VINCENT Browne argued in this newspaper last week that the public fear about crime has been hyped out of proportion and that current crime statistics do not justify the present level of public concern.

It is true that the statistics do not show any great increase in crime in recent times, but notwithstanding: this I believe the public concern is well founded.

The people's concern is not based on the relevant increase in numbers of incidents as such, but on their perception of a growing sense of lawlessness around them. This perception is created by the increased alcohol intake and drug use among teenagers, the congregating of gangs in residential areas, the increasingly threatening behaviour of some young people, the rise in truancy figures, and the number of children on the streets at night.

Many of these problems cause great distress to people but are as frequently not represented in the Garda statistics.

This has lead to a growing nervousness among people going about their routine business. A general atmosphere of fear has clearly developed. At a recent meeting which I attended with community leaders, "the depressing agenda included such topics as drug dealing, stolen cars, roaming gangs, intimidation and fear, lack of youth facilities and the problem of uncontrolled horses.

For some people, and clearly Vincent Browne is one, these issues do not directly touch upon their lives. But for a great number of communities, especially in Dublin, their presence is all pervasive. The extent to which problems relating to children and young people are increasing poses a huge challenge to all community leaders, political and otherwise.

One would hope that the strength of the public opinion will force the Government to respond to the current crime problem with a comprehensive strategy.

The Minister for Justice, Ms Owen, made an important start last week with the announcement of extra prison spaces, drug treatment facilities for Mountjoy Prison, the appointment of 15 extra judges and a degree of Garda reorganisation. The Minister should follow up with other initiatives and other Ministers will also be expected to play their important parts.

My fear, however, is that the long term strategies will once again be shelved as public opinion settles.

Throughout the current debate, the most common observation from those working in the field is that we must concentrate on prevention. The children most likely to end up involved in serious and other crime, must be identified early. Strategies must be put in place for State agencies to intervene when problems emerge at a young age. While this may have cost implications, so too does our current policy - or lack of one.

ANY teacher will tell you that it is possible to predict, with a high degree of accuracy, those children at primary school - or even pre-primary - who are likely to end up in the criminal system. Frequently those working in the childcare field will say that when a 14 or 15 year old child who is out of control comes into their care there is very little that can be done to reverse the behaviour - until it is too late.

The responsibility for children rests now with a vast number of State agencies including the Departments of Education, Health, Justice and agencies such as the health boards, the school attendance service (in a small number of counties) and many others.

In effect what we have is a battery of agencies some rather rigid and bureaucratic, which provide more than ample opportunity for a vulnerable child to fall between their stools. Within these agencies too, children are often competing for attention with the needs of adults, which are perceived as more pressing.

A few striking examples bear this out. If we take the issue of school truancy, we know that frequent non attendance is often one of the earliest warning signs that something is wrong. So who follows up on these children?

In Dublin City, Limerick and Waterford there is a limited and understaffed school attendance service. An illustration of the confusion in the system is that in Dublin the Corporation pays for the service although it does not have a say in its operation. In the rest of the State, incredibly, the Garda is the agency responsible for following up on these children. Apart from the fact that the gardai have no expertise in this work, one wonders what their follow up is and to whom they refer such cases.

The fact that it is not uncommon to see many children hanging around housing estates during school hours is evidence that the service is inadequate. That they are enticed into an insidious drug culture with all that it entails is hardly surprising.

WHAT about the children who have behavioural problems or learning difficulties who are refused entry into secondary school or are expelled? Which agency steps in? Is the child's assessment and placement the responsibility of the school, the inspectorate, the social worker, the psychologist, the school attendance service or a voluntary counselling service?

If we take the case of any one of the seriously deprived areas with a high crime rate, everyone knows that at least part of the reason is the lack of decent facilities in those areas. There may be no community centre or people to organise activities, hence children and teenagers have very little to do.

Surely this is the kind of area which the National Lottery sports grants were supposed to help? But where is the co ordination between the agencies at local level and those who decide how lottery money is spent?

The scatter gun approach to dealing with young offenders is another example of children falling between the stools of government Departments. It represents not so much a turf war between these Departments as an opportunity to pass the buck.

And what about the important area of drug abuse prevention? Is this the responsibility of Health or Education or Justice? The list of similar examples is endless.

So are we serious about tackling crime? Can we say, with all honesty, that the system meets the needs of children? Isn't is time to give serious consideration to creating a new government Department, a Department of Children's Affairs with a full senior Minister which would have responsibility for the child in all his/her aspects?

Such a Department must be given responsibility for existing programmes within the various agencies which affect children's welfare, up to the age of 17 or 18.

If we are serious about having a child centred system, the starting point for this Department would be the child's needs and the necessary services which follow from there.

There would no longer be wrangles over where responsibility lay and most importantly it would be possible to create a sufficiently tight net of services to reduce greatly the chances of a child slipping through the system. Many of the recent horrific cases involving violent crime have starkly shown up a system which failed to respond to serious problems in the criminal's childhood.

Unless we come up with radical and long term strategies, which have children at their centre, the battle against crime will be lost.