4. Inter-departmental and inter-agency co-ordination in the delivery of policies and services for children and young people in Ireland
This chapter maps and assesses the effectiveness of mechanisms created to coordinate policies and services for children and young people in Ireland. It discusses existing structures to pursue a whole-of-government approach to child and youth policy by bringing together relevant departments, agencies, and other stakeholders to address complex policy challenges, notably child poverty and mental health. It also discusses ongoing legal and institutional reforms to strengthen cross-cutting approaches, including through improved multi-stakeholder co-ordination at national and sub-national level.
A key aim of Ireland’s first National Children’s Strategy (“Our Children - their Lives”) adopted in 2000 was to put in place structures to enable a more coordinated approach to policymaking and implementation. Since 2000, Ireland has implemented a series of reforms which have transformed the institutional landscape for policy development and service delivery both at national and sub-national levels. Interviews conducted by the OECD confirm that a whole-of-government approach to addressing complex policy challenges, such as child poverty and mental health, remains a significant challenge. This section examines the structures currently in place and ongoing legal and institutional reforms to encourage cross-sectoral approaches to child and youth policy and service provision.
Section one of this chapter discusses the structures to support co-ordination of child and youth policy at national level including the structures that will support Young Ireland, the national policy framework for children and young people 2023-28. It also deals with the ‘spotlight’ approach of Young Ireland : the National Policy Framework for Children and Young People (0-24) 2023-2028, the successor framework to Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures 2014-20 (BOBF 2014-20) and how it is envisaged to support cross-government co-ordination to address complex policy challenges, notably child poverty, mental health and disability services, as well as the role of the new Child Poverty and Well-being Programme Office, established in the Department of the Taoiseach in Spring 2023.
Section two focuses on the challenges of coordinating strategic and operational goals and activities in child and youth policy, addressing the relationship between the Department for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (DCEDIY) and Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, and issues in respect of inter-agency co-ordination with a focus on Tusla and the Health Service Executive (HSE). Additionally, it delves into proposed amendments and review of the Child Care Act 1991 captured in the Child Care (Amendment Bill) 2023 as they pertain to interagency working.
Turning to the sub-national level, Section three provides an overview of the various structures in place to support coordinated approaches to policy implementation and service delivery targeting children and young people. With a particular focus on Local Community Development Committees (LCDC) and Children and Young People’s Services Committees (CYPSC), this section reviews their organisation, remit and resourcing, their various roles in supporting national policy frameworks focused on children and young people, and their mutual relationship in support of interagency working. It also discusses the proposed reforms set out under the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2023 in this regard.
In 2011, the Department of Child and Youth Affairs (DCYA) was established with the mission to lead efforts to improve the outcomes for children and young people (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2012[1]). The responsibility of DCYA expanded significantly following the implementation of the Child and Family Agency Act 2014, and the establishment of Tusla, Ireland’s Child and Family Agency. Under the aegis of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Tusla was mandated to deliver child protection and family support services, transferring these responsibilities from the country’s health service, the Health Service Executive (HSE) and the Family Support Agency. In 2020, the Department’s remit has been significantly expanded by the Government to cover responsibility for integration, equality, and disability, which were previously led by the Department of Justice and the Department of Health. Along this increase in remit, there has been a notable increase in public spending on children in Ireland over the past decade. Although available comparative data does not encompass all spending related to child-focused initiatives, data on social spending for families and child education suggest that, on average, spending per child in the Irish population has risen by 12% since 2011. Such increase in spending and remit, however, has not always been matched with efforts to build administrative capacities to oversee a growing number of projects and initiatives. (OECD, 2023[2]).
OECD evidence demonstrates that common barriers in relation to cross-government collaboration include siloed working practices, cultures, and budgets (OECD, 2024[3]). Lack of recognition for interdepartmental initiatives, inadequate leadership engagement, and limited accountability of cross-departmental working groups can impede effective collaboration beyond administrative silos (OECD, 2023[4]). Conversely, successful co-ordination and collaboration is associated with strong leadership at multiple levels, including at the political level; clear shared purpose; decentralised control; and thorough understanding of the policy context and architecture within which cross-departmental initiatives operate (Carey, G., & Crammond, B, 2015[5]). Additionally, adequate resourcing, supportive Information Communication and Technology (ICT) systems and measures to promote ownership and accountability, such as joint targets, underpinned by policy narratives promulgating a collective understanding of the issues and how they can most effectively be addressed are critical.
OECD countries have established various mechanisms to coordinate child and youth policy across the whole-of-government. These mechanisms typically take the form of inter-ministerial or inter-departmental co-ordination bodies, working groups or focal points (OECD, 2018[6]; OECD, 2024[3]). Box 4.1 discusses practices from New Zealand (from the Centre of Government) and Finland (pooled funding pilots) as well as their strengths in convening relevant stakeholders around a joint vision and targets to improve policy outcomes for children and youth.
New Zealand’s Child Wellbeing and Poverty Reduction Group at the Centre of Government
New Zealand’s Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy includes a vision to make New Zealand “the best place in the world for children and young people”. It is coordinated by the Child Wellbeing and Poverty Reduction Group (CWPRG), which includes 12 Ministers with 15 portfolios including Social Development, Children, Education, Health, Police, Justice, Prevention of Family Violence, Māori Development, Pacific Peoples, Youth, Employment, and others. The CWPRG and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) act as the convenor of the strategy (DPMC, 2023[7]).
OECD interviews suggest that having the DPMC as the convening body, backed by strong commitment from the highest political level, has facilitated cross-sectoral implementation following the adoption of the strategy. Continued political buy-in, also in times of a change in government, was considered crucial for the Centre of Government to exert its convening power, which was regarded as the most significant value added of placing child and youth policy outside of a dedicated line ministry (OECD, 2024[3]).
Since the CWPRG was established in 2018, five out of the nine measures used to monitor child poverty in New Zealand have statistically significantly decreased. The CWPRG has been crucial to drive a whole-of-government approach to addressing child poverty, bringing transparency and accountability for reporting on child wellbeing outcomes across government and to the Parliament, and evaluating the impacts of policies on children and youth (DPMC, 2023[8]).
Finland’s pooled funding pilots
Finland’s Child Strategy Unit, first established in 2023 under the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, received a budget of EUR 0.5 million to drive cross-governmental co-ordination to deliver for children. Discretionary budget to co-fund projects delivered in co-operation with different Departments was initially piloted but scaled back by 2023.
Among others, this co-funding model supported a pilot to implement a civic education programme in schools, co-led by the Ministries of Justice and Education. According to OECD interviews, this approach was considered effective in promoting cross-sectoral co-ordination, but also required the Child Strategy Unit to engage significantly in project management, contrary to its original focus on exercising strategic oversight. For this reason, and in the context of operating at reduced capacity following a change in government in 2023, the work of the Unit is being reviewed and is expected to be more oriented towards overseeing the implementation of strategic deliverables. Still, the Unit continues to provide seed funding to drive cross-sectoral co-ordination at a smaller scale.
Sources: (BOE, 2008[9]) (Spanish Ministry of Equality, 2008[10]) (Expenses and Secretary of State for Budgets and Expenses, 2012[11]) (Finland, 2022[12]) ; OECD interviews in September 2023.
In Ireland, the mid-term review of BOBF 2014-20 underlined that effective cross-departmental working depends not just on reform of organisational structures but on promoting a collaborative culture (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2018[13]). A lack of incentives for cross-departmental working was reiterated in the OECD interviews as an important impediment to improved collaboration beyond administrative silos and was raised as a factor impacting on “ownership” of issues, in particular for complex policy challenges (e.g., child poverty, mental health), and consequently on “buy-in” in respect of collaborative action.
The mid-term review and OECD interviews also highlighted that the commitments in BOBF 2014-20 were regarded as too numerous and too “vague”, and that accompanying actions often involved too many stakeholders, supporting findings in previous mid-term reports conducted by Department of Children and Youth Affairs (DCYA) (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2018[13]; DCEDIY, 2022[14]). OECD interviewees also cited “overly complex” and resource-intensive implementation structures as an obstacle to effective cross-departmental collaboration in the roll out of child and youth policy.
Cross-departmental collaboration under BOBF 2014-20 and Young Ireland
The implementation structures established under BOBF 2014-20 were intended to streamline existing mechanisms for political oversight, interdepartmental working, and stakeholder engagement into one consolidated framework with clear lines of communication and accountability (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2014[15]).As for changes in Young Ireland, the successor framework, a brief discussion here is further analysed in Chapter 8.
Responsibility for oversight of BOBF 2014-20 was vested in the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy, while day-to-day implementation was coordinated by the Children and Young People’s Policy Consortium. Established to support cross-sectoral engagement, the Consortium was made up of senior representatives from relevant government departments and agencies. A sub-group of the Consortium, the Sponsor’s Group, comprised the departments with lead responsibility for implementation.1 The Sponsors’ Group model was not replicated in Young Ireland.
Feeding into the work of the Sponsors’ Group and the Consortium under the BOBF 2014-20 structures were the Children’s and Young People’s Services Committees (CYPSC) National Steering Group2 and the National Advisory Council. The chair of the CYPSC National Steering Group and representatives of the National Advisory Council were also part of the Consortium. While a reconstituted Advisory Council forms part of the implementation structures for Young Ireland, the CYPSC National Steering Group was disbanded in 2020, despite the final report referring to the formal linkage between CYPSC and the BOBF 2014-20 implementation structures as “allowing multidirectional information flow and minimising implementation impediments” (DCEDIY, 2022[14]).
The National Advisory Council was established to facilitate input from Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and academia. A reconstituted advisory council (to include no more than 16 members) forms part of Young Ireland. The previous structure involved representation from the pillars of early years, children, and youth. Given that children and young people protected on equality grounds – including race, ethnicity and disability – are at higher risk of poorer outcomes, it is noteworthy that membership of the new advisory council will provide for wider representation, including experts and spokespeople for key issues (e.g., mental health, disability, child poverty, housing).
There were two mechanisms for participation of children and young people under BOBF 2014-20 – the Comhairle na nÓg National Executive3 and the Structured Dialogue Working Group. Representatives from each of these bodies also sat on the Consortium. Under the revised structures for Young Ireland, the forum for child and youth participation is the National Youth Assembly of Ireland. Comhairlí na nÓg, DCYA and the EU Youth Dialogue are represented on the Assembly, which also included delegates from youth organisations and “guest delegates”. While not directly represented in the Consortium, the Assembly will continue to act as an advisory body under Young Ireland (see Chapters 7 and 8).
Finally, an implementation team was established in DCYA to steer the implementation of BOBF 2014-20. The implementation team played an important role as a conduit for communication and for coordinating activity within and across the different bodies involved (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2018[13]). It supported the development of work plans for the various stakeholders and identified “‘cross-sectoral priorities” to guide the work of the Sponsors’ Group. The team also led on reporting and coordinated the mid-term review of BOBF 2014-20. The implementation structures for Young Ireland envisage an implementation team within DCEDIY along similar lines. One key lesson highlighted in the final annual report for BOBF 2014-20 was the impact of insufficient resources on the implementation team's effectiveness (DCEDIY, 2022[14]).
The following sections discuss the implementation arrangements set up under BOBF 2014-20 and replicated or modified under Young Ireland in greater detail to discuss their respective strengths and challenges. By doing so, it points to important learnings for promoting a whole-of-government approach to child and youth policy in Ireland in the context of the new policy framework and to inform future strategies.
Political steer and oversight: The Cabinet Committee on Children and Education
The number and respective remits of cabinet committees in Ireland varies by administration, in line with shifting priorities and emerging issues such as Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic (Connaughton, 2022[16]). As of Spring 2024, ten cabinet committees operate under the 33rd Government of Ireland, including for the first time a committee with a specific remit regarding children. The Cabinet Committee on Children and Education, created in January 2023, has oversight of these two broad policy areas, ’with a specific focus on child poverty and well-being’ (The Taoiseach, 2023[17]). The new Committee forms part of the implementation structures for Young Ireland.
