Canals Community
Policing Forum
Report on Children
Involved in
Antisocial
Behaviour in the
Inchicore Area
February 2019

Report written by
Justin O’Brien
Independent Consultant

Justin O’Brien, Independent Consultant:
0

 CONTENTS

1. Introduction

Page 2

2. Current Context

Page 2

3. Families and Children

Page 4

4. Local Stakeholder Context

Page 5

5. Policy Context

Page 10

6. Summary and Recommendations

Page 12

7. Appendix 1

Page 17

Justin O’Brien, Independent Consultant:
1

 Canals Community Policing Forum Report on Children Involved in Antisocial
Behaviour in the Inchicore Area
Introduction
The Canals Community Policing Forum (CCPF) is an interagency forum with representatives from
Dublin City Council, Garda, Area Partnership, Community Development Organisations, Elected City
Councillors, Youth Services and local schools. The remit is defined in the Joint Policing Guideline
2014 as” to provide a mechanism through which the community, An Garda Siochana, the Local
Authority, and other stakeholders as required come together to improve communication, share
appropriate communication and identify issues of concern in relation to policing, antisocial
behaviour and estate management”1. The overall purpose of the CCPF is to review presenting
antisocial behaviour that occurs in the local area and to propose solutions and effective interagency
work to curtail and reduce the presenting antisocial behaviour. The Canals Communities consist of
Rialto, Bluebell and Inchicore with a population of over 20,000 residents. The three identified
communities have high levels of social disadvantage within each area. Each community area has one
public Community Safety Meetings each year open to the local community. Members of the Canals
Community Policing Forum -inclusive of the Garda, Dublin City Council, Local Elected Membersattend these meetings. These meetings are important forums for residents to express the issues of
concerns relating crime and antisocial behaviour in their local area. Alongside this public meeting
process more regular locally based Community Safety Meetings take place that are private and
include the Garda, Dublin City Council and other community stakeholders. They review presenting
antisocial behaviour.
1.Current Context
During the summer period of 2018 the scale of antisocial behaviour by young people under 18 years
of age in the Inchicore area increased substantially as per reported incidents and visible damage to
local infrastructure. There was an evident increase in the scale of racist attacks on children and
adults in the area, attacks and robbery of cyclists and pedestrians walking along the canals, thefts
from local shops, vandalism and breaking of windows in the local schools, damage to apartment
blocks, parked cars and local community infrastructures. Some of these incidents were reported in
the national media2. The local community, residents and local projects are very concerned over such
incidents and it excited fear, anger and dismay over the behaviour and then what could be done to
prevent such incidents. Blogs from residents have highlighted the persistent vandalism and antisocial
behaviour. One blog by an American student highlighted her experience of racist abuse and attacks
on her and other foreign national residents by children and the non-response by local adult residents
to the racist attacks3. It has also been an issue of division publicly over the planned redevelopment
of the 10-acre site with some residents of the opinion that the crime and antisocial issues need to be
addressed first before any planned new housing is undertaken 4. The children in the Transition Year
in the local Mercy Secondary School are entering a project on antisocial behaviour to Young Social
Innovators which has been partially influenced by the vandalism to their school. The Canals
Community Policing Forum have considered the level of antisocial behaviour occurring over the
period and decided that a review of the current situation regarding children under 18 years of age
being involved in antisocial behaviour should be undertaken. The terms of reference for the review
are as follows:
1

Joint Policing Guidelines 2014
Irish Times Report on Assault on Man and Child August 22nd, 2018
3 American Student Blog – I Had No Choice But to Move Out Of Inchicore September 2018
4 Irish Times Report -Junior Minister seeks to block the redevelopment of Inchicore Flats January 11th, 2019
2

Justin O’Brien, Independent Consultant:
2

 (1) Identify the number of children involved in antisocial behaviour and the presenting needs of
these children and their families
(2) Identify what agencies both statutory and voluntary are engaged with these children
(3) Establish the processes that are in place for inter-agency work between agencies and the
effectiveness of these processes
(4) Review with services both statutory and voluntary the resource adequacy of their current
services and their views of how these children and their parents might be better supported
(5) Review the above and make proposals that would aim to reduce the presenting problems of
antisocial behaviour that are presenting in the Inchicore community.
The key local statutory, voluntary and community agencies were met with in order to understand
their perspective on the children involved in such behaviour and how the situation might be better
addressed. Tusla as the primary agent responsible for the care and welfare of children were invited
to participate in this process but were evidently unwilling to do so. The agencies and personnel met
with are listed in Appendix 2. It has been a recurring issue in the Inchicore area over the past 7 years
that a group of children under the age of 18 years are involved in antisocial behaviour.
In 2015/2016 a report on children in the Inchicore Area was written by me which summarised the
presenting behaviour of the children, the gang or group culture of children under 12 years of age
and those over 12 years of age and how the antisocial behaviour evidently renewed itself 5. Some 22
children from 10 families were identified as being the children involved in antisocial behaviour and
where there were child welfare issues of concern. The report recognised the challenges that these
children presented to statutory agencies such as Tusla, Gardai, Dublin City Council and the existing
community-based agencies such as the Youth Projects, Family Resource Centre, IBCAT. The report
recognised the existing deficits of staffing resources and expertise across different agencies. The
primary recommendations of the report were as follows:
-

-

-

Establish a Review Group of both statutory and community-based agencies to undertake an
effective assessment of the needs of these children and their families within a three-month
time frame
The assessment undertaken would inform how effective interventions could be undertaken
to assist these children and their parents detailing the required services to enable such
intervention and assistance to the children and their parents
The Review Group would undertake a review of the effectiveness of the processes for
interagency working in the Inchicore Area in the delivery of child protection, welfare and
support to vulnerable children and their families

