The Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) has today published an inspection report on the foster care services operated by the Child and Family Agency (Tusla) in the Carlow, Kilkenny, South Tipperary service area.

HIQA monitors services used by some of the most vulnerable children in the State and is authorised by the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs under Section 69 of the Child Care Act, 1991, as amended by Section 26 of the Child Care (Amendment) Act 2011, to inspect foster care services provided by or on behalf of Tusla, including non-statutory providers of foster care. HIQA monitors foster care services against the National Standards for Foster Care (2003), and reports on its findings to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs.

As part of its 2017 monitoring programme, HIQA is conducting thematic inspections across all 17 Tusla service areas which focus on the recruitment, assessment, approval, supervision and review of foster carers. These thematic inspections are announced and cover eight standards relating to this theme.

The report published today refers to an announced inspection in June 2017 of the Carlow, Kilkenny, South Tipperary foster care service. Of the eight standards assessed, one was fully compliant, three standards were substantially compliant, and four standards were judged by inspectors to be majorly non-compliant.

Inspectors had significant concerns about how allegations against foster carers were managed in the past. Appropriate and timely action was not always taken to protect children. Actions were subsequently taken by the service and these children were not found to be at risk at the time of the inspection.

Some safeguarding measures in place were good, and the system in place in the area to ensure An Garda Síochána (police) vetting had been completed was robust and effective. However, some other safeguarding measures were not sufficient. 31 foster carers did not have an allocated link (social) worker. In response, the service indicated that it did not have enough link workers to cover its needs. The quality of supervision and support for some foster carers was poor and inspectors found that there was no system in place to ensure that safeguarding visits were completed and requested that visits to seven foster carers to be carried out as a matter of priority.

Inspectors were not assured that the area was sufficiently resourced to provide adequate oversight. Heavy workloads meant that the oversight of foster carers’ files was often poor and one team leader was required to maintain oversight of 292 foster carers. Reviews, when undertaken, were of good quality. Nevertheless, 241 foster carers (71%) had not had a review in three or more years.

The fostering service had some good initiatives to up-skill foster carers such as a two-year therapeutic course funded by the area for foster carers, and a new training support team know as ‘Edan’ had been developed in the area. Attendance at training by some foster carers was poor, and at the time of inspection only 16% of foster carers were undertaking training.

The foster care committee was not fully compliant with national policy, procedure and best practice guidance. The chair of the committee was employed on an ‘honoraruim’ basis, meaning that she was not in a position to fulfil all the functions required of the position. The committee did not track the progress of investigations, nor did it have a system to track if multiple allegations had been made against a particular carer.

The service has prepared an action plan to address the non-compliances identified on inspection.