In addition to the Taoiseach (Prime Minister), Tánaiste (Vice-Prime Minister) and the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (CEDIY) and Education Ministers, membership of the Committee on Children and Education includes a further eight ministers covering the briefs of Environment, Climate and Communications and Transport; Health; Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform; Finance; Social Protection; Rural and Community Development; Housing, Local Government and Heritage; Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. While the membership of the committee is broad, its oversight role is restricted to two of these domains and does not include health policy for which there is a dedicated cabinet committee. As this committee oversees the implementation of Young Ireland, and given that health intersects with almost all policy issues, a coordinated approach at the political level to the implementation of shared commitments across child and youth and health strategies is crucial, in particular to achieve strategic objectives related to mental health and child poverty.
The Minister for CEDIY sits on several cabinet committees including the Health Committee, the Committee on Social Affairs and Public Services, and the Committee on the Humanitarian Response to Ukraine. While the committees for the Economy and Investment; Housing; and the Environment and Climate Change deal with issues of relevance to children and young people (the first two are especially pertinent to child poverty), the Minister does not sit on these committees. As discussed further in Chapter 8, while more streamlined membership may have advantages in terms of efficiency, it gives rise to concerns that consideration of the interests and rights of children and youth are confined to a limited number of policy domains.
The frequency of cabinet committee meetings varies considerably, potentially affecting their effectiveness, although the quality of engagement within committees is likely a more important factor for successful cross-departmental co-ordination (Connaughton, 2022[16]). Recent research carried out in the Irish context found that opportunities for discussion can be limited in some committees, with meetings instead serving mainly as conduits for information-sharing (Connaughton, 2022[16]). Established in the first quarter of 2023, the new committee on Children and Education was viewed in OECD interviews as an opportunity for DCEDIY to progress on cross-cutting issues of relevance to children and youth provided that the work was driven by action-oriented agendas and the prioritisation of addressing cross-sectoral challenges.
Inter-departmental co-ordination: The Children and Young People’s Policy Forum and Senior Officials Group on Children and Education
Under the structures for BOBF 2014-20, the Children and Young People’s Policy Consortium brought together senior-level representatives from relevant government departments and agencies including Tusla, the HSE and An Garda Síochana, Ireland's national police and security service. Membership also included representatives of the National Advisory Council, the Chair of the Children and Young People’s Services Committees National Steering Group, and a representative of local authority managers.
The Policy Consortium under BOBF 2014-20 was chaired by the Secretary-General of DCYA and co-chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach. This co-chairing arrangement was reported in OECD interviews to have been successful, in particular due to the convening power of the Taoiseach’s Department, which helped promote engagement of other departments with cross-departmental structures (see Chapter 8).
Other aspects of the Policy Consortium viewed as having been successful were the inclusion of a broad range of stakeholders, including representation of CYPSC and the National Advisory Council. The development of collaborative relationships with CSOs was identified in OECD interviews as an area in which DCEDIY serves as an exemplar of good practice. Similarly, the National Advisory Council representatives were described by an official from the Taoiseach’s Department as bringing a “problem solving and collaborative attitude” to the work of the Policy Consortium. At the same time, the National Advisory Council highlighted in its submission to the BOBF 2014-20 mid-term review that opportunities to engage varied significantly across government departments (National Advisory Council, 2018[18]). Moreover, OECD interviews support claims made by the mid-term review and final annual report, which suggest that while viewed positively, the Policy Consortium was not necessarily an effective vehicle for driving activity due to its lack of “action-focus”.
Under the structures for BOBF 2014-20, the Sponsors Group (a sub-group of the Policy Consortium) brought together representatives of DCYA and the departments of Education; Health; Social Protection; Housing, Local Government and Heritage. Each of these ‘sponsor’ departments, was charged with leading efforts in respect of one of the five national outcomes for children and youth, with support from the Implementation Team in DCYA/DCEDIY (DCEDIY, 2022[14]). The mid-term review noted that the Sponsors Group was broadly seen as effective but referred to the view of the National Advisory Council regarding the absence of the Departments of the Taoiseach and Tánaiste in this structure, which meant that the smallest Department (DCYA/DCEDIY) was responsible for coordinating “the whole government system” (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2018[13]).
To support the implementation of Young Ireland, the Policy Consortium and Sponsors’ group were disbanded and replaced by the Children and Young People’s Policy Forum, which replicates pre-existing co-chairing arrangement between the Department of the Taoiseach and DCEDIY (see Chapter 8). The Senior Officials Group (SOG) supporting the work of the Cabinet Committee on Children and Education is also given a more prominent role under Young Ireland. The work of the Committee, comprised of eleven Ministers4, with the possibility of inviting other government departments where appropriate, is to oversee the implementation of the Programme for Government commitments, including Young Ireland, with a specific focus on child poverty and well-being. The SOG therefore brings a higher-level, more strategic perspective to child and youth policy co-ordination than previous structures under BOBF 2014-20. Questions remain, however, over the breadth of membership in this group, as well as the competing interests and priorities which may pose challenges in respect of action-focused engagement. OECD findings show that, across OECD countries, there is a risk of excessive use or proliferation of inter-ministerial taskforces and committees, pointing to the importance of setting out clear mandates, roles, and responsibilities through legislation or otherwise to avoid overlaps and ensure that these groups remain “action focused” (OECD, 2024[3]).
OECD interviews supported findings in the BOBF 2014-20 mid-term review, pointing to varying levels of engagement and “buy-in” across departments in the Policy Consortium. Related to this was a perception of decreasing senior-level engagement and that slippage in senior-level representation in inter-departmental meetings inhibited effective action, which further weakened engagement. The lengthy implementation span of BOBF 2014-20 was identified as a factor for waning engagement over time, as it increased the likelihood of personnel changes in key roles. The most significant factors to address though seem to be the related issues of action-focus and accountability (see also Chapter 7).
Findings from progress reports and OECD interviews strongly suggest that what was described as “co-ordination fatigue” and lack of accountability for policy outcomes should be reduced by the tighter focus on high-level priority issues identified by Young Ireland. Another factor related to “co-ordination fatigue” OECD interviewee alluded to was the high number of cross-governmental structures relevant to child and youth policy beyond those directly related to DCEDIY-led policy frameworks (see Table 4.1). DCEDIY leads, or is represented in, multiple structures, some of which may have representation from more than one unit from across the eight DCEDIY divisions. According to DCEDIY, as of 2023, units from the Child Policy and Tusla Governance Division participate in 43 interdepartmental or agency structures (11 led by DCEDIY). Units from the Early Learning & Care and School-Age Childcare Division participate in 49 interdepartmental/agency structures (26 led by DCEDIY). The lack of a “common framework” for interdepartmental groups was raised by DCEDIY officials as an important challenge, as was the extensive time commitment involved for officials with concerns about duplication of effort and inefficiencies.
There is broad consensus that the effectiveness of BOBF 2014-20 was inhibited by an overly broad focus, with too many commitments many of which lacked precision and were not amenable to measurement (DCEDIY, 2022[14]). Key to the more streamlined under Young Ireland are “Spotlights” - high-level priorities with dedicated structures to support cross-departmental, cross-sectoral, and interagency activity. As discussed further in Chapter 8, Young Ireland identifies three spotlights – child poverty, mental health and well-being, and disability – with the possibility of new spotlights being identified during the duration of the framework. Each Spotlight area and their respective requirements in terms of cross-departmental and inter-agency co-ordination is discussed in the next sections.
Spotlight 1: Child poverty
As discussed in Chapters 3 and 6, there is now an extensive body of literature evidencing the negative effects of poverty and material deprivation on outcomes for children across a range of dimensions including education, health, and social participation.
Poverty has been addressed as a “cross-cutting” policy issue in Ireland since the adoption of the first national anti-poverty strategy (NAPS) in 1997, which set out a national poverty reduction target and structural arrangements to promote partnership and collaboration across and beyond government departments and agencies (Adshead and Millar, 2008[19]). Progress on poverty reduction throughout the 2000s was achieved in the context of record levels of economic growth and relied heavily on income transfers. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis in 2008-09, bodies with an anti-poverty remit were shut down as part of public sector reforms (Family Resource Centre National Forum, 2020[20]). Measures introduced in response to deteriorating economic and fiscal indicators had a particularly serious impact on households with children (Cantillon, B., Chzhen, Y., Handa, S., & Nolan, B., 2017[21]).
Various factors were identified in OECD interviews as inhibiting progress on child poverty targets (see Chapters 3 and 6) including gaps in knowledge and understanding of “what works”, but perhaps the factor viewed as most significant was the lack of policy “ownership”. There was a strong view among line departments and CSO stakeholders that addressing poverty required cross-departmental working but that clarity on (departmental) leadership and accountability was lacking. OECD evidence points to challenges in securing ‘ownership’ among Government Departments over complex cross-sectoral challenges is not uncommon, pointing to a need to ensure taskforces and co-ordination groups establish defined goals and targets, and that these are reflected in vertical accountability structures within Departments (OECD, 2024[3]).
From the CSO sector, as well as from the Ombudsman for Children, was the view that leadership from the Department of the Taoiseach would enhance cross-governmental accountability to address child poverty. Findings from the OECD consistently point to the crucial role that strong political leadership plays in steering cross-cutting priorities (OECD, 2020[22]; OECD, 2024[3]).
The establishment of the new Child Poverty and Well-being Programme Office in the Department of the Taoiseach signals a strong commitment at the Centre of Government to prioritise addressing child poverty and is the first ‘Spotlight’ of Young Ireland. The new Programme Office has been welcomed in OECD interviews as a mechanism to bring heightened visibility of the issue of child poverty, greater political attention and to drive more effective co-ordination across government departments. Housed within the Social Policy and Public Service Reform Division, it reflects the more “hands-on” role the Department of the Taoiseach has adopted during Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic as well as to address the housing crisis. The new Programme Office aims to drive stronger accountability of relevant departments to place child poverty at the centre of their respective policy agendas. It has a wide focus to reflect the multi-dimensional nature of child poverty, which, however, also brings potential challenges in terms of prioritisation. The range of issues, as captured in the Office’s Programme Plan: “From Poverty to Potential: A Programme Plan for Child Well-being 2023-2025”, encompasses income supports and joblessness; early learning and childcare; reducing the cost of education; family homelessness; service integration; and enhancing participation in culture, arts and sport for children and young people affected by poverty (Department of the Taoiseach, 2023[23]). By listing service integration as priority, the Programme Office recognises that further efforts are needed to enhance a national approach to service integration and the identification of an integrated service model for children and young people.
While broadly welcomed, interviews conducted by the OECD show mixed reactions on the increasingly operational role of the Department of the Taoiseach in leading rather than coordinating on cross-cutting policy issues. Those concerned considered that the value of leadership from the Taoiseach’s Department is inversely related to the number of cross-cutting issues for which DCEDIY is responsible. On the other hand, it was emphasised that addressing child poverty was “beyond ownership” in that ongoing and meaningful engagement from multiple departments, and hence leadership from the Taoiseach, is required. Learnings from other OECD countries (see Box 4.1) also underscore the importance of implementing measures to mitigate the negative effects of shifts in political priorities resulting from changes in government. Policies spearheaded by the centre of government are particularly susceptible to shifts in the political agenda between government terms.
Spotlight 2: Mental health and well-being
In comparison to child poverty, there is greater clarity in respect of “ownership” of mental health policy, with lead responsibility for policy falling to the Department of Health and operational responsibility for services resting with the HSE. Nonetheless, fragmented planning and service delivery was regarded in OECD interviews as a significant and urgent issue to be addressed, due to the complex landscape of stakeholders providing services relevant to mental health for children and young people. Co-ordination of the various mental health services falling under the HSE, including Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and the Primary Care Child Psychology Service, is regarded as challenging considering fragmentation within HSE, which also has responsibility for disability services. Moreover, important providers include Tusla, the National Educational Psychological Service and other school-based services (under the remit of the Department of Education) in addition to various voluntary and community agencies.