Tusla at a senior level acknowledged the concerns expressed and outlined some of the existing
structures in place where Tusla participated with other statutory and community-based agencies.
They suggested that a meeting take place with the Area Manager. The report was presented to Tusla
Local Management in February 2016 and there was an unwillingness by them to engage with
recommendations made or to accept the concerns expressed. The Canals Community Policing
Forum since 2015 has on an ongoing basis reviewed the presenting antisocial behaviour problems
and advocated with the Garda for additional Community Garda staffing and the linkage of CCTV
provision to the new Garda Station in Kevin Street as measures to reduce presenting antisocial
behaviour by adults and children in the Canals Community Policing area. It also highlighted
5

Canals Community Policing Forum Report on Children in the Inchicore Area Who Present Significant Problems
November 2015

Justin O’Brien, Independent Consultant:
3

 shortcomings in housing allocations and estate management policies and made recommendations
for improvements and resources at local level. It has also advocated on the need for improved
response to the presenting problems in the area.

2. Families and Children
Locally based agencies and members of the CCPF identified some 26 families who were of concern to
them because of their children’s involvement in antisocial behaviour and or where there were
welfare concerns regarding the care of the children. Over 50 children were identified via this
process. Each agency has different perspectives on the needs of the children concerned and they
would acknowledge that they might not have a more informed perspective on the needs of the
children for reasons of professional client confidentiality and GDPR. As Tusla were unwilling to
engage in this review it is not known the number of children and families that they are engaged
with. The children most active in the antisocial behaviour come from 7 families who are related to
each other. Some of these families now live outside Inchicore but their children return to Inchicore
to socialise and are involved in antisocial behaviour. Some of these families were engaged with the
services of the Bring It All Back Home Project which targeted working with families and children
under 4 years of age not engaged with local services. That project closed in 2013. The local agencies
have identified the following in relation to the identified children and their families:
•

•
•

•
•

•

•

•

•
•

Of the 50 children who were identified some 28 were identified as being involved in the
antisocial gang activity. Some 17 children are identified as being actively involved in such
behaviour while the other 11 children are more intermittently involved.
Some 12 children who were identified as being actively involved in the antisocial behaviour
were also identified in the report undertaken in 2015.
The other 22 children who were identified were of concern over their welfare needs and the
perception of a lack of safety and care of them. These children are perceived as being very
vulnerable to becoming involved in antisocial behaviour.
Of the 50 identified children some 19 are in the 7-11 age group, some 25 are in the 12 – 17
categories and 6 are now aged over 18 years of age.
The 6 adults aged over 18 years were identified in previous reports and they all evidently
remain involved in antisocial criminal activity. Concerns were noted about their behaviour
when they were under 18 years of age.
Of the 25 identified families some 11 families have difficulties relating to drug and alcohol
dependency. Many of the parents in these 11 families only engage intermittently with the
local drug treatment services.
Of the 25 families some 9 have experienced homelessness for varying periods in the past 3
years. Some 5 of the families are currently homeless. Some 8 of the families were placed in
Private Emergency Accommodation, where there is less structured support and
intervention from designated homeless services.
The increased number of homeless families indicates the dysfunction and vulnerability of
the families and the lack of community-based supports to them that might have prevented
them becoming homeless. The experience of being homeless can only have been both
disruptive and damaging to the children.
In the 2015 report there were 24 children from 10 families identified. Some 15 children
were involved in antisocial behaviour while some 9 children were a welfare concern.
Of the 15 children involved in antisocial behaviour that were identified in 2015, the view of
the local agencies is that their wellbeing and engagement in antisocial behaviour has

Justin O’Brien, Independent Consultant:
4

 deteriorated over the past 3 years. Many of these children have also struggled within the
school system.
From the local community-based services and residents’ perspectives there is an ongoing concern
over the care and welfare of the children. There is a dismay that young children are involved in
serious antisocial behaviour and that they are on a pathway to Oberstown Youth Centre and the
adult criminal justice system. Some of the children, then aged 14-16 years of age, identified in the
report of 2015 have been placed for periods in Oberstown and most probably will be committed in
time to the adult prison system.

3. Local Stakeholder Context
This section of the report summarises the key issues from each agency regarding the needs of the
children and the processes in place between agencies for providing for the children. All the
agencies/projects that I met with expressed their concerns over the welfare needs of the children
involved in antisocial behaviour. There was concern expressed over the difficulties that these
children were experiencing and the difficulties that they presented in the service setting and in the
community. There was dismay and frustration expressed over the antisocial behaviour and the
deterioration in some of the children’s lives and as they perceived it the lack of effective
intervention. Each service recognised the challenges that the children can and do present to the
service that they provide and the adverse effects of antisocial behaviour upon other children in their
service. It was evident that they are committed to working with these children.
Family Welfare Initiative: The Family Welfare Initiative in Inchicore was established in 2011 via the
St Michaels Regeneration Board. It was and is a forum for existing statutory, voluntary and
community agencies/projects agencies involved in the education, care and welfare of children to
meet to share information on services that are being provided, to identify children in need and how
the locally based services might support them, to service gaps and to advocate for additional
services where this is required. Tusla, locally based family services for children, local schools, local
youth services and drug treatment services all participate in the Family Welfare Initiative which
meets bi- monthly. The Family Welfare Initiative has promoted an interagency response to working
with vulnerable children. It initiated the Right to Read Programme and the Restorative Justice
Practice in the Inchicore area. It also secured private finding for the Bring It All Back Home Project
which worked with vulnerable families and young children. The Family Welfare Initiative was
established prior to Meitheal being established by Tusla. The local agencies/projects perceptions
were that the Family Welfare Initiative in its early years was an effective forum for local agencies to
respond to children in need and to provide support to children. In more recent times the Tusla
engagement with the Family Welfare Initiative has been less than before and the local agencies
believe that the Family Welfare Initiative has lost momentum. Participants identified that the
reduction in statutory funding over the years had impacted upon all service providers and created
insecurity between the service providers over funding. The Family Welfare Initiative had committed
to tracking referrals to Tusla regarding children which has not been adhered to by the members.
Some members of the Family Welfare Initiative more recently did establish an Inchicore Childcare
Professional Group which prepared a report which was submitted to Minister Katherine Zappone 6.
The report highlighted the following main issues:

