respective constituents. I acknowledge there have tremendous improvements in regard to the Department of Education and Skills and that there have been some important initiatives in terms of improving the circumstances in which children are educated. There is much yet to be done and I have no doubt all of our witnesses are more than cognisant of everything I have said.

In my view, there is one glaring omission here, the HSE. As things stand, despite Ms O'Mara having alluded to the advent of the child and family support agency, for at least this year the responsibility rests within the HSE. For the time being, the Family Support Agency continues under the aegis of the HSE, but it is not represented here. However, while the representatives of the three Departments are here, I would like to say that I feel that while they are here together, they are not always acting together in the interest of children. There is not sufficient evidence to give me confidence or certainty that there is real joined-up thinking across Departments vis-à-vis the consequences of decisions made and matters being implemented. They need to move from this point to a greater level of relationship with regard to the impact of decisions made. This would give me great hope.

We have a population of just over 1 million people under 18 years of age, which puts into context what we are talking about here. Child poverty is a huge area and it represents itself in many ways, as we have all mentioned here time after time. We have real poverty, relative poverty and many other indicators of situations where children are left out. They may not be viewed by many in their immediate communities as being in poverty or threatened by poverty, but the impact of being left out of opportunity and of having the doors of opportunity closed to them has adverse effects on these young people preparing for adult life. I accept this view is shared across all political views in this committee.

It is very difficult to focus on what we can do other than encourage the joined-up thinking approach. Like the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. we are very anxious to see the child and family support agency established and to see the various pieces of legislation, which I expect will have a very positive bearing on the situation regarding children, passed.

Even with the passage of all that has been signalled, it comes back to the fact that resourcing is hugely important. We have made this point time after time. I am not closed to acceptance that we do not have an endless pool. It will mean different prioritisation as well as the creation of new forms of resourcing. I believe that both are achievable. What those of us at my point in life want to see in later adult life is hope restored for our children, and not necessarily for us and our time, because that may not be achievable within the current circumstances. Hope must be restored for our children and for their futures. What that would mean to parents and communities would be massive.

I will conclude with some observations, if I may. I apologise for being a little long-winded. I refer to many of the measures taken by the Department of Social Protection, although I am not suggesting for a moment that the responsibility rests on the shoulders of Mr. John Bohan and the Department, because these are political decisions ultimately. However, I am deeply concerned about the impact of many of these decisions in some of the areas that have been alluded to, which I will not single out.

I acknowledge that the Department of Education and Skills has done much. Children spend the greatest part of their week in school conditions under the stewardship and guidance of teachers who are also trying to contend with deplorable circumstances. In my constituency and throughout the length and breadth of the State there is so much work that needs to be done. This all has a bearing on the issue of child poverty.

The delegates referred to educational, social and economic disadvantage, but there is also locational disadvantage, depending on where one happens to be born, the circumstances of one's community and the supports that the various State agencies have put in place. These circumstances can impair the prospects of young people into adult life.

I promise the Chairman that this is my final point. Today is World Down Syndrome Day. Yesterday, in the course of addressing the Bill that facilitates a reduction in the threshold for qualification for a medical card for those over 70, I instanced a situation that has presented only in the past couple of weeks - that of a Down's syndrome child who has other serious health issues. The child holds a long-term illness card due to the Down's syndrome designation and previously held a full medical card on the basis of a discretionary assessment of the child's other medical needs. However, the full medical card was withdrawn in the past two weeks. While the Department is signalling the removal of up to 40,000 medical cards, the greater number of them from those over 70 years of age with incomes in excess of €600 per week, are discretionary cards the next line of attack-----

10:05 am

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Deputy.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----which means that young people will again be suffering?

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is straying now.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Straying? I do not think so. However, I share those thoughts with the delegates and I thank them again for their contributions.

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of information, the committee invited the National Educational Welfare Board to attend today's meeting but its representatives had to withdraw at the last minute. We also have apologies from Deputy Regina Doherty.

Photo of Jillian van TurnhoutJillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also wish to welcome the officials from the three Departments who have attended the meeting. Deputy Conway's initiative is very welcome.

I refer to Deputy Ó Caoláin's final point about the Department of Health. The delegates are not in a position to answer the question but that Department does have a direct role in dealing with the issue of child poverty. I support what Deputy Ó Caoláin said. The committee found out - if that is the appropriate term - about who is responsible for child and family services. The public perception is that Gordon Jeyes is the person responsible, but in fact it is Tony O'Brien who has delegated the responsibility within the HSE to Brian Kirwan. That is the current position until the new agency is established. I believe more information about who is responsible should be in the public domain.

