Children are at “significant risk” because Tusla, the child and family agency, has been unable to assess a high number of historical child abuse allegations to see if alleged perpetrators are still in contact with children, the State’s health watchdog has said.
The Health Information and Quality Authority (Hiqa) carried out an announced inspection of services provided by Tusla in the Dublin southeast and Wicklow area over six days last August.
It found there were 177 “retrospective disclosures” of child abuse in the area waiting to be assessed by a social worker from Tusla. It said this posed a “significant risk” as it meant potential risks to children “had not been clearly established”.
According to data provided by Tusla, there were 52 referrals of institutional abuse and one case of organised abuse received by the service in the previous two years.
An area manager told inspectors she had contact with safeguarding officers from the diocese and religious orders, and that systems to “manage the individuals concerned” had become “increasingly robust in recent years”.
Tusla could not give an exact figure in relation to the number of retrospective disclosures received. The data provided showed that there were 426 cases open and closed during that period. At the time of inspection there were 177 cases on a waiting list for allocation.
There were guidelines for staff on the steps to be followed in these cases but staff told inspectors the process of addressing them was “complex” and no training had been provided.
When a retrospective disclosure of abuse was received, it was screened. If a specific child or children were identified, the allegation was assessed. If, after screening, no particular child was identified as being at risk, the file was transferred to the child protection team and either allocated for assessment and follow up or placed on a waiting list.
Each of the two principal social workers for child protection held a waiting list and assessed the risk according to information received and degree of certainty that the alleged perpetrator had contact with children.
Cases on the waiting list were reviewed every three months. Where retrospective cases had been allocated and followed up, inspectors found evidence of “good practice”. But there was a “high number” of referrals which had not yet been allocated and remained on a waiting list.
“This meant that these cases had not been assessed and that the potential risk to children who may have contact with the alleged perpetrators had not yet been determined and this was a cause of concern,” said the inspectors.
Managers told inspectors that they did not have sufficient staff to take on these cases awaiting allocation.
The issue of retrospective cases on the waiting list had been escalated and placed on the area risk register several months prior to the inspection but inspectors said this had “not resulted in action to address the issue”.