6

Inchicore Child Care Professional Group Report March 2017

Justin O’Brien, Independent Consultant:
5

 -

-

Statistical based evidence for the local area showing extreme disadvantage with above
national average levels of child poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, lone parents and low
educational achievement
The problems in the local area have increased and worsened with the level and impact of
recent cuts to the local child care services

The report identified and prioritised the need for funding in three areas
• Reinstate Bringing It All Back Home Project
• Increase Childcare Staff Levels and employ additional Speech and Language Therapists
• Implement the Core Youth Service Project Proposal
Representatives from the Inchicore Childcare Professional Group met with officials from the
Department of Youth and Children in 2017 regarding the needs that they had identified and their
immediate funding requests. Funding was provided for the Core Youth Service Project; the other
funding requests were not addressed.
The membership of the Inchicore Childcare Professional Group includes all the locally based schools
and services exclusive of Tusla and the Garda. The services all participate in the Family Welfare
Initiative. While the Family Welfare Initiative has currently lost momentum it has been very
beneficial to the local area in terms of enabling the securing of funding for projects such as Bring It
All Back Home, enabling interagency work for identified children in need and advocating for
additional services.
The Family Welfare Initiative is a very necessary forum for all the local services and projects for
children to meet. Its remit needs to be redefined and the relationship with Tusla. Members
expressed views on a poor working relationship with Tusla and difficulties over the referral and
engagement process regarding children they deemed at risk. There are varied practices regarding
making referrals to Tusla. The agencies that I met with were of the view that the interagency work
between the local statutory, voluntary and community agencies was not as effective as it could and
should be. Some agencies appear reluctant to make referrals to Tusla.
Local Schools: `Three local school Principals were met with. Most of the children have attended the
local primary schools. All three schools are DEIS schools and are in an area where educational
achievements are not always valued. All three schools have children who present difficulties at
school in terms of educational learning and presenting behavioural problems. The Principals
recognise that a considerable number of children in their schools are from families where there are
significant problems relating to addiction, mental health needs and the experience of loss and
trauma in the lives of the parents and the children. The schools want to work with and do work with
these children and their parents. The importance of providing a safe and secure setting for all
children during the school term is recognised as being essential and particularly for the children
experiencing adversity where such safety and security may not be always available to them. The
schools do engage in interagency work and make referrals to Tusla where they have child protection
or child welfare concerns. There were varied experiences as to how Tulsa responded to referrals to
them. All stated that there has been an improvement in Tusla acknowledging referrals in the past 9
months. There were divergent responses between the schools regarding Meitheal and how it
worked ranging from that it does work to that it had not. Some schools stated that they had been
provided with training on the Meitheal, some stated that they had not received such training. There
was an issue of resource demand for managing the Meitheal process and who would be the lead
agent for it. All three schools expressed the need for a more resourced Speech and Language Service
to be available for children. The mental health or Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services

Justin O’Brien, Independent Consultant:
6

 (CAMHS) service were perceived as not being accessible because of existing waiting lists. The loss of
the Londubh Project -was also noted.
Youth Services: The CORE and KRIB Youth Services were met with. CORE is the youth service for the
Inchicore Area and its services are open to children from 10 to 25 years of age. The service is a selfreferral voluntary based service. Children in the 10 to 18 age categories are the primary users of the
services. Many of the children noted in this report avail of the CORE youth work services and are
well known to them. CORE also made its services available to children under 10 years of age on an
approved exceptional basis where there are concerns over their welfare and behaviour. The service
targets the more vulnerable children and works with them on a one to one basis where necessary.
Most of its services are group-based services. CORE’s experience of referrals to Tusla for child
protection and child welfare concerns is varied, ranging from no response to an acknowledgment of
the referral to being involved in case conferences and case planning. Their experience has been of
limited shared care and partnership practice with Tusla regarding children they referred to them and
the limited reviews and case planning. Again, their experience of the Meitheal process working was
varied. CORE’s experience is that several the young people under 18 years attending their service
have addiction needs relating to cannabis and benzodiazepines which influence their behaviour.
They alongside IBCAT can see the need for an addiction service for young people under 18 years of
age as the existing drug service treatment model is orientated for an adult population.
Kilmainham Garda Youth Diversion Project (KRIB) was established in 2015. It is the designated
Youth Diversion Project for children from 12 – 17 years of age who have come to the attention of the
Garda for criminal and antisocial behaviour activity. KRIB is one of the designated youth services that
are provided by Foroige. Referrals are made to the project by the Garda Juvenile Liaison Officer and
with the consent of the child and his parent. The project usually works on a one to one basis with the
young person and involves an assessment of their needs and social and personal life skills
development. They do and have worked with some of the children identified in this report. The
project will try to work with the parents. If the parent or the child does not cooperate or attend the
service will be closed. The projects experience of referrals to Tusla and the Meitheal process were
generally positive. The project engages with CORE and other services in the local area. Their
experience of referrals to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) was varied
because of the long waiting list particularly where there are immediate concerns.
Dublin City Council: Dublin City Council is the largest social housing provider in the local area. Circle
Voluntary Housing Association also provides social housing in the same area. Most of the families
noted in this report are social housing tenants. From the housing management perspective, the core
group of children involved in antisocial behaviour present significant housing management problems
for them. This usually manifests as vandalism to common areas of apartment blocks, damage to DCC
Community infrastructure, damage to other residents’ cars, threats to residents or their children,
drug dealing activity. In some cases, the parents present problems relating to drug activity, threats
to other tenants, persistent noise disruption. Other tenants make complaints to their social housing
landlord regarding such behaviour and expect their landlord to have the antisocial behaviour
reduced or have the persistent offender lose their right to reside in the allocated tenancy. The
persistence of antisocial behaviour damages the sense of safety and community spirit in the existing
schemes. The taking of action against tenants or their children requires evidence which can be
difficult to secure because of the fear of intimidation. Normally, the social housing provider will
investigate the complaints and verify the complaint before issuing warnings to the tenant. A series of
warnings is normally issued against the tenants. If after three warnings the antisocial behaviour
continues DCC will take district court proceedings against the tenant seeking the repossession of the
property. A housing association uses similar processes; however, they take proceedings for the
repossession of the tenancy to the Residential Tenancies Board. A tenant is deemed to be
Justin O’Brien, Independent Consultant:
7