I welcome the establishment of the new agency and I also welcome the high-level national policy framework, which is long awaited. I look forward to seeing it. Ms Moira O'Mara said it would be available at the end of this year. I ask Ms O'Mara to assure us that the Department of Health is co-operating in the development of that policy along with the other Departments in attendance today.

The policy framework will be particularly important in an examination of the issue of child poverty across all age groups. The early years are very important but, equally, we have seen how the issue of teenage poverty continues into adult life and sets a life path for a young person. We must remember to include teenagers in our examination of child poverty because a person is a child up to the age of 18 years.

I welcome the free universal preschool year, although I acknowledge it is only three hours a day for 38 weeks of the year. It is a relatively short period of time. I have been talking to providers dealing with certain categories of children such as special needs children. Recently I visited the direct provision centre in Athlone where the free preschool year is being provided to children of asylum-seekers. It is a very small provision for children who need to be integrated and included in society. I suggest that this category of children be considered in any plans to expand the service. The universal preschool year is provided as part of the plan for helping working parents and is based on sound educational models.

The model for funding of after-school care was referred to by Ms O'Mara. I ask her to outline whether there will be guidance on what constitutes after-school care. From my observations around the country, there are different interpretations. I am afraid that an ad hoc system may develop and in some instances it may be interpreted simply as keeping children occupied, while there may be a planned programme of activities in place in other centres.

DEIS is an important initiative. Will there be a linkage between the experience of DEIS and the policy of an area-based response to child poverty? Ms O'Brien raised some very important issues about learning from DEIS. Can the information about DEIS be used in the policy of area-based responses?

It is important, when looking at the new areas and the current areas, that whatever policy is funded should be mainstreamed and replicated in other areas. Is it a case of having to wait for the pot of money to come to an area? What is needed are clear programmes that can be adapted and are flexible, but that address issues such as rural isolation and care for certain categories of children who are particularly isolated and vulnerable.

Access to third level is an issue that hit home to me when I visited the centre in Athlone. Children in such centres are literally on the edge of a cliff because the supports are not available to them once they finish the leaving certificate. The programme stops for them at that stage. I think back to my leaving certificate and the incentives I had to work hard. I knew that my parents would encourage me to go to third level and that they would provide for that. However, if one knows there will be no support, that incentive to do well and to go further in education or training or employment is not present. Those linkages are vital and they should be an important element of the national policy framework for those aged 12 to 25 years.

On the issue of child benefit, I will not repeat what I said during a very good debate in the Seanad on the advisory group report. Mr. Bohan attended in the Visitors' Gallery for that debate. Part of my frustration with the system is that very often each Department can only look for solutions within itself rather than looking for solutions through connections with other Departments.

The Department of Social Protection often can only look at solutions that are linked to other areas and that is the reason we have a decision on the mean testing of child benefit rather than considering a universal payment plus services and developing out those services. I followed part of the proceedings of a committee yesterday during which this issue was discussed. If we are serious about tackling child poverty, we should examine measures such as the provision of free health care and school books, which are areas that directly impact on a child's well-being. We could then ensure that all children have the opportunity for positive outcomes. How do we empower such co-operation among the Departments who engage in these areas? That is where the new agency and the new policy framework will come into play, but are they the answers or do we have to look elsewhere?

10:15 am

Photo of Ciara ConwayCiara Conway (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming in this morning and sharing with us the kind of work that is taking place in their Departments. The first thing that strikes me in the context of the reading I have done on this area and the evidence we have heard thus far is that everybody is talking about interdepartmental and inter-agency working, but from what I have heard, seen and experienced this is hard to achieve. What is being done to address that? People have alluded to the fact that there are no representatives present from Department of Health but I would equally say why are there no representatives present from local government, the Department of Justice and Equality or the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. If the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, is serious about getting people back to work, I point out that women account for 50% of the population and they are often engaged in child minding activities. They have a vested interest in the provision of child care services and in the provision of and access to funding in order that people and not only the Department of Social Protection can provide that kind of access and support for people. Local government has a responsibility for the housing provision, the services that are available in communities vis-à-vis libraries and the literacy strategies that we want to implement not only in schools but across communities. What is at issue is that kind of a shake-up. We can equally talk about justice and juvenile justice and prevention programmes that work very well in many communities throughout the country. Some of them now fall under the remit of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs but they, equally, are stakeholders in this approach to tackling and eradicating childhood poverty and providing people with equality of opportunity.