The implications of these co-ordination challenges have been set out in the interim report of the Independent Review on CAMHS published by the Mental Health Commission in January 2023. The Inspector of Mental Health Services found that lack of co-ordination of waiting lists and “poor relationships” were impediments to integration of key services such as CAMHS, Community Disability Network Teams and primary care, and commented that “joint working was not always in place”, also highlighting deficits in CAMHS teams in relation to risk management, resourcing, staffing and capacity as well as disparities in care across teams and a lack of a “child-centred” approach to provision (Mental Health Commission, 2023[24]). The Independent Review was carried out in the wake of the Maskey Review, which examined the operation of South Kerry CAMHS between 2016 and 2021. The findings of the Maskey report revealed low standards of care, “risky practice” and resulting “significant harm” to several young people (Maskey S, 2022[25]).
There has been a significant increase in demand for child and adolescent mental health services, as discussed in Chapter 3, which has also been reflected by a rise in referrals to CAMHS. Statistics presented on foot of parliamentary questions in 2023 indicate that the number of referrals to CAMHS grew by 33% between 2020 and 2021 and have continued to increase subsequently (Minister of State at the Department of Health, 2023[26]). Numbers on waiting lists for CAMHS services have also increased significantly and there are wide disparities in waiting times (Mental Health Commission, 2023[24]). Beyond increased demand, among the factors impacting access to CAMHS identified by the Minister of State at the Department of Health are staffing shortages within CAMHS but also capacity issues in related services (Minister of State at the Department of Health, 2023[26]).
OECD interviews reflect concern about the impact of fragmentation on responses to complex needs such as the mental health needs of children in alternative care or of children with a disability (whether in alternative care or not). Another issue raised was “duplication of effort” given the range of agencies delivering services on the ground and reportedly “operating in siloes” according to stakeholders in the mental health sector. The need to ensure that the most vulnerable children and young people do not fall through the cracks and that resources are used efficiently provide very strong rationales for enhancing co-ordination at policy and operational levels.
The Department of Health and Children adopted the first national strategy on mental health A Vision for Change in 2006, and the successor Sharing the Vision was published in 2020. Several commitments under Outcome 1 (Active and Healthy) of BOBF 2014-20 were concerned with implementation of the aspects of A Vision for Change pertaining to children and youth. While BOBF 2014-20 is not referenced in Sharing the Vision, Objective 6 (Infant mental health) of First 5, DCEDIY’s Early Years strategy, is referenced. Sharing the Vision promises particular attention to support the needs of children impacted by Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). In many cases, these needs are likely to be complex and to necessitate a multi-agency and interdisciplinary response. As noted in Chapter 5, information on the prevalence of ACEs in Ireland has been identified as a data gap in consultations carried out by the Children’s Rights Alliance to support the development of Young Ireland. Work carried out by the Centre for Effective Services (Morgan, M., Rochford, S., and Sheehan, A, 2016[27]) and by (Smith, K., 2021[28]) for Barnardos provide some indication of the numbers affected, suggesting significant unmet need.
The National Suicide Prevention Strategy - Connecting for Life (2015-2020) - was developed by the Department of Health and the HSE National Office for Suicide Prevention (NOSP), with the latter responsible for driving implementation. DCEDIY and Tusla have been allocated lead responsibility for five commitments under Connecting for Life related to prevention of suicide of children and young people and are supporting partners for three further relevant commitments and report to the Connecting for Life Implementation Oversight Group.5 OECD interviews show mixed results regarding the engagement by DCEDIY and Tusla in the implementation of Connecting for Life and limited progress was reported in respect of commitments related to youth suicide prevention.
As noted above, the Youth Mental Health Pathfinder Project is an inter-departmental initiative to draw a process designed to strengthen collaboration on addressing cross-sectoral challenges. It was selected as a topic by the Government as part of one of three projects initiated under the Civil Service Renewal Plan of 2014 (National Youth Mental Health Task Force, 2017[29]). Using Section 12 of the Public Service Management Act 1997, a key focus of this initiative was the establishment of an interdepartmental Youth Mental Health Pathfinder Unit, which was expected to gather staff of the departments of Health, DCEDIY, and Education. The unit was approved by the then Minister for Health and forms part of the current Programme for Government agreed in 2020. In interviews conducted by the OECD, it was suggested that the limited progress to date in establishing the unit reflects lack of “buy-in” from relevant departments. Responses to parliamentary questions instead attribute delays mainly to the complexity of the “administrative, budgetary, governance and legal arrangements” which need to be put in place for a unit to be established under Section 12 of the Public Service Management Act 1997, the powers under which have not been used to date. Relevant findings from the OECD show that the Centre of Government can leverage its convening power to support Units such as the one leading the Mental Health Pathfinder example to secure buy-in from departments and cultivating an environment to foster co-operation and policy engagement among relevant stakeholders (OECD, 2024[3]).
The mental health Spotlight in Young Ireland plans to build on existing structures driving the implementation of Sharing the Vision to embed youth mental health priorities across relevant policies, initiatives, and service development plans of a wide number of departments and agencies (DCEDIY, 2023[30]). The spotlight will monitor the activities of departments and agencies on existing commitments (early intervention, access to services, family support, digital mental health) with the stated objective to break down silos and facilitate cross-working between these.
Spotlight 3: Disability services
OECD interviews also pointed to significant unmet needs in disability services, among others due to long waiting times, staff shortages, and a high staff turnover rate. To address the disproportionate impact of these challenges on children and young people with disabilities, Young Ireland includes a Spotlight focusing on addressing challenges to the effective provision of disability services.
This Spotlight will focus on the needs and experiences of service users, seeking to track success through improved outcomes of children and young people. It operates within the context of the (forthcoming) Action Plan for Disability Services 2024-2026, which aims to reduce waiting lists, increase capacities to enhance service delivery, tackle demand for assessment of needs in a timely manner, support children in care, provide disability education services, promote social inclusion, facilitate pathways for school leavers, and enable the participation of young people with disabilities in participation structures (DCEDIY, 2023[30]).
From 1971 until 2005, responsibility for statutory child and family services in Ireland was vested in regional health boards. In 2005, as part of a wider transfer of responsibility for health and social care services, the operation of child and family services passed to the newly established Health Service Executive (HSE), created as an independent agency under the aegis of the Department of Health. The establishment of Tusla in 2014, under the aegis of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, was the culmination of a reform process prompted by long-standing concerns regarding the capacity of the HSE to effectively discharge the state’s responsibilities in respect of children in need of protection, care and/or support (Institute of Public Administration, 2017[31]).
In 2010, a Directorate for Child and Family Services had been established within the HSE. This unit, with about 4000 staff and an annual budget at that time of around €600 million, became the core of Tusla, the new dedicated statutory agency created under the Child and Family Agency Act 2013. Proposals to also transfer a proportion of staff from HSE services such as public health nursing and psychology, which play a significant role in supporting children and families were not progressed at that time, due to the practical difficulties involved (Institute of Public Administration, 2017[31]). Interviews conducted by the OECD suggest that co-ordination challenges, which pre-existed the creation of Tusla due to the fragmented nature of HSE services, have in some respects been heightened.
Tusla was also given responsibility for funding and oversight of Family Resource Centres (FRC), which until 2014 had been administered by the Family Support Agency attached to what was then the Department of Social and Family Affairs, now the Department of Social Protection (Institute of Public Administration, 2017[31]). Additional responsibilities transferred to Tusla included several educational welfare services and programmes from the Department of Education as well as services on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence from the Department of Justice, which for the most part are delivered by civil society organisations (CSOs).
The various elements brought together to form Tusla were thus diverse in function and orientation. These encompassed services fulfilling statutory responsibilities in relation to child protection and school attendance provided by state and non-state providers, as well as family support services provided by a variety of local and national CSOs. In addition, elements included the community-development and social inclusion-oriented Family Resource Centres, and domestic, sexual and gender-based violence services.
Tusla governance and responsibilities
Tusla was created as an independent statutory body under the aegis of the Minister for CEDIY, who is responsible for providing policy direction and oversight in respect of the agency’s core child welfare and protection functions. Funding for the services, which fulfil these functions, is allocated through DCEDIY.
The functions, responsibilities and powers of the agency are set out in various pieces of legislation but of particular significance to the services for children, young people, and families under the direction of the Minister are the Child Care Act 1991, the Child and Family Agency Act 2013 and the Children First Act 2015. Under the Child Care Act 1991 as amended6, Tusla is obliged “to promote the welfare of children […] who are not receiving adequate care and protection” (Law Reform Commission, 2022[32]). This entails a duty to identify such children and to “co-ordinate information from all relevant sources relating to children”. Tusla is charged with responsibility for instigating proceedings where necessary to ensure a child’s care and protection needs are met. Other duties under the 1991 Act now vested in Tusla include provision of alternative care and family support services in addition to provision of adoption services, provide accommodation for children who are out of home and oversight and inspection of pre-school services. The Act also introduced a duty to make active efforts to “identify children who are not receiving adequate care and protection”, as well as a statutory basis for the provision of family support services. A mandatory reporting requirement in the statutory framework for child protection was introduced in the Children First Act 2015.
The Tusla Education Support Service (TESS) and Alternative Education Assessment and Regulation Service (AEARS) administer services under the Educational Welfare Act 2000 in respect of support and regulation of school attendance and home education, which were formerly under the remit of the National Education Welfare Board. TESS also has responsibility for delivering the Home School Community Liaison Scheme (HSCL) and the School Completion Programme (SCP). From 2020, the functions of TESS and AEARS have once more been guided and overseen by the Minister for Education and these services are now funded through the Department of Education. From 2023, functions of Tusla in respect of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence (DSGBV) are expected to transfer to a planned new Government agency for DSGBV, which will be directed and overseen by the Department of Justice (Tusla, 2022[33]).
Alignment of strategic policy (DCEDIY) and operational (Tusla) objectives
The establishment of Tusla was predicated on a formal demarcation between strategic and operational functions. While the operational/strategic relations within which Tusla is embedded encompass the Departments of Education, Health, and Justice in addition to DCEDIY, the discussion in this section centres mainly on the relationship between Tusla and its “parent department” (DCEDIY) in the context of the statutory framework for guidance and oversight of the Child and Family Welfare Agency.
How to align strategic and operational functions most effectively was an important consideration for the Task Force, which advised on the establishment of Tusla. In the final report of the Task Force, it was noted that the tasks involved in establishing an agency should not be viewed as a simple matter of “separating policy design from implementation”. For the new agency to be fit for purpose it was cautioned that questions of “autonomy, control, accountability, and relationship management” required careful consideration in the design phase (Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, 2012[34]).
Based on the recommendations of the Task Force, the Child and Family Agency Act 2013 sets out procedures for policy alignment and accountability based on a performance framework. The 2013 Act obliges Tusla to produce corporate plans every three years. The corporate plans are to be informed by a Performance Framework produced by the DCEDIY Minister, which provides the “policy guidance, direction and prioritisation parameters” for the work of the agency over that three-year period. The Act provides that the Minister may consult with the Ministers for Health and Education in preparation of the Performance Framework. The production of the corporate plan is followed by a process of consultation (“performance dialogues”) between DCEDIY and Tusla to support the finalisation of the plan.
To date, the Tusla Oversight Unit of DCEDIY has prepared three performance frameworks, which have been presented by the Minister to the Child and Family Agency with the most recent covering the 2021-23 period. The performance frameworks have been aligned with the five national outcomes for children and young people set out in BOBF 2014-20 and Young Ireland, but the vague nature of the commitments have inhibited meaningful alignment of policy and operational goals to date (see Chapters 7 and 8). Interviews conducted by the OECD indicate that disparities between strategic policy aspirations and operational realities exist. This divergence relates to the long-standing concern around the bias towards “protection” over “prevention” in the Irish child welfare system and the wider issue of prioritising of prevention and early intervention, which is reflected in relevant national policy frameworks. Addressing this divergence was identified as a priority for DCEDIY and something to be addressed in Young Ireland.