 responsible for the welfare of their children and for allowing them to be engaged in antisocial
behaviour. This is considered as being a breach of the tenancy agreement conditions.
From the social housing provider’s perspective, the management and processing of antisocial
behaviour requires considerable time and effort. The pursuit of a Notice to Quit against an antisocial
tenant and or their children is not easy. It is of note that several of the families identified in this
report have lost their social housing tenancy because of antisocial behaviour and became homeless.
The Dublin City Council local housing management services make referrals to the Dublin City Council
Housing Welfare/Social Work Service if they deem that there are child welfare issues presenting and
if the family need further support to sustain their tenancy and home because of underlying
difficulties. The Housing Welfare Officer does make referrals to Tusla where they identify child
protection, child welfare needs. Their view is that the Meitheal process has usually worked in such
cases. They noted the difficulty in accessing CAMHS referrals and OT referrals where they are
required. The Housing Welfare Service has noted an increase in the number of persons presenting to
them who have experienced racist harassment and are seeking alternate accommodation. The
service has also enabled the rehousing of some of the families who were homeless.
Inchicore Bluebell Community Addiction Team: This is a locally based drug treatment service. It has
worked with some of the parents who have active drug dependency needs and thus are aware of
their children. The service offers a child care support service for children up to 12 years of age. Some
of the children noted in this report are known to the service. IBCAT has concerns over the Tusla
response to referrals and the threshold for child protection as against child welfare. They have not
found the social work referral process effective, but they have noted the improved response or
acknowledgement of referrals in the past 9-month period. They deem some of the children
concerned to be in the child protection category. They have not found the Meitheal process to be
effective. Their experience of referrals to Tusla regarding children has not always been positive with
limited partnership working and shared care planning. They note the current drug use activitycannabis and benzodiazepines- of the young people under 18 years of age and believe that there is a
need for a designated drug treatment service required for this age group. They have concerns over
the mental health services available to the young people and the difficulty in accessing services.
Garda Siochana: Different personnel from the Garda were met with who interact with the young
people concerned based on their community policing activity and the JLO Youth Diversion
programme. The Garda are very aware of the presenting antisocial behaviour as they must
investigate reported crimes for children over the age of 12 years. For children under 12 years of age
involved in antisocial behaviour their remit is limited as the age of criminal responsibility only
commences at 12 years of age. Thus, their powers are limited. Their policy and practice are to notify
Tusla of such incidents as a child welfare concern. For children over 12 years of age involved in
antisocial behaviour they can be and are allocated a Juvenile Liaison Officer who may then make a
referral to the KRIB Youth Diversion Project. From the Garda perspective the KRIB and JLO process
can and does work especially if the young person and their parents engage with the supports
provided. If the young person and their parents do not engage their effectiveness is limited as both
options are based upon voluntary consent of the young person. If the antisocial behaviour is
persistent the young person may then be placed in Oberstown Youth Centre as a last option which
has occurred for several of the older children noted in this report.
The Garda perspective on their working relationship with Tusla regarding child protection issues was
that they worked well together regarding identified cases and have structured meetings together
regarding their work. The Garda noted that many of the young people became involved in antisocial
behaviour before they were 12 years of age and that there did not appear to be effective
intervention to reduce and prevent such behaviour. They do make referrals to Tusla of child welfare
Justin O’Brien, Independent Consultant:
8

