Ireland’s Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Volume Four

Chapter 1
Department of Education

Part 1 The functions of the Department

Introduction

1.01The Department of Education had overall responsibility for the Reformatory and Industrial School System and for Marlborough House detention centre. The Department provided finance to the schools and oversaw their operation, leaving day-to-day control to the Congregations and Orders that operated them. The Department had a duty to ensure that the rules and regulations were observed, that finances were correctly utilised and that reasonable standards were maintained. The principal method of monitoring the schools was the inspection system, which was carried out by members of the Department’s Reformatory and Industrial Schools Branch.

1.02The timeframe of this investigation falls between the publication of the Cussen Commission’s Report into Reformatories and Industrial Schools in 1936 and the Kennedy Report on the Schools in 1970. The Cussen Report endorsed the system contingent upon the implementation of its 51 principal conclusions and recommendations, but the implementation of these recommendations by the Department of Education was inconsistent and intermittent. Consequently, the system continued largely unchanged until the late 1960s. By the time the Kennedy Report was published in 1970, the system had greatly declined and the report itself was more of an obituary than a death sentence. The events that led to the ending of the system had little to do with policy decisions by the Department of Education, and that also is part of the story. Consideration of the Department’s role is thus largely confined to the 34 years between these two reports.

1.03The Secretary of the Department of Education in evidence to the Investigation Committee in June 2006 admitted that there had been ‘significant failings’ by the Department:

As Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science I wish to state publicly here today that there were significant failings in relation to the Department’s responsibility to the children in care in these institutions and that the Department deeply regrets this.

Children were sent to industrial and reformatory schools by the State acting through the courts. While the institutions to whose care they were committed were privately owned and operated the State had a clear responsibility to ensure that the care they received was appropriate to their needs. Responsibility for ensuring this lay with the Department of Education, whose role it was to approve, regulate, inspect and fund these institutions. It was clear that the Department was not effective in ensuring a satisfactory level of care. Indeed, the very need to establish a Commission of Inquiry testifies this.

1.04This chapter deals with general topics: particular events and the Department’s role in them are discussed in the chapters on individual schools.

1.05The Minister for Education had legal responsibility in respect of schools. Under the Children Act 1908, children could only be committed to a school that was certified. The Minister held the crucial legal power of certification (1908 Act, sections 45, 58 and 91). Certification was granted for an indefinite period, not on an annual basis. The Minister had the power under section 47 to withdraw certification from schools; certification was intended to be the means by which the Minister could control many significant features of the schools. However once a school had been certified, there were heavy pressures against the use of derecognition and there are no cases of its actually being done.

1.06When certified, schools were furnished with a document that stated the name of the school, geographical location, date of certification, conditions of admission, the number of children for which the school was certified and the name of the agency running the school. The document was signed and dated by the Minister for Education and by the manager of the school.

1.07Certification of a school was contingent upon acceptance by the school’s management of the entire ‘Rules and Regulations for the Certification of an Institution as an Industrial School’, and these rules were listed in the certification document. It was a seven-page document that set out the legal framework for almost every aspect of a resident’s circumstances, including accommodation, clothing, diet, instruction, conditions on which children may attend National Schools, industrial education, inspection, religious exercises and worship, discipline, punishments, recreation, visits from friends and relatives, children placed out on licence or on apprenticeships, treasury grants, discharge, visitors to the school, timetables, journals, the medial officer, inquests and returns to the Department. However, there were no regulations governing the ratio of staff to children.

1.08The Rules remained in practically the same form throughout the history of Industrial Schools. They were in signed standardised form in 1933 but they were still signed in the same way by the institution and the State.

1.09The Minister for Education derived further powers from the Children Act 1908, sections 54-84, which included the authority to:

determine the amount of the government contributions towards the expenses of children;
sanction alterations in buildings;
discharge (with or without conditions) or transfer inmates;
allow the removal of a child by emigration; or
remit payments towards the child’s maintenance ordered to be made by the parent.

1.10The Children (Amendment) Act 1941 gave the Minister the power to direct the removal of a Resident Manager. This power which was very occasionally invoked to bring pressure to bear on the management of the schools to remove the Manager.

Part 2 The structure of the Department of Education

The Reformatory and Industrial School Branch

1.11Throughout the period under consideration, the unit dealing with schools was the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Branch or RISB. This division was responsible for overseeing the certified school system and was also responsible for the administration of the detention centre in Marlborough House. This Branch predated independence and changed little following the establishment of the Free State.

1.12The RISB occupied a lowly place in the Department’s hierarchy. Supervising the RISB and the primary schools unit, as well as other units, was an Assistant Secretary, who was subject only to the Secretary of the Department, but it is likely that the RISB received little of his attention. Again, compared with other branches, for instance the Primary Schools unit, which had a Principal Officer as their head, the head of the RISB was, until the reform of 1971, a relatively junior official. During the period 1941-65, he was usually at or about Assistant Principal level. The only other figure in the RISB at even a medium level was the Medical Inspector, an important and central position held during the 1940-64 period by Dr Anna McCabe.

1.13An increased workload for the branch was brought about by the changes created by the Children Act 1941. For instance: a medical inspection was established; capitation grants were to be paid for under-sixes, teachers of literacy subjects in the schools had to be assessed in order to receive recognition as national teachers; and the Department had to allocate half of parental contributions to local authorities instead of sending the entire amount to the Exchequer. Thus the workload increased and, consequently, the level of clerical assistance had to be augmented. As of 1943 (and after 1943 there were no changes until the early 1970s), the RISB’s establishment was as follows:

Inspector (Assistant Principal);
Medical Inspector (a qualified doctor);
Staff Officer Grade I (approximately equivalent to a higher executive officer);
Clerical Officers (two);
Writing Assistants (two);
Stenographer;
Part-time Parental Money Collectors (two).

1.14According to a 1960 organisation and management survey of the RISB, carried out in 1959, by P Ó Maitiú, a principal in the Department, during the period 1943-59, 85 percent of the RISB’s time was spent on five main routine clerical tasks:

Collecting and accounting for parental monies	25%
Filing and registration	20%
Applications for release of children	20%
Check of county council accounts	10%
Preparation of annual report	10%

1.15Mr R MacConchradha, a Higher Executive Officer in prisons administration but formerly in the Department of Education, wrote on 20th April 1968 to Mr McCarthy, his superior in the Department for Justice. Mr MacConchradha expresses his views frankly:

Even at the risk of breaking confidence, may I say that the Industrial School system has been centrally administrated in a very plodding way, with little sympathetic involvement or thought for the children. Finances have been ungenerous for years and what forward thinking there was, came from individuals in the conducting communities. The lot of the children, especially the boys, is very sad and there is an unbelievably entrenched ‘status quo’ to be overcome, not least in the Department of Education, if there is to be any change for the better.

1.16Further evidence of the unimportance assigned to this field is the lack of written information regarding its role within the Department; for instance:

Despite a number of institutional histories of the Department of Education, to date none have explored the role of the Department in relation to reformatory and Industrial Schools. Nor does O’Connor, a former secretary of the Department of Education mention reformatory or industrial schools in his personal reflections on his role in that Department between 1957 and 1968. Likewise renewed histories of the Department of Local Government and Public Health and from 1947, onwards the Department of Health (now Health and Children) and Department of Local Government (now Environmental and Local Government), do not explore the child welfare dimension of their work.

1.17However following the publication of the Kennedy Report, the RISB became the fulcrum for instituting the changes recommended in the Report and it underwent restructuring. The section was renamed ‘Special Education (2)’ in 1972 and a review of the staffing structure in the Special Education Section was undertaken in November 1973. The review concluded that the staffing situation was inadequate and that the inspection system was hampered by this staff shortage. In 1975, the was the post of Child Care Advisor was created.

1.18In general, the Department of Education was regarded as a conservative Department producing little by way of policy. Even on the wider fronts of primary and secondary education, its main concern lay with curricular content rather than wider social justice issues, such as what today would be called access to education. Further, the Department ‘enjoyed a reputation for secrecy’ and this secrecy would have had the effect of rendering it difficult for any countervailing pressure to that of the Church, even had there been any, to assert itself.

1.19In the case of Reformatory and Industrial Schools the conservative tendency was exacerbated by the fact that the unit with full-time responsibility for the schools was located at such a low level in the Department hierarchy.

1.20The unit did not initiate reform and did not confront the vested interests that reform would have stirred up.

Schools’ dominance over the Department

1.21The Department had the power of fixing the capitation fee and in theory this power gave it considerable control over the institutions However, the Department did not use such increases as an opportunity to impose changes of policy on the schools. When the Department succeeded in providing increased funding for the schools, it communicated in non-specific terms its wish to see improvements made in the standard of care provided to the children in the schools. For instance the Departmental circulars to Resident Managers announcing the increases in 1947, 1951, 1952 and 1958 stated the Minister’s expectation that, with the improved financial position, schools would effect, without delay, substantial improvements in the standard of diet, clothing and maintenance of the children. There is no evidence to show that these broad admonitions were followed up by attempts to verify that these substantial improvements had actually materialised. Few circulars were as specific as the following (Circular 1/1952 (10th March 1952)):

The Minister trusts that consequent on the improvements in the financial position of the schools as a result of the increase of 5/- weekly in 1951 and of this increase of 6/- weekly in the amount of the Capitation Grants that the Managers of the Schools will be in a position to effect substantial all round improvements where necessary. Each child should get as a minimum one pint of milk daily, the full ration of butter and sugar, and 4 to 6 ozs of meat at each meal at which meat is served. It is desirable, that the children’s breakfast should include an egg, sausage, rasher, tomato or other suitable relish and that the dinner should be a substantial meal consisting of soup (where practicable), meat, vegetables (including potatoes) to be followed by a dessert such as pudding, jelly stewed or raw fruit, cereal.

1.22The circular met a polite but prompt rebuff in the form of a message from a meeting of the Managers’ Association (letter from Chairman to Department, 31st March 1952), which said that, given the prices, this ‘recommendation’ was not ‘practical’. Indeed as the Department of Education submitted;

Evidence provided to the Commission by Mr Granville also underlines the dominant role that school authorities continued to play [into the 1980s] in the operation of residential homes and special schools post-Kennedy. The religious orders, it is clear, remained the ultimate decision-makers.

1.23The real authority lay with the schools and the religious, because they owned and managed the institutions, and their constant claim was that the State under-resourced the Congregations in carrying out the State’s duty. One example of what a later generation would call ‘agency capture’, where a regulatory body is effectively controlled by the body it is supposed to regulate, may be seen in the way in which the Resident Managers’ Association looked confidently to the Department to champion them against third-party criticisms. For instance, the Association asked to meet the Minister for Education to discuss:

(2) The extract, from Circular Letter No. 7/52 issued by the Department of Health, which reads —

‘It is generally agreed that the institution is a bad substitute for the normal home life for children. It is recognised in the existing Regulations, which prescribe that Public Assistance Authorities shall not send a child to a certified school if the child can be suitably boarded out. Every effort should therefore be made to have children placed in suitable foster homes before having recourse to their maintenance in an institution.’

(3) The uncalled for and offensive remarks regarding Industrial and Reformatory Schools made by some District Justices and published in the newspapers.

1.24In response to this letter the Minister ‘promised to do everything he could to help these Schools’.

1.25The schools’ control over the Department can be seen in the way decisions were made in the early 1950s about mixing offenders and non-offenders in Industrial Schools. The question whether children who had been convicted of offending seriously or repeatedly should live in the same school as those in need of care should have been a key policy issue for the Department of Education.

1.26What happened in practice was that the matter was decided by the Christian Brothers. In a letter to the Minister of Education dated 19th March 1954, the Provincial advised the Minister for Education that, in future, Letterfrack, County Galway, would be reserved for boys who were offenders; whilst the Christian Brother Industrial Schools at Artane, Glin, Tralee and Salthill would no longer accept boys who were offenders.

1.27Two District Justices expressed opposition to this move. In a letter dated 30th July 1954, District Justice J J O’Hora advised the Secretary of the Department that the arrangement involving Letterfrack would cause serious difficulties for the Children’s Court in Limerick. The Justice requested that the Minister make representations to the Brother Provincial of the Christian Brothers to have either Glin or Tralee appointed for the reception of cases in which offences had been proved. However the Department had earlier consulted with the Christian Brothers requesting that it reconsider its decision regarding Letterfrack but the Order’s position remained unchanged.

1.28Secondly, District Justice McCarthy, Children’s Court Judge in Dublin from 1941-57, stated in 1954 in open court, that he would not be prepared to send to Letterfrack the type of boy for whom the school was supposed to be reserved henceforth, until such time as the ‘non-offenders’ at present in the school were transferred to other schools. As a result, a conference was convened on 14th May 1954 and, attended by the District Justice, the Department’s Secretary and Assistant Secretary (Micheal O’Siocfradha) and Br O’Hanluain, the Provincial of the Order. The compromise reached was that the Manger of Letterfrack would transfer all the boys sent by local authorities and a number of non-offenders committed by the courts until the total number at Letterfrack was 85. They would be sent to Salthill, mainly, and to Artane and other schools.

1.29These diverse opinions illustrate that the question of whether offenders and non-offenders should be held in the same institution was an issue on which informed opinion could differ. The Department ought to have developed a considered policy in consultation with the schools and ought then to have ensured that the schools observed it. Instead, it appears to have simply allowed the question to be decided by the Congregation. For example, in 1954 the Department noted resignedly:

The Provincial (of the Christian Brothers) has informed the Department that his Council have decided to introduce into the Industrial Schools conducted by their congregation a measure of segregation. They have, accordingly, arranged that the Industrial School in Letterfrack is to be reserved for boys brought before the court and found guilty of an offence. All such boys, if committed to an industrial school will not now be accepted into their schools by the resident managers of the Artane, Salthill, Tralee and Glin Industrial School. The Industrial Schools for senior boys at Upton, Clonmel and Greenmount [non-Christian Brother School] will continue to accept boys as heretofore.

1.30When addressing this question, before CICA, the Department of Education simply stated:

The policy regarding the category of child admitted to and detained within a particular school was a matter for the Religious Order concerned and the Department had no role in the committal process. While the courts ordered the detention of a child, the Resident Manager of a School could exercise his/her power to refuse to accept this child into the school. Similarly the Religious Order could decide to change the category of child being admitted to a school.

The essential question, however, is broader than the legalities involved. For the schools to work properly the system needed an authoritative overseer. If the Department declined to play such a role then there was no one to do so.

Part 3 Departments of Health and Justice

Differences in attitude between the Departments of Education and Health – ‘boarding out’

1.31One noteworthy aspect of the State’s approach to childcare was the difference between the policies and approaches of the two Government Departments with responsibility in the area of childcare.

1.32They had divergent attitudes to boarding out as an alternative to the schools for dealing with needy children. The Department of Health’s general policy, repeatedly stated, was that maintaining children in their families of origin should be encouraged and, if this was not possible, foster care rather than institutional care should be provided. In sharp contrast, the Department of Education believed firmly that institutional care offered many benefits and in March 1946 went so far as expressly to prohibit the boarding out of children from Industrial Schools.

1.33Reflecting on this divergence, a Department of Education memo, written in 1964, stated.

It seems strange that two Government departments should be at variance on such a fundamental issue. I spoke to an official of the Department of Health and apparently that Department considers that a home, even a disrupted home, is preferable to an institution however good…Industrial school managers are not in the most favourable position for supervising the treatment of boarded out children and this Department has no officers for that kind of work. On the other hand the Department of Health has its own Inspectors for inspecting foster homes etc…

If the practice of boarding out children becomes widespread the industrial schools could very well become uneconomic but it is submitted that to keep children in institutions for the sake of the institutions would be inverted thinking. Modern thinking as practised by Department of Health and abroad, regards institutionalism as a dehumanising factor and instead favours a home environment as a proper place for a child to develop its personality. Moreover the decision of this Department to prohibit boarding out from industrial schools was taken at a time when economic conditions were very bad (immediately post-war) and was based on fear of an inquiry rather than on what was best for a child.

1.34The enthusiasm of the Department of Health for ‘boarding out’ and the reluctance of some health authorities to implement this policy is apparent in a note of September 1964 from M Division of the Department of Health, which states:

Art 4 of the Boarding Out Regs, 1954 provides that ‘a health authority shall not send a child to a school approved by the Minister under Section 55 of the Act unless such child cannot be suitably and adequately assisted by being boarded-out’. Health Authorities do not always comply with this provision of the Regulations and it is normal departmental procedure to challenge the continued maintenance of children in institutions who would seem to be suitable for boarding-out. Such action is taken on the recommendations of the Inspector who is supplied with a list of all children in institutions under Section 55 of the Health Act, 1953, on the occasion of her bi-annual visit to the health authority offices.

Reasons for the different attitudes of Health and Education

1.35The different attitudes between two Departments of State are not easy to explain. Education had neither access to, nor direct knowledge of, boarding out and its legislative powers were confined to supervising the school authorities. By contrast, boarding out was and always had been organised by way of local boards of health, the Department of Health being the central Department for these agencies. Thus, the Department of Health had access to the information obtained by the boards of health as well as information gathered by its own inspectors whose responsibility extended to both boarding out and the Industrial Schools. In short, Health had a more informed view, whereas, short of major legislative changes, which no one in the Department contemplated, it would have been impossible for Education to get any children boarded out or to acquire knowledge of the subject.

1.36The Department of Health took more individual interest in each child than Education. For example, by way of a Department of Health circular, health authorities were requested to establish arrangements between the health authority and the Manager of the school whereby a child could be visited at any reasonable time and at regular intervals, by an authorised officer of the health authority or of the Department of Health. The reason given for this decision was to ascertain if any children were suitable for transfer to relatives or to foster homes. Likewise the Department of Health, or the health authorities, kept track of family circumstances and there are files in which it is evident that the return of a child to his or her family was initiated by Health, rather than being, as in Education, a reaction to a parental request to the Minister to grant early discharge.

The Department of Justice

1.37The only responsibilities that the Department of Justice had as regards the detention of persons under the age of 16 years were

(a)if they were certified unruly or depraved by a court under sections 97 and 102 of the Children Act 1908, they could be detained in an adult prison and

(b)the Department had responsibility for certifying places of detention for children (i) arrested in connection with an offence held pending an appearance before court or (ii) remanded in custody by the court pending trial (as ‘the police authority’) under section 108 of the Children Act 1908. There was also the possibility under section 106 for a child to be sentenced to such a place of detention for a period not exceeding one month. The Department of Education was responsible for the inspection of such places of detention pursuant to section 109(3).

1.38Justice was mainly involved by way of its responsibility for the District Court and the Gardaí, who were the major channel by which children were committed to the schools. In addition, Justice was responsible for places of detention including St Patrick’s and Shanganagh Institutions, in other words, institutions exclusively for delinquent juveniles.

1.39However, the public and sometimes even officials did not appreciate that the Industrial and Reformatory Schools were not primarily for delinquent children and consequently, it was often assumed that the Minister for Justice was responsible for them. The Minister for Justice, in the 1960s and afterwards, on a number of occasions, indicated disquiet at the Department of Education’s performance or made an attempt to urge that Department into reforms. A letter dated October 1963, addressed to the Minister for Education, Patrick Hillery, was drafted for the Minister for Justice, Charles J Haughey. It stated:

…I hope that the Inter-Departmental Committee’s recommendations in relation to Marlborough House and the Industrial School system will find ready acceptance, the more so as the recommendations are subscribed to by the expert from Education on the Committee. In particular I should like to see some action taken to establish Visiting Committees and After-care Committees for the Industrial Schools. Contrary to views held earlier in your Department it has now become apparent that the Managers of schools, such as Artane, are not opposed to such a development.

1.40A civil servant had written at the top of this letter ‘Minister, Unless somebody prods the Department of Education the Committee’s work will go for nought, to a large extent.’ A second copy of the letter is scored through and endorsed: ‘Letter need not issue – I have spoken to Dr Hillary [sic].’

1.41Evidence of confusion as to who was responsible for the schools system also came from members of the public addressing complaints regarding the schools to the Department of Justice. For instance, in 1953, an ex-resident, wrote to Justice to complain about his experiences in Baltimore, who passed on his letter to Education; and a former night watchman at Glin wrote both to Department of Education and Minister for Justice. Justice dealt with criminal justice, including the courts and prisons. In the public mind, it followed that Justice was involved with the schools.

1.42Marlborough House Detention Centre was administered by the Department of Education, notwithstanding its repeated attempts to transfer responsibility to the Department of Justice. See the discussion of this matter in Volume I Chapter 16

Part 4 The Cussen Commission

1.43It seems that the impetus for the establishment of the Cussen Commission came from a desire to evaluate the entire schools system prior to the long overdue amendment of the 1908 Act. The Minister for Education, in his speech at a public session, to open the Cussen Commission (The Irish Times, 8th May 1934; DD vol 151, vol 1621, 11th April 1934) identified as among the reasons why the system called for examination: the training provided by the schools might be out of date in terms of the gradual disappearance of village tailor, shoemaker and carpenter; the fact that some of the children were ‘mentally deficient’; and the increase in juvenile offenders. The Minister also stated that the legislation that created the system in the first place was predicated on the assumption that it would deal primarily with delinquent children, whereas by 1934 the institutions catered primarily for poor and neglected children.

1.44Despite this encouraging launch, contemporary press and Oireachtas reaction to Cussen, who published the Report on 17th August 1936, was slight. There appears to have been no press report on Cussen. The absence of political interest can be measured by the lack of debate that the report received in the Oireachtas. There were only six Dáil questions dealing with the recommendations. These questions were spread out over several years and centred on the monetary aspects of the Cussen proposals, including a question on whether or not teachers of literacy subjects in Industrial Schools were to be paid for by the State, and whether or not the Summerhill detention home should be closed. However, no other specific aspect received any parliamentary notice.

1.45Overall, the Cussen Report endorsed the existing schools system, though subject to the implementation of its 51 principal recommendations and conclusions:

As a result of our investigations we are satisfied that subject to the introduction of various changes which we have indicated…the present system of Reformatory and Industrial Schools affords the most suitable method of dealing with children suffering from the disabilities to which we have referred, and we recommend its continuance.

1.46The primary response to these recommendations came in the form of the Children Act 1941 which amended the Children Act of 1908. Although some recommendations did get a green light to a greater or lesser extent, it is revealing to examine the recommendations that were overlooked. While the non-implementation of some recommendations can be explained by way of fiscal limitations and structural deficiencies within the Department, others are more difficult to explain. Full implementation would have involved a greater role for the Department and this may have been viewed at the time as an encroachment into the Church’s domain.

1.47One objective of the Cussen Committee was to help remove negative stereotypes and criminal connotations associated with the children in the certified school system. It was the firm belief of the Commission ‘that in the main the problem is one not of criminal tendencies, but of poverty’. Cussen encouraged a change in terminology to aid in the reduction of the stigma associated with certified schools: for example recommendation number 11 suggested replacing the term ‘committal order’ with the term ‘admission order’, and similarly the terms ‘Industrial School’ and ‘Reformatory’ were to be replaced with ‘National Boarding Schools’ and ‘Approved Schools’ respectively. Furthermore Cussen stated that these titles should be for administrative purposes and each school should have its own individual name, which would include any classification denoting its status. Cussen ultimately believed that neither the schools nor the public should view children in reformatories as criminals;

Although the young persons committed to the Reformatories have been found guilty of offences it is the case that the percentage of them who subsequently make a further appearance in the Courts is negligible. It follows, we suggest that such young persons cannot in any sense fairly be looked upon as criminals

1.48In line with this proposal, Cussen wished to remove other aspects of the committal proceedings that could contribute to the idea of criminality, such as:

the Children’s Court should be separated from the District Court;
judges should not wear robes in Children’s Court;
Gardaí should not wear uniforms in court nor when they were bringing the children to the schools.

1.49This child-centred approach of the Cussen Report also manifested itself in a desire to maintain each child’s identity and family connection. It was the belief of the Commission that school Managers were to be fully aware of all of the children under their care. Therefore, Cussen recommended that more detailed information about each child be provided to the schools upon committal. This information was to include a birth or baptismal certificate and a synopsis of each child’s history including comments from Justices where appropriate. This information was to remain confidential. In addition children were to be committed to Industrial Schools as near to their homes whenever practicable – subject to the discretion of the Justices – so as to allow parents easier access to their child and thus preserve familial ties.

Cussen on Resident Manager

1.50The functions to be performed by the Resident Manager of an Industrial School included the ability to manage all staff, control discipline within the school and, primarily, to be fully knowledgeable of the circumstances of each child in their care:

The success attained by these schools depends in large measure on the personality and fitness for office of the Managers – their capacity in directing their staffs, their power to make every pupil feel that the Manager is his guardian and his friend, while maintaining an ever vigilant but unobtrusive discipline.

1.51The Department’s concern as to the age of certain Resident Managers was a recurring theme

1.52The Cussen Commission considered the role to be one which required ‘qualifications and gifts that might not be considered indispensable in ordinary schools’. Consequently, the choice of person to fulfil this role was regarded as a most important decision and it was recommended that ultimate approval for this post should rest with the Minister for Education. The Report went further to state that the Minister for Education should also have the power to remove Resident Managers who were derelict in their duties. The report maintained ‘that it should be within the competence of the Minister to report to his or her Superior, with a view to replacement, a Manager who is found unsatisfactory’.

1.53The response to this recommendation came in the form of section 5 of the 1941 Act, which gave the Minister the power, for the first time, to direct the removal of the Resident Manager.

If the Minister is satisfied that the Resident Manager of a certified school has failed or neglected to discharge efficiently the duties of his position or that he is unsuitable or unfit to discharge those duties, the Minister may request the managers of the school to remove such Resident Manager from his position and the managers shall comply with such requests (unless withdrawn) within one month after receipt thereof.

1.54Crucially, however, the Act did not allow the Minister for Education the power of veto over the selection of a Manager or approve appointees to the role as recommended by Cussen, though this had been part of the Bill as introduced in the Dáil. The Resident Managers’ Association was against this change and protested to the Department and also lobbied the Opposition party who supported their protests. The Government withdrew the provision at committee stage in the Dáil and substituted a new section 5, which gave the Minister no power at the appointment stage and merely provided that the Minister had to be notified of the appointment within 10 days of its occurring. Following the appointment of a Resident Manager a Departmental form known as ACA 1 was completed by the new Resident Manager and by the representative of the Managers of the school and returned to the Department in accordance with the legislation.

1.55The Department of Education was reluctant to exercise its power of removal. There are only two known occasions where the Department invoked this power: the removal of the Resident Managers from Lenaboy, Industrial School, Galway and St Michael’s Cappoquin in Waterford.

Lenaboy Girls Industrial School, Sisters of Mercy Salthill, Galway

1.56In 1942 an internal Department of Education memo discussed the findings of Dr Anna McCabe’s inspection of Lenaboy Industrial School. The inspection report expressed grave unease at the actions of the Resident Manager.

The produce of the garden was sold. The old sister in charge of the kitchen protested against the starvation of the children – she and another old sister were removed and replaced by two young novices who dare not challenge the Superior’s orders. It is rumoured that the tea ration is also sold. (It is certain that the children have not been getting it.) The suggestion made by Dr McCabe last year that skipping ropes and a net ball should be provided evoked the remark If she thinks I’m going to throw away my money on skipping ropes, she’s mad.

1.57The memorandum reiterates Dr McCabe’s concerns

The Resident Manager is a miserly, ruthless old woman of 70 years who has as her objective the reduction of the debt on the institution. She has been hardened by age and a lifetime spent in Magdalene Homes. She has no experience of children and has no sympathy with them. Her fortes are finance and farming. She set about obtaining her end with cold thoroughness.

1.58An official at the Department of Education stated in a memo that Lenaboy represented a ’clear case for action under section 5(4) of the 1941 Act’. On 14th September 1943, the Department wrote to the Mother Superior stating that the Minister felt the Resident Manager of Lenaboy was unsuitable for the role and asked that she be removed from that position and a more suitable person be appointed in her place. Over one week later on 23rd September 1943 the Mother Superior of the Order replied to the Department to say that a new Resident Manager had been appointed.

St Michael’s Cappoquin, Sisters of Mercy, Waterford

1.59As with Lenaboy, the removal of the Resident Manager was precipitated by an inspection by Dr Anna McCabe in 1943. Dr McCabe found the children to be undernourished, where 61 out of the 75 boys in the school were under the normal weight for their age-height groups. An internal Department of Education memorandum referred to St Michael’s as ‘another school run by the Sisters of Mercy’ with ‘a long record of semi-starvation’. After much bitter correspondence the Department was forced to issue a statutory request for the removal of the Resident Manager whom Dr McCabe described as a ‘ruthless domineering person who resents any criticism and challenges advice’. After much wrangling, a new Resident Manager was eventually installed.

1.60This incident is an excellent illustration of the relationship between the religious Orders and the State. The requests for the improvement in diet in the school had begun in December 1943 following an inspection report. The removal of the Resident Manger was requested under statute by the Minister in September 1944 but only came about in November 1944. The lack of urgency following a statutory request by the Minister of Education and the language used by the school in the correspondence with the Department is further evidence of the timidity of the Department in dealing with the school. For instance in response to the statutory request to remove the Resident Manager the reverend mother replied a week later ‘I am looking into the matter and will communicate with you later’.

1.61On the other hand, these cases demonstrate that, when the Department was prepared to insist and to invoke the statutory power, the religious authorities responded.

Smaller schools

1.62The Cussen Report also recommended that schools should have no more than 250 children at one time which would permit the Manager ‘to make every pupil feel that the Manager is his guardian and friend’. With this in mind the Report advocated the division of Artane, which at that time was home to over 800 boys. The Report recommended that Artane be subdivided into four separate schools, each with its own Manager, segregating the children according to age and attainments. However the Christian Brothers argued against the division of Artane in their submission to the Cussen Committee;

Again it is said: ‘Artane is too large’. We reply that nevertheless it has exceeded beyond all expectations. We would go further and say that in its largeness lies its chief merit and advantage; for it is size and its multiplicity of activities that afford exercise to those following the various trades, etc within its own precincts…We hold that its great educative value is due to its size, and accompanying circumstances; for if a boy has only moderate intelligence, it must develop owing to the thousand and one influences to which he is subject.

1.63This recommendation of the Cussen Commission was never implemented by the Department of Education and, as preferred by the Christian Brothers, Artane remained as a single institution.

Lack of educational qualifications

1.64Until the changes brought about by the Kennedy Report in the 1970s, the staff of the schools seldom if ever had any education or training for their exacting role in childcare. The view seems to have been taken by the Department that the training and development of religious and lay staff in the institutions was largely a matter for the religious Orders.

1.65This lack had been perceived by the Cussen Commission, which sent questionnaires to school Managers regarding the qualifications and numbers of teaching staff within their schools. The information received showed a large deficit in the numbers of qualified literary teachers. The schools which completed the questionnaire disclosed that in the girls schools there were 81 teachers of literary subjects of whom only six were trained; the equivalent for senior boys schools was 73 literary teachers of whom 38 were trained. Reformatory Schools’ educational standards were deemed to be of an even lower standard than Industrial Schools: Cussen commented that ‘the standard of teaching and qualifications of the teachers in Reformatories are not high’.

1.66It was also the case that there was a lack of fully trained teachers because, commencing in 1932, on the basis of a request from the Christian Brothers, it became the policy of the Department of Education to allow Brothers to interrupt and defer completion of the required two-year teacher training after one year and to work in schools, with a view to completing their training within three years. In 1943 the Department agreed to extend this to a period of five years. Upon completion of their first year of teacher training the Brothers then became known as untrained assistants, who under the Rules and Regulations for National Schools, were allowed to teach in a temporary capacity for up to five years. This relaxation was extended to the other Orders in 1943 and came to an end only in 1962-63.

Education in the Reformatories and Industrial Schools

1.67Subject to the requirement of industrial training, the same pattern of education, including the same external exams, applied in principle to residents of the Industrial Schools as to the general population.

1.68The Cussen Commission was mandated to examine the:

… (2) the care, education and training of children and young persons in Reformatories and Industrial Schools, and their aftercare and supervision when discharged from these institutions.

1.69Recommendations 20-29 of the Cussen Report addressed these issues.

Literary instruction

1.70Each Industrial School signed a commitment that, in view of receiving the grant for literary teachers, out of the Vote for Primary Education, it would comply with the Rules and Regulations for National Schools. Rule 7 of the 1933 Rules and Regulations for the Certification of an Institution as an Industrial School provided that all children should be instructed in accordance with the programme prescribed for National School and, in this regard, children under 14 years of age (juniors) were required to have literary instruction and study not less than four and a half hours, five days a week.

1.71The literary instruction included: Irish, English, Maths, History, Geography, Needlework, Music, Rural Science or Nature Study, Drawing and Physical Education. The Industrial Training, which was particular to the Industrial and Reformatory Schools, included: Cookery, Laundry Work or Domestic Economy (girls), Manual Instruction (boys). At the other stage, Seniors (children over 14) were to have literacy instruction, not less than three hours, five days a week.

1.72Departmental inspectors’ reports, prior to the Cussen Inquiry, described the educational standard of certified schools as satisfactory in general; however the Cussen Report concluded that, ‘in some of the schools the work done is rather mediocre’ and the teaching staff were of ‘slender qualifications’. Artane was specifically mentioned for providing only the minimum standard of literary education. Cussen suggested a number of reasons for the disparity between educational standards in National Schools and Reformatory and Industrial Schools, one being that the school Managers were under no obligation to employ teachers trained to National Schools standard.

1.73The lack of standardised teacher qualifications within the system led the Report to recommend that teachers in both Reformatories and Industrial Schools should have the same qualifications as teachers in National Schools. It was also recommended that teachers in certified schools should receive the same pay and conditions as National Schools teachers. This, Cussen argued, would attract qualified teachers and remove the stigma associated with working within this system. The financing for this was to come from the Vote for Primary Education.

1.74Upon publication of these recommendations the Department of Education began the process of examining their feasibility. In 1939 a number of inspections took place in certified schools in order to examine the qualifications of the teachers and establish the basis for state grants. The reports from the inspectors show that although the Cussen recommendations stated that certified school teachers must be as qualified as National Schools teachers, in practice exceptions were made for teachers who, although not technically as qualified as National Schools teachers, were deemed to deserve the same recognition. Indeed Rule 73 of both 1932 and 1946 Rules and Regulations for National Schools provided for the recognition of ‘untrained’ teachers as National Schools teachers also. It was not until 1946 that a Department of Education circular sent to all Reformatories and Industrial Schools, stated that all religious staff must be qualified under the terms of Rule 85(6) of the Rules and Regulations for National Schools.

1.75In February 1943, following the shift to payment of literary teachers, the Department of Education issued revised instructions to inspectors in relation to Industrial Schools. It was made clear to the inspectors that the programme of instruction in all Industrial National Schools was the ordinary National School programme, except for the Domestic Economy subjects. In furnishing a report on a teacher the inspector was to bear in mind the circumstances in which many of them had been exceptionally recognised, and thus make allowances before deciding whether to rate a teacher as non-efficient. For those teachers whose teaching efficiency was deemed unsatisfactory, the Department approved the recommendation that these unqualified lay teachers should be given other duties or retired with a pension, the cost of which was to be defrayed by the school Managers.

1.76The Cussen Commission included a number of further recommendations with regard to education, including sending children within the system to local National Schools where possible. This policy of sending children to local schools allowed for greater contact with other children. At the time of the Report, the Commission estimated that approximately 33 percent of the schools did send their students to National Schools. This figure did not increase substantially until the 1970s.

1.77Cussen also recommended recognising Industrial Schools as National Schools when local National Schools were unable to accommodate the children from Industrial Schools. The object was to attract more teachers into the Industrial Schools, as there was a stigma associated with working in them. The full implementation of this recommendation did not occur until 1945 when a Department of Education submission to the Government made clear the Department’s objection to the persistent inequality between National Schools and certified schools.

Differing needs of the residents: children with intellectual disabilities

1.78A number of recommendations in the Cussen Report refer to the problem of the appropriate care and education of children with intellectual disabilities. Figures provided by the Resident Managers to the Cussen Commission show that in August 1934 there were 56 intellectually disabled children (10 boys and 46 girls) in certified schools and an additional 46 children with physical disabilities (26 boys and 20 girls). However other figures show that this may have been a gross underestimation.

1.79The Cussen Report makes reference to the general absence of legislation regarding the care and treatment of people with intellectually disabilities in Ireland and the consequent difficulty in effectively dealing with the issue within the certified school system. Overall the Report was against the idea of sending intellectually and physically disabled children to Industrial Schools. The amalgamation of children with differing educational needs was recognised as unsatisfactory and the benefits of educating these children separately was emphasised in the report.

1.80Recommendation 33 advocated the establishment of an institution specifically for the care of intellectually disabled children with separate departments for the physically disabled under the auspices of the Department of Education. The Report also recommended that, pending a medical report, judges be empowered to send these children to specialised institutions instead of the schools:

If it is found from the report of the examining doctor that the child is physically or mentally abnormal or if the doctor is unable to form a definite opinion the justice should, if the case is one calling for detention in a school, order the child to be sent to the institution especially certified for such cases.

1.81The Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science told the Investigation Committee that ‘the Government decided…that it shouldn’t be made mandatory to have an assessment, I think that was in 1956…’. The number of intellectually and physically disabled children within the Reformatory and Industrial School system is unknown. No medical or psychological research material exists to support the figures supplied by the Cussen Report. The Kennedy Committee established that there was a significant level of educational disadvantage in the schools and there were no remedial resources available.

1.82Br Burcet was both a teacher (1954-55) and a principal (1956-69) in Artane Industrial School. In his evidence he describes the large numbers of physically and mentally disabled children in Artane during his tenure and contends that there was a change in the type of boy sent to Artane in the late 1950s and early 60s. It is his belief that with the development of social welfare services in Ireland the demographic of the resident population of Artane began to change ‘I had a sense that more disturbed children were coming into us in the 1960s, certainly in the 1960s.’

1.83Br Burcet attempted to introduce a special needs programme within the school. He described the resistance from the Department of Education in relation to any deviation from the National Schools curriculum. His belief was that the physical welfare of the children was the primary concern of the Department

So, if you are asking me how did the Department see Artane, they were looking at it from a physical care philosophy. I would say they were quite happy.

Post-primary education in Industrial Schools

1.84From the 1950s, the Department’s annual reports indicated a concern that secondary education should be provided to children who would be able to benefit from it. For example, the Report of 1954–55 stated that: ‘every effort is being made to make post-primary education available to those pupils suited to such’ but the evidence is that it happened in few cases.

1.85The annual report of 1932-33 noted that ‘a few schools have afforded promising girls special opportunities for higher education’ and this trend continued in the following years. But a 1952 document, noted that St Joseph’s, Tralee was the only boys Industrial School to send its children to secondary school. With regards to the numbers of children, approximately 250 Industrial School pupils were in post-primary education, either in secondary tops, secondary schools, and vocational schools or in vocational classes confined to Industrial School pupils. The gender breakdown is striking: 11 percent of the girls (i.e. 180) against 4½ percent of the boys (i.e. 70).

1.86The proportion of Industrial School pupils receiving post-primary education was always very low, and negligible in the case of Reformatories. As of 1963, out of the seven schools for senior boys, only two sent boys out to local secondary or vocational schools and only one provided a full vocational course within the institution. Conversely, almost all the girl schools, with only one or two exceptions, had pupils attending outside secondary or vocational schools. In some cases the secondary school was conducted by the religious community and was located beside the Industrial School; generally, however, the girls in full-time post-primary education were receiving it outside the institutions.

1.87It is not until 1950-51 that the Department’s annual reports started to provide data on the numbers who obtained an Intermediate Certificate or Leaving Certificate:

Year	Boys/Inter	Girls/Inter	Boys/Leaving	Girls/Leaving
1951	0	5	0	2
1952	0	11	0	1
1953	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
1954	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
1955	4	21	0	5
1956	1	13	0	4
1957	1	18	2	2
1958	1	20	0	3

Applications for extension of detention

1.88The Cussen Report noted that in some schools children were retained beyond the age of 16 years (the age of discharge) so as to enable them to derive benefit from a special course of training, and that such training was undertaken at the sole expense of the school. The Report advised that the Minister be given power, where he was satisfied the circumstances so warrant, to authorise a resident to remain in a school up to the age of 17 years, subject to the payment of an appropriate grant and this proposal was implemented by the Childrens Act 1941. For the remainder of the 1940s, applications were very small, ranging from two to seven per year. The numbers of successful applications rose slightly in the 1950s, peaking at 23 a year, in a school system then catering for 4,000 or so children. The reasons for the extensions, according to annual reports for the period, were to pursue secondary, vocational or commercial courses and occasionally to sit the civil service examinations or attend nursing training.

Cussen recommendations on training

1.89A number of the Cussen Report recommendations with regard to training came from a report entitled ‘Report on the Occupational Training provided in the Senior Boy’s Industrial Schools and in Glencree Reformatory’, which was compiled by four Departmental inspectors as part of the Cussen Committee’s Inquiry and was published as Appendix H of their Report.

1.90The Commission was largely dissatisfied with the provision of training in the certified schools. The relevance of certain trades and the validity of the instruction provided were questioned, noting that there was a ‘complete absence of fully qualified instructors’. With regard to agricultural training the Commission found that ‘The training in farming is unsatisfactory, the work being unorganised with no systematic instruction in field or in the classroom’. The Commission also feared that the children were being treated as unpaid labourers and received no educational value for their time on the farm. Cussen consequently recommended the employment of a full-time farm manager with sufficient expertise allowing him to act as instructor. Cussen (para 57) advocated a wage to be held in trust for those children working in the schools, stating that:

as the labour of the inmates is of some value to them it should be provided that a special portion of the cash value of the work of the girls for whom grants have been paid should be placed to their credit and made available for them on leaving.

1.91The implementation of this recommendation did not occur. No record of a discussion of it within the Department has been discovered.

1.92As with agricultural training, the motivation for training children in a number of technical disciplines seemed to be predicated upon the interests of the schools. The Report stated (at para 111) ‘It appears to us that in the majority of the schools the trades taught – many of which are obsolescent – have in view the needs of the institution rather than the future of the boys’.

1.93Cussen recommended (para 23) therefore that more suitable and relevant crafts should be introduced in agricultural districts such as woodwork, thatching and harness making. Geographical proximity in relation to training was considered very important

Schools in the vicinity of cities and industrial centres should be set aside for the teaching of special trades, and pupils in other Industrial Schools where similar facilities are not available should be transferred to these schools, if they are considered likely to benefit by a course of industrial training.

1.94In the case of agricultural instruction, Cussen recommended the careful selection of tradesmen to train the children. and that the Department establish special courses to train instructors in the methods of teaching. In order to ensure that the training received by the pupils was both worthwhile and relevant the Cussen Report advocated regular occupational training inspections by inspectors of the Technical Instruction Branch of the Department.

Post-Cussen

1.95After the Cussen Report, consistent criticism of the schools’ training can be seen in the annual reports of the Department of Education. These reports observed once again ‘the work turned out is principally for the use of the schools. The annual reports from this time also show that there was a continuing difficulty in placing the boys in employment following their training. The visitation report for Artane, 8-13th December 1952, took a rather different approach to this subject, remarking happily: ‘Our institutions owe a great deal to those boys who work full time at their trades. Their work is of great financial advantage to each establishment.’

1.96In 1946 the Minister for Education enquired as to the suitability of the trades taught. He questioned that a pupil in Artane Industrial School was being taught gardening, which he felt ‘was not a suitable occupation in this day and age’. He requested that the matter of teaching trades in general be looked into. A Departmental memorandum was compiled in response to the Minister’s request, outlining the challenges facing the Resident Managers in this area, not least of which was finding suitable employment for the children. The memo went on to warn that if the Department ‘interferes much in the matter there might be a danger of the Managers trying to transfer their responsibility to the Department’. The memo also alluded to the severe criticism the Department had faced in 1952 from the Committee on Youth Unemployment for its failure to implement the recommendation of the Cussen Report with regard to industrial training. The author of the memo recommended that enquiries be made to the schools regarding:

what trades were taught in the years 1943, 1944, 1945;
the numbers of boys released into the trades taught; and
the number of boys who were sent into different trades to the ones taught.

1.97Significantly, the Artane statistics collected in response to these inquiries indicated that all, or nearly all, the boys went to employment in the trades in which they were trained. The gardening and tailoring figures for Greenmount, Carriglea and Clonmel, however, show that a significant number of boys did not end up in the trades in which they had been trained after they left their school.

1.98In February 1955, the Joint Committee of Women’s Societies and Social Workers wrote to the Department recommending that qualified teachers should be provided to train the children in trades. Over a decade later, the situation appears to have remained unaltered. In 1966 a delegation from the Junior Chamber of Commerce was sent to Artane Industrial School to ascertain what could be done to help. Their report identified difficulties with the industrial training provided, specifically that the workshops and equipment were out of date. The authors of the report considered the training the boys received was not adequate and would not allow them to achieve employment in their craft. It also commented that, even if a boy became proficient in a trade, his training would not be recognised by a trade union.

1.99About the same time, a letter of 10th February 1966 by Department of Education, replying to a letter from Joint Committee of Women’s Societies and Social Workers, stated:

In the matter, however, of entry of industrial school pupils to Coláiste Mhuire, Cathal Brugha Street, an Agricultural School or College, Commercial School or the Civil Service, it would be extremely unusual for any person to enter any of these before at the very least seventeen years of age. The normal entry to them would be at about eighteen years of age. On the other hand, it is unusual for children to remain in industrial schools after sixteen, which is the statutory term of their committal.

There is, however, another reason why it would be unlikely that children from industrial schools should enter such institutions as you mention. It is that entry is by competition, usually on the basis of a written examination and that the great majority of children in industrial schools are there on the grounds of ‘lack of proper guardianship’. This means that they come from unsettled homes; from which most of them have not been regular attendees at school and so are educationally retarded. Their chances at a competitive examination are therefore small indeed and so, as far as I know, there are none of them at the institution mentioned.

1.100In earlier decades, some individual trade unions seem to have had a policy of preventing employers from recognising such training, or counting it as part of apprenticeship, and giving jobs on the basis of it, thus in large measure rendering it pointless (Cussen Report, para 123). The trade unions were presumably protecting their members by upholding the traditional means of entry. However in 1968 the Department of Education was advised by the Department of Labour that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions was concerned that career guidance and apprenticeship training did not appear to be receiving sufficient attention in the schools judging by the attainments of the ex-pupils of Industrial Schools in later life. They recommended the establishment of fully trained career guidance officers and the re-assessment of apprenticeship training.

1.101• Cussen had stated that the whole system of training had needed revision. What followed, however, in terms of Departmental policy was a piecemeal set of circulars, and advisory actions which resulted in little change. In a statement to the Commission in 2006 the Department acknowledges that it did not give this matter ‘sufficient attention’.

The Cussen recommendations on aftercare

1.102The Cussen Commission were deeply unhappy with the schools’ provision of aftercare, which was intended to support the placing of children in trades and occupations for which they have received training in the schools. The Christian Brothers were cited as particularly negligent in their duties:

We are not satisfied as to the adequacy of the methods of supervision and aftercare of children discharged from these schools, particularly in the case of boys leaving the Industrial Schools which are under the management of the Christian Brothers.

1.103Figures taken from the Cussen Report for the years 1932-33 illustrate what happened to both boys and girls who left Reformatories and Industrial Schools after their periods of detention:

Table 1 Boys

Occurrence after discharge	Industrial Schools	Reformatories
Returned home	191	39
Sent to employment	623	12
Retained awaiting employment	8	0
Recalled by Manager	26	0
Returned of own accord	44	4
Could not be traced	4	4
Total	822	51

Source: Cussen Report

Table 2 Girls

Occurrence after discharge	Industrial Schools	Reformatories
Returned home	148	14
Sent to employment	552	5
Retained awaiting employment	30	0
Recalled by Manager	26	0
Returned of own accord	39	4
Could not be traced	2	4
Total	730	19

Source: Cussen Report

1.104Both of these tables show that a quarter of boys and a quarter of girls did not move from the schools into employment, with a large proportion returning home at the end of their detention. Aftercare was deemed especially important by the Cussen Commission as it was seen as a way of assisting the boys and girls who received poor occupational training.

1.105The Report acknowledged the difficulties in securing employment in the skilled trades even for children who did not attend Industrial Schools and commented on the large numbers of Industrial Schools boys who gained work as agricultural or farm labourers regardless of their trade. Consequently Cussen advocated the payment of a capitation grant by the State towards the cost of apprenticeship. Several reasons were put forward as to why this system was so disorganised, including the idea that Managers did not fully appreciate their responsibilities in this area. Cussen suggested that school Managers take a more proactive role in securing employment for their students. This included establishing communication with the local labour exchange to determine what types of trade were in demand. In addition it was suggested that the Manager should explain to the children that if they faced any difficulties during the statutory period of aftercare they were entitled to return to the school in seek of help or advice.

Post-Cussen

1.106In 1952 at a meeting with representatives of the Department of Education and Justice McCarthy of the Dublin Metropolitan District Court, Fr Reidy, Resident Manager of Daingean, stated the there was ‘Not much done in aftercare’ and expressed his views as to why the boys had difficulty securing employment:

Lads now are much lasier [sic] and more apathetic to work than 20 years ago. This problem is partly a result of social welfare schemes. (It is) important therefore to get them to work at anything at all.

1.107In response Justice McCarthy suggested that it was this thinking, i.e. that ‘getting them work at ‘anything’ was perhaps to some extent the cause of the trouble’. Justice McCarthy also suggested the establishment of a hostel for the boys to enable them to adjust to life after the institution. However Fr Reidy disagreed, saying that it was a better option to break up the association amongst the boys after they left Daingean.

1.108In August, 1966, a letter to the Minister for Education from Minister for Justice, stated

…I am suggesting that you, coming to the problems with a fresh mind, might have a look at the industrial schools system. I have no doubt that the lack of proper after-care is a grievous fault in the system and that there are ample resources of voluntary assistance only waiting to be harnessed and guided. I think that a vigorous approach to the managers of the industrial schools – individually or collectively would make it extremely difficult for them to maintain a negative attitude.

1.109The file shows a reply from the Minister for Education stating that he would have a good look at the Industrial School system and would be in touch. A few months later, the Kennedy Committee was set up, by the Minister for Education.

1.110Thirty years after the publication of the Cussen Report, a Department of Education memo to the Minister of Finance highlighted the lack of progress in the area of aftercare stated, ‘In general, with the exception of Artane, they (the schools) lack any kind of aftercare or organisation’.

Part 5 The inspection system

1.111From the late 1920s until the mid 1960s there were three types of inspection. Firstly, there was the educational inspection, which was concerned with education in the National School. Secondly, there was a medical inspection performed by the Medical Inspector. Thirdly, there were general inspections to ascertain the quality of residential care provided for the children, which were sometimes carried out by the official in charge of the Reformatory and Industrial School Branch, but were generally done by the Medical Inspector at the same times as the medical inspection. While there were occasions, particularly in the early 1940s, where general and medical inspections were held separately, a trend developed over time where both would be carried out simultaneously in the one visit by the same Department inspector. The Department’s archive of medical and general inspections shows that, from 1939 to 1965, Dr McCabe carried out the medical inspections and the majority of the general inspections of the Industrial and Reformatory Schools.

1.112Following Dr McCabe’s retirement in 1965 the Department of Education left the post of Medical Inspector unfilled until the appointment of Mr Graham Granville in 1976. In the intervening decade a number of changes took place. In the absence of a dedicated Medical Inspector, inspections were initially augmented by, and then replaced with, medical reports by medical officers retained by each individual school. From 1961 to 1963, these medical reports were submitted to the Department on a quarterly basis. From 1963 to 1978, the medical reports were submitted on a twice-yearly basis.

General inspections

1.113The benchmarks for standards of residential care were set out in the Rules and Regulations that were issued to school Managers by the Department on certification. Department circulars were issued from time to time to supplement them.

1.114The general inspection covered premises including playground, dormitory, kitchen; living conditions generally such as clothing or diet; as well as staff and accounts. The report was based in part on a printed checklist with entries for accommodation, equipment, sanitation, health, food and diet, clothing, recreation facilities and precautions against fire. The reports were impressionistic in character – they were structured so as to give a general account of conditions within a school, dealing generally with the quality of residential care provided and the condition of the children. They left out everyday treatment, including corporal punishment. They did not give detailed information and did not deal with policy matters.

1.115The inspectors’ reports were not published. If a school was satisfactory, the inspection would result in only a short record. After the particular headings, there was a section for general observations and suggestions, which might be as brief as ‘well-run school’. On the other hand, where there was something wrong, these observations could run for several pages. Comments in inspection reports under the various headings ranged from excellent to fair to poor. Where standards fell below what was expected (e.g. inadequate diet) the Department wrote to the Resident Manager in the school with a view to having this rectified, though with mixed success.

Medical inspections

1.116The Cussen Report (para 86) was critical of the inspection system operated by the Department of Education up to that point. Cussen described as ‘unsatisfactory’ the system of medical inspection in schools and urged that, in addition to the medical examination of children on admission, a periodic medical examination should be carried out by a doctor ‘specially trained in the diagnosis of children’s diseases, physical and mental’. In response, Dr Anna McCabe was appointed in April 1939. One part of the medical report was a checklist focussed on the health of individual children, with headings such as teeth, thyroid, nail biters, stammer, eyesight.

1.117The principal duties of the Medical Inspector were:

(1)protecting the health of the children;

(2)making arrangements for the children when they are sick or when they need some medical attention such as for eyes, teeth etc.;

(3)general health considerations – food and clothing, sleeping facilities, conditions of work and so on;

(4)evaluating the medical services to schools, i.e. care provided to children by the school doctor, including:

(a)keeping a record of the medical examination given to a child when committed;

(b)the medical examination the school doctor performs on the children when he/she visits the school from time to time.

1.118Dr McCabe’s appointment coincided with efforts to revise the system used for recording medical information on pupils and the issue was the subject of two Department circulars between 1940 and 1943. The first of these, Circular 205/39, issued to Resident Managers on 5th June 1940, announced the introduction of a ‘standardised’ form, which would give both the particulars of the medical examination on admission and the subsequent medical history of the child while in the school. Such a record, which was the responsibility of the Manager, had the advantage of easy reference and was intended to be forwarded with the child on transfer to another school. In terms of medical history, the form included a record of illness section, under which was entered any treatment a child received in either the school infirmary or external hospital. A quarterly reading of height and weight was also to be entered on the form. It was evident from the documentation available that the Department placed great importance on the physical health of the children and wrote to the schools following Dr McCabe’s suggestions regarding referrals for treatment and dietary recommendations. A continuous reduction in weight would raise concerns in relation to adequacy of diet.

1.119A second circular was issued on 28th September 1943 to remind Resident Managers of their responsibilities in the matter of the ’safeguarding’ of the health of the children. They were also advised that the Minister attached the ‘utmost importance’ to the punctilious observance of Rule 22 of the Rules and Regulations for Certified Schools, which required the appointment of a medical officer for the school who would issue quarterly medical reports on the sanitary state of the school and the health of the children. The circular continued:

It frequently happens that the Quarterly Medical Return furnished by a School to this Department states that no children, or merely a small number, are suffering from disease, while the inspection by the Department’s Medical Inspector carried out at the end of the quarter in question, reveals that a much larger number of children are suffering from diseases. It should be clearly understood that the primary responsibility for the health of a School rests on the Resident Manager and on the School Medical Officer. The function of the Department’s Medical Inspector in this matter is to satisfy herself that their arrangements for keeping a watch on the children’s health and providing medical attention where required are working satisfactorily.

1.120The annual reports of the Department of Education frequently refer to the fact that the medical inspector had viewed the quarterly medical reports kept by school Managers in consultation with the local medical officers. Furthermore, despite what appears as initial resistance to their use by some school Managers, Dr McCabe was able to cite evidence from medical records as proof of underfeeding in schools in the mid 1940s.

Frequency of inspections

1.121Not all schools were inspected each year, as required by the legislation. The frequency of school inspection varied from school to school and from year to year and some schools were visited more frequently than others.

1.122For example, Baltimore school was subject to three inspections in one year (1947), while Artane went three years without any inspection (1950-52). The records did not reveal why some schools were inspected more often than others. In certain cases complaints or issues of a serious nature were brought to the Department’s attention and a special inspection of a school was ordered. Geography and accessibility may also have been a factor. In 1949, for example, no Industrial School in either Connacht or Ulster received a visit from a Department inspector. In the same year, the inspectors had five contact days (days where the inspector was present in a school to conduct a general or medical inspection or both) with Dublin’s seven Industrial and Reformatory Schools; seven contact days with the 12 schools in the rest of Leinster; and five contact days with the Munster schools. The following year, 1950, the number of contact days between the Department and the various schools revealed the following regional spread: Connacht (1); Dublin (1); Leinster (9); Ulster (2); and Munster (3).

Table 3 Frequency of inspections 1940s

Province	No of schools	Total no of inspections	Average inspections per school per year
Connacht	10	86	.86
Dublin	7	82	1.17
Leinster	12	129	1.07
Munster	23	212	.92
Ulster	2	16	.8
Total	54	525	.97

Table 4 Frequency of inspections 1950s

Province	No of schools	Total no of inspections	Average inspections per school per year
Connacht*	10	118	1.18
Dublin	7	112	1.6
Leinster*	12	229	1.91
Munster*	22	235	1.07
Ulster	2	26	1.3
Total	53	720	1.36

Table 5 Frequency of Inspections 1960s

Province	No of schools	Total no of inspections	Average inspections per school per year
Connacht	9	74	.82
Dublin	6	43	.72
Leinster	12	112	.93
Munster	21	146	.70
Ulster	2	14	.70
Total	50	389	.78

Note that 12 schools closed between 1965 and 1969 and all are included in the above list.

1.123With regard to the rate of inspections Dr McCabe wrote in 1943:

I agree that these institutions should be subject to frequent inspection – my practice at present is to pay a visit at least once a year to such institutions and if there is any need I revisit them within three or four months to find if my instructions have been carried out.

1.124The figures show that in the 1950s the average number of inspections increased significantly. By the 1960s the number of inspections fell again, to below 1940s levels. There were on average 0.78 inspections per school per year during the 1960s, although the number of schools decreased steadily in the second half of the decade as a result of closures. Another reason for the decline in inspections at this time was the retirement in the mid-1960s and non-replacement of Dr Anna McCabe as Medical Inspector.

1.125144 inspections for 32 schools were carried out during the 1970s, representing an average of 0.45 inspections per school per year. The lowest point was 1975, when the Department inspected no residential or special school.

Other limitation on the inspections

1.126A significant limitation that runs through the school system was that the Department’s inspectors were in no position to promise or provide additional resources to schools to enable them to address shortcomings and bring about improvements. Inspections and action taken on the basis thereof were pursued within the context of the available resources at the relevant time. The focus was confined to material and physical aspects of residential care and, until the establishment of the Child Care Advisor, was without reference to the developmental and emotional needs of children. It would appear that, in the main, schools were given advance notice of inspector’s visits and residents have described how, as a result, proper blankets, eiderdowns, dishes – never otherwise used etc. – were all on display. However, unannounced visits were not uncommon and were used on occasion to check on schools where concerns had arisen. The Resident Manager of Letterfrack, for example, protested that Dr McCabe periodically visited the school unannounced.

1.127Instances of abuse would not normally be brought to the attention of inspectors during the course of a routine inspection of a school. Occasionally, as in Newtownforbes in 1940, inspectors identified evidence of mistreatment, and in this case the threat of censure was mooted: ‘I was not satisfied in finding so many of the girls in the infirmary suffering from bruises on their bodies’, Dr McCabe informed the Resident Manager in a letter: ‘I wish particularly to draw attention to the latter as under no circumstances can the Department tolerate treatment of this nature and you being responsible for the care of these children will have some difficulty in avoiding censure.’

1.128However, most of the abuse cases were not discovered as a result of normal school inspections.

1.129Official concern at conditions in the school – and also the incomplete character of the information available and perhaps a feeling of helplessness – was apparent from the response of the senior childcare officer in the Department of Health to the medical report of the death of a child in St Joseph’s Ferryhouse. She wrote:

This shocking report confirms some unofficial information that I have had over the years concerning Ferryhouse…from what I have heard the ill treatment of the boys could do with investigation also. One person who spoke to me about this matter was an inspector of the ISPCC. It is scandalous that only the death of one of the boys has led to the conditions there coming to light.

One-off inspections

1.130Sometimes particular complaints or episodes were serious enough to lead to an inspector’s being sent to make a more wide-ranging investigation than the usual regular visit. The following are examples from the Department’s records.

1.131In Rathdrum in December 1947 a child of three was put in to a very hot bath and died a few days later from his injuries. Dr McCabe was sent to inquire and discovered that at the time the victim was in the care of a 14½-year-old laundry maid. The school was inadequately staffed, partly because the 14 nuns in the Rathdrum Convent were old and incapable. The next month Dr McCabe returned to see what improvements had been made and wrote the following internal report:

I informed the Resident Manager that I did not consider she had sufficient staff at present and that she should employ at least two extra helpers immediately, one religious if possible and the other a capable woman with experience of children. She told me she accepted this suggestion and would try to meet my requirements. She then informed me that she expected a castigation since the school had been ‘in the news’ so often. I told her that the most recent episode amounted, in my opinion to criminal negligence…

I then informed her that I had given her one last chance to remedy her deficiencies and that if the school had any further complaints, which on investigation proved to be true that I would ask for her removal. Also I informed her that I would like to see the Mother-General in Carysfort and ask her aid in insisting on this Resident Manager carrying out her duties properly.

One facet of the resident manager I do not like is that she is inclined to be parsimonious and grasping about money and again on this occasion she said the grant was not adequate. I told her not to talk nonsense that schools catering for big boys 10-16 years could very well manage and that these boys eat far more than little boys and required more clothes! I consider it would be well to follow up my visit with a letter insisting on my suggestions being carried out and warning the resident manager that if she cannot cope with the situation she will have to be replaced.

1.132In fact, the letter of 25th February from the Department to the Manager, which was issued on the basis of this internal report, recommended an increase of two staff but did not repeat any of the condemnations or threats that, according to Dr McCabe’s memo of 14th February, she had made orally. These oral directions from Dr McCabe as to how the school should be improved were unusually specific.

1.133An earlier visit to Rathdrum in October 1944 by the general inspector gave rise to an internal memo to the Assistant Secretary, prepared as part of the discussion as to whether to dismiss the Resident Manager (which did not in fact happen):

Since I was appointed to this branch I have frequently drawn attention to the fact that children in industrial schools are, in general, not properly fed…This is a serious indictment of the system of management of industrial schools by nuns. If the children’s parents subjected them to semi-starvation and lack of proper clothing and attention from which they suffer in some industrial schools, the parents would be prosecuted. No laywoman, for instance could treat children as the former resident manager of Lenaboy did and escape punishment. Evidence is not wanting that the public have a shrewd idea of the conditions in many of these schools and that the public conscience is stirring. Last February for instance, the Minister for Local Government and Public Health sent the Minister the following extract from a letter which he had received from Deputy B Butler: —

‘A strong supporter of ours in the Ranelagh area – I think he is a sort of Probation Officer – asked me on Monday night to pass on the hint to you that the Labour Party are about to make capital out of the fact that the children in industrial schools are being literally starved through stoppage of supplies of oaten-meal and meat. I don’t think this can be so, but he appeared very earnest and insistent.’

Dr McCabe and myself have conducted a strenuous campaign against this semi-starvation. On her inspections she has attacked it in every school where she found it … I have followed up her reports in all such cases with official letters, generally in strong terms. We have before us the task of uprooting the old idea that industrial school children are a class apart who have not the same human needs and rights as other children. There may have been something to this idea in the last century, but the present position is that from a material point of view, running an industrial school on an aggregate grant of about 18s/3d per head per week is a business proposition and the community should get value for its money.

1.134Nothing more was heard of the matter.

1.135Another example of an effective inspection is described in an internal memo of 2nd December 1944 from Dr McCabe to the Assistant Secretary:

We arrived unexpectedly a short time before 12 and went straight to the refectory where the dinner was set out. Dinner consisted of one big slice of bread and jam for most of the children who come in and make short work of the bread together with a tin cupful of milk (about half a pint). We were told that the rice which, according to the dietary on the wall, should have been issued, did not arrive from Cork.

I took the whole up fairly strongly with the Resident Manger. She kept up appearances for a while and then confessed to me that everything I said was true that things were worse even than I thought. One of her remarks was that she thought the children so badly nourished that their little legs were hardly able to carry them and that she had warned her authorities that they would lose their certificate. At their suggestion I sent for the Revd Mother, and the secretary and myself warned her in strong terms that the situation which had existed there could not be tolerated any further. I pointed out that the two other schools run by the Order in Cork-Cobh and Kinsale – were at the very top of the list in the matter of food whereas Passage West had become a kind of a bye-word. The Revd. Mother assured us that arrangements had been made to bring the diet fully up to the required standard and that there would, in future, be no cause for complaint.

1.136A letter from the Department to the Provincial of St Joseph’s Clonmel in December 1944 began by thanking the Provincial for substituting a younger Manager at the behest of the Department and went on to describe conditions of considerable squalor:

Incidentally, I feel bound to say a word in defence of the inspectorial system. Admittedly an inspector who visits a school like yours for one day in the year cannot get a full and complete picture of the manner in which it is conducted. All we claim is that a lady like Dr. McCabe, who spends all her time at this work, acquires the ability to get a picture satisfactory as a result of her reports. The system has its faults but is there a better alternative?

Dr. McCabe suggests that the dormitories should be washed out at least once each month, and that one sheet should be changed on each bed weekly. The sanitary annexe should be cleaned each day, and whitewashed and pointed as required. (On the occasion of her visit it was very dirty and the walls were defiled with excrement.) The trouble here and in kindred matters is, in her opinion, due to the failure of the widow and daughter in charge to do their work properly. Apparently they got a lot of help from the boys before the School was recognised as a national school. The boy’s time is now more fully occupied by literary and trade training and apparently the cleaners have been letting things slide.

Kennedy on inspections

1.137The Kennedy Report was especially critical of the inspection system. Criticism was made concerning the inspectors’ failure to pay attention to the circumstances of individual children, the piecemeal character of the inspections and the missed opportunities. Its verdict was damning though it should perhaps be noted that Kennedy was reporting at a time when for personnel reasons the inspection system was in a trough. The Report was made between the retirement of Dr McCabe in the mid 1960s and the appointment of Mr Granville in the mid 1970s, in other words a period when the Department did not have an inspector with professional expertise. The Report concluded:

The system of inspection has, so far as we can judge, been totally ineffective. In other countries the Inspectorate acts as a link between those in the field and those in central authority. In this way the system ensures that no one school or centre is working in isolation, unaware of development in other regions. This has not been the position here. There is only one Inspector and he is, in fact, the Administrative head of the RISB of that Department. His time is, primarily, taken up with the administration of his Branch rather than the inspection of the schools.

We are satisfied that the statutory obligation to inspect these schools at least once a year has not always been fulfilled but, even if it had, this would not have been sufficient. There must, in addition, be meetings where ideas are exchanged and discussed – they should not be merely fault-finding missions.

We have been advised by those in other countries who operate such a system that, on the basis of the figures given of those at present in residential care, [a much lower figure than formerly] approximately five or six Inspectors would be required to operate a proper inspectorate based on a central authority. In this way, every school or Residential Home could be visited frequently. Every child’s case history could be periodically reviewed. These visits might be made to inspect a particular aspect of the running of the home – on other occasions they could be 24-hour visits to study the ordinary routine of the home. Faults, grievances, suggestions and requests could be examined in a general context and the inevitable result would be an overall and continuing improvement in the system.

1.138One of the results of the Kennedy Report was an overhaul of the inspection system and the appointment of Mr Graham Granville as Child Care Advisor in 1976. The difference between the previous inspection system and the post-Kennedy system was that the new Child Care Advisor’s role was to inspect the schools while focusing on the individual child rather than the institution. Prior to Mr Granville’s appointment, inspectors had adhered to a standardised checklist of conditions, but in 1976 a new form was introduced. This new basis for assessment was a departure from the old thinking and included enquiries into psychological services and individual child assessment. The welfare of the child was paramount. Mr Granville’s inspection reports also referred to medical aspects of each school ensuring that appropriate health and medical services were available.

Diet and nutrition in the schools

1.139The widespread underfeeding of children was of particular concern to Dr McCabe, who disagreed with the Cussen Report’s findings of 1936 that had described the diet of these children as ‘on the whole adequate.’ Dr McCabe instituted a system of revised diet scales, nutritional education and comprehensive medical charts recording the weight and height of each child, which she used as evidence of underfeeding in the schools. In a letter sent from the Department of Education to the Department of Finance, recognition is given to the value of correct medical records and stated that these charts ‘brought about a marked improvement’.

1.140The Department did try to address the near-starvation level of diet during World War II. An attempt at serious thinking is shown in a letter of 13th January 1945 from the Assistant Secretary in the Department to the Minister for Finance.

The Medical Inspector has stated time and again that the general standard of nutrition is too low. This grave state of affairs is due, to a degree, which varies depending on the individual School, to:

1.Inability to provide adequate quantities of food owing to the rise in prices;

2.Failure to do so owing to parsimony; and

3.Failure to provide a properly balanced diet (even when the quantity is adequate) owing to lack of training in the management if institutions for children and ignorance of fundamental deictic principles.

As to (1), the payment of the State capitation grant on all committed children and the increase from 5s to 7s per week of the State and local authority grants for children under 6, (both changes took effect as from the1st of July last), have done something to ease the schools’ financial position. When pressed to improve diet, however, managers complain continually that they cannot afford to do so, or that they can do so only by economising elsewhere e.g. in clothing. The Association of Managers has applied for an emergency bonus of 5s per week per child. There is no doubt that the schools, particularly the smaller ones and those that have no farms or very small ones have a case for an emergency increase in their income if they are to be compelled to maintain, and in many cases, to improve upon, their pre-war standards of food and clothing.

As to (2), the strongest possible action has been taken in all cases where the Department was satisfied that parsimony was the predominant cause of gross malnutrition. Two resident managers have been removed from office at the request of the Minister for Education. Others have been solemnly warned and will be removed in due course if there is no adequate improvement. (in one such case in Co. Cork the warning was given personally by the Secretary of the Department accompanied by the Inspector of Reformatory and industrial Schools.)

As to (3), this is a contributory cause of malnutrition in all schools, particularly those conducted by nuns, and an effort to eradicate it is an essential part of the general attack on malnutrition. It is proposed to have a course in institutional management next summer and to invite the Sister or Sisters in charge of the catering in each of the 43 schools conducted by nuns to attend. The City of Dublin Vocational Committee will be asked to conduct the course in Coláiste Muire la Tigheas, Cathal Brugha Street, and to make available the services of professors on their staff who are highly skilled in those subjects. From preliminary discussions between officers of the Committee and the Department it has been ascertained that the course could be specially designed to suit the actual conditions existing in the schools. It would deal with fundamentals of institutional cookery as applied to industrial schools needs, on costing, storage, and preparation of foodstuff. In addition, the Department’s Medical Inspector would avail of the opportunity to give some lecture on balance in diet, hygiene, etc. The course should last for four weeks.

Having regard to the background out of which this proposal emerges persistent pressure by the Department on the schools to spend more money on food and constant complaints from the schools that they cannot afford to do so it will be clear that the course must not involve the schools in any expense if there is to be a reasonable prospect of securing their cooperation. It is proposed to make a grant of £9 towards the expense of each nuns travelling expenses, £6 for four weeks hostel expenses in Dublin, and £1 for materials and part maintenance (they will eat the meals they prepare). Nuns from Dublin City schools would receive the grant of £1 only.

1.141In a long memo of 25th November 1944 written by Dr McCabe to a senior colleague she enclosed height and weight charts as a background to her scientific account of her attempts to get the schools to feed the children appropriate and nourishing food. The following quotation gives the flavour:

For a considerable time past I have been carrying on a campaign for an improvement in the diet scales in the industrial and Reformatory Schools. Shortly after my appointment in 1939 I revised all the diet scales and advised individual schools as to deficiencies in the diet scale. On the whole I secured a measure of cooperation. I introduced many items of food to the school diet which were not then in use because they were unknown to the school managers. For a time all went well but that was in the halcyon days when food was plentiful and fairly cheap. The position on this regard cannot now be regarded as satisfactory.

Dr McCabe and the Managers

1.142In the early part of her career Dr McCabe was vociferous in her demands for improvements in diet and conditions in the schools and was quick to inform the Managers of her dissatisfaction. In a memo sent by Dr McCabe to the Department on 25th November 1944, it is clear that her reforms were often met with resistance from the schools and only instituted when Departmental pressure was applied:

In the great majority of schools the children get a bare subsistence diet and nothing more. I have had abundant and convincing proof of this and have effected an improvement in conditions in some of the schools only after the strongest measures were used, e.g., Lenaboy and Passage West.

1.143The Resident Managers often ascribed failings on their part with regard to the shelter and diet of the children to the inadequate funding received from the Department. The unavailability of funds was proffered as an excuse by both the Department of Education and the Resident Managers, in response to many of the weaknesses cited in the inspection reports. Consequently, Dr McCabe’s work was hampered by the ongoing capitation negotiations between the Congregations and the Departments of Education and Finance. At the end of her period in office in 1964, she wrote:

I am constantly pressing for further improvements but I am met with the same query from all concerned ‘Where is the money to come from’… This state of affairs puts me in a very invidious position as I am unable to have the further improvements envisaged by me implemented.

1.144Following an inspection of Letterfrack in 1957, Dr McCabe described the difficulty she faced in attempting to improve conditions in the schools:

I would really like to see a number of improvements here- clothing, living conditions and cooking arrangements. I have often made suggestions but each time I feel up against a stone wall as always I am told increase the grant – give more money and of course I realize their difficulties – but all the same I will have to insist on better conditions for the boys. Br. Murphy the Resident Manager is very argumentative and difficult to persuade.

1.145Dr McCabe advocated a strong response to Resident Managers who refused to implement recommendations: in striking contrast to the usual emollient words used by the Department, her correspondence with certain Resident Managers was often peppered with strong language and demands for improvements. One such letter to the reverend mother of Newtownforbes in 1940, in relation to unsanitary conditions and neglect of sick children, states: ‘I cannot find any excuse which would exonerate you and your staff.’ The inspector felt the best course of action was to hit the schools in their purses and threatened to reduce or remove state funding or certification if the Resident Managers did not comply Nevertheless, the Department considered it ‘impolitic’ to withdraw the certificates of suitability. However, Dr McCabe did succeed in having two Resident Managers removed from their positions as a direct result of her inspection reports.

Corporal punishment

1.146Ensuring that the children received adequate food appears to have been Dr McCabe’s primary focus; the common use of excessive corporal punishment does not figure as prominently in her work. In her general report of 1964 she states:

Corporal punishment was very prevalent when I first visited the schools, beating of children being quite commonplace; in addition there was a form of sadism deplored by me the cutting of girls hair and the shaving of boys heads. All this has been virtually eliminated except for the unfortunate example of the nuns in Bundoran.

1.147Yet, so far as one can make deductions from a negative, there exists little to suggest that Dr McCabe actively attempted to prevent the excessive physical punishment of boys. Where criticism did exist it was levelled mostly against the girls schools. In 1940, upon finding girls in the infirmary in Newtownforbes showing signs of physical abuse, Dr McCabe wrote a scathing letter to the Resident Manager, in which she wrote;

I was not satisfied in finding so many of the girls in the infirmary suffering from bruises on their bodies. Under no circumstances can the Department tolerate treatment of this nature and you being responsible for the care of these children will have some difficulty in avoiding censure.

1.148Conversely in a boys’ reformatory the punishment received by a number of the children appeared to contravene Department regulations, Dr McCabe is not recorded as having challenged the Resident Manager. In a report to the Department on the basis of a complaint from the father of a resident of Daingean concerning excessive corporal punishment, Dr McCabe wrote: ‘I failed to discover any marks on any boy including …’. She also made disparaging remarks about the boys in general, referring to them as ‘terrorists’ and stating that the boy whose father complained ‘is an unpleasant type of boy’.

1.149Despite the 1946 circular stating that principals could draw on the advice of the Department’s Medical Inspector ’regarding any children who are specially troublesome of difficult to control’, there is no evidence that Dr McCabe offered advice on how the troublesome boys could have been treated differently. The standard forms completed by Dr McCabe and the other inspectors did not contain references to issues of discipline or punishment until Mr Granville, Child Care Advisor to the Department, noted that corporal punishment was still in use in the schools.

Punishment book

1.150The requirement to keep punishment books is provided for in Rule 12 of the Department’s Rules and Regulations which states:

The Manager or his Deputy shall be authorised to punish the Children detained in the school in case of misconduct. All serious misconduct, and the Punishments inflicted for it, shall be entered in a book to be kept for that purpose, which shall be laid before the Inspector when he visits. The Manager must, however, remember that the more closely the school is modelled on a principle of judicious family government the more salutary will be its discipline, and the fewer occasions will arise for resort to punishment.

1.151Department files do not provide examples of these punishment books being kept by schools or ‘laid before the Inspector’. The inspector did not refer to the checking of punishment books in her/his inspection report but would at times record that ‘Records were well kept’. It is possible that schools kept these journals for a time and subsequently disposed of them when they were no longer needed. On 16th December 1970, the Minister for Education informed the Dáil that: ‘No industrial school now keeps a punishment book’.

Dr McCabe’s illness

1.152In the early part of her career, Dr McCabe was heavily critical of the schools, reporting findings very different from the relatively favourable conclusions in the Cussen Report just a few years earlier. She stated that she was ‘simply horrified at the conditions existing in the majority of the Schools’. However, her reports from the 1950s show a marked decline in detail with little of the critical commentary that had characterised the reports of the 1940s. While it is possible that improvements were made during her tenure, and that the schools were better resourced, it is also necessary to take into consideration the fact that from the late 1940s Dr McCabe was suffering from recurrent illness.

1.153Although there is no definitive diagnosis of Dr McCabe’s condition, it is evident from medical reports in her Departmental personnel file that she suffered from severe depression for much of the period during which she held the position of Medical Inspector with the Department. This illness seems to have commenced in the late 1940s, with a severe episode in 1951 requiring hospital therapy.

Unfortunately, over the following number of years Dr McCabe’s health did not improve and began to deteriorate seriously in the mid-1960s. Dr McCabe resigned in 1965.

Part 6 Innovations and Improvements

Structural reforms

1.154Before Kennedy, there was little thought given to a fundamental overhaul of the system. One of the few considerations of structural change is contained in the following brief statement. T O’R on 15th March 1967 wrote in an internal memo.

A new development in recent years in a number of the Industrial Schools has been the introduction of the Group System. Under this system it is claimed that the children feel a greater degree of security, become more alert, make better progress at school, are generally more friendly and more easily overcome their handicaps. The Minister would be glad if Managers would give consideration to this new development with a view to its introduction, where possible, into their schools. 4.12.24 noted that in a small number of schools, laudable efforts are being made to break the residential portion of the school into units and encouraged stronger efforts in this direction.

One line of approach to the problem of the Industrial Schools is the provision of a Prevention Centre. The importance of the Prevention Centre will lie not only in the turning back of the youngsters from their first steps in delinquency and the caring for innocent youngsters from broken homes, but also in that it will reduce considerably the number of children who will be committed to industrial schools.