Tusla services for children and families are conceptualised and organised along a “continuum of care” from low to medium to high prevention, with corresponding thresholds for referral to each of the different types of support needed (Malone and Canavan, 2018[35])Under the Prevention, Partnership and Family Support Programme (PPFS), new local area pathways to Tusla services were developed for those with low or medium support needs with the aim of providing an integrated approach to service delivery centred around the child and family and reorienting service provision towards prevention and early intervention (Tusla, n.d.). For instance, Meitheal is a Tusla-led Early Intervention Practice Model developed to identify the needs of children and their families so that these can access the support they need. It is a voluntary process focused on early intervention and developing multi-agency (when necessary) responses. The support includes community-based approaches and collaboration between services in Child and Family Support Networks (CFSN) for a ‘no wrong door’ approach to accessing services and support. The Meitheal process and CFSN are supported by the Child and Family Support Network Coordinators.
Allocation of financial and human resources within the agency is heavily weighted towards the highest support needs (Shaw, A. and Canavan, J., 2018[36]). Alternative care and child protection accounts for the vast majority of pay expenditure and the bulk of non-pay expenditure. Expenditure on family support and early intervention services - payments to services commissioned from CSOs under the 2013 Act, Family Resources Centres, and family counselling supports - amounted to roughly 30% of non-pay expenditure in 2021. A key challenge is that services are not always available to meet the needs of families dealt with under the Meitheal and CFSP pathways. For instance, there are recognised challenges in respect of access to disability services and child and adolescent mental health services as well as occupational therapy and speech and language therapy services (Shaw, A. and Canavan, J., 2018[36]).
Several factors underly the disjunction between the strategic emphasis on prevention and early intervention and the operational emphasis on protection and care. An issue raised in OECD interviews was that the background of many senior personnel in Tusla is in care and protection, which was viewed as a factor in the organisational culture and orientation within the agency. There are however broader issues which must be considered. Of importance here are the legacy of decades of under-resourcing of the child welfare system, as well as the succession of child welfare “scandals” and associated inquiries. In interviews conducted by the OECD, it was reported that responding to the immediate needs of children experiencing abuse or in the care system while advancing the prevention and early intervention agenda represented an ongoing challenge for Tusla. For this reason, a need was identified for “a mandate around early intervention”, which would support “ring-fenced budgeting” to address child poverty and disadvantage and compel interagency co-operation.
Tusla has a clear mandate in respect of provision of child protection and alternative care services set out in legislation and judicial case law, while the duty in relation to family support services is less clearly defined. The Child Care Act 1991 sets out a statutory duty to ensure provision of family support services, a duty transferred to Tusla under the Child and Family Agency Act 2013. The 2013 Act further provides that the agency has a duty to support and encourage the effective functioning of families” and to “maintain and develop support services, including support services in local communities” (Government of Ireland, 2013[37]). In addition, Tusla must ensure provision of “preventative family support services aimed at promoting the welfare of children”. There are no specific services which must be provided and the threshold to access family support services in practice can be quite high. There is also significant variation geographically in availability of services (Government of Ireland, 2013[37]).
Reform of the Child Care Act 1991 is anticipated to bring further clarity in respect of family support. The new requirement under Head 4 (“Guiding Principles”) of the Child Care Amendment Bill 2023 would oblige the agency to “have regard to the benefits of providing family support services, or other activities to support and encourage the effective functioning of families, as soon as reasonably practicable”. This means that in cases coming to the attention of Tusla where there is a child welfare and protection concern there would be clearer direction than currently in relation to provision of family support services where appropriate. In OECD interviews, there were issues raised in relation to provision for children with complex needs in families who needed support but where there were no child welfare concerns. It remains to be seen whether the proposed amendments will increase the likelihood of such families receiving adequate support.
Resources are a key challenge in relation to prevention, early intervention, and family support. The gap between funding to commissioned services and the actual cost of providing those services is an issue frequently raised by community and voluntary providers. In interviews conducted by the OECD, the view from CSOs was that the agency has never been adequately funded. A suggestion related to the more effective use of business cases to enhance alignment between national policy and agency objectives. This, it was argued, would serve as a lever to unlock funding for “complex issues like child poverty”.
Interagency co-ordination and collaboration: The 2023 Child Care Amendment Bill
Whether categorised as low, medium, or high, meeting the support needs of children and families requires interdisciplinary and interprofessional working and co-operation between the various agencies with responsibility for welfare, social care, health, and educational services. For instance, “prevention and early intervention” encompasses an extensive array of services and programmes, some directly provided or commissioned by Tusla, while others come under the remit of various other government departments and agencies, including and in particular, the Department of Health and the HSE (for example, post-natal visits and developmental checks through the public health nurse service and disability assessments/supports), and the Department of Education and the National Educational Psychological Service. These departments and agencies also play an important role in relation to child protection and in meeting the needs of children in alternative care. Failures in respect of interagency co-operation and unmet needs have been evidenced in various reports on the Irish child welfare system (McGuinness, C., 1993[38]; Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, 2009[39]). Highlighted in OECD interviews were children with care and protection needs who also have needs related to disability and/or mental health, for which an effective response requires coordinated activity between Tusla and the HSE.
Interagency co-operation can occur at the level of planning and/or service delivery. It can be limited to information and knowledge exchange or involve “joined up working”, including sharing of staff and financial resources. (Devaney, C., Kealy, K., Canavan, J. and McGregor, 2021[40]) draw on the distinction made by Himmelman (1992) between four “accumulative levels of interagency co-operation”. These are “networking (information exchange); co-ordination (information exchange and altering activities); co-operation (the above two combined with sharing resources) and collaboration (all the above plus the active enhancing of other agencies for mutual benefit, i.e., accruing of benefit to each of the agencies involved)”. Several factors have been identified as having an impact on the effectiveness of interagency co-operation. These include the legal and policy frameworks at national level; policies and procedures at agency/interagency level including the quality and clarity of joint protocols for co-ordination of service delivery; organisational culture; human and financial resources; relationships between agencies and respective personnel; training/capacity building; leadership and accountability; and monitoring and evaluation (ibid.).
Under the current legal framework for child welfare and protection, Tusla has a statutory duty to “facilitate and promote enhanced inter-agency co-operation” but there is no reciprocal duty on other agencies to cooperate (Devaney, C., Kealy, K., Canavan, J. and McGregor, 2021[40]). This issue is addressed in the Child Care Amendment Bill 2023. Head 10 in the Bill sets out provisions under “Duty of relevant bodies to cooperate” for “relevant bodies”, which include, among others, Tusla, the HSE, An Garda Siochana, government departments, schools and early years services. There is also provision for the Minister to designate others as “relevant bodies” under the legislation.
The ongoing legislative reform will provide clarity on sharing of information requiring “relevant bodies” to comply with requests from another “relevant body” for information, “which is of relevance to the functions of the requesting body and where it is for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the development, welfare and protection of a child, or an eligible adult”. There is an explicit statement that this obligation applies to information protected under data protection law. In interviews carried out by the OECD, uncertainty about the implications of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was identified as a barrier to effective co-operation and a significant factor inhibiting professionals in reporting child protection concerns to Tusla despite the mandate under the Children First Act 2015. A statutory duty to cooperate and clarity in relation to sharing of information were viewed as essential in creating a shift in culture across organisations to the effect that “child protection is everyone’s business”.
Currently, co-operation between Tusla and other agencies is facilitated by Joint Protocols, which are in place between Tusla and An Garda Siochana and between Tusla and the HSE (Devaney, C., Kealy, K., Canavan, J. and McGregor, 2021[40]). The latter was updated in 2020 following the reports by the Ombudsman for Children in respect of two cases (“Molly” and “Jack") involving systemic failures in respect of children with complex support needs. The development of referral pathways for children with a disability was referred to in OECD interviews as a positive outcome from the Tusla-HSE Joint Protocol. Overall, however, views expressed cast doubt on the effectiveness of existing protocols between Tusla and the HSE in supporting interagency co-operation in either planning or delivery of services and emphasised the need for a statutory duty. It was noted that there was a lack of clarity in relation to responsibilities for meeting needs of children in care with disability and/or with a mental health need and that “joint protocols and procedures are not consistently applied by either agency”. Without a statutory duty to cooperate, it was noted that inter-agency co-operation between HSE and Tusla was funding dependent. These findings are consistent with ongoing reports conducted since 2018 by the Child Care Law Reporting Project (CCLRP), which provide evidence on young people ‘falling through the cracks’ of different services and systems due to inadequate co-ordination mechanisms to deliver for children with complex needs (Corbett and Coulter, 2021[41]).
Another significant area of change in the 2023 Bill is the introduction of a principle on children’s participation to decision-making processes, to strengthen the voice of the child both court proceedings and in decisions taken outside the court setting. The establishment of a national oversight group, referred to as National Child Care Act Committee, is another significant area of change in the new Bill. This Committee, comprising of relevant Government Departments and Agencies, is expected to provide high-level support for the duty to cooperate, foster knowledge exchange, and develop shared strategies to address issues arising the implementation of the Child Care Act.
Beyond setting out a general duty to cooperate, the 2023 Bill does not specifically address aspects of interagency co-operation other than information-sharing but empowers the Minister to issue guidelines. The approach to interagency co-operation under the Bill is permissive rather than prescriptive - “a relevant body […] may cooperate with another relevant body for the purpose of promoting the development, welfare and protection of children, or eligible adults to whom this section applies, and such co-operation may include the sharing of relevant information” (emphasis added). The lack of a clear mandate to cooperate was a source of criticism during pre-legislative scrutiny of the 2023 Bill carried out by the Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. Strengthening the duty to cooperate set out under Head 10 was a key recommendation in the report published by the Joint Committee in June 2023, which argued that there should be “a duty, rather than an option to cooperate on relevant bodies” and that relevant bodies should be “obliged to collaborate on the planning, delivery and funding of services and activities, not just on information sharing” (Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability,, 2023[42]). The Policing, Security and Community Safety Bill 2023 and the General Scheme of the Health Information Bill 2023 were provided by the Ombudsman for Children as examples of legislation with more effective provision for interagency co-operation (Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability,, 2023[42]).
It was recognised by the Joint Committee that mandating a duty to cooperate raised important considerations in relation to “leadership, resourcing and culture change” (ibid.). This reflected comments made in OECD interviews to the effect that reforms to the legal framework are necessary but not sufficient to support interagency co-operation. Clear policy direction was deemed needed to create the structures and processes necessary to support joint working, including measures to incentivise shared budgets, employment of liaison personnel and to develop a “map for integrated services”. Of key concern was that structures would support an approach to planning and delivery of services with the child at the centre in contrast to the current model, which was perceived as service-led with limited interagency collaboration in practice. At the same time, it was also noted that sharing of either budgets or staff is difficult in a context where the respective agencies are operating under resource constraints and struggling to meet demands for services.
Another factor hindering effective co-operation in interagency co-operation at the planning and operational levels relates to the geographical division of administrative units. Different agencies and bodies (including for example health services, child welfare services, schools, and youth services) often operate across incongruent administrative areas at regional and local level. Reforms in train of HSE administrative divisions, including the creation of six regional divisions, is intended to promote integrated service delivery across the agency (HSE, n.d.[43]). The reform process set out in Tusla’s current corporate plan involves a new regional administrative structure aligned with that of the HSE, schools and youth services. However, it is not clear whether there is an intention to align the administrative boundaries of the two agencies at local level with local government divisions.