 concerns, but their experience is that that such referrals are rarely followed up or progressed. The
Garda acknowledged that the resources available for community policing have been seriously
reduced in numbers over the past 6 years to a current resource of one Garda Sergeant and four
community Garda where four years ago it had a resource of two Garda Sergeants and 10 community
Garda.
Family Support Services: There are two Family Resource Centres in the area. The St. Michael’s
Family Resource Centre (Community Development Project) which works with children from 1yr to
4yr in a creche and 5-12 years in the Afterschool’s Project located in Thornton Heights. The project
also undertakes community development work with residents. The Daughters of Charity Family
Support Services provide preschool services and supports to parents in need on a voluntary basis.
Both services were strongly of the view that the Bring It All Back Home project closure has been a
loss and that it should have been mainstreamed. The evaluation of this project has signified the
benefits of it to the parents and children7. This project targeted the vulnerable families and their
children. Some of the identified families and their children noted had availed of this service. Both
services perceptions were that threshold required for Tusla intervention for child welfare concerns
was difficult to understand and that it was too high a threshold. There is a need in their view for an
intensive Family Support Service to work with the more problematic families. Both services had
concerns over the effectiveness of the Meitheal process in terms of the its effectiveness and the
resource’s requirement. Both services also identified the difficulties in accessing the CAMHS service.
Tusla Child and Family Services: Tusla were invited to participate in this review but did not respond
to the request. HIQA undertook a review of the Child and Family Social Work Services in September
2018 and their report was published in January 2019. In the words of HIQA “The Child and Family
Agency has the legal responsibility to promote the welfare of children and protect those who are
assessed as being at risk of harm. In order to achieve this, child protection services need to act in a
timely and proactive manner in order to effectively safeguard children. This inspection found that
Dublin South Central (DSC) Child Protection and Welfare Services failed to achieve this and the
service that existed at the time of inspection did not have the capacity or capability to ensure a
timely and safe service for all children in receipt of its services” 8 .
It identified that there are serious shortfall or Major Non-Compliance in the delivery of safe and
effective services to children in the first five listed standards that are listed below:
• All concerns in relation to children are screened and directed to the appropriate service
• Timely and effective actions are taken to protect children
• Children and families have timely access to child protection and welfare services that
support the family and protect the child
• All reports if child protection concerns are assessed in line with Children First (2011) and
best available evidence
• Child protection and welfare case planning is managed and monitored to improve practice
and outcomes for children
• Interagency and inter-professional co-operation supports and promotes the protection and
welfare of children are deemed to be substantially compliant
The report highlighted the increase in unallocated cases within the child protection and welfare
service, from 136 in March 2018 to 619 in July 2018. It highlighted initial assessments and some 184
cases waiting further assessment. It also states that the system of notifying A Garda Siochana for

7

Evaluation of the Bringing It Back Home Programme Final Report. Carol Hilliard November 2013
Child Protection and Welfare Inspection Report on Dublin South Central Area Child and Family Services.
Health Information and Quality Authority January 2019.
8

Justin O’Brien, Independent Consultant:
9

 allegations of suspected abuse was not robust and, in some cases, had not been sent as is required.
The report identified staffing shortfalls in the social work teams across the area. HIQA with Tusla
management have listed a series of action plans to be undertaken in the next 6-month period so that
the services and standards become compliant with the required child protection standards.
From the perspective of the children that have been highlighted in this report and the concerns
expressed by the locally based agencies the HIQA report makes more explicable the gaps in services
and responses to referrals that have been made and the incapacity of the Child and Family Services
to respond. It is also acknowledged that the South-Central Social Work Services operates across a
large area which have large areas with social disadvantage. Some of these areas are very adversely
affected by poverty, poor housing conditions, and drug addiction that is inter-generational. Families
and children with such circumstance present a significant challenge to the Child and Family Services
in terms of how they can best respond to them.
5. Policy Context
This report has been prepared based on the concerns of local agencies and residents over the
persistence of antisocial behaviour over the years by children under 16 years of age in the Lower
Inchicore area. There are also concerns over the welfare of the children involved in such behaviour.
The antisocial behaviour impacts negatively upon the community in many diverse ways and all the
local statutory and community-based agencies and projects. The issues identified in this report
regarding the children and how they can be better responded to raises issues regarding existing
policies and practices across all the agencies. This section of the report highlights some of the key
policy issues.
Child Care Policy: The Children First – National Guidance for the Protection and Welfare of Children
published by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs in 2017 is based upon the Children First
Act 2015 and is the primary policy relating to the welfare and protection of children under 18 years
of age. It defines comprehensively child abuse, what it is and how to report it. It also requires
mandated persons or professionals -in Education, Health, Justice, Housing, Youth and Child Care
services -involved with children to report suspected child abuse and child welfare concerns. The
Child Care Act 1991 are the legal basis of our child care and youth services.
Protecting and Safeguarding Children: The HIQA assessment of the Social Work Services has
identified the serious deficits in the provision of its services and five major non-compliance with the
key elements of delivering its statutory responsibilities. Clearly it is the responsibility of Tusla and its
senior and local management to ensure that the child and family support services and standards to
children and their families are improved and become compliant with the required policies. It is also
recognised that there has been staffing shortfall in the social work teams which have impacted upon
their capacity to deliver that services that they would aspire to.
Meitheal: It is recognised that there a range of State funded agencies are providing services to
parents and children in the Lower Inchicore Area. The agencies have recognised that inter agency
working needs improvement. Meitheal is a national practice model for enabling an area-based
approach to prevention, partnership and family support 9. A bedrock of Meitheal is the
establishment of Child and Family Support Networks in each local area. All the agencies that I met
with were asked whether a Child and Family Support Network was in place in the Inchicore area. All
stated that they were unaware of such a network being formally in existence. It may be the case that
the Family Welfare Initiative is considered as being the CFSN by Tusla. The members of the Family
Welfare Initiative do not believe that it is effectively working. Tusla participation at meetings is
9