This raises the question of the second line of approach. It is that the industrial schools will in future have to devote themselves more to rehabilitation type of work. This will mean that they will have to organise the children into smaller groups and so have to employ a much larger staff of skilled personnel. The children will, learn by doing (as Senator Quinlan mentioned in the Seanad debate on ‘Investment in Education’).

It might be unwise to bring up the matter of industrial schools as we are in no position to defend our achievement as far as the size of grants goes.

1.155Another rare example of this fundamental question being squarely addressed comes in a letter of response by the Department to criticisms put forward by the Joint Committee of Women’s Societies and Social Workers in 1955.

The slogan that ‘a poor home is better for a child than the best institution’ is alright as a catch cry but is certainly not true if is meant by a poor home a home of squalor, hunger and malnutrition, vice and bad example. People before using such slogans should become familiar with bad homes and with institutions such as industrial schools or orphanages which are conducted on proper lines. These latter, at least the industrial schools administered by this Department, have considerably improved in the last 12 of 15 years, mainly through (1) a consciousness on the part of the conductors following the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the R&I. School system of 1934-36, and the passage of the 1941 Children Act of the need for improvement standards in the schools, (2) efficient and regular inspection, (3) the Course in Childcare in 1953 for nuns engaged in Orphanages and Industrial Schools. The improvements resulting from this Course are becoming evident as time goes on.

With regard to the recommendation of the Women’s Committee the following comments are made in the order set forth in the Joint Committee’s letter.

1.That the maximum number in any institution should not exceed 250. The only school which accommodates more than 250 is Artane. The question of breaking up that school into smaller schools was recommended by the Commission of Inquiry 1934-36 but nothing came if it mainly due to the opposition of the conductors and the extra huge expenditure involved. I consider that in fact 250 is altogether too big a number for a school and that 50-100 would be the ideal number.

2.Division of children into groups.

Kilkenny Girls School (accommodation 130) and St. Georges Limerick (170) have introduced the group system. (Kilkenny in 1952 and Limerick quite recently). This means the grouping of the girls over 6 years of age in sections of 30 approx-each section under the care of a nun who acts as ‘House mother’. In Kilkenny each section has its own Dormitory, Dining Room, Living Room. I attach a description of the grouping system as given by Sr. Laurentia for the Kilkenny school at the Child Course held in Carysfort College in August, 1953.

The group system is new to our schools. It involves the school in extra staff and in considerable expenditure to adapt the accommodation to the system. It is probable that with a little encouragement and coaxing form the Departments schools. The question of adopting it in boy’s schools, both senior and junior would present more difficulties than in the case of girl’s schools.

Closure

1.156The schools’ population peaked in the late 1940s. There was a steady decline in numbers through the 1950s and the process accelerated in the 1960s. The Department of Education noted as early as 1951 that since 1945 there had been an average of 250 vacancies in the Boys’ Schools.

1.157In 1955, the subject of closure was tentatively mentioned by the Secretary of the Department of Education in negotiations with representatives of the schools. In a letter from the Minister for Education to the Minister for Finance on 21st January 1965, the former noted ruefully that Finance had been urging closures for years and then continued:

Naturally your main concern is economy while mine is the upbringing of children. Certain aspects of the matter of transferring children to other schools have to be carefully considered. Many children have god-parents in their school localities and quite a number of children attend schools, national, secondary and vocational outside the industrial school. It may not be possible to accommodate such children suitably if transferred to another district.

1.158In 1950, there were 50 Industrial Schools. In the 1950s five schools closed: four senior boys schools – Baltimore (1950); Killybegs (1950); Carriglea (1954); and Greenmount, Cork (1959) and one girls school, Sligo (1958); but in the case of each of the boys’ schools there were particular reasons that were at least as significant as the general trend. The next closure was Birr, Offaly (1963). During 1964-70, 17 more schools, more than a third of the total, closed, including the senior boys’ schools at Upton, Glin and Clonmel, in each case with the full agreement of the Orders concerned. By the time of the Kennedy Report in 1970, another 13 had closed leaving a total of 29 still operating.

1.159The impression is that the closures that did occur pre-Kennedy (1970) did not come about because the Department pursued a coherent policy and took a considered decision to bring them about. The closures happened because the Orders wished them. On 23rd May 1966, the Managers’ Association wrote to the Department:

At their meeting on last Friday there was a consensus of opinion amongst the Resident Manager that most of the Schools will be forced to close.

If the present system is not acceptable to the public or the Government the Managers are prepared to close the schools next year, because they feel that the strain of working under present-day conditions is too acute to be continued.

1.160Making allowance for some element of bluff in this letter, it is unlikely that the schools would have expressly raised such a fundamental issue as closure unless they believed that matters had reached crisis point. In 1968, the Manager of Artane visited the Minister to warn him that the Christian Brothers had decided to close Artane, though this closure did not in fact occur until 1969.

1.161One feature of the timing of most of the closures is that they coincided with the doubling in demand for secondary school places, which followed on the abolition of secondary school fees. This was announced suddenly by the Minister for Education, Mr O’Malley, in 1966 and came into effect in August 1967. As a result, enrolment in day secondary schools rose from 148,000 in 1966-67 to 239,000 in 1974-75.

Part 7 The beginnings of change

1.162Both the public and the authorities began to lose confidence in the Industrial School system at the same time. The Christian Brothers believed the ‘public had turned against them’, the image of the schools having being damaged by ‘negative newspaper and television coverage … and by criticism from professional sociologists, [and even from] the clergy and the bishops’. The Christian Brothers referred also to ‘Authorities charged with improving social matters’, who they felt had become ‘hostile to schools such as Artane… County Councils, the Department of Health and those various organisations involved with the care of children would prefer to put them in foster homes or with families, anywhere but in institutions such as Artane’.

1.163At the same time, there were various practical improvements in the schools, mostly because of rising economic prosperity in the 1960s. The following contemporary account, from Michael Viney’s 1966 Irish Times series, provides some examples:

A hundred boys is probably the most any one centre should contain, if the staff are to have any chance of treating them as individuals. So consideration of closing Upton and Letterfrack has not been without its ironies. For a hundred boys, more or less, is just what each of them has now. They were built, of course, to hold far more, and the present capitation system makes it uneconomic to run them at less than three-quarters full – about double their present population. Both Upton and Letterfrack have undergone major reconstructions and improvements in the last few years. The Department of Education has granted large sums to build or convert new classroom wings and the orders themselves have borrowed heavily from the banks to pay for other, very welcome improvements. So just as these schools have been brightened out of all recognition, their future has never seemed more uncertain.

Reports and other indicators

(1) OECD Report

1.164In 1961 one of a set of national surveys, a wide-ranging study of Irish education and training by economic experts, was prepared by officials from the Department of Education in cooperation with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), under the chairmanship of the economist and ex-civil servant, Professor Patrick Lynch. It included a section dealing with the treatment of children in detention. This section criticised the operation of the schools attributing many of their defects to the inadequacy of the capitation grant and also the substantial surplus capacity within the schools, especially the girls schools, where there was only 37 percent utilisation of space.

(2) The Commission on Mental Handicap

1.165In 1965 the Commission on Mental Handicap raised doubts about institutionalisation in a wider context. Its report observed at para 138:

Orphans and unwanted and illegitimate children are a very vulnerable group. Many fail to realise their potential through loss of firm ties of affection, lack of stimulation and absence of suitable adults to provide a feeling of security and to meet their emotional and psychological needs. Legal adoption, where it is possible, is undoubtedly the most satisfactory method of dealing with the problem….family care is preferable to care in an institution…. We are well aware of the wonderful work carried out in these institutions and our regret is that because of a lack of appreciation of the psychological and emotional needs of children or because of inadequate staffing, the best results are not always achieved.

(3) The Inter-Departmental Committee on Crime Prevention and Treatment of Offenders

1.166In September 1962 an Interdepartmental Committee was established to inquire into possible approaches to the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders. The Committee was composed of senior officials of the Departments of Justice, Health, Education and Industry and Commerce. Its proceedings concerning Fr Moore’s views on Artane are discussed in the chapter on that institution (Volume I, Chapter 7).

1.167The Committee’s more general recommendations as to Industrial and Reformatory Schools anticipated those of Kennedy in some respects and echoed Cussen in others. One of its central recommendations was the introduction of proper aftercare supervision, the lack of which they viewed as ‘a most grievous fault in the system’.

(4) The Tuairim Report

1.168The Tuairim Report of 1966 was another harbinger of change and bookmarked a change in thinking within the Department. Tuairim was a private group interested in publishing ideas for practical, social or governmental reform. One of its best-known reports entitled ‘Some of our children’ evaluated the certified schools system in Ireland. In some ways its content also anticipated that of the Kennedy Report. The Tuairim Report drew attention to the ‘failure to implement, other than a few’, the recommendations of the Cussen Commission. The Department of Education concurred with a number of Tuairim’s findings and stated in an internal memo ‘it is true that the whole system is in need of complete overhaul’.

(5) A play at the Abbey Theatre

1.169On 30th January 1961 a play by Richard Johnson, The Evidence I Shall Give, was premiered at the Abbey Theatre. It ran for 42 performances, and then was restaged in July of that year when it ran for a further nine. It returned in August for 21 more, in September for nine, and finally in October for six. Such a run, with a total of 87 performances, was most unusual.

1.170The author was a District Court judge. The play depicted a day in the life of a District Justice and the principal case was an application to have a 13-year-old female inmate of an orphanage transferred to an Industrial School because her alleged disobedience made discipline impossible. The protagonists were the defending solicitor, who was a kind and humane character, and who argued that ‘small children need kissing and caressing’ and the Mother Superior of the home, who was unloving and was driven by the need to enforce severe discipline and through it to bring the children ‘to humility’.

1.171The children had been committed because their father could not afford to engage a woman to look after his six children. The solicitor then calculated that with the capitation fee of £2.10s per week per child, the Order was being paid £390 for the three sisters, and the other institution was being paid £370 for the other three. ‘Will you agree’, he asked the mother-general, ‘that for £150 a year he could have got somebody to look after all six?’

1.172The play ended with the young girl removing the scarf covering her head to reveal it to be shaven, her punishment for absconding. The solicitor then addressed the court, saying ‘…what a dreadful commentary on our so-called Christian State that the soul of a little child should be thus crucified in order to instil humility’.

1.173Far from being controversial, the message of the play was well received by the audience and its success reflected the readiness of the public to hear the criticisms made by the play.

The Kennedy Report

1.174In retrospect, the establishment of the Kennedy Committee to review Reformatory and Industrial Schools seems more like an obituary than a death warrant for the existing system. In a memorandum prepared by Tarlach O’Raifeartaigh, the Secretary, for the Minister for Education in March 1967, he suggested that it would be ‘well worth considering whether the whole problem of reformatory and industrial schools should not be our next major target’. The Minister, Mr O’Malley, said he had always ‘felt deeply’ that children in care there had ‘a very special claim on society’.

1.175Formally, both the Department and the Minister emphasised that a revision of the existing schools system should not be construed as an adverse reflection upon the management of schools by the religious Orders, which deserved praise for the ‘excellent manner’ in which the schools were conducted. However, there is no doubt that Minister O’Malley privately suspected that harsh conditions were pervasive in the schools as is evident from an informal remark to his Department’s representative on the Kennedy Committee: ‘I’m depending on you to see that this whole area is properly cleaned up. I’m behind you.’

Kennedy’s recommendations

1.176The Committee made a crucial finding in relation to the existing system. Paragraph 4.2 of the Report said that:

…there is, in general, a lack of awareness of the needs of the child in care. By this we do not mean physical needs which are, in the main, adequately if unimaginatively catered for. We are referring to the need for love and security. All children experience these needs from their earliest days; the child who has suffered deprivation has an even greater need for them.

1.177Noting that most of those working in Industrial Schools and Reformatories had little if any qualifications, the Report recommended: proper training, the transfer of administrative responsibility for childcare to the Department of Health, and the system of payment on a capitation basis to be replaced by a system based on agreed budgets so as to encourage improvement in the children’s circumstances. However the Committee’s major recommendation was that:

The whole aim of the Child Care system should be geared towards the prevention of family breakdown and the problems consequent on it. The committal or admission of children to Residential Care should be considered only when there is no satisfactory alternative.

1.178Like the Cussen Commission before it, the Kennedy Committee also supported the view that Resident Managers should have detailed knowledge of each child under their care. It was also agreed that a proper system of determining a child’s background and capabilities was essential in preventing an escalation of anti-social behaviour or educational disadvantage. In the Kennedy Report it was concluded that:

As the system operates at present, a child is often admitted or committed to the care of the school manager, who knows little, if anything, about the child’s background. This can lead to great difficulties, particularly in the case of delinquent children, or those with delinquent or anti-social tendencies. The child may be retarded, suicidal, homicidal or homosexual, but the school authorities have no way of knowing this and by the time they learn it, much damage may have been done.

Part 8 The Department’s handling of complaints

1.179The chapters in Volumes I and II on the schools recount many instances of complaints that came to the notice of the Department and the manner in which they were handled. Those cases are not repeated here and the following remarks are confined to general issues.

Complaints from parents and members of the public

1.180The Department of Education wrote to the Kennedy Committee to explain its procedures for dealing with complaints from the public:

Upon receipt of a complaint from a parent or guardian about the treatment of a child in an industrial school, the Manager is furnished with a copy of the complaint and his observations are requested. Depending on the seriousness of the complaint the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial schools will also interview the child and the school authorities and take appropriate action where necessary.

1.181The Department also told the Committee it had ‘no complete record of all complaints received’ as many were of a ‘trivial nature’. It provided the Committee with nine examples of complaints received in the previous five years, all but two of which were deemed to be baseless. Mr Mac Uaid, an executive officer in the Department, wrote on another occasion: ‘Complaints about the treatment of children in industrial schools are not infrequent but from experience I would say that the majority are exaggerated and some even untrue.’

1.182The Department’s submission to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse summarised the situation:

The procedure for dealing with parent’s complaints was to refer them to the Manager of the school for consideration and depending on the response of the Manager and the seriousness of the complaint to determine whether the matter should be pursued with the school management. There does not appear to have been a defined system of assessing the seriousness of a parental complaint and generally the Department did not interview the parent or child concerned… There is no indication that complaints supported by public representatives were taken more seriously than others.

1.183It added:

There is also evidence to suggest that in many cases the Department accepted the explanations given by the Resident Manager when complaints were brought to his/her attention and that the Department may have viewed some complaints with a degree of scepticism.

1.184The Department’s submission also stated:

Where complaints were aired in the public media, the Department appears to have been concerned to protect the reputation of the school while privately addressing concerns with the religious order.

Enforcement

1.185At the conclusion of the Department’s investigation of a complaint or episode, some kind of judgement had to be reached. The Department generally gave the benefit of the doubt to the school. Where an adverse conclusion was reached, the question of sanction, if any, depended on the nature of the complaint. One possibility where a member of staff was personally culpable was the removal of the staff member, which did happen but only on a very few occasions. As each side knew, there was also the ultimate sanction of derecognition, but, as each side also knew, this was the nuclear option, to which there were big disadvantages from the Department’s point of view.

1.186• The Department did not have a system for examining and investigating complaints. It had a system that managed complaints in a way that minimised adverse publicity and scandal. Its trust in the religious Congregations led to a sceptical approach that rejected complaints in the majority of cases. The Department relied on the Resident Managers to respond to complaints and tackle the issues raised. This approach was a serious failure of the Department’s supervisory role.

Part 9 Missing files

Introduction

1.187The principal sources of documentary evidence in relation to Industrial and Reformatory Schools are:

the Department of Education and Science;
other Departments of State including the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform;
the archives of the Congregations that managed the schools and reformatories.

1.188Records on Industrial Schools comprise a wide range of internal Departmental files, covering areas such as: certification, general inspection and medical inspection. Registers on all children who were admitted to the schools through the courts also exist and in some of these cases there are files with varying degrees of detail on individual children. The completion of a comprehensive archivist exercise on these records by the Department has resulted in the creation of a database of approximately 36,000 entries.

Archival and discovery reports

1.189In 1996 the archives of the Reformatory and Industrial Schools were catalogued by an archives and records management company, at the behest of the Department of Education and the National Archives. The records relating to the schools were mostly kept in the basement of Talbot House, a building on the grounds of the Department of Education headquarters, Marlborough Street, Dublin. In April 1998 the company submitted its final report to the Department. It noted the poor storage conditions in which these sensitive documents were kept, so much so that documents had to be cleaned before cataloguing could begin. Its findings were:

(1)Case files and registers:

a total of 41,714 entries made in registers and case files
there were no registers or case files for three schools.

(2)Certification files:

72 entries in the certification files.

(3)Administrative files:

792 entries in the administration files.

(4) Miscellaneous registers

31 entries in the miscellaneous registers.

1.190In 1999 Dr Gerard Cronin undertook to complete a report on the Reformatory and Industrial Schools’ Archives in Athlone. In his ‘Initial Report on the Reformatory & Industrial Schools’ Archives Athlone’ Dr Cronin stated:

…every so often I have come across items (sometimes misfiled) which directly or indirectly throw unfavourable or critical light on the conditions which the young offenders had to endure at the Daingean School.

1.191In 2004 Mr Noel Dempsey TD, the Minister for Education and Science, appointed Mr Matthias Kelly QC to conduct an independent review and report on the provision of discovery by the Department of Education and Science to the Commission. There was a particular background to this decision, which is explained at para 6 of Mr Kelly’s report:

There has been criticism of the way in which the Department of Education and Science has handled the process of discovery of documents to the Commission. In the Third Interim Report, Ms Justice Laffoy recorded that the Commission were not satisfied that the department had complied fully with an order for discovery. There were concerns that the process of discovery was experiencing problems. It was against this background that I was asked to undertake this review.

1.192His main objectives were:

(1)to review the processes and procedures operated by the Department of Education and Science in main discovery to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse; and

(2)to make such recommendations as are appropriate in relation to discovery by the Department of Education and Science.

1.193Although the Department had disclosed its historic archive to the Commission voluntarily, this archive did not contain the total number of files relevant to the work of the Commission. Files not included and identified by Mr Kelly QC were:

27,000 pupil files;
incomplete and early discharge papers;
the working papers of the Kennedy working party;
material separately held in safe storage within the Department;
incident books;
precedent books;
miscellaneous files one would expect to find.

(1) 27,000 missing pupil files

1.194The 3rd Interim Report by CICA describes how the Department of Education sent to the Commission a ‘Database of Former Residents of Reformatory and Industrial School’, containing approximately 42,000 entries of pupils who were committed by the courts to Reformatories and Industrial Schools during the allotted timeframe relevant to the Commission; however the database does not contain records of pupils placed in Industrial Schools by local authorities under the Public Assistance Acts or the Health Acts or voluntary placements. The Department should be in possession of 41,000 pupil files. However files exist relating to only 14,000 pupils, therefore 27,000 pupil files are missing. Of these 27,000 files, 18,000 relate to children who were admitted to institutions from 1936 onwards. From 1960 onwards the Department is in possession of virtually 100 percent of pupil records. Matthias Kelly concluded that these files were thrown out in the Department’s ‘general clear out’.

(2) Incomplete and early discharge files

1.195Early discharge papers relate to applications made by parents to the Department to have their children released from institutional care. Some of the discharge papers are missing and in other cases the record in relation to the individual is incomplete and some of these applications may have been placed on the individual child’s pupil file. The Department has a register of applications for early discharge dated 1951-60 only. Matthias Kelly stated within his report the importance of these records for former Industrial School pupils, emphasising the need for these people to know that their parents tried to ensure their release from the schools. Mr Kelly concluded that the papers were lost as a result of the ‘general clear out’.

(3) The Kennedy working papers

1.196The report of Matthias Kelly concluded that the 10 working papers of the Kennedy Commission were missing. Subsequently, in May 2004, seven of the working papers were given to CICA, and an eighth was handed over in 2007. Mr Kelly in his report stated ‘In my view those working papers are or may be relevant to the work of the Commission.’ However his report concluded that the Department had done all within its capabilities to locate the two papers.

(4) Material separately held in safe storage within the Department

1.197In his evidence before the Commission Mr Liam Kilroy, when asked about the process of storing files, suggested it was a practice within the Department to store documents in a separate filing cabinet if the official was personally involved or the file was deemed unsuitable for general filing. He explained: ‘If it was an issue with which I was personally involved …, then I would retain the papers in my room, in my office.’

1.198Furthermore in his evidence before CICA on 4th March 2003 Mr Paddy Matthews referred to the use of a safe to hold sensitive and confidential files. Mr Matthews claimed that Mr Luttrel, Head of Document Registry Unit, kept confidential files in a little safe in the document registry in Tyrone House. When asked what type of documents were kept in this safe, Mr Matthews replied: ‘I am only going on what I heard now, but that any offences with a suggestion of a sexual offence in them were kept there.’ Although the Kelly Report stated that all reasonable steps had been taken regarding the issue of safe storage, Mr Matthews later went on to state that he too had a safe in his office, which contained documents of a ‘sexual nature’. He said he had no log of the documents contained therein. In further evidence before CICA, Mr Matthews claimed that he had only ever heard of one complaint of a sexual nature (relating to Clonmel) He added: ’I cannot remember any other complaint now, to tell you the truth. I think if there was, I would have heard it.’

1.199The report prepared by Mathias Kelly QC was critical of the way the Department had kept sensitive papers on the Clonmel sexual abuse allegations in a temporary folder.

1.200The file known as TN030, short for Temporary Number 030, was kept in Liam Kilroy’s private office. Liam Kilroy went on to affirm knowledge of two other files in his office relating to abuse – Lisnagary in Limerick, Daughters of Charity (Q 20) and Finglas Children’s Centre.

1.201Mr Kelly concluded, however, that the case of TN030 was an isolated one and that in any large organisation there will be the occasional instance of documents being wrongly filed and individual idiosyncratic filing. He concluded, ‘I cannot, therefore, attach any weight to the suggestion that “sensitive” documents were stored separately.’

(5) Incident books

1.202Incident books, sometimes called ‘log books’, were kept by the various schools to record significant incidents or events within the schools or institutions. Matthias Kelly concluded:

The Secretary General has assured me that the Department does not generally hold incident books at all. The point is made, that if such books do exist, and I would expect that such books do exist, they will be held by the various institutions themselves.

(6) Precedent books

1.203The precedent book was a record of decisions made relating to the certified schools system, catalogued in one place to allow for administrative ease. Mr Matthews, a former Assistant Secretary within the Department of Education, made reference to the existence of such a book in his evidence before the Commission. He stated that:

the precedent book should still be there. No, there is no reason why it shouldn’t, because all the sections in the place, it was an essential feature of Government business, to know what the precedents were, just the same as in law.

1.204However Mr Kelly concluded: ‘In my view there is no hard or reliable evidence that the book, as described, ever existed.’

(7) Miscellaneous files one would expect to find

1.205This category refers to the general gaps in information regarding the Department of Education’s running of the Industrial Schools system. These files include certification files, general and medical inspection reports, internal Departmental memos, letters and general correspondence.

Sex abuse files

1.206The Department of Education Statement to CICA in May 2006 stated:

There are few cases of reported sexual abuse in the industrial and reformatory schools recorded in Departmental files (7 in all). We have no record of sexual of abuse issues surfacing during the course of normal inspections.

1.207The seven abuse files are:

Upton 1945
Kilkenny 1954
Ennis 1956
Daingean 1959
Artane 1960
Mr Brander
TN030.

1.208Ms Bridgid McManus, Secretary General of the Department of Education, gave evidence before CICA on 13th June 2006. In light of the absence of Departmental records relating to incidents of sexual abuse in the Industrial Schools and Reformatories over which the Department of Education presided, Ms McManus was asked if any efforts were made to ascertain from old employees, retired employees or even existing employees of the Department who worked in the relevant section, whether incidents of abuse may have been passed on to the Department, but were not reflected in the files. All senior administrative staff in the Department, at principal officer level and upward, and all existing and former Department inspectors were contacted. Following this line of questioning CICA was furnished with the responses received by the Department from former officials within the section; these responses did not give any information regarding undocumented cases of sexual abuse.

1.209Subsequently other former staff members who had previously worked in the RISB or Special Education Section were contacted regarding specifically:

the historic management and storage of files relating to the Industrial and Reformatory School system;
their knowledge of any destruction or purging of such files;
any information they may hold with regard to missing files or gaps in the Department’s records;
departmental files relating to the Kennedy Committee;
the use of a safe to hold sensitive and confidential files.

1.210With regard to information ascertained from these efforts the Department of Education informed CICA that:

While these interviews provided information in relation to the destruction in 1958/59 of some industrial and reformatory ledgers which predated the 1900s, they did not throw any light on any of the other matters mentioned above or on any particular arrangements for holding sensitive or confidential records in relation to incidents of abuse.

Mr Brander and TN030

1.211The case of Mr Brander and the file entitled TN030 are of most relevance to this chapter.

1.212In September 1997, the Gardaí in Tullamore, County Offaly, wrote to the Department of Education (Primary Branch) informing them that Mr Brander, a former principal of Walsh Island National School, was the subject of a Garda investigation. The investigation related to incidents that took place during Mr Brander ’s time in Walsh Island. The Gardaí requested any information regarding complaints the Department may have received during the time in question. The Department stated that they conducted a ‘thorough search… Primary and Second Level Branches, but nothing came to light at the time’. In January 1998 a file containing papers relating to Mr Brander was discovered in Second Level Branch, Athlone. The papers included a letter, sent to the Department on 27th May 1982, by Mr Rothe who identified himself as a national teacher, living in Edenderry, alleging sexual abuse of boys by Mr Brander. Although a number of internal memos were found discussing a possible course of action, no reply to Mr Rothe was found amongst the papers.

1.213Among these memos was correspondence from a higher executive officer, dated October 1983, stating than there were no records regarding Mr Brander as his cards and appointment file were missing.

1.214The full story of this man’s career of abuse is told in Volume I Chapter 14.

1.215TN030 is a Department of Education file titled ‘Meeting with Clonmel Authorities, Wednesday 04th December 1996’; the TN refers to the ‘Temporary Number’ assigned to this file. Contained within this file is correspondence between the Department of Education and Science and the Rosminian Order who operate St Joseph’s Special School, Ferryhouse, Clonmel. In particular it deals with a series of contacts from 1980-97 between Departmental officials and the institution and refers to incidents of child sexual abuse in the 1970s that are discussed in detail in Volume II Chapter 3.

1.216In total there were three separate allegations made to the Department.

1.217The Commission learned about the existence of these allegations following the receipt of a statement from a former Manager of St Joseph’s Special School. The Department had been made aware of allegations of abuse as early as 1979. The Investigation Committee conducted a through search of the documents given to them by the Department, but no file relating to these reports of sexual abuse were discovered.

1.218Following correspondence with the Chief State Solicitors office, the file relating to these matters was located and furnished to the Commissions. The full account of the cases appears in the chapter on Ferryhouse Industrial School (Volume II Chapter 3).

Renmore

1.219In 1969, during a routine inspection of Renmore, a Department of Education inspector was approached by a 15-year-old boy who claimed to have been sexually abused by a senior member of the staff of the school. Following questioning of the boy the inspector became satisfied that he was telling the truth and informed his superior in the Department of Education, the Provincial of the Brothers of Charity and the school Manager.

1.220The Manager told the inspector that he would investigate the complaint and within a matter of days informed him that the Brother had admitted to the sexual abuse of the boy and had been transferred to a psychiatric hospital.

1.221The inspector’s superior in the Department of Education requested a written report on the matter. The Department of Education were unable to produce this report and consider it missing. The report was last seen in the Department in 1989 by an inspector. The Department believe it is impossible to say how or when the report went missing.

St Joseph’s Cabra

1.222A teacher in St Joseph’s Cabra was the cause of numerous complaints between 1980 and 1985. The matter was being investigated by the Department of Education, which had withheld his teaching diploma pending investigation of the complaints.

1.223Fifty nine St Joseph’s teacher files were furnished to the Commission by the Department of Education, but this teacher’s file was not among them. A letter dated 10th October 2007 from the Chief State Solicitor’s office confirmed that the Department’s file register had a record of the file. The letter also stated that the file could not be located and that the Department had no record of any complaints in respect of this teacher prior to 1985.

Lota missing files

1.224Several files relating to Lota were also missing. The files, which should have been given to the Commission but which had not been located, were listed by the Department. These files are described as having gone missing since 2001 when they were catalogued. The Department gave no explanation as to why these files have gone missing.

Concluding comment

1.225The Department of Education bore responsibility for the children placed by the State in its care. There was no other body to watch over the interests of one of the most vulnerable groups in the community.

1.226The Department retained the Industrial and Reformatory School system inherited in 1922, making only a few minor changes when circumstances demanded them. The Department continued to see itself, as Richard Mulcahy, the Minister for Education, put it, as ‘the man with the oil-can’ who goes around attending to squeaks but makes no fundamental change to the machinery.

1.227The unit dealing with the schools was at a very low level in the hierarchy of the Department. It had considerable powers, but it lacked the initiative and authority to do anything more than maintain the status quo, and keep the costs down. When alternative strategies for helping children in care emerged, such as boarding out, they were ignored. The Department of Education’s submission to the Commission stated:

We do not have any records to suggest that this was actively considered by the Department. The Department did not see itself as having an active policy or operational role in the committal of children to institutions and it seems likely that it would have taken the view that the question of boarding out was a matter for the Department of Health.

Could the government have done more to make the schools better run?

1.228Assuming that the Industrial Schools or something like them would have had to exist for some children, much could have been done by the Department of Education to improve their operation.

1.229The Department was, firstly, lacking in detailed information. The inspections were too few and too limited in scope. The failure to insist on an external review on at least two occasions during the period between Cussen and Kennedy was supine. The need for some kind of external informed supervision of the certified schools is self-evident. If the Department had been in possession of better information about the schools, it would have been in a stronger position to exercise control. In addition, greater openness would probably have reduced the level of abuse: sunshine is the best disinfectant. It is plain too from the chapters on individual schools that officials did know of many of the abuses that were going on in the schools.

1.230The Department of Education should have exercised more of its ample legal powers over the schools in the interests of the children. The power to remove a Manager given to the Department in 1941 should have been exercised or even threatened on more than the handful of occasions when it was invoked. This would have emphasised the State’s right to intervene on behalf of a vulnerable group.

1.231The Department was woefully lacking in ideas about policy and made no attempt to impose changes that would have improved the lot of the detained children.

1.232Finally, evidence of the failures by the Department that are catalogued in the chapters on the schools can also be seen as tacit acknowledgment by the State of the ascendancy of the Congregations and their ownership of the system. The Department’s Secretary General, at a public hearing, told the Investigation Committee that the Department had shown a ‘very significant deference’ towards the religious Congregations. This deference impeded change, and it took the Kennedy Report in 1971 to begin the process of dismantling the Industrial and Reformatory School system.

Chapter 2
Finance

Historical background: the capitation grant system

2.01The legislation that established the Industrial Schools system expressly provided State funding for maintenance of the children, but not for the establishment of schools themselves. The Children Act 1908 continued this capitation grant system.

2.02The Industrial Schools were owned by the religious Orders who provided the buildings and farms, and they were responsible for improvements, alterations, extensions, renewals and repairs. The expenses for renovations and repairs were to be paid for out of the private resources of the congregations and by charitable donations.

2.03By paying for the children rather than the institution the British administration avoided the delicate issue of whether to give money directly to religious denominations. Protestant and Roman Catholic communities were fearful of either side being given too much power by the authorities.

2.04Local authorities were obliged under the 1908 Children Act to provide for the maintenance and reception of offenders in Reformatory and Industrial Schools. They did not have to pay for children who were admitted on the application of their parents or guardians or for children whose parents were unable to look after them. Also they were exempt if the parents had committed an offence punishable by imprisonment that resulted in their children detained.

2.05Unlike the State however, the local Authorities did have to pay for children in excess of the certification limit and for children under the age of six.

2.06These provisions were altered in changes made in 1944 (see below).

2.07Most of the children who were placed in Industrial Schools came from backgrounds of poverty and deprivation. If the State saw fit to remove a child from its parents because the child was at risk of malnutrition and neglect, it had an obligation to ensure that the institution into which the child was placed did not also put it at risk of malnutrition and neglect. In other words, the capitation grant had to be large enough to keep a child adequately, so that a proper standard of care was provided.

2.08The Department of Education’s Rules and Regulations were clear as to what the minimum standards were. Rule 5 stipulated that

the children shall be supplied with neat, comfortable clothing in good repair, suitable to the season of the year, not necessarily uniform either in material or colour.

2.09Rule 6 provided minimum standards for an adequate diet:

The Children shall be supplied with plain wholesome food, according to a Scale of Dietary to be drawn up by the Medical Officer of the School and approved by the Inspector. Such food shall be suitable in every aspect for growing children actively employed and supplemented in the case of delicate or physically under-developed children with special food as individual needs require. No substantial alterations in the Dietary shall be made without previous notice to the Inspector. A copy of the Dietary shall be given to the Cook and a further copy kept in the Manager’s Office.

2.10It was the responsibility of the Department to ensure adequate finance for these minimum standards of care, and it was the responsibility of the Resident Manager to ensure they were maintained. From time to time tensions arose because one or other failed in its obligations: the Department could let funding become inadequate or the Resident Manager could allow basic living conditions to fall below the standards set by the rules.

2.11During the period under investigation, this argument about funding was constant, and for the most part the Department sided with the Resident Managers. An internal Education Department memorandum to the Minister in 1967 wrote that it was ‘in no position to defend its achievement as far as the size of grant goes’.¹

2.12A central figure in this argument was the Department’s medical inspector, whose role included ensuring that basic conditions such as food and clothing and living conditions were appropriate to promote general health. In many instances she accused the school of negligent mismanagement of the funds, but she could also take the side of the Resident Manager and argue that funding was inadequate to meet basic needs.

2.13The fundamental question, whether the State fulfilled its obligations under law to provide the basic needs of children in care, is not an easy one, and perhaps no definitive answer is possible.

2.14The Investigation Committee engaged expert assistance from Mazars, Financial Consultants. Mazars examined the available financial records of four separate institutions and they also addressed the general question of whether the capitation payments down through the years were adequate to enable the institutions to provide for the children who were detained in them. The Mazars report and submissions in response are considered later and are annexed to this chapter.

The basic cost of keeping a child in an industrial school

2.15The Cussen Report² outlined the problems of estimating the cost of keeping a child in an Industrial or Reformatory School:

It is difficult to arrive at a figure which would reasonably represent the average yearly cost of maintenance per child in the schools. This is due in the main to differences of circumstances existing as between the various schools; many have farms which produce a very substantial proportion of their food requirements, while others with small or no farms are forced to purchase such supplies either partly or wholly in the open market. In addition variations in the cost of materials for the workshops, clothing, bedding bootmaking, etc, have to be considered. According to figures furnished to us for the year 1933, the cost per head per annum for food varied in the Senior Boys’ Industrial Schools from £7 1s 2d to £20; for wearing apparel from £2 6s. 4d to £6 1s., and for medical expenses from 11s 7d to £2. In the Junior Boys’ Industrial Schools; food varied from £10 10s. to £15 4s 2d. per head per annum; wearing apparel from £2 8s. 7d to £4 11s 9d., and medical expenses from 3s. 5d to £1 8s. In the Girls’ Industrial Schools food varied from £9 8s. to £26 per head per annum, wearing apparel from £1 2s. 3d. to £11, and medical expenses from 3s. 11d. to £7.

Corresponding figures from the Reformatories were: Boys’ School, food £30 per head per annum; wearing apparel, £8 16s. and medical expenses, £1. In the Girls’ Reformatories the figures were: food £14; wearing apparel, £6; and medical expenses £2 10s.

The disparities in cost as shown are probably due also in some measure to a lack of uniformity in the methods of cost accounting adopted, as the diet in the schools are substantially the same, and the fact that a greater proportion of foodstuffs has to be purchased in some schools as compared with others would hardly explain the marked differences in the cost of maintenance indicated by the figures obtained from the schools. We are, however, satisfied, as a result of our inquiries, that the schools are very economically managed, supplies being obtained where possible by contract or on equally favourable terms.

2.16The same question was raised in a letter by Mr Breathnach of the Department of Finance in 1957-58. He wrote:

There is another aspect of the question which puzzles us – the wide range of expenditure on various items by the schools, e.g.

Item	Cost per head
Food	£25.8 – £54.6 a year
Fuel and light	£4.3 – £15 a year
Clothing	£5.4 – £20.3 a year
Salaries	£11.3 – £40 a year

Do you know why it should cost £2.1s a week to keep each of 117 inmates in St. Lawrence, Sligo, while the cost of keeping 120 at Clifden, Co Galway, should be only about £1.11s? It would be helpful if your Department could explain the disparity.

2.17The Department of Education attempted to gain information to establish the basic cost of keeping a child in an Industrial School by requesting detailed accounts. These requests were made in the following years:

1945	21 schools out of 52 responded
1947	statement of income and expenditure was received from all industrial schools
1950	42 industrial schools and one reformatory school provided statements
1954	nine schools provided accounts.
1955	The Resident Managers’ Association provided accounts for 22 schools
1962	The Department requested accounts from six representative schools. Nine schools provided statements.
1964	The Resident Managers Association provided a summary of the financial situation of 21 schools to support their application for an increase in the rate of the grant.

The request for accounts in 1945

2.18Despite the Department’s general recognition that the Industrial Schools were underfunded, they were at times sceptical about the claims being made by the Resident Managers.

2.19For example, a deputation from the Resident Managers’ Association went to see the Minister for Education on 10th July 1945 to request an increase in the capitation grant, the payment of salaries to literary teachers and the application of medical and dental services to Industrial Schools. The Minister told the deputation that if statements of accounts, preferably audited, were submitted they would be examined by the Department with a view to submitting them to the Department of Finance. He stressed that a convincing case would have to be made for an increase in the capitation grant.

2.20Only 21 Industrial Schools submitted statements and, of these, just five were ‘stated to have been prepared by accountants and/or auditors’. They were Rathdrum Junior Boys’ School, Goldenbridge, Westport, New Ross, and Wexford.

2.21Three of the 10 senior boys’ Industrial Schools submitted statements prepared by the Orders. They were Greenmount, Upton and Ferryhouse.

2.22Four Industrial Schools for junior boys submitted statements: Passage West, Kilkenny, Drogheda and Rathdrum.

2.23Fourteen girls’ industrial schools made submissions: Clonakilty, Kinsale, Booterstown, Goldenbridge, Westport, Birr, Wexford, Lakelands, Kilkenny female, Ballaghaderreen, Benada Abbey, Whitehall, Dundrum (County Tipperary) and New Ross.

2.24These schools were run by the following orders: Rosminians, Presentation Brothers, Sisters of Charity, Sisters of Charity of St Vincent de Paul, Sisters of Mercy, Sisters of the Order of Our Lady of Charity of Refuge, Sisters of the Presentation Order and Sisters of the Good Shepherd.

2.25These 21 statements, covering a period of 12 months in the years 1944 and 1945, were duly examined and the result was recorded in a Departmental memo as follows:

Three of the accounts showed excesses of Income over Expenditure. viz Birr, £1.2.5, Dundrum £433 (excluding an amount of £810 claimed as ‘an allowance to Sisters wholly employed in the Industrial School’ which would convert this surplus into a deficit of £377) and New Ross £6.4.3.

The remaining accounts showed deficits ranging from £27 to over £5000.

2.26The Department went on to conclude:

The statements cannot be regarded as very reliable or as furnishing an accurate view of the financial position of the schools. In some cases items of capital expenditure (especially for repairs, renewals and additional buildings) have been included e.g. Whitehall, where a deficit of £5,036 is shown a sum of £4,573 is stated to have been expended on building repairs and erection of a new sanitary wing.

It was also observed that in many cases the salaries paid from the Primary Branch to members of the communities serving in the schools as literary teachers were not included in the statements of Income. The inclusion of this item would in some cases reduce the deficit to a negligible figure or convert it to a surplus of income over expenditure.

We have no means of determining from these statements whether the produce of the farms or gardens is supplied to the schools or charged against the school accounts at wholesale or retail prices.

2.27Despite these criticisms of the accounting methods the Department did reach a conclusion:

On the whole we feel that the statements are not reliable. We also wish to point out that the period to which they refer may be regarded as the period of the emergency when the cost of food, clothing and other necessaries attained its maximum. In all the circumstances and making allowance for an anticipated reduction in time in the cost of these items consequent on the termination of the World War and a gradual easement in the supply position we do not feel that on the information contained in these statements a convincing case could be made to the Department of Finance for an increase in the Capitation Grant.

2.28In concluding that the capitation grant was adequate, the Department took into account the fact that most institutions had not bothered to submit their accounts, despite the desired increase being dependent on their production. The Department wrote:

We are also influenced in making this observation by the fact that a majority (over thirty) of the schools did not furnish any statements of income or expenditure in support of the claim for increased grants and also that as practically all the schools have farms attached the increased prices for agricultural produce during the emergency compensated to some extent for the rise in the cost of living.

2.29On the face of it, the Department’s demand for detailed and reliable accounts was not unreasonable, but many institutions, including all those run by the Christian Brothers, did not comply. The result was they lost their case for an increase in funding.

2.30The document also illustrates that the Department recognised that each institution had different needs, because of their different sizes and resources. The request for accounts from every institution was an attempt to assess these differing needs that were not being met by the capitation grant system.

The request for accounts in 1947

2.31In early 1947 the Resident Managers’ Association made a further application for an increase of 5/- per week in the combined payments for maintenance by the State and local authorities. The rate of the capitation grant at the time for the State was 7/- for Industrial Schools and 9/6 for Reformatory Schools, with the local authorities paying 8/- to the Industrial Schools and a rate not exceeding 9/6 and not less than 8/6 for the Reformatories.

2.32The Department replied:

The Minister is prepared to have a careful examination made of the application received from the Managers’ Association and to reconsider the present grant if he is satisfied that a sufficiently strong case can be made to convince the Government and the local authorities that these grants are inadequate to meet the present expenses of the schools. He has, accordingly, directed me to say that in order to have the fullest consideration given to the matter it will be necessary (this word is deleted and changed to ‘desirable’) for each Certified School to furnish detailed statements of its income and expenditure for the year ending 31st March 1947. If it is not practicable to have the statements duly certified by an auditor they should be signed and certified by the School Manager.

2.33The Department then put in a reminder about the failed attempt two years previously to get such accounts:

In this connection I am to state that when similar statements were asked for in 1945 by the Minister through the Association of General Managers in regard to a previous application for an increase in the capitation rate for maintenance grants, only 21 out of a possible 53 furnished statements, and this factor rendered it difficult for the Minister to give favourable consideration to the application for increase. I am accordingly to request you to arrange to submit for the consideration of the Minister a statement of the financial position of school in respect of the twelve months period ending 31st March 1947.

2.34The Department then spelled out the kind of information wanted:

The statement of the financial position of your school for the period mentioned (1/4/1946 to 31/3/1947) should show in detail the items of expenditure appropriate to your industrial school only under the various heads viz. food, clothing, footwear, fuel, medical expenses, dental treatment, salaries and wages, etc.

2.35It requested that the average yearly cost for these items ‘should be carefully calculated and shown in a separate document accompanying the statement’. The document added:

Where the cost of remuneration or maintenance of Religious members of the staff is part of the expenditure, any salary or other grant received by these members as Nat. Ins. Or any capitation grants paid to the school as a national school should be included as part of the school income.

2.36All schools did respond although not in the detail requested. Thirty seven reported a deficit per head per week for each child in the institution, and 10 institutions reported substantial debts or overdrafts. Two schools were noted as not having given particulars of the income from the farm. However, in the absence of the detailed information sought no increase was granted.

The request for accounts in 1951

2.37The pressure on the Congregations to provide detailed accounts was increased in 1951 when it was proposed to set up an interdepartmental committee with representatives from the Departments of Education, Finance and Social Welfare to inquire into the economic running of the schools. In the meantime, a significant increase of 5/- per week was granted. There was immediate opposition from the Resident Managers’ Association to the inquiry. The minutes of a special meeting of the Christian Brothers’ Resident Managers to discuss the move, held on 14th February 1951, noted:

It was decided after discussion that the offer of an increase of 5/- per head, per week should be accepted under protest as to its inadequacy.

It was agreed that the proposal of a special inspection by a Board of Inspectors from each of the Departments of Education, Finance and Social Welfare should be treated with extreme caution. It was not quite clear from the Department’s letter as to what was the function of this Inspection Board would be. It was feared that this might be an attempt to infringe upon the established rights of the Manager. It was obvious that the Department was desirous of an opportunity of examining the Financial Accounts of the institutions. After discussing the various difficulties that might arise it was decided that at the General Meeting the Brothers should neither accept or reject the proposal but should press that a further letter be sent to the Department asking that their Association should be supplied, in writing, under definite headings, with what the proposed inspection is going to entail and what its powers would be.

2.38The Resident Managers were reassured that the Board of Inspectors was only going to establish the right level of funding for the schools. The terms of reference were to inquire into the conditions and circumstances of the Industrial and Reformatory Schools under the control of the Department of Education and to make recommendations as to how they might be most efficiently and most economically conducted.

2.39The Resident Managers refused, however, to consent to the inspection as ‘the terms of reference to the inquiry were too wide, and include subjects which they do not consider relevant to the question at issue’. On 6th April 1951 the Secretary of the Association wrote to the Minister:

I have been directed by the Association to inform you that the members are strongly of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by the holding of such an inquiry.

2.40Specifically they objected to the involvement of the Departments of Finance and Social Welfare, believing that it constituted an attempt to interfere with the way in which the schools were run. The Minister, Richard Mulcahy, tried to allay their fears, but the project was dropped in the face of continued strong opposition. A further increase of 6/- per week followed in 1952.

The request for accounts in 1954

2.41When a further application for additional money was made in 1954, the Department tried again to get each school to submit accounts. In a letter to every Resident Manager the Minister again requested that each certified school should furnish detailed statements of its income and expenditure for each of the years ended 31st December 1951, 1952, and 1953 together with ‘particulars of improvements carried out in those years and of further improvements contemplated’. As well as demanding details about expenditure on food, clothing etc it asked for details about the farm or garden, if the school had one. It stated, ‘the gross value of the food supplied to the school and the proceeds of any sales should be shown in the statement as well as the working total expenses. The value of the food should be calculated at market prices current at the time of supply’. It also asked for the statement to include gross income from trades and industrial activities.

2.42Unusually it also asked the Managers to furnish ‘a statement showing how far the requirements and suggestions of the Circular of the 19th March, 1952 have been complied with’. This circular, following the increase in the grant that year, asked for ‘all round improvements in the matter of diet, clothing and facilities for indoor and outdoor recreation’. The Department asked specifically for ‘Statements of Accounts (Receipts and Expenditure) for calendar years 1951, 1952 and 1953 showing in particular the amounts spent on food and clothing for those years’ and for statements ‘indicating improvements to accommodation e.g. new recreation hall, new domestic economy room etc.

2.43The Department, in short, was asking for proof that the extra money had been used in the way intended. The letter ended with a reassurance that the Department had no hidden motive for asking for such accounts:

I desire to say that the information now asked for is not in the nature of an audit, or strict investigation, of the accounts of any school. It is required solely to enable the Minister to form a correct opinion of the actual financial circumstances of the various schools so that he may be in a position to consider the application made for an increase in the rates of capitation grants for maintenance.

2.44Accounts were received from just nine schools. They were Drogheda, Loughrea, Upton, St Anne’s Kilmacud, Pembroke Alms Industrial School, New Ross, Waterford, Westport and Clonakilty.

2.45On 18th May 1955 the Resident Managers’ Association submitted accounts for ‘an unknown number of schools’. There was no record on file requesting these accounts. They were returned to the Association because ‘the Department was unwilling to accept these accounts in the format presented’. The Association then submitted accounts for 22 Industrial Schools. The Department no longer holds copies of these accounts and has no record of the 22 schools involved.

2.46Further attempts to get accounts were made in 1962, when the Resident Managers’ Association submitted accounts in respect of nine schools. The Department had chosen six representative schools for the exercise. The schools that submitted accounts were Artane, Upton, Letterfrack, Lakelands, Moate, St George’s Limerick, St Patrick’s Kilkenny, Drogheda and St Kyran’s Rathdrum. All nine schools showed excess expenditure over income. A major cause for this was the drop in numbers. For example, St Kyran’s wrote,‘

The fall in numbers is a big concern with us. There was some hope of keeping things going when we had between 120 and 110 on roll, but now we are nearly on the 70 line and still falling I see no hope of keeping the place going except financial aid is increased.

2.47Artane, which was certified to take in 830 boys, had just 430, only 367 of whom were committed by the State. An analysis of the nine accounts showed that the congregations were finding it hard to manage as numbers fell.

2.48Finally, in 1964 the Resident Managers’ Association presented the Department with a two-page document relating to the financial position of 21 schools. Most schools were shown to have excess expenditure over income.

2.49Unlike in the 1950s, when accounts requested by the Department were not forthcoming, as numbers fell and income dropped, the accounts became a valuable part of the case for an increase in the capitation grant.

2.50The figures can be represented in graph form as follows:

2.51The Department’s protracted struggle to get detailed accounts about each school reveals:

(1)The power of the Congregations to resist pressure from the Department. Within their institutions the Resident Managers had near absolute power and they defended their ‘established rights’ vigorously. Without their consent, the Department could not obtain what it wanted.

(2)The Department may have been sympathetic to the argument that the schools were under-funded but was aware that the situation differed across institutions. A fair decision on how much was needed to keep a child in a school depended not just on the cost of living but on the resources of the school. These resources remained a largely unknown quantity.

(3)The accounts that were submitted were not as detailed as the Department wanted. Details of other income, such as from the farms or trades, were not included until the 1960s.

(4)The capitation grant remained the only system of funding given consideration. Despite repeated efforts by the Department of Education to find out the different needs of each institution, it failed. Without knowing the different needs of children in different schools, it continued the system of paying the same amount for every child. The capitation grant remained the basic system until 1984.

The process for increases in the capitation grant

2.52The Department of Education determined the capitation grant rate for committed children, but any increases were subject to the consent of the Minister of Finance. The process would begin with submissions from the Resident Managers to the Education Department making a case for an increase in the grant. The Department would consider the submission and would then put a proposal to the Department of Finance. The two Departments would then consult and the Department of Finance would then come to a decision. It could refuse to sanction an increase, or sanction one, usually at a lower rate than the one sought by Education.

2.53The Department of Finance was often sceptical as to whether the Resident Managers’ Association or the Congregations had put the full picture before the Department of Education. The issue may not have been a refusal by the Department of Finance to provide sufficient funds: it may well have been the case that their calculations and deliberations led to its settling on a lesser sum as being sufficient.

Changes to the capitation grant system over the years

Changes to method of payment

1944 Reforms

2.54There was no increase between 1939 and 1944 in the amount of the grant, although the cost of living had risen significantly, which brought dissatisfaction with the grant scheme to a head and led to three financial reforms.³

2.55(i) The most important of these concerned the termination of the ‘certified number’ requirement which had applied to the Department, but not the local authority, contribution. How the system operated is explained in the following Departmental minute: (see also Cussen, para 157)

The practice of paying State Grant on an arbitrary number the ‘Certified Number’ in each School, and not on the number actually under detention or for which there was accommodation, in a school, began in the 1870s. State expenditure on Industrial schools became limited to a figure fixed by the Treasury from time to time. This system seems to have been originally intended to keep control over the number of committals generally and to regulate their distribution throughout the country and amongst the various competing communities and bodies.

2.56At Independence, the system appears to have been taken over and continued without question. The aggregate of the certificates then on issue to the Schools in the 26 counties (6,644) was fixed as the maximum. In the course of a redistribution of certificates in 1939, it transpired that only 6,563 were actually on issue at that date, and the maximum was reduced to that figure. This number was an issue in 1944.

2.57As a result of the certified number limitation system,⁴ the actual number of children under detention often exceeded the number chargeable to the State. However, in some cases schools refused to accept committals above the certified number. Instead, they accepted cases under the Public Assistance Acts which were not counted against them under the certified number. In any case, the certified number restriction was abolished by a Finance minute of 19th April 1944, which announced that capitation grant should be paid on all children committed to industrial schools up to the full number for which the schools had accommodation.

2.58(ii) Until 1939, in respect of a child under six only the local authority’s contribution (not that of the Department) was paid and the local authority paid only about two-thirds of the contribution of that for a child over six. The thinking was that children under six should be dealt with under the Poor Law. However, the social outlook changed at the beginning of the Twentieth century and children under six were committed to industrial schools in increasing numbers. These children were accepted, effectively at less than half cost, by the Schools partly out of charity and partly so as to have a reserve of children who could be put on the grant immediately they turned six. However, in 1939, the Department started to pay a contribution of two thirds of the amount paid for an over-six. And, as from the date of Department of Finance minute of 1944 mentioned in para (i), the full amounts were paid by both the Department and local authority, irrespective of age.

2.59(iii) The Department of Education submission state that, before-1944, the process for claiming the grants involved the Schools in furnishing a detailed account in respect of each child. After 1944, the State capitation grant for a full quarter was paid by the Department at the end of each quarter. This was based on the number of committed children under detention on the last day of the preceding quarter, after the Manager had submitted a list of the names and registered numbers of the children together with the name of the local authorities to which each child was chargeable.

Increases in the amount paid

2.60Capitation grants were increased from time to time by the Department over the relevant period.

2.61There was no increase in the capitation grant between April 1939 and July 1944. The rate was increased at two and three year intervals for the rest of the 1940s. It will be noted that there were significant increases in the (state and local authority) capitation grant from 19/- in 1946 to 27/- in 1951 in respect of Reformatory Schools and from 16/- to 24/- in respect of Industrial Schools. (The figures used here combine both the central and local government contributions.)

2.62A substantial increase was also provided in the period 1951 and 1968, when the combined rate for Reformatory Schools increased from 27/- to 85/- and from 24/- to 82/- in respect of Industrial Schools. Strikingly, the capitation grant was then doubled in the following year to reach approx 171/- for Reformatory Schools and 165/- for Industrial Schools.

2.63In the 1950s, there was a six-year gap between 1952 and 1958 when no increases were made and a further five-year interval between then and 1963. For the rest of that decade, increases occurred every one or two years. There was a three-year gap between 1969, when the grant was doubled, to 1972 when the grant was increased by a further £10.30 (roughly 200/-) in respect of Reformatory Schools and £9.90 (roughly 180/-) in respect of Industrial Schools. The figures in 1972 represent the changeover in currency. Thereafter in the 70s and 80s there were annual increases to meet cost of living increases and wage increases.

2.64When increases were granted, the Department generally sent a circular to say that it was the Minister’s expectation that improvements in the care, diet and maintenance would be made, so there was no suggestion that increases were just to maintain the status quo.

2.65Total expenditure out of public funds was:

Negotiations on capitation payments 1957 and 1969

2.66Two case studies outline the very different circumstances leading to the 1957 and 1969 increases. The earlier, 1957, negotiations were typical whereas the later increase was exceptional. The Minister for Education and some of his officials met with a deputation representing the Resident Managers’ Association. The deputation sought an increase of 40/- in the grant to a combined rate of £3.10 per head per week. They argued that, owing to cost of living increases, the standard of diet and clothing for the children entrusted to their care had fallen much below what was required and that the buildings and accommodation facilities were in need of renovation.

2.67The Department then wrote to the Department of Finance supporting the claim and requesting a minimum increase of £1 in the weekly capitation grant by the Department and in that of local authorities. This was estimated to involve extra State expenditure of £121,000 (on top of the existing figure of about £400,000) in a full year. Education admitted that there had been an approximate increase of only 1/6th in the cost of living during the period since the previous increase. However, the size of the suggested increase was supported by: the steady decline in the number of committals to the schools with no corresponding fall in overhead expenses; the increases in wages of employees in the preceding four years; the need for greater effort to brighten the lives of children; and the modernising of certain facilities in the schools. In January 1958, the Department of Finance sanctioned an increase of 15/- in the State capitation rate for Industrial and Reformatory Schools with a corresponding increase in the local authority contribution.

2.68By 1967, when another increase was sought, circumstances had changed. The religious Orders were described as ‘gravely dissatisfied’ with the last increase and it appears that threats had been made about closing all the schools. The Department believed that this was not such a remote possibility as might be thought and that it would, if it happened, constitute a ‘national disaster’ because the cost of maintaining children would at least be doubled; for in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the cost was some three or four times the cost in Ireland. In those circumstances, the Department recommended that a substantial interim increase was warranted, even pending the outcome of the Kennedy Report, of 21/- per week. The Department of Finance’s response, in February 1968, was that the proposed increase was disproportionate and also untimely, while the system was being examined by Kennedy. Nevertheless, as an exceptional measure, Finance was agreeable to a 15/- increase.

2.69The Department of Education submitted:

Records of the Department of Finance which were discovered to the Commission indicate that in June 1969, the then Minister for Finance, Mr Charles Haughey, had met with a group known as the Friends of Industrial Schools and indicated that he would authorise a doubling of the capitation grant in respect of children in industrial schools. The Department of Finance subsequently notified the Department of Education of the Minister’s decision.. The Department of Education records also indicate that the then Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, inquired from the Department about the capitation grant prior to its doubling and was informed of its increase in letters from the Department respectively dated 19 September 1969 and 24 October 1969.

Themes in the negotiations

2.70Many of the same themes recurred in each of the negotiations between the 1940s and the 1970s. The Resident Managers emphasised the increasing cost of living and made comparisons with British and Northern Irish fees, and with prisons or private schools. As discussed above, the Department responded by asking for detailed accounts from the schools, justifying the request by the need to persuade the Department of Finance of the case for the increase.

2.71Through the 1950s further causes of strain on the schools’ finances were drawn to the Department’s attention. The major factors were the decline in the number of children, increases in wages of lay staff and the need for repair of premises that were often nearly a century old. The figures for all the schools were as follows.

Total capacity:	7,484
Residents:	5,227
Committed:	4,662
Others:	565
Percentage occupancy:	70%

2.72At least as early as September 1955, the Department of Finance raised the reasonable suggestion of closing one-third of the schools in order to allow the remaining schools to operate at full capacity and become financially viable.

2.73The minutes of a meeting on 20th November 1955 between the Minister for Education with his officials and five representatives of the schools stated:

The Secretary said ‘that Ireland was very fortunate to have religious communities in charge of these schools’. He wondered whether a partial solution would be for some of the schools to be closed. From a social point of view, he said, the falling number was a very good thing….

2.74Two years later, however, in a letter to the Department dated 18th June 1957, the Managers’ Association wrote:

The Managers have had a desperate struggle to keep the Schools open but they cannot be expected to accept children unless sufficient funds are made available.

2.75It is against this historical background that the question of the adequacy of the State funding of the institutions has to be approached.

Department of Education’s attitude to level of funding

2.76The Department of Education, in its detailed submissions to the Committee, accepted that the schools were badly funded by the State. The Department’s position down through the years was generally sympathetic to the pleas of the institutions through the Resident Managers’ Association for increases in the capitation grant. The situation in the 1960s brought matters to a head. Numbers were falling dramatically and with that income was dropping.

2.77An internal Departmental memorandum dated 5th June 1963 outlined the situation:

The pressure for an increase in grants arises mainly from the falling numbers and chiefly from the senior boys schools. In all the convent schools I have visited it appears that they would be quite satisfied with the rate of grant provided that the schools were kept nearly full, but many of the schools are less than half full. With many of their overheads fixed the institutions would be uneconomic but in many of the convent industrial schools the deficit is obviously met by the surpluses on national and post-primary schools run in conjunction with the industrial schools, the whole being run as one institution. None of the senior boys schools has any other grant-winning institution attached and they find themselves therefore unable to compensate for the falling numbers and increased grants are therefore necessary in their cases.

2.78This same memo pointed out that ‘the element if any for the maintenance and improvement of buildings was too small’. The buildings were old and in need of repair and modernisation, and the Department had begun to pay a contribution to help the Orders carry out necessary work.

2.79The dwindling funds caused by falling numbers worsened because of the failure to rationalise the system and close most of the schools as was suggested as early as 1955 by the Department of Finance. A letter dated December 1964 to the Department of Finance backed the Resident Managers and asked for more funds rather than school closures:

We are satisfied that the present grants are insufficient to meet the current expenditure of the schools and very many of them, if not the vast majority, can subsist only by meeting the continuing deficits from income from other activities of the communities or by charitable donations or by accumulating debt, the last mentioned occurring even in schools conducted by nuns who are noted for prudent management.

Further expenditure in the schools is confined to bare necessities as their incomes will not allow of any of the many improvements deemed necessary by this Department…

It should also be borne in mind that the school premises have all been provided free of cost to the State and in the matter of structural improvements or repairs they qualify for State aid on the day-school portion of the premises only. It had been claimed in the past that the capitation grants contained some unspecified element in respect of buildings maintenance but such, in fact, was not the case.

These institutions have been treated so parsimoniously by the State that there is now grave danger that the goodwill of the religious orders concerned will be lost and it is unnecessary to indicate the enormous extra cost which will be involved were they to give up the work and be replaced by lay staff.

2.80The letter ended:

In all these circumstances the Minister is satisfied that an increase of £1 a week in the capitation is less than that warranted but is the minimum that can reasonably be offered and it is suggested that the entire cost, estimated not to exceed £155,000 should be borne on the exchequer.

2.81In the period 1961-62 to 1967-68, there was a decrease by 12% in the overall funding of Industrial Schools from £436,278 to £385,812 but the fall in committals was 45.65%. Funding on Reformatory Schools for the same seven-year period increased 16% from £25,975 to £30,144 with a 19% drop in committals from 177 to 144.

2.82By contrast the two-year period from 1968-69 to 1969-70 was a period of uncharacteristic generosity. The combined figures for the Industrial and Reformatory Schools show an increase of 28%, funding rising from £411,059 to £527,7731. Even so, the Kennedy Report in 1971 found the schools under-funded.

Adequacy of funding

Submissions of Congregations

2.83The funding of Industrial Schools and Reformatories was raised in most of the submissions from Congregations.

2.84In the Opening Submission to the Artane module, the Christian Brothers stated :

The level of grant aid was a constant topic of discussion between the Resident Managers Association and the Department of Education, the former continually insisting that the grants paid were seriously inadequate.

2.85The Congregation went on:

The validity of the position held by the Resident Managers is strongly supported by the findings of the Kennedy Committee and by comparison with the levels of grant paid to similar institutions (Approved Schools) in neighbouring jurisdictions.

2.86The Submission then went on to compare the cost to the State of a residential school in Northern Ireland with Artane and concluded that when salaries and other costs were taken into account, the school in Northern Ireland was in receipt of considerably more funding than its counterpart in the South. In particular, the Congregation compared the stipend paid to all the Brothers in Artane with salaries paid in Northern Ireland and found the southern payment to be considerably less.

2.87Artane was a large well-appointed institution with many advantages including a large and productive farm. Letterfrack, on the other hand, was a considerably smaller institution and although it had a very large farm (amounting to some 827 acres), it was not good farming land and was very labour-intensive.

2.88In the opening statement to the Letterfrack module, the Christian Brothers addressed the issue of funding and again made comparisons with Northern Ireland in order to ground a contention that funding was inadequate. The submission stated that Letterfrack was only able to survive because of the produce of the farm, which provided food for the school and also generated some additional income.

2.89No special case of under-funding was made for Letterfrack although the much smaller numbers, particularly after 1954, were a cause of considerable hardship to the boys there.

2.90The submission for Tralee adopted a more instructive approach. Although it did make comparisons with UK residential schools, it also set out wages paid to workers in the school for 1945, 1952 and 1962 and compared the stipend paid to all Brothers in the school with those wages. This is explored in more detail below.

2.91Carriglea Park made the same submission in relation to adequacy of capitation as the other Christian Brothers’ schools and, like them, cited the Kennedy Report as support for their position. This school closed in 1954 and, according to the opening statement:

A surplus of £25,225 was generated between 1940 and 1954. A number of factors contributed to this surplus, a major one being the age of the building. It was built in 1893 and was not in need of major renovation while the school remained open…….The number of boys in the school was a viable one once it reached its promised certified number of 250 but it was the rises in maintenance grants in 1947 and 1948 that finally brought the accounts out of an annual deficit situation.

2.92This did not appear to be an adequate explanation for the surplus money in this institution at its closure and indicated a significant level of funding until 1954.

2.93Other Congregations made submissions on the question of funding.

2.94In their opening statement, the Oblates compared the cost of caring for a child in a residential institution today with the money paid to the Oblates for doing this job. They adjusted these figures for inflation and concluded that, by current standards, it would have cost the State £10,060 to keep one boy in Daingean in 1950. The Oblates received £52 for keeping each boy there. Much of their submission was based on valuing the work done by the Order for the benefit of the school and this is dealt with fully below.

2.95The Sisters of Mercy made a submission on the issue of funding in its opening statement for Goldenbridge. They stated:

From the interview with the former Resident Manager and from the limited records available it is clear that there was a constant struggle to provide even a basic standard of living for the children within the limits of the funding provided to Goldenbridge right through until the 1970s….

2.96The Sisters set out what they understood the capitation grant was intended to cover:

The capitation fees……were expected to cover wages and salaries for an average of eight or nine staff, and other overheads such as food and clothing, fuel and light, insurance, repairs to the buildings, purchase and replacement of furniture, recreation expenses, hardware and all the usual household appliances.

2.97Although they did not specifically refer to capital expenses, it would appear from this opening submission that the Sisters did not expect the capitation grant to cover capital costs.

2.98The Sisters related the expenses of Goldenbridge to ordinary household expenses at the time, which they submitted as being a valid comparator:

Where annual accounts are available they show that overheads alone accounted for around 60% of the total funding received, leaving just around 40% …for food, clothes, Medical care and recreational activities. The 1940s, 1950s and the 1960s were difficult times for every household in Ireland struggling to make ends meet on limited incomes and it was no different for the Resident Manager of Goldenbridge. Difficult decisions had to be made on competing needs.

2.99In relation to Newtownforbes, which was a relatively small school with a maximum of 145 children and often with numbers that fell well below that, the Sisters simply asserted:

The financial records of Newtownforbes have been made available to the Commission and they indicate that the finances of the industrial school operated within a range of plus or minus 5% of the capitation budget.

2.100The Sisters of Charity ran two schools that were the subjects of detailed analysis by the Investigation Committee. The Sisters appeared to have a clearer idea of what the capitation grant was intended to cover than other Congregations. In their submission on St Joseph’s Kilkenny they stated:

It appears that in the earlier years there was no Capital funding provided by the Department for Capital development.

2.101The submission continued:

Funding was provided from central funds by the Superior General in Dublin.

2.102The Sisters quoted a letter from the Department of Education to the Department of Health dated 8th May 1978:

The provision of buildings was the orders’ contribution…the capitation grant was regarded as containing an element in respect of the maintenance of buildings.

2.103The lack of financial support did not deter the Sisters from large-scale capital developments throughout the 1950s and 1960s, which were largely funded through fund-raising activities and through contributions from the Convent. Much of this development consisted of the purchase of property for the development of group homes and these houses remained the property of the Congregation.

2.104In general, all the opening statements that referred to finance submitted that there was a significant lack of funding by the State and this impacted upon the level of care for the children and specifically in the provision of material necessities and comforts.

2.105There were, however, questions that remained unanswered. There were indications from documents, particularly the Visitation Reports of the Christian Brothers, that the financial position of some schools was good with substantial surpluses in some cases. There was also documentation from the Department of Finance that indicated scepticism about the pleas for funding supported by the Department of Education.

2.106On the other hand, Inspection Reports contained references to children being poorly fed and poorly clothed and complainants were consistent in their allegations about inadequate food, clothing and accommodation in most of the institutions investigated.

2.107The documentation furnished by the Christian Brothers gave rise to questions on the issue of funding. In fairness it must be emphasised that the Christian Brothers kept better records than other Congregations and also operated a system of internal inspection which revealed details that were not disclosed in other Congregations’ discoveries. For example, the Visitation Reports for Artane contained the following references to finance:

(1)In 1934, the Visitor noted ‘The financial condition of this House is strong’. He also recorded: ‘In 1934 the deduction from the school income for the services of the Brothers was £3,920’. The Brothers made a contribution of £2,000 towards the cost of building St Joseph’s Missionary College in Marino.

(2)In 1937, the income for Artane was £29,000 and the expenditure was £31,000. There was a sum of £10,000 in the bank left ‘for the building of new schools’ and there were credit balances in both the Brothers and school accounts. The Superior gave a loan of £6,000 towards the building of the noviciate as well as a subscription of £1,000. Visitation dues and subscriptions towards central funds totalled £1,200.

(3)In 1938 a farm of 49 acres was purchased by the school for £1,600.

(4)In 1939 the visitation report stated ‘the financial state of the school and house is sound’. At that point there was a total expenditure of £33,600 and the total income of £28,700 but the Visitation Report noted that much of the deficit was capital expenditure. The salaries to the Brothers amounted to £2,260 or £133 per Brother which would have been as much as a national school teacher at that time⁵.

The total number of employees amounted to 60 and their salaries for the year totalled £9,000 which averaged out to about £132 per employee per year.

(5)1940 saw the income for the school total £32,500 and £3,300 had to be drawn from the reserve fund to meet the current expenses ‘owing to the laying in of large stocks’. The farm expenses in that year were recorded as being £3,460. The Visitation Report stated: ‘during the past 6 years Artane has invested in the building fund £16,500’.

(6)The 1942 Visitation Report was extremely optimistic about the financial position of the Institution, it stated:

The financial position is remarkably strong. The community account has a credit at the bank of £6,990 and the school account has a credit of £3,568. The total receipts of the establishment last year amounted to £32,240 and the expenditure was £29,733. The amount advanced from the funds as stipends for the community was £4,280. The Community income from all sources was £6,001. All the trades with the exception of that of the tin-smiths showed a profit. There was a net profit on the farm of £1,774 and on the mill and bakery of £2,346.

The house-to-house collection made in the city and suburbs came in at about £500 annually and the Superior suggested that this collection be discontinued.

£500 was a substantial sum in 1942 and it was a indication of a level of comfort with the funding that it was considered that it could be dispensed with.

(7)In 1943, the Visitation Report stated: ‘During 1943, the school bought 32 acres of land at Belcamp for £2,625’.

(8)In 1944 the net amount in the building fund for the institution was almost £20,000. In 1945 this figure had increased to a net balance in the building fund of £29,500.

(9)In 1951 the Visitation Report stated that, ‘the financial condition of Artane is not too sound and it does not appear to be improving’. The excess expenditure over income in the school was £8,306 between the years 1949 and 1951. This was due to capital expenditure on a sanitary block and on a play hall and it still left a credit balance in the building fund of £6,728.

(10)The Visitation Report of 1954 recorded that the financial position for Artane at the end of 1953 was fairly satisfactory. The school account showed a surplus income of £974 and the house account surplus was almost £2,000. The credit balance at the end of 1953 was nearly £3,000 higher than that at the end of 1952.

(11)The Visitation Report for 1955 stated :

The Financial position of this establishment is very satisfactory at the present time…..On both accounts there was a Credit Balance at the end of the year of £36,203, to carry on to the 1955 accounts. There is a sum of £30,000 invested in the Building Fund and, strange to say, taking this investment into account, there is due to the Building Fund a sum of £8800.

This figure appears to have been the repayment to the fund of money advanced for the sanitation block and other capital expenses and was repaid the following year: ‘There is no debt on the establishment. The total credit to the Community in the Provincial fund is now £36,000.’

(12)A comprehensive survey of the financial position of Artane was conducted in the Visitation Report of 1957 and 1958. By that time the number of boys had decreased significantly to 526 and it was seen that the staff of 68 to look after this number of boys was completely out of proportion:

The wages bill for the 40 employees amounted to over £13,000 per annum which would be 25% approximately of the grants received from the industrial schools branch and the various county councils. If £300 per Brother were allowed it would mean that almost 45% of the grants given for the support of the boys would go in upkeep for the staff. In addition there were up to 168 boys employed without payment in various activities.

The Visitation Report recommended that it was time to set up some sort of a committee of experienced Brothers to examine the whole situation. The Visitor did not think that Artane should be closed down: ‘it is the only school of its kind in the whole of Leinster’. In spite of the reduced grants and the rather wasteful manner in which the place is run at the time of visitation, Artane had £45,000 in the building fund and approximately £17,000 in the bank. The latter large figure was caused by the arrival shortly before hand of the major grants.

(13)In 1962 the Visitor remarked:

even though the numbers have fallen considerably your financial position is still strong. Most of the departments of Artane are self supporting but from the annual accounts it would seem that the farm could pay much better. With 300 of the best land of North County Dublin there should be a very substantial return for the year.

(14)After 1962, sales of land increased the credit balances in the house accounts and made it difficult to establish what had derived from the school and what had derived from sales.

2.108What emerged from these references was that Artane was a large contributor to the Christian Brother’s Congregation in Ireland. The Visitation Reports indicate that most of the money for these contributions came from the house accounts that were funded almost exclusively by salaries paid to Brothers. Given that Brothers had almost no living expenses because these were covered by the school, the money paid in salary went in large part to the development of the Congregation. There was clearly a greater surplus of funds during periods of high occupancy in the 1940s and into the 1950s.

2.109The school appeared to have adequate funds to function and to allow for substantial payments to the Congregation.

2.110Other Christian Brothers’ institutions had similar references in their Visitation Reports.

2.111In Glin, the Visitor referred to the purchase by the school of farm land in 1938 and stated:

The finances of the Establishment were able to meet this outlay on land which is necessary for the production of food for the School and training for the boys.

2.112In 1941, the Visitor remarked:

Financially the Institution is sound, and if the numbers keep up to the present average all will be well.

2.113The Reports show a credit balance for most of the 1950s in Glin but, as in Artane, falling numbers made the situation more difficult going in to the 1960s. A figure of £7,000 was recorded in the building fund for most of the 1950s and 1960s.

2.114Carriglea also had references to the sound state of its finances. In 1936, the Visitor stated: ‘the Institution is in a sound state financially’. In 1937, the bursar was instructed that ‘The salaries of the Brothers should be debited against the school just as are the salaries of other officers of the Institution’.

2.115Visitation Reports throughout the 1940s criticised the lack of proper book-keeping in Carriglea, although such figures as could be extracted indicated that the school was making a surplus for most of the years it operated. In 1951, it was again described as appearing to be ‘in a sound financial position’.

2.116In 1953 the Visitor remarked:

With almost £11,000 to its credit in the Bank and £4000 in the Building Fund, the financial position of the establishment is satisfactory. By some judicious method this £11,000 should be transferred to the Building Fund. To transfer it all by one cheque might not be desirable, as the Government – and possibly other parties also – seem to be anxious to probe into the financial position of industrial schools.

2.117In 1954, the Visitor stated:

The finances of this institution….are in a very sound condition. There is a sum of £16,000 invested in the Building Fund….

2.118There was little in the Visitation Reports of Carriglea to indicate an institution struggling to survive financially.

2.119In 1954, the numbers in Letterfrack were reduced substantially in order to restrict that Institution to boys convicted of criminal offences. Prior to 1954, it was not a very large school with numbers ranging from 130 to 170. In 1954, the Superior observed:

Financially you are solvent but it is evident that there is not a whole lot of money to spare when one considers the need for expenditure.

2.120In 1955 however, the Visitor stated:

The finances for the year 1954 are remarkably satisfactory. The total credit balance rose from £3117 14.5 to £3573.0.1. There was a surplus income in the school a/c of £914.7.4 in spite of an abnormal purchase of a car for £521.

2.121By 1956, the situation had deteriorated, but even then the Visitor sounded a note of optimism: ‘With growing numbers his [the Manager’s] position is gradually though slowly improving.’

2.122In 1960, the Visitor remarked:

The financial position of the establishment is not too sound but if the numbers can be maintained about their present level [110] the place could carry on.

2.123That forecast proved correct. In 1962 the Visitor observed:

One wonders why the financial position of this house is not bad considering all the repairs and renovations which have been carried out during the past four years. If the various County Councils pay up their portion of the contribution due, the house should be solvent at the end of the year.

2.124The financial situation was described as ‘sound’ in 1962 and ‘by no means bad’ in 1964. By 1972, the Visitor could state:

Both house and school are in good financial condition. On December 30 1972, there was a balance of 12,000 pounds in the house accounts and of 15,000 pounds in the school account.

2.125Letterfrack closed the following year.

2.126These extracts from the Congregations’ Visitors do not indicate a chronic shortage of funds in Letterfrack. The shortage that was encountered by the reduction in numbers appears to have been quickly made up. Letterfrack, like all Industrial Schools, was largely dependent on the capitation allowance and it appears that even at a time of reduced numbers, this was sufficient to generate a substantial surplus by 1972.

2.127In 1940, the Visitor to Tralee Industrial School made the following observation arising out of the separation of the Industrial School, St Joseph’s, from the larger Community of Brothers who lived in the adjoining monastery of St Mary’s:

The only debt on the establishment is the sum of £600 due to St Mary’s Tralee. At the time the two Communities were separated it was arranged that St Joseph’s should contribute to St Mary’s £600 annually to help towards liquidating the debt on the new secondary school. This sum has been paid regularly up to 1938 but has not been paid for the year 1939.

2.128In 1938, the total school grants to St Joseph’s amounted to £2,616 and £600 was a substantial portion of that. St Mary’s Secondary school was a completely separate institution and none of the boys from St Joseph’s attended it.

2.129By 1941, the Visitor could state that although the school had operated at a deficit for that year:

As the school has now a full enrolment, its income for the year will be at least £1000 higher than it was for last year. Hence the establishment is financially sound.

2.130Throughout the 1940s, the school operated at a deficit although it did engage in considerable improvements during that time including the construction of a new chapel.

2.131In 1953, the school acquired extra farm land for £3,000, which would appear to have been paid for out of the school funds. For most of the 1950s, the school account showed a debit balance whilst the house accounts showed a credit balance. In the latter part of the 1960s, the school began showing a surplus and by 1969 the Visitor described the finances as ‘very sound’.

2.132Tralee was a small industrial school by Christian Brothers’ standards with a population of just over 100 during the 1950s. It had a small farm of no more than 60 acres and the school struggled to break even. The house, which received its income from stipends paid to the Brothers, had a steady surplus throughout the period and by 1966, there was £8,000 invested in the building fund.

2.133Tralee illustrated the impact of low numbers and a small farm on the ability of a school to remain solvent.

2.134These extracts from Visitation Reports are selective and out of context and are not intended to establish the particular facts about finance in the schools but rather to demonstrate the complexity of the issue and the background to the brief to Mazars.

Building fund

2.135Details of the building fund were furnished by the Christian Brothers between July 2007 and February 2008.

2.136The Congregation stated

The Building Fund consisted of monies which were forwarded to the Provincial Councils by communities for use in refurbishing existing schools and building new schools. A Community submitted excess funds to the Building Fund, which funds could be called on for refurbishments and/or erections of new buildings.

2.137The Congregation was not in a position to say how much money in total was paid in to the building fund by their Industrial Schools but the accounts furnished show that Artane was consistently one of the largest contributors. Visitation Reports show payments into this fund by all the Industrial Schools at some point. There was also some evidence of payments out of this fund by way of loans to the schools but these were relatively small sums and were generally concentrated in the period immediately prior to the closure of the institution as an Industrial School. For example in 1963, when numbers in Artane had fallen substantially, a large sum of money was spent building a swimming pool. In Carriglea, after the decision was made to close down the Industrial School and use it as a Juniorate for the Order, large-scale refurbishments of dormitories occurred.