The witness from the Department of Children and Youth affairs spoke about the work and the money that has been focused and funnelled on this area. I would like to know how are the outcomes in this respect being measured. The witness spoke about the large number of people who are involved in youth work but have we any indication that what they are doing is making any difference? I am not saying that in a flippant way. Often people do things with the best will in the world but in this respect I am not sure we are getting the value for money that the children, the families and the State deserve. People are well-intentioned and do good work but sometimes we have to stop and ask if what we are doing is the right thing for this family and for this community. Equally, I would say that the hardest thing about reform and change is to ask somebody to stop doing what he or she is already doing and to do it in a different way. That is what is hard about inter-agency work. In some ways people are being asked to stop doing something or to hand over control. Each of the witnesses' Departments has gained huge experience and learning from the types of initiatives they have in place but, unfortunately, they are often pilot projects. A good quote was made at a hearing of the committee last week, namely, that there have been too many pilots projects and not enough mainstreaming. All the Departments would be guilty of that. How will we get that learning from all the Departments to show outcomes? Will outcomes be measured as opposed to blanket cuts being simply imposed? We know of some youth services that took a great deal of time and effort to devise a programme that would provide the best outcomes for the children in their community rather than simply doing what they had been doing, yet they were levied with the same cuts as everybody else, even though they could show that there was a marked improvement. I would like to know from all the Departments if what they are doing is working, how do we know it is working and if something is not working, how can we change it. That is what we want to try to find out.

Photo of Sandra McLellanSandra McLellan (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for attending today and for their presentations. As Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin said, I agree that the establishment of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs is a positive development. The witnesses spoke about many positive developments. The high-level policy framework document was mentioned and it is to be welcomed. The establishment of the child and family support agency must be welcomed also and there are many positive developments in the area of early child care and subsidised after school care. The main issue is resources. That is a very important consideration. Even though a great deal of good work has been done, and I am glad there has been a good deal of joined-up thinking and that Departments are working together, because of budget constraints much of the good work can be undone.

The people who come into our constitutency offices talk about the effects of austerity and budget constraints. It all very well to establish all the Departments and identify what needs to be done, but I would hate because of budget constraints to see them dismantled or chipped away in the long term.

Photo of Robert DowdsRobert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for attending. I apologise for missing some of their presentations. I have problem in terms of bilocation often on a Thursday morning. We are fortunate in Ireland that a huge number of people give of their time voluntarily in sports organisations and so on and that is to the benefit of children. We sometimes forget that huge voluntary effort that many people in Ireland make from which we as a society greatly benefit. It is important to say that from time to time. I often think some of those people are the real patriots of this country.

In Ireland we give a very high level of child benefit and in many ways that is a beneficial payment for families. As against that, we are not so good at giving other supports such as the provision of free health care for all children. Do the witnesses consider it would better if some of that money was directed towards the provision of universal free health care for children? I acknowledge such provision is something to which we are aspiring. Do the witnesses have any comment on that?

DEIS schools is a subject on which Deputy Conway, myself and various others fought very hard a year ago because we believe they provide a very important service for the children who attend them. Can the witnesses comment on the measurement of the success of DEIS? In parts of my constitutency there are homework clubs and so on, which are beneficial for children who come from families where there is not much of a tradition of formal education. Do the witnesses have a measurement of the success of those? Can they outline the extent to which such provision is available throughout the country?

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms O'Mara might commence responding to those points.

Photo of Robert DowdsRobert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise as I may have to leave before Ms O'Mara completes her response as I have to be in another location.

Ms Moira O'Mara:

I will go through the points that were raised in sequence but a common theme across them is the concept of working together and what we are doing about that. We have moved a good deal in the past five to ten years in terms of working together as Departments.

The public sector reform process is supporting us moving further down that road because there is the idea now of cross-Government thinking and reporting.

In terms of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs linkages with, say, the Department of Education and Skills, the literacy and numeracy strategy was a joint strategy between the Departments. The preschool year has brought us together in terms of developing the workforce and the requirement for qualifications in the sector. The area based poverty process is bringing us together also. Both Departments are on the project team and we need to bring the learning from both the PEIP and the DEIS programmes because they ran in parallel. We do not want that to happen with the new initiative. We want them to work together.

The school completion programme is an example of a programme that moved from the Department of Education and Skills to our Department. We need to review that in terms of its future position.

With the Department of Social Protection, the school age child care initiative is an example of some of the savings from the child benefit reduction being transferred into supports for low income parents. That is a start on the road of a connection between funding and service provision. It is about the linkages and the balance between them.