Meitheal- Tusla- Child and Family Agency 2015

Justin O’Brien, Independent Consultant:
10

 intermittent. For varied reasons such as GDPR and client confidentiality children who are known to
be presenting problems or are in need are not considered at the Family Welfare Initiative meetings
and thus participants believe that the meeting has less purpose.
The Meitheal Model uses the Hardiker Model with its four levels of need as the basis of intervention.
It is recognised that Meitheal can only work with the consent of the parent and the child. Many of
the agencies I met with and who know many of the children most involved in the antisocial
behaviour would assess their needs as being at Level 3 and Level 4 of the Hardiker Model which
require more assessment and intervention by agencies. They thus struggle to understand the level of
threshold for intervention by Tusla. This has been a recurring theme from the different agencies as
they struggle to discern the distinction between child protection and child welfare. This distinction is
not unique to the Inchicore area. It has been noted in the National Review Panel Report 2017 on
Children known to Tusla who have died. In that report it noted inadequate assessment and
categorisation of cases as child welfare and that such categorisation” belies the very permeable
boundaries between situations of risk and situations of need and has implications for the way that a
case is processed” 10. These permeable boundaries certainly seem to be relevant for some of the
children and their families where there are known issues of drug addiction, domestic violence and
antisocial behaviour with the parents. Meitheal is a voluntary undertaking by the parent and their
child with agencies and it is evident that some of the families and children concerned are not
agreeable to such voluntary engagement. It is not known whether supervision orders are in place for
such non-compliant families and surely must be considered as being very necessary.
Age of Criminal of Criminal Responsibility and Juvenile Justice Policy: The Child Care Act 1991
raised the age of criminal responsibility from the age of 7 years to that of 12 years. This has created
a certain vacuum in terms of how State Agencies intervene with children under 12 years of age who
are involved in antisocial behaviour. The Garda now longer intervene, and the Juvenile Liaison
Service and Youth Diversion Programme does not apply to children under 12 years of age. The Garda
do notify Tusla of such incidents committed by children. It is evident that Tusla do not always
intervene and the existing youth projects do not cater for this age category. For the children
concerned there is often no consequence to their antisocial behaviour. Thus, they learn at an early
age the lack of consequence for such antisocial behaviour. This can only lead to them being involved
in further acts of antisocial behaviour while under the age of 12 years. Then, when they reach the
age of 12 years of age they may or will be diverted to the JLO and Youth Diversion Service which
occurs for some of the children concerned. Some of the children by this age have become inured to
the destructiveness of their behaviour and its impact upon the local area. The service and policy
vacuum for children under 12 years of age needs to be further considered by the relevant statutory
agencies. It is also evident that adult criminals will groom some of these young people both under
and over 12 years to become involved in drug dealing and criminal activity.
Housing Policy: Most of the families listed in this report are tenants of local authority or an
approved housing body provider. The report identifies some of the difficulties that the parents and
their children present to their housing provider and the damaging effects on other tenants, their
children and the local community cohesion. Local Authorities and Approved Housing Bodies are
faced with the dilemma of having to evict an antisocial tenant who may then become homeless.
Both local elected members and Dublin City Council officials have noted the difficulty of evicting
such tenants and the need for improved legislation to enable this 11. Approved Housing Bodies are
under the remit of the Residential Tenancies Board and they face similar difficulties in terms of the
adequacy of evidence required to evict a tenant for ongoing antisocial behaviour.

10
11

National Review Panel Annual Report 2017. (Tusla 2018)
Irish Times Report on Antisocial Behaviour

Justin O’Brien, Independent Consultant:
11

 Also, of note with the current families is the increased scale of homelessness over the past 3 years.
Most of these families are known to Dublin City Council. One must question the fact that most of
these families were placed in Private Emergency Homeless Accommodation where there are less
assessment of their needs and supports for them and their children. It raises the need for more
intensive intervention with these families before they become homeless and while they are
homeless.
A Garda Siochana: The Garda have recently conducted an inquiry and report on juvenile crime by an
external consultant in the Dublin area 12. It has highlighted deficits where the Garda failed to take
action involving juvenile offenders. This report has yet to be published and it is not evident as to how
the non-action against juvenile offenders was prevalent or not in the Inchicore area or relates to
children noted in this report. The report will lead to a review of the youth diversion policy and
service nationally.
6. Summary and Recommendations:
This report is based upon the concerns of local agencies/projects in the Lower Inchicore Area
regarding the ongoing difficulty with children being involved in antisocial behaviour over the past
number of years. The episodes of antisocial behaviour vary and are usually most prevalent in the
summer period when the schools are closed. The children involved are very visible to the locally
based agencies and residents. The worrying feature is the ongoing antisocial behaviour and that the
core group involved replace their members when some become adults or are placed in detention.
The evident number of children under 18 years involved in antisocial behaviour has increased
significantly over the past 3 years. The prevalence of the antisocial behaviour is damaging to the
community cohesion and the infrastructure of the local area. There is often fear, anger and dismay
expressed regarding the children involved. The scale of the antisocial behaviour is not always
reported to the Garda. Local services and residents are not always aware of the work of the Garda,
DCC, Tusla and Youth Services with these children and their parents. The evident persistence of the
behaviour causes distrust between agencies and residents as the perception is that nothing is being
done. This leads to a lack of community cohesion and leadership.
This report is not an evaluation of the services that I met as that was not the remit. The remit was to
understand the needs of the children and the processes that are in place between the local agencies
that could reduce the scale of antisocial behaviour and enhance the welfare of the children
concerned. The report has focussed on the evident needs of the children and in some cases their
parents. It has identified areas of concern between agencies/projects, difficulties with existing
processes and the need for more effective inter agency working. It identifies inadequate service
provision and staffing deficits and policy issues. The report also recognises the commitment and
concern of all the agencies to the children noted in this report.
This report raises issues regarding community cohesion and the need for more effective partnership
between the statutory agencies and the local community. The evident increased scale of children
involved in antisocial behaviour in the past year is depressing and damaging to the community
cohesion and all the locally based services. The challenge is how can the range of statutory agencies
involving the Local Authority, Tusla, HSE, Garda, Schools, and community-based agencies better
work together to address the presenting child welfare and antisocial behaviour that is manifest. The
recommendations that are made are based upon enhancing community cohesion, targeting services
and support to children in need and their families and improving the interagency working processes
and practices.