2.138All of these issues outlined above, although not specifically adverted to in the Mazars’ report, formed part of the documentation used by Mazars to analyse the question of capitation funding. They gave rise to a degree of unease on the part of the Committee regarding the true state of the finances of some of the Industrial Schools.

2.139In addition, the opening statements of the Congregations raised a number of queries:

Were Northern Ireland or UK costs valid comparators?
Could the comments of Justice Eileen Kennedy, written in 1970 when the numbers had fallen dramatically, apply to the 1936–66 period of high occupancy?
Was the capitation grant adequate to meet the basic needs of the children in care?

2.140The submission of the Congregations that Irish schools received considerably less funding than their UK or Northern Irish counterparts was obviously correct. However, this did not necessarily mean that Irish schools received so little funding that they were unable to provide a basic standard of care. The system in neighbouring jurisdictions was fundamentally different in that they had phased out large institutional homes in favour of group homes from the 1920s and this inevitably led to a move towards a budgetary system. A capitation system depended on large numbers of children being committed, a budgetary system did not. It was because the capitation system had encouraged Managers to keep large numbers of children that it was phased out in England and abolished there in 1933 and in Northern Ireland in 1950.

2.141The Managers of schools in Ireland had to be aware of these developments in the UK and yet, as was pointed out in the historical introduction to this chapter, in all of the submissions for increased payments made to the Department, there was no suggestion that the system itself should be changed.

2.142The capitation system had advantages for both the State and the religious Congregations. The religious communities gained by undertaking the work of caring for poor and disadvantaged children as part of their charism. They could ensure a Catholic upbringing for children in need of care while educating them.

2.143The State, by supporting them in the charitable work by paying maintenance for the children, gained an inexpensive pool of care workers without the expense of paying salaries and providing buildings.

2.144However, the capitation system required schools to run at full capacity to be economical, so changes to this system were not undertaken because of the financial implications. It led to more children being kept in the institution than was necessary because their presence served the needs of the bodies in whose care they had been placed.

The terms of reference for Mazars

Mazars was asked to look at the adequacy of the funding provided by the State to establish whether this sum was adequate to provide basic care for the children in residential institutions.
Mazars was asked to examine the accounts of four sample institutions to see how the capitation grant was used and to identify what the overall financial impact the schools had on the Congregations that ran them.

2.145The method adopted by Mazars was to produce a draft report in the first instance, which was sent to the Congregations responsible for the four institutions. These Congregations were invited to make submissions on the general issue dealt with in Part I and Part II of the Mazars’ report as well as the issues specific to their institutions at Part III. They submitted responses that Mazars took into account in producing their revised report.

2.146This section contains the Mazars’ revised report, incorporating some subsequent corrections and amendments, and the submissions made by the Congregations.⁶ It has to be remembered that the submissions were made in respect of an earlier version of Mazars’ report and so there are some references in the responding submissions that do not relate to the revised report because they have already been taken into account. The main points of difference and argument are however reflected in the revised report and the various submissions.

Adequacy of capitation

2.147Chapter 4 of the Mazars’ report dealt with the adequacy of the capitation grant and summarised its approach as follows:

Adequacy in our opinion is most appropriately considered in a context that is contemporaneous and which agrees to the norms of the society at that time. In our work we have sought to compare the capitation grant to available contemporary Irish data. Adequacy is also properly assessed against the background of purpose. In the case of the Reformatory and Industrial schools, the purpose of the capitation grant is, in our view, contained in the guiding legislation.⁷

2.148Mazars began their analysis by identifying what the capitation grant was expected to cover. Because the schools were the private property of the religious owners, they submitted that the grant was not intended to cover capital acquisitions or capital improvements beyond day-to-day maintenance. This was not always understood by Managers:

From the information available to us we understand that the capitation funds were in practice applied to any expenses deemed by the managers of the institutions to relate broadly to the running of the institution⁸.

2.149Mazars observed that it was both inevitable and appropriate that in the ‘community’ nature of the whole enterprise, school and house (ie Congregation) expenses would be interrelated. Nevertheless they deemed it important to identify what was intended to be covered:

it appears reasonable to conclude that the intention in the Act⁹ is for the capitation funding to apply specifically to the lodging, clothing, feeding and education of the resident children.¹⁰

2.150Mazars used the Cussen Report as a point of departure and concluded:

in the view of the Cussen Commission, the funding to the schools was adequate if supplemented with a grant towards teaching costs – provision for which was made early in the period under review¹¹

2.151Cussen also suggested bringing the local authority contribution in line with the Department of Education payment and this was also done.

2.152Chapter 4 of the report looked at the rate of capitation increase against inflation and concluded that ‘annual inflation exceeded changes in the capitation grant by 15 percent on average’ between 1939 and 1957. Between 1957 and 1969 ‘the annual capitation changes exceeded inflation by 58 percent on average’.¹²

2.153As pointed out above, other factors such as the payment of capitation to the under-sixes; the accommodation limit being used as the basis for payment; and the introduction of the National School grant, all increased the actual income to the schools without an increase in the capitation allowance during the 1940s and therefore a simple comparison of capitation and inflation does not give the full picture.

2.154Having compared the capitation rates and economic conditions and the cost of living, Mazars concluded:

Taking the review period in its entirety, the funding per head to schools did not decline in real/purchasing power terms as changes in the capitation grant more than match movements in the general price level.¹³

2.155The chapter then addressed the issue of adequacy of funding, which it approached from two points of view

adequacy in accordance with the 1908 Act;
adequacy in comparison with other frameworks of reference suggested.

2.156For the first, they used benchmarks that identified the cost of maintaining a child as opposed to maintaining an institution and used:

average household income per head;
unemployment benefit.

2.157Specifically, Mazars did not accept the comparisons used by the Christian Brothers in some of their submissions, which sought to compare the costs of a residential institution in Ireland with one in the North or UK because of the different economic and social circumstances and because the capitation system had been abolished in the UK in the 1920s and had been replaced with a block grant system that was not dependent on large numbers of children being committed. It did, however, note that the rate of increase in the two jurisdictions was largely in tandem.

2.158Mazars also believed it was invalid to apply modern childcare standards retrospectively as suggested by the Oblates in their opening statement.

2.159Under the household income per head analysis, Mazars concluded:

on average, the industrial school capitation grant was 88 percent of household income per head.¹⁴

2.160When compared with unemployment benefit, Mazars concluded:

For the 30-year period, the industrial school capitation grant was on average 122 percent of unemployment benefit payments. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the capitation payments were sufficient to support a child as they exceed what was expected to support an adult male.¹⁵

2.161Mazars used the Central Statistics Office’s household budget survey covering the 1939–69 period to ascertain expenditure on child maintenance and concluded:

This analysis suggests that the weekly capitation was appropriate for its intended purpose as weekly capitation exceeded expenditure incurred per child by a typical household.¹⁶

2.162Mazars also noted that the analysis demonstrated economies of scale associated with child maintenance.

As the numbers of children in a household increase two things happen: (a) the incremental or marginal cost of that additional child is less than the incremental cost of the maintaining previous child; and (b) this serves to drag the average maintenance cost per child downwards. Unfortunately we do not have data to measure the economies of scale likely to arise in a Reformatory or Industrial School situation.¹⁷

2.163Mazars concluded that the capitation grant was sufficient to feed, clothe and accommodate the children in Industrial Schools to a basic but adequate level – no child should have been hungry, cold or neglected.

2.164For many institutions other important factors came in to play. This was particularly true in the case of the larger boys’ schools where farming was a significant benefit to the running costs of the schools. Large farms in schools like Artane, Letterfrack and Daingean were worked on by the boys and allowed these schools to be almost self-sufficient in terms of food and even generated extra income through selling produce.

2.165In addition, it was a consistent complaint even in contemporary documents that industrial training was used as a means of providing for the needs of the institution rather than the needs of the children. The impact of this varied from school to school and as between boys’ and girls’ schools.

2.166Clothing, footwear, food, cooking and property maintenance were provided to the institution by the industrial training provided to the boys.

2.167Clothing, cleaning, cooking and childcare were provided to the school by the industrial training offered to the girls.

2.168In some Sister of Mercy schools such as Goldenbridge, rosary bead making and other industries provided a considerable extra income to the school.

2.169There was evidence from complainants of baking and laundry facilities being made available to the public for profit.

2.170Not all schools had these additional factors but some did. At the very least it might be expected that in schools that had extra resources, the capitation grant would be seen to go further and provide a better standard of care for some children. There was little evidence that this occurred and indeed some of the best physical care was given by schools such as St Joseph’s Kilkenny, which had almost no farming and no outside source of income.

2.171Another significant factor identified by Mazars was the economies of scale that applied to the larger institutions. The Orders argued that the institutions’ fixed costs remained static irrespective of how many children were there. This fact, which was used to ground an application for increased funding when numbers began falling, was also true in reverse. Large institutions should have had the benefit of savings when in periods of full occupancy and yet the evidence pointed to greater deprivations during those periods.

2.172Mazars’ findings were contrary to the assertions of the Congregations and the Department of Education. The Commission invited submissions from the four Congregations that were the subject of the accounts analysis in the third part of the Mazars’ report and from the Departments of Education and Science and Finance.

Response of the Christian Brothers

2.173The submission by the Christian Brothers in response to Mazars was dismissive and critical of the Mazars’ approach in relation to adequacy of the capitation grant. This document exhibited a defensive approach by this Congregation to the investigation by the Committee. Instead of seriously analysing the funding issue and acknowledging the validity of the questions raised, the response sought to achieve by vehemence what it ought to be striving to do by way of analysis.

2.174Mazars was asked to look at the capitation paid to ascertain whether it was enough to do the job intended. Mazars was not asked whether the system was cheaper or more expensive than that operated elsewhere. They were asked simply to analyse whether the money paid for the maintenance of the children was sufficient to do that. Mazars used comparators that were contemporaneous and directly relevant to the costs of childcare at that time.

2.175Their analysis showed that when compared with costs in Ireland at the time, the capitation grant was adequate to care for the children to a reasonable standard. Other factors such as economies of scale, farming produce, contribution from trades and income from trades could be factored in, depending on the individual school, and these would also impact on the resources available to care for the children.

2.176The Congregation did not respond to this analysis but simply dismissed the basis for it and insisted that the only valid comparator was the one they set out in their opening statements, that of a school in Northern Ireland or in the UK.

2.177The Congregation criticised Mazars for failing to take note of the findings of the Kennedy Commission (1970), the Tuairim report (1966), and the Department of Education submission to this Committee. All submitted that the funding to Industrial Schools was inadequate. However, both of these reports were written at a time when numbers had fallen so dramatically that the system of funding, based on capitation, was under pressure. Even at this time, the payment per child was reasonable but the costs of keeping the institutions open for smaller numbers was becoming more burdensome and was taking an increasing amount out of the maintenance grant. The Department of Education acknowledged to the Committee that they had not conducted any investigation into the rates of capitation but had simply relied on the Kennedy and Tuairim reports and on the correspondence with the Resident Managers’ Association through the years.

2.178The question Mazars was asked to investigate was whether the capitation was adequate throughout the relevant period including periods of high occupancy.

The Sisters of Mercy response

2.179Some issues arose in relation to the Sisters of Mercy and Goldenbridge that also gave rise to questions on finance.

2.180The Sisters of Mercy ran a lucrative bead-making industry in respect of which no accounts appeared to have survived. Inquiries by the Committee indicated that this activity brought in at least £50 per week.

2.181In 1952, which was a time when the Resident Managers were demanding substantial increases in capitation allowances, the Sisters bought a large house in Rathdrum, County Wicklow, with this money, which they used as a summer house for the children for a couple of weeks every August. There was no record of any other Sisters of Mercy schools using Rathdrum and there is no evidence as to what it was used for during the other 11 months of the year. Such a purchase was not consistent with an institution struggling to survive.

The Sisters’ response also dismissed the comparators used by Mazars on the basis that they failed to take into account the nature of the costs implicit in running an institution. It insisted that the only valid comparator was with a UK institution but, like the Christian Brothers’ submission, did not advert to the differences between the two systems.

The Rosminian response

2.182The Rosminians also disputed the comparators used because of the inherent expenses in running an institution that were not reflected in ordinary household accounts. They stated:

In any event, and critically, the schools were dealing with a situation which required remedial and restorative standards of care. This cannot be done on a tight budget, never mind a persistent deficit.

2.183The allegations made against institutions – including Ferryhouse and Upton – were that basic care was not provided. The Commission accepts that high levels of individual care were not possible because of the lack of funds, but was concerned to establish to what extent serious neglect could be excused.

2.184The Rosminians stated that their schools barely survived and that that would indicate either gross mismanagement by the Order, or underfunding by the State. All the evidence, they maintained pointed to the latter.

The Oblates of Mary Immaculate response

2.185The Oblate response to the Mazars report was also defensive. The Oblates saw the Mazars’ report as an attempt to illustrate that the Order had profited from their involvement in Daingean and set about dismissing that proposition. They did not see that Mazars was engaged in a much simpler task. Their response set out the arguments for using UK schools as a benchmark for assessing the adequacy of the grant and they also engaged in a detailed exercise of looking at the costs of childcare in institutions today and adjusting these costs for inflation.

2.186In relation to the ‘benchmarks’ used, they reiterated the point made by the other three submissions that

Comparisons with the value of average family incomes, welfare benefits paid to families or family spending are unlikely to give a useful measure of the cost to the Oblates of running a residential institution.

2.187Whilst this is true to a certain extent, the comparators used by Mazars are valid in assessing whether funding was adequate to provide basic physical care such as food, clothing and accommodation.

Conclusion

2.188The Mazars report raises doubts about the generally accepted proposition that funding for the residential schools was so inadequate that children suffered neglect and deprivation.

2.189There were variables that had a considerable effect on the ability of schools to provide an adequate standard of care. These include:

The size of the school. Mazars calculated a break-even number in respect of the four schools. This would indicate that where numbers fell below a critical figure, which varied as between the schools, a school would have been under financial pressure.
Economies of scale were a significant factor in large schools.
The ‘one size fits all’ approach by the Resident Managers failed to address the genuine needs of some of the smaller institutions.
The existence of a farm that could provide food and fuel to the institution.
Schools with an internal national school received a national school grant in addition to the capitation grant. This grant was also based on capitation and was therefore more valuable to larger schools.
Many schools used industrial training as a means of generating income and for providing the needs of the institution.

Value of work done by the Order

2.190The purpose of the residential school system was that the State and religious Orders would act in partnership in providing care to poor and destitute children. The Religious would raise donations for the establishment and upkeep of the schools and the State would pay to maintain the children. By the time the Department of Education took over the running of these schools and by the start of the period examined by the Investigation Committee, this dual role had become blurred for a number of Congregations. Most religious Orders did not seek public subscription for the premises used as residential homes and used the capitation grant to enhance and improve them. It is difficult to establish what effect, if any, this had on the funds available for the children and it varied from school to school.

2.191In assessing the adequacy of the capitation grant, some Congregations have taken into account the monetary value of the work done by the religious staff over the years. On a simple accounting basis such an approach may be justified, but in determining whether the institutions had enough money to provide the basic needs of the children, an analysis of what was, at the time, understood to be the charitable nature of this work is important.

2.192The Christian Brothers were particularly defensive of the remuneration paid to the Brothers. Their response submission criticised the suggested assumption by Mazars that everything earned by the Christian Brothers in the community irrespective of source should have been available to the school ‘to fund its losses’. It argued that this was tantamount to suggesting that anybody who worked in state institutions should hand back any money left over at the end of the year. The argument proceeded to criticise this approach as ignoring ‘obvious and unarguable facts.’ One of these facts was that each and every Brother who provided his services to the industrial school was entitled to remuneration and that such remuneration paid by way of stipend ‘was unarguably the property of the community. If the State was running the institution itself it would have paid each and every person employed there a salary which would have been the legal property of that person.’

2.193In putting forward their analysis of the value of the Brothers’ work to the institution, the Christian Brothers stated in their opening statement to the Artane module:

the Brothers working in Artane were not paid a salary; instead a stipend for each Brother working in the schools or on the administrative staff was paid to the local Community. This was in keeping with other schools or institutions in the capitation system. The annual stipend in Artane ranged from £142 per Brother in the 1940s to £300 per Brother in the 1960s. Significantly the rate of stipend in Artane was lower than in other schools where the rate in the 1960s was £550. The fact that the Brothers were only paid a stipend represented a clear saving to the State….

2.194The statement then set out the 25 Brothers working in Artane in the 1960s and, by reference to Northern Ireland salary scales, estimated what they would have been earning in salary. They concluded that had the State paid the Brothers’ salaries instead of stipends it would have cost the State £14,070 per year in the mid-1960s.The stipends came to a total of £7,500 thus representing a saving to the State of £6,570.

2.195As in the case of assessing adequacy of income, the Northern Irish comparator is less helpful than an actual salary comparison in the Republic. According to the Christian Brothers’ Northern Ireland comparator, eight primary school teachers at £750 each at the lower end of the salary scale would have attracted a total of £5,800. In fact, in the State a primary school teacher at the lower end of the salary scale earned £450 in 1963, which increased to £605 in 1964. The correct figure for that one element of the Christian Brothers’ calculation is either £4,000 or £4,840. Similar adjustments to each category of Brother employed in Artane would quickly erode any ‘clear saving to the State’.

2.196The following is a table of stipends paid to Brothers in Artane, against primary school salaries from 1944 to 1968:¹⁸

Year	Trained single teacher – lowest point on salary scale	Artane stipend per Brother
1944	€187	€152
1945	€187	€152
1946	€187	€152
1947	€279	€241
1948	€279	€241
1949	€279	€241
1950	€317	€241
1951	€317	€241
1952	€362	€241
1953	€396	€241
1954	€396	€317
1955	€396	€317
1956	€432	€317
1957	€432	€317
1958	€432	€508
1959	€458	€381
1960	€476	€381
1961	€476	€381
1962	€546	€381
1963	€571	€381
1964	€768	€381
1965	€787	€381
1966	€837	€381
1967	€837	€381
1968	€837	€381

2.197Two important factors arise:

All of the Brothers’ ordinary living expenses were paid by the school including food, accommodation and general maintenance of the monastery. The stipend, which was paid directly to the monastery, covered expenses such as clothing, holidays, travel and medical care.
All Brothers received this stipend, even those in more menial positions in the school and those with no involvement in the care of the boys. If £300 represented a fair remuneration for a Brother who was a teacher in the school, it was arguably an overpayment for Brothers who worked in the kitchens or the farm. It was certainly an overpayment for those Brothers who were retired and elderly and who were not directly involved in the running of the school.

2.198Although the value of the stipend fell in the latter half of the 1960s, it was a generous payment in the 1940s and 1950s and early 1960s. It allowed Artane and other schools to make significant contributions to the building fund, which facilitated the development of Christian Brothers’ schools outside of the Industrial School system.

2.199It is not correct to assert that the payment of stipends represented a significant saving to the State on salaries that would otherwise have to be paid. The cost to the State of running institutions like Artane was considerable.

2.200It is not clear that the cost to the State of paying all the Brothers in the institution a stipend was fully understood by the Department of Education or the Department of Finance at the time. As was shown in the historical section of this chapter, no proper breakdown of this figure was submitted to the Department in the 1940s or 1950s and no reference appears to have been made to it by the Department in its communications with the Resident Managers’ Association when discussing increases in grants.

2.201A difficulty with the Christian Brothers’ submission is in the distinction between the charitable contributions of individual Brothers and the larger interests of the Congregation, including the funding of its operations.

2.202In respect of the Reformatory at Daingean, run by the Oblate order, Mazars stated that the payments to the Province amounted to almost €50,000 over the period under review:

A report prepared on behalf of the Oblate Order in May 2002 indicates that these payments to the Province and to the Order members were funded by farm sales, stipends and donations. An analysis of payments to the Province and to the Order members in the context of the surplus/deficit generated from the farm and income from donations and stipends indicates, however, that in most years such income sources, when related costs are taken into account, would not have supported the level of payments made to the Province and to the Order members and, at an overall level for the period from 1940 to 1969, payments to the Province and to the Order members would have exceeded these sources of income by an amount of approximately €25,111, i.e. farm income, donations, stipends and sundry sales together exceeded farm expenditure by just €35,395 and were not sufficient to cover payments to the Province… This would, therefore, imply that capitation grants were, in part, funding payments to the Province’¹⁹.

2.203In response, the Oblate Order made a strong submission on the question of the value of the Order’s work in Daingean to the State. This was not part of their opening statement but it was addressed by them in their response to the Mazars’ report. They stated:

For example, the full value of the work done by the priests and brothers of the Oblate order should be counted as a cost to the school, matched by a liability from the school to the Oblate order.

2.204The economic consultants, Goodbody’s, engaged by the Oblates attempted to work out the cost of the work done by the religious against the value to them of their accommodation and living expenses. They stated:

When a minimum value of the work done by the members of the order is recognised, and this value is reduced by maximum values for the value of the goods, services and cash provided by St Conleth’s to the Oblate order the accumulated loss increases to €113,947 [£96,268].

2.205According to the accounts furnished by the Order, 10 percent of the total income received by the institution was paid to the Order by way of stipends or direct payment to the Province²⁰. If the figure suggested by Goodbody’s for food and accommodation was added to that, a total of €251,000 was used by the Order out of the capitation grant, which represented approximately 1/3rd of all income²¹.

2.206An important added factor is that Daingean accommodated a large number of retired priests who had little or no contact with the school. A former Resident Manager of the Order was asked about this at hearing. It was pointed out to him that of the five priests listed in Daingean, only one appeared to have direct involvement with the school, and he said in respect of the other four:

They were there for different purposes. It would often give a choice of say confessor for a boy.

2.207A former Resident Manager said that one priest was interested in arts and crafts and another in music and that they involved themselves in those activities.

2.208Of the 19 Brothers, only six or seven appeared to be involved with the school and the former Resident Manager mentioned a number of Brothers who were retired and still living in the Community and still receiving stipends.

2.209He confirmed that in addition to these stipends, a levy was paid to the Province to pay for the training of new members.

You see every community was expected to make some contribution to the central fund because men had to be provided and trained and things like that and this was common enough.

2.210He had a difficulty with this because he ceased paying this contribution in the 1960s when he became Manager:

2.211Mazars observed:

The Industrial and Reformatory Schooling system during the period under review did not provide for payment by the State, of salaries of those employed in the running of the institutions. The matter of salaries would not appear to be a matter which was raised by the Order at the time they ran the Reformatory in Daingean. Rather they appeared to accept the responsibility of managing the Reformatory and, in so doing, participated in the system as it prevailed at that time.²²

2.212The analysis by Goodbody’s was designed to show that the Order had not profited from the operation of Daingean Reformatory but it actually illustrated the lack of clarity around the ‘voluntary’ or ‘charitable’ nature of the work. Whilst it may be an interesting exercise to calculate the money that could have been paid to religious for the work done, the fact is this was not the understanding at the time. This school was a charitable venture undertaken by a religious Order in pursuance of its mission and was supported in that by the State.

2.213In their response to the Mazars report, the Rosminians stated:

Whilst the Rosminians had a certain desire for autonomy in the operation of their Schools, it was not for the sake of protection of property as such, it was to preserve independence in undertaking charitable works. This was the nature of the support by the religious which the State undertook. ….The religious were used because they could be relied upon to act on the basis of charity and because they were the largest supplier of social service/welfare in the Country. As they provided a service on trust, their claim to be struggling should have been taken more seriously.

2.214This goes to the core of the matter – the Congregations were on trust but were not willing to reciprocate this trust by being transparent in their dealings with the State. There was no attempt to identify institutions that, because of their size or their lack of a farm or even the age profile of their pupils, would have been genuinely struggling to make ends meet. The Resident Managers’ Association, dominated as it was by Managers from the large senior boys’ schools, had no real interest in disclosing how they spent the capitation and therefore smaller schools that had a genuine case were not heard.

2.215In the module on Goldenbridge, Sr Xaveria stated that prior to the appointment of Sr Bernadine in 1943, the capitation grant was paid to the convent and an allowance was then given to the Sisters who were engaged in the running of the school. Although that practice stopped, the few financial accounts that survived showed significant payments to Carysfort Mother House and to the reverend mother:

The accounts of Carysfort Mother House indicate payments received between 1939 and 1954 on a monthly basis totalling between approximately €5000 and €9000 per annum described as ‘National Education Goldenbridge’. The Carysfort accounts indicate payments totalling between approximately €1000 and €5000 per annum to the Goldenbridge Convent and Goldenbridge school expenses. The source of the income is not clear nor is the extent to which the payments related to wages. It is also not clear how much of this income, or expenditure, relates to the industrial school, rather than the adjacent national school.²³

2.216Mazars also noted a payment of £90 per month to the reverend mother but were unable to say what this payment represented because of a lack of information.

2.217The Sisters of Mercy did not offer any explanation for these payments, but they did not suggest that in assessing the capitation grant adequacy, monetary value should be placed on the work of the Sisters in Goldenbridge.

Conclusions

2.218The extent to which money was paid out of capitation to the Congregation varied from school to school. Although it may not have represented a full wage for some of the work done, when added to the living expenses provided by the school to the religious staff, it amounted to a significant payment for this work.

2.219The submission by two of the Congregations that attempted to place a monetary value on the work of their religious did not address the charitable nature of the undertaking.

2.220Full itemised accounts should have been available to the Department of Education clearly outlining the expenditure of the State grant. These accounts would have helped form a more accurate view of the financial aspects of these schools if they had been preserved by the Congregations.

2.221Not all Congregations behaved the same. There was evidence from smaller institutions with small numbers and little extra income that were clearly struggling to survive. Notwithstanding that, accounts of neglect and hunger were just as prevalent in the large boys’ schools that were well funded particularly during periods of high occupancy.

Analysis of individual accounts

2.222Before discussing the Mazars’ report and the submissions made, some preliminary observations are necessary. A central point is that the sources of information and documentation about financing the institutions are limited and in some cases virtually non-existent. If proper records were available, it would be a relatively simple matter to analyse the accounts and to identify the relevant issues to be considered. It is not possible to do that because either those records are not available, or they were not kept in a manner that would enable such analysis to be made.

2.223Although the Christian Brothers records were reasonably detailed, they did not provide enough of a breakdown to establish what payments were made. This was particularly true under the wages and maintenance sections. There was no way of knowing whether these sums related to Congregation or school expenses.

2.224Other Congregations, such as the Sisters of Mercy and the Rosminians, have hardly any records at all. It is not clear whether these were never kept in the first place or were subsequently destroyed.

2.225It is a significant criticism of the Congregations that they did not maintain proper records so as to establish, to their own satisfaction if to nobody else’s, that they were using all the money that they received from the State to provide for the children in care. They were in receipt of considerable financial aid at a time when money and resources were scarce and they had an obligation to account for this money properly.

2.226The first simple point accordingly, is that there is an extraordinary dearth of financial records in regard to the Industrial Schools and that is the fault – and the serious fault – of the Congregations.

Artane

2.227The Mazars’ report noted that:

Two separate sets of books and records were maintained by the Brothers in respect of the institution at Artane – school accounts and house accounts. The school accounts recorded all of the activities deemed to relate to the operation of the school, including the farm and trade activity. The house accounts recorded the activity of the community of Brothers resident at Artane. The community also invested in the Order building fund, and details of balances held to the account of Artane are recorded in the financial information presented to us by the Christian Brothers.²⁴

2.228The school accounts for the period 1940-69 show that expenditure exceeded income by €70,818. The House Accounts for the same period show that income exceeded expenditure by €339,724.

The most significant items contributing to the recorded surpluses are stipends or allowances for the Brothers engaged in the day to day management of the institution, and income generated from the disposal of lands. During the 1940s stipends represented 85 percent of total income of the house. In the 1950s stipends represented 68.6 percent of income, with sales of land generating a further 10.6 percent of total income. In the 1960’s stipends represented 22 percent of total income, with sales of land accounting for 63.2 percent.²⁵

2.229The Report concluded that the school:

was virtually self-sufficient, providing the majority of its needs from the farm and the various other activities carried on within the school. This is evidenced by the low levels of expenditure on clothing and provisions, and is also reflected in a number of the Visitation Reports… It is particularly evident that figures for the 1960s are impacted significantly by the reducing number of children attending the school. However, over a number of categories expenditure was relatively consistent for the period, for example provisions purchased, clothing and fuel, light and power, reflecting the unchanging requirement for this expenditure.²⁶

2.230The trades and the farm contributed very significantly to the financial position of the institution.

2.231In regard to capital expenditure there were no major items in the 1940s and the school achieved a surplus after capital expenditure in the 1950s. Such spending was at its greatest in the 1960s, ‘reflecting perhaps the need to address degeneration in the standard of accommodation over time’.²⁷ However,

It is not apparent from the Visitation Reports as to why the decision to take an extensive programme of upgrade and refurbishment was undertaken, when reports from the later part of the 1950s stressed the uncertainty of the future of the institution and the inappropriateness of incurring such costs in that environment. The most significant element of the capital expenditure incurred by the school was during the period 1963 to 1968, when the numbers of children in the institution were significantly in decline.²⁸

2.232This expenditure was funded:

primarily from the school account – with the exception of the items funded in the 1940s by the house, and refunds received from the Board of Works referred to above. The house accounts in the 1950s and 1960s show very low levels of capital expenditure. ²⁹

2.233Mazars’ conclusions on Artane were as follows:

The house benefited from the contribution of cost of production of food and maintenance from the school. The house also levied on the school a stipend per Brother.

The house had beneficial rights to the lands and property and to any income from this source. The school, on the other hand, bore the cost of supporting the boys, the costs of employing the lay staff, the costs of maintaining and upgrading the buildings and making a contribution toward the costs of the community of Brothers.

If the capital expenditure incurred at the school was to be excluded, then the capitation grant would have been sufficient to cover the operating expenses of the school.

Obviously, our comments in chapter 4 regarding the appropriateness or otherwise of the State providing funding towards the capital costs of the school applies in the case of Artane.³⁰

The position could be summarised in tabular form as follows:

Total Expenditure	€2,364.996	100%
Funded by:
State and Local; Authorities	€1,868,443	79%
Other Income	€425,734	18%
Deficit – funded by the Order	(€70,819)	3%

Submissions on behalf of the Christian Brothers

2.234The Congregation challenged five of Mazars’ assumptions, three of which were not accepted by Mazars. They were that:

the land at Artane was gifted to the Christian Brothers for the specific purpose of establishing an Industrial School;
the State had no responsibility to provide capital funding;
the Industrial School and Christian Brother community in Artane were a single unit.

2.235As the chapter on Artane shows, the documentary evidence indicated that Artane was acquired for the purpose of establishing an Industrial School. The Christian Brothers have stated ³¹ that the land upon which the Industrial School was built was purchased by the Congregation with Congregation funds. It had originally been intended for use as a novitiate for the Order but, upon the request from Archbishop Cullen, it was decided to use the land for the provision of an Industrial School for boys. However, a letter dated June 1870 by a proposed management committee to the Chief Secretary for Ireland stated that Artane Castle plus 23 hectares of land had been purchased for the purpose of setting up an industrial school.³² The property had been purchased for £7,000 and it was proposed that dormitories, classrooms etc would be erected for a further £1,600.

2.236The Christian Brothers stated:

Public personages of all shades of opinion gave the school generous support. To raise the funds for the provision of permanent buildings a petition by a large number of people was presented to the Lord Mayor. The Lord Mayor in response to this petition called a public meeting and substantial voluntary funds were soon received. From this response and from newspaper articles of the time it is clear that there was strong public support for the work of the school. The design, atmosphere and work ethos of the school received much acclaim from numerous eminent persons in public life and many visitors were impressed with what the witnessed.

2.237Whatever about the initial proposal that £1,600 would be spent building dormitories and classrooms, we know from a souvenir Annual which was published by Artane in 1905 that buildings which had cost over £60,000 had been erected at Artane by that time.

2.238The land associated with the school increased from 23 hectares (about 56 acres) up to a maximum of 143 hectares (about 353 acres) by the early 1940s.

2.239The position therefore is not clear. Mazars were, however, entitled to rely on contemporaneous documentation in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. The issue of capital funding has already been dealt with above. There is no suggestion that the State was not obliged to provide capital funding. The issue Mazars looked at was whether the capitation grant was intended to be used for this purpose. The answer would appear to be that it was not. The Sisters of Mercy and in particular the Sisters of Charity appeared to have understood this. Capital grants were available for building projects directly connected with the school and these should have been funded separately from the maintenance of the children. If State grants were inadequate to meet the needs, other fund-raising options could have been explored. The important point is that capitation was intended for the children and should have been used for that purpose.

2.240The third point raised addressed the issue of seeing the Community and the school as a single unit. The Industrial School and the Community were in the main funded from the same source. It is not possible to look at the issue of finance without regarding the operation as a single unit from the point of view of the allocation of that funding. There was no specified sum that was designated for the use of the Congregation out of State payments. Each Congregation made their own decisions on how much would be allocated to that purpose and therefore the funding of the monastery had to be seen in the context of the overall financial position of the institution.

2.241The Christian Brothers’ submission argues strongly about what they were entitled to in terms of property and salary, but never mentions the essential charitable nature of the work. Assumptions about the altruism of the Brothers’ involvement in this work underscored its relationship with the State and certainly formed the basis of the public’s view of the Congregation and its members. From the tone of the Congregation’s submission it would appear that these assumptions were not correct. The difficulty for the Committee is that for many other religious communities, charity and altruism were very important and they did not see the Industrial School as a business but rather as a calling. It is clear that individual Brothers were likewise motivated by a strong sense of religious vocation. The Committee believes that many of the charitable, hard-working members of the Community who gave their lives to the service of others would be disturbed at the tone of the Congregation’s submission.

2.242The Congregation rightly point out that, at its closure, Artane Industrial School had a deficit of €70,819 which was paid off by them in 1971. Much of this deficit arose during the 1960s when large capital projects, including the building of a swimming pool, were undertaken. Visitation Reports had been questioning the viability of Artane as an Industrial School from the late 1950s and there is no indication in the documents as to whether these expenses were incurred in the expectation that Artane’s future as an Industrial School was assured.

Goldenbridge

2.243Unlike the Christian Brothers, the Sisters of Mercy had no internal monitoring of their schools and there is absolutely no written account surviving of what difficulties, if any, the school experienced during the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. The accounts that survived were piecemeal and the information contained in them was incomplete and confusing.

2.244There were no accounts produced for the period 1939-54. Six-monthly accounts were available for the period 1955-69 with the exception of three sets ending 31st December 1957, 30th June 1968 and 30th June 1969.

2.245This fact alone is a matter of serious criticism of the Community. When private bodies receive State funding there is an absolute responsibility to account for how that money was spent. That was even truer in the middle of the last century when money was scarce and public funding limited. It is difficult to form any definitive view on Goldenbridge in the absence of proper records.

2.246However, the analysis by Mazars on the level of funding by reference to contemporaneous indices would indicate that, as a large institution, the capitation grant should have been adequate to provide a reasonable standard of physical care. Goldenbridge did not have a farm and did not have profit-making trades shops, but it did have a thriving bead-making industry during the 1950s and into the 1960s. No financial records survived about this income but Mazars were able to establish an estimate of the income it generated. They stated:

We understand that bead-making commenced as a trade within the school in the early 1950s and ceased prior to 1970. From our discussion with the representatives of the Order, we believe that children made ‘decades’ of beads (the stringing of beads onto wire using pliers). Quotas were imposed in order to meet the requirements of their contracts with two companies. We understand that the quota was 60 decades per participating child per day. We do not know how many children participated and no financial records of this income source have been made available to us. We did receive correspondence from one company which purchased the decades from Goldenbridge and we have used this data to estimate the range of possible income that has not been included in the accounts.

Exhibit 51

Bead Income
Number of children	120	90	60	30
Income per decade	IR£0.11	IR£0.11	IR£0.11	IR£0.11
Income per annum	IR£3,432	IR£2,574	IR£1,716	IR£858

Discounted income per annum	IR£2,869	IR£2,152	IR£1,435	IR£717

We understand that:

There were quality issues with the decades, for which we have discounted our estimates by 5 percent.
For most of July, August and Christmas there was no production, for which we have discounted the estimate by 20 percent.
On occasions the children worked six days a week, for which we have increased the estimate by 10 percent.

This means that the range of income would be between IR£717 and IR£2,869 per annum depending on the number of children making the decades. We understand that the Sisters of Mercy believe that the income was at the lower end of this scale.

We believe that the income generated may have been significant because an amount was used in 1954 to contribute to the purchase of a property in Rathdrum, County Wicklow. We have been advised by the Order that the property was used by children during holiday periods.³³

2.247The major outgoings were food (34%), wages (21%), clothes (12%), building repairs and decoration (11%), fuel and light (7%), furniture and fittings (3%), medical (1%) and other (11%). Wages comprised staff wages, payments to the Resident Manager and payments to the reverend mother.

Limited information is available in relation to the staffing levels during the period 1939– 69. We understand that generally the staffing consisted of two nuns (both teaching and one having the dual responsibility of resident manager), two lay teachers and a number of other staff (seamstress, domestic, etc). We note that based on records of 1955 there were eight members of staff excluding the nuns and teachers. This increased to eleven members of staff in 1958.³⁴

2.248The school accounts available for the period 1955-69 showed a surplus of €33,410.

2.249As already outlined above, the accounts of the Carysfort Mother House revealed monthly payments totalling approximately €5,000. €9,000 per annum were received from ‘National Education Goldenbridge.’ Mazars observed:

The source of the income is not clear nor is the extent to which the payments related to wages. It is also not clear how much of this income, or expenditure, relates to the industrial school, rather than the adjacent national school.³⁵

2.250The Report noted that the total capital expenditure during the period 1951-69 was €158,745.

Capital expenditure using the school account was primarily on building repairs and decorations and furniture and fittings. In the 1960s this amounted to 19 percent of expenditure. In 1969 repairs to buildings made up 29 percent of expenditure. We have received some records in respect of a building account held in the 1960s which was funded by the school account and various grants. It is unclear how much of these funds were used for properties other than for the industrial school; although based on a sample review of such expenditure we did note a certificate of payment in respect of Rathdrum in the amount of IR£750.

The accounts of the industrial school indicate funding given to capital expenditure of IR£2,000 for the purchase of a holiday home in 1954, with further contributions to the building fund account of IR£2,000 in 1959 and IR£4,000 in 1960, before a subsequent repayment from the building fund account to the school account of IR£1,050.³⁶

2.251Mazars’ conclusion was that based on the limited information available, the financial position of Goldenbridge over the period 1939-69 ‘are probably best characterised as being one of being close to break even’.³⁷

2.252Where accounts are available, the position is summarised as follows:

Total Expenditure	€351,743	100%
Funded by:
State and Local; Authorities	€282,239	80%
Other Income	€102,913	29%
Surplus	€33,410	9%

(Mazars noted that the school accounts did not show any primary grant received, with the exception of one period, and excluded income from the bead-making activity.)³⁸

2.253The analysis by the Sister of Mercy accountants acknowledged weakness in the fact that it was not possible to get supplementary explanations of various figures in the accounts.

2.254However, based on the financial information available, it suggested that in the period for which accounts were largely available, 1951-69, the school did manage. It was however submitted that this was ‘probably best characterised as being close to break-even’. It suggested that whilst Goldenbridge had an overall surplus in the period analysed, this largely accrued from the mid 1960s when pupil numbers increased and there was a 100 percent increase in capitation grant in 1969.

2.255Unfortunately, much of this analysis is guesswork and there is no real way of knowing the extent to which Goldenbridge contributed to the mother house or how any surplus funds were spent.

Daingean

2.256An analysis of income and expenditure for the period 1940-69 indicated that ‘the school operated at approximately a break-even position for the first two decades under review but ran into deficit during the third decade.’³⁹ The deficit in 1969 was €20,602.

2.257The primary sources of income were government and local authority grants. Other sources of income included farm sales, stipends, and sundry sales. Indirect sources of income involved the labour of the boys in the trade workshops.

2.258Mazars noted that the expert report commissioned by the Oblates of Mary Immaculate and prepared by Goodbody Economic Consultants suggested that had the school paid wages to the religious staff working there the deficit would have been larger. Mazars accepted that the calculations carried out by Goodbody’s were reasonable but did not take into account: (1) the fact that the reformatory was not a State school; and (2) the system did not provide for the payment of wages at the time.

2.259Separate accounts were not kept for the farm. The school accounts showed the farm making a loss of €25,003 over the period 1940-69.

These figures do not, however, take into account the value of farm produce consumed by both the boys and the Brothers and Fathers resident at the School. In availing of farm produce to feed the boys and Brothers, there was, presumably, both a financial saving to the school, which would have resulted in lower total expenditure and lower deficits than if these costs were incurred externally, as well as a corresponding loss of potential income. Similarly, the accounts do not reflect the fact that labour on the farm was largely that of the boys and the Brothers. Again, there would have been a certain saving to the school in using this ready pool of labour as opposed to employing additional farm labourers.⁴⁰

2.260A Department of Education Report prepared in 1955 stated that the farm was making profits and that there was no evidence that these profits were being ploughed back into the school. Mazars concluded:

The views of the Department Official are not consistent with the record in the financial statements, which show an overall deficit from the farm. We have not been able to identify a reason for this inconsistency.⁴¹

2.261As to capital expenditure, the terms of the lease required the Oblates to keep the premises in suitable repair, and documentation from the Department of Finance indicated that the capitation grant was sufficient to meet this expenditure. The State was responsible for all items of capital expenditure from 1940-69.

Despite the significant capital investment in Daingean in the period 1939-69, Department of Education records indicate that Daingean was not in a good state of repair. Correspondence between the OPW and Departments of Finance and Education in 1969 and the early 1970s indicates that certain buildings in Daingean were ‘structurally unsound’. A visit paid by an official of the Department of Education in 1967 echoes this view of the state of repair, referring to the premises being ‘in a bad state ……….. should be demolished’⁴²

2.262Mazars had not had sight of a balance sheet for Daingean during the period under review and accordingly it was limited in the information which could be extracted from the accounts. The salient points in assessing the overall financial consequences included the following:

There was a deficit in the bank of the Reformatory School at 30th November 1969 in the amount of €11,710.
The total deficits generated by the school over the period amount to €17,706.
Expenditure on the buildings (furnishing and carpentry, repairs) amounted to €72,422.
In analysing the farm income and expenditure in the school accounts, it can be seen that the farm made an overall deficit of €25,003. It is not known to what extent farm expenditure includes work of either a capital or a repairs and maintenance nature.

2.263The following is a summary of the financial position.:

Total Expenditure	€744,587	100%
Funded by:
State and Local; Authorities	€533,614	72%
Other Income	€193,273	26%
Deficit to be funded	€17,700	2%

2.264Mazars also concluded that:

An examination of the transcripts, statements and documentation of the Oblate Order made available to us describes a situation where making ends meet was a constant struggle, especially in light of the ongoing works and maintenance required …

2.265 It is clear from the financial statements reviewed that the expenditure on furnishing, carpentry and repairs contributed significantly to the deficits in the school.⁴³

2.266The Oblate submission in relation to the value of the work done by the Order has already been discussed above and is central to the observations made about the overall financial position of the Oblate Order and Daingean.

2.267The submission concurred with Mazars’ view that the accumulated loss of equivalent of €17,700 that was made over the period of operation of Daingean could not to be taken at face value to indicate that the capitation grant and other income were insufficient to cover operating costs. Goodbody looked at the flow of payments and benefits between the Order and St Conleth’s to see whether the services provided by the Order exceeded the value of goods and services moving in the other direction. If the Order gave more to the Reformatory than it received, then the inference was that the Oblates subsidised the Reformatory. If the situation was otherwise, as Mazars conclude, then the Oblates received a net benefit and can be said to have actually profited from the operation.

2.268The accountants sought to complete the picture of the estimated surplus or deficit to the Order by making appropriate allowances and adjustments. Having done this, Goodbody concluded that the cost of operating St Conleth’s exceeded the capitation grant and all the other income sources and that, therefore, the school could only operate because the members of the Order worked there without receiving proper compensation. They concluded that ‘it is clear that St Conleth’s was operated at loss over the period in question. There was no possibility of the Oblate Order profiting from the operation at St Conleth’s. In fact St Conleth’s was only able to operate due to a subsidy from the order.’

2.269Goodbody’s calculation was based on valuing the work of an average of 24 members of the Oblate Order throughout the period in question at the average weekly wage of an industrial civil servant, which meant a person working at unskilled or craft work.

2.270The question whether the Oblate Congregation profited from its operation of Daingean Reformatory thus resolves itself into a consideration of whether it is legitimate to value the work of the members of the community in the way suggested by Goodbody in their report. If so, the institution could not have operated except for the net contribution made by the Congregation. If that approach is not to be considered legitimate, then it follows that the Congregation was in a position to enjoy a surplus and it would also seem to follow that the capitation payments were at least adequate.

2.271On the basis of the discussion already outlined on the issue of the value of the work done by the Order, it is reasonable to conclude that Daingean Reformatory was adequately funded during the relevant period.

Ferryhouse/Upton

2.272Very limited financial information was available for these institutions. In respect of Upton, there were no records for 1940-49 but there were financial documents for the years 1952, 1953, 1960-66. In relation to Ferryhouse, there were some records only for the years 1941, 1947, 1951-54, and 1960-69. In addition to the above, Mazars were also provided with the accounts of the Province for the periods 1952-53 and 1961-69.

2.273Because of the incompleteness of the records the figures can only be regarded as indicative. With that qualification, for the years for which financial records exist, it appears that Upton enjoyed a surplus of €24,284 and Ferryhouse a surplus of €26,901.⁴⁴

2.274Mazars quoted from the submission made by the Order:

The submission made by the Rosminian Fathers draws attention to a number of issues that are relevant not only to those Schools run by the Order, but also to the system of Reformatories and Industrial Schools in its entirety. These have been dealt with, in that context, in the early sections of this report. In summary, the issues raised by the Order are as follows;

No State monies were available to assist with the provision of buildings and other facilities in the Industrial Schools.

• The Order also notes ‘It must be kept in mind that the two Industrial Schools were only part of the financial burden on the Province that also had to provide and maintain houses for students who were called to join the Institute and who did not pay any fees for their training. From 1945 onwards, the Province had a further call on its limited financial resources when it was required to provide for the travelling expenses, health care and much more, of the members who went on mission to East Africa.’

The question of State funding of the property is, as we have already seen, complex, and is relevant to our understanding of the relationship between the State and the Orders and their collective perception of their respective roles in relation to the provision of the Reformatory and Industrial Schools’⁴⁵

2.275Mazars responded to these points:

With regard to the additional financial burdens on the Order, we note that this question is relevant to an understanding of how the Religious Communities viewed the Schools as a potential contributor to other unfunded or under-funded activities of the Order. From our examination of the financial information made available to us by the Rosminian Fathers it is our view that the Schools did leave the Order in a net surplus position, to the extent that the closing balance sheets of the schools show an improved position on the earliest available accounts. However, the contribution of the Schools to other Community activity does not, based on the available information, appear to have been sufficient to yield the Order a significant surplus.⁴⁶

2.276The Rosminian Order made a more reflective submission as part of its final submissions to the Investigation Committee. They stated that the ‘Mazars draft report raises many controversial issues’.⁴⁷

2.277They submitted that

The predominant financial characteristic of the Schools was persistent under funding and accumulated debt. Where funding increased it was too little and too late, and the financial relationship between the schools and the State was adversarial. We have already described how the Schools financial position was a struggle. In fact the relationship with the State is best described overall as dysfunctional. This is illustrated by two phenomena. Firstly, the Schools’ Inspector usually (but not always) characterised the quality of provisions in school as satisfactory, but increases in State grants were usually accompanied by the requirement that school conditions be improved. The underlying conflict in those assessments disguised a lack of focused thought, and guided standard.

Secondly, if it is assumed that funding was even barely adequate, the temptation for the Schools to seek maximum numbers of boys on the basis of economies of scale (same overheads, more income) was destructive to standards of performance, because boys were then being kept for money, and not vice versa.⁴⁸

2.278The Rosminians also submitted that a ‘definition of the purpose of State funding to the schools’ was irrelevant because:

Whilst the use of its property was clearly donated to the Industrial School Purpose, the Order itself had very little other resources, and as the buildings aged and standards of living rose, the Industrial School project as a whole obviously had increasing capital needs. Whilst the issue of capital expenditure might well have become part of the polemic of the acquisition of State funding and increases, it was plainly unrealistic to expect an Order without substantial means to carry and ever increasing burden. This is very clearly acknowledged in the Cussen Report.⁴⁹

2.279The Rosminians rejected the benchmarks used by Mazars as unsuitable comparators. For example the Rosminians object to the capitation grant compared to welfare grants as they feel that it is unjust as the State never used such comparisons when determining the level of the capitation grant.⁵⁰ They also rejected the reasons advanced for not comparing the Irish capitation rates to British rates.

2.280The Rosminians posited the view that:

The level of capitation grant was never claimed to be enough by the State. It was envisaged as contributory funding. It was calculated on compromise and accepted in desperation.⁵¹

2.281The Rosminians argue that the capitation grant was deficient even when capital expenses are excluded. ‘Comparison with weekly industrial earnings distributed per capita shows a shortfall in all but 3 of the 30 years between 1939 and 1969.’⁵²

2.282They do however concede that ‘Some fault could be attributed to the religious for not pursuing closer accounting with the State.’⁵³ The Rosminians also dispute that the relationship between the State and the religious as ‘outsourcing’, as claimed by Mazars. The Rosminians counter that the religious were used as it was known that they would ‘act on the basis of charity’:

The two Rosminian Schools operated under constant financial constraint and uncertainty. Amongst other influences, this aggravated disciplinary issues. Broken windows or equipment, soiled or torn clothes, perceived waste or stolen food, were punished partly because of the need for stringent economy.⁵⁴

2.283The Rosminians concluded:

Allowing for debate on the complaints, three things are clear beyond interpretation or opinion:

What was achieved by the Schools was only possible through significant financial contributions outside State funding.

There is no evidence was waste or misdirection in the accounts.

State funding was never regarded as adequate by the State or Schools…’⁵⁵

Break-even point

2.284The Mazars’ report attempted a comparison of the financial data available in respect of these individual institutions for two sample periods, namely, 1951-55 and 1961-65, to ascertain the number of children necessary for the Institution to break even financially.

2.285Mazars reached the following conclusions.

When we compare 1951–55 with 1961–65 we noted the following:

The breakeven point for Artane and Upton decreased significantly when comparing 1951–55 with 1961–65. In the case of Artane the breakeven level decreased due to the increase in the level of variable income and variable costs by approx. 100 percent to €255 and €126 respectively per child per year increasing the monetary amount of the contribution. In the case of Upton, unlike other schools, variable cost levels per child remained constant at approx. €110 per child per year while variable income increased by approx. 50 percent.
Over time the contribution per child has increased. As identified above, this is due to the variable income increasing by a higher monetary value than the variable costs per child. The level of contribution was higher in the schools with a farm due to the farm income, which was an important source of additional funding for those schools.
In line with the increased contribution, fixed costs and capital expenditure have also increased.
The break-even analysis for the sample period in the 1950’s shows that all of the schools, with the exception of Upton, had numbers of children in excess of the break-even point – suggesting that they should have been in a position to run at least at break-even. In the 1960’s, Artane and Daingean experienced a decline in the number of children to a point below their break-even point.
The break-even calculation does not include capital expenditure. If capital expenditure were included, the break-even point would increase in each school. In the 1950’s, capital expenditure was low and would not impact the break even point significantly. In the 1960’s, where capital expenditure was higher, adjusting for capital expenditure would mean that Artane, An Daingean, Upton and Ferryhouse would have numbers of children below their break-even point.

• In considering this analysis we believe that two points should be noted. The decline in the numbers of children during the late 1950’s and through the 1960’s meant that the schools in general became increasingly uneconomic to run, with some schools reaching a position where they were below break-even point. However, significant increases in the capitation grant in the late 1960’s, outside of our sample period, would have compensated for this to an extent. We also note that there is a strong argument that capital expenditure was not intended to be funded from the capitation grant – for the reasons we have examined in the early part of this report. If this is accepted as a reasonable understanding of the position, then the break-even analysis excluding the impact of capital expenditure is the more appropriate representation of the position of the individual schools, as regards the expected impact of the State contribution. Of course, the schools still had to fund this expenditure, from other sources if necessary.⁵⁶

2.286The Rosminians rejected the use of the ‘break-even’ formula:

the condition described as breaking even is a false approbation. The School simply postponed improvements in order to maintain existing services. Expenditure was dictated by necessity, and sometimes crisis rather than performance, or aspiration.⁵⁷

Conclusion

2.2871.There was no opportunity for a school with particular need to have a voice in the negotiations with the Department. The negotiations were dominated by the larger boys schools which adopted a ‘one size fits all’ policy

2.Smaller schools without these advantages struggled to survive.

¹Quoted in D of E submission, pp 103-4.

²Report of Commission of Inquiry into the Reformatory and Industrial School System, 1934-36, paras 165-7.

³These reforms are explained in a cogent six page Minute of 14th March 1944 written by the Department (Ó Dubhthaigh, Leas Runai) to the Runai, Department of Finance. The Minute also questioned the certification system’s legality:
There is no justification for the ‘Certificate’ system. The Children Acts, 1908 to 1941, lay down the circumstances in which children may be committed to industrial schools. The Courts commit children to them in accordance with these Acts. At this stage the Certificate system operates inconsistently to allow payment of the State Grant on some of the children so committed and to forbid it on others. There seems to be no reason for the State’s failure to contribute to the support of some arbitrary number of those children. No such distinction is made, for instance, in the case of youthful offenders committed to Reformatories under the same Acts or of people sent to jail. If the purpose is to limit the number of children to which the Children Acts may apply, its legality is questionable.
Memo of 4th April 1951 from M O’Siochfradha states:
In all cases the actual accommodation limit was greater than the certified number and in many cases it was considerably greater viz., Glin – accommodation 220, certified number 190; Letterfrack, accommodation 190, certified number 165; Artane, accommodation 830, certified number 800.
See also Education Statement, para 3.2.

⁴ At certain periods (e.g. 1940s) anxious consideration was given to the question of how many places to certify – whether to raise or lower the previous year’s figure or to leave it the same. Among the factors weighing with the person taking the decision (usually there was a significant contribution from Dr McCabe) was: the numbers of committals anticipated; the suitability of the schools (e.g. accessibility from Dublin); the need to assist small schools with disproportionately high overheads; a desire to avoid creating jealousy among the schools.

⁵ Data provided by Mazars indicates that a single man at the lowest point of the salary scale was paid £145 in 1944.

⁶Appendices to the Mazars’ Report are included on the Commissions website (www.childabusecommission.ie)

⁷Mazars, Part 4.1.

⁸Mazars, Part 4.2.3.

⁹Section 44 of the Children Act 1908.

¹⁰Mazars, Part 4.2.3.

¹¹ Mazars, Part 4.3.1.

¹² Mazars, Part 4.3.1.

¹³ Mazars, Part 4.3.1.

¹⁴ Mazars, Part 4.4.2.

¹⁵ Mazars, Part 4.4.3.

¹⁶Mazars, Part 4.4.4.

¹⁷ Mazars, Part 4.4.4.

¹⁸ Mazars ‘Analysis of Stipends in Lieu of Salaries & Teachers’ Pay, March 2008’.

¹⁹ Mazars, Part 8.2.

²⁰ That is approx £69,000 out of a total of £726,881.

²¹ That is £251,000 out of £726,881.

²² Mazars, Part 8.2.

²³ Mazars, Part 7.2.

²⁴ Mazars, Part 5.1.

²⁵ Mazars, Part 5.1.

²⁶ Mazars, Part 5.2.

²⁷ Mazars, Part 5.2.

²⁸ Mazars, Part 5.2.

²⁹ Mazars, Part 5.2.

³⁰ Mazars, Part 5.4.

³¹ Submission of the Christian Brothers on the Review of Financial Matters Relating to the System of the Reformatory and Industrial Schools, and a Number of Individual Institutions 1939 to 1969 – Appendices to the Mazars’ Report are included on the Commissions website (www.childabusecommission.ie).

³² Ciaran Fahy Report: see Vol I, ch 7, Appendix.

³³ Mazars, Part 7.2.

³⁴ Mazars, Part 7.2.

³⁵ Mazars, Part 7.2.

³⁶ Mazars, Part 7.2.

³⁷ Mazars, Part 7.2.

³⁸ Mazars, Part 7.4.

³⁹ Mazars, Part 8.2.

⁴⁰ Mazars, Part 8.2.

⁴¹ Mazars, Part 8.2.

⁴² Mazars, Part 8.2.

⁴³ Mazars, Part 8.4.

⁴⁴ Mazars, Part 6.4.

⁴⁵ Mazars, Part 6.4.

⁴⁶ Mazars, Part 6.4.

⁴⁷ Rosminian Final Submissions, p 13.

⁴⁸ Rosminian Final Submissions, pp 13-14.

⁴⁹ Rosminian Final Submissions, p 17.

⁵⁰ Rosminian Final Submissions, pp 17-18. Cf p 19.

⁵¹ Rosminian Final Submissions, p 19.

⁵² Rosminian Final Submissions, p 17.

⁵³ Rosminian Final Submissions, p 20.

⁵⁴ Rosminian Final Submissions, p 22.

⁵⁵ Rosminian Final Submissions, p 23.

⁵⁶ Mazars, Part 9.2.

⁵⁷ Rosminian Final Submissions, p 15.

Appendix
Review of Financial Matters relating to the system of the Reformatory and Industrial Schools, and a number of individual institutions 1939–69 (30th November 2007)

1. Introduction

In 2004 the Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse (‘the Commission’) requested Mazars to carry out a review of certain financial issues relating to the operation of the system of Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Ireland during the period 1939–69. Our work was also to consider the financial information available in relation to a number of individual institutions within that system. In accordance with the terms of reference selected by the Commission we have carried out a review of documentation and files made available by the Commission by a number of religious Orders and Government Departments. This report is the output of that review, and is structured as follows

Part 2 presents a summary of our findings in respect of each of the terms of reference defined by the Commission.

Parts 3 and 4 deal with an analysis of the capitation system as it functioned at the time and the adequacy of funding provided by the State.

Part 5 deals with the financial information available in respect of the Christian Brother institution at Artane, County Dublin.

Part 6 deals with the financial information available in respect of the Rosminian Father institutions at Upton, County Cork and Ferryhouse, Clonmel, County Tipperary.

Part 7 deals with the financial information available in respect of the Sister of Mercy institution at Goldenbridge, County Dublin.

Part 8 deals with the financial information available in respect of the Reformatory at Daingean, County Offaly, run by the Oblates of Mary Immaculate.

Part 9 contains a comparative analysis of the financial information available to us, and some observations on the impact of fluctuations in numbers of children in each school over the period 1939–69.

Terms of reference

Our report to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse is based on records and documentation extracted from the Commission’s document management system and documents provided directly to us by the relevant religious Orders.

Our work to date, unless otherwise indicated, consists principally of the review and analysis of relevant information. In accordance with requirements specifically identified in our terms of reference, we have considered;

An analysis of the adequacy of funding provided by the State;
A review of the application of State funding to the care of children in the relevant institutions
An analysis of the capitation method of funding the Institutions as operated at the time
A commentary on the effects of changes in the number of children in the relevant institutions over the period 1939–69
The financial consequences for the relevant institutions as a result of caring for the children over the period 1939–69
A commentary on staffing/student ratios over the period of the review.

Restatement of currency

Our work focused on the collation and analysis of information from the Summation Document Management System and provided by the relevant religious communities. Much of the relevant financial information we examined contained financial information in the old Irish pound format (pounds/shillings/pence).

We compiled a model to accommodate this format of financial information from the relevant institution and convert contemporaneous Irish legal tender values to equivalent Irish Punt values and, ultimately, equivalent Euro values.

Our calculations converted the old Irish pound format on the basis that an Irish Punt was equivalent to 20 shillings and that there were 240 old pence in an Irish Punt. We then converted the figures to equivalent Euro amount using the fixed conversion rate of €0.787564 to an Irish Punt. This is the rate that prevailed at the time of the changeover to Euro.

In line with accounting convention we have not adjusted converted financial data for inflation, except where we believed that the illustration of a particular item in ‘today’s terms’ would be of use to the reader.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Commissioners and staff of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, the members, staff and advisors of the Christian Brothers, The Institute of Charity (Rosminian Fathers), Sisters of Mercy and Oblate Fathers of Mary Immaculate, and the staff of the Department of Education, who assisted us in the course of our work.

Restrictions in use

Mazars assumes no responsibility in respect of or in connection with the contents of this report to parties other than to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. If others choose to rely on any way on the contents of this report they do so entirely at their own risk.

Mazars

Chartered Accountants

Harcourt Centre, Block 3

Harcourt Road

Dublin 2

30th November 2007

2. Findings of our review

Part 3 An analysis of the capitation method of funding the Institutions as operated at the time.

3.1At independence, the Irish State inherited an established system of private Reformatory and Industrial Schools, with an attaching set of defined relationships, as provided for in the Children Act 1908. There was no apparent suggestion that either this system or the roles occupied by different participants in the system should change significantly until the 1960s.

3.2The key participants in the management of the system were the religious Orders, the Resident Managers’ Association, the Departments of Education, Justice, Health and Finance, and the local authorities.

3.3The key State roles were oversight and inspection – which were roles primarily inhabited by the Department of Education – and the provision of funding, where again the Department of Education had a significant role, subject to oversight and approval by the Department of Finance. Local authorities also provided funds to the schools, under the terms of the relevant legislation, in accordance with the rates set by the Department of Education.

3.4The Children Act 1908 described the roles and responsibilities of the State authorities and the schools as follows:

The State is responsible for the certification and inspection of schools.
The local authority is responsible for providing for the reception and maintenance of the child in a suitable certified reformatory or industrial school – which responsibility it can discharge by ‘contract with the managers of any certified school for the reception and maintenance therein of youthful offenders or children for whose reception and maintenance the authority are required under this section to make provision.’
Both the State and the local authority have a responsibility to provide funding towards the costs of a child maintained in a certified Reformatory or Industrial School.
The managers of the certified school have a responsibility, once they have accepted a child, to teach, train, lodge, clothe and feed the child.

3.5These roles were implemented as follows:

The Department of Education issued circulars defining the standards of treatment of children in the Schools.
The Department of Education operated a process of inspection of schools.
The State and local authorities provided funding through the capitation grant, the primary grant and, occasionally, other grants for specific purposes.
The religious Orders owned and managed the schools, providing clergy to act as managers and staff, and hiring lay staff.
The Resident Managers’ Association acted as a vehicle for interaction with the Department of Education, including a role in seeking increased funding.

3.6The primary payment by the State and local authorities, to the religious Orders in respect of the schools was the capitation grant, although other funding was available through the primary grant and, on a limited and case-by-case basis, for specific capital works.

3.7The system of capitation grants provided for in the legislation was to provide funding towards the maintenance costs of a child resident in a Reformatory or Industrial School. This responsibility arises from section 73 of the Act, which defines the responsibility of the Treasury – to approve and make payment of any sums ‘on such conditions as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of Treasury recommend towards the expenses of any youthful offender or child detained in a certified school’

3.8While the treatment of capital expenditure appears to have varied over time, and the schools applied capitation funding to capital expenditure, it is our opinion that the State did not intend capitation funding to be applied to capital expenditure. We have looked first to the legislative background when addressing this issue. The 1908 Act does not, in our view, appear to have intended the capitation grant to cover items of capital expenditure – the Act refers to the ‘expenses of any youthful offender or child detained in a certified school’. This also appears to us consistent with the description in the Cussen Report of the arrangement for providing school buildings of Reformatory and Industrial Schools.¹ While a 1946 scheme proposed to implement a system of payment, as part of the capitation grant, towards the capital expenditures of the schools, this scheme was discontinued within two years and, in notifying the schools of this, the Department drew attention to the ‘clear understanding that the School Manager shall accept liability for any building and repair work and the provision of equipment for vocational training which the Minister considers necessary in their Schools’.²

While the introduction of the scheme does render the position potentially ambiguous, it is our view that the State was unambiguous in presenting its understanding that the termination of the scheme meant that the position originally set out in the Act was resumed – the capitation grant did not include a contribution towards capital expenditure. This understanding is also consistent with the findings of the Kennedy Report:

No grants are made available for maintenance, renovation or modernisation of premises.’³

and

Separate grants should be available to cover new buildings and maintenance, renovation and modernisation of existing buildings while grants for educational purposes should be made available and paid direct by the Department of Education.⁴

3.9We note that there is evidence that the Resident Managers sought, in their response to the 1946 scheme, to assert that capital expenditure should not be borne by the Orders: ‘increased Capitation Grant does not enable them to accept such a liability as indicated’.⁵

3.10Our finding at 3.8 should not be read to mean that capital expenditure is not relevant to an understanding of the operation of the schools – we deal with the implications of capital expenditure in Part 4, when we consider the issue of adequacy of funding to the needs of an institution and again when we turn to the question of the implications for the Orders of running the schools.

Part 4 An analysis of the adequacy of funding provided by the State

The capitation grant system

4.1Under the capitation system a payment or grant per student accrued to schools weekly. The payment came from two sources: a) local authorities and b) the Department of Education.

4.2There were different capitation rates applicable to Industrial and Reformatory Schools, with reformatory schools receiving a higher capitation rate.

4.3While income to schools accrued weekly it was not paid weekly. In particular, local authorities were slow to release funds to the institutions. Although we have not seen records to evidence the impact of this delay on the schools, it can be reasonably assumed to have had cashflow implications for the institutions.

4.4The capitation grant increased 17 times during the period 1939–69. The process by which grant levels were increased appears to have been one of negotiation and, at times, almost adversarial. Typically, the institutions lobbied for an increase and the Department of Education, after consultation with the Department of Finance, agreed to an increase lower than that sought.

Adequacy in accordance with the 1908 Act

4.5Neither the 1908 Act nor the 1941 Act defines what the capitation grant was to cover, beyond making it clear that the grant was towards the maintenance of a child in an institution. However, the 1908 Act defines the purpose of the schools – to include lodging, clothing, feeding and education of the child. Based on our review of the legislation, it appears reasonable that the grant was intended to contribute to these costs.

4.6The funding of capital expenditure appears to be additional to these costs – we have dealt in Part 3 of this report with our understanding of the treatment of capital expenditure under the legislative framework.

4.7Whether the State should have funded capital expenditure by another mechanism – as was suggested in the Kennedy Report findings – is a question that we do not express an opinion on, and which the Commission may wish to consider in the light of all of the evidence available to it.

4.8The Act clearly defined the responsibilities of the State and local authorities as certification of and oversight of the schools, and provision of funding. The responsibility of the School was to care for the child, once accepted into the institution. Again, we have dealt with this in detail in Part 3 of this report.

4.9An important consideration is that we have not seen a situation, in those schools examined, where an Order sought to cease operation of a school, or where the State sought to revoke the licence of a school, on grounds of inadequate conditions.

4.10We note that the system of payment of capitation changed in mid 1944 from being restricted to a maximum based on the number of children certified for a school, to being based on the number of children actually resident in the school. This had, in the case of a school with numbers in excess of the certified level, the effect of increasing the funds provided to the school.

We have examined data available which gives an indication of the adequacy of the grant provided to maintain a child in Ireland during the period under review. We consider the following to provide useful benchmarks against which this issue can be considered:

4.11At the start of the review period the capitation grant appears to have been deemed adequate if supplemented by a grant to pay teacher salaries and the local authorities paid the same grant as the State authorities – this view is expressed in the Cussen Report. In 1946 the former recommendation was implemented, with the introduction of the primary grant for teachers in Industrial Schools. In the case of the Industrial Schools the local authority and State grants appear to have been harmonised from 1940 on.

4.12Over the entire 30-year period the general price level rose by 385 percent, the capitation grant increased by 1,327 percent in the case of Industrial Schools and 1,375 percent in the case of Reformatory Schools. Excluding the very significant increase in the grant in 1969, the grant increased by 663 percent. This data shows that the grant increased by more than inflation – it grew in real/purchasing power terms.

4.13Over the period the Industrial School capitation grant represented, on average, approximately 88 percent of household income per person (not per child). If one accepts the assumption that household income is not spent evenly by each member of the household and that adults spend and consume more than children, then the capitation grant would be closer to the average child’s share of average household income.

4.14For the 30-year period, the industrial school capitation grant was on average approximately 20 percent above unemployment benefit. For the years 1939–49, where capitation was lower than unemployment benefit, it represented 92 percent of unemployment benefit provided. Thereafter, the grant exceeded unemployment benefit for 19 out of 20 years.

4.15Data extrapolated from the 1965–66 Household Budget Survey shows that weekly capitation payments significantly exceeded average household expenditure per child during the period 1960–69.

4.16Data extrapolated from the 1951–52 Household Budget Survey shows that weekly capitation payments were lower than average household expenditure per person in the period 1947 to 1956.

4.17We also have carried out, in Part 9 of this report, some break-even analysis of the financial statements provided by the schools reviewed. Analysis of data based on the accounts available for the period 1951–55 shows that all of the schools, with the exception of Upton, were at or above the break-even number of students. Upton was, based on the average number of students, at 85 percent of the break-even point. Analysis of data based on the accounts available for the period 1961–65 shows that Artane and Daingean were below their break-even point. Based on the average number of students over the period, Artane was at 94 percent of the break-even point, and Daingean was at 93 percent of the break-even point. This illustrates the impact of a decline in student numbers over time.

4.18The individual financial position of the schools examined is dealt with in later sections of the report. At an overview level the Schools were generally close to break-even over the period, with Artane showing a deficit of 3 percent of total expenditure, Daingean showing a deficit of 2 percent of total expenditure, and Upton, Ferryhouse and Goldenbridge, based on the limited financial information available for the period, also apparently close to a break-even position.

4.19If capital and other building-related expenditure is excluded from the available accounts of those schools examined, the income available to the schools is sufficient to meet the other costs of the school.

4.20An analysis of the data provided by the 1951–52 and 1965–66 Household Budget Surveys, set out in Part 4 of this report, shows that the capitation grant in respect of both Industrial Schools and Reformatory Schools exceeded the cumulative amounts recorded in the survey data as spent on food and clothing in those years for which data is available and that the reformatory grant exceeded the cumulative amounts spent on food, clothing and lodging in those years. The Industrial School capitation grant exceeded the cumulative amounts spent on food, clothing and lodging in all years after 1951 for which data is available. Prior to 1951 we note that numbers of children in the system were at a higher level, and economies of scale may have compensated for grant levels lower than Household Budget Survey benchmark data.

4.21We note that the primary grant is reflected in the accounts of very few of the schools examined. It is not clear, as a consequence, whether all of the schools were in receipt of the primary grant. If they were, this unrecognised income would obviously improve the financial position of the schools in question.

4.22Those schools with significant farms had an important additional resource. These farms were, in the schools examined, worked by the children resident in the institution. Of the schools examined, both Artane and Daingean had large farms, while the schools at Upton and Ferryhouse had smaller farms. The school at Goldenbridge had a very small farm and also had income from industrial activity – the assembly of rosaries by the children.

4.23Similarly, the school at Artane had a number of industrial activities, which contributed to the economy of the school.

4.24Over the period, there appears to have been significant economies of scale in meeting the cost of child maintenance. The 1965–66 Household Budget Survey analysis demonstrates that as the numbers of children in a household increase there are two effects (a) the incremental or marginal cost of that additional child is less than the incremental cost of maintaining the previous child and (b) this serves to reduce the average maintenance cost per child. Based on a typical family of two adults and three children, the cost of maintenance per child was approximately 60 percent of the average cost for the first child – indicating the potential impact of economies of scale in this regard.

4.25We note that the impact of numbers of children, and the effect of economies of scale is reflected in contemporary correspondence. This is considered in Part 3.

4.26We also have noted the significant impact of reducing numbers on the schools. In the late 1950s the numbers of children in many of the schools began to decline significantly. At this time, both the Resident Managers and the Department of Finance began to suggest that some of the schools might have to be closed. In our view it appears that the reduction in numbers brought the schools closer to a break-even point – as numbers fell, grant income fell to a point where it was less efficient for the Orders to run the schools.

Adequacy in comparison with other frameworks suggested

4.27A comparison with the capitation funding in the UK shows that the Irish capitation grant was far lower than the UK amount. If it is accepted that the UK serves as a valid benchmark for measurement of the adequacy of the capitation grant, then the Irish capitation grant may be considered to be inadequate.

4.28Similarly, if it is accepted that the calculation of costs of maintaining a child in a modern institution is a valid benchmark for evaluation of the capitation grant over the period under review, it may be concluded that the Irish grant is inadequate.

4.29We note that these comparators do not derive from the particular circumstances or context that applied in Ireland at the time. We consider them to represent what may be termed a contemporary, in the case of the UK, or retrospectively applied, in the case of more modern comparators, best practice comparator and, as such, to be of limited use in determining adequacy of the grant to purpose in the context of Ireland of the time.

Conclusion

4.30The question of whether the capitation funding provided by the State and local authorities to the Industrial and Reformatory Schools over the period 1939–69 was adequate is inherently complex. This complexity derives from from the length of the period under examination and the partial and, in parts contradictory, nature of some of the data available, the availability of other resources (for example, farm produce) and funding sources, and the apparent difference between the State and school’s understanding of the purpose of the grant. We have sought in our work to consider the issue from as many different reasonable perspectives as possible, to try to arrive at a balanced view of the issues involved.

4.31Analysis has been submitted to the Commission, and examined by us, that shows that the schools had less funding than their equivalent in the UK, and that the schools did not have sufficient grant income to provide for the levels of care expected in an equivalent modern institution. Analysis has also been provided that demonstrates that, had the Orders charged a salary for religious working in the institutions, the institution costs would have increased significantly. In one sense, such comparators may provide a valid measure of adequacy.

4.32However, it seems to us that an at least equally valid measure of adequacy must be based on the framework as it existed, and was participated in by all of the relevant parties. In this framework, whatever opinions now may be in relation to the appropriateness of that system, the schools had certain responsibilities and the State and local authorities had others. The Orders may not have charged a full economic rate for the work of the religious staff in the institutions. Neither did they pay those staff a full economic rate for their efforts. The system was such that it relied on charitable contributions of time and effort by individual religious staff, and by contributions from outside the institutions as well as contributions from the State. Based on our consideration of the information available to us it is our opinion that the adequacy of the grant should be considered by reference to the 1908 Act framework – that is that the purpose of the grant is to provide funding towards the food, clothing, lodging and education of the children – and in the context of Irish social and economic conditions during the period. We note that adequacy, in these terms, does not necessarily represent provision of sufficient funding to meet all of the costs of a particular school.

4.33In arriving at an opinion on the issue of adequacy we have noted the following matters:

The view expressed in a Department of Education memorandum to the Minister in 1967 in the context of setting up the Kennedy Committee states that the Department was ‘in no position to defend its achievements as far as the size of the grant goes’.
Grant levels are lower than some of the available benchmark data in the 1940s and part of the 1950s
There are a number of comparators – for example the UK data and the contemporary data suggested in a number of submissions made to the Commission – which exceed the amount of the capitation grant.
The Kennedy Report suggests that the grant level was inadequate.

Together these support a conclusion that the grant was not adequate to the needs of the children in the schools. However, we also note:

Comparison of the grant with inflation shows the grant to be in excess of that benchmark. This gives us an indicator of the relative purchasing power of the grant.
Comparison with the level of unemployment assistance shows that, post 1949, the grant exceeded this basic level of State provision for an adult during the period.
The financial information available does not take into account the contribution from the farms and industries to the schools – which were worked by the children and, accordingly, might be considered to supplement the grant.
From 1946 the primary grant was designed to meet the cost of teaching the children in Industrial Schools – thus providing additional income to the schools towards one of the purposes of the capitation grant. This income was not available to a Reformatory School; however in this case a higher capitation grant attached.
Analysis of the school accounts available shows that the school income was sufficient to meet the costs of the schools when capital expenditure is excluded. We have noted that the position of the schools and the Department on the issue of payment of this cost appears to have differed. We also note that the Orders disagree with the suggestion that the capitation grant was not intended to fund capital expenditure in the schools.
The benchmark data from the 1951–52 and 1965–66 Household Surveys shows that the capitation grant in respect of both Industrial Schools and Reformatory Schools exceeded the cumulative amounts recorded in the survey data as spent on food and clothing in all years for which data is available and that the reformatory grant exceeded the cumulative amounts spent on food, clothing and lodging in all years for which data is available. The Industrial School capitation grant exceeded the cumulative amounts spent on food, clothing and lodging in all years after 1951 for which data is available.
Economies of scale may have served to close the gap between the expenditure levels per person in the 1940s and 1950s and the grant.
We also note that we have not seen a situation, in those schools examined, where an Order sought to cease operation of a school, or where the State sought to revoke the licence of a school, on grounds of inadequate conditions. This suggests that, at the time, neither the State authorities nor the Orders considered the position to be so inadequate as to warrant closure.

4.34Taken together, these points suggest that the grant was adequate to provide for the needs of the children in the context of Ireland of the period.

4.35Having considered all of the above information it seems to us persuasive that the analysis of 1951–52 and 1965–66 Household Surveys show that the Industrial School and Reformatory School’s capitation grant exceeded the cumulative cost of food and clothing for all years for which information is available in the period reviewed. This analysis also shows that the grants exceeded the cumulative amounts spent on food, clothing and lodging in all years for which information was available after 1951. In this context we also note that school numbers were highest in the 1940s and that economies of scale may have compensated for grant levels that were comparatively lower than the extrapolated Household Budget Survey benchmark data during this period. Accordingly, we believe it reasonable to conclude that the grant was adequate to supply the needs specified by the 1908 Act, as judged against contemporary data.

Part 5 Christian Brothers Artane

The application of State funding to the care of children in the institution

5.1The income and expenditure of Artane Industrial School, as presented in the school accounts for the period 1939–69 is as follows:

Exhibit 1

	1940–49	1950–59	1960–69	TOTAL
	€	€	€	€
INCOME	493,018	871,580	929,580	2,294,178

EXPENDITURE	507,429	842,366	1,015,201	2,364,996

SURPLUS /<DEFICIT>	<14,411>	29,214	<85,621>	<70,818>

5.2Capitation grants represented approximately 80–84 percent of income of the institution in each decade over the period 1939–69. The total amount of capitation grants received over the period was equivalent €1.87 million.

5.3An analysis of expenditure as recorded in the school financial statements presented in respect of Artane shows that funding was applied as follows

Exhibit 2

	1940–49	1950–59	1960–69
	%	%	%
Industrial departments	18%	21%	9%
Farm, poultry & garden	12%	12%	7%
Salaries & wages	28%	20%	16%
Provisions purchased	13%	16%	17%
Clothing	3%	2%	4%
Fuel, light, power	8%	7%	6%
Capital expenditure	–	1%	18%
Transfer to community account	7%	11%	8%
Other	11%	10%	15%
Total	100%	100%	100%

5.4An analysis of farm income and expenditure shows that the farm generated a surplus of equivalent €79,271 over the entire period. We note that farm income is reflected in the school accounts, and the farm costs were charged to the school. It appears from the available evidence that this surplus does not include the produce consumed by the school and house. Similarly, the internal contribution from trades does not appear to be measured in the accounts. From the available evidence we believe that it is reasonable to conclude that the contribution to the economy of the institution at Artane by the farm and trades was significant. In addition to the economic contribution of the farm and trades to life at Artane, these activities also served to train the boys for occupations outside of the institution.