Deputy Ó Caoláin mentioned and Senator van Turnhout focused on the need to use our resources better and to work better together. We have a very good convergence this year in terms of the policy framework, which I hope will be brought forward towards the end of September. The cross-departmental policy framework is being developed along with the establishment of the child and family support agency, the consolidation of the children's services committees, the new area-based response to poverty, and a number of reviews of the programmes we are implementing in the Department. As Deputy Conway said, having flat cuts regardless of the value of the particular project or programme does not make sense and therefore we are carrying out a review of our youth programmes and also a review of the school completion programme. We have an opportunity to reconfigure them and make them fit with whatever objectives we identify in the policy framework. That might be a little ambitious but I am hoping that by the end of the year we will have a clear direction as to where we are going in the Department with our resources in terms of reconfiguring them and using them better, and the way we are linking up with other Departments.

That leads me to the area-based poverty response. There are a number of elements to that. On the one hand we know there are areas where poverty is more deeply entrenched than in other areas, and they will always need more significant intervention, particularly for a period of time, be that ten to 20 years because it is a generational issue. However, we need to mainstream. The new initiative will build on the learning of the PEIP and of DEIS. It will move to consolidate and also push towards mainstreaming, but more exploration of the programme will have to be done because we are not quite there yet in terms of developing it fully and knowing exactly where we want to end up.

Senator van Turnhout asked if 38 weeks preschool was enough. It is modelled on the primary school year. It was designed to be one step down in terms of what children of that age can manage. Under the PEIP one programme was trialled which involved a longer number of weeks, a longer number of hours, and better ratios of staff to children. There were some improvements in the outcomes for children, although not as many as members might have imagined. One idea that we could develop in the new initiative is separate the three strands whereby in one area we might have a 45 week programme and have the lower ratios and so on in the other areas. That would give us outcomes as to the best way to proceed in two or three years time.

On the question of inter-agency and interdepartmental work being difficult, we have moved towards that. We are half way down that road and we will continue to do that. The review of the programme was to get better use of resources, which are an issue.

In terms of measuring outcomes, that is very much at the heart of what our Department is doing. As members are aware, we have a dedicated research unit. In youth programmes, for instance, national quality standards are now in place. That is measuring outcomes from all the services. We are in most cases moving to a situation where we want to see what is being delivered by a project. We are taking a balance between policy evaluation and value for money because one project might be achieving the same outcomes as another project but with fewer resources going into it. I hope I have addressed some of the issues raised.

10:25 am

Mr. John Bohan:

I will deal with the various comments made, starting with Deputy Ó Caoláin's point. As he said, I cannot comment on Government policy regarding the budget and budget measures but I can provide a number of facts which might put the issue into some context. As Deputy Dowds mentioned, we still have one of the highest rates of income support. I know there are issues about income support versus services which were mentioned by other members but child benefit remains one of the highest universal payments in Europe, and we can provide statistics on that. That means when that is combined with selective instruments such as the QCIs, we are still meeting the national anti-poverty strategy target, which is that child income support is to meet 33% of the adult rate. Under those measures the Government is still meeting the target of approximately €62 per child in disadvantaged households, and that is the amount of resources available.

There is a major issue regarding the income transfers versus the available supports, but in looking beyond the effects of the immediate measures one should probably examine the existing structural issues. Evidence produced by our research programme showed that approximately one-quarter of children lived in jobless households, therefore, 50% of children in consistent poverty were in jobless households. The fact that we had a very high rate of jobless households pre-existed both the boom and the bust in the economy. That suggests that what needs to be done about child poverty is in the structural area of getting parents back to work, improving supports, and improving levels of activation. That sets the tone for some of the changes being made in the Department.

On the system of income support, the advisory group has identified a clear need to examine the area of reform and has put forward its report for consideration, including by this committee's sister committee, the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection, and looks forward to hearing the views of that committee.

Senator van Turnhout and Deputy Dowds made a point about moving beyond the terms of reference of the advisory group. Yesterday, our chair said that the terms of reference did not allow the group to move beyond income support to the question of whether better value for money would be achieved by moving into child related services. There is evidence that those countries which put more effort into services get better results in terms of child poverty. The reason for that is that it addresses the structural factors I just mentioned.

Deputy Dowds asked if there was any evidence for that. The Department undertook a value for money review of the child support system published in 2010 in which we produced evidence from different countries which showed where the better results were being obtained, and it correlated with higher levels of spending on services. There were better outcomes in many other countries but one would have to take that on a case by case basis.