These observations reflect common challenges related to the translation of strategic into operational priorities and effective inter-agency co-operation in the delivery of support to children and young people among OECD countries. New Zealand, Finland and Spain have established distinct models to devolve responsibility to the sub-national government level when delivering services for children and young people (see Box 4.2). Relevance to the Irish landscape is noted in, for instance, how different administrations ensure clear allocation of responsibilities, enhance local level co-ordination and establishing a duty to cooperate as currently envisaged in Ireland.
Finland’s 1972 Youth Act sets a duty to cooperate in the delivery of youth services
Finland's Youth Act of 1972 delineates the responsibilities of municipalities in providing youth services and underscores the significance of local autonomy to tailor support to the specific needs and challenges of young people from different communities. The Ministry of Education and Culture is mandated as the principal state authority to oversee, coordinate, and advance national youth policy, in collaboration with other ministries, central government agencies, designated local authorities and youth associations.
As reported in OECD interviews, the Youth Act has enabled Finland’s local and national government to better coordinate their interventions and avoid duplication of effort by clearly allocating responsibilities and setting a duty to cooperate across the national and the sub-national level. Particularly, the Act stipulates the following duties to cooperate:
Article 4: In carrying out its duties, the state (through the Ministry of Education and Culture and the Regional State Administrative Agencies) must cooperate with municipalities, youth organisations and other communities as well as young people, as necessary.
Article 8: […] municipalities shall, where necessary, cooperate with other authorities providing services for young people, young people, their families, youth sector organisations, parishes and other parties engaged in youth work.
Article 9: For the general planning and development of the implementation of multidisciplinary co-operation between local authorities, the municipality must have a guidance and service network, or other similar co-operation group, aimed at all young people living in the municipality. The network or other co-operation group must interact with youth organisations, parishes and other communities providing services for young people.
New Zealand’s Oranga Tamariki Action Plan and Guide to Advancing Child and Youth Wellbeing in Local Government
In New Zealand, the Oranga Tamariki (Ministry for Children) Action Plan (“Action Plan”) serves as a tool for enhancing the co-ordination of public services for children and young people in, at risk of entering, or transitioning out of the care and protection system. It sets out how children’s agencies will work together to achieve the outcomes set by the Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy.
Oranga Tamariki is tasked with leading processes so that government agencies work together to develop actions, including to meet children’s and young people’s needs and build whānau7 resilience, and to support community-led, regionally enabled, centrally supported prevention. The Action Plan is supported by an Implementation Plan and gives the Children’s agencies collective responsibility for monitoring and evaluating progress. The Action Plan is jointly monitored and evaluated by the Social Wellbeing Board, a group of chief executives of social sector and children’s agencies, and the Child and Youth Wellbeing Ministers. The Chief Executives of the Ministries of Children, Health, Education, Social Development and Justice as well as the New Zealand Police are accountable to the Minister for the Action Plan. Other Departments (named agencies in the New Zealand context) can be involved, including Te Puni Kokiri (Ministry of Māori Development), the Department of Corrections and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.
Vertical co-ordination mechanisms are established through agency structures. Alongside this, agencies link with Regional Public Service Commissioners – leaders with responsibility for convening public services at a regional level (e.g., local government, government agencies and iwi/Māori tribes). Regional Public Service Commissioners can help drive support for, and engagement with the Action Plan through regional leadership.
Another tool used in New Zealand to coordinate child and youth wellbeing policies between the national and subnational level is the Guide to Advancing Child and Youth Wellbeing in Local Government. Prepared by the Child Wellbeing Unit in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in collaboration with local council staff, it supports local governments incorporate national priorities for child and youth wellbeing into local government plans. The guide includes orientation on the relevance of the Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy to local government work areas (transport, parks, and community spaces, etc.) and planning (e.g., long-term plans, spatial planning, resource and management planning, investment planning).
Sources: (Commission, 2017[44]); (New Zealand, 2022[45]); (Oranga Tamariki, 2022[46]); (DPMC, 2021[47]).
The establishment of an independent statutory agency for coordinating the delivery of child and family services reflects the highly centralised approach to policymaking and implementation in Ireland in comparison to other jurisdictions.
Local authorities and LCDC
Local authorities at city and county level, comprising representative and executive branches, have relatively weak powers and limited revenue-generating capacity in Ireland. Except for housing, the role of local authorities in planning, oversight and delivery of social services has traditionally been somewhat limited. Instead, there are variety of different agencies and mechanisms implementing policy at local level.
In an effort to address co-ordination challenges at subnational level, various reforms to local government structures have been carried out under the Local Government Reform Act 2014 in line with recommendations set out in Putting People First: Action Programme for Effective Local Government (Department of the Environment, Community and Local, 2012[48]). The vision for local government set out in Putting People First centred on a more strategic and coordinated approach to economic and social development involving a strengthened role for local government in “promoting economic development” in addition to co-ordination, oversight, and delivery of services (ibid.). To this end, local authorities are required to prepare a Local Economic and Community Plan (LECP) for its area every six years.
Responsibility for developing and overseeing the social/community elements of LECPs rests with Local Community Development Committees (LCDC), which must be established in every local authority area. Membership includes elected representatives and staff from local authorities in addition to representation from public bodies, community interests, local development agencies and members of the community (Minister for Housing, Planning, Community, 2016[49]). LCDC are expressly intended to facilitate a “bottom-up” approach to decision-making at local level so there is a strong emphasis on community participation. Among other functions, the LCDC are also charged with promoting a more “joined-up approach” to implementation and a more “integrated approach” to delivery of services (ibid.).
The measures undertaken under the Local Government Reform Act 2014 formed an important part of the policy context in which BOBF 2014-20 was developed. Notably, BOBF 2014-20 identified Children and Young People’s Services Committees (CYPSC) (previously Children’s Services Committees) as a mechanism for “local county-level implementation and monitoring” (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2014[15]). Alignment of CYPSC activities with LCDC was also an explicit commitment under the previous national policy framework for children and youth.
Children and Young People’s Services Committees (CYPSC)
Children and Young People’s Services Committees (CYPSC) bring together representatives of the various state and non-state agencies involved at local level in services for children, families, and young people. The main function of CYPSC is to support co-ordination and collaboration between local bodies involved in planning and delivering services. While these structures are at the core of providing specialised support for local services to collaborate for children and young people, they continue to face barriers in relation to funding, alignment with other local co-ordination structures in terms of strategic planning, and challenges to include CYPSC perspectives in national-level policy planning as discussed in following sections.
Its predecessor, Children’s Services Committees (serving the 0-18 population) were introduced on a pilot basis on foot of the Agenda for Children’s Services produced by the Office for the Minister for Children and the Department of Health in 2007 (DCYA, 2019[50]). Full national coverage was attained by 2017, by which time the remit had broadened to encompass services for young people up to 24 and responsibility for child and family services and the employment and oversight of CYPSC local and national coordinators had passed to Tusla. There are now 27 Children and Young People’s Service Committees (CYPSC) nationally, serving the 31 local authority areas, with 27 coordinators employed currently according to information provided in OECD interviews.
Mechanisms at national level to support co-ordination and learning across CYPSC include the role of a national coordinator employed by Tusla and a national network of CYPSC coordinators, which provides a forum for knowledge-exchange. The National Steering Group for CYPSC, which as noted above was disbanded in 2020, formed part of the implementation structures for BOBF 2014-20. As reported in interviews conducted by the OECD, the steering group was reconfigured for this purpose and the membership widened considerably bringing together relevant government departments and agencies along with the national coordinator, chairs, and coordinator of local CYPSC. The inclusion of the Department of Rural and Community Development was seen as important in OECD interviews to facilitate the preparation of a guidance document for aligning the work of CYPSC and LCDC.
CYPSC were established on an administrative basis and the question of whether they should be placed on a statutory footing has been a matter of some debate following the publication of the review of the Child Care Act 1991. Draft texts proposing reforms on the Act initially contained, and then discarded, a recommendation to this effect. Interviews carried out with the OECD demonstrate diverging views on this matter. On the one hand, the current structure of CYPSC was represented as “fragile” and in need of strengthening to address variation across CYPSC in terms of effectiveness and stakeholder engagement. On the other hand, several concerns were raised in relation to resourcing of CYPSC, including a perceived mismatch of responsibilities and funding, and insufficient administrative support to local coordinators in the preparation of three-year planning and to implement projects in an increasingly complex environment. There was also a view that placing CYPSC on a statutory footing could inhibit “flexibility”. The argument made was that because there was already in place a local-level coordinating mechanism with statutory functions in the form of LCDC, it would be preferable to instead ensure that the work of CYPSC fed into that of LCDC. As of March 2024, it is unlikely that the Child Care Act review will result in CYPSC being put on a statutory footing before the completion of an ongoing review of CYPSC capacities by DCEDIY (see Chapter 8 and the ‘Resourcing’ section of this chapter).
In respect of membership of CYPSC, the provisions set out in the 2023 Bill broadly reflect existing guidelines. Bodies which must be represented under the 2023 Bill (directly or through a “body under their remit”) are Education and Training Boards; the HSE; An Garda Siochana; the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport, and Media; the Department of Education; the Department of Justice; and the Department of Social Protection. This is in addition to a representative from Tusla and from the relevant local authority, who serve as chair and vice-chair respectively. Seeking nominees to the committee is the responsibility of the local CYPSC coordinator. Representation from community and voluntary service provider, groups and organisations and other public bodies may be included at the discretion of the Committee. The reforms under the 2023 Bill do not specify the level of seniority of the representation on CYPSC, although this was raised as an important issue in the OECD interviews. It was noted that there was variation across CYPSC in respect of whether representatives on CYPSC were “sufficiently high up the chain” to exercise the decision-making power necessary to carry out their functions effectively.
Under the proposed 2023 Bill, the obligation of CYPSC to report on the performance of its functions to Tusla annually (and on ministerial request) are to be placed on a statutory footing. The committees have responsibility for preparing a Children and Young Person’s Plan (CYPP) for their respective areas, based on a needs assessment, and must report on implementation of the plan. In addition, CYPSC have a role in local-level planning, delivery, and oversight of programmes for children and young people under various initiatives.
Currently, Children and Young People’s Plans (CYPPs) are to be produced every three years. That the planning cycle at CYPSC level is not aligned with that of local authorities and LCDC was identified as a concern in OECD interviews. If the provisions set out in the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2023 are enacted this will change to every six years, with a review (and amendment if necessary), at least every three years. Although the 2023 Bill does not contain provision for formal linkage of CYPPs and LECPs, the shift to a six-year planning cycle would bring the CYPP planning cycle more into line with that of LECPs.
The needs assessment to establish CYPP priorities must be conducted every three years under the provisions of the 2023 Bill. The needs assessment draws on available data and evidence, including socio-demographic data and mapping of services - a complex task given the extent and diversity of services at local level and heavy reliance on voluntary and community providers to deliver services for children and families. The provisions of the 2023 Bill also include a proposal to implement a statutory requirement to consult with children and young people as part of the needs assessment.
OECD interviews identified some issues currently inhibiting effective planning and reporting by CYPSC. Chief among these were data and evidence gaps at the local level. The delay in the national Census due to the COVID-19 pandemic impacted access to up-to-date demographic data. Considering this, it was reported in interviews that DCEDIY have agreed that development of further plans should be paused until new Census data is released. A further issue raised in interviews related to availability of area-level data. Needs identified were for disaggregation of national-level data to the local level and for “upward aggregation” of administrative data from local service providers. Two DCEDIY initiatives, the Outcomes for Children National Data and Information Hub and the What Works evidence hub, address challenges but, as discussed in Chapters 5 and 6, there remain data and evidence gaps and barriers faced by organisations in accessing, collecting, and analysing data and evidence.