5.5Capital expenditure on the Industrial School was incurred primarily in the 1960s. Prior to then, considerable concern was expressed in Visitation Reports both about the state of repair of the school and the appropriateness of investing in such work given the uncertainty regarding the future of the school. It is not apparent from the Visitation Reports why the decision to undertake an extensive programme of upgrade and refurbishment was made, when reports from the later part of the 1950s stressed the uncertainty of the future of the institution and the inappropriateness of incurring such costs in that environment. We can only suppose that either clarity was provided regarding the future use of the institution or the state of disrepair was adjudged to have reached crisis proportions or that the Community wished to ensure that the facility was brought up to an acceptable standard before the premises ceased to be part of the Reformatory and Industrial School system.

5.6The capital expenditure incurred in Artane was funded primarily from the school account – with the exception of the items funded in the 1940s by the House, and refunds received from the Board of Works referred to in the Visitation Reports that do not appear to have been included in the accounts. The House accounts in the 1950s and 1960s show very low levels of capital expenditure.

5.7During the period, a large portion of the lands at Artane was sold by the Order. The funds raised from these sales were recorded in the House accounts.

Staffing/student ratios over the period of the review

5.8The ratio of students to all staff was between 8 and 9 to 1 for most of the 1940s and 1950s. From the late 1950s the ratio increased to approximately 6 to 1, ultimately increasing to 0.75 to 1 in 1969.Throughout the 1940s and up until the 1950s there was a relatively consistent number of lay employees and Brothers involved with the Institution. There were approximately 38–46 lay workers and approximately 31–36 Brothers (with an average of 16 teaching in the primary school). When the school numbers fell significantly in 1955 to 653 (1954: 737), a decrease of 11 percent, the school responded by reducing the numbers of Brothers from 36 to 26, while making little change to the number of lay workers. Through the late 1950s and into the 1960s student numbers continued to fall by an average of 14 percent per annum. In response the number of lay staff employed was reduced considerably from 44 in 1955 to just 12 in 1969. Twenty Brothers remained at the school in 1969.

The financial consequences for the relevant institutions as a result of caring for the children over the period 1939 to 1969

5.9The financial statements presented to us in respect of Artane show a situation where the school ran at a loss, while the house achieved a surplus – some of which, we have been advised, was used to clear school debts.

5.10This presentation derives from a definition of financial parameters; that is:

The school bore the costs of maintaining the children, operating the farm and trades, feeding and paying the Brothers (stipends) and lay staff (salaries), and funding the upkeep of the property. The income available for this purpose was, in the main, the income provided by the State, supplemented by earnings from the farm and trades.
The house bore the costs of maintaining the community of Brothers. The income available to this end was the stipends from the school, supplemented by rents and other income. The house had beneficial entitlement to the land and buildings, and held any revenues from this source: for example the sale of lands. Visitation dues were returned to the Order from the house income.

5.11As discussed in Part 3, the funding of capital expenditure from the capitation grant is not consistent with our understanding of the framework provided for by the Children Act 1908 and the State position as expressed at the time of termination of the 1946 Scheme. If the capital expenditure incurred at the school is excluded, then the capitation grant would have been sufficient to cover the operating expenses of the school.

5.13The financial consequences for the relevant institution of caring for the children over the period 1939–69 might be summarised as follows;

Exhibit 3

	€	%

Total expenditure	2,364,996	100%

Funded by:

State and local authorities	1,868,443	79%
Other income	425,734	18%

Deficit – funded by Order	70,819	3%

We understand that the Order funded a final overdraft on the school account of €111,737. The above summary is based on the presentation of the accounts discussed in paragraph 5.4 of Part 5.

Part 6 Rosminian Fathers Upton and Ferryhouse

The application of State funding to the care of children in the institution

6.1No financial information is available in respect of the school at Upton for the years 1940–49. Financial information is available in respect of the years;

– 1952, 1953
– 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966.

The school at Upton closed in 1966.

Similarly, a limited amount of financial information is available in respect of the institution run by the Rosminian Fathers at Ferryhouse in County Tipperary. Financial accounts were made available for the following years:

– 1941, 1947
– 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954
– 1960, 1961, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969.

6.2An analysis of expenditure in Upton and Ferryhouse is set out in Exhibits 39 and 42 (Part 6) respectively.

6.3We note that the accounts available record that capital expenditure in the amount of equivalent €59,420 was incurred at Upton during the period 1939–66. There is no evidence that a specific contribution was made by the State in respect of this expenditure. We have identified capital expenditure in the accounts of Ferryhouse in the amount of equivalent €84,931. We note that in 1968 grant income of equivalent €19,173 was received in respect of a new school building, although the source of this income is not identified. We have dealt in an earlier chapter of this report with the issue of funding of capital expenditure.

Staffing/student ratios over the period of the review

6.4Information is not available in respect of the staffing levels at Ferryhouse and Upton over the period under review.

The financial consequences for the relevant institutions as a result of caring for the children over the period 1939–69.

6.5The accounts provided show that the institution at Upton showed a surplus of income over expenditure in all years presented except two – 1952, where the accounts showed a deficit of equivalent €17, and 1962, where the accounts showed a deficit of equivalent €1,588. Of the 15 years where accounts have been presented in respect of the school at Ferryhouse, seven show a deficit, while eight show a surplus of income over expenditure.

6.6We have, for the purposes of assessing the financial consequences for the Rosminian Fathers of running the Upton and Ferryhouse schools, also examined the available financial statements of the Province.

The balance sheets of the schools show that both schools had a surplus of assets over liabilities at closure (Upton 31st December 1966: equivalent €17,233, Ferryhouse 31st December 1969: equivalent €19,790). Taken together, it appears that the schools contributed a net surplus position to the Order at the end of the period reviewed.

The Province accounts at the same date show an excess of liabilities over assets of equivalent € 10,661.

6.7We note that the Rosminian Fathers have, in presenting information to us, drawn attention to the history of under-funding and persistent scarcity of resource in the schools. They have also noted that the community and schools were, of necessity, interdependent, and both significantly dependent on the produce of the farm for essentials. The Order also notes that the Province did not maintain central funds, and could not, accordingly, provide significant additional support. The net liability position of the Province at 31st December 1969 supports this contention. We attach at Appendix XIII the submissions of the Order in relation to the financial position of the schools.

In our consideration of the submissions made by the Rosminian Fathers, we note the following points as relevant:

— The Order has drawn our attention to the fact that the Province needed to fund other activities. It is our view that the schools were, when the entire period is viewed and based on the improved net asset position in the closing balance sheets of the schools, a net contributor to the Province, but that the yea-on-year contribution was not sufficient to yield the Order a significant surplus.
— We acknowledge that the accounts in certain years point to shortages of fundings in those years, and that these highlight the particular financial difficulties of the relevant schools. However, we note that the balance sheets of the schools at the end of the period indicate a net accumulation of assets over the entire life of the school.
— There is evidence that additional capital funding appears to have been provided – presumably by the State – in respect of only one item of capital expenditure incurred at the Upton and Ferryhouse schools – grant income in respect of a new school building received in 1968. We note, however, that it has not been possible to confirm the source of this grant.

Part 7 St. Vincent’s Industrial School – Goldenbridge

The application of State funding to the care of children in the institution

7.1A limited amount of financial information is available in respect of Goldenbridge industrial school:

— No accounts were available for the period 1939–50

— Accounts were available for the period 1955–69 in six-monthly sets with the exception of the six-month periods ended 31st December 1957, 30th June 1968 and 30th June 1969. The period ended 31st December 1960⁶ has also been omitted from our analysis as this appears to be a duplication of the 30th June 1960 accounts and therefore is of questionable validity. Two different sets of accounts were made available to us for 1953. For the purpose of this analysis we have used SOMGB-00568/12 and SOMGB-00568/13. In the years 1961⁷ and 1963⁸ we note that the accounts of the Goldenbridge do not appear to tot correctly. We have used the detailed analysis in the accounts rather than relying on sub-totals as presented.

7.2We have not received any financial information from the Sisters of Mercy in relation to bead-making. We have calculated, based on information from a company that Goldenbridge sold beads to, that the likely range of the annual income from beads was IR£717 per annum to IR£2,869 per annum.

7.3We note that, with the exception of the 1953 accounts, there is no record of the school having received primary grant funding in respect of teachers in the Industrial School.

7.4A building account was operated during the period under review. We received accounts for the period 1961–66 in six-monthly sets with the exception of the six months ended 30th June 1962 and 30th June 1964.

7.5The income and expenditure statements for the industrial school, for the years provided, show a surplus of €33,409

7.6The most significant items of expenditure can be summarised as follows:

Exhibit 4

	1951–60	1961–69
	%	%
Dietary expenses	34	26
Wages	21	18
Clothing	12	12
Building repairs and decorations	11	16
Fuel and light	7	7
Furniture and fittings	3	3
Medical	1	2
Other	11	16
Total	100	100

The wages identified above consist of staff wages, payments to the Resident Manager and payments to the reverend mother.

7.8Capital expenditure in the school account amounted to €68,745 recorded in the income and expenditure statements received. This was mainly attributable to repairs to building, decorations and furniture and fittings. Capital expenditure financed from the building account during the period 1961–66 amounted to €90,000, giving a total capital expenditure of €158,745 for the period reviewed. Due to the incomplete nature of the records we are unable to determine whether the lodgements to the building account represent capital grants or general funding of the school which was allocated to capital expenditure. It is unclear how much of this fund was used for properties other than for the Industrial School; although based on a review of a sample of such expenditure we did note a certificate for payment in respect of Rathdrum in the amount of IR£750 – suggesting that the fund was not applied solely to the Industrial School.⁹

Commentary on the effects of changes in the number of children in the relevant institutions over the period 1939–69

7.9The number of children committed to Goldenbridge Industrial School peaked in the early 1960s and then began to decline in the late 1960s.

A commentary on staffing/student ratios over the period of the review

7.10We understand that the staffing consisted of two nuns (both teaching and one having the dual responsibility of resident manager), two lay teachers and between approximately 8 and 10 other staff (seamstress, domestic, etc.). We understand that numbers of teaching staff remained constant during the period.

Financial consequences for the relevant institutions as a result of caring for the children over the period 1939–69

7.11There was a surplus in the bank account of the Industrial school at 30th November 1969 of €16,265

7.12The financial consequences for Goldenbridge of caring for the children over the period 1939–69 may be characterised as being close to break-even. This view is consistent with the available financial statements. We note, however, that the school accounts do not include funds from the industrial activity at the school, and that they do not include any amount in respect of primary grant received, with the exception of an amount of IR£878 in 1953.

7.13There were peak years for payments of wages and salaries in 1953 and 1954 of approximated €4,900 per annum. These levels were not reached again until 1967. We note from the payments books, which are only available subsequent to 1960, that they show a payment, recorded as wages, to the reverend mother of IR£90 per month. We do not know whether this payment actually represented wages or if the funds were used for the school or for another purpose.

7.14The records of Carysfort Mother House shown to us indicate payments received between 1939 and 1954 on a monthly basis totalling between approximately €5,000 and €9,000 per annum described as ‘National Education Goldenbridge’. The Carysfort accounts indicate payments totalling between approximately €1,000 and €5,000 per annum to the Goldenbridge Convent and Goldenbridge school expenses. The source of the income is not clear nor is the extent to which the payments related to wages. It is also not clear how much of this income, or expenditure, relates to the Industrial School, rather than the adjacent national school.

Part 8 St Conleth’s Reformatory School, Daingean

The application of State funding to the care of children in the institution

8.1The income and expenditure of St Conleth’s Reformatory School, Daingean, as presented in the school accounts for the period 1940–69 is as follows:

Exhibit 5

	1940–49	1950–59	1960–69	TOTAL
	€	€	€	€
INCOME	148,231	223,993	354,657	726,881

EXPENDITURE	147,222	222,106	375,259	744,587

SURPLUS /<DEFICIT>	1,009	1,887	<20,602>	<17,706>

8.2Capitation grants represented, on average, 76 percent of total income of the institution for the period 1940–69. In individual years, however, grants ranged from a low of 58 percent of total income in 1969 to a high of 90 percent of total income in 1941. The later years appear to reflect lower percentages which is, in part, a reflection of increasing levels of income being generated from the farm, and the declining numbers of children in the institutions.

8.3An analysis of expenditure as recorded in the school accounts shows that funding was applied as follows:

Exhibit 6

	1940–49	1950–59	1960–69
	%	%	%
Dietary expenses	19	21	19
Farm	14	17	22
Clothing and shoe-making	14	10	7
Payments to province	14	6	4
Furnishing and carpentry	7	9	10
Wages	7	10	10
Rent	4	3	2
Fuel and light	5	6	10
Car, lorry and freight	3	5	1
Medical	3	3	3
Rates, taxes, and insurances	–	1	2
Other	10	9	10
Total	100	100	100

8.4Separate accounts were not maintained by the Order in respect of the farm and it has been necessary therefore to base our examination on farm income and expenditure recorded in the school accounts. These accounts do not, we understand, reflect the value derived by the school and the Order from the farm produce. Nor do the school accounts reflect the labour of the boys and the community members used on the farm.

An analysis of the farm income and expenditure, as recorded in the school accounts, shows that a deficit of €25,003 was generated over the period 1940–69. It is not known, however, to what extent expenditure on the farm of a capital nature has been included in arriving at this deficit.

Irrespective of the size of the accounting deficit generated from the farm, it is clear from documentation reviewed that a benefit was derived from the farm in that the residents were recorded as being well fed at least in the early 1940s when numbers were at or near the highest level for the 30-year period.¹⁰

We note, in this context, that the farm was owned by the State. The views of one official regarding the profit-generating ability of the farm and use to which such profits should be put are stated in a Department of Education report prepared in 1955 following a visit to the school:

I am of the opinion that very handsome profits are made on the farm but I can see no evidence of any of the profits being ploughed back for the benefit of the boys or the improvement of the buildings.¹¹

The views of the Department Official are not consistent with the record in the financial statements, which show a deficit from the farm, and it is not clear how the official arrived at his opinion.

8.5In addition, activities at the Reformatory School in Daingean included tailoring and shoe-making which would have met a significant portion of the needs of the boys in this regard. Documentation indicates that at one point production in the tailor’s shop was sufficient that the school could provide for all clothing requirements.¹²

8.6Under the terms of the lease agreement, the Oblate Order was responsible for repairs and maintenance expenditure incurred at the school. This responsibility extended to keeping the premises ‘in good and tenantable state of repair and condition’. It was the view of the State that repair and maintenance expenditure was provided for in the capitation grant.

The accounts of the school record expenditure in the amount of €72,422 on repairs and furnishing and carpentry over the 30-year period under review which represents 10 percent of total expenditure for the period reviewed. While the farm land and buildings would appear to have been kept in good condition, some of the buildings occupied by the residents would appear to have been in disrepair.¹³

8.7In addition to this repairs and maintenance expenditure, a significant amount of building work was carried out by the OPW in Daingean between 1940 and 1969. Correspondence reviewed indicates that requests for capital funding were ongoing throughout the 1939–69 period and both the State’s and the school management’s frustration in this regard is quite apparent¹⁴. Over £85,500 (€108,563) was incurred by the OPW in capital expenditure up to 1960. Throughout the 1960s requests for additional work continued but it is less clear what work was actually sanctioned and ultimately carried out. Despite the significant capital investment and repair work carried out in Daingean, Department of Education records indicate that Daingean was not in a good state of repair. Correspondence between the OPW and Departments of Finance and Education in 1969 and the early 1970s which indicates that certain buildings in Daingean were ‘structurally unsound’¹⁵.

8.8In transferring the Reformatory to Daingean, there was a need for the Oblate Order to house its training college elsewhere. An estate was purchased in Piltown, County Kilkenny for this purpose. This purchase was funded from monies received by the Order in relation to the closure of the Glencree Reformatory.

The effects of changes in the number of children over the period 1939–69

8.9There was a decline in numbers of children committed in the mid to late 1960s. As the numbers dropped below 200 in the 1950s, the Resident Manager at Daingean expressed the view that the grant should be on a sliding scale since the overhead costs were reasonably constant regardless of the number of boys while the income stream was linked directly to the number of boys under detention. Break-even analysis carried out on a sample basis in the course of this review indicates that during the period 1951–55, when the average number of students detained was 156, the break-even point was 122 while a decade later, in the 1961–65 period, when the average number of students detained was 113, the break-even level was 121.

Staffing/student ratios over the period of the review

8.10Throughout the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s there were between 22 and 25 Oblate Fathers and Brothers resident at the school. The Oblates were assisted by two lay teachers, a carpenter, a tailor and a drill instructor giving a total staff complement of up to 30. The ratio of students to number of staff ranges from 7:1 in the 1940s to 5:1 in the 1950s and 4:1 in the 1960s.

The staffing structure, particularly in terms of the numbers of Fathers and Brothers, remained broadly the same over the entire period.

The financial consequences for the institution as a result of caring for the children over the period 1939–69

8.11A balance sheet has not been available in respect of St Conleth’s Reformatory School, Daingean for any of the years under review.

8.12The total deficit generated by the school as recorded in the accounts over the period 1939–69 amounts to €17,706 with the result that there was a deficit in the bank account of the Reformatory School at 30th November 1969 in the amount of €11,710.

8.13A summary of the financial effect on the Order of running the school is as follows;

Exhibit 7

	€	%

Total expenditure	744,587	100%

Funded by:

State and local authorities	533,614	72%
Other income	193,273	26%

Deficit to be funded	17,700	2%

We note that the school remained open after the period of our review. We are not aware whether the deficit identified above remained at the date of closure of the school and how any such deficit, if it existed, was funded.

8.14The position illustrated by the transcripts, statements and documentation provided by the Oblate Order, who ran the school, is that making ends meet was a constant struggle, especially in light of the ongoing works and maintenance required. Repair and maintenance expenditure, being the responsibility of the Oblate Order under the terms of the lease, represented a constant outflow of funds and contributed significantly to the deficits at the school.

8.15The Order contends that the non-payment of salaries to Brothers and Fathers who dedicated their time to the School went some way towards minimising the deficits incurred. While it is noted that the Oblate staff in St Conleth’s were not in receipt of a salary, the accounts indicate that there were payments during this period to the Province and that in addition to this there was expenditure incurred in respect of retreats, the sacristy and sanctuary, fathers’ allowance and sundries as well as reimbursement of expenses of Fathers/Brothers. Amounts paid in this regard are outlined below. The Brothers and Fathers also boarded and lodged at the school.

Exhibit 8

	1940–49 €	1950–59 €	1960–69 €	TOTAL €
Payments to Province	20,087	13,650	16,189	49,926
Retreats & holidays	2,112	3,338	9,061	14,511
Sacristy & sanctuary	983	1,838	1,468	4,289
Stipends to provincial	115	–	3,104	3,219
Fathers allowance & sundries	665	1,186	3,317	5,168
Fr Shannon’s disbursements	838	–	–	838
Fr Keane’s passage	71	–	–	71
TOTAL	24,871	20,012	33,139	78,022
% of total expenditure	16%	9%	9%	10%

8.16It has been submitted the Commission that had the school paid salaries to the members of the Order working in the school, the deficits would have been higher, and that the salaries would have exceeded payments made to the Province and amounts expended to the benefit of the Order or its members working in the school. This logic is supported by calculations of salary levels from the time, and the calculations appear reasonable. However, we note in this regard that:

it was quite clear at all times that the school was not a state school;
the system of Reformatory and Industrial Schools did not provide for payment, by the State, of salaries to these employed in the school, and the Order willingly participated in the system;
the Order did not pay salaries to the relevant staff, as they gave up their time and labour as part of their vacation.

Accordingly, we do not think it is appropriate to restate the accounts to recognise these salaries, as to do so would not accurately represent the situation at the time.

Part 9 – Comparative analysis

Comparative analysis

9.1When provisions and operational expenses were considered together the level of this aspect of expenditure as a percentage of total costs was relatively consistent across the schools irrespective of whether they had a farm.

9.2The level of capital expenditure varies significantly between schools but peak expenditure, with the exception of Daingean, consistently occurred in the late 1960s, which is notable as children numbers were falling at that stage. There was discussion throughout the 1960s as to what future the schools had – and there appears to have been a decision (although no explanation as to why) across in all schools to invest in buildings towards the end of the decade. In Daingean, expenditure on capital items is spread more evenly across the period.

9.3Wages, salaries stipends and other religious costs were most significant as a percentage of total costs in the earliest years for which accounts are available.

9.4Stipends and other religious costs in isolation as a percentage of total costs, within the same time period, vary significantly. We are not aware of the rationale for the level of these charges. One explanation may be that the level of stipends varied with the level of funds available. This explanation would also be consistent with a larger school being able to be more efficient in terms of cost per child and therefore generating a larger surplus available for distribution to the religious Order.

Break-even analysis

9.5When variable income and expenditure are considered in combination we can see that there is consistently a positive contribution. A positive contribution indicates that income was available towards the funding of fixed and other costs. Over time the contribution per child has increased. This is due to the variable income increasing by a higher monetary value than the variable costs per child.

9.6The break-even point for Artane and Upton decreased significantly when compared over time. In the case of Artane the break-even level decreased due to the increase in the level of variable income and variable costs by approximately 100 percent to €255 and €126 respectively per child per year, increasing the monetary amount of the contribution. In the case of Upton, unlike other schools, variable cost levels per child remained constant at approximately €110 per child per year while variable income increased by approximately 50 percent.

9.7The break-even analysis for the sample period in the 1950s shows that all of the schools, with the exception of Upton, had numbers of children in excess of the break-even point – suggesting that they should have been in a position to run at least at break-even. In the 1960s, Artane and Daingean experienced a decline in the number of children to a point below their break-even point.

9.8The break-even calculation does not include capital expenditure. If capital expenditure were included, the break-even point would increase in each school. In the 1950s, capital expenditure was low and would not impact the break-even point significantly. In the 1960s, where capital expenditure was higher, adjusting for capital expenditure would mean that Artane, An Daingean, Upton and Ferryhouse would have numbers of children below their break-even point.

9.9In considering this analysis we believe that two points should be noted. The decline in the numbers of children during the late 1950s and through the 1960s meant that the schools became increasingly uneconomic to run, with some schools reaching a point where they were below break-even point. However, significant increases in the capitation grant in the late 1960s, outside of our sample period, would have compensated for this to an extent. We also note that there is an argument that the capitation grant was not intended to fund capital expenditure – for the reasons we have examined in the early part of this report. If this is accepted as a reasonable understanding of the position, then the break-even analysis excluding the impact of capital expenditure is the more appropriate representation of the position of the individual schools, as regards the expected impact of the State contribution. Of course, the schools still had to fund this expenditure, from other sources if necessary.

3. An analysis of the capitation method of funding the Institutions as operated at the time

This section of our report provides an analysis of the capitation method of funding the Institutions as operated during the period 1938–69. In doing so, we have sought to provide the reader with details, in summary form, of the Industrial and Reformatory School system as it applied in Ireland between 1939 and 1969, an understanding of the roles of the various institutions active in that system and the background to the funding of the Schools under relevant legislation.

3.1 Origins of the Reformatory and Industrial Schools system

The Irish system of Industrial Schools and Reformatories pre-dates the State. Much of the governing legislation and, accordingly, structures and frameworks implemented to give effect to this legislation, relevant to the period of our review was passed when Ireland was a constituent part of the UK. Subsequent to the foundation of the Irish State this legislation was retained on the statute book, and the framework within which these institutions were funded and run remained in place.

The childcare system in Ireland evolved from various systems of aid to the poor. In the middle 19th century the only public provision for children was in workhouses. Subsequently voluntary institutions operated under the auspices of religious organisations and charitable persons provided in some measure for the care of juvenile offenders. These institutions did not receive assistance from public monies and were not subject to inspection or supervision by any State authority.

Reformatory schools were introduced to Ireland under the Reformatory Schools (Ireland) Act 1858 which provided for the State certification of such institutions to care for juvenile offenders. The Act certified a number of existing voluntary institutions and homes as suitable for the reception of youthful offenders committed by the courts. It also provided for an inspection process.

The introduction of reformatories was followed by a different type of institution – Industrial Schools – to meet the needs of neglected, orphaned and abandoned children.

The Industrial Schools (Ireland) Act 1868 provided for the establishment of Industrial Schools in Ireland. The Act did not provide for the cost of establishment of such schools. Public bodies were precluded from establishing Industrial Schools or making contributions towards such costs. The State provided funds to the schools by means of a capitation grant. Thus, the legislation provided a framework within which concerned sections of society could establish Industrial Schools and receive funding from the State towards the operation of those schools. We understand that this role was often assumed by various religious congregations, often with the support of concerned citizens or groups of citizens who provided property or capital funding to permit the initial establishment of the schools.

The Prevention of Crimes Act 1871 extended the classes of children who might be sent to Industrial Schools.

Reformatory Schools were reserved for those children who had committed and were convicted of an offence. Industrial Schools, on the other hand, were designed to prevent children becoming candidates for Reformatory Schools by removing them from a socially undesirable environment and providing them with an industrial training.

The 1868 Act was replaced by the Children Act 1908, which provided that schools were certified and funded by the State and the State had role in ensuring that minimum standards were maintained, that finances were in order and that the legislation was observed.

Defining an ‘Industrial School’

Section 44 of the Children Act 1908 specifies an Industrial School as ‘a school for the industrial training of children, in which children are lodged, clothed, and fed as well as taught’. The expression ‘children’ means persons under the age of 14 years but was later revised upward in the Children Act 1941 to 17 years of age.

Defining a ‘Reformatory School’

Section 44 of the Children Act 1908 defines a Reformatory School as ‘a school for the industrial training of youthful offenders, in which youthful offenders are lodged, clothed, and fed as well as taught’. The age limits that applied in reformatory schools were the same as those that applied in Industrial Schools.

The Children Act 1908 amended the preclusion from public establishment of schools but limited use was made of the powers. Up until the 1940s almost the entire capital cost of Industrial and Reformatory Schools was met by religious orders and private charitable societies. It is our understanding that the network of schools was, by the time of the 1908 Act, well-established and that there was no suggestion of a need for change by either the State or the relevant Orders. In essence, the newly independent Irish State inherited a system of schools that were by then well established, and an attendant funding structure which provided for the payment by the State of a grant on a capitation basis towards the cost of maintaining those children in the schools.

The 1926 School Attendance Act provided for committal proceeding to be taken against parents who failed to send a child to school or parents who failed to respond to a warning notice sent by school attendance committees.

The 1929 Children Act made it easier to commit children. The 1941 Children Act made it possible to commit children without parental consent in limited circumstances. The 1941 Act also extended the age limits of children who could be committed from 14 to 17.

The 1952 Adoption Act was viewed as a contributory factor in the subsequent decline in the number of children in Industrial Schools.¹⁶

3.2 Responsibility framework

We believe it important, in considering the terms of reference prescribed by the Commission, to clearly identify the roles and responsibilities of the relevant participants in the operation of the Reformatory and Industrial Schools. These roles and reponsibilities derive from, in the first instance, the legislative framework of at the time.

The primary piece of legislation governing the Reformatory and Industrial Schools operating in Ireland during the period 1939–69 was the Children Act 1908. This Act prescribed the recognition of schools, the responsibilities of the Treasury (or Central Government – post-Independence, the Department of Education and Department of Finance took this role), local authorities and Managers of the schools. It also defined the relationship between the State, local authorities and schools. In particular, we would draw attention to:

Section 45, which defined the basis for recognition of a school by the Secretary of State as fit for the reception of children, upon inspection by the authorised inspectors

• Section 52, which defines the responsibilities of the Managers of a school, once they have accepted a child – to teach, train, lodge, clothe and feed the child – ‘when they have once so accepted any such offender or child they shall be deemed to have undertaken to teach, train, lodge, clothe and feed him during the whole period for which he is liable to be detained in the school’

• Section 73, which defines the responsibility of the Treasury – to approve and make payment of any sums ‘on such conditions as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of Treasury recommend towards the expenses of any youthful offender or child detained in a certified school’

Section 74, which defines the responsibility of the local authority – to provide for the reception and maintenance of the child in a suitable certified reformatory or industrial school

• Section 74(8), which permits the local authority to ‘contract with the managers of any certified school for the reception and maintenance therein of youthful offenders or children for whose reception and maintenance the authority are required under this section to make provision’

Section 48, which prescribed the conditions under which the managers of a school could resign certification
Section 56, which provided for the establishment of a superannuation scheme for the officers of the school by the Managers of the certified schools, either individually or collectively.

The schools were the property of the religious Orders. In this regard we note both from the legal position – the properties comprising the schools were in the possession of the individual Orders, in the case of Daingean by way of lease – and the organisation of the school activity – that is, each school was managed on a day-to-day basis without direct interference from the State, the decisions made in terms of acceptance of children, daily activities within the schools and the continued operation of the individual school rested primarily with the Resident Manager of the school. This understanding is also consistent with the statement in the Artane submission that ‘The schools were the property of the Orders and as such they were entitled to protect and safeguard their interests in these schools.’¹⁷and with the file note documenting discussions between the State and the Order at the time of foundation of the Daingean Reformatory – ‘Mr Frank Duffy, representative of the Dept of Ed, made it quite clear that the Reformatory School though recognised and financed by the State was not a STATE INSTITUTION but a private school under the management of a religious body. There was no legislation to constitute it a STATE INSTITUTION’.¹⁸

State funding appeared to have been considered to be a contribution towards the reception and maintenance of a child, rather than an undertaking to fund the entire cost of any school. In this regard we would draw attention to:

• The submission from the Rosminian Fathers, which states ‘The level of capitation granted was never claimed to be enough by the State. It was envisaged as contributory funding. It was calculated on compromise and it was accepted in desperation. All residual expenses were carried by the Order’;¹⁹

• An early version of the 1946 scheme to provide for some element of capital expenditure suggested that capital expenditure would be funded one-third by the relevant Order, one-third by the local authority and one-third by the Exchequer – ‘Local authorities to compound for their statutory liability for provision, etc, of schools by bearing one-third of the cost of authorised expenditure for the purpose, the amount to be apportioned amongst them by reference to the number of committed children chargeable to each. The State to undertake liability for an equal contribution. The schools to pay the remaining third.’²⁰

Taken together, it is our view that the framework of operation of the schools, was one where the State sought to place relevant children in privately owned and operated schools, in accordance with section 74 of the 1908 Act. The State made provision towards the costs of maintaining those children resident in the schools by means of a capitation grant. The respective roles and responsibilities of the State and schools are described in greater detail in the following paragraphs, but might be summarised as:

The State is responsible for the certification and inspection of schools.

• The local authority is responsible for providing for the reception and maintenance of the child in a suitable certified reformatory or industrial school – which responsibility it can discharge by ‘contract with the managers of any certified school for the reception and maintenance therein of youthful offenders or children for whose reception and maintenance the authority are required under this section to make provision’.

Both the State and the local authority have a responsibility to provide funding towards the costs of a child maintained in a certified reformatory or industrial school.
The Managers of the certified school have a responsibility, once they have accepted a child, to teach, train, lodge, clothe and feed the child.

3.3 The role of the Department of Education

The 1908 Act provided for a measure of oversight of the system of Reformatory and Industrial Schools by the State, a role which was occupied by the Department of Education, during the period 1939–69.

The relationship between the Department of Education and the religious Orders was set against the context of the time and the reliance on the religious order for first- and second-level education.²¹ The Department clearly recognised the autonomy of the religious congregations in managing and operating privately owned Industrial and Reformatory Schools. The Department was also aware that it was reliant on the religious congregations for care and education of the children in Industrial and Reform Schools.

It was originally proposed (in the Children’s Bill 1941) that the appointment of a Resident Managers would be subject to approval of the Department of Education. Following apparent opposition from the Resident Managers this requirement was reduced to a simple notification when the Children Act was passed. Accordingly, the Department of Education had little or no role in the appointment of staff. The appointment of a Resident Manager had to be notified to the Department and even then it was after the event, not beforehand. Employment of staff was left to the Resident Manager²².

The Department oversight role was limited to:

Evaluating school management through the general inspection and medical inspection process
Assessing teaching practice through the standard inspection process.

The Department issued circulars to Resident Managers addressing various policy, funding and administrative issues such as: capitation, diet, teaching standards, teachers pay, home leave, travel etc. Many of the circulars appear to be in response to concerns of the Department with regard to particular aspects of school management.²³

It was often the case that an increase in capitation was accompanied by a circular/communication from the Department of Education to the Resident Managers making it clear that the Department/Minister expected the increased capitation to be reflected in the improvements in the diets, clothing, health and welfare of the children. One example is that the Minister expected ‘all round’ improvements in the schools, particular with regard to dietary provision²⁴. In another case, a 1947 circular states

The Minister trusts that following the improvement in their financial position as a result of the increase in the rate of capitation grants the schools will effect with the least possible delay substantial improvements in the standard of dietary, maintenance, clothing &c., of the children committed to their care.²⁵

The Department appeared to be sympathetic to the position of the schools and usually lobbied the Department of Finance for an increase in capitation significantly higher than that ultimately awarded.

Department of Education statement

In its submission to the Commission the Department says:

The Department’s records indicate that it pressed the Department of Finance for additional funding during much of the period and was successful in securing increases in the capitation grants at various intervals. At the same time there was recognition that the funding increases secured did not go far enough. A Departmental memorandum to the Minister in 1967 in the context of setting up the Kennedy Committee states that the Department was ‘in no position to defend its achievements as far as the size of the grant goes’.

We have considered this submission in arriving at our findings.

3.4 The role of other State Departments

While the Department of Education was responsible for overseeing and funding the care and education of the children, it did not have a policy or operational role in regard to the committal into care. This was overseen by the Departments of Justice and Health. Similarly, the role of the Department of Education in relation to matters of finance was limited – ultimately, all financial decisions were subject to the oversight and approval of the Department of Finance. At inter-Departmental level, most of the material seen by us relates to communications between the Department of Education and the Department of Finance.

The Department of Finance

This was the Department with which the Department of Education had most contact in relation to industrial and reformatory schools.

Since the foundation of the State the Department of Finance has had a central role in the economic and financial management of the State and the overall management of public funds. The Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924, section 1(ii), lays out the functions of the Department:

The Department of Finance which shall comprise the administration and business generally of the public finance of Saorstát Eireann and all powers, duties and functions connected with the same, including in particular the collection and expenditure of the revenues of Saorstát Eireann from whatever source arising (save as may be otherwise provided by law), and the supervision and control of all purchases made for or on behalf of and all supplies of commodities and goods held by any Department of State and the disposal thereof, and also the business, powers, duties and functions of the branches and officers of the public service specified in the first part of the Schedule to this Act, and of which Department the head shall be, and shall be styled an t-Aire Airgid or (in English) the Minister for Finance.

Thus, as the Department responsible for all State expenditure, the Department of Finance had an oversight and approval role in relation to any State monies applied to the schools. This role is reflected Children Act 1941 whereby any changes in the capitation rates required the consent of the Minister for Finance, but it extended to all categories of Exchequer expenditure on the schools.

The files provided by the Department of Finance illustrate the detailed nature of this role – not only did the Department of Finance oversee and approve the annual estimates in relation to voted expenditure on the Reformatory and Industrial Schools, but any supplementary expenditure, even where amounts were relatively small, seem to have been passed to the Department for approval. The files presented include, for example, individual medical expenses, transport expenses and requests for funding of the attendance of children at events such as Feiseanna, presented to the Department of Finance for approval.

Contacts and discussions between the Department of Education and Department of Finance almost exclusively centred on financial matters. A great deal of correspondence is given over to consideration of capitation rates as the Department of Education required approval from the Department of Finance when increasing capitation as per section 21 of the 1941 Act.

There are also a number of internal file memoranda and copies of letters from the Department of Education to the Residential Managers noting the need for additional school-level financial information to build a strong case for submission to the Department of Finance.

The Department of Finance almost never granted the full amount of the increase sought by the Department of Education. There may be several reasons for this but the main two reasons noted in the material reviewed are:

(1) The State’s inability to fund a higher rate of increase
(2) The Department of Finance’s apparent view that the Department of Education was, in today’s language, prone to ‘regulatory capture’ – it was considered to be possibly too sympathetic to the religious orders. For example, when discussing the failure to conduct the 1951 proposed Inter-departmental Review the note reads:

The [Residential] Managers by withholding their consent frustrated the intention. Grounds of objection (Department of Education minute of 20.1.51) are unconvincing (amour propre?).

If the situation of the schools were, indeed, as desperate as represented a more co-operative approach might be expected and a willingness to furnish to public authorities all evidence reasonably required²⁶

The Department of Justice

There was limited contact between the Department of Education and the Department of Justice on Industrial and Reformatory Schools. Where contact is recorded in the files seen by us it is limited to specific topics such as Marlborough House (a State-run institution).

By and large, the Department of Justice appears to be at a remove from the Industrial and Reformatory School system. However, it should be noted that under the Children Acts most of the children committed to the institution were committed by the District Court.

The Department of Justice is also connected to the system of Reformatory and Industrial Schools by way of the role of members of An Garda Síochana in conveying children to the schools.

The Department of Health

The Department of Health was responsible for the boarding out of children to residential care.

It appears from the files available to us that there was limited contact between the Department of Education and Health for most of the review period.

Under the 1939 Public Assistance Act and the 1953 Health Act the schools ‘could apply for approved status from the Department of Health that would allow them to receive certain funding for children placed there.’²⁷ In practice very few of the children detained were placed in these institutions by the Department of Health (most were placed by the courts).

3.5 The role of the religious Orders and the Resident Managers

A number of religious Orders, as we have seen, ran individual Reformatories and Industrial Schools. The reasons for this derive from the particular history of the need for such schools in Ireland and also, in all likelihood, from the individual religious missions of the relevant Orders.

The schools, and the assets attaching, were in most cases, the property of the Orders. The schools were not regarded as State institutions in any case that we have seen. Under section 52 of the Act, the Managers of a school had primary responsibility for the care of a child, once that child had been accepted into the school.

The direct running of the schools was delegated to a Resident Manager. Under the Children Act 1908 Resident Managers were fully responsible for care of children accepted into their institution. Under the Act, when a child is accepted by a school the manager of the school is deemed to have accepted to undertake to teach, train (where relevant), lodge, clothe, and feed the child during the whole period of detention at that school.

It should also be noted that Residential Managers had the power/discretion whether or not to admit a given child to their institution (section 52 of the Children Act 1908). For example, in 1972 the Resident Manager of Daingean indicated that the following categories of boys would not be admitted:

(a) Those over 16 years of age
(b) Those guilty of a violent crime
(c) Those who were difficult to handle due to psychiatric problems.

Section 48 of the 1908 Act prescribed the process by which a school could resign certification.

The day-to-day running of the schools and care of the children in the school fell under the remit of a Resident Manager as they operated the schools. Resident Managers were charged with the employment and supervision of all staff in the schools. Based on our review of the available documentation, it appears that the Resident Manager was always a member of the Order running the particular institution.

The Resident Managers’ Association

The documentation available to us also includes copies of minutes and correspondence kept by the Resident Managers’ Association, and internal memoranda kept by the Christian Brothers relating to proceedings of that Association. This documentation illustrates the role of the Association as a vehicle for the concerted lobbying of the State on behalf of the individual schools. The Association appears to have convened meetings approximately annually, circulating an agenda and seeking the views of the Resident Manager of each of the relevant schools. The Association then wrote to the Department of Education expressing a collective view on issues arising. There is also evidence on the files that representatives of the Association met with the Minister for Education on a number of occasions during the period under review.

3.6 Public funding of the Schools

3.6.1 Capitation

The 1908 Act specified two sources of public funds for Reformatory and Industrial Schools:

• Contributions from the Treasury: ‘paid out of money provided by Parliament such sums on such conditions as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, recommend towards the expenses of any youthful offender or child detailed’.

• Contributions from local authorities: ‘where a child is ordered to be sent to a certified industrial school, it shall be the duty of the [local authority] to provide for his reception and maintenance in a certified industrial school’. For the purposes of the Act a child is presumed to reside in the place where the events which cause the child to be sent to a reform school occurred, unless it can be proven otherwise.

Collectively, these sums are referred to as the capitation grant.

The Act also covered non-public funds:

• Where a child is sent to a school at the instance of guardians or other responsible parties, those voluntarily sending the child ‘shall contribute towards the maintenance of the child … such a sum as may be agreed upon between them and the managers of the certified school … or in default of agreement as may be fixed by the Secretary of State’.

• Where a child is detained in a reform school the parents, guardians or other responsible parties ‘shall, if able to do so, contribute to his maintenance therein a sum not exceeding such sum as may be declared … to represent approximately the average cost of maintenance of youthful offenders of children’. The sum specified was to be paid to the Exchequer, not the individual school.

Thus, the Act entitled the State to recoup from the child’s parents monies expended on detaining a child in an Industrial/Reform Schools. However, more often than not the monies could not be collected and it appears that the State eventually made little active effort to collect the parental contribution where it was not forthcoming as the collection system was not cost-effective to operate. Where it was collected the parental contribution accrued to the State, not the school in which a child was detained.

3.6.2 Teachers salaries – the primary grant

In 1945 national school recognition was awarded to those Industrial Schools that provided primary education within the institution. These schools were subject to the Rules and Regulations for National Schools and were provided aid on the same basis as other national schools. In accordance with the Rules and Regulations, the primary grant was a grant paid by the Department to cover the salary costs of recognised teaching staff.

Recognised teaching staff were identified when the Resident Manager notified the Department of appointments to teaching posts which were subject to Department sanction. Once an appointment was sanctioned by the Department, in accordance with the Rules and Regulations, the Department arranged for the funding/payment of the teachers salaries.

Recognised teaching staff in schools owned and operated by religious Orders were subject to different arrangements in relation to funding of salaries depending on whether the school opted as a classification national school or a capitation national school. The difference between these designations was that the classification national schools were schools where the salaries were paid directly to the teachers by the Department of Education, while in a capitation national school grants were paid to the manager of the school to cover the salaries of the teachers.

In March 1946, a circular was issued to the schools asking them to opt for their preferred method of payment. Department records indicate that the majority of industrial schools opted to be classified as capitation national schools, and to have grants paid to the managers of the school.

The issue of registration of staff as recognised teachers eligible for funding under the State primary grant was an important one in the 1940s. It appears from our reading of the files that the Department permitted the recognition of unqualified members of the Orders working in schools, on the grounds of their experience working in the institutional schools. From the perspective of the Orders, such recognition was important and had significant financial consequences. There is evidence that the Orders sought to ensure that as many Religious as possible were afforded recognition. A letter from the Managers of the Industrial Schools²⁸ on the topic of teachers’ salaries notes:

In schools in which the teaching staff is composed of both members of the Community and of lay teachers, it is assumed that in determining the maximum recognised staff the members of the Community will always have precedence of the lay teachers.

A perhaps related matter is the question of pensions. It has been suggested to us, in the course of our meetings with the relevant Orders, that the State has not made any provision for the pensions of recognised teachers who were members of the religious communities. Section 56 of the 1908 Act provided for the establishment of a superannuation scheme for officers of the schools, either individually or collectively by the schools.

With the exception of the reference in the Act, we have not been able to identify any documentation dealing clearly with this issue and have not seen any information that would permit us to estimate the sums that might be involved. The question of whether the State had an obligation to meet such payments is also complex. It is our understanding that the primary grant was in essence a payment administered by the schools – in other words that the sums paid under this heading were paid to the school, and not directly to the individual recognised teachers. We have also seen that the schools were privately owned. There is inherent in such a system a question of who is the legally responsible employer of the teachers. This complexity is suggested in later documents included in the Department of Finance files – where individual lay teachers seem to have been considered for pensions on a case-by-case basis.²⁹

3.6.3 Other income

There are, on the files provided, examples of Resident Managers seeking, and obtaining, additional funding from the Department to cover expenses that might be reasonably expected to be funded out of the capitation payment. For example:

• Prior to 1943–44 travel expense by children going home on holidays were paid by family members and/or Residential Managers³⁰. From 1943–44 the Department of Education asked the Managers to cover the cost of travel and meals where necessary. However, where the cost of travel exceeded the weekly capitation grant for the child the Department would refund the excess payment.

Entertainment expenses were at times reimbursed – such as the cost of summer camps or attendance at drama competitions.

3.6.4 Capital

A particular complexity in relation to our work was the appropriate treatment of sums expended in relation to capital items by the schools. This issue has consequences for consideration of the adequacy of the capitation grant. Again, we have looked first to the legislative background when addressing this issue. The 1908 Act does not, in our view, appear to have intended the capitation grant to cover items of capital expenditure. This appears to us consistent with the description in the Cussen Report of the arrangement for defraying the costs of Reformatory and Industrial Schools³¹. While the 1946 scheme proposed to implement a system of payment, as part of the capitation grant, towards the capital expenditures of the schools, this scheme was discontinued within two years and, in notifying the schools of this, the Department drew attention to the

clear understanding that the School Manager shall accept liability for any building and repair work and the provision of equipment for vocational training which the Minister considers necessary in their Schools.³²

While the introduction of the scheme does render the position potentially ambiguous, it is our view that the State was unambiguous in presenting its understanding that the termination of the scheme meant that the position originally set out in the Act was resumed – the capitation grant did not include a contribution towards capital expenditure. This understanding is also consistent with the findings of the Kennedy Report:

No grants are made available for maintenance, renovation or modernisation of premises.³³

and

Provisions of the 1908 Act

Section 55 of the 1908 Act provided that ‘No substantial addition or alternation in the buildings of a certified school shall be made without the approval in writing of the Secretary of State.’ As we have already noted, sections 73 and 74 of the 1908 Act provide for a contribution towards maintenance costs through the capitation grant, with subsection 74(13) of the Act providing for such expenses to be defrayed from local authority funds. Section 74(8)(a) of the Act states that a local authority:

may, with the approval of the Secretary of State undertake or combine with any other such authority in undertaking, or contribute such sums of money upon such conditions as they may think it fit towards, the establishment, building, alteration, enlargement, rebuilding, or management of a certified school, or for the site of any school intended to be a certified school.

Section 74(14) of the Act states:

(14) Money may be borrowed by a local authority for the purposes of defraying or contributing towards the expenses of establishing, building, altering, enlarging, rebuilding, or purchasing land for the use or site of—

(a) A reformatory school, under and in accordance with the Local Government Act, 1888, in the case of the council of a county, and under and in accordance with the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, in the case of a council of a county borough.

(b) An industrial school, under and in accordance with the Education Acts, 1870 to 1907.

Provided that the maximum period within which money so borrowed is to be repaid shall be sixty years.

Our reading of the Act suggests that it is more reasonable to conclude that the Act separates the provision of a contribution in respect of the reception and maintenance of a child at one of the institutions, from the provision of grants to assist the capital expenditure associated with a school.

This view also appears to be consistent with the comments in the Cussen Report:

It must not be overlooked that the buildings, farms, plant etc. have as a rule been provided by the schools themselves.

suggesting that the capitation grant was not considered to have provided for capital expenditure.³⁵

The 1946 scheme

The 1946 scheme, on the other hand, suggests that there was some intention to include capital expenditure in the capitation grant. The history of this development merits some detailed attention as it illustrates the contemporary positions of the Orders and the relevant Departments. It was also, to our knowledge, the only negotiation regarding the basis of provision for capital expenditure during the period.

It was proposed in 1946 that the provision of special buildings and equipment grants be abolished and replaced by an additional grant payable under the standard capitation scheme. The reasons given for this recommendation were:

(1) The schools which do not avail of those special grants [under the Buildings and Equipment Grants scheme] will be at a disadvantage

(2) The proposed merging of the special grants would be more acceptable to the schools in general that the existing arrangement and would act as a greater incentive to carry out any necessary building improvements and/or provide the necessary equipment for vocational training.

(3) The new arrangement would be less complicated, more easily administered and would obviate the necessity for keeping detailed accounts the checking of which occupy considerable time this Branch.³⁶

The impetus for the 1946 scheme came from both the schools and the Department as noted in an August 1947 Department of Education memo:

It is felt that the discontinuance of the Scheme for the provision of Building and Equipment Grants and the incorporation of these grants in the grants for maintenance would be very welcome to the schools managers. This proposal, it might be mentioned, has, in fact, on more that one occasion been made by various School Managers.³⁷

Support for a scheme of this sort is illustrated by a memo on a building and equipment grant scheme prepared by the Residential Managers for submission to the Minister for Education in 1940:

Basic Principle: Local authorities to compound for their statutory liability for provision, etc., of school by bearing one-third of the cost of authorized expenditure for the purpose, the amount to be apportioned amongst them by reference to the number of committed children chargeable to each. The State to undertake liability for an equal contribution. The schools to pay the remaining third.

Provision of Funds: Capitation grant payable by local authorities and State to be increased provisionally by 6d per week each.³⁸

In December 1945 an official from the Department of Education wrote to the Resident Managers with details of the draft building and equipment scheme³⁹. The indication was that the Resident Managers were, on the whole, in favour of the scheme as indicated by the Resident Managers document entitled ‘OPINION OF THE RESIDENT MANAGERS re: PROPOSED SCHEME FOR ALTERATIONS, REPAIRS, ADDITIONS, etc., etc.’⁴⁰

A letter from the Resident Managers’ Association to the Department of Education following a meeting on the suggestion of replacing the buildings and equipment grants noted:

The Meeting welcomed the proposal, and appreciated the efforts being made by the Department to better the conditions of the Schools. … The simplest arrangement, in the Managers’ opinion, is that the 1/- should be added to the grant, i.e. the present grant be raised to 16/- per week.

The Managers would be prepared to place this extra sum (1/- per head per week) in a special a/c to be known as ‘The Repairs and Equipment Fund’ (or some such name), and to use such monies solely for repairs, improvements, equipment etc. Two-thirds only of the amount of such expenditure in any financial year would be drawn from this Fund. The Managers would show in the Returns each quarter, or preferably at the end of the financial year, the amount spent from the Fund, with, if necessary, receipts or vouchers.⁴¹

However, the Resident Managers wrote to the Department of Education in October 1946⁴² to voice their objections to some of the conditions attached to the scheme grants.

As a result of the objections raised the Department informed the schools on 11th November 1947 that:

The Scheme for the payment of Capitation Grants at the rate of 1s/- weekly towards the cost of Buildings and the provision of Equipment for Vocational Training which came into operation on the 1^st of October 1946 is to be discontinued after 31^st December 1947 as it was not acceptable to some of the Schools. The State Capitation Grant is being increased by an equivalent amount, this increase is being given on the clear understanding that the School Manager shall accept liability for any building and repair work and the provision of equipment for vocational training which the Minister considers necessary in their Schools.⁴³

The Resident Managers again wrote to the Department on January 1948 to object to the conditions attached to the revised grant as noted in a circular:

Some points in the Circular, however, have caused the Managers a certain amount of uneasiness. They consider that the second part of the paragraph 3 –

‘This increase is being given on the clear understanding that the School Managers shall accept liability for any building and repair works and the provision of equipment for vocational training which the Minister considers necessary in the Schools’

And the latter parts of paragraph 8 –

‘He also expects that such improvements in School accommodation and equipment as will bring the Schools up to modern standards will be undertaken as soon as possible. In this connection the Minister desires to stress the need for improved technical training in Senior Boys Schools and he would urge that special attention be given to this important matter’

Would seem to throw an undue burden on them.’⁴⁴

While the Resident Managers accepted the increase capitation they felt the

increased Capitation Grant does not enable them to accept such a liability as indicated [by the Minister]⁴⁵

Based on the documentation available, it is our view that the 1946 scheme did not represent an intention by the State to take responsibility for all capital expenditure at the schools. The documentation suggests that:

The original proposed scheme was that the State/local authorities would contribute towards the costs of any capital expenditure – two-thirds being the suggested proportion, capped at an amount of 6d per week.

• The State believed that the school Manager was responsible for the capital expenditure – ‘This increase is being given on the clear understanding that the School Managers shall accept liability for any building and repair works and the provision of equipment for vocational training which the Minister considers necessary in the Schools’⁴⁶ – although this position was contested by the Orders.

• The scheme was discontinued after 31st December 1947, and the State contribution grant increased – with the Department restating its contention that there was a ‘clear understanding that the School Manager shall accept liability for any building and repair work and the provision of equipment for vocational training’.

We note that the schools put some of the capitation grant funding towards capital expenditure, and that this would appear to have been evident in financial statements sent by the Resident Managers’ Association to the Department of Education. If this understanding is correct, it would seem at odds with the legislative background and the statement made by the Department at the time of termination of the 1946 scheme. We also note that the State made separate contributions towards capital expenditure, suggesting that it did not consider the capitation grants to cover such expenditure, which appears more consistent with the legislation. Examples of this are the case of an additional grant made available to St Michael’s School, Cappoquin, in respect of the building costs of a new school⁴⁷, and the provision of Board of Works funding to Artane in the 1960s. The Rosminians also appear to have received funding towards a new school building at Ferryhouse in the late 1960s.

The Kennedy Report

Finally, we note the consideration that the capitation grant did not include provision for capital expenditure seems to be consistent with the findings of the Kennedy Commission.

No grants are made available for maintenance, renovation or modernisation of premises.⁴⁸

and

The Committee is strongly of the opinion that the system of payment of grants on a capitation basis should be discontinued and replaced by an annual grant, based on a budget of estimate costs submitted by each school, sufficient to cover all costs in connection with the maintenance of children.

In our opinion, it is more reasonable, therefore, to conclude that the legislation did not provide for State funding of capital expenditure at the schools by way of the capitation grant, but that separate funds could have been made available under the terms of section 74 of the 1908 Act.

3.6.5 Availability of financial information to the State

The Department of Education sought audited accounts from the schools and/or school level financial information prepared on a comparable basis on a number of occasions.⁵⁰

From our review of material made available by the Department of Education it appears that the financial information was received from the schools on the following occasions:

1939
1946
1947
1950
1954
1955
1962
1964.

We have attached the evidence made available to us by the Department in Appendix XXI to this report. At an overview level it appears that while some schools provided accounts, others did not. In some of the correspondence seen by us Department officials expressed some difficulties with the comprehensiveness and comparability of some of the financial statements provided. It is not possible to identify which particular schools are referred to in the records seen by us, and copies of the relevant financial statements do not appear, in many cases, to have survived.

3.6.6 The proposed Inter-Departmental Committee Review

In 1951 a cabinet sub-committee comprising the Departments of Education, Finance and Social Welfare proposed to establish an Inter-Departmental Committee to investigate how the schools might be run most economically and efficiently. The Committee was to involve the Departments of Education, Finance and Social Welfare.

There was opposition to the proposed review by the Industrial and Reformatory School Managers Association. The Association took particular exception to the involvement of the Departments of Finance and Social Welfare on the basis that the Department of Education was fully aware of the circumstances in the schools. They also feared that the inquiry would be ‘the thin edge of the wedge in an attempt by the State to impose its control on the detailed management of the schools’.⁵¹

The Managers were of the ‘opinion that the terms of reference of the enquiry are too wide and include subjects which they do not consider relevant to the question at issue’. They particularly objected to the organisation and conduct of the schools being subject to review.⁵²

Despite reassurance from the Minister for Education and the Minister’s view that the inquiry was an ideal tool to help secure an increase in funding the Resident Managers remained ‘unaltered in their opinion that the terms of references to the enquiry were too wide, and include subjects which they do not consider relevant to the question at issue’.⁵³ The proposal appears to have been abandoned at this time by the State as the Review required the willing consent of Resident Managers.

We have summarised the documentation we have seen in respect of this proposed review in Appendix XXII to this report.

3.6.7 Liability for injury

The extent to which the State regarded the Resident Manager as responsible for the children committed to institutions is reflected in internal communication with regard to a child seeking damages following an accident while detained in a reformatory in the early 1950s. A letter notes that the Department of Finance advised the Department of Education not to involve itself in any outlay with regard to the case. It was clear from the 1908 Act that liability rested with the Resident Manager. The letter goes on to say ‘In this connection it is understood that it is not the practice to indemnify Managers of National Schools in any way against similar claims against them’⁵⁴ and that similar treatment was to apply to Reformatory and Industrial Schools. In the event, the matter was not resolved. The case did not proceed as the child and his family emigrated.

Policy in this regard appears to have changed by the 1980s, based on the evidence of a later case relating to an accident to a child in 1971 (but which was not fully resolved until 1983). The Chief State Solicitor advised that the ‘the Minister for Education has no obligation in the matter and whether the State should shoulder the responsibility for any award against the Defendants was one of policy’.⁵⁵ The policy in this case was to treat Residential Homes like comprehensive and community schools and thus the school received an ex-gratia payment of the amount awarded to the plaintiff as there was no evidence of negligence.

3.6.8 Overall State contribution to Reformatory and Industrial Schools 1939–69

From our examination of the files, it is apparent that the State contribution to the Reformatory and Industrial Schools was not confined to the Capitation Grant. We have, in our review of the files available to us, noted that references to funds or resource being made available to Reformatories or Industrial Schools can be summarised under the following headings:

Reformatory and Industrial School vote – includes direct contributions to the schools, including the capitation grant
Department of Education vote – the primary school grant was available to the Reformatory and Industrial Schools in respect of recognised teachers
Board of Works/Office of Public Works vote – funding was provided in respect of certain capital projects.

Unfortunately, insufficient information exists to quantify the full contribution under each of these headings. We have, however, carried out a review of the State appropriation accounts for the period 1939–69 and identified the following as the amounts expended by the State on the system of Reformatories and Industrial Schools. We believe that these represent the most significant contributions by the State to the system, with the exception of the primary school grant – which is subsumed in the overall primary school vote and indistinguishable from payments to national schools. A full analysis of the relevant appropriation accounts is at Appendix XIX.

Summary analysis of relevant appropriation accounts 1939–69

Exhibit 9

1939–69	Equivalent €
Vote on Reformatory and Industrial Schools
Reformatory Schools	329,007
Industrial Schools	5,610,406
Places of detention	97,468
Conveyance expenses	13,253
Parental moneys – collection	19,224
Building & equipment grant	57,617
Appropriation in aid⁵⁶	(159,434)
Vote on Public works⁵⁷	139,204

It should be noted that these figures do not include local authority capitation payments. Including these amounts would approximately double the figures above for Reformatory Schools and Industrial Schools, based on the capitation rates over the period.

While the amounts paid to the schools under the primary school grant cannot be identified in the appropriation accounts, the individual schools examined did receive funding under this heading in relation to recognised teachers. To illustrate the point, our analysis of the Artane school accounts show that the primary school grant typically represented an additional 10 percent of income on top of the standard capitation grant. The school accounts for Upton support a contention that this may be a reasonable understanding of the contribution from this source.

3.7 Related issues

In dealing with the nature and context of the system of Reformatory and Industrial Schools, we believe it relevant to deal with two other issues. The first of these, the issue of quality of training, relates to one of the core missions of the system. The second item that we consider relevant is the question of the role of economies of scale in relation to the financial management of the schools.

3.7.1 Quality of industrial training in schools

The 1936 Cussen Report, a review of Reformatory and Industrial Schools, was critical of the education and training provided in the industrial and reform schools:

The farms fail, however, to achieve their primary objective. They do not serve to train the boys in farming. The boys are little more than juvenile labourers … there is no organised training of any kind and no systematic instruction.

There is support for this view in a 1942 file note⁵⁸ by the Department of Finance that reads:

Technical training in the industrial and reformatory schools has up to the present consisted to a large extent in the utilisation of the boys, in connection with trades pursued in the Institution with a view to making the Institution self-sufficient, to as great a degree as possible.

This view is echoed in an internal note by the Christian Brothers headed ‘Points for Discussion at Managers’ Meetings’ in 1960. It commented that:

From what I have observed over the past ten years in our schools, the boys are being used, they are not being trained.⁵⁹ (Emphasis by the author of the note)

In addition, the Department of Educations statement points out that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions was concerned in 1968 that career guidance and apprenticeship training did not receive enough attention in Industrial Schools. Proof of this was evidenced by the poor labour market performance of pupils post detention.

3.7.2 Economies of scale

There is a recognition of the economies of scale involved in running schools to be found in a memorandum by the Resident Managers’ Association. The memorandum relates to a deputation going before the Minister for Education in circa 1946 and point (g) of the memo reads:

When the number of children detained in the Schools is below the certified number. Here the Managers think a grant equal to about three-fifths of the normal grant ought to be paid for the number the School is below the certified number. This is considered necessary to meet overheads and expenses.⁶⁰

This logic is paralleled in a letter to the Department of Education in 1957 from the Provincial of the Christian Brothers suggesting that Artane is uneconomical at 500 boys.

In the final chapter of this report we have sought, in relation to each school, to provide an indicative analysis of the point at which the schools became uneconomical to operate.

4. An analysis of the adequacy of funding provided by the State

4.1 Introduction

This section of our report seeks to provide an analysis of the adequacy of the capitation funding provided by the State. In so doing this section provides an explanation of the capitation funding system and its purpose, details changes in the capitation rates payable to schools and considers its adequacy relative to a number of contemporaneous benchmarks.

Context for analysis of adequacy of the capitation grant

We believe that it is also important to clarify the background against which the capitation grant adequacy is assessed. Adequacy in our opinion is most appropriately considered in a context that is contemporaneous and which agrees to the norms of the society at that time. In our work we have sought to compare the capitation grant with available contemporary Irish data. Adequacy is also properly assessed against the background of purpose. In the case of the Reformatory and Industrial schools, the purpose of the capitation grant is, in our view, contained in the guiding legislation.

The methodology followed in our assessment of adequacy was to seek, in the first instance, to understand the relationship between the parties and framework which set out the roles and responsibilities of each party. We have dealt with these issues in Part 3 of this report. Our work also included obtaining a definition of what the capitation grant was intended to cover – a matter which is dealt with in the paragraphs below.

We then sought to understand what contemporary Irish information would provide evidence of this cost. In our view the benchmarks selected, which give a view of different levels of maintenance provision made by the State, and of contemporary income and expenditure levels, provide a reasonable basis for understanding the maintenance cost of a child. This chapter of our report deals with these elements of our work.

4.2 The capitation grant system

4.2.1 The Children Act 1908

In Part 3 of this report we have examined the background to the system of capitation funding as it operated in the period 1939–69. The Children Act 1908 provided the basis for payments by State and local authorities towards the costs of maintaining children in Industrial and Reformatory Schools. This legislation was updated in the Chidren Act of 1941.

4.2.2 The Children Act 1941 – the capitation system

Our understanding of the functioning of the capitation system during the period 1939–69 is based on information extracted from the Commission’s database and an examination of the Children Act 1941 and related statutory instruments pursuant to section 21 of that Act.

Under the capitation system a payment or grant per student payable by the Exchequer accrued on a weekly basis to each Industrial School. The actual payment to an Industrial School came from two sources:

1. Local authorities: Under section 21 of the Children Act 1941 each local authority is obliged to make a payment to the relevant Industrial School keeping a child originating from within its geographical boundaries. The rate of payment was prescribed by statute. Every time there was a change in the local authority capitation rate the change was made by way of statutory instrument. Up to mid-1944 the capitation grant was broken into two: one payment for those less than six years of age and a slightly higher payment for those aged six and older. After mid-1944 local authorities made a flat rate payment regardless of age.

2. The Department of Education: A weekly payment per head also accrued to industrial schools from the Department. Changes in the capitation rate from the Department of Education do not appear to be made by way of statutory instrument and the mechanism for changing the Department’s capitation rate is not specified in the Children Act 1941. As with the local authority grant, the Departmental grant was a flat rate per child regardless of age, post 1944.

Up to the end of June 1944 the capitation grant was restricted to the number of children for which schools were certified and it was calculated on a day-to-day basis. From 1st July 1944 the grant was paid in respect of the number of children committed under detention up to the limits of the accommodation approved for the school. Another change was that the total grant to a school was calculated by reference to the number of children detained on the last day of the preceding quarter. It would appear from correspondence on file that this change was made for administrative convenience, not for financial reasons.

The system of payment of capitation changed from being restricted to a maximum based on the number of children certified for a school, to being based on the number of children actually resident in the school had, in the case of a school with numbers in excess of the certified level, the effect of increasing the funds provided to the school.

While the income to Industrial Schools accrued weekly it was not paid weekly. We know from correspondence on the Commission’s files that local authorities were slow to release funds to schools, an issue which was at the heart of several communications to the Department⁶¹. A Department of Education memorandum⁶² as late as 1981 noted that many local authorities paid capitation grants only half-yearly and, in many cases, irregularly. Indeed, it made several attempts to encourage local authorities to pay grants more frequently. These attempts were made directly to local authorities and through the Department of Environment under whose remit local authorities fell.

The Department of Education paid its portion of the grant to schools on a quarterly basis.

4.2.3 Purpose of funding

Of central importance to an understanding of the capitation system is the question of what was the purpose of the funding – to what, specifically, were the funds to be properly applied? From the information available to us we understand that the capitation funds were in practice applied to any expenses deemed by the managers of the institutions to relate broadly to the running of the institution. It may be considered, given the ‘community’ nature of the Orders managing the institutions, and the inter-relationships between the activity of running the schools, the farms and other trades attached to the schools, and the Order or ‘house’ activities, that this was both inevitable and appropriate. Nonetheless, from the point of view of clarity, we believe that it is appropriate to consider what the Act intended as the purpose of the capitation grant.

Section 21 of the Children Act 1941 states that:

The Minister [for Education], with the consent of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, may make regulations prescribing the payments to be made by local authorities to the managers of certified schools for the maintenance of such children and youthful offenders as such local authorities are liable under section 74 of the Principal Act to maintain.

Neither the Children Act 1941 nor the Children Act 1908 (the Principal Act) defines the term maintenance or specify what it includes.

Section 44 of the Children Act 1908, however, specifies an industrial school as ‘a school for the industrial training of children, in which children are lodged, clothed, and fed as well as taught’.

Read together, it appears reasonable to conclude that the intention in the Act is for the capitation funding to apply specifically to the lodging, clothing, feeding and education of the resident children. This is also consistent with the State assertion in relation to the 1946 scheme that liability for building works be borne by the schools, rather than the State.

In this regard, it is also relevant to note that:

The school managers, once they had accepted a child into the school, bore primary responsibility for the care of that child.
The schools examined appeared not to have made any distinction between capital and non-capital expenditure when spending capitation funding received.

Lodging

The institutional land and buildings derived from a number of sources, but it is our understanding that the school buildings were either provided directly by the State (as in the case of Daingean) or established by the individual religious Order. This background raises the question of what precisely was the capitation grant to fund in this regard – was it for example intended to fund reasonable maintenance costs and upgrade costs of the school and dormitories? Was it to fund the acquisition of lands and other buildings for farm, trade or other activities? Was it to fund the housing and other lodging needs of the religious and lay staff involved with the institution?

We have already considered the legislative framework and other available information and have, in Part 3, concluded that the capitation grant was not intended to cover capital expenditure incurred by the school.

Accordingly, in our consideration of the issue of adequacy, we have assumed that the capitation grant was to cover the cost of lodging those children committed to institutions. We have sought to identify relevant contemporary benchmarks including this cost, as a means of understanding the adequacy or otherwise of the capitation grant in this regard. These benchmarks are dealt with in the remainder of this part of our report.

We note that examination of individual schools shows, as we have already mentioned, a number of approaches to the funding of capital expenditure requirements of the schools – including use of capitation funding and provision of additional funds by way of Board of Works grants, for example. In the absence of information in relation to the condition of individual schools, the definition of an adequate condition, and the cost of bringing schools to such a condition, it is impossible for us to comment as to whether the State contribution, such as it was, to capital costs of the schools, was adequate during the period 1939–69. Equally, it is beyond the scope of this work to express a view as to whether the State legally or otherwise had an obligation to fund the schools in this regard.

Clothing and feeding

The provision of food and clothing for the children resident in the institutions is complicated in those institutions that operated farms and other trades. In essence, many institutions were adequately resourced to be largely self-sufficient in these terms. Identifying the extent to which farm and trades contributed to a particular institution is difficult as the accounting records, as was the convention, generally provide only for income arising from sales to third parties – that is, they do not value the produce utilised within the institution – while recognising all costs of production, with the notable exception of the labour of the children resident in the institution. One view of the operation of this aspect of the activities of the schools was;

Technical training in the industrial and reformatory schools has up to the present consisted to a large extent in the utilisation of the boys, in connection with trades pursued in the Institution with a view to making the Institution self-sufficient, to as great a degree as possible.⁶³

Education

The educational needs of children in the Industrial Schools was provided by a combination of lay and religious teaching staff. Where the institution included a registered national school, the State national school system provided funding in this regard. In addition to formal academic education, which consisted primarily of primary school education, in some instances augmented by continuation school, many of the children were provided with training for a particular occupation – usually in the form of supervised work on the school farm or trade shops.

4.2.4 Capitation rates 1939–69

Exhibit 10 shows the capitation rates analysed by funding agency. As we have already noted, changes in the local authority grant rates were made by Statutory Instrument and can be tracked over the reference period 1939–69. While the table shows the grant levels in ‘old money’ where the value before the ‘/’ are in shillings and value after the ‘/’ is in pence. Equivalent € amount values are also shown.

Exhibit 10: Weekly capitation grant per child 1939–69

Exhibit 10 illustrates the following points:

While the grant increased 17 times over the reference period, changes were not made at regular intervals. Almost every time the rate increased following a number of years without increase it was increased again within 12 months.

• The irregular timing of capitation rate increases, which reflects the adversarial nature by which increases in capitation rates were made. Those who ran Industrial Schools lobbied hard for an increase in the grant, the Department of Education and/or the Department of Finance resisted the calls for an increase, and when an increase was finally granted it was often a lower increase than was sought and so on.⁶⁴

• The increase in 1969 is remarkably high compared to previous increases. We have been unable to ascertain why there was an increase of this magnitude at a point when many of the schools were closing. The Sisters of Mercy submission to the Commission suggests that the 1969 increase was prompted by criticisms of the level of funding at the time the Kennedy Report was being compiled.⁶⁵

4.3 Economic conditions and the cost of living

4.3.1 Inflation

To put the data in Exhibit 10 into some context Exhibit 11 illustrates the rate of change in the general price level (i.e. inflation) over the period 1939-69 and the rate of change in the capitation grant. For comparability both the capitation grant and the general price level are set at 100 in 1939 to form two equivalent indices.

Exhibit 11: The rate of change in the weekly capitation grant per child and the general price level 1939–69

Exhibit 11 shows that:

The capitation rate per child in a reformatory school was slightly higher than the rate per Industrial Schools child. Both rates moved in step as changes in the Reformatory and Industrial School capitation rates were made simultaneously.
Between 1939 and 1950 the rate of increase in the capitation grant lagged inflation, which means it fell in real terms and in purchasing power. During this period the CPI index grew by 83.4 percent, while the Industrial School capitation grew by 53.2 percent and the Reformatory School capitation grew by 77.2 percent. The 1950–51 figures show respective cumulative increases of 88.9 percent (CPI), 73.4 percent (Industrial Schools) and 116.5 percent (Reformatory Schools).
It was not until 1957 that the rate of change in the Industrial Schools capitation grant exceeded the rate of change in general price level.
Between 1939 and 1957 the average gap between the Industrial School capitation grant index and the inflation index was 15 percent p.a. in favour of the inflation index – annual inflation exceeded changes in the caption grant by 15 percent on average.
Between 1957 and 1969 the average gap between the Industrial School capitation grant index and the inflation index was 58 percent p.a. in favour of the capitation grant index – annual capitation changes exceeded inflation by 58 percent on average.
Over the entire 30-year period the general price level rose by 385 percent, the grant increased by some 1,300 percent – increasing by 1,327 percent in the case of Industrial Schools and 1,375 percent in the case of Reformatory Schools.
Again, the impact of the 1969 increase in capitation is marked, and represents a significant element of the overall increase. However, even before this increase, the capitation grant had increased by 663 percent compared to its 1939 level, significantly more than the movement in the general price level over the same period.

Also of relevance to this analysis is the Cussen Report’s finding in 1936 which indicated that the funding to the schools would be adequate on the basis that schools received both capitation funding and a grant towards the costs of providing teaching staff – a finding that was subsequently implemented.

After a careful review of all relevant circumstances we have come to the conclusion that the position would be reasonably met if, as recommended at paragraph 145 above, the schools were relieved of the cost of Literary teachers, and if, in addition, the present State payments were supplemented by a grant of equal amount from the Local Authorities, the rates of payment to be subject to periodic review so as to bring them into line with any appreciable variations in the cost of living figure, or with any material alterations in the numbers of children committed.

This implies that, in the view of the Cussen Commission, the funding to the schools was adequate if supplemented with a grant towards teaching costs – provision for which was made early in the period under review. In the case of Industrial Schools the State and local authority capitation grants appear to be equal, over the period 1939–69. Taking the review period in its entirety, the funding per head to schools did not decline in real/purchasing power terms as changes in the capitation grant more than match movements in the general price level.

4.4 Adequacy of funding

4.4.1 The benchmarks and their context

The question of whether the State funding provided was adequate, or not, is complex. In reviewing the documentation available to us, we have seen many expressions of the view that funding was not adequate. We have also seen evidence that the grant may have been adequate to maintain a child. We have seen that the schools examined managed to operate at a point close to break-even for much of the period. In this section of the report we seek to understand each of these, perhaps conflicting, points as they relate to our terms of reference.

The question of adequacy of funding is in our view linked to an understanding of the purpose of the funding and of the respective roles and responsibilities of the schools, and of the State and local authorities.

In our view the 1908 Act provides a clear statement of the purpose of funding and of the relevant roles and reponsibilities.

We note that the Orders, in their submissions to the Commission, have expressed the view that the capitation grant was inadequate. This view appears to derive from comparison with a number of alternate frameworks – most notably, modern costs of such care, the contemporary grant under the UK framework and an understanding that the capitation grant was intended to fund the entire cost of running an institution – as well as from a review of the historical correspondence between the Resident Managers’ Association and the Department of Education, which shows that the schools constantly sought increased funding. We also note that the Department of Education, in its evidence to the Commission, has expressed a view that the grant was not adequate. This assertion derives from the Department’s own review of the historical opinions of the grant contained in the Department correspondence files – most significantly, the statement in a memorandum at the time of the setting up of the Kennedy Commission that the Department was in ‘no position to defend its achievements as far as the size of the grant goes’.

We believe that it is appropriate to distinguish between these two views of the question of adequacy – that is, a view that the question of adequacy should be considered against a definition of purpose of the grant as provided for in the 1908 Act – and a view that derives from an understanding of what the various commentators consider that the grant should have covered – that is, full costs of a school, comparable with modern best practice or the UK system of funding and so on. Accordingly, we divide our work in this section into two parts, as follows;

Adequacy in accordance with the 1908 Act
Adequacy in comparison with other frameworks of reference suggested.

Adequacy in accordance with the 1908 Act

Our objective in considering benchmark data is to provide a basis for fairly assessing whether the capitation grant was adequate to maintain a child as provided for in the legislation. To this end, it is important to recognise that the measures proposed concentrate on:

Benchmarking the cost of maintaining a child, as opposed to meeting the cost of an institution. Institutional issues are addressed separately in subsequent chapters
Benchmarking the cost of maintaining a child at the time, i.e. the benchmarks are contemporaneous and relevant to the standard of living that applied at the time
Benchmarking against minimal standards, as they deal with average data or State contribution in a framework of provision for basic means.

We identified the following benchmarks as providing a reasonable basis of comparison in that they each illustrate (or help to illustrate) the costs of maintaining a child over the period under review:

Average household income per head
Unemployment benefit.

It is our view that these benchmarks provide a reasonable basis for consideration of the question of adequacy of funding.

We have also sought to develop an ‘expenditure on child maintenance’ approach, which we believe also serves as a reasonable benchmark for evaluating the adequacy of the capitation grant to the needs of a child resident in the institutions. This benchmark is derived from available CSO information in respect of expenditure patterns in the 1950s and 1960s.

These benchmarks are selected to indicate what the then State provision for maintenance was and to identify what the costs of maintaining a child were at the time. Accordingly, there is no reason to expect any benchmark to exactly match the grant per head – we do not suggest that the State authorities would have necessarily considered such benchmarks when agreeing the capitation rate.

Adequacy in accordance with other frameworks of reference suggested

The question of adequacy of the capitation grant can also be considered from another perspective – that of the adequacy of the grant to the needs of the institution. This perspective brings with it consideration of the management of resource available to the institution. This perspective also leads us to consider the following factors:

The cost of providing staff to care for the children. On the issue of childcare, it is true that the average household got the benefit of ‘free’ child supervision, which was typically provided by the mother of the house as the marriage bar was in operation at the time. However, the maintenance costs of the child supervisor had to be borne by the household just as it was borne by the schools. Thus, the comparison is valid as the costs of child care are inherent in the cost of living and had to be funded from household income. There is inevitably some differential between the cost of maintaining the childcarer and the cost of a salary for a childcarer, but we consider that economies of scale – the ratio of children to carer was typically higher in a school than in the average household – counterbalance this consideration.
The value to the institutions of farm produce and other goods to which the children in the institutions contributed by virtue of their labour on the institution farms and trade workshops.
The lodging costs of a child – we have already dealt, in Part 3, with the issue of the capital expenditure costs incurred by the institutions.
Economies of scale.

The institutions may have borne, from the capitation grant, costs of childcare that would not ordinarily have been borne by the typical family. Equally, the institutions benefited from the availability of goods produced by the unwaged labour of children in the care of the institutions.

We have dealt with this issue in part in the sections of the report dealing individually with institutions, by considering the financial consequences for each institution over the period. We also, in this regard, have noted the impact of reducing numbers on the schools. In the latter part of the 1950s the numbers of children committed for Reformatories and Industrial Schools began to decline significantly. At this time, the Resident Managers also began to suggest that some of the schools might have to be closed⁶⁶. In our view it appears that the reduction in numbers brought the schools close to a break-even point – as numbers fell, grant income fell to a point where it was inefficient for the Orders to run the schools. We have dealt with this issue in Part 9 of this report.

Alternate benchmarks

In addition to the benchmarks used, some other potential benchmarks were initially considered but not used. In general, we have not used these benchmarks as they deal with the issue of adequacy from the perspective of different regimes to that which existed at the time. We do, however, consider this type of benchmark in the course of our findings. The potential benchmarks and the reasons for not analysing them in detail are as follows:

State funding provided to Northern Irish and/or British certified schools: A detailed comparison was initially considered but after some research we believed comparison invalid for the following reasons:
– The economic and social circumstances in Ireland and the UK were quite different over the period. For example:

Irish wages were lower
Irish unemployment rates were higher
There was substantial outward migration from Ireland
Ireland’s income per head was about half that of the UK.
– The evidence of Dr Eoin O’Sullivan is that the systems that operated in Ireland and the UK were very different both in terms of (a) school funding and (b) school organisation.

Question: Do we have comparisons with the position of funding as it applied in England and Wales?

