Ms Aoife Bairéad:

I do not know when it was translated into task forces, in particular, being service providers as opposed to a participatory approach. It is difficult to evaluate services when funding is short-term, limited and may not continue. A service is given a certain budget for crack cocaine, for example, but not for a long-term piece of work. Services have to keep reapplying for funding. Doing any kind of long-term strategic planning for task forces, and being adaptable to the issues that arise in communities over the course of a short or long period of time, is really difficult when funding is year-to-year.

The way staff positions in task forces and community services are funded means we cannot offer permanency or pensions. There are many different challenges. From a public expenditure point of view, it makes no sense to me. We know that short-term and once-off funding models do not work. It means we are using funding for something we know we can do in the next year and hope it is somewhat effective rather than, as my colleague said, asking for funding for what we would see as more relevant. It is not a conversation or discussion, and is certainly not focused on the communities with which we work.

I refer to funding for heroin. Task forces and communities were already trying to deal with benzodiazepine. When funding came for crack cocaine, we already had crystal meth appearing. If we keep on waiting for funding to come through in that way, we will never be as responsive as we need to be. People on the ground attending to people one-to-one and sitting in front of them are those who know in that moment what the person is facing and needs. Unless we can provide a model that allows them to offer the immediate and long-term services and supports that a person needs, we will always be chasing our tail on these issues.