James Geoghegan (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The access and inclusion model, AIM, has proven to be a successful model of supporting children of every need to be present in a mainstream setting, which is its primary aim. How it works is straightforward. Where either a parent or somebody working in a preschool setting has identified a child with a need, and following consultation with that parent, an application can be made to the Department to increase the ratio of staff that might exist in that preschool setting so that there is an appropriate ratio of staff to ensure that child, with whatever need he or she has, can be supported in that setting. In addition to that, the Department of education has established early intervention classes. Clearly, there are not enough of those early intervention classes but they do exist. They are intended for children who are supported by AIM in the setting of a mainstream school where that is not an appropriate setting for the child. It is clear we need more of those preschool settings as well.

The challenge that was brought to my attention earlier this week by a mother who called me is the age of eligibility for the AIM programme in a mainstream setting. This mother has a young son who has a medical need. The medical practitioners are encouraging her to go back to work and maintaining that the child, with appropriate supports, could function and flourish in a preschool setting. However, the child is below two years and 11 months, which is the age of eligibility for the AIM programme. She is left with very few options. Either she can discuss with her medical practitioners whether her child meets the criteria for the incapacitated child tax credit, which is a significant burden and a difficult form for parents to seek their practitioner to sign for them. Perhaps either through that tax credit, which could support additional care in the home, or alternatively, if that family were in a position to do so, they could hire somebody in the home to provide that support. However, if they did either of those things, they would not get the benefit of the national childcare scheme or the ECCE scheme, so the cost is extremely burdensome.

As matters stand, although the Minister of State might put me right, the mother of this child is left with zero choices because the preschool setting cannot accept him, having told the mother that he cannot be accepted, while the preschool setting does not get any support from the State in terms of additional AIM supports because the child is below the age of eligibility. It seems problematic and discriminatory that the parent of a child with an additional need, simply because he is below the age of eligibility, cannot secure him a place in a mainstream preschool setting. I can perhaps understand why, for bureaucratic reasons, the AIM programme was set up to match the ECCE scheme but from a discriminatory or equality standpoint, it is difficult for me to understand how the State has set up a system whereby a mother or a father would be left in a situation where their child, just because of that need, has no supports to be in any kind of setting to be cared for.

Michael Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for the question. I will outline the AIM programme although I understand the Deputy is well aware of it. The AIM programme is the model of support designated to ensure children with disabilities can access the early childhood care and education, ECCE, programme. The main supports are grouped into universal or targeted supports. The universal supports are designed to create a more inclusive culture in early education and care settings through training courses and qualifications for staff. Where universal supports are not enough to meet the needs of an individual child to ensure that the child can meaningfully participate in ECCE programmes, targeted supports are available, such as specialised equipment, appliances or capital grants toward minor building alterations. Additional funding is available for ECCE settings where a child requires extra support either to reduce the child-to-adult ratio in the room or to fund an additional staff member as a shared resource with other children in the setting.

Crucially, access to AIM is based on the need of an individual child and does not require a diagnosis. In line with the commitment in First 5: A Whole-of-Government Strategy for Babies, Young Children and their Families 2019-2028, an independent evaluation of AIM was undertaken. The purpose of this evaluation was to inform an extension of AIM beyond the ECCE programme as well as any potential enhancements to the model. The findings of the evaluation were published in January 2024 and informed the phased extension of the AIM programme. Additional funding was allocated in budgets 2024 and 2025 to support this development. From September 2024, children with a disability who are enrolled in the ECCE programme are now fully supported to access and participation in the ECCE settings beyond the time they spend in that programme, both in term and out of term. This allows children to access the AIM programme for an additional three hours a day during the ECCE term and six hours outside of the term. The programme for Government commits to examining and expanding the AIM programme to make it available to younger children. This comes back to the question the Deputy asked. We are committed to working to ensure the programme expands.

The AIM programme has been hugely beneficial in addressing the need of children within the early education setting but as with everything, there are challenges. The case outlined by the Deputy is one of the types of cases that I frequently meet throughout the country in the context of the challenges young families face. They have stark choices in what support they can reach out for. We are looking at bringing down the eligible age for the AIM programme. That would be a positive step.

As for practical supports, the Deputy mentioned the incapacitated child tax credit. While that is a generous benefit and it has increased incrementally over the previous two or three budgets, which is to be welcomed, it should be kept under review. It still is not adequate for the challenges faced by many families, particularly those with young children. Families face enormous challenges during that very stressful period of dealing with the difficulties a child may have. We also need to be very careful of the emotional trauma around this and make sure we are addressing the needs of both the child and the family.

James Geoghegan (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State, in particular for the remarks he made off script, which are welcome. I acknowledge that a commitment to examine and expand the AIM programme to make it available to younger children is contained in the programme for Government. I have concerns, however, with some of the language the Department used in the reply that was prepared for the Minister of State, whereby it needs to examine the evidence. Ultimately, why is a child aged two years and ten months, two years and nine months or two years and six months, with whatever additional need that child has, different from a child of three years and one month? There is not a lot of evidence to examine. Rather, a technocratic structure needs to be deployed to support parents who have children under the age of eligibility. I fully acknowledge that at every juncture where a new system is introduced, it cannot be done overnight. There has to be a structure in which it can be done. I ask the Minister of State to go back to the senior line Minister in this respect and ask for her commitment that this matter will be brought to the Cabinet committee on disability and given significant priority.

At the end of the day, just like the mother who phoned me during the week whose child has effectively been iced out of having a preschool setting, no doubt there are countless examples around the country where unfortunately because of the medical or additional need of a child, there is no childcare setting that can support him or her. That is not something we should be able to support as a State.

Michael Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy again for outlining the facts. The challenge we have, particularly in respect of the AIMS programme, which has been very successful for a good number of families, is that when there is a closing-off date, there is always a challenge therein. As we go forward looking at how we can expand the AIMS programme, in the evaluation of it that was announced last year, because of its success, it is important we are mindful that we are making meaningful change. It is not a case of just making the change for change's sake. We have to make sure it is evidence-based and that we have the facts to make decisions into the future on the AIMS programme, to try to meet the needs of every child. The Deputy has outlined a group of parents, particularly the constituent he referred to and her family. There is a cohort of people who are outside of it and are finding it very difficult to get support from the State. We will reflect on that and will certainly ensure it is brought to discussion in respect of expanding the AIMS programme into the future.