Answer: They [Children’s’ Branch of the Home Office] identified a key problem with the funding, that the capitation system of funding encouraged managers to retain high numbers of children. … They identified this as a key stumbling block to the reform of these institutions. In the early 1920’s they abolished the capitation system and replaced it with a block grant system.⁶⁷ ⁶⁸

So we see very clearly from the annual reports of the Children’s Branch of the Home Office its antipathy towards institutionalism [that is, industrial and reformatory schools], as they call it. ‘An ugly word for an ugly thing’, they describe it as. So consistent effort from 1913 onwards to decrease, to close down the institutions, to take over management of the institution from lay management, to reform the funding system and to explore alternatives to institutionalism.⁶⁹

In 1933 in England, they abolished the system of reformatory and industrial schools and the year later, 1934, they abolished the system in Scotland.⁷⁰

The system is abolished in Northern Ireland in 1950.⁷¹

– Contemporaneously, the Department of Finance was of the view that there were significant differences between the British and Irish school systems when it commented:

We were then aware of the disparity between our [Irish] rates and the British rates. The systems and their managements are not comparable.⁷²

• Boarding schools: such schools were not considered a valid comparator as

– The nature and purpose of the schools were very different
– The funding model differed substantially.

• Marlborough House: it was not regarded as directly comparable as its purpose differed from other certified schools – it was a short-stay facility and, as a State-owned facility, subject to a different funding regime than privately owned and operated schools.

• Modern residential care facilities: We do not believe it to be valid to apply modern childcare standard retrospectively as there are many differences in the standards of care that would render such a comparison meaningless. For example, the following items are taken from the research and recommendations of the Kennedy Report and the Interim Report⁷³ and Final Report⁷⁴ of the Task Force on Child Care Services, describing some of the changes under consideration at the time that those reports were drafted:

– The move to small group residential homes
– The improved focus on education as opposed to industrial training
– The use of highly specialised staff

An enhanced focus on the family
A greater focus on parental rights and the rights of the child.

4.4.2 Average industrial earnings and average household size

Data on average industrial earnings was sourced from the CSO’s historical records. This data is presented in euro equivalents in Exhibit 12, along with income after child support payments from the Exchequer.

Exhibit 12: Household earning, household income and income per capita

	Weekly industrial earning	Weekly household income (with children’s allowance)^*	Avg. household size	Income per capita	Ind School weekly capitation	Reform. School weekly capitation
1939	€3.77	€3.77	4.31	€0.87	€0.79	€0.79
1940	€3.90	€3.90	4.31	€0.90	€0.79	€0.79
1941	€3.95	€3.95	4.31	€0.92	€0.79	€0.79
1942	€4.09	€4.09	4.31	€0.95	€0.95	€1.14
1943	€4.33	€4.33	4.31	€1.00	€0.95	€1.14
1944	€4.66	€4.66	4.31	€1.08	€0.95	€1.14
1945	€4.48	€4.48	4.31	€1.04	€0.95	€1.14
1946	€4.86	€4.86	4.16	€1.17	€1.02	€1.21
1947	€5.78	€5.78	4.16	€1.39	€1.21	€1.43
1948	€6.37	€6.37	4.16	€1.53	€1.21	€1.43
1949	€6.69	€6.69	4.16	€1.61	€1.21	€1.43
1950	€6.86	€6.86	4.16	€1.65	€1.37	€1.71
1951	€7.70	€7.70	4.07	€1.89	€1.71	€1.90
1952	€7.70	€8.40	4.07	€2.06	€1.71	€2.10
1953	€8.53	€9.23	4.07	€2.27	€1.71	€2.10
1954	€8.80	€9.50	4.07	€2.33	€1.71	€2.10
1955	€9.28	€9.98	4.07	€2.45	€1.71	€2.10
1956	€9.75	€10.45	4.06	€2.57	€1.71	€2.10
1957	€10.02	€11.01	4.06	€2.71	€2.86	€3.05
1958	€11.24	€12.23	4.06	€3.01	€2.86	€3.05
1959	€11.63	€12.62	4.06	€3.11	€2.86	€3.05
1960	€12.52	€13.51	4.06	€3.33	€2.86	€3.05
1961	€13.43	€14.42	3.97	€3.63	€2.86	€3.05
1962	€14.72	€15.71	3.97	€3.96	€2.86	€3.05
1963	€15.43	€16.42	3.97	€4.14	€3.17	€3.36
1964	€16.99	€17.98	3.97	€4.53	€3.49	€3.68
1965	€17.69	€18.68	3.97	€4.71	€4.29	€4.48
1966	€18.72	€20.34	4.01	€5.07	€4.29	€4.48
1967	€19.66	€21.28	4.01	€5.31	€4.76	€4.95
1968	€21.78	€23.40	4.01	€5.84	€5.24	€5.43
1969	€23.07	€24.69	4.01	€6.16	€10.48	€10.86

Note: Children’s allowance was introduced in 1944 and between 1944 and 1952 only the third and subsequent children qualified. Please note that children’s allowance was intended as a support payment or income supplement; it was not intended to meet the full maintenance cost of a child.

Sources: Some Statistics of Wages and Hours Worked (Various1940–70), CSO.

Historical social welfare data provided on request by Department of Social and Family Affairs. Census Reports (1939, 1946, 1961 & 1971), CSO.

As were the social norms of the time, the typical household had one male wage earner, as the convention was that married women ceased to work outside the home post-marriage. Hence, average weekly household income can be approximated by adding weekly industrial earnings to the child support payment to which all parents/guardians were entitled. Our analysis assumes two children per household as this is a fair reflection of the average household size throughout the review period (as confirmed by the relevant population census).

Once we divide weekly household income by average household size we get the first benchmark against which to compare capitations payments – household income per capita. Please note that in constructing this benchmark we do not assume that capitation payments should be equal to household income per capita. However, the comparison is illustrative of the correlation in movements in household income per capita and capitation payments.

For ease of interpretation the last three columns in Exhibit 12 above are shown graphically in Exhibit 13.

Exhibit 13: Household income per head and capitation rates

Sources:

Some Statistics of Wages and Hours Worked (Various1940–70), CSO.

Historical social welfare data provided on request by Department of Social and Family Affairs.

Census Reports (1939, 1946, 1961 & 1971), CSO.

The data and the graph show that:

o For the years between 1939 and 1949 the industrial school capitation was 88 percent of household income per head (not household income per child).
o For the years between 1950 and 1959 the industrial school capitation was 83 percent of household income per head (not household income per child).
o For the years between 1960 and 1969 the industrial school capitation was 92 percent of household income per head (not household income per child).

Thus, we see a drop in the level of capitation as a percentage of average household income per capita in the 1950s and early 1960s, but this gap was closed and subsequently reversed. Over the 30 years weekly capitation payments to Industrial Schools tracked the movement in income per head as, on average, the Industrial School capitation grant was 88 percent of household income per head. Broadly speaking this exhibit illustrates that the variables, household income per capita and capitation payments, moved in line over the period with capitation lagging behind household income per head.

4.4.3 Unemployment benefit

Those who were in paid employment and made sufficient social insurance contributions were entitled to unemployment benefit. Exhibit 14 shows capitation payments against a single male’s weekly unemployment benefit between 1939 and 1969.

Exhibit 14: Unemployment benefit and capitation rates

Sources:

Historical social welfare data provided on request by Department of Social and Family Affairs.

The data and Exhibit 14 show that:

o For the years between 1939 and 1949 the industrial school capitation was 92 percent of unemployment benefit.
o For the years between 1950 and 1959 the industrial school capitation was 121 percent of unemployment benefit.
o For the years between 1960 and 1969 the industrial school capitation was 155 percent of unemployment benefit.

4.4.4 Expenditure on child maintenance

The following analysis draws on the CSO’s Household Budget Survey of 1965–66 and uses the data for that year to construct an index of household expenditure per child.

The 1965–66 Household Budget Survey data was gathered in such a way that it is possible to extrapolate the expenditure differential between:

Households with just two adults
Households with two adults and one child
Households with two adults and two children
Households with two adults and three children.

By examining the expenditure differential across the relevant expenditure categories covered by the Act (lodgings, clothing, feeding and education) we calculate a measure of expenditure per child for that year. By adjusting for inflation it is possible to produce an index of household expenditure per child over the review period as shown in Exhibit 16. This index is most robust for the five years before and after 1965–66.

Exhibit 15: Average household expenditure per child index 1965–66 base

1960-69

This analysis suggests that the weekly capitation was appropriate for its intended purpose as weekly capitation exceeded expenditure incurred per child by a typical household.

Our analysis (detailed data in Appendix II) also demonstrates that:

For households with one child, the weekly capitation was, for most of the period, less than the actual expenditure incurred in maintaining that only child.
For households with two children weekly capitation was always significantly more than the actual expenditure incurred in maintaining the second child.
For households with three children weekly capitation was always significantly more than the actual expenditure incurred in maintaining the third child.

What this points to is that there are clear economies of scale associated with meeting the costs of child maintenance. As the numbers of children in a household increase two things happen: (a) the incremental or marginal cost of that additional child is less than the incremental cost of maintaining the previous child; and (b) this serves to drag the average maintenance cost per child downwards. Unfortunately we do not have data to measure the economies of scale likely to arise in a Reformatory or Industrial School situation.

It must be noted that for the reference household in the 1965–66 survey, household expenditure exceeds income by some 15 percent. We have not sought to question the validity of the CSO’s data as there are many possible reasons for this such as:

It may well have been the case that households were spending more that their income either by going into debt or running down their savings.
True household income may have exceeded stated income, e.g. undeclared income.

A similar household analysis was undertaken using the CSO’s Household Budget Survey of 1951–52. In this case we are only able to construct an index of household expenditure per person (not per child). It is our view reasonable to consider that more is spent on goods and services per adult than is spent per child. This view is supported by the fact that where household expenditure data is split between expenditure on adult and children’s items the adult expenditure is higher, e.g. clothing in the 1951–52 Household Budget Survey and the 1965–66 Household Budget Survey. Further support for this view is provided in the analysis of the 1965–66 Household Budget Survey on which the expenditure per child is calculated.

We use as our reference household the largest possible household category with 8.31 persons. The reason for choosing largest possible household category as the reference household is that, of all possible households, it contains the greatest number of children. In this case children accounted for 3.96 persons or 48 percent of the household. By way of comparison, children account for just 32 percent⁷⁵ of persons in the average household across all categories in the sample. Thus, our reference household is the household with the highest proportion of children.

Again, we adjust our analysis to exclude expenditure headings not covered by the capitation grant, e.g. alcoholic drink and tobacco.

Exhibit 16: Average household expenditure per person index 1951–52 base 1946-56

As before, the index is most robust for the five years before and after 1951–52, but it is still illustrative for the entire period.

This exhibit demonstrates that in the period 1946–56 the capitation grant was less than the average expenditure per person in a large household. From the late 1940s the gap narrowed significantly and was reversed by 1957. However, this composite household is made up of 3.96 children and 4.35 adults and it is reasonable to expect that the adult expenditure is pulling the average expenditure per person upwards.

For both the 1951–52 and the 1965–66 Household Budget Surveys the source data has been analysed to show expenditure on lodging, clothing, feeding and other goods and services. The reason for doing this is to show expenditure under the headings relevant under the 1908 Act, i.e. lodging (which is taken to include fuel and lighting), clothing and feeding. All items that do not fall into this classification are classed under ‘other’ and include expenditure on services, miscellaneous items and sundry items, e.g. transport, entertainment, education and training, etc. While education was included under the 1908 Act a direct comparison with household expenditure data in respect of this item is not informative because the expenditure in the household survey relate to incidental costs of education, while the expenditure in the schools refers to the cost of teaching. It should also be noted in this context that the Industrial Schools were, from 1946 onwards, in a position to receive the primary grant, contributing towards the cost of educating the children in the schools.

For the 1965–66 Household Budget Survey we are able to show expenditure per child. As noted, it shows that the average expenditure per child is below both capitation rates which is taken to imply that the capitation grant was capable of maintaining a child by comparison with the domestic setting.

Exhibit 17: Average household expenditure per child index 1965–66 base 1960-69 by expenditure category

Examining the lodging, clothing, feeding and other expenditure we can see the following:

Food was the most expensive item of expenditure (accounting for 39 percent of total the weekly analysed).
Lodging, which includes fuel and light, was the second most expensive item of expenditure (34 percent of expenditure).
Clothing was the least expensive item of expenditure (5 percent of expenditure).
The ‘other’ category was the third most expensive item of expenditure (22 percent of expenditure).

This analysis further supports our interpretation of the capitation grants’ adequacy to the requirements of the 1908 Act, as it was sufficient to cover food, lodging and clothing. It was also sufficient to cover the other expenditure items reflected in the 1965–66 Household Budget Survey.

For the 1951–52 Household Budget Survey we show expenditure per person, not per child, as we are unable to isolate the expenditure per child. The exhibit demonstrates that in the period 1946–56 the capitation grant was less than the average expenditure per person in a large household. However, this composite household is made up of 3.96 children and 4.35 adults and it is reasonable to expect that the adult expenditure is pulling the average expenditure per person upwards.

Exhibit 18: Average household expenditure per person index 1951–52 base 1947-56 by expenditure category

Looking at expenditure on the basis of lodging, clothing, feeding and other expenditure shows:

Food was again the most expensive item of expenditure (accounting for 46 percent of total the weekly spending analysed). At all times in the period 1947–56 the capitation grant was sufficient cover food costs based on the expenditure incurred per person in the domestic setting.
Clothing amounted to 12 percent of expenditure and at all times in the period 1947–56 the capitation grant was sufficient cover clothing and food costs based on the expenditure incurred per person in the domestic setting.
Lodging represented 14 percent of expenditure. The cumulative cost of lodging, clothing and feeding were covered by the Reformatory School grant for the 1949–56 period. However, it was not until 1951 that the weekly Industrial School grant was sufficient to cover the cumulative costs of lodging, clothing and feeding
In the 1951–52 Household Budget Survey the other category was the second most expensive item of expenditure (27 percent of expenditure). Our analysis indicates that the capitation grant, at best, only made a contribution towards this cost. However, this expenditure category included items not covered by the Children Act 1908.

4.4.5 Comparison with Britain

Just as we were able to establish the weekly capitation rates in the State from the Children Act 1941 and related statutory instruments pursuant to section 21 of the Act a similar exercise was conducted for Britain. This yielded comparative Exchequer capitation payments, channelled through local authorities, under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 in (a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland.

As noted earlier in this chapter, we believe that the usefulness of this comparator is limited, as it does not relate to the regime that pertained in the Republic of Ireland. However, we do believe that it provides some indication of the relative scale of funding, in comparison with some of our near neighbours.

Exhibit 19: Capitation rates in Ireland, Scotland, England & Wales

Sources:

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and related statutory instruments (UK)

From 1939–47 the capitation rates in Ireland and Scotland were comparable but about half the rate available in England and Wales. From 1948 onwards a widening gap opened between the UK and Irish capitation rates. It is noticeable that changes in the capitation rates tend to move in tandem; however we do not draw a particular conclusion from this point.

5. Christian Brothers – Artane

This section of our report deals with our consideration of the financial information available in respect of the Industrial School at Artane, County Dublin, run by the Christian Brothers between 1939 and 1969. In the course of our review we considered the following terms of reference identified by the Commission:

A review of the application of State Funding to the care of children in the institution
A commentary on the effects of changes in the number of children in the relevant institutions over the period 1939–69
A commentary on staffing/student ratios over the period of the review
The financial consequences for the relevant institutions as a result of caring for the children over the period 1939–69.

5.1 Background to financial information

The Industrial School at Artane was founded in 1870 on lands at Artane Castle purchased for an amount of Stg£7,000. We have seen the following documentation in relation to this transaction, and the subsequent establishment of the industrial school.

Draft conveyance dated 18th July 1870
Memorial of conveyance 19th July 1870
Letter dated 20th June 1870 on behalf of the purchasers of Artane Castle to the Chief Secretary for Ireland requesting that the facilities be examined for and granted certification as an Industrial School
Letter dated 5th July 1870 from Mr John Lentaigne, Inspector, reporting on a visit to Artane Castle on 24th June 1870 and concluding that the facilities were well suited to the purpose of an Industrial School.

These documents are at Appendix XXIV. The letter of 5th July 1870 refers to the purchase of the lands as being for the purpose of an Industrial School. The opening paragraph of the letter notes:

I beg to report that on the 24^th ultimo I visited Artane Castle, Co. Dublin, and found it in every way, well suited for the purposes of an Industrial School for boys. Indeed I was consulted as to its fitness before the purchase was concluded.

We understand that the Christian Brothers have identified documentation from 1927 that indicates that the lands at Artane Castle were initially purchased for the purpose of the establishment of a novitiate. This does not appear to accord with the sequence of documents identified above or with the history of the school recounted in the letter of 5 July 1870.

The Christian Brothers managed the facility at Artane from 1939 to 1969. The facility provided accommodation in respect of 772 children committed there at 30th September 1939 declining to 24 children by 30th September 1969.

Artane incorporated a primary school for those children committed to the institution. A continuation school functioned in the evening time for those who worked on the farm or in trades. A vocational school was also operated in Artane. Trades taught included:

Farming (including poultry)
Tailoring
Weaving and hosiery
Carpentry
Baking
Bookmaking
Painting
Hairdressing and laundry.

The Christian Brothers in Artane also operated a substantial farming operation in a number of dispersed locations. The table at Exhibit 20 shows the locations and quantity of land farmed as at November 1949. We are aware from a Visitation Report that a parcel of land was sold during the year 1959 for an amount of equivalent €4,839,⁷⁶ which would have reduced the figures quoted below. The Visitation Report from May 1968 makes a reference to ‘negotiations are at present proceeding to sell nearly half the total area. About 100 acres are being retained in the immediate vicinity of the buildings.’

Exhibit 20 – Artane farm land – November 1949⁷⁷

Farmlands	Acreage	Type
Belcamp Farm	32 Acres	Grazing land
Woodville	63 Acres	Grazing land
Kilmore	76 Acres	Tillage and grazing land
Home Farm	182 Acres	Tillage and grazing land
Total	353 Acres

A number of the Visitation Reports make reference to the extent of the work performed on the farm by the boys and also the transfer of produce from the farm to the institution. The Visitation Report from November 1950 refers to the value of produce from the farm provided to the institution – the amount quoted in the report equates to an equivalent €12,269. Total income from all sources for the institution in 1950 was an equivalent €64,452.

Books and records

Summary income and expenditure – school accounts

Exhibit 21 – Summary income and expenditure 1940–69

	1940–49	1950–59	1960–69	TOTAL
	€	€	€	€
INCOME	493,018	871,580	929,580	2,294,178

EXPENDITURE	507,429	842,366	1,015,201	2,364,996

SURPLUS /<DEFICIT>	<14,411>	29,214	<85,621>	<70,818>

The accounts of the Artane Industrial School income and expenditure accounts for the period 1940–69 record that the expenditure exceeded the income by equivalent €70,818.

1940–49

The combined deficit of equivalent €14,411 for the period 1940–49 was funded in part by:

A transfer from the Building fund of equivalent €4,263 in 1940
An increase in the Schools overdraft to equivalent €5,742 at the end of the decade.

1950–59

In the years to 1959 a surplus of equivalent €29,214 was realised. During this period there was a very low level of capital expenditure. Any surplus generated was carried forward from year to year for use by the school.

1960–69

The figures for this period show the overall deficit generated was equivalent €85,621. The major factor giving rise to the deficit is that significant capital expenditure, particularly on the building, was made during this period. The amount expended was equivalent €182,098.

Summary income and expenditure – house accounts

We have carried out an examination of the house accounts as the interaction of the house and school appear central to an understanding of the financial position of the Artane institution. The house accounts presented to us cover the years 1940–69. These accounts show that the income credited to the House exceeded expenditure by equivalent €339,724.

Exhibit 22: Income and expenditure summaries 1940–69

	1940–49	1950–59	1960–69	Total

Income	78,696	134,781	391,294	604,771

Expenditure	76,113	77,721	111,214	265,048

Surplus	2,583	57,061	280,080	339,724

The most significant items contributing to the recorded surpluses are stipends or allowances for the Brothers engaged in the day to day management of the institution, and income generated from the disposal of lands. During the 1940s stipends represented 85 percent of total income of the house. In the 1950s stipends represented 68.6 percent of income, with sales of land generating a further 10.6 percent of total income. In the 1960s stipends represented 22 percent of total income, with sales of land accounting for 63.2 percent.

5.2 Analysis of income and expenditure

School accounts

The main sources of income recorded in the school accounts are as follows:

Department of Education grants
County and borough council grants
Primary school grant
Industrial departments
Sale of farm produce
School band performances.

The main sources of expenditure over the period 1939–69 include:

Wages, salaries and insurance stamps
Industrial departments
Farm (including poultry farm)
Provisions purchased
Clothing
Repairs and decoration
Fuel, light and power
Rents, rates and taxes
Band expenses
Laundry and cleaning.

For the years where detailed information was available we carried out an analysis of the percentage of total income for the Institution deriving from the Department of Education and the county and borough councils (capitation grants). As can be seen from Exhibit 23 below the most significant portion of income for the institution over the period 1940–69 was derived from the Department of Education – including primary school capitation funds – and the county and borough council grants.

Exhibit 23: Main sources of income 1940–69

Sources of Income	1940–49	1950–59	1960–69
	%	%	%

Capitation/Maintenance Grants	84	81	81

Sundry Income	2	1	2

Trades/Farm Income	10	15	13

School Band		1	3

Sweet Shop and Store	1	1	1

Total	97%	99%	100%
Other income sources immaterial

From the detailed income and expenditure accounts provided in Appendix IV it is apparent that the school was virtually self-sufficient, providing the majority of its needs from the farm and the various other activities carried on within the school. This is evidenced by the low levels of expenditure on clothing and provisions, and is also reflected in a number of the Visitation Reports:

Two beasts are killed weekly for consumption in the Institution. The farm supplies, besides meat, milk, potatoes, vegetables, meal and a good quantity of flour used in bread making.⁷⁸

The main idea in working it is to supply the needs of the boys and Brothers. It is well stocked and cultivated. The milk supplied last year amounted to £2482:17:6; wheat £1,100; meat, potatoes and vegetables together £5,817. The net gain on the farm for the period was £6,600. A staff of 9 workmen helped by 50 boys can do all the work in connection with the stock, crops and harvesting.⁷⁹

To provide the Artane boys with breakfast 100 gallons of tea are necessary. To provide them with dinner for a week requires two well finished, fat, three year old cattle. Two hundred 4lb loaves just meet the breakfast table.⁸⁰

The main items of expenditure in each of the decades examined are summarised in the following table.

Exhibit 24 – Analysis of the major items of expenditure 1940–69

	1940–49	1950–59	1960–69
	%	%	%
Industrial departments	18%	21%	9%
Farm, poultry & garden	12%	12%	7%
Salaries & wages	28%	20%	16%
Provisions purchased	13%	16%	17%
Clothing	3%	2%	4%
Fuel, light, power	8%	7%	6%
Capital expenditure	–	1%	18%
Transfer to Community account	7%	11%	8%
Other	11%	10%	15%
Total	100%	100%	100%

It is particularly evident that figures for the 1960s are impacted significantly by the reducing number of children attending the school. However, over a number of categories expenditure was relatively consistent for the period, for example provisions purchased, clothing and fuel, light and power, reflecting the unchanging requirement for this expenditure. Break-even analysis, which is detailed further in Part 9 of this report, examines this issue in more detail.

Farm and industrial expenditure

We have already noted that the institution at Artane included a sizeable farm and a significant number of trades, which the boys worked at as part of their training. The accounts presented to us show both income and costs relating to the farm and trade activity. These are summarised in exhibit 25 below.

Exhibit 25 – Farm and industrial expenditure 1940–69

	1940–49	1950–59	1960–69	Total
Farm income	54,671	133,947	122,122	310,740
Farm expenditure	58,979	99,624	72,866	231,469
Farm surplus/deficit	(4,308)	34,324	49,256	79,271

A review of the available visitation reports indicates that these figures may not be entirely consistent with other contemporary records. The 1947 Visitor commented that:

There was a net gain on the farm last year of £2,763.

The 1946 accounts show a net deficit for that year of £1,143. Similarly, the 1950 accounts show a deficit of £3,471, while the Visitation Report for that year suggests that the farm recorded a surplus of approximately £6,000. Later Visitors Report surpluses that align more closely with the accounts presented.

The produce of the industrial trades seems to have been primarily consumed by the institution. The accounts of institution do not identify significant earnings from this source. The Visitation Report of 1952 comments:

Artane has a more elaborate organisation of trades than our other Industrial Schools. These trades serve, or are supposed to serve, a dual purpose – training the boys for outside life and balancing the Artane budget….each shop has one or more trained lay tradesmen. In practice, some of the trades serve only one purpose. For example, the wages of the two shoemakers amount to £800 per annum. It is believed that this sum plus the money expended on leather would supply the boys with factor-made boots for one year. On the other hand, the tinsmiths supply the establishment with such things as kitchen-ware, refectory-ware at a cost well below factory prices, but no boy has been placed as a tinsmith in any outside factory in the past six years.⁸¹

From the available evidence we believe that it is reasonable to conclude that the contribution to the financial position of the institution at Artane by trades and, in particular, farm was very significant.

In addition to the economic contribution of the farm and trades to life at Artane, these activities also served to train the boys for occupations outside of the institution. The Christian Brothers have provided us with the following analysis of the numbers of boys participating in trades over the period of our review.

Exhibit 26

Trade	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1950	1963	1965	1966

Bakers	11	16	10	9	10	9	6	d.
Barbers	4	8
Blacksmiths	6	6	4	5	d.
Bootmakers	46	50	35	41	35	41	16	?	x
Carpenters	6	6	7	6	6	9	21*	2	x
Cart/wheelwrights	13	14	14	14	d.
Farmers	65	60	66	60	73	50	13	6	6
Fitters	10	9	8	7	6	7	3	?	d
Gardeners	15	?	14	?	?	?	1	?	?
Laundry							3	?	?
Millers	?	2	–	–	–	–	d
Painters	4	8	7	10	12	13	6	6	d
Poultry farmers	5	?	5	?	?	?	3
Tailors	92	75	80	54	42	46	20	5	x
Tinsmiths	2	?	3	7	?	6
Waiters/kitchen	10	?	?	?	?	?	10	?	?
Weavers	18	25	23	24	30	32	23	5	x
Total	267**	279	276	237	214	213	128	24?	6?
Total in school	800	812	818	794	789	762	317	301	327

Sheet-metal working: discontinued in the early 1940s due to wartime shortages of material.
* Includes 10 in carpentry machine shop
** Excluding 40 part-timers included in 1943 returns
x These shops, together with metal-working, continued (no numbers given)
d Discontinued

Capital expenditure

There were no major items of capital expenditure for the Institution over the period 1940–49 although an amount of IR£18,916 (approximately €24,000) was expended from the house accounts in 1948 and 1949 on a new sanitary block, a play shelter and a hen house. The overall deficit achieved for the institution over this period was equivalent €14,411.

During the period 1950–59 the school achieved a surplus of equivalent €29,214, after capital expenditure of equivalent €8,388. Capital expenditure was greatest during the 1960s when equivalent €182,098 was spent on improvements and additions to the institution.

We have seen that the level of capital expenditure was quite low for much of the 1940s, with the exception of the additions recorded in the house accounts in the latter part of the decade, and 1950s. The expenditure in the 1960s was very significant by comparison, reflecting perhaps the need to address degeneration in the standard of accommodation over time. The Visitation Reports provide us with some evidence as to the condition of buildings, although they are far from unanimous in their appraisal – some Visitors appearing to place more emphasis on the cleanliness and order of the institution, while others drew attention to progressive decline of aspects of the state of the premises. The 1947 Visitation Report presents a summary of that Visitor’s impression:

All of the premises are being cared for very well. The newer portion of the Brothers Dwelling shows signs of dampness. The boy’s lavatories are altogether antiquated. I believe new ones are to be built in the near future. The school buildings are also condemned as unsafe and new ones will be required as soon as possible. The playhall is too small and is unheated in winter. The shower-baths and foot-baths are good and efficient. The dormitories are neatly kept and the floors spotlessly clean.⁸²

While the records show that expenditure was incurred in the late 1940s on the upgrade of some of these items, later reports record continuing concerns in this regard:

A good deal of repair work is calling out for attention in this establishment. In the large main buildings the roofs are in a bad state due to deterioration of lead and timber. Rain is coming down in some parts and, as a consequence, the paint is perishing right down to the Main Hall. These repairs demand immediate attention. In the Brothers’ Monastery, there is similar deterioration due to leaking roofs and the Bathroom is in a bad state.⁸³

To provide adequate and suitable accommodation and recreation halls for the boys is a crying necessity. But as the future of the school is so uncertain it would probably be unwise to undertake any major schemes at present. A new toilet block for the Brothers residence was completed last year at the cost of £1200. The house and Chapel including the Sacristy are clean and well kept.⁸⁴

The issue of whether and how the school premises might be improved, given the declining numbers of residents from the 1950s, was further considered in later reports. It appears that two options were contemplated – building a new school or creating new classroom space in the main building. The 1959 Visitation Report indicates that this latter option was approved by the Department.⁸⁵

The 1960s saw a considerable investment in Artane. The 1963 Report describes some of the expenditure incurred:

The present Superior has been responsible for quite a number of very necessary improvements in the Institution since he became Superior in 1958. The following particulars give some idea of the extent of these improvements. I give also the approximate costs.

Alterations, additions and repairs to boys kitchen and refectory £29,253.0.0

Repairs to dormitories, which includes painting £4,933.0.0

Repairs to boys’ washrooms and toilets £7,559.0.0

Repairs to work-shops, which includes some new machinery £4,668.0.0

General repairs to roads including re-surfacing` £3,000.0.0

Repairs to dwelling house, which includes painting £1,698.0.0

New class rooms and boiler house. Total expenses £24,427.0.0

Less amount refunded by the Board of Works £14,341.0.0

Net amount incurred by Artane £ 9,906.0.0.⁸⁶

We note that the Board of Works refund mentioned above is not reflected in either the school or house accounts. An amount of £6,441 is recorded in the 1971 school accounts, but we believe that to relate to subsequent works.

It is not apparent from the Visitation Reports as to why the decision to take an extensive programme of upgrade and refurbishment was undertaken, when reports from the later part of the 1950s stressed the uncertainty of the future of the institution and the inappropriateness of incurring such costs in that environment. The most significant element of the capital expenditure incurred by the school was during the period 1963–68, when the numbers of children in the institution were significantly in decline.

Funding capital expenditure

The capital expenditure incurred in Artane was funded primarily from the school account – with the exception of the items funded in the 1940s by the house, and refunds received from the Board of Works referred to above. The house accounts in the 1950s and 1960s show very low levels of capital expenditure.

The house accounts presented to us also make reference to a building fund account. This shows a net asset of £193,000 at 31st July 1969, an amount which is consistent with the 1968 Visitation Report⁸⁷. This fund does not seem to have been drawn on to provide for the significant capital expenditure in the 1960s. It is not clear from the accounts presented how the assets in this fund were accumulated or where the funds were held, although taken together with the cash on hand of the house, it appears that virtually all of the surplus in the house accounts has been lodged either to the house bank account or the building fund . Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that the primary source of this fund is the sources of income of the house – with the receipts from the sale of lands at Artane contributing significantly to the fund.

Closure of the Industrial School

The Industrial School at Artane was closed in 1969. Subsequently, the property and lands were used as a secondary school, operated and managed by the Christian Brothers. It is our understanding that the beneficial title to the lands and property at Artane continued to be vested in the Christian Brothers Order.

The house accounts

We have been provided with House Accounts for Artane for the period 1940–69. We have extracted from these accounts a summary of the key items of income and expenditure by decade.

Exhibit 27 – Analysis of the house accounts 1940–69

	1940–49		1950–59		1960–69
	€	%	€	%	€	%
Income
Dividends on stock	3,631	4.6%	682	0.5%	874	0.2%
⁸⁸Limited stipends	31,039	39.4%	1,450	1.1%	0	0.0%
Rents receivable	1,905	2.4%	3,720	2.8%	2,781	0.7%
Interest on loans	4,692	6.0%	10,558	7.8%	30,911	7.9%
Bank interest receivable	508	0.6%	574	0.4%	4,675	1.2%
Sales of land	0	0.0%	14,394	10.7%	247,450	63.2%
Old age pension	0	0.0%	367	0.3%	1,001	0.3%
Teachers pension	0	0.0%	940	0.7%	9,588	2.5%
Brother’s allowance	36,204	46.0%	92,532	68.7%	86,088	22.0%
Teachers salary	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	2,655	0.7%
Other	717	0.9%	9565	7.1%	5,272	1.3%

	78,695	100.0%	134,781	100.0%	391,294	100.0%
Expenditure
Vegetables, fruit, garden	253	0.3%	47	0.1%	0	0.0%
Groceries,tobacco, mineral	1,030	1.4%	3,629	4.7%	6,368	5.7%
Wine etc.	1,152	1.5%	1,806	2.3%	2,352	2.1%
Clothing	6,227	8.2%	7,489	9.6%	7,729	6.9%
Laundry and cleansing	895	1.2%	1,465	1.9%	1,204	1.1%
Medical expenses	4,604	6.0%	5,897	7.6%	4,591	4.1%
Postage, papers stationery	866	1.1%	1,182	1.5%	1,432	1.3%
Vacation expenses	6,731	8.8%	10,861	14.0%	11,734	10.6%
Travelling	1,234	1.6%	2,324	3.0%	3,522	3.2%
Alms, donations, mass	3,751	4.9%	1,755	2.3%	3,040	2.7%
Fuel and light	17	0.0%	0	0.0%	1	0.0%
Visitation dues	16,481	21.7%	31,747	40.8%	34,346	30.9%
Rents, rates, taxes, insurance	4	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
Repairs of premises	1,359	1.8%	599	0.8%	589	0.5%
Capital expenditure	736	1.0%	962	1.2%	955	0.9%
Interest on loans and overdrafts	2,765	3.6%	2,358	3.0%	0	0.0%
Bank charges, cheques	18	0.0%	39	0.1%	46	0.0%
Sundries	1,596	2.1%	5,560	7.2%	33,305	29.9%
Capex and cash – school	26,395	34.7%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%

	76,113	100.0%	77,721	100.0%	111,214	100.0%
Surplus	2,582		57,061		280,080

As we have already noted, the house accounts show a surplus for the period 1940–69 of equivalent €339,723. This surplus arises primarily in the 1960s, although each of the decades reviewed shows a surplus of income over expenditure.

1940–49 shows a surplus of equivalent €2,582. During the decade the house contributed equivalent €26,395 toward capital expenditure on the school. Stipends, including limited stipends, of equivalent €67,243 represented 85 percent of total income during the period.

1950–59 shows a surplus of equivalent €57,061. Brothers’ allowances were augmented by the proceeds of disposal of lands at Artane and interest income to provide for costs that, excluding capital expenditure on the school, had increased by over 50 percent on the previous decade. Visitation dues represented a significant portion of the increase, accounting for 40 percent of total expenditure during the period.

1960–69 shows a surplus of equivalent €280,080. The most significant element of income is the proceeds from sale of lands at Artane. Excluding this income, other income of equivalent €143,844 was sufficient to cover costs booked during the period, leaving a contribution towards surplus of equivalent €32,630.

An overview of the three decades might be summarised as follows:

Exhibit 28 – Overview 1940–69

	€
Stipends, salaries and allowances	261,863
Rent, dividends and interest	65,510
Other Income	15,554

Operating expenditure	(153,530)
Visitation dues	(82,575)

Surplus before capex	106,822

Income from sale of lands	261,844
Capital expenditure	(28,942)

Surplus per house accounts	339,723

5.3 Numbers of children and staff

Number of residents

Exhibit 29 below graphs the numbers of children committed to Artane over the period 1939–69, the reference period for our report.

Exhibit 29: The number of children committed at Artane from 30th September 1939 to 30^th September 1969

We can see from the above figures that there was a steady and almost unchecked decline in the number of children committed from the late 1940s.

The break-even analysis at Part 9 considers this issue in more detail.

Staffing numbers

From the Visitation Report of November 1952 we are aware that ‘Artane has a more elaborate organization of trades than our other Industrial Schools’. The types of trades offered included bakers, blacksmiths, boot makers, carpenters, fitters, millers, painters, tailors. Due to the variety of trades offered there was also a consequent demand for lay workers and instructors for the various trades and farm work.

Exhibit 30: The number of lay workers v number of Brothers employed in Artane Industrial School during the review period

The student to staff ratio over the period, is summarised in Exhibit 31 below. The overall ratio of students to all staff was between 12 and 15 to 1 for most of the 1940s and 1950s. From the late 1950s the ratio increased to approximately 10 to 1, ultimately increasing to 2 to 1 in 1969.

Exhibit 31 – Student to staff ratio 1939–69

* Estimate – figures not available for year

The Visitation Report dated November 1957 gives an insight into the implications of the declining numbers of residents at Artane.

The falling numbers in the Primary School is reflected in the small number available for part-time trades and obviously it will be getting more and more difficult to maintain such a diversity of Trades. This diversity also increases the numbers on the staff. At present there are 28 active Brothers and at least 40 other employees. A staff of 68 to look after 526 boys would appear to be completely out of proportion. Their wage bill for the 40 employees amounts to over £13,000 per annum which would be 25% approx of the grants received from the Industrial Schools Branch and the Various County Councils and if even, say, £300 per Brother were allowed it would mean that almost 45% of the grants given for the support of the boys goes out in upkeep for the staff. In addition to all this there are 168 boys employed, without payment, in various activities.

Throughout the 1940s and up until the 1950s there was a somewhat consistent number of lay employees and Brothers involved with the institution. There was approximately 38–46 lay workers and approximately 31–36 Brothers (with an average of 16 teaching in the primary school). When the school numbers fell significantly, for the first time, in 1955 to 653 (1954: 737), a decrease of 11 percent, the school responded by initially reducing the numbers of Brothers from 36 to 26, while making little change to the number of lay workers. Through the late 1950s and into the 1960s student numbers continued to fall by an average of 14 percent per annum. In response the number of lay staff employed was reduced considerably from 38 in 1955 to just 12 in 1969, however there was not a dramatic decrease in the numbers of Brothers involved in the School. From the Visitation Report of May 1968 we know that there were 25 Brothers employed, and 20 at May 1969.

An analysis of payroll records made available to us by the Christian Brothers shows that the average number of employees in each activity was as follows. In addition we understand that approximately 15 Brothers taught in the school.

Exhibit 32

	1940–49	1950–59	1960–69
Bakers	1	1	1
Boilersman	1	2	1
Bootmaker	2	2	2
Carpenter	1	2	3
Cart/wheelwright	1	0	0
Chaplain	0	0	1
Farmers	14	14	10
Gardeners	1	1	2
Laundry	4	5	3
Kitchen	2	2	2
Millers	1	1	0
Painters	1	1	1
Tailors	2	3	3
Teachers	5	2	1
Tinsmiths	1	1	1
Weavers	2	3	2

Total	40	39	30

Appendix V to this report summarises the numbers and roles of Brothers at Artane over the period 1939–69. Appendix VI provides information in relation to the lay staff employed. Appendix VII deals with the numbers of Brothers employed as teachers.

5.4 Financial consequences for the relevant institution of caring for the children

In the normal course, one would look to a balance sheet or statement of affairs as a primary record of the financial position and, accordingly, the financial consequences of an activity. We have not had sight of a balance sheet in respect of Artane Industrial School for any year during the period under review. However, we have been advised that an overdraft of equivalent €111,737 was cleared by the Order in respect of the school, at closure. This overdraft, while somewhat larger than the deficit recorded in the school accounts, might be considered to represent the significant element of a balance sheet at 1969. Similarly, while a formal balance sheet has not been prepared for the house, we believe that the building fund and bank balances attaching to the house constitute the most significant components of a balance sheet. Obviously, both of these ‘balance sheets’ exclude the value of the lands and buildings at Artane, which might properly be included either to the account of the house,or the Order, as we understand that the title to the property is vested in a number of Brothers on behalf of the Order. For the purposes of our work we have assumed that neither the school nor the house had any significant assets and liabilities, other than the land and buildings at Artane and bank accounts identified, at 1st January 1940, an assumption broadly corroborated by the Visitation Report of 1942⁸⁹ which notes:

The Community account has a credit at Bank of £6,990, and the School account has a credit of £3,568.

While these sums were not insubstantial at the time, they are of a magnitude that suggest that it is reasonable to believe that the surplus/deficit shown in the school and house accounts, and the various bank and building fund balances at 1969 represent an accurate picture of the financial consequences of running the institution from 1939–69.

The closing balance sheet of the community at Artane might be summarised as follows;

Exhibit 33

Cumulative 1939–69	School €	House €	Total €

Cumulative surplus/ (deficit)	(70,818)	339,724	268,906

Represented by:

Balance at bank	(97,407)⁹⁰	116,422⁹¹	19,015
Building fund		245,059	245,059

Land & buildings⁹²
Net assets/(liabilities)	(97,407)	361,481	264,074

We have been advised that the Order funded a final overdraft on the school of equivalent €111,737.

The Visitation Report of 1966 comments as follows on the relationship between the School and the House:

The Accounts are carefully kept and everything ‘shows’ for any Department Inspector to inspect. There are two Accounts – a School Account and a House Account. In addition to supporting the boys the School supports the Brothers to the extent of food, maintenance but not clothing or medical or any luxury items. In addition there is transferred from the School Account to the House Account each year £300 per Brother for extra services, etc. This is shown in the School Accounts. There is a debt on the School of £72,891-10-4, interest free because the House Account carries a Savings Account in the Bank of that amount. In the Building Fund the House Account has £193,000 on loan in addition. The School Account runs at a deficit each year due to the fact that it gets only £5-7-6 per boy per week, which is not enough, they say. It seems that the Bursar’s Office is run very efficiently and with care.⁹³

As well as presenting the extent of the economic relationship between the school and the house, the above extract also clearly states the understanding of how a financial dividing line was to be drawn between the two elements of the community at Artane. The house benefited from the contribution of cost of production of food and maintenance from the school. The house also levied on the school a stipend per Brother.

The house had beneficial rights to the lands and property and to any income from this source. The school, on the other hand, bore the cost of supporting the boys, the costs of employing the lay staff, the costs of maintaining and upgrading the buildings and making a contribution toward the costs of the community of Brothers.

If the capital expenditure incurred at the school was to be excluded, then the capitation grant would have been sufficient to cover the operating expenses of the school.

Obviously, our comments in Part 4 regarding the appropriateness or otherwise of the State providing funding towards the capital costs of the school applies in the case of Artane.

The financial consequences for the relevant institution of caring for the children over the period 1939–69

The financial consequences for the relevant institution of caring for the children over the period 1939–69 might be summarised as follows;

Exhibit 34

	€	%

Total expenditure (Exhibit 11)	2,364,996	100%

Funded by:

State and Local authorities⁹⁴	1,868,443	79%
Other income⁹⁵	425,734	18%

Deficit – funded by Order	(70,819)	3%

As we have seen, the Order funded a final overdraft on the school account of €111,737.

6. Rosminian Fathers – Upton and Ferryhouse

This Part of our report deals with our consideration of the financial information available in respect of the Industrial Schools at Upton, County Cork, and Ferryhouse, Clonmel, County Tipperary, run by the Rosminian Fathers between 1939 and 1969. In the course of our review we considered the following terms of reference identified by the Commission;

A review of the application of State funding to the care of children in the institution
A commentary on the effects of changes in the number of children in the relevant institutions over the period 1939–69
A commentary on staffing/student ratios over the period of the review
The financial consequences for the relevant institutions as a result of caring for the children over the period 1939–69.

6.1 Background to financial information

We have been asked by the Commission to examine two Industrial Schools operated by the Rosminian Fathers – Upton in County Cork and Ferryhouse, at Clonmel in County Tipperary.

Upton was originally founded as a Reformatory in 1860 by the Cork Society of St Vincent de Paul. The Rosminians were asked by the Society to run the Reformatory. We understand that the original buildings at Upton were provided by the Cork Reformatory Society, a subsidiary of the St Vincent de Paul Society. The Reformatory closed in 1889 and reopened five days later as Danesfort Industrial School. The application on behalf of management for a change in certification was prompted by a decrease in the number of boys being sent to Reformatories, coupled with a sharp increase in numbers sent to Industrial Schools. The Industrial School closed in 1966.⁹⁶

The Industrial School included a farm, some of which, we have been advised, was purchased by the Institute of Charity. The table at Exhibit 35 shows quantity of land farmed.

Exhibit 35 – Upton farm land

Farmlands	Acreage	Type
Farm	100 Acres	Mixed

No financial information is available in respect of the years 1940–49. Financial information is available in respect of the years:

– 1952, 1953
– 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966.

Ferryhouse was originally founded and certified as an Industrial School in 1884. The institution included a small farm. We understand that the land and buildings at Ferryhouse were gifted to the Order by Count Arthur Moore, MP.⁹⁷

Exhibit 36 – Ferryhouse farm land

Farmlands	Acreage	Type
Farm	9-50 Acres	Mixed

Again, a limited amount of financial information is available in respect of the institution run by the Rosminian Fathers at Ferryhouse in County Tipperary. Financial accounts were made available for the following years:

– 1941, 1947
– 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954
– 1960, 1961, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969.

The Irish Province of the Institute of Charity ran the Industrial Schools of Upton and Ferryhouse and also operated a house of formation for students of the Order, at Omeath in County Louth. In addition to the accounts of the two Industrial Schools we have been given sight of the accounts of the Province for the following years;

– 1952, 1953
– 1961, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969.

6.2 Analysis of Income and Expenditure

Upton

Exhibit 37 – Summary income and expenditure 1950–69

	1952–53⁹⁸⁹⁸	1960–66⁹⁹⁹⁹	TOTAL
	€	€	€
INCOME	47,628	310,392	358,020

EXPENDITURE	47,578	286,158	333,736

SURPLUS /<DEFICIT>	50	24,234	24,284

From our analysis of the available Upton Industrial School income and expenditure accounts for the period 1940–69 we can see that income for the years presented exceeded the expenditure by equivalent €24,284. Obviously, the figures above are aggregated for the purposes of illustration only – the financial outcomes for the institution are dealt with below in the section of this report dealing with the balance sheet of the school and Province.

1952–53

In the years 1952 and 1953 a surplus of equivalent €50 was realised. During this period there appears to have been a very low level of capital expenditure incurred, and this is consistent with other information provided to us by the Order.

1960–66

The figures for this period show that the overall surplus generated was equivalent €24,234. The school income and expenditure figures include income and expenditure from the farm and garden. It should be noted that the school income and expenditure accounts presented for the period 1960–62 did not include farm income and expenditure. To make the data comparable, the farm income and expenditure figures have been included for 1960–62¹⁰⁰. Capital expenditure for years available during this period represents 16 percent of total expenditure.

Sources of income

The income of the institution came from a number of sources. Over the period 1950–69 the main sources were:

Department of Education grants
County and borough council grants
Primary school grant
Voluntaries
Farm income
Masses.

For the years where detailed information was available we carried out an analysis of the percentage of total income for the institution deriving from the Department of Education and the county and borough councils (capitation grants). As can be seen from Exhibit 38 below, over 60 percent of income of the Institution over the period 1950–69 was derived from the Department of Education and county and borough council grants.

Exhibit 38: Sources of INcome 1950–66

Sources of income	1952–53	1960–66
	%	%
Capitation/maintenance grants	64	63
Farm income	15	20
Voluntaries	9	0
Primary school grant	0	6
Mass	5	2
Total	93%	91%
Other income sources immaterial

The main items of expenditure over the period 1950–66 were:

Wages, salaries and insurance stamps
Farm and garden
Capital expenditure
Provisions
Bread
Clothing
Fuel, light and power
Meat and fish
Rents, rates and insurance
Laundry and cleaning.

An analysis of expenditure during the years for which information is available shows that salaries and wages represent a more significant portion of overall expenditure in earlier years, while expenditure on capital items and farm and garden increased over time.

Exhibit 39: Analysis of expenditure 1950–66

	1952–53	1960–66
	%	%
Salaries and wages	17%	7%
Farm and garden	15%	19%
Provisions	14%	4%
Capital expenditure	6%	19%
Bread	6%	9%
Meat and fish	8%	6%
Clothing	7%	5%
Fuel, light and water	5%	5%
Rates, rent and insurance	3%	-%
Prov contribution	-%	3%
Masses	5%	2%
Other	14%	21%
Total	100%	100%

Capital expenditure

From our review of the income and expenditure accounts of the school over the period 1950–66 we note that capital expenditure in that period totalled equivalent €59,420. There is no evidence that the State made a specific contribution in respect of the capital expenditure at Upton Industrial School.

Ferryhouse

From our analysis of the Ferryhouse Industrial School income and expenditure accounts for the period 1940–69 we can see that on an overall level the income exceeded the expenditure by equivalent €26,901 for these years available. Again, the figures above are aggregated for the purposes of illustration only – the financial outcomes for the institution are dealt with below in the section of this report dealing with the balance sheet of the schools.

Exhibit 40 – Summary income and expenditure 1940–69¹⁰¹

	1940–49	1950–59	1960–69	TOTAL
	€	€	€	€
INCOME	19,806	90,183	404,474	514,463

EXPENDITURE	24,039	85,551	377,972	487,562

SURPLUS /<DEFICIT>	<4,233>	4,632	26,502	26,901

Income sources

The Income of the Institution came from a number of sources. Over the period 1940 to 1969 the main sources were:

Department of Education grants
County and borough council grants
Government grants
Local authority grants
Voluntaries
Farm income
Salaries
Masses.

For the years where detailed information was available we carried out an analysis of the percentage of total income for the institution deriving from the Department of Education and the county and borough councils (capitation grants). As can be seen from Exhibit 41 below the most significant source of income (70–77 percent) for the institution over the period 1940–69 was the capitation grant.

Exhibit 41: Sources of income 1940–69

Sources of income	1940–49	1950–59	1960–69
	%	%	%
Capitation/maintenance grants	75	77	70
Farm income	7	10	12
Voluntaries	9	2	0
Salaries	5	0	0

Poor law contributions	0	0	3
New school building	0	0	5
Masses	0	5	0
Total	96%	94%	90%
Other income sources immaterial

An analysis of the expenditure incurred by the institution during the period shows that salaries and wages represented 20 percent of expenditure in the early years of the period, but declined in significance over the period. Capital expenditure increased from 5–19 percent, over the same period.

Exhibit 42 Analysis of expenditure 1940–69

	1940–49	1950–59	1960–69
	%	%	%
Salaries and wages	21	10	7
Provisions	14	14	0
Farm & garden	–	9	13
Groceries	14	0	13
Fuel, light and heat	5	7	5
Clothing and bedding	5	7	3
Bread	6	8	0
Meat	4	4	6
Capital expenditure	5	12	19
Tailoring	3	–	6
Building and repairs	3	–	–
Footwear	2	2	–
Travelling	2	–	3
Masses	–	4	–
Interest, bank charges and loan payment	–	2	6
Medical, printing & postage, church expenses & recreation expenses	3	3	–
Rent, rates, insurance	–	1	2
Provincial contributions	–	–	3
Other amounts	13	19	14
Total	100%	100%	100%

Other amounts include professional fees, wine and spirits, petty cash, tobacco, maintenance fees, charitable donations, provincial levies and loan repayments.

Capital expenditure

From our review of the income and expenditure accounts of the school over the period 1940–69 we noted that capital expenditure in that period based on available information totalled equivalent €84,931. We note that in 1968 there was a contribution of equivalent €19,173 towards a new school building. This has been classified under the heading ‘other grants’, although the source is not identified.

6.3 Numbers of children and staff

Information is not available in respect of the numbers of staff at Upton over the period under review. Information in respect of the numbers of children in residence at the school was derived from data provided by the Department of Education to the Commission and is attached at Appendix XVII. The impact of changes in the numbers of children over the period is considered further in Part 9 of this report.

6.4 Financial consequences for the relevant institution of caring for the children

The Province accounts

We have carried out a review of the financial data in respect of the Province, from financial information presented by the Rosminian Fathers. Our key observations, based on this review, are as follows:

A very limited amount of financial information is available in respect of the Province. Financial Accounts were available for the following years:

– 1952, 1953

– 1961, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969.

The bank balance of the Province at 31st December 1969 shows cash in bank and in hand totalling equivalent €4,087.
The accounts provided show that the Province showed a surplus of income over expenditure in all years presented except two – 1966, where the accounts showed a deficit of equivalent €36, and 1967, where the accounts showed a deficit of equivalent €2,944.
Capital expenditure during the years examined amounted to equivalent €2,041.

Exhibit 43 – Summary income and expenditure 1950–69

	1952–53	1960–69	TOTAL
	€	€	€
INCOME	47,895	218,661	266,556

EXPENDITURE	47,334	211,496	258,830

SURPLUS /<DEFICIT>	561	7,165	7,726

Sources of income

The main sources of income over the period 1950–69 are outlined below.

1952–53

Income of €16,228 in 1952 derived primarily from Masses (€12,281). Financial information in respect of 1953 shows no income from Masses but that the significantly increased income of €31,667 derived mainly from the contributions of Upton (equivalent €1,359), Clonmel (equivalent €1,521) and Omeath (equivalent to €5,286) as well as Kilmurry (equivalent €9,980) and the repayment of loans, made to the USA (equivalent €5,064).

1960–69

In the period 1960–69, income derived primarily from Provincial contributions and stipendia missarum.

Exhibit 44: Main Sources of Income 1950–69

Sources of income	1952–53	1960–69
	%	%
Masses	26%	12%
Schools	45%	8%
Provisional contributions	0%	23%
Stipendia missarum	0%	39%
Other sources	13%	2%
Total	84%	84%
Other income sources immaterial

Expenditure

The main items of expenditure over the period 1950–69 are outlined below.

1952–53

Expenditure in 1952, in an amount equivalent to €16,140, was incurred primarily in respect of scholastics, novitiate, juniorate, missions and travel. Total expenditure in 1953, equivalent to €31,194, included spending on travel and schools as well as transfers to other accounts.

1960–69

Funds available in the period 1960–69 were expended primarily on interest costs, mandates and subsidies, transfers to stipendiorum, Glencomeragh, schools and in reducing the overdraft.

Exhibit 45: Analysis of the major items of expenditure 1950–69

	1952–53	1960–69
	%	%
Scholastics	3%	0
Novitiate	5%	0
Juniorate	12%	0
Missions	3%	0
Interest	0%	10%
Travel	17%	1%
Transfers	26%	2%
Schools	24%	3%
Glencomeragh	0%	4%
Mandates & subsidies	0%	38%
Reduction of overdraft	0%	7%
Transfer stipendiorum	0%	22%
Total	90%	100%

Amounts expended on capital items would not appear to be significant – amounting to an equivalent of €2,041. Glencomeragh was at first the Scholasticate for the Province but it subsequently served as the Novitiate and at times catered for Novices and Scholastics together. Some or all of the expenditure on Glencomeragh (total equivalent to €9,129) may however be capital in nature. Expenditure on schools represents payments from the Province to Omeath, Fermoy, Kilmurry and Upton.

Statement of Affairs at 31st December 1969

The statement of affairs of the Province at 31st December 1969 shows assets and liabilities as follows:

Exhibit 46

	£	€
Assets
Bank	3,160	4,012
In hand	58	74
Prize bonds	285	362
Various loans	12,170	15,453
Cork marts	600	762
No. 3 account	18,784	23,851
	35,057	44,514
Liabilities
Pro missis translates at transferendis	860	1,092
Interest on loans due to burses	708	899
Funeral expenses	150	190
Overdraft	44,000	55,868
	45,718	58,049
Excess of liabilities over assets	(10,661)	(13,535)

Upton

The balance sheet of the school at 31st December 1966 shows a net surplus of equivalent €17,233.

Ferryhouse

The balance sheet of the school at 31st December 1969 shows a net surplus of equivalent €19,790.

A summary position is also suggested for those years where accounts are available:

Exhibit 47

Upton	€	%

Total expenditure	333,736	100%

Funded by:

State and local authorities	242,823	73%
Other Income	115,196	34%

Surplus	24,284	7%

Exhibit 48

Ferryhouse	€	%

Total expenditure	487,562	100%

Funded by:

State and local authorities	369,317	76%
Other Income	145,146	30%

Surplus	26,901	6%

As the records are incomplete, this summary can only be regarded as indicative.

We note that the Rosminian Fathers have, in presenting information to us, drawn attention to the history of under-funding and scarcity of resource in the schools. They have also noted that the community schools, were of necessity, interdependent, and both dependent on the produce of the school farms for essentials. The Order also notes that the Province did not maintain central funds, and could not, accordingly, provide significant additional support. The net liability position of the Province at 31st December 1969, supports this contention. We attach at Appendix XIII the submissions of the Order in relation to the financial position of the schools.

The submission made by the Rosminian Fathers draws attention to a number of issues that are relevant not only to those schools run by the Order, but also to the system of Reformatories and Industrial Schools in its entirety. We have dealt with these, in that context, in the early sections of this report. In summary, the issues raised by the Order are as follows;

No State monies were available to assist with the provision of buildings and other facilities in the Industrial Schools.

With regard to the additional financial burdens on the Order, we note that this question is relevant to an understanding of how the religious communities viewed the schools as a potential contributor to other unfunded or under-funded activities of the Order. From our examination of the financial information made available to us by the Rosminian Fathers it is our view that the schools did leave the Order in a net surplus position, to the extent that the closing balance sheets of the schools show an improved position on the earliest available accounts. However, the contribution of the schools to other community activity does not, based on the available information, appear to have been sufficient to yield the Order a significant surplus.

7. St Vincent’s Industrial School – Goldenbridge

We have carried out a review of the financial data and related information in respect of St Vincent’s Industrial School, held on the Commission database system and from financial information provided by the Sisters of Mercy.

Our work to date consists principally of the review and analysis of relevant information in accordance with applicable requirements specifically identified in our terms of reference. These are:

A review of the application of State funding to the care of children in St Vincent’s Industrial School
A commentary on the effects of changes in the number of children over the period 1939–69.
The financial consequences for the relevant institution as a result of caring for the children over the period 1939–69
A commentary on staffing/student ratios over the period of the review.

7.1 Background to financial information

St Vincent’s Industrial School was certified as an industrial school in 1880. The Sisters of Mercy managed the industrial school at Goldenbridge between 1939 and 1969. The facility provided accommodation in respect of 140 children committed there at 30th September 1939 and 141 children at 31st December 1969. For most of its existence the industrial school was certified for girls up to the age of 16 years and from 1954 its certification included permission to accept boys up to the age of 10 years.

The combined Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy was founded in 1994. Prior to that, the Order was divided into distinct congregations – one for each diocese. Each diocese had its own mther gneral and cuncil. Goldenbridge Industrial School was associated with Goldenbridge Convent (approximately 20 nuns), which was a branch house of Carysfort Mother House within the Dublin diocese. On the same grounds as the industrial school were the convent, the external convent primary school, the secondary top and a small farm. We understand that the small farm consisted of a couple of acres that was used to keep a few cows and crops, which were used to supply the convent.

We have not received any financial information for the school for the years 1939–54. Accounts were available for the period 1955–69 in six-monthly sets with the exception of the six-month periods ended 31st December 1957, 30th June 1968 and 30th June 1969. The period ended 31st December 1960¹⁰² has also been omitted from our analysis as this is a duplication of the 30th June 1960 accounts which therefore questions their validity. Two different sets of accounts were made available to us for 1953. For the purpose of this analysis we have used accounts reference SOMGB-00568/12 and SOMGB-00568/13. In the years 1961¹⁰³ and 1963¹⁰⁴ we note that the accounts of the Goldenbridge do not appear to tot correctly. We have accordingly used the detailed analysis rather than relying on sub-totals as presented in the accounts.

The school ceased to be an Industrial School in the mid-1980s.

7.2 Analysis of income and expenditure

The income and expenditure of Goldenbridge Industrial School, as presented in the school accounts for the period 1955–69 is as follows:

Exhibit 49

	1955–60	1961–69	TOTAL
	€	€	€
INCOME	154,582	230,570	385,152

EXPENDITURE	146,256	205,487	351,743

SURPLUS	8,326	25,083	33,409

Commenting on the funding of the school Sr Helena O’Donoghue noted:

In any examination of standards in the Industrial Schools the issue of funding is critical. From interviews with the former Resident Manager and from the limited records available it is clear that there was a constant struggle to provide even a basic standard of living for the children within the limits of the funding provided to Goldenbridge right through until 1970s when the capitation fee per child was doubled overnight on the eve of a General Election.¹⁰⁵

The main sources of income recorded in the school accounts are as follows:

– Dublin Corporation

– Council grants

– Dublin Health Authority

– The Department of Education.

We note that, with the exception of one year there is no evidence that the school received any primary grant funding in respect of national school teachers. Those accounts relate to the period ended 31st December 1953 and refer to income from ‘Department of Education – Primary Branch – Capitation Grant for National School’. The grant received is represented in the accounts as an amount of IR£878.

The main items of expenditure over the period include:

– Food

– Clothing

– Salaries and wages

– Repairs and decoration

– Rent, rates and taxes

– Fuel, light and power

– Furniture, fittings and bed linen.

Income

For the years where detailed information was available we analysed the percentage of total income for the institution deriving from the Department of Education and the county and borough councils (government and local authority grants). As seen below the most significant portion of income is from government and local authority grants.

Exhibit 50

Income	1951–60	1961–69
Dublin Corporation	37%	31%
Treasury (Department of Education)	46%	34%
County councils	4%	8%
Dublin Health Authority	0%	11%
Other	13%	16%

Total	100%	100%

Government and Local Authority grants varied between 84–87 percent of total income recorded by the institution between the years 1951–69. (This includes treasury amounts¹⁰⁶ that we understand were capitation grants.) In total, the amount received over the period was equivalent to €304,519.

Exhibit 51

Bead Income
Number of children	120	90	60	30
Income per decade	IR£0.11	IR£0.11	IR£0.11	IR£0.11
Income per annum	IR£3,432	IR£2,574	IR£1,716	IR£858

Discounted income per annum	IR£2,869	IR£2,152	IR£1,435	IR£717

We understand that:

There were quality issues with the decades, for which we have discounted our estimates by 5 percent.
For most of July, August and Christmas there was no production, for which we have discounted the estimate by 20 percent.
On occasions the children worked six days a week, for which we have increased the estimate by 10 percent.

This means that the range of income would be between IR£717 and IR£2,869 per annum depending on the number of children making the decades. We understand that the Sisters of Mercy believe that the income was at the lower end of this scale.

Expenditure

The most significant items of expenditure can be summarised as follows;

Exhibit 52

	1951–60	1961–69
	%	%
Dietary expenses	34	26
Wages	21	18
Clothing	12	12
Building repairs and decorations	11	16
Fuel and light	7	7
Furniture and fittings	3	3
Medical	1	2
Other	11	16
Total	100	100

The wages above consist of staff wages, payments to the Resident Manager and payments to the Reverend Mother.

Wages and salaries

Limited information is available in relation to the staffing levels during the period 1939–69. We understand that generally the staffing consisted of two nuns (both teaching and one having the dual responsibility of resident manager), two lay teachers and a number of other staff (seamstress, domestic, etc). We note that based on records of 1955 there were eight members of staff excluding the nuns and teachers. This increased to eleven members of staff in 1958.

We noted a number of inconsistencies in relation to wages and salaries: There were peak years for payments of wages and salaries in 1953 and 1954 of approximately €4,900 per annum. These levels were not reached again until 1967.

Exhibit 53

Wages and salaries	1953 & 1954

Non-teaching staff	€1,400
Lay teachers and nuns	€1,900
Unknown	€1,600

Total wages per accounts	€4,900

The data from the year where wage analysis is available, which is based on the staff numbers and weekly wages in 1955¹⁰⁷, can be used to recalculate the annual staff wages to be approximately €1,400 per annum based on eight staff members. The difference is likely to be made up of payments to the two lay teachers and the two nuns. Based on average industrial wages in 1955 this would account for approximately €1,900.¹⁰⁸We do not know what payments made up the remaining €1,600. However, we note from the payments books, which are only available subsequent to 1960, that they show a payment, recorded as wages, to the reverend mother of IR£90 per month. We do not know whether this payment actually represented wages or if the funds were used for the school or for another purpose.

The accounts of Carysfort Mother House indicate payments received between 1939 and 1954 on a monthly basis totalling between approximately €5,000 and €9,000 per annum described as ‘National Education Goldenbridge’. The Carysfort accounts indicate payments totalling between approximately €1,000 and €5,000 per annum to the Goldenbridge convent and Goldenbridge school expenses. The source of the income is not clear nor is the extent to which the payments related to wages. It is also not clear how much of this income, or expenditure, relates to the Industrial School, rather than the adjacent national school.

Exhibit 54

Capital expenditure

1951–69	€
Building Account	90,000
Accounts summary:
Repairs, Buildings and Decorations	50,195
Machinery and new equipment	227
Furniture, fittings and bed linen	11,084
Crockery and Hardware	1,030
Hardware	6,209
Total	158,745

The total capital expenditure during the period 1951–69 was €158,745. The following items of capital expenditure items were noted during our review:

– 1941: New recreation hall

– 1954: A holiday home at Rathdrum

– 1955: New heating system installed

– 1958: Re-wired

– 1960: Small villa at entrance gate for residents’ visitors

– 1963: Four new dining rooms; a recreation hall and playground

– 1963: New dormitory

– 1964: New external primary school.

Capital expenditure using the school account was primarily on building repairs and decorations and furniture and fittings. In the 1960s this amounted to 19 percent of expenditure. In 1969 repairs to buildings made up 29 percent of expenditure. We have received some records in respect of a building account held in the 1960s that was funded by the school account and various grants. It is unclear how much of these funds were used for properties other than for the industrial school; although based on a sample review of such expenditure we did note a certificate of payment in respect of Rathdrum in the amount of IR£750.¹⁰⁹¹⁰⁹

The accounts of the Industrial School indicate funding given to capital expenditure of IR£2,000 for the purchase of a holiday home in 1954, with further contributions to the building fund account of IR£2,000 in 1959 and IR£4,000 in 1960, before a subsequent repayment from the building fund account to the school account of IR£1,050.

Building fund

As we have noted above, the building account was operated during the period under review. We received accounts for the period 1961–66 in six-monthly sets with the exception of the six months ended 30th June 1962 and 30th June 1964. The following information has been extracted from those accounts:

– Approximately €90,000 was spent during the period 1961–66 with €68,500 spent during the period 1964–66.

– The main identified contributors to the funding were: Board of Works €32,000; Dublin Corporation €15,000 and Treasury (Department of Education) €17,000.

– Due to incomplete records we are unable to determine whether other lodgements to the building account represent capital grants or general funding of the school which was used for capital expenditure.

The building fund account is summarised in Appendix XV.

7.3 Numbers of children and staff

Below is a summary of the number of students attending St Vincent’s, Goldenbridge and the income and expenditure per student for that year.

Exhibit 55

Year	No of students	Income per student	Expenditure per student
		€	€
1951	150	85	83
1952	154	89	82
1953	158	109	111
1954	151	106	112
1955	161	81	93
1956	161	99	87
1957	163	136	108
1958	166	90	110
1959	158	151	131
1960	161	198	121
1961	163	113	130
1962	190	99	108
1963	176	111	125
1964	194	162	136
1965	174	197	133
1966	165	195	195
1967	147	275	226
1968	139	279	166
1969	141	323	222

We can see from the above figures that the number of children committed to Goldenbridge peaked in the early 1960s and then began to decline in the late 1960s.

As noted above accounts were not available for the six months ended 31st December 1957, 31st December 1960, 30th June 1968 and 30th June 1969 and therefore for these years income and expenditure figures were calculated on a pro-rata basis in order to achieve comparable figures.

We understand that there was no significant fluctuation in teaching staff during the period. Limited information was available in relation to non-teaching staff.

7.4 The financial consequences for the relevant institution as a result of caring for the children over the period 1939–69

The financial consequences for Goldenbridge of caring for the children over the period 1939–69 are probably best characterised as being one of being close to break-even. The following table illustrates, for those years where accounts are available, the position.

Exhibit 56

	€	%

Total expenditure	351,743	100%

Funded by:

State and local authorities	282,239	80%
Other income	102,913	29%

Surplus	33,410	9%

We note that there was a surplus in the bank account of the Industrial School at 30th November 1969 of €16,265, which is consistent with the position indicated in the above summary. We also note in this regard that the school accounts do not show any primary grant received, with the exception of one period, and exclude income from the bead-making activity.

8. St Conleth’s Reformatory School – Daingean

This part of our report deals with our consideration of the financial information available in respect of the Reformatory School at Daingean, County Offaly, which was run by the Oblate Order between 1940 and 1969. In the course of our review we considered the following terms of reference identified by the Commission;

A review of the application of State Funding to the care of children in the institution
A commentary on the effects of changes in the number of children in the relevant institutions over the period 1939 to 1969
A commentary on staffing/student ratios over the period of the review
The financial consequences for the relevant institutions as a result of caring for the children over the period 1939–69.

8.1 Background to financial information

On 6th August 1940, St Conleth’s School in Daingean, County Offaly, was certified as a Reformatory School to be managed by the Oblate Order. The Oblate Order had, up until this time, run a training college for those wishing to enter the Order at Daingean, with the premises leased from the State since 1932 on a 99-year lease while the adjoining lands were owned by the Order. The facility in Daingean was identified as a replacement for the Reformatory School in Glencree, which had been operated by the Oblates until 1940, having previously been run as a reformatory school since the late 1800s, and as an army barracks and convict prison prior to that.

In one of the sequence of transactions related to the establishment of the reformatory school at Daingean, the State purchased the farmland from the Oblate Order at a price of £4,500 (€5,714), including £1,000 (€1,270) for farm buildings which the Oblates had erected on the lands, and entered into a new 50-year lease agreement at an annual rental of £350 (€444). In addition the State paid to the Oblates a sum of £6,000 (€7,618) for improvements that they had carried out to the buildings at Daingean and £2,500 (€3,174) towards the liquidation of debts incurred by them in running the reformatory in Glencree.

Some of the monies paid to the Order were used to fund the purchase of an estate in Piltown, County Kilkenny for the purpose of housing the Oblate Order’s training college.

The farmland at Daingean comprised 259 acres of which a portion was given over to a dairy herd and 70 acres of which were under tillage. The farm supplied milk, butter, meat, potatoes and vegetables for the school. In addition to the farm produce, two bogs owned by the school provided fuel and bread was baked in the school bakery.

Activities at the school included tailoring, shoemaking, woodwork, farmwork, and working the bogs, while football, hurling and handball were played during free time. There was also a school band and mobile cinema. Ninety boys were members of the local defence forces. In 1945 a new theatre was completed where the boys put on performances both for the school and the general public. During the 1950s and 1960s, about 40 boys attended the technical school, another 40 attended the remedial school while the remainder were engaged in whatever trades and activities existed.

The staff at Daingean included the Resident Manager, chaplain, approximately four Oblate Fathers, up to 20 Oblate Brothers, two lay teachers, one tailor, one shoemaker, three farm workers, one PE teacher (part time).

The school at Daingean had an accommodation limit of 250 boys. Just over 220 boys were transferred from Glencree to Daingean in August 1940. The war years saw Daingean accommodating its highest levels of inmates. From the information available it would appear that student numbers reached a high of 240 in 1943 and dipped as low as 92 in 1969.

Financial information has been reviewed for all years from 1940.

8.2 Analysis of Income and Expenditure

Exhibit 57

	1940–49	1950–59	1960–69	TOTAL
	€	€	€	€
INCOME	148,231	223,993	354,657	726,881

EXPENDITURE	147,222	222,106	375,259	744,587

SURPLUS /<DEFICIT>	1,009	1,887	<20,602>	<17,706>

As can be seen from the analysis, the school operated at approximately a break-even position for the first two decades under review but ran into deficit during the third decade.

1940–49

Whilst deficits existed in the years 1943, 1944, 1946, 1947 and 1949 a small surplus of €1,009 was generated during the decade. ’Proceeds of sale of Glencree’ of €4,444 were recorded as income in 1943 (resulting in a surplus of €4,469 in that year) but were then transferred out in the following year (resulting in an overall deficit of €6,209 in 1944). It is not clear from the accounts where these proceeds were transferred to or what specifically the proceeds related to. The deficit in 1944 was also driven, in part, by a bakery installation amounting to €1,200. Deficits were generated in each of the years 1946 (€587), 1947 (€188), 1949 (€1,204). It is noted that in 1946 and 1947 turf was purchased for other sites operated by the Oblate Order in Dublin.

What this broad analysis of income and expenditure, and resulting surpluses/deficits, shows is that, by and large throughout the 1940s, the school was run within the funds available.

1950–59

While the overall surplus of €1,887 generated for the decade 1950–59 is not significantly different from that generated in the previous decade, an examination of individual years show erratic results which range from a deficit of €891 to a surplus of €1,798. There appears to be a trend of a year of deficit being followed by a year of surplus. Significant one-off items of expenditure during these years included the following:

Exhibit 58

Year	Expenditure	Amount
		€
1952	Technical school	1,439

1957	Schoolbooks & newspapers	3,595

1958	Payments to council	1,439

1960–69

Significant deficits were generated in all but two years throughout the 1960s. These deficits would appear to derive from increased expenditure across a number of different headings which include holidays and retreats; coal, gas,water and lighting; repairs; education; stipends to Fathers and provincial; farm. There would also appear to have been significant petty cash drawings in the 1960s (amounting to €9,604), the purpose of which is not identified. Throughout the 1960s income generated from the farm appears to have increased quite substantially – from €12,709 in 1940–49 to €73,685 in 1960–69.

Income sources

Government and council grants were the primary sources of income for the Reformatory School in Daingean. Other income included farm sales, stipends and sundry sales. The source of the stipends is not clear from the documentation available. An analysis of the percentage of total income for the institution which derived from the Department of Education and the county and borough councils (government and council grants) is outlined below. The analysis shows that Government grants accounted for a proportionately smaller amount of total income in later years. This reflects both the falling number of boys being admitted in later years as well as the increased farm income.

Exhibit 59

Sources of Income	1940–49	1950–59	1960–69
	%	%	%
Government and council grants	83	77	67
Farm	9	14	21
Stipends	3	3	3
Sundry sales	–	5	–
Shop	–	–	1
Other	5	1	8
Total	100%	100%	100%

In addition to these direct sources of income, activities carried out at the school, which involved the labour of the boys, also generated some income which went directly to the Province – the annual sale of work was: ‘an annual effort from here (Daingean) towards the missionary endeavour’.

We note that the amount of funds raised from this source is not known.

Expenditure

The main categories of expenditure over the period 1939–69 include:

– Clothing

– Furnishing and carpentry

– Payments to Province

– Dietary expenses

– Wages

– Farm expenses.

The main items of expenditure, as a percentage of total expenditure, in each of the decades examined are summarised in the following table.

Exhibit 60

	1940–49	1950–59	1960–69
	%	%	%
Dietary expenses	19	21	19
Farm	14	17	22
Clothing and shoe-making	14	10	7
Payments to Province	14	6	4
Furnishing and carpentry	7	9	10
Wages	7	10	10
Rent	4	3	2
Fuel and light	5	6	10
Car, lorry and freight	3	5	1
Medical	3	3	33
Rates, taxes and insurance	–	1	2
Other	10	9	10
Total	100	100	100

From the detailed income and expenditure accounts provided it is apparent that the school was to some degree self-sufficient, with the majority of dietary needs coming from the farm. Reports in 1941 from Anna McCabe, the Medical Inspector, indicate that the boys were well fed which was helped significantly by the farm produce¹¹⁰. In addition, activities at the Reformatory School in Daingean included tailoring and shoemaking which would have met a significant portion of the needs of the boys in this regard. Documentation indicates that at one point production in the tailor’s shop was so high that they could provide all of their own clothes.¹¹¹

Expenditure of the school includes payments to the Province which amounted to almost €50,000 over the period under review. ‘The Oblates levied an administration fee on the school as it did on every house in the Province’¹¹².

A report prepared on behalf of the Oblate Order in May 2002 indicates that these payments to the Province and to the order members were funded by farm sales, stipends and donations. An analysis of payments to the Province and to the order members in the context of the surplus/deficit generated from the farm and income from donations and stipends indicates, however, that in most years such income sources, when related costs are taken into account, would not have supported the level of payments made to the Province and to the order members and, at an overall level for the period from 1940–69, payments to the Province and to the order members would have exceeded these sources of income by an amount of approximately €25,111, i.e. farm income, donations, stipends and sundry sales together exceeded farm expenditure by just €35,395 and were not sufficient to cover payments to the Province.

Exhibit 61

This would, therefore, imply that capitation grants were, in part, funding payments to the Province. One view which has been expressed is that, since the farm was owned by the State, funds generated from the farm should have been returned to the State. This view is suggested by Department of Finance considerations at the time when the Reformatory School was being transferred from Glencree to Daingean –

it would seem reasonable that any profit arising on the farm should accrue to the State … As the grants should enable the Reformatory to be conducted in a satisfactory manner, the profits on the farm should not be diverted to the Order.¹¹³

It is assumed that these payments to the Province replaced the direct payment of a stipend to members of the Oblate Order working at the institution. The members of the Order in Daingean did benefit from board and lodging as well as benefiting from farm produce. We have been informed by representatives of the Oblate Order that they also received a small amount of pocket money for their holidays. Income and expenditure accounts for the school indicate that total expenditure in the amount of approximately €78,000 was incurred on holidays, retreats, Father’s allowances and sundries, stipends to Provincial, and payments to Province.

The report prepared by Goodbody Economic Consultants on behalf of the Order and submitted to the Commission in May 2007 makes the point that had the school paid salaries to the Fathers and Brothers working in the institution that the amount of such salaries would exceed the amounts received by the Province and as a consequence deficits of the school would have been higher than those presented in the accounts. The calculations prepared by Goodbody’s appear broadly reasonable. However we believe it important to bear in mind the system that prevailed at the time (as described in Parts 3 and 4 above). That the Reformatory was not a State school is quite clear in documentation reviewed:

During the Conference two very important factors from an Oblate point of view and bearing on the work of the Reformatory were discussed and accepted as defining accurately the status of the Oblates in Daingean, viz (a) Mr Frank Duffy, representative of the Department of Education, made it quite clear that the Reformatory School though recognised and financed by the State was not a State Institution but a private school under the management of a religious body. There was no legislation to constitute it a State institution, (b) that should the Oblate Congregation at any time feel the yearly rent of E350 too burdensome it had two alternatives, first, to approach the Government for a remission of part of this burden or for an increase in grant and secondly, it had the option on six months notice to the Government at any time to relinquish the work of conducting the Reformatory.¹¹⁴

The Industrial and Reformatory Schooling system during the period under review did not provide for payment, by the State, of salaries of those employed in the running of the institutions. The matter of salaries would not appear to be a matter that was raised by the Order at the time they ran the Reformatory in Daingean. Rather they appeared to accept the responsibility of managing the Reformatory and, in so doing, participated in the system as it prevailed at that time.

We also understand that the Order itself did not pay salaries to the Fathers and Brothers who gave up their personal time and labour as part of their vocation. To restate the accounts, therefore, to take into account theoretical salaries would not, in our view, accurately represent the situation as it pertained at that time.

Farm income and expenditure

Separate accounts were not maintained for the farm at Daingean for the period under review. We have not seen a clear definition of what the category ‘farm sales’ included but it is assumed that this income source derives from excess produce being sold to third parties.