Clearly, the income support system and child benefit are extremely important to people with regard to how they plan their own expenditure and so on. However, were one to put it into some other service, one almost would be obliged to evaluate that specific service itself. A very good example is the one mentioned by my colleague, Ms Moira O'Mara, about the abolition of the early child care supplement payment and its replacement by the early childhood care and education, ECCE, programme. While that was universally acknowledged as a very good example of how one would do this in practice, one almost would be obliged to make that analysis on a case-by-case basis.

If I may turn to the points made by Deputy Conway, she mentioned the difficulty of joined-up government and she is not in the first person to make such an observation because I recently re-read something from 2002, namely, the strategic management initiative's Delivering Better Government, which identified this to be one of the more difficult areas of public sector reform. While it acknowledged many changes within Departments, it observed this was one of the most difficult areas. I believe the Office of the Minister for Children was established around that time and as my Department actually set up and assigned staff to that office, we participated wholeheartedly in that initiative. The Department of Social Protection also has had fruitful collaborations with the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. I mentioned the national children's strategy implementation group earlier and we also are working on the children's longitudinal study and the area-based poverty initiative, into which we obviously are trying to put our input. The decision regarding the budgetary measures was announced with a transfer of funding arising from some of those savings from the social welfare Vote into a child care initiative, as well as the area-based initiative. In that context, we are engaging on a number of fronts with our colleagues in the Department of Children and Youth Affairs on how best to implement that. In addition, in an example that demonstrates how the children's framework is important for my Department, when the Government accepted our Minister's recommendation to reset the new national poverty target, we also recommended setting a child poverty subtarget. However, rather than selecting a target at that time, we thought it best to go through the process of interdepartmental and stakeholder consultation to set the subtarget in a more robust framework. In a way, this comprises a concrete part of my Department's plan to have better joined-up government. Finally, the Department of Social Protection organises an annual social inclusion forum, which will take place next week, to cover many areas that emerge from the national action plan for social inclusion. It will include a workshop on child poverty and hopefully, some of the issues will emerge from that.

10:35 am

Ms Caitriona O'Brien:

I also will go through the points as raised, some of which already have been covered by Ms Moira O'Mara. I will start with the point raised by Deputy Ó Caoláin and others regarding joined-up working and it is absolutely true. In a way, at a time when we have less money and fewer staff resources across Departments, we must consider ways of working smarter and doing things better. One obvious thing to do is to link with other Departments and try to share some of the workload. Literally, this has happened in respect of the early childhood education space because even before the Department of Children and Youth Affairs was established and ever since the days of the Office of the Minister for Children, the early childhood education section of the Department of Education and Skills has been physically located with the Office of the Minister for Children. That has put them in that kind of different thinking space as well, which is very useful. Another example is research capacity, because that is where we get the information. We get the data that give one the evidence on which to base whatever policy decisions one makes. The Growing Up in Ireland longitudinal study is a huge, highly valuable study. The Department of Education and Skills is participating in that and for a number of years we have taken the view that if researchers are going into homes and schools to ask questions, one should make sure they are asking all the questions they possibly could. Consequently, we have fed questions into that study which would be of particular value to our Department, even though the research project is located in the office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. Although the ESRI is heading up that research project with Trinity College, in addition to the overall data bank they publish individual reports all the time, one of which is about to be published on attendance levels in schools. This actually comes from the Growing Up in Ireland data on foot of the kind of questions we were seeking to have included in it. This is just an example of Departments thinking together and working just a little bit more smartly to get better outcomes.

Deputy Ó Caoláin also referred to conditions in schools and really it is the idea of rural isolation and the overall position with regard to small schools and so on. Members probably are aware of the programme of the planning and building unit, that is, the Department's forward planning section. A couple of things are going on including the amalgamation project or process if one wishes to call it that, the divesting programme and the outcome of the recent value for money review of small schools. While stuff is going on regarding the schools' physical story, the bigger question concerns equipping the teachers to teach the children in such schools and to deal with the kinds of issues that come up. In this regard, the focus is on both building up initial teacher training capacity and in the kinds of continuous professional development, CPD, teachers get. This is because, in common with the rest of the public service, there are fewer teachers and they need to have better capacity to deal, within the school day and in the school building, with the variety of things against which they will come up.

