The Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) has today published an inspection report on the child protection and welfare service operated by the Child and Family Agency (Tusla) in the Sligo/Leitrim/West Cavan and Donegal service areas. This inspection focused on the implementation of Tusla’s Child Abuse Substantiation Procedure (CASP), which came into operation on 27 June 2022. 

HIQA is authorised by the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth under Section 8(1)(c) of the Health Act 2007 to monitor the quality of services provided by the Child & Family Agency (Tusla), to protect children and promote their welfare. HIQA monitors Tusla’s performance against the National Standards for the Protection and Welfare of Children and advises the Minister for Children and Tusla.

In order to meet its statutory obligations to protect children and promote their welfare, Tusla must carry out an assessment of allegations of child abuse in line with fair procedures. This is called a ‘substantiation assessment’ – an assessment that examines and weighs up all the evidence and decides if the allegation is founded or unfounded on the balance of probabilities. This is not a criminal investigation. If the allegation is founded, a determination is made that the person who is the subject of the abuse allegations poses a potential risk to a child or children. Tusla calls their national standardised process the ‘Child Abuse Substantiation Procedure’ (CASP). 

Five standards were inspected against, and the services were found to be substantially compliant with two standards and not compliant with three standards.

Staff and managers were knowledgeable of their roles and responsibilities and dedicated to providing a quality service. There were clear lines of accountability. Oversight of the service was achieved through good-quality supervision practices. There were delays in the implementation of other governance mechanisms, which, at the time of inspection, management was in the process of addressing. 

Tusla’s policy on the completion of the forms used to notify the Garda Síochána National Vetting Bureau (police vetting) of concerns about adults and the CASP, resulted in delays in these notifications being sent to the Garda Vetting Bureau. This meant that Tusla did not operate in line with its requirements as a scheduled organisation under the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012. The CASP team had escalated this risk to Tusla’s national forum, but it was slow to be addressed. 

While children and families were communicated with in a sensitive manner, there were often delays in this communication. In addition, publicly available information leaflets were complex and only available in English. There was inconsistent documentation on CASP files related to children. Due to cases waiting for preliminary enquiry, there were delays in identifying children who had contact with alleged abusers. The purpose of preliminary enquiries is to gain further information in order to determine what action is required to address the needs of and risks to a child. The procedure did not provide guidance on how to identify or respond to cases of possible or confirmed organisational or institutional abuse, and the absence of such guidance gave rise to the risk of such cases not being identified. 

The overarching findings were that assessments were not completed in line with time frames set out in Tusla’s own procedures. No CASP case had been concluded in the 14 months since its commencement, and there were substantial delays at all stages of the process. While there were reasons for some delays, such as challenges in engaging with alleged victims and alleged abusers, the procedure overall was not efficient, and therefore not person centred. 

This inspection indicated that children were not always at the centre of the implementation of CASP in this area. The reasons for this were due to the following: 

• the delays in Garda vetting notifications potentially placed children at risk
• the delays in communication with children and their families
• the delays in identifying children who possibly had contact with alleged abusers due to cases awaiting allocation at preliminary enquiry stage
• it was not consistently evident on files if a child was safe and protected
• identified children were referred to child protection and welfare services, and managers of the service advised inspectors that such safeguarding information was on the child’s child protection and welfare (CPW) file; however, best practice would be to have this clearly stated on the CASP file.
• there was no national guidance, only newly introduced local guidance, on how to identify and respond to suspected organisational or institutional abuse, or how to identify especially vulnerable children. 

The inspection report and compliance plan can be found at www.hiqa.ie.