From the information provided in the school accounts we can see that the farm generated a deficit of income over expenditure in each of the three decades, as outlined below. These figures do not, however, take into account the value of farm produce consumed by both the boys and the Brothers and Fathers resident at the School. In availing of farm produce to feed the boys and Brothers, there was, presumably, both a financial saving to the school, which would have resulted in lower total expenditure and lower deficits than if these costs were incurred externally, as well as a corresponding loss of potential income. Similarly, the accounts do not reflect the fact that labour on the farm was largely that of the boys and the Brothers. Again, there would have been a certain saving to the school in using this ready pool of labour as opposed to employing additional farm labourers.

Exhibit 62

	1940–49	1950–59	1960–69	TOTAL
	€	€	€	€
Farm sales ¹¹⁵	12,709	32,446	73,685 ¹¹⁶	118,840

Farm expenditure	20,883	40,294	82,667	143,844

SURPLUS /<DEFICIT>	<8,174>	<7,848>	<8,982>	<25,003>

A Department of Education report prepared in 1955 following a visit to the school provides an insight into one observer’s opinion of the profit-generating capacity of the farm and the use to which these profits were put:

I am of the opinion that very handsome profits are made on the farm but I can see no evidence of any of the profits being ploughed back for the benefit of the boys or for the improvement of the buildings.¹¹⁷

The same report goes on to say:

I could not help forming the impression that if the Institution and the farm attached to it were part of the one business it should be a matter of very little difficulty for the authorities of the school to make very considerable improvements in the interests of the boys without appealing to the Department for an additional grant.

From a comparative description, in this same report, of the farm buildings and the buildings occupied by the boys, there would appear to have been a very notable difference:

the kitchen and the dining-room ………. reminded me forcibly of the conditions so eloquently described by Dickens and which were common in poorhouses in England at this time ………. In contrast to the conditions for the boys, the conditions for the milking herd were excellent. The byre was a beautiful cut-stone building – an old building but very well maintained – beautifully clean, well washed out and the cattle very well cared for …………The attention paid to the cattle was in marked contrast to the care for the feeding of the boys.

The views of the Department official are not consistent with the record in the financial statements, which show an overall deficit from the farm. We have not been able to identify a reason for this inconsistency.

Capital expenditure

In January 1940 the property at Daingean was valued at £8,436.¹¹⁸

The Oblate Order entered into a 50-year lease agreement with the State dated 10th September 1941. Under the terms of this lease, the lessees (being the Oblate Order) were required to:

repair, cleanse, maintain, amend and keep the said messuage and buildings and all new buildings which may at any time during the said term be erected on and all additions made to the demised premises and the fixtures therein and the walls, fences, roads, sewers, drains and appurtenances thereof with all necessary reparations, cleansings and amendments whatsoever … in good and tenantable state of repair and condition.¹¹⁹

Department of Finance documentation indicates that the income to the Oblates under the capitation grant system was regarded by the Department as being adequate to meet repair and maintenance expenditure:

The grants are fixed so as to cover not only the maintenance of the boys but the maintenance of the buildings. The Order in the past made a profit out of the Reformatory.¹²⁰

Expenditure of a capital nature, on the other hand, was the responsibility of the State and, in entering into the new lease agreement with the Oblates, it was acknowledged that certain further improvements to Daingean would be required.

The cost of acquiring the farm and farm buildings and of compensation to the Oblate Order in respect of additions to the premises, as well as of the further improvements now authorised and of such works as may be found necessary in future, will fall to be borne on the Vote for Public Works and Buildings.¹²¹

The accounts of the school record expenditure in the amount of equivalent €72,422 on repairs and furnishing and carpentry, which represents 10 percent of total expenditure for the period reviewed. The breakdown of this spend over the three decades is notably different however, as outlined below, with an increasing level of expenditure incurred in later years.

Exhibit 63

	1940–49	1950–59	1960–69	TOTAL
	€	€	€	€
Furnishing & carpentry	10,113	20,799	37,074	67,987

% of Total expenditure	7%	9%	10%	9%

Repairs	–	–	4,435	4,435

% of Total expenditure	–	–	1%	1%

A significant amount of building work was carried out in Daingean between 1940 and 1969.¹²²

From documentation made available it appears that the steps involved in the carrying of capital works were as follows:

The Oblate Fathers contacted the Department of Education to request specific renovations at the school.
Department of Education contacted the Department of Finance to obtain approval for the funding of the works.
If the Department of Finance grants permissions it sent a memorandum to the Board of Works to initiate the works.
The Project Architect from the Board of Works would then make direct contact with the Reformatory Manager to determine the specifics of the works to be carried out.
The Board of Works would then conduct a publicly advertised tender competition to select contractors for the project. The Board of Works would manage the process of selection of contractors.
The Board of Works monitored progress on the assignment and managed all payments to the contractors.

Correspondence reviewed indicates that requests for capital funding were ongoing throughout the 1939–69 period and both the State’s and the school management’s frustration in this regard is quite apparent.¹²³

Correspondence between the OPW and the Department of Finance indicates that building work carried out between 1940 and 1963 included the following¹²⁴:

Exhibit 64

	Date of completion	Work carried out	Approximate expenditure
		£	€
1941	Sanitary annexe	4,000	5,079
1944	Wooden huts to serve as dormitory for 35 boys and a recreation hall	5,500	6,984
1948	New west wing	23,000	29,204
1954	New east wing	25,000	31,743
1958	Demolition Works (St Joseph’s wing, BOOT Shop, old recreation hall, wash house, shelter at rear of boot house) New works (two play shelters, two handball alleys, new residence for 12 Brothers, paving of new recreation ground)	28,000	35,553
TOTAL		85,500	108,563

Despite the building work undertaken in the 1940s and 1950s, inspection reports indicate that the farm buildings were in better repair and condition than the living accommodation for the boys. Department of Education records from the mid-1950s include the following comments:

Dr McCabe informed me that she has been pressing for years on the authorities of the school certain improvements in the interest of the boys both spiritually and materially. Some of these have been carried out though with considerable reluctance and the almost invariable answer given to her when she suggests improvements is that there is no money available for such.¹²⁵

During the early 1960s requests for capital funding continued with approximately £35,000 (€44,441) being requested for an assembly hall, games room and boot hall although this does not appear to have been sanctioned by the Minister for Finance. A further £6,000 (€7,618) was sanctioned in 1967 in respect of fire precaution works. In 1969 the Committee on Reformatory and Industrial Schools visited Daingean and, in their interim report, identified the need for works which the OPW costed at a minimum of £85,000 (€107,928). It is not entirely clear whether this amount was in fact sanctioned by the Department of Finance but there appear to be recommendations within the Department files to provide sanction for this amount¹²⁶.

In considering the substantial capital and maintenance spend throughout the period, it is notable that this trend of significant capital investment continued right up until the reformatory at Daingean closed in 1973. Documentation from 1969 indicates that the future of the institution was given some consideration in the context of the £85,000 (€107,928) capital funding request. Assurance seems to have come from the Department of Education in this regard in correspondence of 30th May 1969:

Whatever the recommendations of the Committee on the future of St Conleth’s, this Department is satisfied that the building will continue to be occupied as a reformatory for a further period of at least 10 years.¹²⁷

Despite the significant capital investment in Daingean in the period 1939–69, Department of Education records indicate that Daingean was not in a good state of repair. Correspondence between the OPW and Departments of Finance and Education in 1969 and the early 1970s indicates that certain buildings in Daingean were ‘structurally unsound’.¹²⁸ A visit paid by an official of the Department of Education in 1967 echoes this view of the state of repair, referring to the premises being ‘in a bad state … should be demolished’.¹²⁹

Closure of Reformatory School

The Kennedy Report in 1970 recommended that Daingean ‘should be closed at the earliest opportunity and replaced by modern special schools conducted by trained staff’.

St Conleths Reformatory School in Daingean was closed in October 1973, and replaced by Scoil Ard Mhuire, Lusk. The land and buildings at Daingean were surrendered to the State with the exception of a house at the entrance to the Reformatory which was retained by the Oblates and the gate lodge which was disposed of, to the occupant of 26 years, on terms recommended by an OPW valuer. The transfer value of the house to be occupied by the Oblates was a point of some contention – the original OPW valuation (£20,000/€25,395) was disputed by the Oblates due to the fact that they had recently incurred £12,000 (€15,237) on a milking parlour and the fact that they would need to incur expenditure on repairing and redecorating the house¹³⁰. It is not entirely clear what value was ultimately ascribed to this transaction and we have not seen any documentation in relation to payments made in this regard.

8.3 Numbers of children and staff

Below is a summary of the number of students attending St Conleth’s, Daingean and the income and expenditure per student for that year.

Exhibit 65

Date	Average students per year	Income per student	Expenditure per student
		€	€
1940	222	31	24
1941	221	65	63
1942	223	65	60
1943	240	85	66
1944	236	68	95
1945	224	78	75
1946	199	73	76
1947	178	70	71
1948	206	80	75
1949	201	76	82
1950	175	98	103
1951	178	110	100
1952	177	133	134
1953	152	150	141
1954	142	148	154
1955	130	160	160
1956	166	132	122
1957	163	131	138
1958	154	167	170
1959	172	177	172
1960	187	92	97
1961	181	183	204
1962	146	254	234
1963	117	285	291
1964	129	222	294
1965	108	350	393
1966	119	342	344
1967	107	359	301
1968	104	424	449
1969	92	488	572

St Conleth’s had an accommodation limit of 250 students. It would not appear to have reached this limit at any point, 240 students being the highest number under detention (in 1943). Documentation indicates that the numbers under detention were at the highest levels during the war years as a concerted effort was made by the relevant authorities to minimise the number of offending children on the streets.

We can see from the above figures that there was a rapid decline in numbers of children committed in the mid to late 1960s. As the numbers dropped below 200 in the 1950s, the Resident Manager at Daingean was of the view that the grant should be on a sliding scale since the overhead costs were reasonably constant regardless of the number of boys, while the income stream was linked directly to the number of boys under detention. This point was raised at an interview given by the Minister of Education to the Resident Manager in 1950. The Minister vetoed the idea at that time on the grounds that a new wing at the school had just been completed and it was not considered to be the optimal time to draw the Department of Finance’s attention to the falling numbers:

The Minister stated that the time immediately following our successful struggle for the provision of the new wing is not the best time to ask the Minster for Finance for extra grants nor the best time to bring to the attention of the Minister for Finance that committals are falling so low that the new wing might, perhaps, not be needed. The question of increased grants would seem, therefore, to be a matter for a later date.¹³¹

The falling numbers of children contributed significantly to the deficit position of the school in the 1960s. This issue is dealt with further in Part 9.

Statements from the Oblate Order indicate that the staff structure remained essentially the same throughout the school’s lifetime. The staffing of the Industrial School at Daingean included on average 20 Oblate Brothers, 4–5 Oblate Fathers, plus a visiting medical officer and dentist, two lay teachers, a carpenter, tailor, laundrywoman, two night men, a drill instructor and farm workers. As detailed above, the Oblates, who made up a significant portion of the staff, were not in receipt of salaries although there were ‘allowances’ paid to the Fathers as well as payments that went directly to the Province.

In 1946 the Department of Education proposed to appoint two full-time technical instructors for the school and in 1967 the Department of Education recognised St Conleth’s under the national school grouping and agreed to pay the teachers accordingly. Up until this point the salaries of the teachers had been borne by the school. Towards the end of the period under review, in the mid to late 1960s, the staffing complement was enhanced with the addition of a matron, 2–3 further teachers, three Sisters of Mercy and four women in the kitchen. A growing number of outside professionals were also involved in the school. Three Oblates qualified as teachers and a further four or five qualified in childcare and childcare management.

8.4 Financial consequences for the relevant institution of caring for the children

We have not had sight of a balance sheet for St Conleth’s Reformatory School, Daingean for the period under review. Our assessment of the financial consequences is therefore limited to the information which can be extracted from the income and expenditure accounts provided. The salient points in assessing the overall financial consequences include the following:

• We understand that there was a deficit in the bank of the Reformatory School at 30th November 1969 in the amount of €11,710.
• The total deficits generated by the school over the period amount to €17,706.
• Expenditure on the buildings (furnishing and carpentry, repairs) amounted to €72,422.

• In analysing the farm income and expenditure in the school accounts, it can be seen that the farm made an overall deficit of €25,003¹³². It is not known to what extent farm expenditure includes work of either a capital or a repairs and maintenance nature.

A summary of the financial effect of running the school is as follows;

Exhibit 66

	€	%

Total expenditure	744,587	100%

Funded by:

State and local authorities	533,614	72%
Other income	193,273	26%

Deficit to be funded	17,700	2%

An examination of the transcripts, statements and documentation of the Oblate Order made available to us describes a situation where making ends meet was a constant struggle, especially in light of the ongoing works and maintenance required:

The income deficit, plus the capital starvation for building projects, put a severe strain on Oblate management throughout the fifties and sixties. The Oblates were in no position to provide cash injections from other funds.¹³³

Repair and maintenance expenditure, being the responsibility of the Oblate Order under the terms of the lease, represented an ongoing outflow of funds.

The Oblate Order’s statement for the period 1964–72 is of the opinion that the deficits:

were made up by contributions from various sources: chiefly the produce and income of the farm, but also occasional stipends received by members of the community, and signally by the non-payment of proper salaries for Oblate staff, and some charitable contributions from the public.¹³⁴

The Resident Manager was of the opinion that introducing some form of sliding scale of grants when numbers dropped below 200 would have made for better financing of the school. Such a sliding scale was not, as we have seen, realised and as the numbers fell the deficits generated by the school increased. In analysing income and expenditure, however, in these later years where numbers fell and deficits increased, there was also increased expenditure on the following categories of expenditure:

Exhibit 67

	1940–49 €	1950–59 €	1960–69 €
Holidays & retreats	2,112	3,338	9,061
Furnishing, carpentry, repairs	10,113	20,799	41,510
Education	–	–	1,755
Fathers allowance & sundries	665	1,186	3,317
Stipends to Provincial	115	–	3,104
Petty cash	–	–	9,604
TOTAL	13,005	25,323	68,351

It is clear from the financial statements reviewed that the expenditure on furnishing, carpentry and repairs contributed significantly to the deficits in the school.

9. Comparative and break-even analysis

9.1 Terms of reference

We have carried out an analysis of the financial data in respect of Goldenbridge in County Dublin, Upton in County Cork, Ferryhouse in County Tipperary, Artane in County Dublin and Daingean in County Offaly. The sources of the financial data were the Commission database system and information prepared and provided to us by the respective religious Orders.

Our work to date consists principally of the review and analysis of relevant information in accordance with applicable requirements specifically identified in our terms of reference. These are:

A review of the application of State funding to the care of children in the schools
A commentary on the effects of changes in the number of children over the period 1939–69
The financial consequences for the schools as a result of caring for the children over the period 1939–69.

9.2 Comparative analysis

The expenditure of the schools at Goldenbridge, Artane, An Daingean, Upton and Ferryhouse has been analysed into common areas and summarised into five-year periods commencing from the date from which financial information is available. These figures therefore represent the data available in the school accounts for the period 1939–69. Information not available for certain years and parts of years is dealt with in detail within the respective chapters. The groups of similar costs used for this analysis are detailed below:

Expenditure category	Details
Provisions	Provisions purchased, food, clothing, medical expenses, laundry and cleaning, aftercare, shoe making and bootshop
Operational Expenses	Industrial departments, farm poultry and garden, sweet shop and store, stationery, telegraph, telephone, postage, books for schoolrooms and library,
Building-related expenditure	Ordinary repairs and decorations, fuel, light, power, rent, rates, taxes, insurance, classrooms and payments to council
Capital Expenditure	Expenditure on building works, furniture, fittings, machinery and hardware
Recreational	Band expenses, games, awards, entertainment and holidays
Salaries	Salaries, wages, insurance and stamps
Traveling	Travelling expenses, car and lorry and freight.
Professional and financial-related expenses	Bank charges, interest, solicitors fees and valuer’s fees
Stipends and religious-related expenses	Stipends, transfer to community account, donations and payments to priests
Sundry expenses	Other expenses and petty cash

Exhibit 68

Goldenbridge 5-Year intervals	1951–55 Average %	1956–60 Average %	1961–65 Average %	1966–70 Average %
Provisions	53%	44%	48%	29%
Operational expenses	0%	1%	2%	2%
Building-related expenditure	18%	24%	19%	42%
Capital expenditure	3%	7%	5%	6%
Recreational	0%	0%	1%	1%
Salaries	24%	21%	22%	17%
Travelling	1%	2%	2%	2%
Professional and financial-related expenses	0%	0%	0%	0%
Stipends & religious-related expenses	0%	1%	1%	1%
Sundry expenses	1%	0%	0%	0%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%

Exhibit 69

Artane 5-Year intervals	1941–45 Average %	1946–50 Average %	1951–55 Average %	1956–60 Average %	1961–65 Average %	1966–71 Average %
Provisions	16%	16%	19%	19%	20%	26%
Operational expenses	30%	32%	36%	28%	19%	12%
Building-related expenditure	15%	15%	11%	12%	13%	15%
Capital expenditure	1%	1%	2%	7%	20%	13%
Recreational	1%	1%	1%	2%	2%	6%
Salaries	32%	23%	19%	20%	16%	18%
Travelling	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Professional and financial-related expenses	0%	1%	1%	0%	0%	0%
Stipends & religious-related expenses	5%	11%	10%	12%	9%	6%
Sundry expenses	0%	0%	1%	2%	1%	4%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

Exhibit 70

An Daingean 5-Year intervals	1941–45 Average %	1946–50 Average %	1951–55 Average %	1956–60 Average %	1961–65 Average %	1966–69 Average %
Provisions	36%	34%	36%	35%	29%	29%
Operational expenses	15%	20%	19%	20%	20%	23%
Building-related expenditure	10%	9%	10%	12%	14%	12%
Capital expenditure	8%	9%	9%	10%	8%	12%
Recreational	1%	2%	1%	2%	0%	0%
Salaries	5%	8%	10%	9%	8%	12%
Travelling	3%	5%	6%	7%	2%	0%
Professional and financial-related expenses	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Stipends & religious-related Expenses	17%	13%	9%	5%	7%	2%
Sundry expenses	5%	0%	0%	0%	12%	10%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

Exhibit 71

Upton intervals	1952–53 & 1960–61 Average %	1962–66 Average %
Provisions	34%	22%
Operational expenses	20%	17%
Building-related expenditure	6%	6%
Capital expenditure	9%	26%
Recreational	2%	4%
Salaries	11%	6%
Travelling	3%	2%
Professional and financial-related expenses	4%	0%
Stipends & religious-related expenses	3%	7%
Sundry expenses	8%	10%
Total	100%	100%

Ferryhouse intervals	1951–54 Average %	1960–65 Average %	1966–69 Average %
Provisions	39%	39%	27%
Operational expenses	12%	15%	13%
Building-related expenditure	9%	12%	15%
Capital expenditure	14%	7%	24%
Recreational	1%	0%	0%
Salaries	13%	7%	8%
Travelling	1%	4%	3%
Professional and financial-related expenses	3%	1%	0%
Stipends & religious-related expenses	5%	6%	5%
Sundry expenses	3%	9%	5%
Total	100%	100%	100%

Provisions and operational expenses

Provisions consist of food and clothing, while operational expenses consist mainly of farm and trade costs. To show a like-for-like comparison, these expenses were compared together across the five schools in order to include a cost element of providing farm and other trade produce to the school. We noted that these costs as a percentage of total costs normally fall within the range 45–55 percent with the following exceptions noted and explained below:

A number of the schools fall below the percentage range in the post-1966 range due to an increase in building-related and capital expenditure.
Also, in several schools, the number of children was decreasing, reducing both provisions and operational expenses incurred as a percentage of total costs.

Building-related expenditure and capital expenditure

We have considered these categories in combination because capital expenditure in some schools would have been analysed under various areas that would be contained within this combination. The non-capital elements of building-related expenditure include rent and rates, light and heat and repairs and renewals. The level of expenditure varies significantly between schools but peak expenditure consistently occurred in the late 1960s. From documentation made available to us and discussed elsewhere, there appears to have been discussion throughout the 1960s as to what future the schools had.

Wages and salaries and stipends and religious-related expenses

Wages and salaries in some schools include stipends and other payments to the members of the religious Order running the school. Therefore, in order to prepare a like-for-like comparison we will consider a combination of the wages and salaries and stipends and religious-related expenses. Based on the comparison across the schools we noted the following:

These costs as a percentage of total costs were most significant in the earliest accounts available.
The percentage of total costs, within the same time period, varies significantly. For example during 1951–55 the cost to Artane represented 29 percent compared with 14 percent and 18 percent for Upton and Ferryhouse respectively. It is unclear as to why these costs varied so widely.
The stipends and religious-related expenses in isolation, within the same time period, also vary significantly. For example during 1951–55 the cost to Artane and An Daingean represented 10 percent and 9 percent respectively compared to 3 percent for Upton and 5 percent for Ferryhouse. Goldenbridge’s nil percentage for this expense category is because payments to the Order are included in wages and salaries in their accounts. One explanation for the difference between the institutions may be that the level of stipends varied with the level of funds available. This explanation would also be consistent with a larger school being able to be more efficient in terms of cost per child and therefore leaving a larger amount available for distribution to the community.

Break-even analysis

We calculated the break-even point across all schools for two sample periods – 1951–55 and 1961–65.

For the purpose of this analysis, the following assumptions have been used:

Variable income consists of funding received on a per-child basis (i.e. government and council capitations funding and primary grant) together with farm and other trade income.
Other income consists of any income other than variable income.
Variable costs consist of both expenditure on provisions and operational expenses.
Fixed costs consist of wages that remained reasonably static with movement in child numbers and other costs with the exception of capital expenditure which is shown separately and required irrespective of the number of children resident at a point in time.
Contribution per child is calculated by dividing the excess of variable income over variable costs by the average number of children. This represents the annual amount that the variable income for each child contributed to fixed costs and capital expenditure.
The break-even point is calculated by dividing the contribution per child into the fixed costs. This represents the number of children required for the school to cover both its fixed and variable costs.
Where the financial information has been unavailable in a particular period we have indicated the alternative period used.

Exhibit 72: 1951–55 (Upton is calculated using accounts for 1952–53 and Ferryhouse is calculated using accounts for 1951–54)

	Goldenbridge	Artane	An Daingean	Upton	Ferryhouse
	€	€	€	€	€
Expenses –annualised:
Fixed	6,510	37,454	7,955	9,268	7,535
Variable	7,924	48,076	11,173	13,117	10,871
Capital	516	1,867	1,966	1,404	2,982
	14,950	87,397	21,094	23,789	21,388
Income – annualised:
Fixed
Variable	14,349	89,803	21,379	21,055	20,609
Other	168	895	120	2,745	1,937
	14,517	90,698	21,499	23,800	22,546

Average no of children	154	710	156	118	187

Contribution per child	42	59	65	67	52

Break-even point	155	635	122	138	145

When variable income and expenditure are considered in combination we can see that there is consistently a positive contribution within the range of €42–67 per child per year across the schools considered. A positive contribution indicates that income was available to fund fixed and other costs.
The contribution generated was used for fixed costs and capital expenditure.

We calculated the break-even point across all schools for the period 1961–65, which showed the following results:

Exhibit 73: 1961–65 (Ferryhouse is calculated using accounts for 1960–62 and 1964–65)

	Goldenbridge	Artane	An Daingean	Upton	Ferryhouse
	€	€	€	€	€
Expenses –annualised:
Fixed	10,147	45,144	16,937	13,099	13,040
Variable	11,253	41,576	17,120	19,387	19,033
Capital	1,193	21,323	2,957	10,638	2,290
	22,593	108,043	37,014	43,124	34,363
Income – annualised:
Fixed
Variable	23,945	84,080	32,975	42,836	33,752
Other	285	4,099	955	3,340	2,590
	24,230	88,180	33,930	46,176	36,341

Average no of children	177	330	113	166	168

Contribution per child	72	129	140	142	88

Breakeven point	141	350	121	92	149

When we compare 1951–55 with 1961–65 we noted the following:

The break-even point for Artane and Upton decreased significantly when comparing 1951–55 with 1961–65. In the case of Artane the break-even level decreased due to the increase in the level of variable income and variable costs by approximately 100 percent to €255 and €126 respectively per child per year increasing the monetary amount of the contribution. In the case of Upton, unlike other schools, variable cost levels per child remained constant at approx. €110 per child per year while variable income increased by approximately 50 percent.
Over time the contribution per child has increased. As identified above this is due to the variable income increasing by a higher monetary value than the variable costs per child. The level of contribution was higher in the schools with a farm due to the farm income, which was an important source of additional funding for those schools.
In line with the increased contribution, fixed costs and capital expenditure have also increased.
The break-even analysis for the sample period in the 1950s shows that all of the schools, with the exception of Upton, had numbers of children in excess of the break-even point – suggesting that they should have been in a position to run at least at break-even. In the 1960s, Artane and Daingean experienced a decline in the number of children to a point below their break-even point.
The break-even calculation does not include capital expenditure. If capital expenditure were included, the break-even point would increase in each school. In the 1950s, capital expenditure was low and would not impact the break-even point significantly. In the 1960s, where capital expenditure was higher, adjusting for capital expenditure would mean that Artane, An Daingean, Upton and Ferryhouse would have numbers of children below their break-even point.
In considering this analysis we believe that two points should be noted. The decline in the numbers of children during the late 1950s and through the 1960s meant that the schools in general became increasingly uneconomic to run, with some schools reaching a position where they were below break-even point. However, significant increases in the capitation grant in the late 1960s, outside of our sample period, would have compensated for this to an extent. We also note that there is a strong argument that capital expenditure was not intended to be funded from the capitation grant – for the reasons we have examined in the early part of this report. If this is accepted as a reasonable understanding of the position, then the break-even analysis excluding the impact of capital expenditure is the more appropriate representation of the position of the individual schools, as regards the expected impact of the State contribution. Of course, the schools still had to fund this expenditure, from other sources if necessary.

¹Section VIII of the Cussen Report, pp 40–7 – in particular we note that para 168 notes ‘It must not be overlooked that the buildings, farms, plant etc. have as a rule been provided by the schools themselves.’ suggesting that the capitation grant had not made provision for capital expenditure.

²DE1P0058-049/1.

³Kennedy Report, p 29.

⁴Kennedy Report, pp 30–1.

⁵DEIP0058-050/1 and DEIP0058-050/2.

⁶SOMGB-00568/49-55.

⁷SOMGB-00568/58.

⁸SOMGB-00568/84.

⁹SOMGB-00490/1.

¹⁰Anna McCabe Report 13/1/1941.

¹¹DEDAN0285-031.

¹²DNOB2016.

¹³DEDAN0285-031.

¹⁴DEDAN0282-046; DOF1939-02-110.

¹⁵DOF1966-00-070.

¹⁶The Department of Education’s Statement to the Commission, p 9 of the full report.

¹⁷Page 8, Submission of the Christian Brothers, December 2006.

¹⁸Oblates of Mary Immaculate Discovery file/FDR working file, pp 97 and 98 (Resident Managers Management File) – 10/02/41 Memo drawn up by Provincial of meeting on 07/02/1941 to discuss amendments to the lease drafted by Board of Works.

¹⁹Page 19: Submission of the Rosminian Fathers, January 2007.

²⁰CBMIN-012/1 & CBMIN-013/1.

²¹The Department of Education’s Statement to the Commission.

²²Taken from the Department of Education’s Statement to the Commission, Part 5.

²³For example, DE1P0059-008/4, DE1P0058-106/2, CBMIN-07/1 and CBMIN-101/2.

²⁴DE1P0058-106/2.

²⁵DE1P0058-049/2.

²⁶DOF1975-02-095/1.

²⁷The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse hearing on 21st June 2004. Transcript of Dr Eoin O’Sullivan’s testimony, p 43.

²⁸CBMIN-018/2.

²⁹DOF 1959-00-055/1 to 1959-00-55/4.

³⁰DOF1943-00-172/1.

³¹Section VIII of the Cussen Report, pp 40–7 – in particular we note that para 168 notes ‘It must not be overlooked that the buildings, farms, plant etc. have as a rule been provided by the schools themselves.’ suggesting that the capitation grant had not made provision for capital expenditure.

³²DE1P0058-049/1.

³³Kennedy Report, p 29.

³⁴Kennedy Report, pp 30–1.

³⁵Section VIII of the Cussen Report, pp 40–7 – the quotation is drawn from para 168 (see also fn 33).

³⁶DE1P0058-037/4.

³⁷DE1P0058-037/4.

³⁸CBMIN-013/1.

³⁹CBMIN-032/1.

⁴⁰CBMIN-031/1 to CBMIN-031/3.

⁴¹CBMIN-034/1.

⁴²CBMIN-035/1.

⁴³DE1P0058-049/2.

⁴⁴CBMIN-037/1.

⁴⁵DE1P0058-050/1 and DE1P0058-050/2.

⁴⁶CBMIN-037/1.

⁴⁷DECAP058-059/1.

⁴⁸The Kennedy Report, p 29.

⁴⁹Kennedy Report, pp 30-1.

⁵⁰DE1P0059-008/1.

⁵¹DOF1975-02-057/1.

⁵²CBMIN- 045/1.

⁵³DE1P0058-89/1.

⁵⁴DOF1953-00-039.

⁵⁵DOF 1975-03-019/1.

⁵⁶It is not clear what this amount represents. It may be reasonable to assume that it includes contributions from parents/guardians in relation to children detained in Reformatory and Industrial Schools.

⁵⁷This expenditure was incurred between 1940 and 1951, and related to the Daingean Reformatory.

⁵⁸DOF1942-00-056/1.

⁵⁹CBMIN-109/1.

⁶⁰CBMIN-030/2.

⁶¹System reference ART0381-045.

⁶²System reference DE2P0050-010.

⁶³DOF1942-00-056/1.

⁶⁴System references UPT0150-055, NTFSOM0080-016, DE1P0056-027 & DE1P0056-028.

⁶⁵Report on Financial Matters Relating to St. Vincent’s Industrial School at Goldenbridge, p 21.

⁶⁶DOF1975-02/095/1.

⁶⁷The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse hearing on 21st June 2004. Transcript of Dr Eoin O’Sullivan’s testimony, p 49.

⁶⁸This view is also consistent with the comment on p 30 of the Kennedy Report: ‘This total dependence on the capitation grant could lead to a situation where managers are reluctant to discharge pupils eligible for release or even to send them for psychological assessment (with consequent possibility of transfer) or for treatment to other institutions because of the financial loss involved.’

⁶⁹The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse hearing on 21st June 2004. Transcript of Dr Eoin O’Sullivan’s testimony, p 81.

⁷⁰The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse hearing on 21st June 2004. Transcript of Dr Eoin O’Sullivan s testimony, p 82.

⁷¹The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse hearing on 21st June 2004. Transcript of Dr Eoin O’Sullivan’s testimony, p 82.

⁷²DOF1975 -02-095/2.

⁷³DE1P0121-010/1 to DE1P0121-010/40.

⁷⁴DHEMST2-013.

⁷⁵1951/52 Table 2, Household Budget Survey, CSO.

⁷⁶Information taken from Visitation Report dated November 1960. Commission document Number CBVART – 044.

⁷⁷Information taken from Visitation Report dated November 1949. Commission document Number CBVART – 013.

⁷⁸Visitation report 1947, system reference CBVART 011/4.

⁷⁹Visitation report 1950, system reference CBVART 015/3.

⁸⁰Visitation report 1950, system reference CBVART 015/4.

⁸¹Visitation report 1952, system reference CBVART 018/3 & 018/4.

⁸²Visitation report 1947, system reference CBVART 011/4.

⁸³Visitation report 1955, system reference CBVART 024/2.

⁸⁴Visitation report 1957, system reference CBVART 030/4.

⁸⁵Visitation report 1959, system reference CB VART 040/2.

⁸⁶Visitation report 1963, system reference CBVART 049/2 & 049/3.

⁸⁷Visitation Report 1968, system reference CBVART 062/5.

⁸⁸We understand that limited stipends represent capitation grant funding lodged directly to the house account during the period 1940–46.

⁸⁹Visitation Report 1942, system reference CBVART 004.

⁹⁰Source: bank statements provided by Christian Brothers.

⁹¹Source: Visitation Report 1968, system reference CBVART 062/5. This report also identifies the Building Fund balance shown in this table. It puts the School overdraft at that date as £81,547 (equivalent €103,543).

⁹²No value is ascribed to the land and buildings at Artane. It would appear reasonable to assume that a valuation at 1969 would have been at least as much as, and possibly in excess of, the value of disposals in the late 1960s, as approximately 100 acres of land and substantially all of the buildings were retained by the Order.

⁹³Visitation Report 1966, system reference CBVART 060/3.

⁹⁴See Appendix IV.

⁹⁵See Appendix IV.

⁹⁶Historical data from Bríd Fahy Bates PhD The Institute of Charity: Rosminians Their Irish Story 1860-2003.

⁹⁷See Appendix XIII – Submission from Rosminian Fathers.

⁹⁸For the period 1950–59, accounts are only available for 1952 and 1953.

⁹⁹For the period 1960–69, accounts only available until 1966, year in which the school at Upton was closed.

¹⁰⁰For the majority of years the farm income and expenditure figures included in the school accounts do not agree to the farm accounts.

¹⁰¹For the period 1940–49, accounts only available for 1941 and 1947. For the period 1950–59,accounts only available for 1951,1952,1953 and 1954, For the period 1960–69, accounts available for all years with the exception of 1963.

¹⁰²SOMGB-00568/49-55.

¹⁰³SOMGB-00568/58.

¹⁰⁴SOMGB-00568/84.

¹⁰⁵Statement of intended evidence by Sister Helena O’Donoghue (OSBG-002/32).

¹⁰⁶SOMGB-00568/12.

¹⁰⁷SOMGB-00568/21.

¹⁰⁸See Exhibit 3, Part 4.

¹⁰⁹SOMGB-00490/1.

¹¹⁰Anna McCabe Report 13/1/1941.

¹¹¹DNOB2016.

¹¹²Oblate Statement 1949–55.

¹¹³DOF1939-02-020.

¹¹⁴Resident Managers Management File.

¹¹⁵Farm sales are taken directly from the accounts provided. Other income categories such as ‘sundry sales’, ‘unspecified’, etc may represent income generated from the farm but due to the uncertainty have been excluded from this analysis.

¹¹⁶Farm sales presented in the accounts show zero farm income in 1968 despite expenditure in that year of €12k.

¹¹⁷DEDAN0285-031.

¹¹⁸DOF1939-02-167.

¹¹⁹DOF1939-02-162.

¹²⁰DOF1939-02-018.

¹²¹DOF1939-02-028/1.

¹²²The Commission has written to the OPW seeking clarification of this point but a complete response has not been available to date.

¹²³DEDAN0282-046; DOF1939-02-110.

¹²⁴DOF1939-02-199/1.

¹²⁵DEDAN0285-031.

¹²⁶DOF1966-00-073.

¹²⁷DOF1966-00-66.

¹²⁸DOF1966-00-070.

¹²⁹DEDAN0276-105.

¹³⁰DOF1966-00-077.

¹³¹DEDAN0276-018.

¹³²This is based on figures taken from farm income and farm expenditure lines in the accounts. Farm sales presented in the accounts show zero farm income in 1968 despite expenditure in that year of €12,000. Other income categories such as ‘sundry sales’ and ‘unspecified’ may represent income generated from the farm but due to the lack of certainty have been excluded from this analysis.

¹³³Oblates Discovery file, p 84.

¹³⁴Oblates Discovery file, p 83 (1964–72 Oblates Statement).

Chapter Mazars Appendixes: 155 page Microsoft Word Document on the Financials of the Church

Click to access Appendices_Final_mar_09_Mazars%20Report.pdf

Submission From the Congregation of Christian Brothers to the Commission to Inquire on Child Abuse on the Review of Financial Matters Relating to the System of Reformatory and Industrial Schools and a Number of Individual Institutions 1939-1969

Microsoft Word Document:

http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/pdfs/CICA-Vol4-05.pdf

Report on Financial Matters relating to St Vincent’s Industrial School at Goldenbridge, A Report to the Commission prepared by Terrance O’Rourke, a partner in KPMG instructed by Arthur O’Hagan Solicitors on behalf of the Sisters of Mercy.

48 pg Microsoft Word Document:
http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/pdfs/CICA-Vol4-06.pdf

Submission On Behalf of Oblates of Mary Immaculate to the Commission to Inquire on Child Abuse. Response to Draft Mazar’s Report.

8 pg Microsoft Word Document
http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/pdfs/CICA-Vol4-07.pdf

Submission by the Rosminian Institute to the Commission to Inquire Child Abuse

25 pg Microsoft Word Document

Click to access CICA-Vol4-08.pdf

Chapter 3
Society and the schools

Prof. David Gwynn Morgan.

Part 1 Social, economic and family background

Child poverty in independent Ireland

3.01In a very real sense, poverty was the reason for the Industrial schools. The result of the adverse economic conditions of the times was that the late 1920s, 30s and 40s were scarred by deep poverty. All the classic signs were there: tuberculosis (‘consumption’); rickets; anaemia; emigration; apathy; money-lending and high unemployment, especially in the cities of Dublin, Cork, Waterford and Limerick.

3.02An economic depression lasted virtually throughout the 1920s and 30s. The war years, 1939-45, were a period of further economic decline, with urban unemployment and a drop in real wages of 30 percent between 1939 and 1943 and a recovery to the 1939 figure only in 1949. Even then stagnation set in until 1958. Thereafter, the economy grew at an unprecedented rate through the 1960s (about 4 percent pa) and through the 70s in a more patchy way.

3.03Another contributory factor to child poverty was the fact that during the period 1930-80, Irish levels of fertility were consistently the highest in Western Europe. Infant mortality, often invoked as a guide to living standards, was 90 per 1,000 in 1914. Then there was a reduction but it rose significantly during World War II (indeed during the period 1936-48 it remained between 60-80 per 1,000).¹ In sum, it was inevitable that one of the major (if seldom noticed) problems of public policy would remain a significant number of poor families. At the root of this poverty was unemployment, coupled with the lack of welfare benefits. Usually the reason for low income was unemployment, which was heavily concentrated in Cork, Limerick, Waterford and especially Dublin. The following Table shows the unemployment rates.

Unemployment rates

Year	Dublin County Borough		National
Year	Unemployed Figures	Rate as % of those available for work	Unemployed Figures	Rate as % of those available for work
1926	13,580	14.7	66,393	6.9
1936	17,500	13.2	83,235	8.5
1946	13,141	9.7	51,809	5.4
1951	9,293	6.2	36,115	3.8
1956	9,861	6.6	55,157	6.6
1961	8,559	6.1	46,989	5.7
1966	7,514	5.1	43,864	5.3

3.04This general view is confirmed by a number of empirical pioneering surveys in or about the 1940s by doctors or other public-spirited citizens. Writing in 1938 about the general population, Dr Fearon² estimated that a weekly income of 30 shillings per week would be needed to keep a person, and of this amount the expenditure on food would be 10 shillings for a diet which ‘is almost’ nutritionally adequate. Yet 50 percent of the population had a weekly income of 20 shillings or less and spent 8 shillings or less on food.³ In the same year, the Rotunda Hospital, in inner North Dublin, almoners carried out a dietary survey on a small sample of 50 families living in one-roomed tenements where the breadwinner was unemployed – in other words the families whose children were most likely to be committed. The almoners found that when rent, insurance, fuel and light were paid, the average weekly sum available for food and clothes, for each family member, was 3 shillings.⁴

3.05A few years later, in 1945, the cost of living had increased and another study of family income told the same sad story. This study of 10,500 families drawn at random from the Corporation’s information on families in Dublin, found that 55 percent of them had an income that was below £2.10s 0d. The significance of the figure of £2.10s is as follows. The unemployment assurance was relatively high but only lasted for a few months. Where a man was unemployed beyond this period, he and his family would go on to either home assistance or unemployment assistance. In 1945, in the case of Dublin residents, this was 30 shillings per week. In addition, children’s allowances would bring in another 7s 6d, food and (in winter) fuel vouchers would bring in another 6 shillings, and there might also be a grant from St Vincent de Paul or another charity. Yet experts at the time stated that the weekly minimum cost for a healthy standard of living ranged from £3.5s 0d. to £4.18s 0d for a family with five children between the ages of five and 15 (taking the lowest figure for rent and for nutrition which will create healthy growth and resistance to the social disease of tuberculosis and rheumatism). Extrapolating from these figures, one can deduce that throughout the country, there was likely to have been at least 60,000 children who, because of either their parents’ chronic unemployment or inadequate wages, were living at such levels of destitution as to make them eligible for Industrial Schools.⁵

3.06A 1948 survey contrasted two types of meals, the ‘bread and spread’ and the cooked meal. The ‘bread and spread’ consisted of a tea or milk drink, bread and a butter or jam spread. The cooked meal consisted of fish, meat, or eggs and may also have included potatoes and vegetables or a pudding. For children under 14 years of age in slum families, 44 percent of all the meals they ate were of the ‘bread and spread’ type, while these figures declined to 36 percent of children in artisan families, and 18 percent in middle class families. The survey found that intakes of milk and cheese were insufficient in all income groups, although the deficiencies were most marked in slum families.

3.07As to housing for the poor, there was even at the higher level a shortage of adequate accommodation at affordable rents and, at the lowest level, an absence of any accommodation that was not overcrowded, unheated or often rat-infested.⁶ The conditions were ‘often quite unsuitable for cattle’.⁷ Writing about housing conditions especially in urban areas in the 1930s O’Cinneide and Maguire state:⁸

Studies … especially in urban areas in the 1930s suggest that housing conditions improved little from the beginning of the Irish Free State. In fact, one report noted that the number of urban families living in unsuitable or hazardous conditions in the intervening years rose from 25,820, in 1913 to 28,200 in 1938, in spite of slum clearance efforts in the intervening years.

3.08As late as 1950, there were 6,300 tenements housing 112,000 people or nearly one-third of Dublin Corporation population.⁹

Table showing number of rooms per household

	1926	1936	1946	1961
	No of households/ persons	No of households/ persons	No of households/ persons	No of households/ persons
All areas
Private households in 1 room	47,000 140,000	43,000 125,000	34,000 89,000	15,000 27,000
– with 1 or 2 persons	24,000 35,000	23,000 33,000	20,000 28,000	12,000 15,000
– with 3–5 persons	17,000 85,000	15,000 56,000	11,000 43,000	3,000 10,000
– with 6+ persons	6,000 41,000	5,000 36,000	3,000 18,000	321 2,000
Dublin City and County
Private households in 1 room	27,000 89,000	27,000 92,000	22,000 66,000	11,000 21,000
– with 1 or 2 persons	12,000 18,000	16,000 22,000	14,000 19,000	9,000 12,000
– with 3–5 persons	11,000 42,000	11,000 42,000	9,000 33,000	2,000 8,000
– with 6+ persons	4,000 28,000	4,000 28,000	2,000 14,000	258 2,000

Source: Census of Population 1961, Vol VI: Housing and Social Amenities, Table 6

NB Because of rounding to nearest thousand sums may not add up.

3.09The Table shows that, for instance, in 1946, there were 3,000 households comprising six or more people living in one-room accommodation. Two-thirds of these one-room accommodation units were in Dublin City and County. These figures were worse in 1936 and worse again in 1926. By 1961, however, there had been significant improvement on the 1946 figures. Small wonder that the numbers of Dublin children committed for reasons of poverty were disproportionately high.

3.10As the country became less poor through the late 1950s and 1960s conditions improved. In 1936, in Dublin inner city, a family would have to consist of nine or more persons in one room to merit Corporation housing. Even then, many families living 12 in one room had to refuse the offer of a corporation house because they could not afford the rent. With the advent in 1950 of the differential rents system for corporation houses, this difficulty fell away and, by 1961, while conditions were still not good, a family of three or four had a reasonable chance of rehousing.

3.11Although conditions were worst in Dublin, they were also bad in the provinces. The following descriptions of family circumstances were collected by O’Cinneide and Maguire from ISPCC files:¹⁰

One-roomed house, mud-walled cabin, overcrowded and condemned by CMO. One bed for entire family (family of five, 1938, Arklow)
Two-roomed house mud walls and thatched in very bad state of repair; no rent paid. Home congested and damp, unfit for human habitation (family of four, 1943, Wexford)
Living in with the paternal grandfather in one room. Very little furniture. One double bed, poorly covered. One pram. Room clean and tidy. Family are overcrowded (family of six, 1954, Wicklow).

3.12Income shortage was often compounded by bad management and debt was a major problem. Credit unions did not start until the late 1960s. Moneylenders charged up to 100 percent interest and took children’s allowance books as security. One poor mother described her whirligig of debt – to the landlord, ESB, shop on the corner, moneylenders – as being ‘as if my head and my feet are in a halter’.¹¹ Alcoholism or gambling were other thorns. Parents were occasionally in such severe straits that they refused to take their child home from maternity hospital. Dr Dillon wrote in 1945:¹²

The Poor cannot keep clean, because they are unable to buy soap or fuel to heat water. With every month at unemployment their position becomes more desperate, more hopeless, until they finally join the ranks of the unemployable. The mother starves herself to feed her children and, in a very high percentage of cases, is found on examination to be suffering from nutritional anaemia. The children fall behind in school and gradually slip down to a social status even lower than their parents. They are in the majority of cases all but useless to the modern employer. At the age of 18 they are replaced by some other unfortunate and join the ranks of the unemployable proletariat. There are families in Dublin in which the second generation is now well advanced on that dreary road.

3.13Family-planning facilities were virtually non-existent and many marriages floundered owing to these extreme family stresses. For instance: ¹³

A typical example of the emigration pattern of the 1940s and 1950s was an expectant mother with five children alive out of eight pregnancies, who usually became pregnant during her husband’s infrequent visits home. She lived in two rooms at the top of a city tenement, and was known to the almoner from 1939 to 1957. She was distraught because she suspected that her husband, who was living in ‘digs’ in England, was having an affair with his landlady – ‘he never wires but send money regularly’. She described him as ‘indifferent’, having no affection for his children.

3.14As well as poverty, many related evils flourished in these extreme and unnatural conditions. In the years leading up to independence, Crown books (court records) show that prosecutions for sexual crime involving children – indecent exposure, gross indecency, indecent assault, buggery and unlawful carnal knowledge – arising out of acts occurring in the Dublin tenements, were commonplace and prostitution was regarded as a common problem in Dublin. Of the 1,984 deaths from venereal disease recorded in Ireland between 1899 and 1916, 69 percent of the victims were children under five years of age.¹⁴ However, according to a report ‘contrary to the currently accepted opinion, VD was widespread throughout the country and it was disseminated by a class of girl who could not be regarded as a prostitute’.¹⁵

3.15The illegitimacy rate was high (eg 295 per 1,000 births in 1929-30) and according . to one historical survey: ‘To judge from the pages of the Cork Examiner, (from 1925-6) infanticide was a weekly, if not a daily reality in Ireland.’ The reports were brief, factual and non-judgemental. The most usual outcome was a guilty verdict ‘with a strong recommendation to mercy’, partly due to the stigma already attached to the perpetrator and their family.¹⁶

3.16Against this background of extreme poverty, some saw the Schools as no worse than anything else and as offering children at least adequate food and housing. The type of situation which might easily lead on to entry to an Industrial School is described in the Rotunda Hospital Annual Report for 1955:

Mrs X was delivered of her fifth child in November, 1954. She was under the care of the Hospital for her four previous confinements in 1946, 1947 1952 and 1953. She is of low intelligence and has served several sentences in prison always on charges of stealing. Her husband is frequently unemployed. The family is almost constantly in debt. When a social science student visited the home, both gas and electricity had been cut off due to non-payment of accounts and arrears of rent amounted to £3.

In early February, 1955 the new baby was brought to the Paediatric Unit and found to have gained no weight since birth and was in poor condition due to neglect. The child had to be admitted to Hospital forthwith.¹⁷

3.17A newspaper report (source not given, in Lunney, at 93-94¹⁸) gives a graphic description of conditions in some Dublin homes under the heading of ‘Shocking Case of Neglect’, during the Second World War years.

Miss Hannah Clarke, Inspector of the NSPCC gave evidence in court, stating that when she visited the one roomed home of this particular family in Dublin, she found three very neglected children in the room. The eldest girl was six years of age. They were alone. According to Miss Clarke: ‘Mary was dirty, her hair verminous and her clothes dirty and verminous. She was wearing old slippers. Margaret was in the same condition. Carmel was lying on a filthy bed. Her head was a moving mass of vermin. There was no food in the room and witness went to a shop and purchased bread, butter and milk for the children’s tea.

The father stated that it was not his duty to clean the children while the mother admitted negligence but pleaded ill health. Both parents were sentenced to imprisonment. The report went on to state that in the opinion of the presiding justice, Mr Little, ‘the children should be sent to one of those admirable institutions, miscalled industrial schools, which were really boarding schools for the poor.

3.18In the Rotunda Report for 1945-46 in the section on social services by the almoner, Miss Murphy, another case was summarised as follows:

Mrs N developed phlebitis following her discharge from the wards on her seventh confinement and she was advised to rest in bed at home. We were asked to arrange for a district nurse to dress her leg. Her home consisted of one small attic room. There were holes in the floor, the walls were wet and plaster was falling off them. All water had to be carried up from the ground floor. Mrs N was in bed. The head of the bed was against the damp wall and beside an open window. As a result, the baby had developed a cold. Mrs N and her husband and five children – the eldest aged 6 ½ years lived in this room and slept together on the only bed. In spite of the difficulties, the home was reasonably clean. Mr N, an unemployed cattle drover, was dependent on 18/4 unemployment assistance, 12/6 food vouchers and 5/- children’s allowance pr weekend and his rent was 10/-. Occasionally he obtained a day’s work and earned about £1. In addition the Society of St Vincent de Paul was giving him a food voucher value 4/- per week and the Catholic Social Service Food Centre was giving Mrs N dinner and milk every day. We applied at once to the Corporation Housing Department for accommodation for this family and seven months later they moved into a four-roomed corporation house.

State financial support

3.19In 1948, the maximum rate of unemployment assistance was 38 shillings per week. So, for a family with five children, the total income including children’s allowances would have been 45s 6d. The NSPCC Annual Report of the Dublin Branch 1947-48 stated:

Allowing for a moderate rent of, say, 5 shillings per week, the amount available per head, viz, 5/9½ is well below the minimum necessary to provide food alone. …It is true that in the worst cases the home assistance authorities sometimes intervene with an allowance for rent; but the total is still insufficient to provide proper nourishment for the children, to say nothing of clothing or bedding, much less for any less necessary amenities. It is a small wonder that some parents give up the unequal contest and apply for the committal of their children to industrial schools on the grounds of inability to support them, when, as we have so often pointed out, they cost the public funds 15/-a head.

3.20The unemployment figures were as low as they were because of the emigration of thousands of fathers, throughout the 1950s especially, and the fact that many do not feature in these figures because they were trying to eke out a living on smallholdings of land.

3.21Despite the valuable work done by private philanthropic organisations, like the Saint Vincent de Paul¹⁹ or the Catholic Social Welfare Fund or such local charities as the Marrowbone Lane Samaritan Fund, Evening Herald Boot Fund, Belvedere News Boys’ Club, Rotarians or the Penny Dinners, the long-term problem was so great that only State support could ameliorate it.

3.22At independence, systematic State assistance to poor people was confined to two relevant²⁰ supports. The first of these were the unpopular workhouses, which had been established in each Poor Law Union. Immediately after independence, in 1922, these were reorganised so that, in each county, there was one central institution, under the control of a local board of health. Between 1913-14 and 1924-25, the numbers of people, including some young children, living in these institutions declined by one-third (from 27,000 to 18,000).

3.23The second form of assistance was originally known as ‘outdoor relief’ (so called, by contrast with the workhouses). After independence, outdoor relief was renamed home assistance and restrictions on its payment to able-bodied persons or widows with a single child were dropped. As a result, between 1920 and 1925, the numbers receiving outdoor relief/home assistance increased from 15,000 to 22,000, which was still a very small figure having regard to the level of need, with total annual expenditure going from £114,000 to £373,000. The 1937-38 annual report of the Dublin branch of the NSPCC pointed out that while the rate of home assistance for Dublin was adequate at 25 shillings per week for a family of five children, rates prevailing elsewhere, specifically in Wicklow and Kildare, at a maximum payment of 10 shillings per week, were insufficient. Home assistance took the form not only of money but also food, clothing and bedding. Another form that home assistance might take – free or low-cost footwear – bears directly on committal to Industrial Schools: for, to take an example, during a three-month period in 1944, the Dublin Corporation School Attendance Committee dealt with 480 cases of non-attendance and, in at least 80 cases, the reason given was that the children had no footwear in which to attend school.²¹ In 1939 the unemployment figure was at 100,000, with over 83,000 people in receipt of home assistance, of whom one-third resided in Dublin City or County).

3.24During the relevant period three further welfare benefits were instituted. The first of these, provided under the Unemployment Assistance Act 1933 was unemployment benefit, that is (means-tested) relief of able-bodied men and women, during periods of temporary unemployment. Before the 1933 Act, only a relatively small proportion of the population had been eligible for unemployment benefit which was funded mainly by social insurance. This meant that generally it was confined to better-off working people. The rest, including all agricultural workers and smallholders many of them unemployed in all but name, had to rely on home assistance or the occasional emergency relief provisions provided out of central funds during periods of severe unemployment.

3.25Secondly, the Committee of Inquiry into Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions (1932-33) made recommendations that bore fruit rather quickly, in the form of the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pension Act 1935. This established pensions, on a contributory basis, for widows and orphans of wage earners; and also, on a non-contributory basis, for anyone in need.

3.26But most significant of all in the present context was the children’s allowance, which was introduced in 1944. At the start, when it was confined to the third and subsequent children under 16, it benefited 320,000 children. This was not means tested, and provided a regular allowance, initially at the rate of 2s 6d per week. Dr Kennedy summarises the subsequent extension of the children’s allowance:²²

Children’s allowances were extended to the second qualified child in July 1952, and to all qualified children from November 1963. Under the Social Welfare Act, 1973, the qualifying age for children’s allowance was raised to 18 years for children in full-time education, in apprenticeships, or disabled. The total number of families in receipt of children’s allowances has risen from 132,000 in 1944 to about 500,000 at present [2001].

3.27When first introduced, children’s allowance cost the State £2¼ million. This was the equivalent of 1¼ percent of national income or a quarter of the amount spent on all the other welfare payments put together: old age pensions, widows’ and orphans’ pensions, unemployment insurance and assistance, workmen’s compensation, national health insurance and public assistance.

3.28It is generally accepted that the decline in numbers in the Schools from the mid 1940s was partly due to children’s allowances and it is noteworthy that the numbers being committed to the Industrial Schools peaked in 1943, the year before they were introduced.

Groups from which the children came²³

3.29Children from the following socio-economic groups were more likely to end up in a certified school:

1)Low-income and large families

2)Single-parent families

3)Orphans

4)Mentally-ill children.

1) Low-income and large families

3.30Children from the lower socio-economic groups were represented in disproportionately high numbers in the Schools. The reason for poverty or deprivation might be badly-paid, insecure employment, unemployment or the loss of a parent. The Kennedy Report, Appendix E, Table 31 (Committee’s survey) gives the following figures (as of 1968) for the occupations of residents’ fathers. The penultimate column gives the percentage for each occupation as their children were represented in the Schools. For comparison, the final column shows the percentage of each occupation in the general national population.

Father’s occupation	Industrial Schools			Reformatories
Father’s occupation	Boys’ Schools	Girls’ and junior boys’ Schools	Totals	Boys’ Schools	Girls’ Schools	Totals	Totals for Industrial Schools and Reformatories %		National %
Farmer	4	42	46				46	1.9%	28%
Higher professional		7	7				7	0.3%	2.5%
Lower professional		9	9				9	0.4%	3%
Employer/ manager		4	4				4	0.2%	1.5%
Commercial worker (eg agent)		12	12				12	0.5%	12%
Clerical worker	10	29	39	3			42	1.7%
Intermediate non manual worker	27	85	112	4	1	5	117	4.7%	9.5%
Skilled tradesman	44	118	162	6	1	7	169	6.8%	7%
Semi-skilled worker	34	122	156	12	5	17	173	7%	7%
Agricultural labourer	22	76	98	1	1	2	100	4%	9%
Non-skilled worker	43	268	311	27	3	30	341	13.8%	5.5%
Unemployed	39	169	208	16	–	16	224	9%	7.3
Disabled	6	67	73	5	1	6	79	3.2%
Itinerant	11	51	62	4	1	5	67	2.7%
‘In England’	10	71	81	4	–	4	85	3.4%
Occupation unknown	95	349	444	3	1	4	448	18.1%
No reply	306	203	509	20	24	44	553	22.3%

Totals	651	1,682	2,333	105	38		2476

3.31The McQuaid Artane survey found that a disproportionate number of School residents came from large families.

2) One-parent families

3.32A great proportion of children in the schools came from families that were non-marital or one or both parents had died. Where it was the mother who died, then the conventional view might be taken that the father, especially if a full-time breadwinner, was not equipped to bring up the family (and even, because of an unspoken fear of incest, where there were daughters in the family should not do so). If it was the father who died then, while the homemaker remained, there was no breadwinner so that the family was likely to be impoverished.

3.33If the child was born out of wedlock, the mother was likely to find herself in either a mother and baby home or a county home. The child might then be adopted formally or informally, boarded out or sent to an Industrial School.

3.34The Kennedy Committee ascertained that only about 18 percent of children were known to the School to have parents who were married, alive and living together. Some 30 per cent of the children had one parent who was dead and it was not known in 35 percent of cases whether the father was alive, although the mother was.

3.35The background of broken homes from which many of the residents came is captured by the Tuairim Report, 29:

Some of the children in these schools will have no parents, or a parent with whom they have no contact, others may have both parents living but temporarily or permanently unable to provide for them. The committal of the children of one family to different schools, particularly if one parent is dead, often means the complete disintegration of the family as a unit. The surviving parent may marry again, set up a new home with the new spouse, and, when more children are born, abandon completely those of the first marriage who are, in any case, scattered in schools in different parts of the country.

3) Orphans

3.36There was a high number of orphans in Industrial Schools. The Kennedy Committee survey found that the Schools knew that both of a child’s parents were dead in 1½ percent of cases and did not know whether they were both alive in a further 10 percent. Another survey – Lunney’s survey of the Sisters of Mercy Schools – which checked the various school admission registers from the establishment of each School up to 1950 – elicited an average figure of 11.2 percent.²⁴ As a comparison, during the same period, the numbers of orphans was about 0.25 percent of the general population.

3.37The full significance of these striking findings, here and under category 2, is brought out by Dr McQuaid:

Not to know whether one or other or both of the parents were alive or dead… represents a remarkable level of basic ignorance of the facts about the children, in dealing with whom this information is most fundamental. For the responsible authorities (one does not necessarily mean the schools) not to be aware of these details is one of the most shattering indictments of the ‘system’. For the children themselves, these facts are also vital. When one considers that in all of us the prime requirement for effective functioning is a secure and unshakable sense of identity, it must be plain to everyone that for a child not to know who his parents were, nor where they are, nor how he can get in touch with them and maintain contact, must seriously invalidate whatever else may be done to help and rehabilitate him.

4) Physical or mental illness

3.38O’Cinneide and Maguire observe:

The Boards of Health and Public Assistance received many requests, from parents and guardians, resident managers of Industrial Schools, and other concerned individuals to have children with physical or mental handicaps admitted to the various institutions that catered for people with disabilities. The various local authorities seem not to have operated according to a standardised set of criteria, and many cases of obvious merit were turned down because parents could not contribute to their children’s upkeep in institutions. For the most part, the Boards were extremely tight-fisted when it came to maintaining children in special institutions, and one can only imagine how many disabled children languished at home, with parents who could not cope or provide them with even a rudimentary education, because of the Board’s strident policies in this area.

…Cases that were clearly worthy, given the circumstances of the parents, were rejected on the grounds that the parents were not eligible for public assistance and thus the Board could not accept responsibility to maintain their children.

3.39The Kennedy Report, Appendix F, reported on a survey across different age groups and genders testing for intelligence, perceptual ability and verbal reasoning etc. Each category revealed broadly the same picture. The results of intelligence testing, in essence, were that (at p 113):

11.9 per cent of children in Industrial Schools are mentally handicapped compared with approximately 2.5 per cent in the population, and that 36.6 per cent are borderline mentally handicapped compared with approx 12.5 per cent in the population in general. This leaves 51.5 per cent who are of average or above average intelligence compared with about 85.0 per cent in the population at large.

Part 2 Other institutions for children in care

3.40A child might live in a School and, at a different period, in one of the alternative residential institutions. An example of such transfers is given by Professor Dermot Keogh, in a report he prepared for The Presentation Brothers relating to St Joseph’s Industrial School Greenmount and submitted to CICA, at 108:

According to Fr James Good, who was appointed chaplain in Greenmount Industrial School in mid-1955, the following arrangements were in place in the Cork area for the receipt of children. Babies born in the home for unmarried mothers at the Sacred Heart Convent, Bessboro, normally stayed there for two and a half years with their mothers. Between the age of two and a half and ten they lived in a junior Industrial School, generally Passage for boys and Rushbrooke for girls. On their tenth birthday, the boys were usually transferred to Greenmount or Upton. At age fourteen, they were ‘out of books’ and usually worked in the bakery or at shoe repairs. At sixteen, they were released to farmers, for whom they worked as labourers or to take up employment in the army, industry, domestic service or the trades.

3.41Two comprehensive tables²⁵ show the various facilities available for children in care and also the scale on which they had to be utilised.

Table 5 Number of children regulated by census year
	1861	1871	1881	1891	1901	1911	1926	1936	1946	1951	1961	1966	1971
Children in workhouses/county homes	12,307	12,089	11,618	6,618	5,527	5,213	1,900	1,291	800	400	100	53	40
Children in mother and baby homes	–	–	–	–	–	–	607	887	869	817	–	–	–
Children in Industrial Schools under detention	–	2,482	6,279	8,547	8,254	8,382	5,927	6,039	6,510	5,844	3,686	2,456	1,072
Children in Industrial Schools voluntarily	–	200	434	376	298	427	350	250	150	89	99	123	70
Children in Industrial Schools by health authorities	–	–	–	–	–	49	–	–	–	339	388	433	511
Total number in Industrial Schools		2,682	6,713	8,923	8,552	8,858	6,277	6,289	6,660	6,272	4,173	3,012	1,653
Children in Reformatory Schools	539	970	1,151	786	596	652	115	109	237	214	205	145	42
Children in approved institutions	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	245	425	532	788
Children in orphanages	5,000	5,000	3,000	3,000	3,000	3,000	2,500	2,500	2,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	750
Children in prisons (under 16)	1,345	912	912	574	200	5	4	2	2	1	9	2	61
Children boarded out	–	1,476	2,250	2,540	2,370	2,623	1,906	2,304	2,419	2,283	1,692	1,162	914
Children hired out	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	89	131	170	145	184	100
Children nursed out (infant life protection)	–	–	–	–	–	411	803	2,800	2,493	1,500	505	382	365
Total	19,191	23,553	25,644	22,724	20,245	20,762	14,112	16,271	15,631	12,902	8,254	6,472	4,713
Population under 14 (,000)	1903	1914	1614	1529	1353	1301	873	820	823	856	877	901	931
Number of children per 1,000 population	10.1	12.3	14.1	14.9	15.0	16.0	16.2	19.8	19.0	15.1	9.4	7.2	5.1
Ratio of children in institutional care to non-institutional care		14.7	10.4	7.8	7.5	5.8	4.2	2.1	2.1	2.3	2.5	2.7	2.4

3.42Dr O’Sullivan comments:

The table presents the total number of children in institutional care of the State, of whatever type, as a ratio of total population under the age of 14. The ratio rises continuously from 1861. 1936 was the peak year, with 19.8 per 1,000 of all children under the age of 14, in the care of the State. This ratio dropped slightly to 19.0 in 1946 and had declined to 7.2 by 1966. The ratio of children in institutional forms of care, rather than family placements can also be clearly seen. Although the ratio declined significantly over the period under review, by 1966, there were still 2.7:1 children in institutional rather than non-institutional care.

Table 5.5a Number of children regulated by census year (%)
	1861	1871	1881	1891	1901	1911	1926	1936	1946	1951	1961	1966	1971
Children in workhouses/county homes	64.1	52.3	45.3	29.5	27.3	25.1	13.5	7.9	5.1	3.1	1.2	0.8	0.8
Children in mother and baby Homes	–						4.3	5.5	5.7	6.3	–
Children in Industrial Schools under detention	–	10.7	24.5	38.1	40.8	40.4	42.0	37.1	41.6	45.3	44.7	37.9	22.7
Children in Industrial Schools voluntarily	–	0.9	1.7	1.7	1.5	2.1	2.5	1.5	1.0	0.7	1.2	1.9	1.5
Children in Industrial Schools by health authorities	–					0.2	0.0	0.0	0.0	2.6	4.7	6.7	10.8
Children in Reformatory Schools	2.8	4.2	4.5	3.5	2.9	3.1	0.8	0.7	1.5	1.7	2.5	2.2	0.9
Children in approved institutions	–									1.9	5.1	8.2	16.7
Children in orphanages	26.1	21.6	11.7	13.4	14.8	14.4	17.7	15.4	12.8	7.8	12.1	15.5	15.9
Children in prisons (under 16)	7.0	3.9	3.6	2.6	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.0	1.3
Children boarded out	–	6.4	8.8	11.3	11.7	12.6	13.5	14.2	15.5	17.7	20.5	18.0	19.4
Children hired out	–							0.5	0.8	1.3	1.8	2.8	2.1
Children nursed out (infant life protection)	–					2.0	5.7	17.2	15.9	11.6	6.1	5.9	7.7
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

Dr O’Sullivan’s comment here is:

Table 5.5a shows the same data as Table 5; but in percentage form. This highlights the rapid growth of the Industrial School system as the primary form of state intervention into the lives of children, reaching a peak in the 1940s and 1950s with just over half the children regulated by the State in industrial schools. Although Boarding-out increased its share of children in care, Reformatory schools for convicted delinquent children and prisons played a relatively minor role in the regulation of children and the role of workhouses diminished rapidly from the 1920s. In summary, although the sites for the regulation of children shifted from the mid-nineteenth century, the number of children as a ratio of those under 14, rose steadily throughout this period and only declined from the 1950s.

3.43Besides the Industrial Schools there were alternative residential institutions in which a child in the care of the might be placed.

County homes (formerly workhouses)

3.44The Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act 1923 brought the administration of the public assistance services formally into the Irish Free State. It provided that in each county one workhouse building should be retained as a ‘county home’ in which all the non-medical inmates in the county were lodged. In the clinical language of a 1920s Report on the County Homes, there were approximately:

11,000 itinerant beggars who moved from workhouse to workhouse; a delinquent element, including prostitutes and young criminals, often the product of an earlier workhouse upbringing; a large group of infirm old people no longer able to care for themselves; so-called idiots and imbeciles, mentally handicapped people for whom there was as yet no special public provision; lunatics unable to secure admission to the overcrowded district lunatic asylums; unmarried mothers and their so called illegitimate children; rejects of a disapproving society; and orphaned and abandoned children.²⁶

3.45At independence, the only places that would receive unmarried mothers were the workhouses/county homes. In 1926, there were over a thousand unmarried mothers with their babies in county homes; by 1950, there were still over 800 children in county homes, but by 1966 only 53. The children remained for one or two years.

Mother and baby homes

3.46The undesirability of having mothers and their infants in the county homes was recognised and in the 1920s and 30s the policy was implemented of providing ‘mother and baby’ homes for unmarried women who were having children for the first time. These were reserved for young mothers who had ‘fallen’ once only and thus were likely to be ‘influenced towards a useful and respectable life’²⁷ (leaving those unmarried mothers pregnant for the second or later time to the county homes). As can be seen from Table 5.5, from the 1930s to the 1950s, there were more than 800 children in mother and baby homes, but none by 1960.

3.47The usual practice in a county home or mother and baby home was for the mother and her child to remain for one or two years, while the mother carried out domestic labour working to pay off their keep and (possibly) to make another lapse unlikely. After that period the child was boarded out²⁸; or adopted (informally or when the Adoption Act 1952 came into force, legally) or sent to a junior Industrial School. By the 1960s, it was also becoming more common for children to be taken by their parents.

Institutions approved by Minister for Health (but not Industrial Schools)

3.48According to a Health Circular of 1954, there were 43 Schools and institutions approved by the Minister for Health. One was also a Reformatory (St Anne’s, Kilmacud) and 30 were also Industrial Schools, leaving 12 that were neither Industrial Schools nor Reformatories and thus not available for committals through the courts.

3.49By 1969²⁹ there were 18 institutions approved by the Minister for Health which were not also certified schools. These institutions accommodated (in the 16 homes that responded to the Kennedy questionnaire) just over 700 residents (aged 0-2 years: 278; 2-14: 328; 14-18:73).

3.50Kennedy³⁰ showed the distribution of children in the schools with relatively few below the age of six and observed that the figures seemed to suggest that a large number of pre-school children were accommodated in homes and institutions other than Industrial Schools.

Voluntary homes

3.51Historically, by the 1850s, the majority of orphanages had been taken over by local religious congregations. Their funding came from relations of the children in the orphanages or other private sources such as endowments or charity sermons. In addition, boarding out was phased out and the orphanages became exclusively institutional. A number of these orphanages were certified as Industrial Schools under the Industrial Schools Act 1868. However a majority remained outside the State-subsidised scheme of institutional child welfare and a very few new orphanages were established in the twentieth century. These institutions were officially referred to as ‘voluntary homes’ because they were not State funded. In popular jargon, they remained ‘orphanages’.³¹ but in many cases the residents were not orphans but simply children whose families were in crisis of one sort or another.

3.52There was no State control, monitoring or supervision of such voluntary homes³² and consequently no central source of information about them.³³ Children were admitted on a voluntary basis. The homes were not certified to receive children committed through the courts. They had considerably more freedom of administration and organisation than did the certified schools and could exercise more flexibility in admission and discharge. They were thought of broadly as institutions for the middle classes³⁴ and this was often indicated in their advertising.

3.53The average length of a resident’s stay in an orphanage was shorter than that in an Industrial School.

3.54Thirteen of these Homes were run by religious Orders, the others by committees or private individuals. Two were for short-stay children. The Tuairim Report³⁵ found:

The Homes’ relative independence makes it possible for the private Homes to develop in different ways from the certified schools. Many of them have evolved a ‘family’ system, and in most children have fewer restrictions on their freedom than children in certified schools. These are some of the quotations from responses to our questionnaires: ‘As far as feasible, I try to make it as much like a home as can be. There is a minimum of regimentation and the boys have much the same freedom as boys who live at home with their parents’. ‘We try to have our Home as like an ordinary Home as possible’. Our own impression of the Homes we visited endorse these statements … Only one of these Homes does not send at least some boys to an outside school for tuition. Boys, in particular seemed to have greater educational opportunities than those in certified schools.

The manager maintains close personal contact with the surviving parents or guardians of the children and very frequently the parents contribute something towards the child’s maintenance. By paying something the parents feel their responsibility and fulfil their duty to the best of their ability.

3.55The Kennedy Committee³⁶ has the following information.

Number of voluntary homes contacted	Number replying	Numbers in various age groups
		0-2 Years	2-14 Years	14-18 Years	Total
24	20	66	571	365	992

This gives an average figure for residents in each School of 50 (Tuairim has a similar number of orphanages and an average of 42) compared with a figure for Industrial Schools, in 1966, of about 100.

Protestant children

3.56The last Protestant Industrial School closed in 1917 so the only institution to which a child could be committed was Marlborough House. Children who came before the courts were usually entrusted, through the local Gardaí, to the care of the local clergyman or minister of religion concerned and he assumed responsibility for having them placed in the care of a suitable family, school or home.³⁷

3.57In regard to children who were not committed by the courts but needed to be in care, many of the Protestant homes situated in the State were closed or amalgamated. Although the numbers of children for which the remaining homes had to provide was greatly reduced, so, were the sources of their finance. Sometimes, the closing of a home or sale of a redundant building resulted in the creation of a fund which was applied for the support of children in the remaining homes or in ordinary boarding schools. Money from these and other charities was used to assist needy parents to keep their children at home, each diocese having its Protestant Orphan Society, which made such grants. Dr Barnardo’s Homes also provide grants for Protestant orphans living in Ireland. Another relevant factor is that there was a waiting list of would–be adopters.

Part 3 Facts and figures

Children

3.58The size of the schools’ population reflected the fluctuations in economic conditions. After independence, in 1924 the total population of all the Industrial Schools and Reformatories was 5,192. This figure remained steady in the 1920s and 30s. Then it rose to a peak of 6,979 in 1946-47. After the high point of the 1940s, the population declined gradually in the 1950s and more steeply in the 1960s and 70s.

3.59The reasons for the reduction from the peak in the 1940s included the introduction of children allowances in 1944, the Adoption Act 1952 and the rising tide of the economy from the mid/late 1950s that lifted all boats. In addition, from the 1950s on and quickening in the 1960s, the courts displayed a greater reluctance to send children away for long periods and when they did do so it was only for shorter terms.

3.60While the numbers committed by the courts fell in the 1960s, there was an increase in those placed by local authorities. A possible explanation is that there is an irreducible minimum number of children in the community who require alternative care to that of their own families and that this number was gradually increasing because of a growing population, particularly in the larger urban centres.

Schools³⁸

School	Accommodation Limit	Order	Date closed**
Senior boys Schools
Artane, Dublin	830	Christian Brothers	1969-70
Baltimore, County Cork	170	Order of Charity	1950
Greenmount, County Cork	235	Presentation Brothers	1959
Upton, County Cork	300	Rosminians	1967
Killybegs, County Donegal	144	Order of Charity	1950
Carriglea, County Dublin	260	Christian Brothers	1954
Letterfrack, County Galway	190	Christian Brothers
Salthill, County Galway	208	Christian Brothers
Tralee, County Kerry	150	Christian Brothers	1970
Glin, County Limerick	214	Christian Brothers	1967
Clonmel, County Tipperary	200	Rosminians

Junior boys Schools
Passage West, County Cork	80	Sisters of Mercy
St Patrick’s, Kilkenny	186	Sisters of Mercy	1967
Drogheda, County Louth	150	Sisters of Charity of St V de P
Cappoquin, County Waterford	75	Sisters of Mercy
Rathdrum, County Wicklow *	100	Sisters of Mercy

Girls Schools
Cavan	100	Poor Clares	1967
Ennis, County Clare	110	Sisters of Mercy	1964
Clonakilty, County Cork	180	Sisters of Mercy	1965
Cobh, County Cork	60	Sisters of Mercy
Kinsale, County Cork	180	Sisters of Mercy
Mallow, County Cork	80	Sisters of Mercy
St Finbarr’s, Cork	200	Good Shepherd Sisters
Booterstown, County Dublin	96	Sisters of Mercy
Goldenbridge, County Dublin*	150	Sisters of Mercy
Lakelands, Sandymount, Dublin *	110	Sisters of Charity
High Park, Dublin	100	Charity of Refuge
Ballinasloe, County Galway	100	Sisters of Mercy	1968
Clifden, County Galway*	120	Sisters of Mercy
Lenaboy, County Galway*	88
Loughrea, County Galway	100	Sisters of Mercy	1967
Tralee, County Kerry*	85	Sisters of Mercy
St Joseph’s Kilkenny*	126	Sisters of Charity
St George’s Limerick	170	Good Shepherd Sisters
St Vincent’s, Limerick	180	Sisters of Mercy
Newtownforbes, County Longford	240	Sisters of Mercy	1970
Dundalk, County Louth	100	Sisters of Mercy
Westport, County Mayo	117	Sisters of Mercy
Monaghan (moved to Bundoran, County Donegal in 1958)	140	St Louis Sisters	1966
Ballaghadereen, County Roscommon	90	Sisters of Charity	1969
Birr, County Offaly	100	Sisters of Mercy	1963
Summerhill, Athlone	200	Sisters of Mercy	1964
Benada Abbey, Ballymote, County Sligo	106	Sisters of Charity
Sligo	200	Sisters of Mercy	1958
Cashel, County Tipperary	125	Presentation Sisters	1969
Dundrum, County Tipperary	80	Presentation Sisters
Templemore, County Tipperary	70	Sisters of Mercy	1965
Waterford	200	Good Shepherd Sisters
Moate, County Westmeath *	74	Sisters of Mercy
New Ross, County Wexford	100	Good Shepherd Sisters	1968
Wexford	146	Sisters of Mercy

Mixed Schools
Killarney, County Kerry *	138	Sisters of Mercy

*Girls Schools certified for the reception of a limited number of boys of tender years. Commencing in 1970, most of the junior Boys Schools also started to take girls. The only one to do so before 1967 has also been asterisked. In case of these schools, the figures given include boys and girls.

**If no date appears, the school was still in operation in 1970.

Reformatories

3.61At independence, there were four Reformatories in the Irish Free State and one in Northern Ireland. However by 1927, the number had fallen to two. St Joseph’s Reformatory in Limerick was for girls and was run by the Sisters of the Good Shepherd. The other was St Conleth’s for Boys at Daingean, Offaly, run by the Oblates. During the years 1934-41, Daingean was temporarily closed and the residents transferred back to Glencree, which had been Daingean’s predecessor. In 1974, Daingean closed, to be replaced by Scoil Ard Mhuire in Lusk,³⁹ which was initially run by the Oblates but later transferred to the direct administration of the Department of Education.

3.62In 1944, a second Reformatory for girls was established, St Anne’s School Kilmacud, County Dublin, conducted by the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity of Refuge.

3.63In 1949, there were 212 boys in Daingean, 31 girls in St Joseph’s, Limerick and 13 in St Anne’s, Kilmacud. In 1967, there were 124 boys in Daingean and a total of 18 girls in St Joseph’s, Limerick and St Anne’s, Kilmacud.

Industrial Schools

3.64The category of Industrial School covered a very wide range of institutions, from the equivalent of orphanages run by nuns to usually larger institutions, which took young offenders. In the case of a girl, a resident would usually remain in the same school until released at 16. But junior and senior boys had separate schools. If a boy had been put into a school below the age of 10, he would at that age be transferred from junior to a senior school.⁴⁰ A number of senior boys Industrial Schools in effect acted as Reformatories. There was no Reformatory for those under 12. Almost all male offenders in this age group were sent to Letterfrack Industrial School, County Galway.

3.65At their maximum, in 1898, there were 61 Industrial Schools caring for approximately 7,500 children in the 26 county areas. By 1922, there were 53 Industrial Schools. During the 1920s High Park (previously a Reformatory) was receritified as an Industrial School and the girls’ Schools at Roscommon and Tipperary were closed. Thus, by the time of the Cussen Report, there were 52 schools in operation certified for 6,400 children.

3.66For much of the period under review, there were 11 senior boys’ Industrial Schools, five junior boys’, 35 girls’ and one mixed for girls and junior boys. Two senior boys Schools were closed for particular reasons in 1950. ⁴¹ Later on, with the fall in numbers of residents, in the 1950s, two senior boys’ (Carriglea, 1954; Greenmount, 1959) and one girls’ School (Sligo, 1958) closed.