Another key area that keeps coming up in all of the research we look at concerns parents and parental involvement in schools. This probably is true most of all in rural communities, where the school is one of the key parts of the local community. Parental involvement is key and it particularly is the case for certain minority groups, like the Traveler community, ethnic minorities and immigrant communities, that the involvement of parents from those communities is key. While those issues often are perceived as a problem, in many cases they make school and community life all the richer for their participation.

On the issue of access to third level, the point to make is that pre-DEIS or in its very early stages, the focus was on progression from primary to post-primary school. Happily, the focus has shifted from making sure that children progress from primary to post-primary school to giving consideration to ensure they completed the junior cycle. While that was the focus, happily we now are in the space that the worry, if one likes, concerns our wish to ensure they go to third level. There is much going on in this regard such as transition year initiatives and the involvement in schools of business and the private sector. Such entities enter schools or take children into their companies and businesses to show them what working life would be like. This is an impetus in its own right.

To mention the G word, that is, the guidance story in schools, although there has been a reduction in this regard, the emphasis, like in everything else, is turning to building up capacity among the overall school team. In other words, just because one is a geography teacher or a history teacher does not mean one does not have a role in guidance or in the pastoral story in the school. It really is about teachers encouraging the children in their classes and placing the kind of value they should have on education and on getting further education. This is difficult and it is difficult for many families who are struggling themselves. In particular, much of the research shows that in the case of parents who themselves have not progressed past primary level or who do not have second or certainly not third level education, it is difficult for them to put themselves into that space. However, the emphasis really is on the teaching community and the capacity in schools to put value on progressing. Moreover, to be fair to the third level colleges, they also do a fair amount of work in this area, as do the student organisations in third level.

I will talk a little about the learning from DEIS and the prevention and early intervention programme, PEIP. Deputy Conway asked about the link between them and the difficulty in a number of the projects that have been implemented to date has been that they did operate in parallel.

The Department of Education and Skills is keen that would change in the next phase and that we would start to get some of the learning out of it. Apart from anything else, there are good lessons to be obtained from it. There is valuable information and learning which we would like to see being brought into the mainstream system.

I will cite a couple of examples of what we have learned. One of the very important parts of DEIS is to encourage leadership, schools linking together and principals building up networks. For instance, in Limerick there is a network called Oscailt which works in the system with Mary Immaculate College and the University of Limerick, with funding from Atlantic Philanthropies. The result of that is a strong team of DEIS principals who have done a lot of things together and have shared valuable learning. From that has come a change to the kind of things one would ordinarily expect to be happening in the DEIS programme. When it came to doing the next project with more funding, rather than taking on board yet another literacy project to be delivered after the school completion programme, their literacy programme is now concentrating on continuing professional development, CPD, and training for teachers. In that way, teachers are better equipped to deal with the kind of issues that arise in their schools as well as being better able to deliver literacy and numeracy. Therefore, instead of delivering yet another programme for children, they are concentrating on the teachers.

One of the important messages to come out of the DEIS experience in Limerick - but also in other parts of the country - is the value of interventions relating to behaviour. Programmes, such as "Incredible Years", are valuable because the earlier the intervention takes place the better it is. That programme has been operated in a number of locations around the country with philanthropic funding and the National Educational Psychological Service, NEPS, which is involved and working with the private sector.

Ms O'Mara mentioned homework clubs and the school completion programme, SCP, which is now with the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. There is a planned review of SCP and the Department of Education and Skills will be looking forward to assisting with that because of its integral link to the DEIS programme.

10:45 am

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could I ask Mr. Bohan who is going to the workshop? Would it be appropriate for members of this committee to be invited?

Mr. John Bohan:

Yes, Chairman. I can arrange for invitations to be sent to members of the committee. Or, if the Chairman wants to send me a list, we will be happy to see them. It is an annual event at which we discuss developments and there are a number of inputs into it.

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If Mr. Bohan can forward the details to our clerk, I would appreciate it.

Mr. John Bohan:

Of course.

Photo of Jillian van TurnhoutJillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all the witnesses for their responses. Every time one does any research into literacy, parental involvement is mentioned. All too often, however, I hear from parents' groups that when they bring their child to school they are told by the teacher not to teach children reading because the school has methods for doing that. Parents may be told to ensure that their children can tie their laces and eat lunch in the allotted time, but we need to embed a culture of bringing parents into the classroom as well. In that way, parents will not be seen as doing the extras while teachers educate, because education is in all aspects of a child's life.