By design, all CYPSC have the same capacities in terms of staffing and resources available and are provided with tools and templates to develop and implement the CYPP. As part of CYPPs, each CYPSC is required to prepare an annual progress report. These serve to analyse the priority needs for children and young people, the strengths of CYPSC, and the operational challenges experienced by CYPSC. CYPSC are also required to prepare an Annual Programme of Work derived from their CYPP, which serves to set strategic directions for the year and monitor the performance of CYPSC yearly.
Perhaps in contradiction of the above existing mechanisms, several OECD interviews have referred to the “cumbersome” nature of existing planning and reporting processes that CYPSC are to deliver on. Some interviewees also pointed to the fact that, despite these mechanisms, there was a perceived variance across CYPSC on how responsive some local plans were to the needs of local constituents. As stated by a CYPSC representative, all CYPSC that do not have a current CYPP published in the official CYPSC website have a plan in development. As of February 2024, 23 out of 27 CYPSC plans were still in development, with plans to be finalised following the release of 2022 Census data made available in September 2023. Among the reasons for this delay, beyond census data availability, evidence received by the OECD pointed that local CYPSC considered the task to be disproportionate to the resources of the local CYPSC coordinator and suggested poor response rate to tender documents seeking expert support to develop CYPPs. The CYPSC also produce an Annual Programme of Work, which are submitted to the CYPSC National Office and published online.
More broadly, factors identified in OECD interviews as impacting CYPSC in effective performance of their functions included issues around stakeholder buy-in and varying levels of engagement in CYPSC structures and an overall need to increase human and financial capacities. Other issues identified included the need for more effective alignment of national and sub-national priorities and processes, hampered most significantly by resource and capacity concerns, and the challenges associated with the multiple co-ordination entities in place at local level.
Stakeholder engagement and accountability
While the current CYPSC membership structures involve the government departments and agencies with statutory responsibilities in respect of services for children and young people, meaningful participation of stakeholders in the work of CYPSC is not guaranteed. The perceived need to strengthen engagement and accountability was identified in OECD interviews as an important argument for those in favour of placing CYPSC on a statutory footing.
As discussed above, the 2023 Bill sets out the membership structure for CYPSC. In addition, CYPSC are specified as one of the entities to which “the duty to cooperate” applies while the various departments and agencies represented on CYPSC are each individually mandated to cooperate. As noted above, the only aspect of interagency co-operation specifically addressed in the 2023 Bill is information-sharing, but there is provision for the Minister to issue guidelines in respect of co-operation more broadly.
The provisions of the 2023 Bill allow for representation of non-statutory community and voluntary organisations. A point made in interviews with the OECD was that “community and voluntary sector [organisations] are hugely significant partners”. The burden which participation could place on such organisations was raised in pre-legislative scrutiny of the legislation with a recommendation made that funding should be made available to facilitate their engagement in CYPSC structures (Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability,, 2023[42]).
Resourcing
Core funding for CYPSC is provided from DCEDIY and Tusla under a joint funding model which encompasses staffing and programme costs. CYPSC have a full-time coordinator employed by Tusla, but no other staff are employed. Core programme funding allocated to each CYPSC from DCEDIY currently amounts to €28,000 annually. DCEDIY also provides funding to the amount of €130,000 to support the office of the national coordinator and a further €69,000 at this level towards projects and “emerging needs”. Salary costs of local coordinators are funded jointly by DCEDIY and Tusla. In 2024, DCEDIY also secured funding for Tusla to begin the recruitment of project support workers for each CYPSC to support the work of local CYPSC Co-ordinators. In addition, CYPSC received increases for 2024 in their programme funding (from the DCEDIY) and Healthy Ireland funding (from the Department of Health). This was represented in interviews conducted by the OECD as a successful example of interagency collaboration, although it was noted that it was important for funding to be utilised to support action on local health priorities set out in the relevant CYPP and not result in a “separate health plan”. The remit of CYPSC is broad and there are a diverse range of stakeholders represented, necessitating the use of various sub-groups. While the Healthy Ireland initiative has made funding available for the activities of health sub-groups of CYPSC, as reported in OECD interviews, the work of other sub-groups is entirely reliant on the relatively small pot of core programme funding.
There was a strong view among some stakeholders that while the work carried out by CYPSC was increasing, reflecting the growing number of policies which utilise CYPSC structures, allocation of resources had not increased to reflect this. There was concern that CYPSC are not a high priority for Tusla due to under-resourcing of its core child welfare and protection functions. Among the issues raised in OECD interviews was the need for business/administrative support for local CYPSC coordinators who were described as “quite isolated” and stretched in their roles. The work of supporting interagency collaboration was described as “time-consuming and slow” and thus placing high demands on coordinators. Limited staff resources was seen as a factor inhibiting the work of CYPSC sub-groups to the extent that they could not address issues in depth.
While there seemed to be broad agreement on the need for increased funding to support the co-ordination function of CYPSC, the views on programme funding were more nuanced. Some OECD interviewees identified a need for additional funding to support project implementation. There was concern that regardless of the size of the population served, each CYPSC received the same amount of funding and that the potential of CYPSC to deliver on programmes was not being utilised due to resourcing issues. According to one CYPSC coordinator, additional programme funding could affect the “dynamic around the table” impeding collaboration if stakeholders were placed in competition for a larger pot of funding directly administered by CYPSC.
It was reported in interviews that the current level of programme funding restricted the direct activities of CYPSC in that only pilot initiatives were deemed possible. There was reference to pilot initiatives, which had subsequently received funding from central government. The role played by CYPSC in advancing projects which could then be scaled up using mainstream funding was seen by some stakeholders as an effective way of using the limited resources available to CYPSC.
In addition to resource needs at local level, OECD interviewees referred to a need to enhance resources to strengthen co-ordination of CYPSC activity at the national level. The network of local CYPSC coordinators was viewed as successful, but there was a perceived need for additional resources to support its effective functioning. There was also concern that placing CYPSC on a statutory footing might have resource implications at the national co-ordination level.
Alignment of policy and implementation
The work of CYPSC is intended to support implementation of national strategic policy objectives in a manner which aligns with local needs. CYPSC have been positioned by DCEDIY as a key mechanism for implementing child and youth policy and facilitating a more coordinated and integrated approach to service provision. In fact, in 2017, the DCYA and Tusla established a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to provide a basis for coordinating the CYPSC initiative between both entities. The MoU established that the policy direction of the DCYA would be informed by the CYPSC National Steering Group. Further, it was established that Tusla would actively support the management and oversight of CYPSC through ongoing engagement with the DCYA and the CYPSC National Coordinator.
Yet, OECD interviews reflect concern from stakeholders that central government departments - including DCEDIY - do not always give sufficient regard to CYPPs or the CYPSC National Steering Group when policy is implemented at local level. It was suggested that there might be “a lack of confidence” in CYPSC as a mechanism for supporting policy implementation but there was also a sense that government departments were insufficiently attentive to the local priorities and objectives set out in the CYPPs. It was noted that CYPSC were involved in implementing a variety of policies which typically had very small amounts of funding attached, and that such funding was not necessarily related to the objectives set out in local CYPPs. OECD interviews also point to challenges to maintain the ongoing engagement of the CYPSC National Steering Group under BOBF 2014-20. Evidence as of February 2024 points to their representation under the Young Ireland Children and Young People’s Policy Forum, but it is unclear how this implementation structure will link national strategic policy objectives to local-level planning, implementation and reporting systematically.
Echoing these concerns were views captured by OECD interviews from those working in CYPSC structures that policy development at the central level was insufficiently attuned to local needs and issues and that there was a greater need for national policy to be informed by the extensive body of data generated by CYPSC. OECD interviewees also recognised that CYPPs represent an important source of data and information for national planning purposes, however as discussed in Chapter 5, there were concerns about the quality and accessibility of data produced through CYPSC in addition to challenges for CYPSC in accessing data and evidence required to support their functions. A point raised in relation to the “What Works” initiative was that it is a stand-alone project within DCEDIY which is “not linked to CYPSC planning”.
Finally, there was a view that local-level CYPSC coordinators should be more directly involved in the development of national policy. While DCEDIY consulted with CYPSC coordinators as part of the process in developing BOBF 2014-20 and Young Ireland, there appears to be an appetite among at least some local coordinators for more in-depth involvement. It was commented in OECD interviews that involvement of CYPSC coordinators should be factored in from the outset of the design process rather than “just a consultation towards the end”, with interviewees pointing to useful learning from the local level that should be mobilised - including from local level consultations with children and young people. The envisaged inclusion of CYPSC and Local Authorities among the governance structures of Young Ireland, specifically the Policy Forum, sets out to address these concerns, although their effective participation will need to be supported by resources and wider strategic alignment of planning and reporting cycles.
Proliferation of co-ordination mechanisms at local level
Various strategies and initiatives directly or indirectly related to child and youth policy have led to a proliferation of co-ordination mechanisms at local level, which was described as problematic in OECD interviews. The policy context in which CYPSC operate is complex and the work of CYPSC intersects with various other entities established to coordinate policy implementation locally under health, education, equality and inclusion strategies and initiatives. For instance, the sixteen Educational and Training Boards (ETBs) have a statutory role in the co-ordination of youth work in their local areas. CYPSC are represented on various area-based co-ordination bodies, including LCDC/LECP sub-groups and committees as well as interagency groups.
The need for more streamlined and integrated local structures, which operate through rather than parallel to local government, was identified in OECD interviews. There were references to structures for community justice and community health projects, with a concern expressed by an official that funding was generally not channelled through local authorities and LCDC. The view here was that there was a need to streamline the mechanisms in place for local planning and co-ordination and to utilise the existing statutory structure more effectively.
Alignment of CYPSC/CYPPs with LCDC/LECPs
There has been a guidance document available since 2016 (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2016[51]) (DCYA, 2019[50]), which provides direction on the alignment of the activities of LCDC and CYPSC towards the end of creating more formalised relations. This document sets out the parameters of engagement between the two committees with a particular focus on a coordinated approach to priority-setting and planning through the LECP and CYPP processes. The guidance document clarifies that the preparation of LECPs should involve consultation with CYPSC to establish “priorities and actions for children and young people” while CYPPs should be informed by the LECP, setting out in greater depth how the priorities and actions relating to children and young people will be progressed. The guidance document further provides that CYPSC should report to LCDC on the LECP actions for which they have been allocated responsibility. Evidence provided to the OECD on this subject underscores the need to better aligning planning, delivery, and reporting cycles across CYPSC and Local Community Development Committees (LCDC), including by ensuring that CYPSC are represented on LCDC and ensuring that both inform each other’s strategic plans.
Interviews carried out by the OECD suggest that despite the existence of the guidance document, progress on aligning LCDC and CYPSC activities has been uneven, suggesting that the needs of children and youth (and the five national outcomes) are not reflected consistently in LECPs. There were however reports of “a change of culture” in this regard in at least some local authority areas, in the sense of greater engagement by LCDC with CYPSC as part of preparations for the LECP.
Several factors were identified in OECD interviews as inhibiting effective alignment between the activities of LCDC and CYPSC. Among these were widespread lack of awareness among staff in local authorities about the existence of the guidance document. Another issue mentioned was that Tusla is not represented on all LCDC. It was noted that LCDC predate the creation of Tusla and therefore the agency was not initially considered in membership structures. The guidance document notes that CYPSC are generally not represented on the LCDC structures and that the expected conduit for communication between the two committees is through the local authority representative who is the vice-chair of the CYPSC. However, it was suggested in OECD interviews that local authority representatives may not always have a thorough understanding of CYPSC and their functions.
Other factors identified in OECD interviews as impacting effective alignment included area divisions and diverging planning cycles. While CYPSC are aligned with local authority geographical divisions, it was noted that currently there are 27 CYPSC and 31 local authority areas. Therefore, some CYPSC serve more than one local authority area, although DCEDIY has launched a plan to address this through a review of CYPSC capacities and resource co-ordination as established in Young Ireland. That LECPs are produced in six-year cycles while CYPPs are produced in three-year cycles creates a co-ordination challenge. As noted above, the reforms set out under the 2023 Bill include a shift to a six-year planning cycle for CYPPs. Finally, varying levels of “commitment and capacity” among CYPSC to engage with the LECP process was also identified as a factor in interviews.