3.67In the 1960s there was a steady stream of closures and by September 1969,⁴² there had been a sharp drop to 31 schools. The remaining Schools numbered: senior boys – five; junior boys – three; girls’ schools – 23. The remaining Schools were certified for more than 4,000 (1969-70) children but were actually catering for 1,700. Artane, by far the largest school, closed in 1969. Its numbers had fallen from 700 in the early 1950s to 300 as late as 1968.

The Orders

3.68After the closure of the last School under Protestant management in 1917, all the Schools were owned and run by Catholic religious Orders, apart from two Catholic Schools that were run by the local clergy and which closed in 1950. One of the consequences of the lack of positive control by the Department is that the Orders that carried out the work of running Schools were usually self-selected. This did not always make for an appropriate match. Kennedy⁴³ remarks gently ‘some of the Orders in charge of Industrial Schools and Reformatories are engaged in other work which is of more direct concern to them and which comes more into the public eye’. Likewise a Departmental memo of 30th September 1963 noted that:

The Good Shepherd’s are not a teaching order and by vocation are better fit to look after underprivileged children than the Sisters of Mercy where, perhaps the Industrial School Section could be the poor relation in a foundation catering for Secondary, Primary and Domestic Economy training.⁴⁴

3.69The largest male Order involved in Industrial Schools (as also in regard to general primary or secondary education) was the Christian Brothers who operated schools for senior boys (10 to 16 year olds) at Artane, Salthill, Letterfrack, Glin, Tralee and Carriglea. Two others were run by the Rosminians (Clonmel, Upton) and one by the Presentation Brothers (Greenmount).

3.70The Sisters of Mercy ran two-thirds of all Schools consistently accommodating about 60 percent of girls and 40 percent of all residents. As of 1950, they ran 22 of the girls’ schools, three of the junior boys’ schools and the mixed school for girls and junior boys in Killarney (which was the only mixed school before 1954) The remaining girls’ Schools were conducted by the following Orders: Poor Clares (one); Sisters of the Good Shepherd (four); Sisters of Charity (four); Sisters of Our Lady of Charity of Refuge (one); Sisters of Saint Louis (one); and Sisters of the Presentation Order (two).

3.71The Sisters of Mercy also ran four of the junior boys schools and the fifth was run by the (Irish) Sisters of Charity of St Vincent de Paul.

3.72The only School formally categorised as a ‘Mixed School’ (as far back at least as the Cussen Report: para 18) was St Joseph’s, Killarney, which had accommodation limits of 98 and 50 for girls and boys respectively. However, in the 1950s, because they were short of residents, a few of the girls’ Schools started to take in junior boys. Commencing with Goldenbridge in 1954, eight Girls’ Schools became what the annual reports describe as ‘Girls Industrial Schools certified for the reception of a limited number of boys of tender years’. In practice, this seems to have meant that they had accommodation limits for boys up to about 10-15 percent of the figures for girls.

Boys and girls

3.73The aggregate Schools’ population, from all sources (courts, health authorities, voluntary committals) during the entire 1936-70 period, contained 47 percent boys and 53 percent girls (though, in the case of Dublin County Borough this imbalance was reversed, with 56 percent boys for the period 1939-59). The following Table gives the figures for particular years:

	1937*	1939	1950	1960	1970
Boys Schools, Total	2,733 (45%)	2,786 (45%)	2,819 (47%)	1,709 (45%)	534 (43%)
Girls Schools, Total	3,341 (55%)	3,440 (55%)	3,165 (53%)	2,105 (55%)	722 (57%)

Source: Department of Education Annual Reports

*First year for which statistics by school available

3.74During the 1936-70 period, the average percentages of boys committed in each year were: 93 percent (offenders), 90 percent (non-School attendance) and 75 percent (uncontrollable: a relatively small category).

3.75On the other hand, in the case of those sent by local health authorities for the 1949-69 period (figures from Kennedy Report), the aggregate average figure is 49 percent for boys. For the large group of children within the category ‘lack of proper guardianship’ (including ‘having no home’) committal figures for the period 1936-70 show an average of 45 percent for boys. From 1949-50 until the early 1960s, when there is a clear change in the pattern, more girls than boys were committed every year under ‘lack of proper guardianship’. Again, while the real figures are small compared to the other categories, it is striking in the case of voluntary places the average figure for those sent annually during the period is only 16 percent boys.

3.76One major reason why there were more girls overall lies in the age at which the children were committed. The annual reports from 1937-46 show that for children committed under the age of six the number of girls was 63 percent of the total. After 1946, annual education reports do not give figures for those committed under the age of six. The closest information (in Table F of the Kennedy Report) gives figures for the three categories: 10 years and under; 12-14; and over 14. It is possible by comparing these figures with the total numbers to deduce the numbers of boys and of girls below the age of 10 who were admitted. If a girl was committed at a younger average age, she stayed for a longer period in the school.

3.77It is impossible to come to any definite conclusion on the question of whether the system was in some way biased in favour of sending girls to Industrial Schools. The difficulty is that almost the only information available is the net result, in other words the numbers of each gender sent to the Schools.

3.78Recognition of an imbalance and speculation as to the reasons for it are to be found in a Department Memo, dated 16th April 1943.

There are about 500 more girls than boys detained [the total School population in 1943 was 6,000]. The difference between the numbers of girls and boys in some counties is very great, e.g. Co Sligo 139 girls and 35 boys; Co Wexford 175 girls and 85 boys; Co Monaghan 78 girls and 26 boys; Co Cavan 70 girls and 14 boys. A comparison of the numbers of girls in these schools from wealthy counties like Wexford and Sligo with the numbers from much larger and poorer counties like Donegal (19) and Mayo (112) suggests that undue advantage is being taken of Industrial Schools in some districts.

This may be due to some extent to the better distribution of the girls’ schools (there are two in each of the counties Wexford and Sligo), and the objection of parents to allowing their children to be sent to schools at a distance from their homes. This does not, however, explain the fact that from Co Cork which is well supplied with Boys’ Industrial Schools, there are 298 girls in these schools as compared with 187 boys.

The present unduly large number of girls in industrial schools must be due largely to the fact that the Managers have an organised system of ‘touting’ for children; they have social workers who act as a sort of agent and get children committed to the schools. We have no means of preventing this practice, but I suggest that we consult the Department of Local Government with a view to getting the assistance of the Local Country Managers to ensure that children are not committed without sufficient reason, and to obtain periodical reports on the parents means when children are committed on the grounds of poverty.

3.79It may be relevant here that there were more vacancies for girls. Another explanation that has been offered is that the imbalance is a reflection of the Catholic Church’s traditional concern with sex and sexual temptation. In one particular situation – a widower left with female children and no female family member to act as a mother substitute – anecdotal evidence is that such figures as the parish priest were quick to pronounce that the father could not cope and scandal might follow if the father should attempt to do so. Accordingly, his daughters had to be sent away and a School was often the recourse.

Size of schools

3.80Another difference between boys and girls lies in the difference in size of the Schools for each gender. The following tables give the numbers of residents actually in the Schools, for the years indicated, not the accommodation limits.

1946

Classification	Over 300	100-200	200-300	50-100	Under 50	Schools	Pupils
Girls only:	–	14	–	21	1	36	3,666
Junior boys:	–	2	–	3	1	6	596
Senior boys:	1	5	4	–	–	10	2,595

Classification	Average No of Pupils	Range
Girls	102	38 to 200
Junior boys	93	42 to 183
Senior boys	260	126 to 823

(Girls’ Schools started to take junior boys only in 1954.)

1966

Classification	Over 300	100-200	50-100	Under 50	Schools	Pupils
Girls only:	–	1	8	13	22	1101
Girls and junior boys:	–	2	4	1	7	562
Junior boys:	–	1	3	2	6	386
Senior boys:	1	3	3	–	7	990

Classification	Average No of Pupils	Range
Girls, and girls and junior boys	57	7 to 123
Junior boys	64	27 to 104
Senior boys	141	64 to 310

Source: Annual returns made by the Schools to the Department: DE1P0085

These Tables shows that for both years the average number of children living in senior boys’ Schools was more than twice that for girls or junior boys’ School. Even if the figure for Artane is excluded, this only reduces the average in 1946 from 260 to 177 against an average for girls of 102. In 1966, the corresponding figures are from 141 to 97 against an average for girls of 57 for senior boys to 177 (1946) and 97 (1966).

Proximity of places available to resident’s homes

3.81The following table presents figures which show the places available in Schools in each county and the number of residents who came from homes in that county.

Industrial Schools 1946-47

	Boys			Girls
County	Accommodation in Schools	Residents from homes in county	Ratio	Accommodation in Schools	Residents from homes in county	Ratio
Carlow	0	19	X	0	30	X
Cavan	0	14	X	100	30	30%
Clare	0	88	X	110	139	126%
Cork	785	243	31%	700	369	53%
Donegal	0	13	X	0	22	X
Dublin Corporation	0	1061	X	360	811	225%
Co. Dublin	1150	188	16%	96	117	122%
Galway	398	131	33%	408	236	58%
Kerry	40	100	25%	183	140	77%
Kildare	0	44	X	0	55	X
Kilkenny	186	64	34%	126	61	48%
Leitrim	0	14	X	0	24	X
Laois	0	37	X	0	35	X
Limerick	214	159	74%	350	190	54%
Longford	0	16	X	240	18	8%
Louth	150	41	27%	100	38	38%
Mayo	0	44	X	117	94	80%
Meath	0	33	X	0	28	X
Monaghan	0	20	X	140	52	37%
Offaly	0	42	X	100	46	46%
Roscommon	0	29	X	90	86	96%
Sligo	0	25	X	305	86	28%
Tipperary	200	235	118%	275	305	110%
Waterford	75	128	171%	200	108	54%
Westmeath	0	53	X	274	52	19%
Wexford	0	76	X	246	175	71%
Wicklow	100	51	51%	0	31	X

3.82On the assumption that when it was possible to do so, a resident from the county was sent to a School in the same county, the third column shows the ratio of places in Schools to residents with homes in that county. Where the ratio is less than 100 percent, it would have been possible for the Schools in the county to have accommodated all the residents for that county. On the other hand, in some other counties, the ratio exceeds 100 percent. This means that the number of residents with homes in the county exceeded the number of places in Schools in the county. Thus, even assuming that none of the places in the Schools in a county was allocated to a resident from outside, it would not have been possible for the Schools to have accommodated all the residents from that county. In a number of counties, there were no Schools, which is indicated by an ‘X’ in the third column.

3.83Figures are taken from the annual departmental reports for the year 1946-47, when the Schools population was at its highest. The problem of children having to be sent to a School outside the county of their homes would have lessened after 1946-47, although some allowance should be made for the fact that two senior Schools, Baltimore and Killybegs, closed in 1950. Cork, Limerick and Waterford cities’ figures are added to those of their counties.

3.84Most schools took only boys or only girls. The Table reflects this by giving separate figures for boys’ and girls’ Schools. As regards boy’s Schools, the Table shows that in 17 of the counties there were no Schools, so that residents from those counties had to be sent outside the County.⁴⁵ In addition, the ratio exceeded 100 percent in Tipperary and Waterford.

3.85In the case of girls, there were seven counties with no Schools. And in Dublin Corporation, County Dublin, Clare and Tipperary the ratio exceeded 100 percent so that some residents from those counties had to be sent to a School outside the County. The most significant conclusion is that for both boys and girls, the gravest effect on the family life of residents impacted on those from Dublin. This effect was heightened both by the numbers going to the Schools from Dublin and also by the distance from Dublin to most of the Schools outside Dublin.

Part 4 Independent monitoring

The Oireachtas

3.86During the relevant period, discussions of the Schools in the Dail were infrequent and brief, and even more so in the Seanad.

3.87With a single exception, there were no general motions on Industrial Schools. Even the reaction to Cussen and Kennedy came not in the form of a formal ministerial statement followed by a debate, but as incrementally expanding replies to Dail questions. The exception was in the Seanad and was a general discussion, lasting five hours, on a motion to take note of the Kennedy Report (though taking place on 10th December 1973, some three years after publication of the Report) proposed by Senators Robinson and West, representing Trinity College, Dublin. This elicited an unusually detailed, unguarded and heartfelt response from John Bruton, the Parliamentary Secretary at the Department of Education.

3.88Likewise, there was little debate on the estimates for the Schools. With most estimates, Opposition deputies seize the latitude allowed to roam around the subject matter, unrestricted by the procedural limitations that apply in other forms of proceedings. But in this field, the estimate was usually passed off with an unchallenged statement from the Minister of the amount to be spent.

3.89The daily adjournment debate (a maximum of 30 minutes in all, consisting of a speech from the member who initiated the debate, followed by a reply from the responsible Minister) enables a member to agitate some matter in a fairly narrow, often local, field. This might have seemed to be just the procedural vehicle for some allegations of individual injustice in a School to be ventilated. In fact it was seldom so used. One exceptional case in which it was invoked arose out of an incident in which a 14-year-old boy had his arm broken by a Brother at Artane using a sweeping brush when he refused to submit to additional beating. Both the Minister (Sean Moylan) and the Deputy, Captain Cowan, who raised the matter were concerned to emphasise that this was an ‘isolated incident’. In response to the debate, the Minister remarked rather broadly, that ‘this is an isolated incident…[and] any guarantee I give parents of full protection of their children is no licence to any of the children to do what they like’. He stated that he had visited practically all the schools and, rather unexpectedly, that ‘they are deficient in many things [and] in future a wider provision for expenditure must be made if these schools are to serve the purpose they ought to serve in the nation’. In one other rare adjournment debate, Deputy James Dillon set out the increasing figures for the committals by the Dublin Children’s Court and asked unavailingly that the Minister should review each individual committal.⁴⁶

3.90Although Dáil questions were occasionally the source of some exact information not available otherwise, they are of their nature episodic with their content depending on Deputies’ interests. They concerned such issues as: funding of children’s travel home for holidays; the failure on the part of the schools (or Department) to inform or warn parents when their children were transferred; and the suggested replacement of a police car as the vehicle for conveying children from the Dublin Children’s Court to the Industrial School because of the embarrassment it caused.⁴⁷ Many of the questions asked simply for the numbers of committals on the various legislative grounds, in the previous year, figures that were published anyway in the departmental annual reports. Others urged medium-level changes of policy, for instance, repeatedly in the late 1930s, the adoption of the Cussen Committee recommendation that the salaries of literary teachers should be paid by the Department. The Deputy who asked the initial question seldom put a supplementary in response to the Minister’s reply.

3.91In short, despite the panoply of weapons available to members, the ‘big issues’ in regard to the Schools were raised only seldom and then usually without preparation, passion or persistence. For instance: ‘It costs about 15 shillings per week to keep [a child at Industrial School]. It has often been said to me that if some of that money were used to help the parents, there would be a very big change in their conduct.’⁴⁸ (There was no reply to this from the Minister, perhaps because he concentrated on another query advanced in the same interjection.) Another comment was:

Six months would be quite sufficient [for a child committed under the School Attendance Act]. There is a great inclination, when children are sent to Industrial Schools, to send them there for long periods.

To which the Minister replied:

Absence from school leading to committal would never be of such a character that six months would be sufficient …This proposal would mean setting up a new institution. Resident Managers would not accept a child for a short period. ⁴⁹

Next, as regards early discharge, Minister O’Deirg stated:

If responsible people– the local clergy or prominent Deputies who show that they realise both sides of the case could testify to [the Minister] … an application for early release will be considered.⁵⁰

A request for the setting up of a system for hearing individual complaints against the Schools received surprisingly little discussion with the Minister for Education emphasising the inherent difficulty confronting anyone evaluating a complaint from a child or parent:

You have the situation that the child probably had been proved before a police court to be a notorious liar… Nevertheless some great abuse may have crept in and you are in this dilemma, that it is impossible to satisfy your mind that the allegations made by the children have absolutely no foundation.

Improved after care was suggested, including compiling figures on those former school children who were subsequently in trouble with the law.⁵¹ And it was put to the Minister, with no thorough examination of the difficulties and possible solutions:

if he will get his colleagues [in Finance and Local Government] to provide for suitable foster parents remuneration on the same scale as the state is paying to industrial school… half the number of children in Industrial Schools… will go into decent families.⁵²

The following exchange was over in an instant:

Mrs O’Carroll asked the Minister whether he is aware that the whole system of detention of boys and of Industrial Schools is out of date and needs to be reviewed and overhauled

General Mulcahy: I am not so aware. ⁵³

That is all

3.92There was an air of Ministerial detachment in the Dáil exchanges arising out of the closure, in 1959, of Greenmount School. Deputy Stephen Barrett asked the Minister for Education, Jack Lynch, if he was aware that the Greenmount children had been ‘dispersed without any prior discussion with their parents and that, in fact, the parents were not aware that the children had been removed from the Industrial School to other Industrial Schools until after the dispersal had taken place?’ The Minister replied:

The conductors of the school did so for what they considered good and sufficient reason and there was no intention whatever to ignore parental rights. They did so in the best interest of the management and conduct of the school.

Deputy Barrett pressed the point by stressing that the interests of the parents had been ignored and that the promoters of the Industrial School knew that they were ignoring the rights of the parents. Minister Lynch’s answer was:

I think it ought to be made clear that they acted strictly within their rights and within the terms of the Children Act, 1908, which governs the conduct of Industrial Schools.⁵⁴

3.93The tone of the debate was invariably respectful and grateful to the authorities who ran the Schools⁵⁵, though sometimes there was an air of ‘formal pleading’ about this. There was surprisingly little reference to what was happening in Northern Ireland or other jurisdictions.⁵⁶Down the decades, the same few members took part in debates, on the subject.

The newspapers

3.94When, as they did only spasmodically, the Schools were referred to in the newspapers, it was mainly in three contexts. First were court reports of committal proceedings. Dr Maguire⁵⁷ states:

Regional newspapers and several of the Dublin evening papers published extensive accounts of committal hearings in Children’s Courts in Dublin and around the country, although it must be said that this coverage was varied and inconsistent: such reports were regular weekly or monthly features in some newspapers, while others reported on court proceedings not at all, or only in extraordinary cases.

Both the (Dublin) Evening Herald and the (Dublin) Evening Mail (and later the Evening Press, which began publication in 1954), usually reported on the same cases each week, and these published accounts were remarkably similar. It could be that a single correspondent provided coverage for all three papers, although it is impossible to know this for certain as the stories did not carry by-lines. Coverage of committal cases in the Dublin evening papers began to fall off in the early 1960s, and this trend could be due to a variety of factors; the folding of the Evening Mail in mid-1962; a decline in court committals, and/or a growing trend towards an overhaul of the industrial school system coupled with a growing awareness of the need for privacy and discretion in cases involving children.

3.95Secondly, there were accounts, generally in local papers, of the very occasional discussion of the Schools at a local authority meeting. For there seems to have been, if only spasmodically, livelier debate on the general topics of the School system at local authority meetings, sometimes inspired by resentment at the financial burden imposed by local residents in the Schools.

3.96On this O’Cinneide and Maguire state⁵⁸

The attitude of local authorities toward their responsibility for maintaining children in industrial schools, and general attitudes toward the efficacy of an institutional method of dealing with poor and neglected children, are themes that run throughout press coverage of local authority meetings and the often extensive coverage of children’s court proceedings. In an interesting and insightful discussion at the monthly meeting to the Galway Board of Health, one committee officer expressed a concern that the local ISPCC inspector, Mary Monnelly, was having children committed to institutions without the proper authority, and without consulting the appropriate local authorities. The Commissioner of the Board of Health instructed the superintendent home assistance officer to inform Monnelly that she was to consult with the local authorities before seeking the committal of children to industrial schools.

In 1938 the Galway County Homes and Home Assistance Committee had a discussion, that was reported in the press, about the merits of boarding-out children rather than committing them to industrial schools. The committee was considering a proposal to discontinue boarding children out n favour of maintaining all local authority children in industrial schools. Alice Lister, the Department of Health inspector of boarded-out children, argued that children could never receive the same kind of care and attention in an institutional setting that they could in a good foster home…

Other members of the committee countered these claims by pointing out that industrial school children received training in a skill or trade that would help them to support themselves upon release, while children boarded out, particularly with poorer families, were not guaranteed such an education or training…

After much debate the proposal to discontinue the boarding-out system was defeated. The following week the local newspaper, the Connacht Tribune, published an editorial that attempted to provide both sides of the story but came down squarely in favour of industrial schools.

3.97The third type of material about the Schools that occasionally appeared was human interest stories. For instance, an account of the visit of a dignitary (as when, in 1935, Eamon de Valera visited Artane and spent two hours in the School ‘and was treated to a performance by the famous Artane Boys Band’). Another similar report described a fund-raising carnival held at the Lenaboy Industrial School in Galway city.

3.98The result was that, up to the time of the Kennedy Report, as Dr Keating writes⁵⁹:

[Apart from Michael Viney’s articles of 1966] the rest of the sparse coverage of the Schools was treated either with the nostalgic gloss of Patrick J McNulty’s article of 20-21 June, 1969 entitled Memories of Artane or as simple reportage devoid of analysis, despite opportunity for greater analysis as a result of conferences on the inadequacies and dangers of the system.

3.99Serious cases of sexual or physical abuse were not reported, even if they came to light by way of a court case. Thus, for instance, a letter to The Irish Times on 11th May 1999, from a former reporter (and subsequently editor) of the Evening Herald, Brian Quinn, stated that in the 1950s the writer had:⁶⁰

witnessed one of the worst of the Christian Brothers break into the office of the manager and demand that a court case that mentioned Artane should not be used in the Evening Herald. Before the manager could lift a phone, the Manager would push open the editorial door to tell us the manager had instructed that the case be dumped…. Those requests should have alerted journalists to start inquiries into what was happening in Artane. That we did not is a heavy burden.

3.100Significantly, the case referred to in this letter seems to have gone unreported also by the other newspapers. Likewise, when in January 1951, an attendant employed at Marlborough House (not an Industrial School, but a place of detention, run by the Department of Education) was convicted of sexually abusing two boys detained in the institution, there were no newspaper reports.

3.101A Departmental report by Dr McCabe of 8th January, 1948 recorded that following the death of a child in Rathdrum, owing to careless supervision, Dr McCabe visited the school and sought to get a ‘callous’ resident manager to appreciate the gravity of what had occurred:

I drew her attention to the bad impression that would be likely to be created regarding the conduct of affairs in her school on anybody who would read the inquest proceedings in the newspapers. She told me that the matter had been taken care of in Carysfort and that there would be no report in the press.

3.102Even if a skeleton made its way out of its cupboard, the newspapers could be persuaded to turn their back. An example from as late as 1964 was a story about head-shaving in the Connacht Tribune, which was picked up by the British Sunday paper, The People; but no Irish national paper reported the story.

3.103The second omission was even more serious. With very few exceptions, there was no comprehensive survey of the School system and no accounts of the every-day experiences of the residents in the Schools. Specifically, so far as any serious discussion of the School system goes, in the 1940s and 1950s, only two contributions in daily papers have been found. Each was a multi-part feature in The Irish Times (referred to below).

3.104The Kennedy Committee Report, while it attracted more attention than any other single episode, was not front page news. Even the significant Doyle Supreme Court constitutional case⁶¹ received little coverage outside the The Irish Times of 13th October 1956.

3.105A series of four articles appeared anonymously (‘By a Special Correspondent’) in The Irish Times in February, 1950. The author appeared to have been well-informed about the system and aware of the history of the institutions and of developments in the State and elsewhere. The series was very critical of the system and proposed radical changes to do away with institutions. The writer expressed limited approval of the Cussen Commission, which did valuable work but failed ‘to see that something more revolutionary than improvements in the existing structure was necessary’. There was little reaction to the articles, which seem to have gone largely unnoticed in official and political circles as well as among the general public.

3.106The lack of interest generally is evident in a response by the Department of Education to a question from the Commission stating that it had found no records referring to The Irish Times articles on child delinquency in 1950. This is consistent with an expectation that there would be no interest in the matter among the electorate or public representatives. Otherwise, it would have been expected that cuttings would be kept and a defence dossier compiled.

3.107Another breach in the iron curtain was the work of Michael Viney. He wrote a series of articles⁶² in The Irish Times, based on six weeks’ research. Significantly, even this major series attracted only one (published) letter to the editor,⁶³ and it seems likely that given the expenditure of resources, the paper would have published any reasonable letters received. Likewise, the series was met by an eerie silence from other Irish newspapers, which declined the opportunity to mine the rich lode, which, it might seem, had been opened up by Mr Viney.

3.108It should be noted that in the 1960s, the rare journalists who wished to do so, like Michael Viney and another journalist, Joseph O’Malley (who wrote a single article in The Irish Independent) were not discouraged by the Minister (George Colley) from visiting and inspecting the Schools subject to the fact that the particular schools permission would have to be obtained. And in fact, the Schools facilitated their visits.

3.109This lack of investigation and reporting may reflect the absence of interest in this subject by the public. As regards the personal attitude of journalists, a journalist who was the educational correspondent of one of the national dailies in the 1960s recalls:

We saw educational issues as involving middle class concerns like curriculum development or Church and State, not ‘the lesser breeds without the Law’ in the Industrial Schools. After Kennedy, there was some improvement but we didn’t push as hard as we should have done.

Reaction to press criticism

3.110When a rare derogatory comment was published, there was a strong defence from the Orders. In the 1950s, Fr Nagle of Lower Glanmire Parish, Cork, said something that seemed to be a criticism of the Schools; the Christian Brothers’ Managers’ Association was quick to demand an apology. As reported, the priest had said:

We are convinced that an indifferent home is better than a good institution, because in an indifferent home children receive at least from time to time some love, affection and interest from their parents. They cannot receive this in the institution and this has an unfortunate bearing on the children’s emotional and mental development.

The Managers’ Meeting of the Christian Brothers responded:⁶⁴

We assume that the institutions referred to are the Industrial Schools. You may not be aware that all these Industrial Schools, in which there is accommodation over seven thousand (7,000) children, are conducted by Religious Communities of Priests, Brothers and Sisters. According to your statement, as reported, children in these schools cannot receive even from time to time some love, affection and interest from the Religious who have dedicated their lives to this noble and necessary work. Your statement has been deeply resented by the members or our Association and they fail to see what purpose such a statement, so unrelated to facts, can serve other than to belittle their work.

It was also stated that ‘Father Nagle was simply echoing his Bishop’s pronouncement – Dr Lucey seems be totally opposed to the Industrial Schools System’. Fr Nagle’s reply was that:

I did not state that the children cannot receive love etc from the religious. I stated that the they cannot receive parental love. I have the highest regard for the Religious who cared for those children. I genuinely apologise for any offence, but I insist that it was unintentional.

3.111Again, in 1963, a solicitor, who was representing two boys in Galway District Court, urged the court not to send his clients to Letterfrack. He said that every murderer in the country had served time there and that he would prefer that his clients were sentenced to six months in prison than two years in Letterfrack. The district justice’s response was to the effect that ‘there may be a great deal in what you say but I cannot do anything about it’. Exceptionally this exchange was covered in The Evening Press, The Connaught Tribune, The Connaught Sentinel and The Tuam Star. The manager of the school wrote to the Minister demanding to know what he proposed to do about these ‘very scurrilous and false allegations’ and adding ‘I also wish to draw your attention to the fact that too many TD’s are applying to Minister for Education to have certain boys discharged from here.’⁶⁵

Boards of Visitors, committees of management or godparents’ associations

3.112It might have been expected that, in the same way as prisons and (in recent times) national or secondary schools⁶⁶, each Reformatory or Industrial School would have had its own ‘Board of Visitors’, namely, a group of respected local citizens who would make regular visits to a school, be aware of what was going on there, encourage improvements and inquire into any complaints.

3.113A broader question is why, until the 1970s, even in the wider educational field, there were no local boards overseeing primary and secondary schools. The answer was regarded as self-evident, namely that the religious were giving their entire lives, usually working long hours, for scant financial reward, to serve the community in buildings that they had also provided. In an unsuspicious and deferential age, it would have seemed perverse to require that there be accountability to a board of lay outsiders. As against this, it might be thought that a special case should be made in regard to Industrial and Reformatory Schools because they were closed worlds with vulnerable inmates.

3.114In fact, relatively late – in 1962 – the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders did recommend the establishment of visiting committees for certified schools. Mr Haughey, Minister for Justice, wrote to Dr Patrick Hillery, Minister for Education, commending this proposal and received the following lukewarm and third-person response:

In view, of the rejection by the school managers some years ago of this Departments proposal that they be visited by an ad hoc committee of representatives of the Departments of Finance, Social Welfare and Education in connection with the managers appeal, at the time, for improved grants, the Minister is not over-sanguine as to the managers’ attitude to the idea of Visiting Committees. Neither is he clear as to how best such committees, if agreed to, should be brought into existence. He proposes, nevertheless, once more to approach the Managers’ association with the present suggestions.⁶⁷

3.115Starting mainly in the 1950s, Godparents’ Associations grew up for some Industrial Schools but they had no formal status, their central purpose being to provide as many of the children as possible with a person or family who would take a personal interest in them and bring them into their homes at some weekends or holidays. There was no connection between individual associations. The judgments they expressed on the Industrial Schools they knew were usually unfavourable and their presence was at best tolerated by Managers and at worst regarded as meddling. The Catholic Godparents Guild⁶⁸ hosted children from several Schools throughout the State. The other associations each focussed on a single school, for instance Artane or Upton – or, at most, two Schools in the case of the Galway Godparents Association, which was concerned with the children in St Anne’s Lenaboy and St Joseph’s Salthill. This association found the Managers of each school uncooperative in the efforts it made to bring greater interest into the lives of the children.

Pressure groups

3.116A pressure group that took an interest in the Schools from the 1940s-70s was the Joint Committee of Women’s Societies and Social Workers. ⁶⁹ Their submissions to the Minister were striking for raising not individual complaints but rather suggestions for the sort of innovation that ought to have been debated more frequently within the Department and the Schools themselves. For instance a letter of 2nd February 1966 to the Minister contains a constructive suggestion:⁷⁰

In the matter of further education, that is, in preparation for a career, we would advocate the authentic training of the Vocational School, which, again, could serve as an interim introduction to the normal community into which the boys must, in two years time, become suddenly integrated. This would of course necessitate their sharing the benefits accorded to other boys, but surely they have as great a claim. Towards this end we would suggest that a proportionate number of places be reserved at each Vocational School.

We have been particularly interested in the methods used by Br Stephen Kelly at St Patrick’s in Belfast. He employs a Social Worker, a layman, who meets each boy and follows his progress through the school, paying attention to his aptitudes. It is interesting to note that boys without homes are not automatically boys for farming.’

Ministers

3.117Between 1970-74, the Minister for Justice was Des O’Malley (as it happens Donagh O’Malley’s nephew and the inheritor of his Dail seat). In an interview in 2002, Mr O’Malley told Dr Keating that he was concerned about the Industrial and Reformatory Schools sector, in part because of the general public erroneous belief that it was the responsibility of the Department of Justice. A few months after taking office as Minister for Justice, Mr O’Malley happened to take a family holiday in North Connemara near Letterfrack and heard and observed personally a certain amount about that institution. On his return to Dublin, he made some inquiries and was told by the Secretary of the Department to ‘leave it to Education’. ⁷¹

3.118In contrast, according to the memoirs of Padraig Faulkner, Minister for Education 1969-73:

It was to be quite some time after I left the Department of Education that I first heard the word ‘paedophile’. During my time as Minister I hadn’t an inkling that child sex abuse existed. When I published the Kennedy Report in 1970 Dail questions on a variety of aspects of it came thick and fast. Some deputies praised the diligence and selflessness of the religious orders in caring for Children in care. Nobody raised the question of abuse. Dr Noel Browne and Dr John O’Connell were among my most persistent questioners and nobody doubts that if these deputies had heard so much as a whisper about abuse, they would immediately have raised the matter in the Dáil.

Sexual abuse

3.119Even among external observers who scrutinised the schools, there seems to have been little or no contemporary knowledge of sexual abuse. Mr Michael Viney, for instance, who visited several schools, over a six-week period, in 1966 researching his 15,000-word series in The Irish Times in 1966, did not discover any evidence of sexual abuse (though, in those more innocent days, he was not looking for any). In the Tuairim Report of 1966,⁷² nothing is said in about sexual abuse because, according to one member, they could not believe what they were being told.

3.120A district court clerk who served in the 1960s remarked:

We knew about the sexual abuse in the Schools because one of the Gardai who drove the children from the Court to the Schools told us about it. In today’s climate I’d have protested to the Department of Justice. But in those times, at best my protest would have been ignored, at worst I’d have been disciplined.

The public

3.121It seems that the general public living in the locality of a School had some broad idea of the conditions. It was not uncommon for parents to threaten children who were misbehaving with some such formula as: ‘Stop it or you’ll be sent to Artane / Upton / Letterfrack…’ Both sides knew what was meant. When John B Keane wrote in 1967 about farmers exploiting cheap labour of youths from an Industrial School, it seems likely that he expected his readers to know what he was writing about.Letters of a Successful TD ⁷³ contains the following passage:

We will never again see a worker like Topper. I will never forget him a long as I live. You probably don’t remember Jeremy Tlopper. He died of TB when you were about three or four. It still plays on my conscience that I might have driven him too hard. In those days we used to get youngsters out of Kilnavarna Industrial School to work as farm labourers. They were usually aged about fifteen or sixteen. You didn’t have to pay them much and I know for a fact that most people paid them nothing.

I had several lads but they were better for eating than they were for working. It was a mistake, too, to get fellows who hadn’t made their Confirmation because you would have to leave them off every day for catechism.

Jeremy Topper was different. He had made his Confirmation. He was a great worker and a light feeder. He was as thin as a whippet but I never heard him complain and he worked out-of-doors, hail, rain, or shine.

I often worry that I might have misused him, but no, that isn’t true, because he worshiped me as a son would. He had no father or mother but that was during the Economic War when nobody could afford a regular workman and dead calves were blocking the eyes of the bridges.

The only labour we could afford were young lads or girls out of orphanages or Industrial Schools. Jeremy died when he was twenty but I think he killed himself. I never touched him, although I know of boys and girls who were whipped and punched like slaes and there were young girls who were badly abused by certain farmers who are pillars of the Church to-day. May God forgive them and the priests who knew what was going on. I put up headstone over Jeremy when he died. There was no cure for TB in those days. …

3.122In that year, 1988, there was a more sceptical reaction to Paddy Doyle’s story⁷⁴ of, amongst other things, the violence of the nuns of St Michael’s Industrial School in Cappoquin. He recalled that: ‘I used to hear people refer to me as one of the children from the orphanage, which was the phrase locals used to soften the brutal reality of the Industrial School in their midst.’

3.123The Task Force on Child Care Services 1980 refers to a most striking feature of the pre-Kennedy system of residential care as being …‘…the alarming complacency and indifference of both the general public and the various government departments and statutory bodies responsible for the welfare of children’.

Concluding comment

3.124Until very late in the day, the contribution made by the Oireachtas or the news media towards supervision, or even education of the public, in regard to the Schools, appears to have been negligible. Pressure groups were rare and usually ineffective The general public was often uninformed and usually uninterested. All these pools of unknowing reinforced each other.

3.125A trained social worker who practiced in the 1960s informed the Commission that:

we knew that the Schools were ‘institutions’ with all that implied and were alert to try to avoid them or minimise a child’s stay there; but on the other hand we regarded them as safe places where the child would be if not positively cherished at least ‘protected from harm.

Part 5 Family links

3.126The maintenance of family links was adversely affected by three issues, namely the geographical distribution of the Schools and the problem this posed for parental visits; keeping brother and sisters together; and home leave. The long-term social and psychological well-being of the children required that they keep their links with their families. This meant that siblings should as far as possible be in the same School and that resident children should be kept in touch with their families by holidays, parental visits and letters. These areas were often the subject of differences between the Department and the Schools. The Department appears to have appreciated the need for improvements but it was not sufficiently determined to overcome the opposition of the Schools to changes. The reason for this resistance was the Schools’ fear that liberalisation could undermine discipline. Using a mixture of persuasion and financial incentive, the Department effected some improvements. Where there was a cost, a good deal depended on who paid for the change; usually the Department ended up paying.

Geographic distribution

3.127The fact that so many of the Schools were located a long way from the homes of their residents made contact with families almost non-existent, except for such limited holidays at home as were permitted. In practice, sending a Dublin boy to Letterfrack could sunder the family almost completely. In very occasional cases, family circumstances were thought to be so bad that children were deliberately sent to Schools at a distance from their homes in order to remove them from their parents.

3.128The reason for the uneven geographic distribution of the Schools was explained in the Cussen Report:⁷⁵

… on the introduction of the system most of the Local Authorities were unwilling to contribute even towards the maintenance of the children, and as the Treasury grant was insufficient for the building and equipment of such schools, their establishment was a matter of some difficulty. As a result, various Religious Orders were requested to undertake the work, and those who agreed and provided suitable premises had them certified. Certificates were, therefore, granted with little regard to the geographical distribution of the schools.

3.129The difficulties were exacerbated by the fact that committals were disproportionately high in Dublin.⁷⁶

3.130As outlined in a Departmental memo in 1943, Munster had five senior Schools for boys and two junior Schools whereas Leinster had only two of each. The memo continued:

At the present time north of a line between Dublin and Galway there are no Senior Boys’ Industrial Schools; the nearest south of that line is in Clonmel and after that recourse must be had to Glin and Tralee (both of which have now numbers in excess of the certified complement – as also, incidentally, have the schools in Salthill and Letterfrack), or to a cluster of schools in a limited area in the extreme southwest, namely, Greenmount, Upton and Baltimore. Only the two last-named of these are at present short of their certified numbers. They therefore become of necessity the dumping-grounds for Dublin boys who cannot be sent to Artane or Carriglea.

3.131The Department was concerned about this problem.⁷⁷ One way that it could use to ease the problem was in making transfer orders from junior to senior boys’ schools when boys were aged 10 years, on which occasion the Department could select Schools close to Dublin. In addition, there might be exceptional transfers, at other ages, including transfers to Dublin on emotional grounds.

3.132An example of the way in which the Department could sometimes operate is shown in an internal Departmental memo of 18th September 1963. It was noted that ‘St George’s Limerick was a good school and that its Resident Manager has in a recent phone call, sharply rebuked the Department for its lack of interest in the school and its problems. The memo continues:

Dr McCabe has been asked to call on the Inspector of the ISPCC Limerick with a view to channelling more committals to St George’s School and on the closing of Summerhill, Athlone next December, New Ross and Waterford should be kept in mind when arranging the transfer of the children if the addresses and family backgrounds permit this course.

3.133In 1954, when the Christian Brothers announced that all offenders were to be sent to the School in Letterfrack, District Justice McCarthy requested that the proposed schools for offenders be located in a place less isolated than Letterfrack (eg Tralee or Glin) as he felt that Letterfrack would not be the most suitable place for the rehabilitation of boys from Dublin City. However, this aspect of the district justice’s complaint fell on stony ground. Br O’hAnluan of the Christian Brothers replied that they had fully considered the question and that they had decided on Letterfrack.

3.134Naturally few of the resident’s families had cars and consequently a visit by them was effectively impossible, unless pubic transport was available. As an example of the limitations of this: although only 50 miles from Dublin, Daingean was even in 1966, served by a single daily bus from Dublin. A further restriction, according to Michael Viney, was that parents were allowed to visit Daingean only on the first Sunday of the month

3.135If a Dublin boy’s family wished to visit him at Letterfrack it would be difficult to do so and return by public transport on the same day. It was said that, to facilitate such contact, the Manager was good enough to drive pupils to the nearest railway town, 50 miles away, so as to avoid the necessity of a two-day journey.⁷⁸

3.136More generally, the School authorities do not appear to have encouraged family visits.

3.137In her evidence to the Commission, Sr Úna O’Neill of the Religious Sisters of Charity observed that there was

nothing in place to give the impression that the visits of the parents to the children was a high priority … I found no evidence of any expression of priority in terms of making sure that parents could visit their children.

Parents’ travel expenses

3.138A constructive development came in 1971 by way of Circular No 30/71 providing for free travel for parents visiting their children in a school. If they were medical card holders, both parents were allowed the expenses of up to four visits per year.

3.139The operation of the scheme was delegated to School Managers and was extended gradually during the 1970s, culminating in a 1979 Circular broadening the free travel initiative to brothers and sisters.

Keeping brothers and sisters together

3.140There are reports of siblings who were at the same school seeing each other only by accident or finding out later that the two had been at the same school at the same time. Here the school authorities must have known and failed to put the two in communication.

3.141Internal memoranda show that the Department was aware of the danger of siblings losing contact with eachother and attempted to do something about it:⁷⁹

It is the settled policy of this Department to do everything possible to maintain and encourage family ties where it is in the children’s interest to do so. The selection of a school is a matter for the committing justice in the first instance but the Department subsequently does all in its power to arrange transfers, as far as possible, to schools near the children’s homes, and to have members of the same family detained in the same school. Unfortunately, these post-committal adjustments are not always possible and, in any case, only touch the fringe of the problem.

3.142Transfer orders were sometimes made by the Department in order to keep a family in the same School. Lunney⁸⁰ writes after a study of entry registers in Sisters of Mercy Schools for the period 1869-1950, that:

the admission registers of the Schools indicate that the Managers had a policy of keeping sisters together even if some had to be admitted in excess of the certified limit. For instance, the manager of Goldenbridge School in Dublin often arranged for the transfer of a child from St George’s Industrial School in Limerick to Goldenbridge so that she could be with her younger sister.

3.143The probability is that practice and attitudes varied from one school or from one Manager to another.

Going home for the holidays

3.144Home leave was a matter for the School authorities to arrange in accordance with rules laid down by the Department. The maximum home leave allowed each year was seven days, until 1935 when it was extended to 14 days. Following a recommendation in the Cussen Report⁸¹ the maximum period was extended, in 1944, to 21 days, and then to 31 days, in 1948.

3.145Generally, the Schools opposed leave.⁸² A letter from the Resident Managers Association to the Department of Education of 7th June 1949, responding to a proposal, which was not adopted, to extend home leave to six weeks, stated that 37 of the 44 Schools who replied were opposed to the increase:

It was pointed out that when the children return from Home Leave there is always a marked disimprovement in manners and conduct; they are often very discontented. All this is highly detrimental to the general spirit of the School, and it takes the children quite a long time to settle down again to the ordinary routine.

Numbers of them return ill fed and sickly, in an unkempt condition, with clothes in a filthy condition. It takes weeks to get rid of the vermin. Sometimes their language is vile.

Industrial School children generally belong to the poorest families and the home conditions are often most unsuitable and undesirable… A high percentage of these children are illegitimate and the mothers are not just what they should be; others have been the victims of circumstances getting into trouble because parents or guardians failed to exercise proper control… It was also said that children who could with safety be allowed six weeks Home Leave should not be in any Industrial School; they should be discharged to their homes and not allowed to be living on public money.

3.146This debate concerned only the maximum leave permitted, which was rather theoretical, since each Manager had discretion to allow home leave up to the maximum specified by the Department. As regards how much leave was actually granted, in a Departmental minute of 11th April 1949 it was stated:

An analysis of the Home Leave Returns for 1948, has been made and it has been ascertained that, of the 10 Senior Boys Industrial Schools, only one (Tralee) allowed all the boys who were given holidays, leave for the full period (31 days). Of the remaining five Christian Brothers Schools – Artane gave a maximum of 21 days, Carriglea 21, Letterfrack, 21 (1 boy, 29 days) Salthill, 28 and Glin, 28. In the other Senior Boys Schools, the maximum period allowed was Baltimore, 18 days (1 boy 20); Clonmel, 30; Greenmount, 26; and Upton, 29. In Upton 46 boys got 21 days, 52, 29 days and 20, 8 days.

3.147Of the 35 girls’ schools, 10 allowed some of the children sent home on holidays the full period (31 days). The other children in these and the remaining Industrial Schools for girls were sent home for an average per child of about 22 days.

3.148Approximately 2,600 children out of an average number of nearly 6,300 children, or about 41 percent under detention, were allowed home on holidays at all during 1948. The reasons why a great number of children were not sent on holidays were given as: 1) unsuitable parents or relatives; 2) unsuitable homes; 3) no parents or relatives; 4) no homes to which they could be sent; 5) inability or unwillingness of parents or relatives to take charge of the children even for a holiday.

3.149In 1960, in an internal departmental survey, it was reported that one-third of detained children were given home leave each year for a period not exceeding 31 days.

Licensing

3.150Apart from early discharge by the Minister, there were other ways in which a resident might leave a School early. Theoretically, the most promising of these was release by the Manager on licence under section 67 of the 1908 Act (as amended by section 13 of the 1941 Act).⁸³ This provision allowed the Manager of either type of school to ‘licence out’ a child or young person to live with a named ‘trustworthy and respectable person’. Thus a gradual assimilation of the child into society could have been effected.

3.151But at no period does licensing appear to have been given a fair trial. Barnes notes⁸⁴ that in 1884 the Aberdare Commission [into reformatory and Industrial Schools in Britain and Ireland] found that managers were not using the licensing system extensively enough. Nearly a century later, Kennedy⁸⁵ found that only 32 out of 2,476 children had been licensed, and commented:

the licensing system is being used only in very rare cases. This may in some instances be due to the difficulties which managers experience in contacting, without the aid of an aftercare service, suitable persons to accept the child or it may be due to a reluctance to release a child and suffer a reduction in the capitation fee payable to a school. Whatever the reason, it is obviously regrettable that the licensing system is not used more extensively.

Part 6 Changes

Proposed new school

3.152Throughout the 1940s, the total boys’ Schools’ population ranged around 3,000 and during the period 1942-44 it exceeded 3,100. The total authorised accommodation capacity for boys’ Schools was 3,380. The result was that the senior boys’ Schools were overcrowded and there were protests from justices and Gardai, in open court, that the Children Act had become unworkable owing to lack of accommodation. In addition, it was assumed that after World War II had ended conditions as regards juvenile delinquency and poverty that had followed World War I would be replicated, which would have meant a further increase in demand for places.

3.153To meet the increased demand, the Department’s view was that a new School of capacity 200-250 was necessary. A contrary view was expressed by Managers of provincial Schools to the effect that the establishment of the proposed School would affect their financial viability and perhaps make it impossible for some of them to continue.⁸⁶ Because so many of the children or young persons came from Dublin, it was thought appropriate to locate the new School so that it would be accessible to Dublin.

3.154The Department wrote to Br Quinlan, Provincial of the Christian Brothers.⁸⁷

At the moment there are over 250 senior boys from Dublin City and County in country industrial schools, and about 23 boys in the junior schools (all of the latter are situated outside the Dublin area). Many of the latter boys are due for removal to senior schools in the near future, and a large proportion of them may be regarded as having a claim to vacancies in Artane and Carriglea by reason of the fact that they already have brothers there and that their parents or relatives live in the Dublin areas. Owing to the distribution of the other industrial schools for boys it would be most convenient if the new school was situated to the north rather than the south of Dublin city, as it could thus absorb committals from the counties of Cavan, Monaghan, Louth, Meath etc, as well as Dublin.

3.155As regards which Order would provide the School, Archbishop Mc Quaid proposed the Christian Brothers; but this offer was conditional on the State providing capital assistance. It was therefore politely turned down because the Presentation Brothers had offered to provide the School out of its own resources.⁸⁸ Accordingly, an arrangement was made with them to acquire land (160 acres to allow for the farm) and construct an appropriate building for a School in Celbridge, County Kildare, 30 miles from Dublin. The total cost was £150,000, towards which the Department paid a grant of £40,000.

3.156In fact, the boys’ Schools’ population peaked in 1946-47 and then started to decline steadily with the result that Celbridge School never opened and the building was eventually used, as St Raphael’s, by the St John of God’s Order, to teach skills to children with intellectual disabilities.

Size and organisation

3.157There was little in the field of fundamental change. One of the few considerations of structural change is the following brief statement by T O’Raifeartaigh, Secretary of the Department of Education, on 15th March 1967 in an internal memo:

One line of approach to the problem of the Industrial Schools is the provision of a Prevention Centre. The importance of the Prevention Centre will lie not only in the turning back the youngsters from their first steps in delinquency and the caring for innocent youngsters from broken homes, but also in that it will reduce considerably the number of children who will be committed to industrial schools.

This raises the question of the second line of approach. It is that the industrial schools will in future have to devote themselves more to rehabilitation type of work. This will mean that they will have to organise the children into smaller groups and so have to employ a much larger staff of skilled personnel. The children will, learn by doing (as Senator Quinlan mentioned in the Seanad debate on ‘Investment in Education’).

The maximum number in any institution should not exceed 250. The only school which accommodates more than 250 is Artane. The question of breaking up that school into smaller schools was recommended by the Commission of Inquiry 1934-36 but nothing came if it mainly due to the opposition of the conductors and the extra huge expenditure involved. I consider that in fact 250 is altogether too big a number for a school and that 50-100 would be the ideal number.

Closure

3.158The Schools’ population peaked in the late 1940s and then there was a steady decline through the 1950s, which accelerated in the 1960s. In the light of the figures, the Department of Education noted, as early as 1951, that since 1945 there had been an average of 250 vacancies in the boys’ Schools. ⁸⁹

3.159Despite the obvious trend it took a long time for the Department to realise that the reduction in the Schools’ population was irreversible and consequently that certain of the Schools should close. The Christian Brothers discussed the possibility in 1954 at a Christian Brothers’ Managers Meeting,⁹⁰ and the Department of Finance had read the figures accurately at least as early as 1955. In that year the subject was tentatively mentioned by the Secretary of the Department of Education in negotiations with representatives of the Schools. In a letter to the Minister of Finance on 21st January 1965, the Minister for Education noted ruefully that Finance had been urging closures for years and then continued:

Naturally your main concern is economy while mine is the upbringing of children. Certain aspects of the matter of transferring children to other schools have to be carefully considered. Many children have god-parents in their school localities and quite a number of children attend schools, national, secondary and vocational outside the industrial school. It may not be possible to accommodate such children suitably if transferred to another district.

3.160As of 1950, there were 50 Industrial Schools. In the 1950s four senior boys’ Schools closed – Baltimore (1950); Killybegs (1950); Carriglea (1954); and Greenmount, Cork (1959)⁹¹ and one girls’ School: Sligo (1958). In the case of each of the boys’ schools, there were particular reasons that were at least as significant as the general trend. The only closure before 1964 was Birr, Offaly (1963). But during 1964-70, 17 more Schools – more than a third of them – closed including the senior boys Schools at Upton, Glin and Clonmel, in each case with the full agreement of the Orders concerned. By the time of the Kennedy Report, in 1970, a total of 29 Schools remained.

3.161To a large extent, the closures happened because the Orders wished them. On 23rd May 1966, the Managers Association wrote to the Department:

At their meeting on last Friday there was a consensus of opinion amongst the Resident Manager that most of the Schools will be forced to close.

If the present system is not acceptable to the public or the Government the Managers are prepared to close the schools next year, because they feel that the strain of working under present-day conditions is too acute to be continued.

3.162There may have been some element of bluff about this letter since the Managers were always overtly or covertly in negotiation with the Department and by 1966 were genuinely anxious to know the Department’s views. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the Schools would have expressly raised such a fundamental issue as closure unless they believed that matters had reached a crisis. In 1968, the Manager of Artane visited the Minister to warn him that the Christian Brothers had decided to close Artane, though this did not in fact occur until 1969.

3.163The timing of the closures coincided with the doubling in demand for secondary school places that followed on the abolition of secondary schools fees. This was announced by the Minister for Education, Donough O’Malley, in 1966 and came into effect in August 1967. As a result, enrolment in day secondary schools rose from 148,000 in 1966-67 to 239,000 in 1974-75.⁹² This meant that the Orders had a ready use for the former Industrial School premises and staff.

¹C O’Grada A Rocky Road: the Irish economy since the 1920s (Manchester UP, 1997) 17, 194 and Table 1.5. In 1949, one child in 16 did not live to see his or her fifth birthday. 100 mothers died in childbirth in 1949 compared to fewer than one per year at present (Central statistics Office, 2000).

²F Fearon ‘The National Problem of Nutrition’ Studies vol 26 (March, 1938). Twelve similar figures are given in an article based on the families of 60 patients attending the Rotunda Hospital in GC Dokeray and WR Fearon ‘Ante-Natal. Nutrition in Dublin’ (1938) Irish Journal of Medical Science (6th series) 80.

³O’Cinneide and Maguire, pp 39-40.

⁴E Holmes ‘Medical Social Work’ at the Rotunda in A Browne (ed) Masters, Midwives and Ladies in Waiting, p 216.

⁵See, to similar effect: TWT Dillon MD ‘The Social Services in Eire’, Studies, September 1945 329; Dunne ‘Poverty Problems for a Patriot Parliament’ Journal of the Statistical and Society Inquiry Society of Ireland, 1922:190; Dr Clancy-Gore ‘Nutritional Standards of some working class families in Dublin’ Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland, vol 17 (1943-44) 241.

⁶Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Housing of the Working Classes of the City of Dublin 1938-43 (Dublin: Government Stationery Office, 1944), p 15, quoted in O’Cinneide and Maguire, p 22.

⁷TWT Dillon ‘Slum clearance past and future’ Studies, March 1945, pp 13-20.

⁸Department of Health, National Nutritional Survey (Dublin: Government Stationery Office, 1968) quoted in O’Cinneide and Maguire The Industrial Schools: A Monograph, pp 33-4, citing as sources: WT Dillon ‘Slum Clearance Past and Future’ Studies, March 1945, p 163; The Standard, 14th November 1931, p 9; The Standard, 27th September 1935, p 2; Irish Weekly Independent, 25th December 1937, p 8.

⁹K Kearns Dublin Tenement Life (Gill and Macmillian, 1995).

¹⁰O’Cinneide and Maguire ‘Findings from the ISPCC records’ (2000) second progress report to the Sisters of Mercy. Industrial Schools in context project.

¹¹Rotunda Hospital Annual Clerical Reports for 1936-68, Social Services section.

¹²Dillon The Social services in Eire, p 331:

¹³Rotunda Hospital Annual Clerical Reports for 1936-68, Social Services section.

¹⁴JV O’Brien Dear Dirty Dublin (Dublin, 1978), pp 167-8.

¹⁵NAI, DT, S4183, report on VD in the Irish Free State: Committee of Inquiry (1924–26). The report was not published (ibid, 7th May 1927) Here one ought also to mention briefly the Carrigan Report on Sexual Offences (1931) which led ultimately to the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935. The immediate reason for its establishment was the fact that the English Law in regard to sexual offences against young person had recently been made more stringent including law on prostitution, carnal knowledge of an underage person. The Committee had a good deal of evidence about such crime, from, for instance, Garda Commissioner Eoin O’Duffy. The Report was not made public on the advice of the Department of Justice and the Catholic Church, because it was thought that it would show Irish sexual morals in a poor light. The general lesson which this Report and its non-publication teaches is that there was a good deal of sexual crime against children in the early 1930s and there is no reason to suppose that this position changed at any rate for several decades; and also that the official approach was to sweep such matters under the carpet. The Report did not discriminate between crimes taking place within the family or at a school of whatever type. See generally: Report of the Committee on the Criminal Law Amendments Acts (1880-1885) and Juvenile prostitution (Dublin, 1931), p 26; M Finnane ‘The Carrigan Committee of 1930-31 and the moral condition of the Saorstat’ Irish Historical Studies (November 2001), p 519; F Kennedy ‘The Suppression of the Carrigan Report’ studies, Vol 89, No 356, p 362.

¹⁶Louise Ryan ‘The massacre of innocence: Infanticide in the Irish Free State’, Irish Studies Review, No 14, Spring 1996, pp 17-21.

¹⁷Rotunda Clinical Report for 1945-46, section on Social Services by the Almoner, Miss Murphy.

¹⁸Lunney’s survey of the Sisters of Mercy Schools.

¹⁹In Limerick, in 1936, the Society provided boots and clothing to nearly 2,000 families, and disbursed nearly £2,000 in assistance. This was in spite of the fact that the Society’s resources were so diminished, and their donations significantly diminished, that they had been forced to reduce by nearly half the number of people they could assist (The Standard, 3rd April 1936, four cited in O’Cinneide and Maguire The Industrial Schools Over a Hundred Years: A Monograph, p 32). Dillon ‘The Social Services in Eire’ at p 329 states that, in 1943, the society distributed goods and grants to the total value of €150,000.

²⁰The other two income-support schemes, old age pensions and insured worker’s benefits, are not relevant.

²¹The Evening Standard, 5th May 1939.

²²F Kennedy From Cottage to Crèche (IPA, 2003), pp 218-9.

²³School: A Sociological Study’ (1971) Unpublished M Soc Sci thesis, UCD.

²⁴Number of orphans admitted to various Industrial Schools from establishment to 1950

School	Orphans	Total admissions	Percentage of School population
Clifden	33	1,015	3.25
Clonakilty	188	1,306	14.39
Dundalk	138	773	17.85
Galway	78	1,090	7.16
Goldenbridge	85	1,755	4.84
Limerick	285	1,663	17.14
Mallow	41	751	5.46
Newtownforbes	241	1,434	16.81
Templemore	122	813	15.01
Westport	94	1,065	8.83

²⁵Taken from E O’Sullivan, PhD.

²⁶Saorstát Éireann Report of the Commission on the Relief of the Sick and Destitute Poor, including the Insane Poor (Dublin: Stationery Office, 1928), p 5 (our italics); J Robins From Rejection to Integration: A Centenary of Service by the Daughters of Charity to Persons with a Mental Handicap (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1992), pp 2-3.

²⁷Department of Local Government (1928) Annual Report 113, quoted in Kilcummins at p 84. In response about eight ‘mother and child’ homes were set up for unmarried mothers giving birth for the first time. In 1922 the Sacred Heart Home in Bessboro, County Cork, managed by the Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Mary, was opened. Similar homes were established by the same Order in Roscrea, County Tipperary, in 1930 and Castlepollard, County Meath, in 1935. The Sisters of Charity of St Vincent De Paul opened a similar institution on the Navan Road, in Dublin, in 1918 and the Sisters of the Good Shepherd opened a home in Dunboyne, County Meath, in 1955. In addition, three special homes were provided by local authorities themselves in Tuam, County Galway, Kilrish, County Clare and Pelletstown in County Dublin: See further Kilcummins ‘The Origins of Penal Policy’ in Crime Punishment and the Search for Order in Ireland (IPA, 2003), pp 82-6.

²⁸National Archives, DT S14472b – Report of the Interdepartmental Committee appointed to examine the Question of the Reconstruction and Replacement of County Homes, p 24.

²⁹Kennedy Report, Appendix E.

³⁰At para 3.2.

³¹TE O’Sullivan Child Welfare in Ireland, 1750-1995: A History of the Present (TCD PhD, 1999), pp 204-7.

³²In other words, in the Irish Legislation there was no equivalent of Part V of the (English) Children and Young Persons Act 1933 provides for the registration of all homes and other institutions, supported wholly or partly by voluntary contributions, and receiving poor children and young persons. By section 25 of the Children Act 1908, there was a bare power of inspection with no power further to intervene in any way and certainly none to investigate individual children; nor was any duty to register imposed.

³³See eg Health Discovery, 42

³⁴Barrett, ‘The Dependent Child’ Studies, Winter 1955 at p 422.

³⁵At pp 33-4.

³⁶Table 34. Kennedy states: ‘One of the tasks we attempted was to draw up a list of private voluntary Homes. Their principal sources of information were the Irish Catholic Directory and the Church of Ireland Handbook, but as there is no standardised classification of private Homes, it is possible that, in spite of independent checks, we have overlooked some Home or school which should have been included.’

³⁷Kennedy, para 1.5.

³⁸Sources: Mary Raftery and Eoin O’Sullivan Suffer the Little Children: The Inside Story of Ireland’s Industrial Schools (Dublin: New Island, 1999), Appendix 1; Dail Debates Vol 220, col 687-88 (2nd February 1966); Kennedy Report, para 1.5; Cussen Report, para 17 and Appendix B; Department of Education complied from quarterly returns from each School to the Department.

³⁹Classified as a special school with the Department of Education, it is still in law a Reformatory which is managed by the Oblate Fathers who have a long-standing tradition of residential child care in Ireland. It caters for up to 60 boys from all parts of the Republic, as the only Reformatory facility. The age range of boys referred would be between 12 and 17 years and the other main criteria for admission include the seriousness of the offence and whether a committal is for more than one year. The school is run on the basis of four units with one being an intake unit.

⁴⁰This transfer which was effected by means of three forms (until an administrative reform in the late 1950s reduced this to one). First the Manager of the junior School completed a form of transfer which was returned to the Department. This form was forwarded to the Manager of the senior School who returned it, signifying his willingness to accept the child. Finally, the Minister made a transfer order, exercising his power under s 69(2) of the 1908 Act, transferring a youthful offender or child from one industrial school to another. Notification of this was sent to the Manager of each school.

⁴¹These were the Baltimore Fishing School (under the management of a local board of which the Bishop of Ross was chairman (SD, vol 25, col 495 (5th March 1941)), closed, under Departmental pressure in 1950; and the school in Killybegs, closed, on its acquisition by military authorities in 1950.

⁴²Kennedy Committee, para 1.5.

⁴³At para 4.6.

⁴⁴The Poor Clares were founded in 1204, committed to a life of prayer and penance, among the strictest orders in the Catholic Church. Generally, one might doubt as to whether celibates would make good mother and father figures (horses for courses). How did the Poor Clares get into this field? Were they in need of the income? A contemplative order, their concepts of love focussed on Christ and Our Lady had complete charge of young children deprived of family life. The isolation of the community of St Joseph’s Orphanage, Cavan meant that the fire of 1943 claimed the lives of 35 girls as well as one woman.
According to the official history of the Christian Brothers order (A Christian Brother (1926), pp 524-5):
This was a congregation which stood apart as a body of men committed to the education of boys, especially poor boys; which before independence, had stayed outside the National System for ideological reasons; which asserted its independence from each local bishop; and which, most significantly, was the principal provider of secondary education for the Nineteenth and most of the Twentieth Century.

⁴⁵In fact, this effect is greater than appears from the Table since the Table treats boys in a single category yet boy’s Schools were divided into those for junior or senior boys. A consequence would be that a greater number of boys than those shown in the Table would have had to be sent outside their home county because there would have been no School available for someone of their particular age. In the interest of simplicity we have not gone into this effect. Another detail that is omitted, but which would have told in the opposite direction, is that, in some cases, girls Schools took junior boys. This would have had the effect of enlarging the number of places available in the county to boys.

⁴⁶DD vol 145, col 946–52 (23rd April 1954); SD vol 75, col 60 (1st June 1973); vol 252 (25th March 1971); DD vol 75, col 150 (28th March 1939); vol 94, col 272-7 (13th June 1944), respectively.

⁴⁷For questions in this paragraph, see respectively DD vol 127, col 274 (7th November 1951) (stating that the police car used to transport children to the schools had been replaced by a station wagon the previous month); vol 49, col 1359 (28th June 1944); DD vol 174, cols 126, 272 (8th and 9th April 1959).

⁴⁸DD vol 88, col 2271 (19th November 1942).

⁴⁹DD vol 88, cols 2270–3 (19 November 1942).

⁵⁰DD vol 88, col 2273 (19 November 1942). See too, col 2536:
I have a case here, for example, of a boy aged 11 years, who was three times before the court before he was committed in July 1941. In August, 1941, I ordered his release. He did not attend school, and during the period after I ordered his release in August, 1941, and before October, 1942, when he was recommitted, he was before the court no less than six times.

⁵¹DD vol 66, col 25 (31st May 1937); DD vol 126, col 1732, 1744 (17th July 1951).

⁵²DD vol 94, cols 272-7 (13th June 1944). See also vol 126, cols 1699, 1731, 1744 (11th July 1951).

⁵³DD vol 151, col 20 (25th May 1955).

⁵⁴DD vol 174, col 272 (9th April, 1959).

⁵⁵See eg DD vol 126, cols 1699, 1731, 1744. There were no sweeping condemnation, the equivalent of Deputy Dillon’s comment on Summerhill, (not an Industrial School but a residential institution for juveniles (see 00) run by the Department of Education). He stated:
Summerhill is closed. Ten weary years of battering at the walls of Summerhill have at last brought them down. Deputies may remember the Taoiseach saying that he thought Summerhill a very nice place to which he would send his own children if they did not behave themselves… the alternative accommodation [is] Glasnevin.
FILL OUT. On another occasion, Deputy Dillon said he would not like to see greyhounds or terriers kept in Summerhill: DD vol 88, col 1580 (28th October 1942). For Summerhill (later the place of detention was transferred from Summerhill to Marlborough House) see: para 00.

⁵⁶Deputy A Byrne is an exception, referring to Scotland and the US at DD vol 82, cols 1120-1 (11th December 1940).

⁵⁷M Maguire ‘Briefing Paper Newspaper Research on Former Residents of Mercy Industrial Schools’, Sisters of Mercy Industrial Schools in Context.

⁵⁸At 46. Sources: Connacht Tribune, 24th January 1931, p 2; Connacht Tribune, 22nd January 1938, p 3; Connacht Tribune, 29th January 1938, p 6; Irish Weekly Independent, 13th April 1935, p 1; Irish Weekly Independent, 14th May 1932, p 9; Connacht Tribune, 8th July 1939, p 9; Irish Weekly Independent, 22nd November 1930, p 9.

⁵⁹At p 275 of his PhD thesis.

⁶⁰Brian Quinn, editor of The Evening Herald (1969–76).

⁶¹See Appendix, Vol V, Part B.

⁶²This is one of a number of pioneering series by Mr Viney, 27th April– 6th May 1966. D Gageby ‘The Media’ in JJ Lee (ed) Ireland 1945-70 (Gill and Macmillan, 1979), p 133, refers to ‘a whole new world of cool clinical reporting which came from Michael Viney, with novel studies of unmarried mothers, alcoholics, deprived children and other castaways of the 1960s.’ The other exceptions were The Irish Times, 3rd February 1950

⁶³This letter (10th May 1966) was from Captain Edgar White from the First Dublin County Boys ‘ Brigade. It suggested that uniformed organisations like the Boys’ Brigade, Catholic Boy Scouts, could provide persons capable of acting as voluntary welfare liaison officers. A comment in response from Michael Viney indicated that in his opinion, voluntary workers were not the answer and would only provide the State with ‘an excuse for further procrastination’.

⁶⁴Minutes of Christian Brothers’ Managers Meeting of 30th April 1957.

⁶⁵DJ 93/182/17, cited in Keating at pp 201-2. We do not have the Minister’s response. On 18th February 1955, the Joint Committee of Women’s Societies and Social Workers, who had a long-standing interest in the Schools wrote to the Minister suggesting various reforms, among them a visiting Committee for each institution, appointed by the local authority and comprising members of the council and outside social workers.

⁶⁶National School Boards of Management did not start until 1975; and Boards of Management for secondary schools started somewhat later: Fuller Irish Catholicism since 1950 (Gill and MacMillan, 2002), p 161.(There is no need to go into the precise gradation of functions and powers between committee of management or a board of visitors because the essential point here is that there was next to nothing in the way of either type of body.)

⁶⁷DJ 93/182, quoted in A Keating, PhD, pp 224-6.

⁶⁸According to the minutes of a discussion between the Inter-departmental Committee on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment Offenders and the Catholic Godparents Guild, 6th November 1963, (the Kennedy Committee being missing, we are using the evidence to the Inter-Departmental Committee):
The Catholic Godparents Guild originated (1949) in personal contacts when Miss Wogan enlisted the aid of certain individuals in sending presents to industrial school children and it has preserved this personal, discriminatory approach to new membership. (In the first year of its existence it dropped 25 members who did not keep to the high standard set.)
Furthermore, the Guild has now for the first time a surplus of potential godparents, and proposes to communicate with all industrial schools asking for the names of children. This move may enable it to interest more industrial school managers in the idea of the Guild and in the ideas of Visiting and After-Care Committees. Mr MacDaibhid [of the Department of Education] undertook to supply to Miss Fleming a list of all industrial schools. It was remarked that not all industrial schools cooperate with the Guild, but Mr JJ McCarthy was able to assure the representatives that most industrial school managers with whom the question of a Visiting Committee was raised had welcomed the idea.
In view of the experience of the Galway Godparents Association one would suggest that there was an element of wishful thinking here.

⁶⁹However, occasionally suggestions came from, for example.
i) Irish Association of Civil Liberties. On 28th May 1963, the Association proposed that the Department should take advantage of the declining numbers in the 1960s, to widen the categories of children they took, in order not to break up families, for instance: ‘Cavan Senior Girls school is looking for permission to take boys, Rathdrum junior boys wants authority to take girls and Drogheda junior boys would like to keep their children until the age of eleven years.’
ii) See, too, Knights of St Columbanus: letter to the Minister, 4th November 1966, complaining that Daingean residents were not eligible from free health services provided by the State and noting that the Knights took an interest in ‘after-care and improving amenities for the institution’.
iii) Following a visit to Artane by the Junior Chamber Commerce, Junior Chamber, in a letter of 24th June 1966 offers the help of its membership equipping the boys ‘to take their place in society’: see fn 215 of Education Discovery, May 2006.
iv) See also the following extract from the Incorporated Law Society’s (18th January 1971) response to the Kennedy Report:
The Society’s committee was chaired by Cork Solicitor, John B Jermyn. ‘Full use should therefore be made of Organisations like Rotary and the Lions Club. These Bodies consist of representatives of all the Professions and Trades and would find little difficulty in placing any boy or girl on release from an Industrial School. Some years ago a Scheme was evolved with the Cork Rotary Club for such a purpose. The intention was that the Club would form a permanent standing Committee who would make contact through the Manager of Upton Industrial School with all boys aged 14 or 15. They would get to know them as intimately as possible and learn their capabilities so that when their 16th birthday arrived they would be employed immediately in a suitable position. The Committee would then continue to act in loco parentis to the children so placed and be available at all times to advise them and help them out of trouble. Unfortunately the Scheme was killed at birth because the then Manager of Upton Industrial School would not give it his blessing as he felt that it constituted a trespass on his own preserves.

⁷⁰See the Department’s earlier brush-off on a memo submitted by the Joint Committee of Women’s Societies and Social Workers on Children in Institutions, dated 18th February 1955.
As the members of the joint committee heartily endorse the view that a bad home is better than the best institution they obviously have very little sympathy with or appreciation of the excellent work being done in Irish orphanages and Industrial schools for the homeless or deprived child. Indeed the Joint committee would appear to have a strong prejudice against the system and in these circumstances it is difficult to see what contribution they can make to the problem beyond airing their prejudices against the existing system. I hold that while the system can never replace the good or moderately good home, it has a lot to recommend it.

⁷¹This paragraph draws on the detailed account in A Keating, pp 244-89. See also Keating ‘Marlborough House: A Case Study of State Neglect’ Studies Vol 93, No 371, p 325.

⁷²Some of our children – a report on the residential care of the deprived child in Ireland, No 13, January 1966

⁷³Mercier Press, 1967.

⁷⁴God Squad, p 38.

⁷⁵At para 20.

⁷⁶M Osocpa’s memo of 4th April, 1951 states:
Committals from Dublin City and County amount to between 30 to 40 per cent of the total committals; yet the accommodation of the schools in the Dublin Area (Artane and Carriglea – 1090) is only 34 per cent of the total accommodation for boys (3,229) and these two schools are required, in addition to giving vacancies for the Dublin committals, to cater for practically the rest of Leinster and the counties of Cavan and Monaghan.

⁷⁷The Department shared the Managers assessment that many schools were ‘in danger of becoming uneconomic’ and accepted that as a consequence ‘the chances of modernising’ these schools became ‘increasingly remote’. One solution considered was the closure of the least economic schools and the transfer of their children to more viable schools, but it was accepted that it would be unfair to put children beyond the reach of those parents and relatives who visit them. See, too, letter of 19th March 1954, letter from Christian Brothers (A OhAulain) announcing closure of Carriglea and suggesting that distribution of former Carriglea residents should be sensitive to the location of their homes.

⁷⁸A similar practice was to be reported in the case of a previous manager by the Tuairim Report (1966) 22 Some of Our Children: See, like effect O’Connor (1963); Kennedy, para 6.22; McQuaid (1971)]

⁷⁹Department document Ref No 63/1937. See, to rather similar effect 7th June 1937 internal Departmental memo and letter from Mr Whelan to Deputy Secretary of Department ,14th September 1937 (116/37 DEI P0036).

⁸⁰At p 79.

⁸¹At para 77.

⁸²The Manager had to make a return to the Department annually, giving: the name of each child, the periods of leave, and the total number of days’ leave taken since above the limit of 31 days, the capitation grants would be affected.

⁸³As early as 1929, it was noted in a Department of Education memo (Misc /56) that while the numbers of committals to Industrial and Reformatory Schools was somewhat higher than in Saorstat Eireann, the actual numbers in the schools was less because the British school managers were making ‘more and more use of their power of ‘licensing’ the children’.

⁸⁴At pp 79-80.

⁸⁵Table 14.

⁸⁶Letter from M O’S to Assistant Secretary, 4th April 1951. It was also noted earlier that unless committals continued to increase, it was likely that Baltimore would have to close. In fact, Baltimore closed in 1950.

⁸⁷11th August, 1943. See also Daly, p 78 (see Report of Department of Education 1929-30, p 109.

⁸⁸Minister T O’Deirg to Archbishop. McQuaid letters, 15th August, 23rd September 1944.

⁸⁹On 4th April 1951, M O’S of Department wrote to the Assistant Secretary:
Since 1945 there have on an average been 250 vacancies in the Boys’ Schools which tends to show that (i) the existing Industrial School accommodation for Senior Boys is adequate for the present conditions of comparatively full employment occasioned by the continuance of international tension and (2) with the improvement in the Social Welfare Services and general conditions (including housing) it is anticipated that less children will be committed to Industrial Schools on the grounds of poverty than heretofore. It must be remembered, however, that the incidence of the causes which leads to committals (unhappy marriages, poverty, illness or deaths of one or both parents, lack of control etc) is unpredictable and makes accurate forecasts of the number of committals very difficult.

⁹⁰The Christian Brothers Managers Meeting of 12th January 1954 states:
The question of the desirability of closing, for economic reasons, one of our Industrial Schools was discussed in detail and at length. It was mentioned that the Presentation Brothers were seriously considering the closing of Greenmount. [this actually occurred only in 1959] It was mentioned that His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin had expressed his preference for the smaller rather than the larger type of school. The Committee were of opinion that one of the schools should be closed but that the final decision should be left to the Provincial Council.
Minutes of 28th April 1956 stated that: ‘it would be well, at least in order to shake up the Department, to propose that two of the Institutions (sic) should be closed’.’

⁹¹The St Joseph’s Industrial School, Greenmount Cork annals for February 1959 record:
The decline in the number of boys being committed to Industrial Schools had become very marked in recent years. The certified capacity of the school was 235 but at this time there were only 131 boys in the school. The meagre grant from the Government of 45/- per boy per week (only comparatively recently increased from 30/-) which had to cover food, clothing maintenance, provision of staff, other than the teachers in the class-room, etc made it very impractical to run the school efficiently. The second Juniorate at Passage West had its serious setbacks too. These two factors influenced the Higher Superiors to make the decision to close St Joseph’s as an Industrial School and made the building available as a Juniorate instead of St Teresa’s, Passage.
However Keogh (p 183) writes:
There is another explanation for the decline in the numbers of the boys being sent to the school. According to Fr Good: ‘there were rumours after the events of 1955, the Church held an inquiry into allegations that two members of the Greenmount Community were involved in an abusive relationship with a number of boys.] Fr Good (Chaplain to Greenmount 1955-70) writes to the Commission on December 29, 2005) that Bishop Lucey had asked the sisters in Passage to ignore government transfer orders and keep the boys to their sixteenth birthday. They did so successfully, and the boys went to secondary or technical schools in Passage.’ Interview with Fr James Good, History Department, UCC Cork, December 2000. I have yet to seek confirmation of this view from the Sisters of Mercy.
Sr Bernadette was in charge of the Boy’s Junior Industrial School, Passage West, Co Cork (recently deceased). Sr Bernadette told me that Bishop Lucey had come to her and directed her to tear up all transfers of boys from her school to Greenmount and Upton. These Government transfers took effect on the child’s tenth birthday. (providing them with the secondary/technical education) until their release from Industrial School care at age 16. This effectively closed both Greenmount and Upton in a relatively short time.

⁹²J Coolahan Irish Education: history and structure (IPA, 1981), pp 194-95.

Chapter 4
Residential child welfare in Ireland, 1965-2008: an outline of policy, legislation and practice: a paper prepared for the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse¹

Dr Eoin O’Sullivan, FTCD

Senior Lecturer, School of Social Work and Social Policy, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2.

Introduction

4.01This paper aims to provide a review of the evolution of policy, legislation and practice in relation to child welfare, with a particular emphasis on residential childcare from the mid-1960s to the present. It does not claim to be exhaustive; rather it attempts to delineate a number of the key shifts in the organisation of child welfare in Ireland that have led to the current configuration of services.² Furthermore, the paper does not fully embed the trajectory of change in child welfare services within the broader social, economic, cultural and political environment that shaped Ireland during this period. The changing role and status of religious Congregations is clearly of importance³, as are changing perceptions of the status and rights of children and the changing structure of the family.⁴ Similarly, the economic environment was significant in determining the level of funding available for child welfare, as was the political will for prioritising child welfare.⁵ Shifting forms of governance at national and local level have also shaped child welfare policies over this period.⁶ These broader issues are well-documented elsewhere⁷ and it is therefore the intention of this paper to focus in a singular way on the specifics of residential childcare. Neither does the paper attempt to provide an interpretation of the shifts in the function, organisation and delivery of residential care in Ireland. Rather, by utilising the archival records of the Government Departments centrally concerned with this area of public policy, the Departments of Health and Education, supplemented by a secondary literature, the paper hopes to outline the intent and shifting concerns of policy makers, policy activists and service providers during the period under review, particular the crucial period between 1965 and 1975.

4.02The paper suggests that the key debates in relation to the organisation, structure and delivery of child welfare services, in particular residential childcare services took place between approximately the mid-1960s and the mid-1970s, culminating in the Government decision of 11th October 1974 to ‘allocate to the Minister for Health the main responsibility, including that of co-ordination in relation to child care’. Although the intent of Government may have been clear, the absence of clear guidance on what ‘main responsibility’ entailed was to cause considerable administrative and Ministerial difficulties over the next 30 years.⁸ In relation to residential child welfare services, the publication of the Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Reformatory and Industrial Schools’ Systems (Kennedy Report) in 1970 is an important catalyst in these debates. The analysis of the child welfare system, particularly residential childcare, provided by the Committee crystallised a view of the system that had gained significant momentum in the second half of the 1960s that significant reform of the system was required, and the report acted as a spur in its aftermath for the realisation of organisational change.