Regarding the success of the universal pre-school year, I am delighted that Ms O'Mara is here because she was the architect of that success. She ensured that it was done in an appropriate way. We have a high take-up rate and have the names of children in the free pre-school year. I do not understand why the National Educational Welfare Board, schools or the Department of Education and Skills are not empowered to track those children through primary and secondary school. The difficulty is that when we examine drop-out rates between primary and secondary school we are looking at numbers. We are not actually looking at whether the drop-out rate could be attributed to emigration, moving elsewhere within the country or registering in their name as Gaeilge. The situation is not always clear. Perhaps some of that data could be used positively to get the evidence - as with the longitudinal study - and thus understand what is happening.

I also wish to comment on special needs with regard to the universal pre-school year. I welcome the earlier comments on seeing how different things work. To add to the mix, I have heard from early child care providers that the difficulty with some special needs children is that five days a week is too much for them. Inspectors are saying, however, that if the child does not attend five days per week he or she cannot avail of the scheme. I can provide evidence of this from different parts of the country. The early child care providers have said they will spread the attendance over the year for a child in order to ensure they get the scheme, even though five days a week may be too much. They may need to be eased in gently. Perhaps we could have some flexibility to ensure that the Department that is funding the scheme gets value, while also ensuring the desired outcomes for children, even if they are not on the roll on a given day. That issue has arisen.

Photo of Ciara ConwayCiara Conway (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their answers so far and for their time. I would like to go back over some of the answers we got, particularly what Mr. Bohan said about 50% of children living in jobless households and the structural issues involved. What involvement, if any, does the Department for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation have concerning child poverty? What involvement has the Department of Justice and Equality had, given that we know the importance of investing in children? Although we have not had such a study here yet, all the longitudinal studies in America and the United Kingdom show the benefits involved.

This is particularly the case with the HighScope pre-school programme where an intervention is given to children aged three to five. The study followed those children into their 40s and 50s, and showed that their peers - particularly those from disadvantaged communities - who did not get the intervention, often ended up incarcerated. This is a preventative measure, so the Department of Justice and Equality should have an interest in this area, particularly if we can invest in children from disadvantaged communities.

Some years ago, I had an opportunity to visit Penn State University to work on a project. This involved working with children who were living in chronic disadvantage. That kind of early intervention programme was being delivered by teachers in the local community, in partnership with parents who were being encouraged to become involved in literacy programmes and improve their own literacy. It had a two-fold effect. It showed that the children who did not attend were 50% more likely to end up in trouble with the law. It is a very real point.

In fairness to the witnesses, they are probably like the usual suspects when it comes to discussing child poverty. We invite in representatives of the Department of Education and Skills, the Department of Social Protection and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, but what are other Departments doing in this regard? If they are not doing anything, what can we do to get them involved? This issue needs to be dealt with in a cross-departmental manner, rather than just involving the usual suspects.

I know that the sex education programme is still being designed. Perhaps the witnesses can comment on the rural issue when it comes to registered child-minders. They should be considered for providing an after-school service in rural areas. Large areas of the country have no child care facilities, so a parent may have to drive 20 miles to drop their child to a centre so they can attend work or retraining. City and county child care committees all over the country have invested huge resources to upskill child-minders who are in a position to mind sibling groups, or drop and collect children from school and elsewhere. They constitute a major resource so we should examine the provision of child care by such people, rather than focusing only on the provision of child care at designated centres.

In Australia and elsewhere abroad, they call it home-based child care or day care. We should examine that because this group of people wants to provide such a service and wants to be regulated. I have had major interactions with them in recent months on this issue, which would be a cost-effective way of providing after-school child care all over the country and not just in urban centres.

10:55 am

Ms Caitriona O'Brien:

Senator van Turnhout asked about the ECCE database. We have that database and have been in discussion with the Department of Education and Skills in recent years. The issue is that it is developing its primary school database. When the time is right I hope we will be able to make the linkage from pre-primary to primary to secondary.

Photo of Jillian van TurnhoutJillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It should be one system.

Ms Moira O'Mara:

Yes, they will talk to each other. One of the questions we ask parents - clearly the answers do not ultimately turn out to be 100% correct - is the primary school they intend to send their child. It is useful information we transfer to the Department of Education and Skills and helps its planning. We also have a national data strategy. We have just got a new head of research and I am hoping we can develop and push this out, and that would be an issue there. Since the start, the parent of a child with special needs can opt to have two days a week in the first year and three days a week in the second year.

The only inspection we have for the pre-school year is that Pobal makes compliance visits on our behalf. It would know or should know. If the Senator has examples-----

Photo of Jillian van TurnhoutJillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do and I will send them to Ms O'Mara. One of the issues is that it applies differently around the country, which I know is not Ms O'Mara's intention.