12

The Sunday Times Report -Gardai Failed to pursue serious young offenders January 13th, 2019

Justin O’Brien, Independent Consultant:
12

 The recommendations are as follows:
A. Local Development and Leadership: The Inchicore area is an inner suburb of Dublin that has
enormous potential for development and community enhancement. There are pockets of
social disadvantage and advantage in the local area. The village area has limited shopping
facilities and other resources within it. The persistent antisocial behaviour over the years is
damaging to the community cohesion and leadership. The failure of the St Michaels
Regeneration Plan in 2008 has impacted on the area. That stated, the State has made
considerable investment in the public infrastructure with developments such as Emmet
Crescent, Bulfin Court, Thornton Heights, Richmond Barracks, the Inchicore Primary Health
Care Centre, the Family Resource Child Care Centre and Hollybrook Nursing Home in the
past 15 years. The development of the 10-acre site on the old St Michaels Estate offers the
potential for the redevelopment of the suburb. Dublin City Council have a consultation
process in place to establish the existing communities’ views on the type of residential and
other developments most needed for the Inchicore area. There is the need for leadership
and new structures that can enable both the physical development alongside the social
regeneration of the area in an integrated fashion between Dublin City Council, HSE, Tusla,
Education Bodies and local stakeholders.
Local agencies/projects need to work together, regain each other’s trust and formulate a
strategy to address the antisocial behaviour and the welfare needs of the children. This will
require a bridge building process between the local agencies in the Family Welfare Initiative
before a similar process is engaged with Tusla. The new structures and the bridgebuilding
processes are essential before all the agencies can work together to address the antisocial
behaviour and the racism that occurs.
B. Family and Child Care Services- Safeguarding and Protection: The HIQA report has
identified the current serious inadequacy of the current child and family support services to
children in the South-Central Area. HIQA and Tusla have agreed a priority action plan and
additional resources for enabling the child care services to become compliant with the
required services and standards. It is critical that this action plan is adhered to within the
specified time lines.
C. Family and Child Care Services- Assessment and Interagency Work: Tusla alone cannot
address the presenting family and child care problems that are current. It needs to regain
the trust of local agencies in terms of how they can best work together to address the needs
of children who are in difficulty with antisocial behaviour and child welfare and child
protection needs. In that context two immediate proposals are being made. The first
recommendation is similar to what was proposed three years ago. This recommendation
remains valid and could enable the improved interagency work and trust between all the
statutory and voluntary agencies concerned. Its primary aim is to enable an improved child
and family support to the families and children at risk.
- Establish a Review Group of both statutory and community-based agencies to undertake an
effective assessment of the needs of these children and their families within a three-month
time frame
- The assessment undertaken would inform how effective interventions could be undertaken
to assist these children and their parents detailing the required services to enable such
intervention and assistance to the children and their parents
- The Review Group would undertake a review of the effectiveness of the processes for
interagency working in the Inchicore Area in the delivery of child protection, welfare and
support to vulnerable children and their families.
Justin O’Brien, Independent Consultant:
13

 -

-

The second recommendation is that the Tusla South Central Area Child and Family Services
establish and support a structure like the Young People At Risk (YPAR) project in the North
Inner City. YPARS has worked effectively in enabling an effective working relationship
between statutory and voluntary agencies and the delivery of the Meitheal process and
supports for children and families who wish to avail of it. YPAR is a membership organisation
of statutory and voluntary services related to children located in the North Inner-City Area.
In addition to the organisation and delivery of the Meitheal it has a series of working groups
for children such as 0-5 Years, 5-12 Years Primary Schools, 14-24 Hard to Engage, Children
and Young Peoples Mental Health Wellbeing and Homeless. These working groups identify
current service issues and emerging needs and how services can better respond to such
needs. There is a steering committee that coordinates the working group and the overall
work of YPAR. YPAR is a subsidiary organisation within the overall structure of the Inner-City
Organisational Network (ICON). This structure should and could enable the Tusla Child and
Family Services to focus on their primary child protection work. The YPARS annual staffing
costs total some €100,000 per annum for a one full time administrator and two half time coordinators.
Further training is required on the Child Protection/Welfare Referral Processes to Tusla,
Signs of Safety and the Meitheal processes for the community-based services.