Perspectives on the most appropriate approach to align LCDC and CYPSC more closely and improve inter-agency co-ordination varied across OECD interviewees, with different views on whether placing CYPSC on a statutory footing would achieve this. For instance, rather than placing CYPSC on a statutory footing, an argument made was that it would be preferable to strengthen the linkage between the work of CYPSC and LCDC by formally integrating CYPPs into LECPs.
The argument that CYPPs should be more formally aligned with LECPs is persuasive considering concerns raised in interviews regarding the lack of focus on children and youth in local government planning and lack of capacity to engage with children and youth within local authorities and LCDC. There does not appear to be an inherent conflict between placing CYPSC on a statutory footing and enhancing integration between local authorities/LCDC and CYPSC including integration of CYPPs with LECPs. The planned legislative reforms do not include a reporting requirement from CYPSC to LCDC. While the guidance document refers to CYPSC reporting obligations to LCDC in respect of LECP actions, the lack of a formal reporting obligation currently was raised as an issue in OECD interviews. As of March 2024, the DCEDIY set out to begin the process of aligning the 27 CYPSC areas with the 31 LCDC areas. This will involve recruiting additional CYPSC local Co-ordinators and establishing new CYPSC entities.
CYPSC, CFSNS and Family Resource Centres
While CYPSC operate under the aegis of Tusla, their existence predated the establishment of the Child and Family Agency. Interviews conducted by the OECD suggest that the relationship of CYPSC to the co-ordination mechanisms created under local-area pathways to Tusla services is to some extent still being worked out.
Child and Family Support Networks (CFSN) were established under the Prevention, Partnership and Family Support (PPFS) programme to support integrated service delivery. All local services (not just those provided by Tusla) relevant to children and families are supposed to form part of the network and to coordinate with each other to ensure that children and families are accessing the appropriate services. Each network is supported by a Child and Family Support Network Coordinator. The role of the coordinator includes responsibility for managing the Meitheal process. The geographical boundaries of CFSNs do not coincide with CYPSC as CFSNs generally serve smaller areas. The structure and approach to provision and practice also varies. It was reported in OECD interviews that the number of CFSNs nationally can vary (with 131 reportedly in place as of 2022) and that it has not yet been decided how many CFSNs are required to effectively meet needs.
A point raised in interviews was that CYPSC (“creature of DCEDIY”) and CFSNs (“grew from within Tusla”) were developed based on very different policy goals and orientations. CYPSC originated through the Department of Children and Youth Affairs and were reinforced with BOBF 2014-20. On the other hand, CFSNs were developed as part of the Prevention Partnership and Family Support programme of work in Tusla for local area pathways and the 'no wrong door' model to improve access to services and supports in the community. This arguably resulted in a “tension of philosophy”.
Also operating at the local level with a remit around co-ordination of services are Family Resource Centres. Family Resource Centres operate under the aegis of Tusla but previously were overseen by the Family Support Agency attached to what is now the Department of Social Protection. The Family Resource Centres, constituted as limited companies, are independent from Tusla and are commissioned by the agency to provide services. The centres were established with an explicit anti-poverty/social inclusion remit informed by a community development practice model and provide a range of services to local communities and support provision of services by other local organisations and groups. The view from Family Resource Centre stakeholders is that its programme is a “low priority” for Tusla and its parent department (Family Resource Centre National Forum, 2020[20]).
There are 121 Family Resource Centres nationally, but their distribution is not even, and the areas served do not necessarily coincide with Tusla area management divisions or local authority areas. Family Resource Centres are generally represented on CYPSC and CFSN structures. In some areas the Family Resource Centre could be the central plank of the CFSN. The work of the centres is guided by a planning process in which members of the communities served can participate. The Family Resource Centre National Forum (FRCNF) reports that most centres work on the basis of three-year plans implemented through annual work plans (FRCNF).
In a recent publication, the FRCNF commented on the limited input of Family Resource Centres into national policy frameworks (Family Resource Centre National Forum, 2020[20]). The remit of the resource centres in relation to child poverty and disadvantage would suggest they may be useful repositories of local knowledge and expertise which could help inform local and national-level planning and priority-setting.
Examples of area-based multiagency initiatives relevant to child poverty and disadvantage
The following examples are selected to discuss are-based initiatives relevant to child poverty given their noted multiagency approach.
Sláintecare Healthy Communities (SHC) Programme
The Sláintecare Healthy Communities (SHC) programme established and funded by the Department of Health (under the Healthy Ireland initiative) has been in operation since 2021 (Sláintecare Healthy Communities, 2023[52]) and represents an important example of interagency working. The focus of the programme is on addressing health inequalities, which is also a theme of direct relevance to the child poverty and mental health Spotlights under Young Ireland. Funding under the programme supports improvements to the built environment in addition to local projects and programmes.
The “place-based approach” utilised in the SHC programme involved selection of 19 communities characterised by high levels of socio-economic disadvantage across 14 local authority areas. Implementation of the SHC programme at local level is led jointly by the HSE (who have employed dedicated SHC coordinators in nine Community Health Organisations to support implementation of the programme) and the relevant local authority in conjunction with the LCDC (each participating local authority has employed a Local Development Officer to support and oversee the programme) and supported by various local partners, including Family Resource Centres.
Youth Diversion Projects (YDPs)
Youth Diversion Projects (YDPs) can be understood as a “prevention” initiative oriented towards diverting young people away from criminal activity and the criminal justice system (Department of Justice/Research Matters, 2023[53]). The focus of the programmes is on young people aged 12-17 who have been engaged in offending behaviour or who are deemed to be “at risk of offending”. Under the Youth Justice Strategy 2021-2027 there has been a broadening of the focus to include “early intervention” with 8-11-year-olds identified as “at risk” in addition to family support; school retention and engaging with “hard to reach young people” (Department of Justice, 2022[54]). The Irish government funds the YDP programme with co-funding from the European Union under the European Social Fund.
YDPs are delivered by Community Based Organisations (CBOs) - typically youth work organisations - who employ youth justice workers, but the projects have multi-agency advisory and governance structures (Department of Justice/Research Matters, 2023[53]). At national level, the Department of Justice (Youth Justice Service) and the Garda Diversion Bureau have chief responsibility for oversight. At project level, the YDP is implemented by a Project Committee (chaired by An Garda Síochana with membership from a wide range of statutory, voluntary and community agencies including Tusla) and a Referral Committee, which supports and oversees the work with participants including engagement with relevant agencies.
YDPs must produce an Annual Plan in collaboration between the CBO and the Project Committee (Department of Justice/Research Matters, 2023[53]). These plans do not appear to be linked in with the local CYPP produced by CYPSC. In OECD interviews with DCEDIY officials it was noted that while youth justice projects had an “early intervention” role, the relationship between Tusla and YDPs had yet to be clearly defined.
The above discussed challenges and examples on efforts to strengthen sub-national level co-ordination in Ireland are in line with initiatives across OECD countries to strive for effective sub-national co-ordination. Box 4.3 discusses government initiatives in Spain and Finland to drive policy co-ordination, share good practices, strengthen governance capacities, and advocate for autonomous decision-making at the subnational level.
Finland’s Local Authority Committee
In Finland, the responsibility for providing services and policies for young people, as stipulated in the National Youth Act, rests at the local government level (municipalities). As municipalities perform functions they choose for themselves by virtue of their self-governing status, quality assurance parameters and targets are critical to ensure the coordinated provision of services at subnational level.
The Local Authority Audit Committee is tasked to assess the extent to which operating and financial targets set by local authorities have been achieved in each municipality, with a view to ensuring uniform service provision across regions. Further, the Government Decree on Youth Work and Youth Policy endows regional administrative agencies with the responsibility of ensuring coherence across municipalities in terms of service provision, mapping gaps across regions, and adequacy of these services to fulfil local needs, among others. They are tasked to produce periodic reports to evaluate youth services across municipalities against statutory requirements. The results of these reports are then used to inform budget negotiations between the central and subnational government level, as well as to promote coherence in the delivery of services.
Spain’s Federation of Municipalities and Provinces
The Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces is an association of local entities in Spain tasked to preserve the autonomy of local entities, provide a platform for co-operation, and strengthen local-level governance capacities. The Federation includes a Commission of Childhood and Youth, composed of Mayoral representatives from across 22 cities.
The Commission coordinates local participation forums dedicated to youth, works on improving local services for children and youth, shares relevant local-level practices, promotes local employment initiatives for youth, and promotes the formation of youth associations at local level.
Sources: (Communidad de Madrid, 2016[55]) (The Southern Initiative, 2022[56]) (FEMP, 2023[57]); (Comunidad Madrid, 2023[58]); (Government of Finland, 2017[59]).
The findings from the OECD interviews suggest that the implementation structures for BOBF 2014-20 had both strengths and weaknesses in supporting collaboration and co-ordination across government departments and agencies, with stakeholders identifying insufficiently action-focused and resource-intensive national-level structures as a key challenge. The Spotlight approach of Young Ireland, as well as ongoing reflections on the renewal of governance structures, has the potential to address some of these concerns, but will require strong leadership and careful attention to co-ordination at and between political, civil service, agency, and sub-national levels to be successful.
Alignment of policy and operational priorities was reported to be an ongoing challenge for Departments (in setting joint priorities) and between Departments and agencies (to develop coherence between policy planning and implementation) as well as resourcing issues. There is also a continued proliferation of coordinating structures, and it is uncertain whether the implementation of new governance structures in Young Ireland, the proposal to launch a National Childcare Advisory Committee under the Review of the Child Care Act 1991, or the new Child Poverty and Wellbeing Programme Office will effectively address this challenge. There remain challenges in respect of interagency co-ordination. Reforms to the statutory framework are pending but greater policy guidance and enhanced resources to develop a more effective enabling structures to support co-operation and joint working was considered critical in OECD interviews. The proliferation of co-ordination mechanisms also concerns the sub-national level. While progress has been made in relation to alignment of LCDC and CYPSC activity and the proposed legislation provides further clarity, additional challenges related to resourcing were raised in interviews.
References
[19] Adshead, M. and M. Millar (2008), NAPS policy and process-what have we learned?.
[9] BOE (2008), Royal Decree 1923/2008, of November 21, which creates the Interministerial Commission for Youth and regulates its functions, composition and operation.
[21] Cantillon, B., Chzhen, Y., Handa, S., & Nolan, B. (2017), Children of austerity: Impact of the great recession on child poverty in rich countries.
[5] Carey, G., & Crammond, B (2015), What works in joined-up government? An evidence synthesis., https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.982292.
[39] Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (2009), Final Report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, http://childabusecommission.ie/?page_id=241.
[44] Commission, E. (2017), Youth Policies in Finland, https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national- policies/sites/youthwiki/files/gdlfinland.pdf.
[55] Communidad de Madrid (2016), The Social Inclusion Strategy of the Region of Madrid 2016-2021.
[58] Comunidad Madrid (2023), Consejos de Atención a la Infancia y la Adolescencia de la Comunidad de Madrid, https://www.comunidad.madrid/servicios/servicios-sociales/consejos-atencion-infancia-adolescencia-comunidad-madrid (accessed on October 2023).
[16] Connaughton, B. (2022), Ireland’s Core Executive at One Hundred Years of Self-government: Navigating Coalition, Crisis and Complexity.
[41] Corbett, M. and C. Coulter (2021), Ripe for Reform: An Analytical Review of Three Years of Court Reporting on Child Care Proceedings, https://www.childlawproject.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/CCLRP-Ripe-for-Reform-Report-October-2021.pdf.