Ms Moira O'Mara:

We will ensure that does not happen. I believe I missed something the Senator said the first time around.

Deputy Conway asked about the role of the Department of Justice and Equality. It is involved on our children services committees in the 16 counties where we have them. It works with local players there in terms of youth diversion. At the moment it focuses down as far as youth and they try to divert children from 12 or 13 years of age. I agree on the need for early interventions which is where our Department's perspective arises in terms of working with parents. We actually work with parents of prenatal children as well as young children. As well as working with early years, the new initiative will work up to 18 years, so we do not want to cut off at that point.

We do not have a regulatory system that is appropriate for child minders - only 600 people have notified the HSE. I know there have been some voluntary notifications but there is no legal protection there. I know the Minister is very concerned about getting child minders more into the system. We need to regulate the child care sector better. I understand the HSE is moving to a registration system which should be operational by the end of this year. That will be a first step in moving from notification to registration. Then we hope to bring in regulations and move to the next step.

The Senator asked about having a proper programme of activities for the new school age sector, which is also unregulated. As with the ECCE programme, there is no legal requirement for a qualification. However, any service that is in contract with us will need to deliver a programme that we will require. We are working on developing that at the moment. We will probably not have it for the pilot, but we will have it from September.

Mr. John Bohan:

I thank the Vice Chairman for her use of the analogy to "The Usual Suspects". I am not sure if I am playing the Gabriel Byrne part or the Kevin Spacey part.

Photo of Ciara ConwayCiara Conway (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, you are not.

Mr. John Bohan:

I will leave her to judge that. I wish to make a correction to the statistic she quoted. I realise it is very difficult to discuss statistics on this area. I said that a quarter of children were in jobless households. That has meant that 50% of children in poverty are in jobless households. It is just a different way of presenting the same statistics. I offer to send the committee our jobless household studies so members can see some of the basic statistics there.

I am loth to comment on the roles of other Departments, so I will say something general and something specific. Generally the Government's strategy on poverty is based on the premise that all aspects of Government policy have an impact on poverty because poverty is multidimensional. Given that it is so multidimensional it is incumbent on every Department to examine its proposals and schemes to ensure it is having a positive impact on poverty. We remind them whenever a social-impact assessment or poverty-impact assessment is to be undertaken. As part of the implementation of the review of the national poverty target, we are hoping to strengthen that role in the whole process. That is the general point.

Specifically, the National Action Plan for Social Inclusion 2007-2016 attributes a number of actions to individual Departments. There are certainly some actions attributed to the Department of Justice and Equality and the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, which used to be the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Some of those have migrated with the FÁS services to our Department, so my answer is somewhat complex. I can send the committee the list of actions from the national action plan, which will give members an idea of the specific actions the Government has asked those Departments to take on poverty. We update those actions regularly and we tend to complete it in time for the social inclusion forum. After that we might send the committee that list and members can get an idea.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer took the Chair at 11.15 a.m.

Ms Caitriona O'Brien:

I will respond to Senator van Turnhout's comment about the parent being told not to teach their child. It is very easy for us to talk because we are not busy and frazzled teachers in classrooms. However, the Constitution provides that parents are the primary educators of children. What the Senator was discussing is the kind of thing that has come up in some of the DEIS-related PEIP programmes. Of course maths is now taught completely differently from how it was when I was at school. Parents are a resource. In particular, parents of children in DEIS schools want to be a resource but often do not have the capacity and are nervous about making the approach in the first place. In a number of cases there is an after-school programme - a school-completion programme - where there is either a numeracy or a literacy initiative or both. The parents are involved in that and the programme is explained to them. There is almost a parents' pack so they fully understand what is being taught and how. They can then do their bit at home.

There is a good outcome for children but the spin-off effect has been that parents have found a renewed interest in education for themselves, as they want to be able to follow their children up through the school system. In some cases parents have physically come back into the school building, which is a major achievement for parents who might have had bad experiences in school themselves. They find themselves back in the school atmosphere and have gone back to education themselves. Parents, some of whom barely completed primary school, are now back doing their junior certificate examinations at the same time as their children, which is very encouraging, although not enough of it is happening. One would expect that schools and teachers should see parents as a resource but often a certain amount of work needs to be done to equip them to become that resource. It is a challenge for teachers who have fewer resources and so on.

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for attending and making their presentations. Dr. Kasey Treadwell Shine is sitting at the back and I should have asked her to come to the front, for which I apologise.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.19 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 28 March 2013.