ANALYSIS:Sustained funding can prevent crime and disadvantage, writes Carl O'Brien.
FR PETER McVerry, the social justice campaigner, tells a story of baptising children on Seán MacDermott Street in Dublin's north inner city and knowing with a fair degree of accuracy what their future prospects in life will be.
"Myself and the other priests would talk about the children and we could be around 95 per cent certain as to whether a child would end up in Mountjoy Prison based on their community, their family and their parents."
A breakdown of the addresses of children who have appeared before the Children's Court tells a similar story. Out of a sample of 220 children who came through the Dublin court over the course of a year, the vast majority were from just a handful of the most deprived postal districts in the capital.
Where a child grows up clearly has a major impact on their life. In the UK and US, research shows that by the age of three, children from disadvantaged families are already lagging a full year behind their middle-class contemporaries in social and educational development. But a child's future prospects in life hinge on more than just their address.
The same research also shows that the typical young offender is about 15 or 16, lives in a broken family, has a drug or alcohol problem and has dropped out of school before completing the Junior Cert.
So, it is clear that young people who are at risk of offending are easily identifiable. And it is clear that health, education and welfare agencies should be focusing support and intervention on communities and families where children are most vulnerable.
Yet, it is clear to families and campaigners in these areas that this isn't happening.
Social workers, for example, say the response to children at risk in deprived areas is mainly crisis-driven rather than preventive. Only the most serious cases are responded to quickly, while others are left to wait until they too require an emergency response.
There are worthwhile projects around the country that aim to give disadvantaged children the best possible start in life.
Springboard projects, early childhood and education sessions, breakfast clubs and family support initiatives are playing a role in helping children at risk.
However, in many cases they are spread so thinly around communities that the most they can offer is token support. And these same projects will be among the first to suffer from government spending cutbacks when the axe falls.
Take family support projects: research has consistently shown that investing in families reaps rewards both for children and parents. A strategy for the development of family support was promised by the Department of Health early in 2005, then early 2006. There is still no sign of it.
Instead, funding tends to focus on dealing with the effects of out-of-control children in deprived communities.
For example, major funding was announced for a new detention campus in Lusk last week which will cost in the region of €140 million. While such a facility may be necessary, governments seem to find it easier to find money for these projects rather than preventive measures that offer no immediate rewards.
This should not be a counsel of despair though. Early intervention does work. This kind of support also saves money in the long run. What is needed is the political - and societal - will for it to be made a priority.
If children are to have any chance of escaping from cycles of disadvantage and crime, it will take sustained funding over long periods of time into the most marginalised families and communities before it can happen.