[30] DCEDIY (2023), Young Ireland: the National Policy Framework for Children and Young People (0-24) 2023-2028, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/80ac4-young-ireland-the-national-policy-framework-for-children-and-young-people-0-24-2023-2028/#:~:text=Young%20Ireland%20is%20the%20new,can%20fully%20access%20their%20rights.
[14] DCEDIY (2022), Better Outcomes Brighter Futures: the national policy framework for children. 2014-2020 Annual Report for the Final Yea of Implementation January - December 2020.
[50] DCYA (2019), Shared Vision, Next Steps. 2019-2024., https://assets.gov.ie/38536/8b1c7844c61c40758f28975a22218648.pdf.
[13] Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2018), Mid-term Review of Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/c79614-mid-term-review-of-better-outcomes-brighter-futures/.
[51] Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2016), Local Community Development Committees (LCDC) – Children & Young People’s Services Committees (CYPSC) Guidance Document, https://www.cypsc.ie/_fileupload/Documents/Resources/Resources%20Page/Guidance-doc-CYPSC-and-LCDC-Dec-16.pdf.
[15] Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2014), Better Outcomes Brighter Futures: the national policy framework for children.
[1] Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2012), Statement of Strategy 2011-2014, https://assets.gov.ie/22623/4989259a7621409ab7f161031d693081.pdf.
[54] Department of Justice (2022), Youth Diversion Projects Operational Requirements.
[53] Department of Justice/Research Matters (2023), Evaluation of Youth Diversion Projects June 2023.
[48] Department of the Environment, Community and Local (2012), Putting People First - Action Programme for Effective Local Government /, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/5655c2-putting-people-first-action-programme-for-effective-local-government.
[23] Department of the Taoiseach (2023), Taoiseach publishes plan for ending child poverty, https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/2d20c-taoiseach-publishes-plan-for-ending-child-poverty/#:~:text=From%20Poverty%20to%20Potential%3A%20A,poverty%2C%20starting%20with%20Budget%202024.
[40] Devaney, C., Kealy, K., Canavan, J. and McGregor (2021), A review of international experiences in relation to the implementation of a statutory duty for interagency collaboration to ensure the protection and welfare of children.
[7] DPMC (2023), Confirming the role and functions of the Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy Ministerial Group, https://www.childyouthwellbeing.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2023-07/briefing-22-23-911-confirming-functions-cyw-strategy-ministerial-group.pdf.
[8] DPMC (2023), Measuring Success, https://www.childyouthwellbeing.govt.nz/measuring-success.
[47] DPMC (2021), A guide to advancing child and youth wellbeing in Local Government, https://www.childyouthwellbeing.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2021-06/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Local%20Government%20guidance.pdf.
[11] Expenses, S. and Secretary of State for Budgets and Expenses (2012), PROGRAMA 232A PROMOCIÓN Y SERVICIOS A LA JUVENTUD, https://www.sepg.pap.hacienda.gob.es/Presup/PGE2012Proyecto/MaestroDocumentos/PGE-ROM/doc/1/3/20/3/2/4/N_12_A_R_31_126_1_2_3_1232A_C_1.PDF.
[20] Family Resource Centre National Forum (2020), Our Story: Strengthening and empowering children, families and communities through the Family Resource Centre Programme, https://www.familyresource.ie/uploadedfiles/FAMILY RESOURCE CENTRENF-Our%20Story%202020-fi.
[57] FEMP (2023), Comisión de Juventud, Federación Espanola de Municipios y Provincias, http://femp.femp.es/Portal/Front/Atencion_al_asociado/Comision_Detalle/_Gy7fWupkSJCxh3Gu8nNimv1o5FN-NQJJpvUgWXlPbxwotILOMgs8TN1ShjpxJwicWwjmbQT9qKCl_72K5zYFMs683izP_PGvViimmEpH4Z9Q-gQ3jagd6ET7zoP5ugNe9SXbduSOfjwK734yzx7Lm6FRuYbkH6DKQk_oD9mrwuI2ig1if7InThO (accessed on October 2023).
[12] Finland (2022), The children’s budgeting pilot is one of the first tasks of the national children’s strategy function, https://stm.fi/-/lapsibudjetoinnin-pilotti-on-kansallisen-lapsistrategiatoiminnon-ensimmaisia-tehtavia.
[59] Government of Finland (2017), Government Decree on youth work and policy, https://okm.fi/documents/1410845/4276311/Government+Decree+on+youth+work+and+policy+2017.pdf/465c3d48-b35e-4842-ac53-01d45626362e/Government+Decree+on+youth+work+and+policy+2017.pdf?t=1528793175000.
[37] Government of Ireland (2013), Child and Family Agency Act 2013, https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/40/enacted/en/html.
[43] HSE (n.d.), Health regions, https://about.hse.ie/health-regions/.
[31] Institute of Public Administration (2017), Case study on Tusla: The child and family agency., https://www.per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Tusla-IPA-Final-Print-Version-26-Sep-2017-002.pdf.
[42] Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability,, I. (2023), Report on pre-legislative scrutiny of the General Scheme of a Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2023 June 2023., https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/33/joint_committee_on_children_equality_disability_integration_and_youth/reports/2023/2023-.
[32] Law Reform Commission (2022), Child Care Act 1991 Revised Updated to 21 September 2022, https://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/1991/act/17/front/revised/en/html accessed May 26 2023.
[35] Malone and Canavan (2018), Systems Change: Final Evaluation Report on Tusla’s Prevention.
[25] Maskey S (2022), Report On The Look-Back Review Into Child & Adolescent Mental Health Services County MHS Area A, https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/newsfeatures/south-kerry-camhs-review/report-on-the-look-back-review-into-camhs-area-a.pdf.
[38] McGuinness, C. (1993), Kilkenny Incest Investigation. Dublin: The Stationery Office.
[24] Mental Health Commission (2023), Interim Report arising from an Independent Review of the Provision of Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) in the State. Dublin: Mental Health Commission, https://www.mhcirl.ie/sites/default/files/2023-01/Independent%20Review%20of%20the%20provision%20of%20Child%20and%20Adolescent%20Mental%20Health%20Services.pdf.
[34] Minister for Children and Youth Affairs (2012), Report of the Task Force on the Child and Family Support Agency. Dublin: Government Publications., https://www.tusla.ie/uploads/content/Publications_TaskForceReport_2012.pdf.
[49] Minister for Housing, Planning, Community (2016), Revised Guidelines for the Operation of Local Community Development Committees. Dublin: Community Division of the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Governmen, https://assets.gov.ie/3518/281118173519-f678a0f50ea64eff8a2f7dd9808285.
[26] Minister of State at the Department of Health (2023), Written Answers (Question to Health), https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2021-03-31/1005/ accessed July 5 2023.
[27] Morgan, M., Rochford, S., and Sheehan, A (2016), Adversity in Childhood – Outcomes, Risk and Resilience. Centre for Effective Services, Dublin.
[18] National Advisory Council (2018), Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures Mid-Term Review BOBF Advisory Council Perspective, https://assets.gov.ie/26803/c9179d1adbde46c898993186149ea920.pdf.
[29] National Youth Mental Health Task Force (2017), National Youth Mental Health Task Force Report 2017, https://assets.gov.ie/16035/e2b9a4c9d9c44719bc4edcccb0fe9e5e.pdf.
[45] New Zealand (2022), Oranga Tamariki Action Plan, https://www.orangatamarikiactionplan.govt.nz/assets/Action-Plan/Uploads/Resources/Publications/Oranga-Tamariki-Action-Plan.pdf.
[3] OECD (2024), Forthcoming: Steering from the centre of government in times of complexity: Compendium of practices, OECD Publishing.
[2] OECD (2023), Preliminary data from the Social Expenditure database, https://www.oecd.org/els/family/PF1_6_Public_spending_by_age_of_children.pdf.
[4] OECD (2023), Strengthening Policy Development in the Public Sector in Ireland, https://www.oecd.org/publications/strengthening-policy-development-in-the-public-sector-in-ireland-6724d155-en.htm.
[22] OECD (2020), Governance for Youth, Trust and Intergenerational Justice, Fit for All Generations?.
[6] OECD (2018), Youth Stocktaking Report, OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd.org/gov/youth-stocktaking-report.pdf.
[46] Oranga Tamariki (2022), Implementing the Oranga Tamariki Action Plan, https://www.orangatamariki.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/About-us/New-ways-of-working/OTAP/Oranga-Tamariki-Action-Plan-implementation-plan.pdf.
[36] Shaw, A. and Canavan, J. (2018), Commissioning Work Package Final Report: Tusla’s Programme for Prevention, Partnership and Family Support. Galway: UNESCO Child and Family Research Centre, National University of Ireland Galway.
[52] Sláintecare Healthy Communities (2023), Sláintecare Healthy Communities Progress Report 2022, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/ef5f2-slaintecare-healthy-communities/.
[28] Smith, K. (2021), Children’s Lives - Now and in the Future (unpublished report conducted for Barnardo’s Ireland).
[10] Spanish Ministry of Equality (2008), oyal Decree 1923/2008, of November 21, which creates the Interministerial Commission for Youth and regulates its functions, composition and operation., https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2008-19525.
[60] Stats NZ (2022), Child poverty statistics: Year ended June 2022, https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/child-poverty-statistics-year-ended-june-2022/#:~:text=In%20the%20year%20ended%20June%202022%2C%2015.4%20percent%20of%20children,(measure%20%27b%27).
[61] Te Aka (2024), Te Aka Māori Dictionary; whānau, https://maoridictionary.co.nz/search?&keywords=whanau.
[56] The Southern Initiative (2022), Unleashing the Potential of Whānau Centred and Community Led Ways of Working’.
[17] The Taoiseach (2023), Cabinet Committees Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 23 May 2023 (Oral Answers), https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2023-05-23/6/.
[33] Tusla (2022), Annual Report & Financial Statements 2021., https://www.tusla.ie/uploads/content/Tusla_Annual_Report_and_Financial_Statements_2021.pdf.
Notes
← 1. Department of Health (Outcome 1), Department of Education and Skills (Outcome 2), Department of Children and Youth Affairs (Outcome 3), Department of Social Protection (Outcome 4), Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (Outcome 5), Department of Children and Youth Affairs (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2014[15]).
← 2. Children and Young People's Services Committees (CYPSC) formed an integral part of the structures provided for in Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures: The National Policy Framework for Children and Young People 2014 – 2020. and were accountable to the CYPSC National Steering Group and the DCEDIY, and in turn to the Children and Young People's Policy Consortium. The National Steering Group for CYPSC and the Children and Young People's Policy Consortium have since been stood down by DCEDIY.
← 3. One representative from each of the 31 Comhairlí na nÓg is elected to the Comhairle na nÓg National Executive, which follows up on the recommendations from Dáil na nÓg to make changes for young people in those areas. The National Executive has a term of office of two years and meets once a month. The National Executive is facilitated and supported by the National Participation Office and the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth who ensure that they get the opportunity to engage with appropriate Ministers, policymakers, Oireachtas Committees and other decision-makers.
← 4. The Ministers attending meetings of the Cabinet Committee on Children and Education include the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Defence; Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications and Minister for Transport; Minister for Health, Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth; Minister for Education; Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform; Minister for Finance; Minister for Social Protection and Minister for Rural and Community Development; Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage; and Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. Other Ministers or Ministers of State may be invited to participate in Cabinet meetings as required.
← 5. These include commitments in relation to integrating suicide prevention into national and sub-national policy and planning, particularly in respect of children in receipt of Tusla services/vulnerable children and families as well as commitments in relation to information and data relevant to the discussion in Chapter 5.
← 6. The Child Care Act 1991 has been amended multiple times since it passed into law. The Law Reform Commission has produced consolidated texts of the Act incorporating various amendments, most recently in September 2022.
← 7. Whānau is a Māori word which translates to extended family, family group, a familiar term of address to a number of people - the primary economic unit of traditional Māori society. In the modern context, the term is sometimes used to include friends who may not have any kinship ties to other members (Te Aka, 2024[61]).