D. Child and Family Supports- Targeted Services: There are several families where the parents
have serious difficulties relating to addiction, mental health needs which must adversely
affect the wellbeing of their children. A more intensive Family Support Service needs to be
provided to these families via a community-based project. This could be like the Bring It Back
Home Project which was closed due to a lack of funding. Another option is the provision of a
residential Family Transitional Support Service for a period. Some of the families have not
been compliant with existing service supports which must raise a very fundamental issue as
to whether their children should remain in their care or not. It is apparent that the
behaviour and wellbeing of some of the children noted in this report has deteriorated over
the past 3 years as is evidenced by increased antisocial behaviour.
E. Housing Policy: The social housing providers are presented with serious housing
management problems because of antisocial behaviour caused by these children and adults
in the local area. The housing providers need to have access to more intensive support
services for these families. The legislative powers for housing bodies to act against antisocial
behaviour needs to be strengthened. The inability of the social housing providers to evict a
tenant involved in persistent antisocial behaviour impacts negatively upon the community
around them and tenants lose their trust in their landlord. It is noted that Dublin City Council
is undertaking a review of its current antisocial behaviour policy and its capacity to take
effective action against tenants involved in antisocial behaviour 13. If such vulnerable
families become homeless, they need to be targeted with intensive support in Supported
Temporary Accommodation Services and or Transitional Housing Projects before they are
rehoused.
F. Garda – Community Policing: The Garda are a key agency regarding taking effective action
against adults and children involved in antisocial behaviour. The Garda resources available
for Community Policing has been adversely affected by a reduction in staffing resources over
the past 5 years where current resources available of 1 Sergeant and 4 Community Garda
are very inadequate. A strong active Community Garda presence is essential to reducing the
13

Irish Times Report January 2019

Justin O’Brien, Independent Consultant:
14

 -

-

scale of antisocial behaviour and to providing a greater sense of safety for the local
community. The key immediate actions to be undertaken are:
Increase the resources available for the Community Garda resources to previous levels of 2
Garda Sergeant’s and 10 Community Garda
Establish a working group with local agencies to formulate a strategy as how best to respond
to the racist attacks that are occurring
Work with residents and social housing providers to establish a Neighbourhood Watch
scheme for the different areas in the local area that would improve the community and
Garda responses to antisocial behaviour.
Progress the linkage of the existing CCTV cameras to the Kevin Street Garda Station which
are actively monitored by the Garda.

G. Additional Investment in Services in Inchicore: All the statutory and community- based
services/projects experienced reductions in their funding and staffing levels over the past 10
years because of the reduced public expenditure levels. This is evidenced in reduced
Community Garda staffing, reduced social work staffing, the closure of the Bring It All Back
Home Project in 2014, reduced funding for the community based child care services and
local drug treatment services. The reductions have impacted upon the capacity of the
existing services to respond to the needs of the identified children. The Inchicore Child Care
Professional Group in their report identified these issues and proposed that additional
funding be provided for existing services and for new services. They highlighted the need for
early years services. The current situation regarding the care and welfare of the children
noted in this report highlights the need to provide more intensive support and services to
the children under 11 years and in the 12-17 age group who are most actively involved in the
antisocial behaviour. There are also a cohort of children identified while not being involved
in antisocial behaviour are at risk and who need support. The recommendation of having an
assessment of the needs of these children and their families within a 3 month period would
enable the proper care planning and could assess the capacity of existing services to provide
for the care and welfare of the children. This process could also inform the types of services
that are most appropriate for the children and their families and the required additional
funding. The locally based services both statutory and community based need to be better
resourced to address the current identified needs.
H. Drug Treatment Services: Many of the young people under 18 years of age noted in this
report have drug dependency needs relating to the misuse of cannabis and benzodiazepines.
A specialised drug treatment service needs to be established for this age group. IBCAT and
CORE want to establish such a service for the young people concerned.
Tusla and the HSE have announced a new policy and training model for HSE and Tusla
personnel- Hidden Harm Practice Guide 14 - to better enable them to respond to the needs
of children in families where adults have a drug and or alcohol dependency. This initiative is
very much welcomed.

14

Seeing Through Hidden Harm to Brighter Futures Practice Guide Tusla/HSE 2019

Justin O’Brien, Independent Consultant:
15

 Author
Justin O’Brien
The author is a professionally qualified social worker and residential child care worker. He has
worked in the areas of homelessness, housing and social work over the past 40 years. He is currently
a Board Director of the Residential Tenancies Board. He recently retired from being CEO of Circle
Voluntary Housing Association. Previously he worked for over 17 years at a senior management level
in Focus Point/Focus Ireland where he developed and managed a range of their day and housing
services. He also practiced as a community based social worker with Strathclyde Regional Council for
several years.

Appendix 1- List of Agencies and Personnel Who Were Met With
Dublin City Council
Mr Brendan Kenny – Asst. Chief Executive
Mr Gerry Donoghue- Area Housing Manager
Ms Mary Hayes- Head of Housing Allocations
Ms Deirdre Brophy- Housing Social Worker
An Garda Siochana
Justin O’Brien, Independent Consultant:
16

 Srg. Vanessa O’Keefe JLO Services
Srg. Brian Foley
Srg. Martin Comerford-Community Garda
Garda Paul Moran – Juvenile Liaison Officer
Schools
Ms Antonya Hanly- Principal of Our Lady of Lourdes NS, Inchicore
Ms Anne McCluskey – Principal of Our Lady of the Wayside NS, Bluebell
Ms Michelle O’Kelly, Acting Principal Mercy Secondary School, Inchicore
Youth Services
Mr Eric Caffrey – Manager CORE Inchicore Youth Services
Mr Gary Harding - KRIB Youth Diversion Project
Mr Stephen KRIB Youth Diversion Project
Inchicore Bluebell Community Addiction Team
Mr Stuart Fraser- Director
Mr Greg Christodoulu- Addiction Services Manager
Ms Stephanie Maher – Child Care Manager
Family Welfare Initiative
Ms Eaodaoin Ni Cleirigh- Previous Chair
Ms Aoife Hannan – Project Manager Inchicore Kilmainham Network, Chair of the FWI
Family Resource Centres
Ms Phil Keane – Community Development Worker, St Michael’s Family Resource Centre
Ms Ger O’Hara- Senior Mgr. Daughters of Charity, Child and Family Agency

Justin O’Brien, Independent Consultant:
17