4.03The same Government decision that allocated to the Minister for Health primary responsibility for childcare also established a Task Force on Child Care Services which submitted its report to the Minister for Health in late 1980. This report exposed a number of difficulties that had emerged in relation to implementing desired changes. These included the difficulty of devising new legislation, despite an acknowledgement that it was required and the scale of the organisational changes required. An evolving external environment exacerbated this, with a professional childcare and social work cadre emerging alongside a decline in the role of Catholic Religious Congregations in the delivery of childcare services. Eventually, primarily due to inter-departmental difficulties and a lack of consensus on particular aspects of child welfare policy, particularly in the area of juvenile justice, a staggered repeal of the Children Act 1908 emerged with the Child Care Act 1991, the Educational (Welfare) Act 2000 and the Children Act 2001, primarily sponsored by the Departments of Health, Education and Justice respectively. Ministerial responsibility for child welfare services was formalised in the early 1990s. With the raising of the age of criminal responsibility to 12 (with certain exceptions) in 2006 and the ending of the role of the Department of Education in the administration of residential childcare in 2007, the core recommendations of the Kennedy Report were realised. In the intervening period, a range of issues not specifically discussed by the Kennedy Report were debated and policy decisions taken, particularly in relation to child abuse and specifically abuse in institutional settings.⁹ These debates are, of course, not unique to Ireland, and in recent years considerable debate has taken place on the extent and nature of abuse in residential childcare settings in, for example, the UK¹⁰ and Canada.¹¹

4.04This paper firstly provides an overview of the current configuration of child welfare services in Ireland. It then presents data on the shifting patterns of child welfare interventions between 1960 and the present, highlighting in particular the decline in the number of children in residential care. The paper then reviews the debates on child welfare from the mid-1960s to the publication of the Interim Report of the Task Force on Child Care Services in 1975, including in particular the Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Reformatory and Industrial Schools’ Systems. Detailing the difficulties and delay in implementing the recommendations broadly agreed on then follows. The paper explores, in particular, the difficulties in firstly transferring the majority of children’s homes from the Department of Education to the Department of Health; secondly, the shift from funding the homes on a capitation system to a budget system; thirdly, introducing new child welfare and juvenile justice legislation to replace the Children Act 1908 (as amended); and fourthly, the provision of secure accommodation for children. The rationale for selecting these areas is that these were core to the recommendations of the Kennedy Committee, which it is suggested, summarised the views of a range of interested parties at that time. The difficulties experienced in realising the recommendations of the Kennedy Report related not to a lack of effort by any party, but reflected that despite a broad consensus on what should be done in the area of child welfare, interested parties held opposing views on the precise mechanisms, principles and pace of change required.

Section 1: Current organisation of child welfare in Ireland

Introduction

4.05In September 2008, there were 5,380 children in care in Ireland, of whom only 400 (or 7.4 percent) were in residential care. This is in stark contrast to the position in the late 1960s, when approximately 3,000 children were in various forms of residential care. At the end of the 1960s, all children’s Residential Homes were managed by either Catholic Religious Congregations or voluntary organisations, whereas by 2008 the vast majority of homes were managed directly by the State or it agents, with the last of traditional religious providers of residential care, the Sisters of Mercy ceasing their direct involvement in 2003.¹² On 1st March 2007 administrative and legal responsibility for the Children Detention Schools, ¹³ with the exception of St Joseph’s in Clonmel¹⁴, were transferred from the Department of Education and Science to the Irish Youth Justice Service¹⁵, an executive office of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. This transfer thus ended the involvement of the Department of Education in the administration of residential childcare, a role they commenced in June 1924.¹⁶ The changes arose from the youth justice reforms approved by Government in December 2005 following a review carried out by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and given statutory effect under the Criminal Justice Act 2006.¹⁷ The rationale for transferring responsibility for the administration of the Children Detention Schools from the Department of Education and Science was:

the Department has a limited role in the provision of residential care. The Department itself is of the opinion that the administration of detention schools would appear to be more appropriate to a body with experience and expertise in childcare, residential care and security issues.¹⁸

4.06This decision concluded a debate, initiated some 40 years previously, over which Government Department should have responsibility for the administration of residential childcare in Ireland.¹⁹ By 1984, the majority of Residential Homes had been transferred to the Department of Health, with the Department of Education retaining responsibility for the administration of a small number of Reformatory and Industrial Schools, collectively referred to for administrative purposes as Special Schools since the early 1970s. Initially, the Department of Health wished to take responsibility for these schools, but this was resisted by the Department of Education as it was felt that as the educational facilities were provided on site, they were the appropriate Government Department to administer them. By the mid-1980s, the Department of Education was agreeable to transferring the Schools to the Department of Health, but by now, Health was not willing to accept them. By the late 1980s, the Department of Education had firmly concluded that they were not the appropriate Department to manage these schools, and recommended that the Department of Justice take responsibility for their management. It was not until the mid-2000s that the issue was finally resolved and the Department of Education finally severed their role in administering the schools. Thus, from once being the Government Department with primary responsibility for residential care for both offending and non-offending children for most of the 20th century, the Department of Education and Science now has responsibility only for the educational input in the schools. Working with the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs (which was established in 2005), the objective of the Irish Youth Justice Service is to ensure co-ordination between the various agencies that provide services in the youth justice arena (e.g. probation services, the Gardaí, the courts etc.) in the context of the Children Act 2001 and in addition to running the children detention schools as noted above. The establishment of both the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and the Irish Youth Justice Service were in response to long-standing criticisms that a fundamental flaw in the Irish child welfare system was the absence of a lead Department, and a lack of co-ordination between the disparate elements that made up the child welfare system.²⁰

Co-ordination of childcare services

4.07The aforementioned Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs (OMCYA) is part of the Department of Health and Children. The role of the OMCYA, which was set up by the Government in December 2005, is to implement the National Children’s Strategy²¹ and bring greater coherence to policy-making for children. The OMCYA units that are part of the Department of Health and Children include: Minister’s Office Staff and Advisor, the Child Welfare and Protection Policy Unit, the Childcare Directorate (formerly part of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform) and the National Children and Young People’s Strategy Unit (formerly the National Children’s Office²²). The Minister of State, who has special responsibility for children, is officially styled Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and at the Department of Education and Science (with special responsibility for Children), and is a junior ministerial post in the Departments of Health and Children, Education and Science and Justice, Equality and Law Reform of the Government of Ireland. The Minister works together with the various senior Ministers in these departments and has special responsibility for children’s affairs. The Minister of State does not hold cabinet rank, but does, however, attend cabinet meetings. The position, in its current form, was created on 20th December 1994. The current incumbent is Barry Andrews, TD, who took up the post in May 2008.²³

4.08In October 2008, it was announced that that the Children Acts Advisory Board would also come under the OMCYA. The Children Acts Advisory Board was established under the Child Care (Amendment) Act 2007 on 23rd July 2007, which changed the name, and some functions of the former Special Residential Services Board.²⁴ The Children Acts Advisory Board has a role conducting or commissioning research, promoting enhanced interagency co-operation; promoting, organising or taking part in, seminars and conferences; publishing guidelines on the qualifications, criteria for appointment, training and role of any guardian ad litem appointed for children in proceedings under the Act of 1991; preparing and publishing criteria for admission to and discharge from special care units, in respect of children subject to special care and interim special care orders in consultation with the Health Service Executive; giving its views on any proposal of the Health Service Executive to apply for a special care order; and preparing reports on certain court proceedings. The Child Care (Amendment) Act 2007 broadened the remit of the Board to become an enhanced advisory and enabling body whose functions include providing advice to the Ministers for Health and Children and Justice, Equality and Law Reform on policy issues relating to the co-ordinated delivery of services to at risk children/young people, specifically under the Child Care Act 1991 and the Children Act 2001.

Legislative framework

4.09The Child Care Act 1991²⁵ (as amended) and the Children Act 2001²⁶ (as amended) have replaced the Children Act 1908 and the Health Acts 1953 and 1957 as the primary statutory framework for the care and control of children in Ireland.²⁷ The Child Care Bill was enacted into law on 10th July 1991, as the Child Care Act 1991²⁸, its purpose being to ‘up-date the law in relation to the care of children who have been assaulted, ill-treated, neglected or sexually abused or who are at risk’.²⁹ The main provisions of the Act are: the placing of a statutory duty on health boards to promote the welfare of children who are not receiving adequate care and protection; to strengthen the powers of the Health Boards to provide childcare and family support services; the improvement of the procedures to facilitate immediate intervention by health boards and the Gardaí where children are in danger; the revision of provisions to enable the courts to place children who have been assaulted, ill-treated, neglected or sexually abused or who are at risk, in the care of or under the supervision of regional health boards; the introduction of arrangements for the supervision and inspection of pre-school services; and the revision of provisions in relation to the registration and inspection of residential centres for children.³⁰ Also of note is section 24 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 which provided that: ‘The rule of law under which teachers are immune from criminal liability in respect of physical chastisement of pupils is hereby abolished.’³¹

4.10The Children Act 2001, which was signed into law by the President on 8th July 2001, not only repeals the Children Act 1908, it also introduces significant new sections to the Child Care Act 1991.³² Described by one author as ‘fundamental revolution in the law relating to juvenile justice’³³, the Children Act 2001 focuses on preventing criminal behaviour, diversion from the criminal justice system and introduces principles of restorative justice.³⁴ Crucially, and in contrast to the situation that prevailed for much of 20th century, the use of detention for a child is to be a last resort; the Act requires that all avenues be explored before it is used.³⁵ The main principles of the Children Act are: any child who accepts responsibility for his/her offending behaviour should be diverted from criminal proceedings, where appropriate; children have rights and freedoms before the law equal to those enjoyed by adults and a right to be heard and to participate in any proceedings affecting them; it is desirable to allow the education etc. of children to proceed without interruption; it is desirable to preserve and strengthen the relationship between children and their parents/family members; it is desirable to foster the ability of families to develop their own means of dealing with offending by their children; it is desirable to allow children to reside in their own homes; any penalty imposed on a child should cause as little interference as possible with the child’s legitimate activities, should promote the development of the child and should take the least restrictive form, as appropriate;³⁶ detention should be imposed as a last resort and may only be imposed if it is the only suitable way of dealing with the child; due regard to the interests of the victim; a child’s age and level of maturity may be taken into consideration as mitigating factors in determining a penalty; and a child’s privacy should be protected in any proceedings against him/her. On 16th October 2006, under the Children Act 2001, the age of criminal responsibility was effectively raised from 7 to 12 years. Under the new provisions, no child under the age of 12 years can be charged with an offence.³⁷ Before the Children Act 2001 was fully implemented, it was,

substantially amended via the Criminal Justice Act, 2006. Among the areas where change has taken place is the age of criminal responsibility, the Diversion Programme, arrangements for the detention of children and the introduction of a new regime to deal with anti-social behaviour.³⁸

4.11The Children Act 2001 also amended the Child Care Act 1991 by allowing for establishment of special care facilities for children who required secure accommodation. This amendment was necessitated by a series of actions that sought clarification on the implementation of section 5 of the Child Care Act 1991. The key issue was by what criteria the provision in the Act stipulating that health boards ‘take such steps as are reasonable’ be evaluated and what constituted ‘suitable accommodation’ for homeless children?³⁹ The first substantial challenge to the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for homeless children came in 1994. In the case of PS v The Eastern Health Board⁴⁰, it was argued that the Eastern Health Board (EHB) had failed to provide for the welfare of the applicant under section 3 of the Act and to make available suitable accommodation for him under section 5 of the Act. The applicant, who was 14 years of age at the time, had a history of multiple care placements from a young age and had been discharged from a Residential Home and spent 35 consecutive nights sleeping rough before the EHB had agreed to intervene and provide him with accommodation. By the time the case reached the High Court, the applicant had been placed in a health board premises along with another child and a number of security staff. The EHB made the point that, under the Child Care Act 1991, they had no powers of civil detention and, if the applicant would not co-operate, they were limited in the service they could provide.

4.12In a series of further High Court actions, the courts identified a gap in Irish childcare legislation in that health boards were adjudged not to have powers of civil detainment. The judgments resulting from these actions led to the establishment of a small number of high support and special care units for children by the Department of Health, in conjunction with the health boards.⁴¹ However, the number of children before the High Court continued to grow and, in July 1998, Justice Kelly issued an order to force the Minister for Health to provide sufficient accommodation for the children appearing before him in order to vindicate their constitutional rights. In his conclusion, Mr Justice Kelly stated:

It is no exaggeration to characterise what has gone on a scandal. I have had evidence of inter-departmental wrangles over demarcation lines going on for months, seemingly endless delays in drafting and redrafting legislation, policy that appears to be made only to be reversed and a waste of public resources on. For example, going through an entire planning process for the Portrane development only for the Minister to change his mind, thereby necessitating the whole process being gone through again. The addressing of the rights of the young people that I have to deal with appears to be bogged down in a bureaucratic and administrative quagmire. I have come to the conclusion that the response of the Minister to date falls far short of what this Court was reasonably entitled to expect concerning the provision of appropriate facilities for young people with difficulties of the type with which I am dealing.⁴²

4.13The Children Act 2001 inserted a new section into the Child Care Act 1991 (section 23) imposing on the health boards a duty to seek a special care order in the District Court where the behaviour of the child or young person was such that it imposed a real and substantial risk to his or her health, safety, development and welfare and where it was necessary in the interests of the child that such a course of action be adopted. By 2005, three special care units were established with an approved bed capacity of 30, in addition to 13 high support units with an approved bed capacity of 93.⁴³ In 2007, 34 children were placed in special care units, down from 55 in 2004.⁴⁴

4.14In 2000, the Education (Welfare) Act was passed by the House of the Oireachtas. This Act replaced the School Attendance Acts 1926 to 1967.⁴⁵ It raised the minimum school leaving age from 15 to 16, or the completion of three years of post-primary education, whichever is the later. The Act established a National Educational Welfare Board, the objective of which is to develop, co-ordinate and implement school attendance policy so as to ensure that every child in the State attends a recognised school or otherwise receives an appropriate education; appoints education welfare officers to work in close co-operation with schools, teachers, parents and community/voluntary bodies with a view to encouraging regular school attendance and developing strategies to reduce absenteeism and early school leaving; maintain a register of children receiving education outside the recognised school structure and assess the adequacy of such education on an ongoing basis. Reform of this area of child welfare had been long sought, with both the Kennedy Report, and in the same year, the Commission on the Garda Síochána (generally known as the Conroy report), highlighting the inadequacy of the system for regulating school attendance. The Report argued that the Gardaí had been called on to do many duties that had no connection with their primary duties as policemen. Included in a menu of extraneous duties was the enforcement of the School Attendance Acts and recommendation 1188 argued that steps should be taken to relieve the Garda Síochána from the obligation to carry out, most, if not all, of the extraneous duties imposed upon them.⁴⁶ This view simply gave voice to a long-established trend where from the early 1950s onwards, the Gardaí had scaled down their involvement in the implementation of the School Attendance Acts and the only areas where school attendance officers had a significant presence were in the cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford where school attendance committees were in operation. The Kennedy Report had argued that:

Persistent absence from school may be one of the early warning signs of the existence of families and children in difficulties. Such difficulties may be physical, psychiatric or psychological. Early identification of and treatment of the causes will, therefore, be necessary if the break-up of the family is to be avoided. Other possible causes are many and varied. Illness, inadequate parents, unemployment of the father and the mother working, indifference of the parents to education may all lead to absence of one or more children from school. The child may be experiencing difficulties at school, may have physical disabilities such as hearing or sight defects. Backwardness may make it difficult for him to keep up with his class, unsuitable home conditions may make it impossible to prepare homework with consequence reluctance to attend school.⁴⁷

4.15Thus, rather than viewing non-attendance at school through the prism of deviance or criminality and the resulting mode of intervention, punishment: non-attendance at school was viewed as symptomatic of a more deep-rooted maladjustment in the child’s life and requiring professional intervention in the shape of social workers, psychiatrists and psychologists. Thus, the Gardaí, irrespective of their reluctance to remain involved with school attendance duties because of operational restraints, had no role in this new understanding of the causes of non-attendance at school and modes of intervention in solving the problem. The Kennedy report also stated that ‘It is obvious that the present School attendance system needs to be re-examined and a more efficient system evolved’,⁴⁸ a statement that was to be echoed in numerous subsequent reports that generally looked at the issue of school attendance in passing.

4.16For those working in the area of child welfare, particularly, social workers and care workers, the Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005 provides for a system of statutory registration for 12 health and social care professions,⁴⁹ to ensure that health and social care professionals providing services are properly qualified, competent and fit to practice. This is the first time such professionals are regulated under statute. The Act also provides for the establishment of a fitness to practice structure to deal with complaints and other disciplinary matters.

Inspecting children in care

4.17The Social Services Inspectorate (SSI) was set up on an administrative basis in 1999 to inspect social services in Ireland. The inspectorate emerged from the recommendations of the Report on the Inquiry into Madonna House, which reported in May 1996 and recommended that an Inspectorate of Social Services be established on a statutory basis, which would have responsibility for ‘quality assurance and audit of childcare practice in all areas of personal social services, including the children’s residential sector.’⁵⁰ From 1999 to 2007 the work of the SSI focused on children in care, primarily on inspection of residential care. In 2004 a pilot inspection of foster care services was conducted and this was followed in 2006 with inspections of two private foster care agencies. The SSI conducted inspections of statutory residential childcare services (i.e. services managed by the Health Service Executive (HSE), formerly the health boards), under statutory powers contained in section 69 of the Child Care Act 1991. SSI inspectors are authorised to enter any premises maintained by the HSE under the Act and examine the state and management of the premises and the treatment of children there and examine such records and interview such members of staff as they see fit. The Department of Health and Children administered it until May 2007, when it was established on a statutory basis as the Office of the Chief Inspector of Social Services within the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA).⁵¹

4.18In addition, the Ombudsman for Children’s Office was established in 2004, following the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002, which commenced in its entirety on 25th April 2004. The Ombudsman for Children can investigate an action by a public body, a school or a voluntary hospital where it appears that the action has or may have adversely affected a child, and the action was or may have been taken without proper authority, taken on irrelevant grounds, the result of negligence or carelessness, based on erroneous or incomplete information, improperly discriminatory, based on an undesirable administrative practice, or otherwise contrary to fair or sound administration. The Ombudsman for Children can investigate an action on her own initiative or where a complaint has been made to her. A complaint can be made by a child or by an adult on behalf of a child.⁵²

Child protection guidelines in Ireland

4.19The development of guidelines on the reporting, investigation and management of child abuse cases in Ireland began at a meeting in the Department of Health in May 1975, the purpose of which was to discuss the problem of ‘non accidental injury to children’ that had been brought to the attention of the Department by medical consultants from Crumlin and Harcourt St Hospitals. It was agreed at the meeting that

(1)there was a significant problem of non-accidental injury to children in Ireland;

(2)that the position should be examined and procedures suggested for dealing with such cases and for ensuring the co-operation of parties dealing with such cases; and

(3)that a central register of such cases should be examined.

4.20Following the meeting, a committee was established to address the above issues, comprised principally of medical doctors, a superintendent public health nurse, a senior ISPCC officer, a medical social worker and two civil servants. A sub-group was subsequently formed to draw up a detailed memorandum on the matters considered by the Committee. Emerging from this, and assisted by information obtained from British authorities, the first report of the Department of Health Committee on Non-Accidental Injury was published in March 1976, providing a basis for all subsequent child abuse guidelines issued by central government.⁵³

4.21The focus of the Department of Health report was essentially clinical, emphasising the need for early identification of ‘battered’ children. It provided an ‘index of suspicion’ to assist the identification of child abuse, which was almost entirely based on physical symptoms of injury, with a proportionately marginal emphasis on ‘nutritional deprivation, neglect and emotional deprivation and trauma’.⁵⁴ It defined the case conference as an essential part of the ‘team effort’ required for the investigation and management of suspected non-accidental injury (NAI). Overall responsibility for calling the conference was assigned to the Director of Community Care (a medical doctor) though the delegation of this function ‘to a senior member of his medical staff’ was permitted. The list of suggested attendees demonstrated a clear expectation of significant involvement by hospital staff in the management of the case.

4.22The report also recommended the establishment and maintenance of what it described as a ‘central registry’ of cases ‘to act as a reference for personnel concerned to ascertain whether a child was already widely known to different medical practitioners, hospitals or social workers as a case of suspected or diagnosed non-accidental injury. The placement of the register in a paediatric department, health board or the ISPCC was mooted, with the suggestion that, in Dublin, it should be administered by a senior medical officer in the child health section of the EHB to facilitate medical involvement and medical confidentiality. While it was also suggested that ‘every effort should be made to provide adequate community care services to the families involved’, and awareness-raising amongst community agencies was recommended the report and its recommendations were primarily intended for medical staff. Responsibility for overall coordination of services was to belong to the Department of Health, while it was recommended that the health boards establish area committees, which would comprise of appropriate health board staff and hospital representatives.

4.23Although the responses of some professional bodies e.g. the Irish Association of Social Workers and the Eastern Health Board Senior Social Workers Group, were critical of the 1976 report’s over-concentration on the detection of physical signs of child maltreatment, and its neglect of the emotional, psychological and social dimensions of child abuse, the template laid down in this report formed the basis of the guidance documents that followed it over the next decade. Guidelines up to 1987 were based on a conceptualisation of child abuse as ‘non accidental injury’, which could be addressed by a sound system of reporting, with medical and legal interventions. A Memorandum on Non-Accidental Injury to Children was published in 1977, based largely on the 1976 report.⁵⁵ The Memorandum acknowledged that its focus was mainly on physical abuse; stating that ‘in cases of injury arising from emotional deprivation or neglect, the evidence of such injury might not always be as clear cut’ and that procedures for intervention in such cases would have to be considered separately. The nature of the earlier recommended ‘central register’ had been changed, reflecting some disagreement about its purpose and function, which had been specified in written responses to the 1976 report. It was now recommended that a ‘list’ be kept by the Director of Community Care ‘to help assess the extent of the problem’ and to provide information to other professionals on whether a child had previously suffered a NAI. It was suggested that the list be reviewed regularly with details ‘expunged’ when suspicions proved to be unfounded.

4.24The memorandum laid quite strong emphasis on the requirement for staff training in the various medical and community based services for children and families to improve ‘knowledge, awareness and vigilance’. It also acknowledged that there may be legal deficiencies requiring reform and therefore recommended review to identify desirable legal changes and innovations. It also drew attention to the necessity for An Garda Síochána to be notified if a possible breach of criminal law was indicated.

4.25Denis Greene, in one of the first published commentaries on legal aspects of non-accidental injury to children, observed that:

while I have acted for the Eastern Health Board and its statutory predecessors for many years, it has really only been in the past decade that I have been called upon to deal with cases involving children at risk. They have increased in number steadily over that period. I cannot say whether this indicates a real increase in absolute terms or whether the frequency of occurrence is not greater than in past years but more cases are being discovered because of the larger number of social workers now working in the community. Possibly both factors are involved.⁵⁶

4.26In 1980, the Department of Health published the first complete set of Irish child protection guidelines, entitled Guidelines on the Identification and Management of Non-Accidental Injury to Children.⁵⁷ A list of potential clinical indicators of child abuse was again provided, and the necessity for the co-operation of non-health board professionals was emphasised. As the title implies, the focus was still heavily on physical abuse of children, with ‘nutritional deprivation’ and ‘signs of general neglect’ merely cited as part of the ‘index of suspicion’ of NAI. The roles of the Directors of Community Care were more clearly defined as responsible for the management of child abuse in their areas, representing a slight shift to the community from the hospital or clinical setting reflected in the earlier documents. Recommended procedures for the investigation of reports, and the ‘monitoring and co-ordination’ of child abuse cases were outlined, the case conference retained a central position and the maintenance of a ‘list’ of suspected and actual cases of non-accidental injury was again recommended. The rights to involvement of parents in case conferences or decision making were not mentioned. Another set of guidelines with the same title was published in 1983 with basically the same contents with slightly more detailed guidance on the transfer of information and the role of the health boards in circulating the guidelines. Despite the fact that there was some awareness amongst child protection services at that time of child sexual abuse, it was not mentioned in the guidance.⁵⁸

4.27A more radical change was evident in the next set of guidelines, issued in 1987. A name change to Child Abuse Guidelines signified a broadening out of the concept of child abuse from NAI to encompass sexual as well as physical abuse.⁵⁹ The Irish Council for Civil Liberties sponsored report into child sexual abuse in Ireland in 1988 argued that:

Discovery of child sexual abuse as a major problem is recent in Ireland, as it is internationally, and has developed rapidly. In 1983, the Irish Association of Social Workers hosted a pioneering workshop on child sexual abuse, from which a working party and the Incest Crisis Service developed. By 1985, the Rape Crisis Centres were identifying survivors of child sexual abuse as a major client group.⁶⁰

4.28In recent years historians have explored the degree to which knowledge of the sexual abuse of children was known in Ireland before the 1980s, in most cases examining the work of the Carrigan Committee. In June 1930, the Government appointed a committee ‘to consider whether the following Statutes require amendment and, if so, in what respect, namely the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1880, and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885 as modified by later Statutes, and to consider whether any new legislation is feasible to deal in a suitable manner with the problem of Juvenile Prostitution (that is prostitution under the age of 21).’⁶¹ The Committee was chaired by William Carrigan, KC Perhaps the most significant submission received by the Committee was from the Garda Commissioner at the time, Eoin O’Duffy. O’Duffy reported on what he viewed as general immorality of the country:

an alarming aspect is the number of cases with interference with girls under 15, and even under 13 and under 11, which come before the courts. There are in most cases heard of accidentally by the Garda, and are very rarely the result of a direct complaint. It is generally agreed that reported cases do not exceed 15 percent of those actually happening.⁶²

4.29O’Duffy recommended that the Criminal Justice Amendment Act 1885 required revision. Noting that there were 31 prosecutions for defilement of girls under 16 in Dublin City between 1924 and 1929, and that ‘offences on children between the ages of 9 and 16 are, unfortunately, increasing in the country’ and ‘cases have occurred recently in which children between 4 and 5 have been interfered with’, ⁶³the age at which such defilements should be classed as a felony should be raised from 13 to 16. In addition, any attempt to commit this offence should be classed as a felony. He also added that for any offences against girls under the age of 13, he strongly advised the ‘cat’ be used and ‘not just a few strokes, but the most severe application the medical advisor will permit, having regard only to the physical condition and health of the offender’.⁶⁴The Committee reported in August 1931, and made 21 recommendations, broadly endorsing the recommendations made by O’Duffy and others, including raising the age of consent to 18 and extending the time period for commencing a prosecution.⁶⁵

4.30The other notable change in the Guidelines was the emphasis on inter-agency cooperation, and the clear identification of the roles of various professionals, such as the community care social worker, public health nurse, the child psychiatrist and ‘others’ including teachers, day care staff and residential staff. The role of the Director of Community Care in investigation and management was given a strengthened position in comparison to the dominant role of hospital staff in previous guidance. However, the emphasis was still on assaultive abuse and neither neglect nor emotional abuse was given any specific or separate consideration. Physical abuse and sexual abuse were described in terms of signs and symptoms rather than definitions, thus excluding contextual factors such as intention of the alleged perpetrator, the age differential or relationship between themselves and the victim, or the environment in which abuse occurred.

4.31Over the following decade, a series of events changed the public perception of child abuse irrevocably, both in terms of increasing awareness and higher expectations of a range of professionals in the child protection network. What became known as the Kilkenny Incest case⁶⁶, the ‘X’ case⁶⁷, the Kelly Fitzgerald⁶⁸, the West of Ireland Farmer⁶⁹ case, and the Fr Brendan Smith⁷⁰ case had broadened the public view of the nature and prevalence of child sexual abuse, but concern had also grown about emotional abuse and neglect. In addition, the Madonna House Inquiry⁷¹ and the television documentary ‘Dear Daughter’⁷² had combined to inform the public about dimensions of institutional abuse.⁷³ One long-standing member of the Irish Association of Care Workers described the mood at the time amongst care workers a follows:

In my 17 years experience of direct work in child care, I never witnessed such disappointment and despair among my colleagues. Since the Madonna House child sexual abuse scandal broke 20 months ago, there have been a stream of further allegations and suggestions of allegations against care staff, in various care centres around the country. This has led to fear, upset and anxiety among conscientious professional child care workers.⁷⁴

4.32There were also the beginnings of concern about the potentially intrusive character of child protection work and a growing awareness that early intervention of a more supportive and less forensic nature would provide a more effective means of assisting vulnerable families, thus lessening the potential for future harm.⁷⁵

4.33During the same decade, the aforementioned Child Care Act 1991 had been implemented, and the services operated by the health boards in respect of children had been restructured. In addition, the Irish Catholic Bishops also produced a framework for responding to child sexual abuse by priests and religious in 1996.⁷⁶ The question of introducing mandatory reporting had been raised and dropped, and the responsibility for the management of child abuse was re-assigned from the medical directors of community care (whose posts were abolished) to the newly created posts of child care manager in each community care area.⁷⁷ Additional posts of ‘community child care worker’ and ‘family support worker’ had been added to community care teams. It was in this context that Children First: National Guidelines for the Protection & Welfare of Children were developed by a multi-disciplinary working group appointed by the Junior Minister with responsibility for Health and Children and published by the Department of Health and Children in 1999. A protocol had been published by the Department of Health in 1995 outlining the steps to be taken by An Garda Síochána and the health board when notifying each other of suspected child sexual abuse and this was incorporated into Children First, along with broader definitions of child abuse which was now classified into four types: neglect, emotional abuse (including the witnessing of domestic violence), physical abuse and sexual abuse, each of which was explicitly defined within a broad context. Children First included a section on family support, which was recommended for early intervention into cases where harm to a child had not reached the ‘abuse’ threshold.

4.34The guidance offered in the document went beyond identification and investigation to overall case management which included assessment, planning, intervention and review. Unlike previous guidelines, Children First was underpinned by a set of principles which included participation by parents/carers and children in conferences and the development of child protection plans. The ‘list’ mentioned in earlier guidelines was restructured into the Child Protection Notification System which was to be managed by a multi-disciplinary group of professionals.

4.35Recognition was given to groups of particularly vulnerable children including those in out of home care, those with disabilities and those who were homeless. Acknowledgement of the potential for abuse by persons in the caring professions was indicated by a section on the steps to take if allegations were made against employees or volunteers within a service. Children First stated that it was intended to provide ‘overarching’ guidance, but that local areas and organisations providing services to children and families would be expected to produce policies and guidelines tailored to their own context. The provision of child protection training to a broad range of disciplines was identified as compulsory, and all health board staff were declared eligible to receive reports of concerns about children. Children First also recommends the establishment of local and regional child protection committees who would hold a monitoring role in relation to the operation of the guidelines.

4.36While Children First was officially ‘launched’ in October 1999, its implementation status has remained unclear up to the present time. ‘Implementation officers’ were appointed in each health board area. A National Implementation Group (later renamed the National Implementation Advisory Group, was formed and in addition, the Health Board Executive Agency set up a Children First Resource Team which issued guidance on assessment and the operation of the Child Protection Notification System. Both these groups were disbanded in 2003, despite the fact that the guidelines had not been fully implemented on a national basis. Training officers and advice and information officers were appointed, the latter post carrying responsibility for liaising with and providing Children First training for community and voluntary organisations. The Social Services Inspectorate published a report in 2003 which reviewed the implementation process, and while it was generally positive about the advancement that had been made, it noted that progress in relation to Garda/health board cooperation, the child protection committees and planning for family support services was inadequate. Problems of staff retention were identified, as well as a lingering tendency for individual health boards to use their own discretion about how to implement the guidelines.

4.37The publication of Children First was quickly followed by a succession of tailored guidance documents produced by the Irish Sports Council, the Department of Education and Science and the Catholic Church, to name a few. Guidance for the voluntary and community sector was also produced and all of the former were designed to comply with the overarching principles and practices of Children First. Reported concerns about children increased exponentially from 243 in 1978 to 21,040 in 2006, with the highest number of reports in the ‘neglect’ category, followed by the child sexual abuse category. Reflecting the ever-widening pool of concerns about children, the HSE now reclassified concerns of a less serious nature as ‘welfare’ reports which, in 2006, accounted for over half of the reports made to the system. While the definition of ‘welfare’ is not specified in guidance, it is assumed that these reports were considered to constitute situations that warranted a non-investigative family support response. The HSE Review of Adequacy of Child and Family Services 2006 identified factors linked to ‘welfare’ including emotional/behavioural problems in children, substance abuse, involvement in crime, disability, mental illness, domestic violence and parental inability to cope.

4.38When the Government launched Children First in 1999, it made a commitment to review and evaluate the effectiveness of the guidelines within a reasonable time frame. No such review had occurred up to the publication of the Ferns Inquiry⁷⁸ in 2005, but in his response to the report, the then Minister for Children, Mr Brian Lenihan TD, undertook to conduct a review of national compliance with the guidelines. To this end, advertisements were placed in the national newspapers inviting interested parties to comment on Children First, meetings were held with key stakeholders and Secretary Generals of government departments and a study was commissioned to explore the views of service users. Responses to the consultation process indicated that while there were difficulties and variations in practice around the country, there was general satisfaction with the contents of Children First and that most of the obstacles to their implementation were concerned with local operations and infrastructures rather than the guidelines per se. Recommendations from the review suggested that revised guidelines should spell out more clearly the roles of different government departments in protecting children and promoting their welfare and require each public body to produce relevant policies and procedures. Measures to reduce re-offending were also proposed, including Garda vetting. The review noted current difficulties for members of the public and professionals in accessing the system in order to report concerns and suggested measures to alleviate this situation. Methods to quality assure practices in the different areas, early intervention and the establishment of local and regional structures to support the child protection services were also suggested.⁷⁹ The service users’ study focused more generally on the child protection system but questioned the usefulness of the use of the ‘inconclusive’ category as an outcome of investigation given the difficulties that it caused. It also recommended the adoption of a differential response to reported concerns about children.⁸⁰ The Ombudsman for Children also raised concern about the implementation of Children First in November 2008 following a number of complaints to her office, and she announced an investigation into HSE child protection practices in that regard.

Summary

4.39The issues highlighted above, the age of criminal responsibility, the inspection of children’s homes, the shift from residential care to family based services, repealing the Children Act 1908 and the unification and co-ordination of childcare services were all core recommendations of the Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Reformatory and Industrial Schools’ Systems in 1970. They were of course, not the only issues that concerned the Committee, as the discussion on child protection guidelines above testifies, but they provide an indication of the slow pace of progress in achieving the recommendations. It is evident that broad agreement on many of the issues highlighted in the aforementioned Report was achieved in the decade between 1965 and 1975, and it was in the implementation of change that blockages were encountered. Prior to the publication, and indeed establishment, of the Committee to Enquire into the Reformatory and Industrial Schools System, in addition to the well-known Tuairim Report, a number of other significant reports and commentary were circulated that, in part, anticipated and addressed concerns that were to be highlighted in the report of the Committee. Therefore, in understanding the context in which the Reformatory and Industrial School Systems report was compiled and the basis for their recommendations, a brief overview of these reports and commentaries are presented. Before doing so, however, the paper provides an overview of the data on children in care from the 1960s to present, to place the policy debates in context.

Section 2: Trends in child welfare in Ireland, 1960-2006

Introduction

4.40In this section of the paper, a broad overview of the number of children in substitute care is firstly provided, before exploring in more detail the numbers of children in different forms of residential care.⁸¹ From the foundation of the Irish State, the numbers of children in alternative care, particularly residential care, were relatively high with upwards of 12,000 children in care in the 1950s.⁸² During the mid-1950s, the numbers in alternative care dropped rapidly and by the end of the 1960s there were just over 1,200 children boarded-out or at nurse and approximately 3,000 in various forms of residential care. The numbers began to rise again from the early 1970s. From the late 1980s, the numbers in substitute care began to rise again, with just over 5,000 children in substitute care, but what is notable is that the majority of children are now in foster care rather than residential care, as was the case until the early 1980s.⁸³ As shown in figure 1⁸⁴, the trend towards the decline in the number of children in care (defined as children in various forms of foster care and residential care) continued throughout the early to mid-1970s, but increased somewhat in the late 1970s.⁸⁵ A decline was evident again in the early 1980s, but the number of children in care has been rising steadily since the mid-1980s, with currently over 5,000 children in Statecare.

Figure 1: Children in care, 1970-2006

Figure 2: Children in care, 1970-2006 per 1,000 children under 18

4.41Figure 2 shows this trend per 1,000 children under 18, highlighting that the increase in children in care was not driven by broader demographic trends alone. The rate per 1,000 children increased from two to over four children in care per 1,000 children under 18 from the late 1980s to 2006.⁸⁶ Figure 3 provides a time series on the number of children in residential care in units under the operational and legislative ambit of the Department of Health and Children/Health Service Executive and the Department of Education and Science. It shows a very dramatic decline in numbers from approximately 2,200 children in 1970 to just over 400 in 2006.⁸⁷ As noted above, while the overall number of children in care grew from the mid-1980s onwards, the type of care placement shifted decisively from residential care to foster care. By 1980, as shown in figure 4, there were slightly more children in foster care than residential care; in contrast, currently 84 percent of all children in care are in foster care (including relative care).⁸⁸

Figure 3: Residential care in Ireland, 1970-2006

4.42To put it another way, while the overall numbers of children in care have increased, the role of residential care has moved from a position of dominance in the provision of alternative childcare in Ireland to now being a residualised and specialised service.⁸⁹

Figure 4: Children in residential care as a percentage of all children in residential and foster care, 1970-2006

Industrial Schools and Residential Homes

4.43As shown in figure 5, and outlined in greater detail later in the paper, the terminology for what were reformatory and industrial schools changed over the period in question and figure 6 plots both the closure and opening of schools over that same period. Although for administrative purposes, the terms reformatory and industrial schools were abandoned, it was not until 1st March 2007 that the relevant sections of the Children Act 2001 were enacted, formally abolishing the term Reformatory and Industrial School. Figure 6 highlights the closure of more than 20 schools between 1960 and 1970.

Figure 5: Changes in titles of care institutions, 1960-2005

Figure 6: Industrial Schools and Residential Homes, 1960-83

4.44Figures 7 through 10 below represent available data on children in Industrial Schools and Residential Homes on 30th June of each year from 1970 to 1983. Responsibility for the majority of the homes listed above transferred to the Department of Health at the beginning of 1984, an issue that is dealt with at greater length later, thus the end date of 1983 for his data. Overall there has been a slight decrease in the number of children in such institutions, with girls representing a smaller proportion of their population each year as shown in figure 7 below.

Figure 7: Children in care in Industrial Schools and Residential Homes by gender, stock figures 1970-83

4.45As shown in figure 8, there has been a substantial decline in the number of children committed through the courts to Industrial Schools and Residential Homes from over 1,000 in 1970 to less than 200 in 1983; this seems to explain most of the decrease in the number of children entering this type of care. The Health Acts remained a key mechanism for committing a considerable number of children.

Figure 8: Children in Industrial Schools and Residential Home by legal basis, stock figures 1970-83

4.46Figures 9 and 10 shows the main grounds of committal and discharge modes for children incarcerated in Industrial Schools and Residential Homes from 1960 to 1983. There are significant gaps in information in both these figures due to the fact that statistics were not broken down by Industrial Schools vs Reformatories during the years 1971 to 1977 inclusive. Between 1960 and 1970 most children were committed due to destitution or a lack of proper guardianship with smaller numbers being committed due to school non-attendance or indictable offences; however, by the time the statistics are available once more in 1978, the numbers of children being committed to such institutions was in the single digits, often numbering less than five.

Figure 9: Children in care in Industrial Schools and Residential Homes by grounds of committal, stock figures 1960-83

4.47Figure 10 shows that the majority of children discharged from Industrial Schools and Residential Homes were released either into employment or back into the custody of their parents.⁹⁰ However once again, a sizeable portion of data is missing and by the time statistics are available again in 1978 children were either being released to their parents or being retained in care for the purposes of further education.

Figure 10: Children in care in Industrial Schools and Residential Homes by discharge mode, 1960-83

Reformatories and Special Schools for young offenders

4.48The following sections presents statistics related to the detention of children in Reformatories/Special Schools for young offenders. As can be seen from figure 11 below such schools have often had a haphazard history, opening, closing, and changing names or locations. The institutions initially designated as Special Schools were: St Joseph’s, Limerick (Reformatory School for girls)⁹¹; St Anne’s, Kilmacud, Dublin (Reformatory School for girls); St Conleth’s, Daingean, County Offaly (Reformatory School for boys); St Joseph’s, Letterfrack, County Galway (Industrial School for boys)⁹²; St Joseph’s, Clonmel, County Tipperary (Industrial School for boys); St Laurences, Finglas, Dublin (Industrial School for boys).⁹³

4.49The Daingean Reformatory School for Boys, ceased its function on 9th November 1973⁹⁴ and was replaced by Scoil Ard Mhuire, Lusk, County Dublin, which was certified as a Reformatory School on 30th January 1974.⁹⁵ On 4th October 1983 the Provincial of the Oblate Order informed the Department of Education that it was the intention of the Order to withdraw from the management of the school within 12 months. The Department made inquiries to ascertain whether any other religious Order wished or were in a position to replace the Oblates and were informed by the Education Secretariat of the Diocese of Dublin that no other religious Order was available to replace the Oblates. Scoil Ard Mhuire ceased to operate as a certified Reformatory School with effect from 31st August 1985, thus ending the involvement of the Order with the running of Reformatory Schools in Ireland, which commenced, with the certification of the Glencree Reformatory in County Wicklow, on 12th April 1859.

4.50Trinity House School first opened on 14th February 1983 as a secure unit to cater for young male offenders between the ages of 12 and 16 on admission. This was the first Reformatory School to be managed directly by the Department of Education. The first four boys were transferred from Loughan House, Blacklion, County Cavan on 24th March 1983, a reformatory school managed by the Department of Justice which was certified on 4th October, 1978, and were soon followed by another nine from the same facility the following month. With the opening of Trinity House, Loughan House closed as a Reformatory and re-opened as a semi-open prison for adults. On 23rd July 1984, St Ann’s Reformatory ceased to be certified at the request of the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity of Refuge, who ran the home since it opened in May 1944,⁹⁶ and Cuan Mhuire, Whitehall, Dublin (Reformatory School for girls) was opened.⁹⁷ Cuan Mhuire in turn closed in the school year 1990/91 and was replaced by Oberstown Girls Centre, Lusk, County Dublin (Reformatory School and Remand and Assessment Unit for Females). In the school year 1991, a further new school was opened in Oberstown; this was Oberstown Boys Centre, Lusk, County Dublin (Reformatory School and Place of Detention for males).⁹⁸ In the school year 1999-2000, St Laurence’s and St Michael’s were merged into the Finglas Children’s Centre and is now known as the Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre.

Figure 11: Reformatories and Special Schools for young offenders, 1960-2005

4.51Over the past 35 years there has been a substantial decrease in the number of children held in Reformatories and Special Schools. Figure 12 below shows this decline from a peak of just over 250 in 1971 to less than 100 in 2005.⁹⁹ Also visible is the fact that historically, Reformatories and Special Schools, unlike Industrial Schools, confined significantly more boys than girls, a trend which has continued into the present day.

Figure 12: Children in care in Reformatories and Special Schools, stock figures, 1970-2005

4.52According to the Department of Education Statistical Report for 1977-78, previous to 1978 all statistics relating to children entering Residential Homes and Special Schools (formerly Reformatory and Industrial Schools) were only supplied for children ‘committed’ by the courts. From 1978 onwards more detailed statistics are provided on the mechanism for admission including ‘voluntary’, ‘on remand’ and various ‘Health Acts(s)’. Voluntary only appears as a category for Special Schools for two years (1977-78 and 1978-79). To aid in the interpretation of figure 13 below, statistics for children committed ‘voluntarily’ have been included along with those for children being held ‘on remand’. These totals for 1970-74 are year-end totals (with the exception of 1974 which is for 30th September 1974); from 1975 onwards they are totals at 30th June of that year. What is most obvious from the figures below is the extensive decrease in the number of children committed to Reformatories and Special Schools through the courts and through the Health Acts.

Figure 13: Children in care in Reformatories and Special Schools by legal basis, stock figures, 1970-2005

4.53In 1978 the grounds of committal or ‘circumstances’ under which children were committed to Special Schools and Residential Homes were changed to include indictable offences, school attendance, and lack of proper guardianship. As shown in figure 14, since 1978, indictable offences has been the dominant reason for which children were committed to such institutions.¹⁰⁰

Figure 14: Children in care in Reformatories and Special Schools by circumstances under which child was committed, stock figures, 1978-2005

4.54Similar to children incarcerated in Industrial Schools and Residential Homes, figure 15 below shows that children in reformatories and Special Schools generally have been released back into the custody of their parents or guardians¹⁰¹. However, a significant number of children have also been discharged directly to detention centres, and since 2003 a small number of children have also been sent directly to the care of the Prison Service (seven children in 2005).

Figure 15: Children in care in Reformatories and Special Schools by mode of discharge, stock figures, 1978-2005

Foster and residential care

4.55The following section is based upon the Department of Health reports from 1978 to 2005 on children in care. These reports vary from year to year in whether they record data on the number of children in care on a given day (stock), the number of children who were admitted to care during the year (flow), or a combination of these two types of data. Reports for the years 1978 to 1981 only recorded information on children either coming into care or those who were already in care; it is only from 1982 onwards that stock data is available, providing information on children in care on 31st December of the year. Data on children admitted to various types of care (foster, residential, etc.) are often not disaggregated by key variables such as gender or age in any consistent manner (or sometimes not at all). Further complicating matters is the fact that there are no available reports on children in care for the years 1986-88, 1993-95 or 1997. This is particularly regrettable given the fact that significant shifts in the provision of care for children occurred during these junctures. For example, the total number of children in state care began to rise in the early 1980s and again saw a sharp increase in the mid-1990s. A move away from the use of residential care and towards foster care also seemed to occur during these three-year interludes as well; however, the lack of any data during this time means that our ability to make inferences as to why such changes possibly took place is inherently limited.

4.56Furthermore, even when a report is available the data it is not always comprehensive. For example in the 1978 Department of Health Report on children coming into care there is no information on 287 children of unmarried mothers awaiting adoption who were admitted to St Patrick’s Home during the year 1978 (p 3). Nor does the report include reasons for admission for 192 children who were under supervision ‘at nurse’ in the Eastern Health Board.

4.57The following section attempts to overcome these limits in available data and roughly map the changes in provision of childcare in relation to factors such as type of care, gender, and reason for admission and type of care order. Where possible the most up-to-date categories used by the Department of Health are used in order to provide a sense of continuity over time. Where this has not been possible, older and now abandoned categories have been recoded in a logically consistent fashion in order to correspond with the newer categories. Unfortunately, such recoding was not always possible and many figures consist of a range of categories used from year to year making for cumbersome interpretations of the collated data; however, it is also emblematic of the inconsistency of the recording (or non-recording as often is the case) of such data on children in alternative forms of care.

Type of foster care

4.58As can be seen from figure 16 below, the number of children in foster care has increased in general over the past 35 years. In particular, general foster care has steadily increased over the years while private fostering (those ‘at nurse’) has been overtaken largely by fostering by a relative.¹⁰² The last 10 years has also seen the creation of a very small number of special foster care and pre-adoptive placements.

Figure 16: Number of children in foster careby type of foster care, stock figures, 1970-2005

Reason for placement in care (both foster and residential)

4.59Since 2002 the Department of Health has subdivided the reasons for children being taken into care into three categories:

(1)abuse;

(2)child-centred problems;

(3)family-centred problems.

4.60To ease interpretation, these three subgroups have been retained and where possible data from previous annual reports has been placed into these categories based upon similarity¹⁰³. Figure 17 below shows where abuse was cited as the primary reason that children were admitted to care from 1978 to 2005. By far the largest increase has been in the number of children entering care due to ‘Neglect’ from around 500 in 1980 to nearly 2,000 in 2005.

Figure 17: Primary reason for admission to care, stock figures for abuse, 1978-2005

4.61As explained earlier, the primary reason children were taken into care over the past 35 years were categorised as the parent’s inability to cope or care for their children (see timeline). Again, the most recent (2005) categories are used in figure 18¹⁰⁴ below to show the ‘family problem’ reasons for which children were taken into care; one significant shift is the increase in the number of children taken into care in response to the ‘abuse of drugs and/or alcohol’ by a family member since the mid-1990s (shown in dark green).

Figure 18: Primary reason for admission to care, stock figures for family problms, 1978-2005

4.62Most children taken into care for ‘child problems’ were categorised as either abandoned or rejected by their parents¹⁰⁵ or were awaiting adoption¹⁰⁶; a sizeable proportion were also recorded as being ‘out of control’.

Figure 19: Children in care by primary reason for admission to care, stock figures for child problems, 1978-2005

Family background of children in care

4.63There is no data available on family forms in the annual reports for 1978-81; however, there is evidence from the statistics on reason for admission, that children of single mothers or lone parent families in general are over-represented in the care system. For example in 1978, 389 children were reported to be taken into care due to being the child of an ‘unmarried mother, unable to care’ and in 1979, all children awaiting adoption (257) were apparently children of ‘single mothers’. Figure 20 below shows the family structures of children in care from 1982 to 2005. Lone parents consistently make up the largest category followed by married couples (either living together or apart).

Figure 20: Children in care by family structure, stock figures, 1982-2005

Categories and classification of children in care

4.64Classifications and counting methods vary considerably from year to year in the annual reports published by the Department of Health on children in care. Such frequent, and for the most part, unexplained changes complicate what ought to be the rather basic task of outlining and interpreting trends in the provision of alternative care for children over time. However, the different ways in which children are categorised and their families categorised also serves to illuminate the perceived ‘problem’ of non-nuclear family forms; in particular, unmarried mothers and their ‘illegitimate’ children. The timeline shown below in figure 21 is illustrative of the many changes in categorisation used in the Department of Health reports over the period 1978 to 2005. The excessive focus on unmarried mothers can be seen by mapping the descriptions of such women over time in relation to the reason their children were taken into care (shown in black) as well as the descriptions of the child’s ‘status’ or family background/type (shown in red).

Figure 21: Changes in Department of Health Annual Reports Disclosure, 1978-2005

4.65For example, according to the Department of Health Report, Children Coming Into Care 1978, the first such national survey of children in care of the health boards, the primary reason children were taken into care or placed under supervision¹⁰⁷ for that year was that they were children of ‘unmarried mothers who were unable to care’ (p 4). This category represented around a third (33.8 percent) of all children taken into care by the State and is only followed by the ‘short-term illness of parent/guardian’ which represented 16.5 percent of all children taken into care in that year. Some other noteworthy reasons for children being taken into care that same year include:

unsatisfactory home conditions (8.6 percent);
parent/guardian in prison/custody (1.8 percent);
travelling family (3.4 percent).

4.66In 1979, once again children of single mothers are recorded as being the single largest group of young people placed in care. Correspondingly, the most common reason for children being taken into care was ‘single mother, unable to care’ (28.5 percent). However, three other primary reasons for admission were also focused on single parents, including:

single mother, child-awaiting adoption (7.9 percent);
parent deserted, remaining parent unable to care (10.5 percent);
parent dead, remaining parent unable to care (6.2 percent).

4.67Taken together, children of single parents in these four categories represent over half (53.1 percent) of all children in care of the State. In addition to the focus on single parents, two new reasons for admission listed in the 1979 report reinforce the moral judgment of parents:

marital breakdown (5.8 percent);
inadequate parent (12.5 percent).

4.68The 1979 report also includes an interesting survey of ‘underlying family problems’. Such additional descriptive information is rare in Department of Health Reports and provides an insight into the reasoning behind children being taken into care; once again it highlights the emphasis placed on the perceived ‘problem’ of single mothers. According to this survey, by far, the leading underlying family problem was perceived as ‘parental inadequacy’ (47 percent). Table 13 of the report cross tabulates the underlying family problems with the primary reason children were taken into care. Almost 20 percent of children taken into care were categorised as the children of ‘single mother(s), unable to care’ due to being ‘inadequate parent(s)’. Despite the fact that the report presents unusually detailed information on why children were taken into care, it is nonetheless limited by tautological thinking, as the second largest group in the table are described as children of ‘inadequate parent(s)’ whose underlying problem is ‘parental inadequacy’. Fifty seven children were reported to be living in a home with an ‘unsuitable moral atmosphere’; representing 1.7 percent of the children in care.

4.69The 1979 report also provides more detail than many of the other Department of Health Reports on Children in Care in the last 30 years in its explanation for some of the reasons children were placed in residential care. By far the two primary reasons were that the child had two or more siblings already in care or that there were no suitable foster parents available. The number of children placed in residential care for ‘other’ reasons was also quite substantial. These other reasons were primarily that the child was either born in an institution or was born to a ‘single mother undecided about caring for child’. Interestingly, one case was recorded in which the mother was deemed to be ‘disturbed’ and another was recorded as having been a child ‘born during honeymoon’.

4.70The 1980-81 report continues in the reporting of ‘underlying’ family problems such as ‘inability to cope’ and ‘marital disharmony’. However, a number of new family problems appear in the report including:

drug addiction;
promiscuous environment;
over protective.

4.71It is not until 1982 that background information is reported separately in specific regard to the family structure of children in care. While being the child of a ‘one parent family unable to cope’ was still the single largest reason for being placed in care (37 percent), the number of children placed in care for this reason actually decreased by 10 percent from the 1981 figure. The report further grouped children into three ‘status’ categories: ‘legitimate’; ‘illegitimate’; and, ‘extra-marital’.¹⁰⁸ A little more than half of children in care during 1982 were recorded as legitimate (57 percent), and tended to be placed in long-term residential care (46 percent of all legitimate children). On the other hand, children who were categorised as ‘illegitimate’ or ‘extra-marital’ tended to be placed in long-term foster care (44 percent and 66 percent respectively). Interestingly, around 10 percent of all ‘Illegitimate’ children were placed in private foster care compared to less than 1 percent of either ‘legitimate’ or ‘extra-marital’ children.

4.72By 1984 these categories had once again changed and children were either recorded as ‘children of married parents’, ‘children of unmarried parents’ or ‘children of married women where husband is not father’. Children of ‘one parent families unable to cope’ still represented around a third of children in care. The 1985 report continues in the use of these categories and is the last report published until 1989. In the Department of Health report on children in the care of Health Boards for 1989 the specific focus on ‘unmarried mothers’ is not as evident as in previous years. Instead, the more inclusive language of ‘one parent unmarried’ is used; according to the report, this ‘means an unmarried mother or father who is not living with a partner’. Significantly, this is also the first year that the category of parents deemed ‘unable to cope’ (still the largest group at 31 percent) are not specifically identified as unmarried or single parents. The categories used are then consistent for the next three years until 1993 when, once again, a three-year gap in annual reporting occurs. When the next annual report was finally published again in 1996 the term ‘lone parent’ had come into use and ‘parental illness’ had been combined into the ‘parents unable to cope’ category of principal reasons for admission to care. Despite these changes, it remained that around a third (32.96 percent) of children were taken into care for this reason.

4.73There is no data for 1997 but the 1998 report indicates that the percentage of children from lone parent families increased to almost 40 per cent (38.58 percent). Also, worth noting is that this is the first year that ‘parent unable to cope’ (26.58 percent) was not the dominant reason for children being admitted to care; ‘neglect’ (26.71 percent) accounted for slightly more cases (five more children and a difference of less than half a percentage point). The term lone parent has been further qualified in recent years (since 2002) to highlight the distinct group of lone parents who are unmarried as opposed to divorced or widowed. In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available on children in care from the Department of Health, 2,221 or almost half (43 percent) of children in care that year came from ‘lone parent, unmarried’ families.¹⁰⁹

Summary

4.74From the 1920s to the early 1950s there were in excess of 8,000 children in various forms of residential care (Industrial Schools, Reformatory Schools, Approved Schools/institutions and private orphanages) and a further 4,000 children, either boarded-out (public foster care) or at nurse (private foster care). During the mid-1950s, the numbers in alternative care dropped rapidly and by the end of the 1960s, there were just over 1,200 children boarded-out or at nurse and approximately 3,000 in various forms of residential care. The trend towards the decline in the number of children in care (defined as children in various forms of foster care and residential care) continued throughout the early to mid-1970s, but increased somewhat in the late 1970s. A decline was evident again in the early 1980s, but the number of children in care has been rising steadily since the mid-1980s, with currently over 5,000 children in State care. While the overall number of children in care grew from the mid-1980s onwards, the type of care placement shifted decisively from residential care to foster care. By 1980, there were slightly more children in foster care than residential care; in contrast, currently 84 percent of all children in care in foster care (including relative care). Put simply, while the overall numbers of children in care have increased, the role of residential care has become increasingly atypical and specialised while foster care has moved to a position of dominance in the provision of alternative care for children.

4.75Also worth noting, is that the numbers of children entering care were relatively stable during the late 1970s and 1980s, but quite suddenly grew dramatically in the mid-1990s. The reasons for this are unclear, but in part reflect the gradual implementation of the Child Care Act 1991 and the increase in the number of social workers. Certainly, a substantial increase is recorded in the number of children entering care for reasons of ‘neglect’, from over 600 in 1992 to over 1,400 in 2005, which reflected growing awareness of different forms of child abuse during this period. The legal basis for children in care shifted substantially in the late 1980s, with slightly more children in care on the basis of a care order than on a voluntary basis. However, by 2000, a slight majority of children in care were there on a voluntary basis, but in recent years, the numbers are almost equal. In terms of gender, almost equal numbers of males and females are in substitute care.

4.76As noted in section 1, the 1990s saw the establishment of a number of ‘high support’¹¹⁰ and ‘special care residential units’.¹¹¹ In October 2005, there were 141 children’s residential centres, classified in descending order as either community based children’s residential services (93); hostels (14); high support (11); special arrangements (12); other (9) and special care unit (2).¹¹² Reasonably detailed data¹¹³ is available for 2005, which shows that of those in residential care, 57 percent are in the old Eastern Regional Health Authority (ERHA) area or, in other words, the greater Dublin region. Since the 1970s, for most years in excess of half the children in residential care were in this functional area.

4.77Although the decline in residential care was as equally dramatic as the decline in foster care in the late 1960s – early 1970s, the numbers in residential care have continued to decline, whilst foster care has shown a dramatic increase over the past 30 years.¹¹⁴ The number of children in foster care increased from less than 1,500 in 1970 to over 4,500 by 2006. Part of the reason for the sustained increase in foster care is the decline in the number of children available for adoption.

4.78The total number of children in Special Schools has dropped substantially over the past 35 years, from 255 in 1971 to a mere 80 in 2005. This drop has been particularly pronounced over the past decade.¹¹⁵ One of the possible reasons for the decline in the numbers in Special Schools, particularly in recent years, is the numbers of young people dealt with under the Diversion Scheme operated by An Garda Síochána, with the number of young people cautioned under the scheme rising from less than 7,000 in the early 1990s to nearly 17,000 by 2007.¹¹⁶ Whilst the number of children in residential care declined rapidly from the early 1970s, the number of young people committed on conviction to prisons and places of detention, having hit an all time low of 179 in 1963, increased each year until the early 1970s. The numbers declined and then stabilised until the late 1980s, when the numbers exceeded 800, but dropped rapidly to just fewer than 500 in 1991. The numbers then more than doubled to over 1,200 in 2001, and then once again declined to just over 800 in 2005, but increased in 2007 to 1,053.¹¹⁷ Young people now represent just over 16 percent of all committals on conviction, compared to 27 percent in the early 1970s. In terms of gender, female committals have declined from a high of nearly 15 percent of all committals under 21 to just fewer than 4 percent in 2005.¹¹⁸

4.79Patterns in the provision of care for children have changed dramatically since the foundation of the Irish State. In general there has been an overall increase in the number of children in care over the past 35 years both in raw numbers and as a proportion (per 1,000 young people under 18), indicating a real growth in the number of children in care not attributable to a mere shift in demographic patterns. Residential care, once the dominant form of substitute care for children in the State, has been eclipsed by the use of foster care.¹¹⁹ Changes in legislation combined with an increase in the number of social workers and greater awareness of the needs of children have contributed to this situation. The number of children in Special Schools for Young Offenders, in particular, has decreased substantially over the past 35 years, while the number of young people (under 21) in prisons and places of custody have increased and decreased intermittently over the same period. It is worth noting the considerable challenges to the collation and interpretation of the figures presented here. Substantial variations in nomenclature, definitions and counting rules combined with a lack of detailed statistics and the transfer of responsibility between departments make what should be a rather straightforward exercise (mapping trends in the care of children over a relatively short 35-year period) into an arduous task.¹²⁰

Section 3: 1965-1976 – residential childcare in transition

4.80In 1965, in a report on social research in Ireland conducted by a United Nations Advisor to the Irish Committee on Social Research, included in the research needs identified the necessity for a ‘survey of children in institutions with a particular view to the reason for their institutionalization’ and ‘research into the methods of institutional and educational treatment and its effects’.¹²¹ In the same year, a survey team appointed by the Minister for Education to examine the Irish education system reported. In an appendix to the report they made reference to the Reformatory and Industrial Schools. In relation to the post-school career of those who left the schools, the survey team noted:

it seems desirable to improve the placement service, perhaps by providing the schools with more information on employment opportunities. Efforts might also be made to improve the degree of supervision maintained during the two years after release. This is difficult but the provision of hostel accommodation (or of other suitable accommodation where the numbers did not warrant a hostel) would be a help in this regard.¹²²

4.81The survey team also noted the decline in the number of children in the schools and that most schools were operating under their capacity. While noting that the under-utilisation of schools could be viewed as an economic burden, the team also put forward the view that there was:

an argument for tolerating rather more schools than the numbers would seem to warrant, on the grounds that schools of this type should be fairly small in order to maintain a personal relationship with each child. Also children should not be too far away from their parents and relatives – these schools are fairly widely scattered over the whole country. Nevertheless, it might be desirable to examine the possibility of closing some, particularly as the numbers in care have been declining fairly steadily in recent years.¹²³

4.821965 also saw the launch of the Fine Gael Policy document Towards a Just Society which inter alia proposed to:

Improve considerably the facilities in Industrial Schools and Reformatories, including the provision of adequate psychiatric care; to move wherever possible Institutions caring for young people to new, small and up-to-date buildings, and to establish small family group homes; to increase grants to the existing Institutions so as to permit them to expand and improve their facilities; to provide an adequate after-care and follow-up service for young people leaving Industrial Schools.¹²⁴

4.83More generally, the publication in 1966 of the White Paper on Health Services and their Further Development¹²⁵ paved the way for a new administrative structure for the delivery of medical and health services in Ireland, including community care services, which in turn were to deliver social work services and particularly childcare services, within a system of regionalised health boards, thus replacing the existing county-based system. Although 1965 is taken as the starting point for this paper on the basis that a consensus was clearly emerging as to the desirability for shifting the focus of the child welfare system and the limitations of the existing system of residential care, a number of reports prior to this date had highlighted these issues. A non-exhaustive list includes the Commission on Youth Unemployment¹²⁶ (1951), the Report of Joint Committee on Vandalism and Juvenile Delinquency¹²⁷ (1958), Captain Peader Cowan’s pamphlet on Reformatory and Industrial Schools (1960) ¹²⁸ and the Inter-departmental Committee on the Treatment of Crime and Prevention of Delinquency (1962).¹²⁹ For many commentators, it was the publication of a report by the think-tank Tuairim that hastened the process of change in this area.¹³⁰

Tuairim: Some of Our Children: a Report on the Residential Care of the Deprived Child in Ireland

4.84The London branch of the organisation produced this report, published on 12th January 1966. The core recommendation of the branch was that:

the 1908 Children Act has out-lived its usefulness and that it should be superseded by an entirely new Children Act which would take into account the present needs of Irish society and contemporary theory and methods of child care and protection.

4.85In addition, the report recommended that:

All child care services should be co-ordinated in a single government department which would administer a subsidiary children’s department. We have considered the claims of the Department of Education, the Department of Health, the Department of Justice and the Department of Social Welfare and have concluded that the Department of Health would be the most appropriate department to undertake this work…¹³¹

4.86The Tuairim Report also examined private voluntary homes for children, noting that there were 23 homes that they were aware of, 13 managed by religious Orders, catering for nearly 1,000 children. They noted that the informal system by which children were admitted to these homes had the advantage of bypassing the courts system, but that the danger existed that ‘illegitimate children may be dumped and conveniently forgotten’ there.¹³² In commenting on the Tuairim report, the Reformatory and Industrial Schools branch of the Department of Education observed: ‘It seems on the whole to have been compiled objectively though marred by a cheap jibe and untrue jibe at Irish.’¹³³ The Department acknowledged that the system was in need as a complete overhaul and that:

…the majority of the faults found with the reformatory and industrial schools system are soundly based and confirmed by my experience. They highlight the necessity for a complete review and overhaul of the entire system in operation for the care of children who lack proper guardianship, including delinquents, many of whom such as families of distressed mothers and widows could be better cared for at less expense to the state without splitting up the family. The low grants given to these institutions compare very unfavourably with those given in most, if not all other European countries and pressure for increased grants in recent years has come mainly from the conductors of the boys’ schools as the majority of the girls schools are conducted by communities who engage in other activities the gains from which offset the losses on industrial schools. Virtually all the convent schools are will-nigh excellent, the glaring defect in the senior boys’ schools being the lack of the female hand in the domestic service. In the whole system the most serious defect is the absence of official after-care machinery. Secondly the operation of the domestic services in the senior boys schools should be undertaken by nuns or female lay staff.

4.87One of inspectors of boarded out children¹³⁴ in the Department of Health, Miss Clandillon¹³⁵, in her review of the Tuairim report, although claiming that the report reflected some ‘muddled and out-moded thinking’ was broadly positive stating that:

there are some sound recommendations in the Report. Everyone concerned with the welfare of deprived children would agree with the view that a new Children Act should supersede the present fragmented legislation and widen its scope.¹³⁶

4.88The Commission of Inquiry on Mental Illness, published the same year as the Tuairim Report, recommended that ‘that the whole problem of industrial schools should be examined’ and regarded the ‘term industrial as applied to these schools, as obsolete and objectionable’.¹³⁷ In the same year a series of articles appeared in the Irish Times, written by Michael Viney. He argued in the articles:

(a) That most juvenile offences in the Republic are rooted in social conditions: urban poverty and overcrowding, deprivation and inadequate family welfare; (b) that the children’s courts have lost faith in an out-dated and money-starved system of institutional care; (c) that probation, as an alternative has been emasculated by lack of training, lack of staff and overwork; (d) that in the piecemeal partnership between two Government departments and a variety of religious orders and agencies, proper liaison and aftercare is virtually unknown; (e) That vital psychological and psychiatric aspects of the juvenile problem are getting only token attention.¹³⁸

4.89On 11th November 1966, Dr CE Lysaght submitted a report on Industrial Schools and Reformatories to the Minister for Education, Mr Donagh O’Malley. Commissioned by Mr George Colley, the previous Minister for Education. Dr Lysaght outlined that:

his personal instruction by word of mouth was not to confine myself to the purely medical and physical condition of the children but to go into and report on their environmental conditions which have a direct or indirect effect on their well-being and health, physical and mental.

4.90In his general report, he outlined that:

the most striking feature is of course the diminishing numbers in the schools over recent years which has resulted in the closing of many schools already. Manifestly this downward trend will result in the closure of more. An unfortunate result of this downward trend is the creation of uncertainty as to the future of the schools and consequent hesitation on the part of religious orders to undertake works of improvements involving any notable expenditure.

4.91Despite questioning the managers as to the reasons underlying the decline in numbers, Dr Lysaght claimed that he could obtain no conclusive result and that it seemed the result of a number of factors. He went on to state:

Legal adoption has been given as a cause but all agreed the numbers involved could not account for the marked fall. Another reason given and also accepted as welcome was increased earnings and consequent increased standard of living among the poorer classes. Emigration of whole families of the poorer class to Great Britain was also considered a factor. The boarding out of children by Local Authorities was also mentioned. Nobody appears in a position to indicate its extent in their area but many considered its worth had been greatly exaggerated and were critical as regards boarded out children they had received in their schools….In many schools, Managers and nuns were cynical as regards Local Authorities and said their officials would prefer to send children to any sort of home rather than to the industrial schools and in fact had taken children from industrial schools without assigning any reason and placed them in homes. …There were also statements made that some District Judges, no matter how bad the circumstances, would not commit children to these schools and they had a wrong conception of them. On inquiry I found that in only very few instances had District Judges visited these schools. It would seem therefore their knowledge of them was obtained second-hand and is hearsay which they would not themselves accept in Court as evidence.

4.92The other striking feature observed by Dr Lysaght was:

the marked difference between the schools for girls operated by nuns and those for senior boys under the care of brothers. The former are without exception much superior in every way and beyond explanation by way of smaller numbers. The vast majority of girls’ schools are most satisfactory and in many cases can compare favourably in regard to care and comfort with not only the ordinary run of boarding schools for girls but with the most exclusive ones. The provision in these schools reflects great credit on the religious orders concerned. The same however cannot be said of the Senior Boys’ Schools which are in the main rough and ready. The absence of a woman’s hand was notable in many of them.

4.93An issue raised by the Managers with Lysaght was that of keeping children for an extra year, particularly in light of proposals to raise the school leaving age. In particular he stated that the Managers favoured the proposal ‘especially in the case of illegitimate children with nobody to care for them, that they were too young to send out into the world at 16’. He went to say that he favoured such an extension and that ‘the army would seem a most suitable starting career for boys without relatives or friends. I understand the army will not take recruits until 18 years; this training and way of life is not open to boys until they wait two years after leaving school, by which time the world outside has made or broken them.’ He also observed that:

a certain number of coloured children were seen in several schools. Their future especially in the case of girls presents a problem difficult of any satisfactory solution. Their prospects of marriage in this country are practically nil and their future happiness and welfare can only be assured in a country with a fair multi-racial population, since they are not well received by either ‘black or white’. The result is that these girls on leaving the schools mostly go to large city centres in Great Britain. They are at a disadvantage also in relation to adoption and, as they grow up, in regard to ‘god-parents’ and being brought on holidays. It was quite apparent that the nuns give special attention to these unfortunate children, who are frequently found hot-tempered and difficult to control. The coloured boys do not present quite the same problem. It would seem that they also got special attention and that they were popular with the other boys.

4.94In addition to the report by Lysaght, the Department of Education received a detailed memo from the Association of Resident Managers of Reformatory and Industrial Schools on 24th January 1967. In the memo the Managers highlighted the decline in the number of children and the closure of a number of schools in the previous year. In addition, they highlighted a number of further issues, including the unsatisfactory operation of the School Attendance Act, the lack of adequate funding for aftercare and the need for additional psychologists and psychiatrists. A further issue raised was the number of ‘pupils who are retarded and should not be in these schools’.¹³⁹ The memo argued that such children place ‘a heavy burden on managers and staffs and then there is the added difficulty of finding suitable employment for those pupils at sixteen years of age. There should be a Special School for such pupils for they are a handicap to the other children and being unable to keep up with the class, their education tends to become worse.’

4.95However, the core issue highlighted was the alleged inadequacy of the capitation grant and they concluded by stating:

all the Industrial Schools are heavily in debt and that without immediate and substantial aid they will not be able to continue to do the work for which they were established. The question of closing the schools is under serious consideration by the managers because they are unhappy about the system. The Court approach is obsolete. The managers are painfully aware of the defects that exist due to the system. They would be more than willing to remove these defects but are not in a position to do so owing to the inadequate maintenance grant. The managers know the claim the schools have on just judgment and just action. They trust that their labours will procure for them the support they desire in the work for the more helpless of the Irish people. They calculate that a maintenance grant of £8 per week is needed now, so that outstanding debts may be liquidated and the schools brought up to-date in every way. We are chiefly concerned that further development should preserve which is valuable in existing practice and that any administrative change should above all be workable.

4.96The Managers then outlined 16 specific recommendations. They were:

1.As the term ‘Industrial School’ no longer applies to some of our institutions, since we do not admit children who infringe socially, a more appropriate name should be applied to these schools.

2.Children from broken homes, or whose parents are ill, should not have to appear before the Children’s Court to be committed. If children are not committed it is impossible to obtain maintenance from County Councils.

3.As some of our children are backward when admitted classes in these schools should be small – 20 children per teacher so that individual attention could be given.

4.Supervisors and domestic staff should be paid by the health authority. Training courses for Supervisors are necessary. Personal salary for all lay members of the staff.

5.All public criticisms to be investigated and corrected by the Department.

6.Would suggest that Letterfrack should be under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice and not under Education as at present.

7.When children are being transferred from an Industrial School to a Reformatory School at the age of 15 years or thereabouts, we think they should get an extension of time because it is impossible to do anything in 12 months or sometimes less.

8.That the rule regarding the length of time children may be away on holidays be relaxed and that the manager of each school be allowed to determine the number of days the children may remain out.

9.The discharge of committed children be given serious consideration, because there are many instances where children were discharged and the home conditions were very bad.

10.Children should be maintained until they reach at least 18 years of age or until they can do their Leaving Cert. examination if they so wish, or children learning trades be maintained until they have their time served.

11.Maintenance grant to be based on an average number of pupils.

12.Method of paying grants be radically changed. Would suggest that grants be paid every three months by Co. Councils and not every six months as at present.

13.Clarification of Health Act in regard to Industrial Schools.

14.Remission of rates on Industrial Schools.

15.Grants towards buildings and repairs should be made available.

16.That a statement on Government Policy towards Industrial Schools would be welcomed by Resident managers before next meeting at Easter.

Probation service for young people

4.97By the early 1960s, the number of full-time officers in Dublin was five with a caseload of less than 250. As a consequence of the lack of work, one probation officer was seconded to the adoption board, a practice that continued over the years. In 1964 it was agreed to establish the post of Probation Administration Officer and to employ six full-time staff, two male and two female to be attached to the Children’s Court and one male and one female to the adult Custody Court at Chancery Street, with each officer having a caseload of 65 persons at any one time. Officers were expected to be ‘well-educated, have satisfactory experience in social work and otherwise possess the requisite knowledge and ability and be suitable to discharge the duties of the post of probation officer’ and a qualification in social science was desirable, but not essential. As late as 1968, no full-time probation officers were employed outside of Dublin. In January 1969 a review of the Probation and After-care Service was conducted by Mr Mac Conchradha¹⁴⁰, who was also a member of the Committee of Enquiry into Reformatory and Industrial Schools’ Systems, being an appointee of the Minister for Justice.¹⁴¹ Mr Mac Conchradha, in his report dated 14th July 1969, concluded: ‘For all practical purposes, probation operates only in the Juvenile Court in the Dublin Metropolitan District. Five officers – two men and three women are attached to this court at Dublin Castle. They had approximately 600 cases during 1968.’¹⁴² He noted that one of the reasons for the absence of the widespread use of probation was:

Strange as it may appear, District Justices generally (and most likely the Judges also) do not seem to have adverted to the potentialities of probation. This was both my own impression and the opinion expressed of their colleagues by the few justices that are ‘probation minded’. It was often clear that invoking probation scarcely crossed their minds, although the virtual non-existence of a service was accountable to some extent for this. By and large, Justices were committed to the very conservative view, that probation, while not so specifically so limited in law, has in practice been considered valid for the very early offender amenable to supervision and ordinarily is indicated for juveniles only.¹⁴³

4.98Mr Mac Conchradha concluded that the ‘Juvenile Court in Dublin Castle requires attention urgently.’ Noting that approximately 300 juveniles were placed on probation each year, the relatively low number in part being explained by the ‘Justice’s feeling that the existing probation staff could not cope with any more’, but also by his view that ‘what is certain is that there has been no liberal or experimental use of probation. Consequently it cannot be excluded that there would not be greater recourse to probation if more officers were available.’¹⁴⁴ Mr Mac Conchradha also provided background information of the emergence of pre-trial and pre-decision reports in relation to juveniles and the implementation of this practice prior to the publication of the Committee of Enquiry into Reformatory and Industrial Schools’ Systems. He outlined:

For some years past, there has been an international trend for courts to have a social enquiry made about offenders, before passing sentence. In Britain, this has been the practice with young persons and with all first committals to prisons. The practice commended itself to Justice Kennedy. I surmise that her views crystallised from the sessions of the Committee for Industrial and Reformatory Schools – of which she is the Chairman and I am the Minister’s nominee. The Committee discussed at length this matter of a court’s decision, in cases involving the prosecution of young people or their committal to care, being informed by their history and environment. The Committee’s favouring of this idea was supported by what they saw in Britain and throughout the Continent. Justice Kennedy introduced the procedure into the Juvenile Court in June 1968 and, in the case of every juvenile coming for the first time before the Court (1) on charge or (2) as liable to committal as being in need of care, remanded the case to enable the probation officers to carry out a pre-trial social enquiry. There was simply not the staff to undertake this additional work. For ten months, the existing five officers have virtually done nothing else but prepare pre-trial reports. Contacts with and supervision of their probationers became irregular, were mostly confined to urgent matters or to instances where there was an untoward development and were superficial apart from this. Recently, while Justice Kennedy was ill, some of her colleagues, while supplying in the Juvenile Court, adverted to the practice and advised her that it was objectionable to have these reports compiled in advance of the hearing and that they should properly be prepared only when the court had reached a conclusion on the issue before it but in advance of deciding the outcome. Justice Kennedy discontinued pre-trial reports in April 1969. She intended to introduce pre-decision reports there and then but, as the supervision of probationers had previously been so adversely affected in the existing staffing situation, she deferred the matter. The practice of having a pre-decision report prepared for the information of the court is fundamentally sound and is supported by what has transpired abroad. It is most likely that the Committee on Industrial and Reformatory Schools will recommend social inquiry, psychological assessment and medical psychiatric investigation, as a pre-requisite to the committal of young persons in need of care or for delinquency. This is now standard international practice and is something which Justice Kennedy will want to do, apart from all that, it would be a desirable advance and provision should be made for it.¹⁴⁵

4.99The report recommended that the service be expanded, a new central headquarters provided in Dublin and the recruitment of a substantial number of additional probation officers, prison welfare officers and clerical staff.

4.100The long-standing Joint Committee of Women’s Societies and Social Workers¹⁴⁶ also published a series of recommendations on the future of child welfare in Ireland in 1970. Summarised in a letter to the editor in the Irish Times, the Committee argued for:

The urgent need for a new Children’s Act.
The urgent need for co-ordination of departments dealing with children at State level, and at county level through a children’s committee.
The need for trained social workers as children’s officers, probation officers, school attendance officers, career guidance advisors and youth workers.
A sincere effort is needed to keep the child in his own family and only when necessary a substitute family. Emergency care in an institution should be brief. We need to reduce the emotional disturbance caused by our present system.
To prevent institutionalism fosterage should be encouraged by improving conditions, and allowing a more realistic maintenance (at present this varies from 12s 6d to £3 per week, whereas institutional care, which causes most emotional disturbance, costs £8 5s. per week per child).
Scattered family group homes such as those established in Kilkenny, are better substitutes than institutions.
Where institutional care is inevitable, regulations should govern qualifications and number of staff, and special efforts should be made to enable these children maintain contact with their families.
A visiting committee should follow the progress of each child through school reports and school medical reports. Backwardness should be detected early and dealt with in special cases. All successful pupils should be given the opportunity of vocational or secondary education. At present the proportion is unreal.
Above all, the Joint Committee deplores the present practice of transferring deprived children from institution to institution, even at the age for employment.

• After-care for these children is seriously neglected. Social workers are essential for career guidance and for placing the children in the normal community, in hostels, or preferably, families.¹⁴⁷

4.101The Department of Health were also giving active consideration to the future of residential child welfare in Ireland, in particular their responsibilities under the Children Acts and sections 55 and 56 of the Health Act 1953.¹⁴⁸ On 23rd September 1968, Mr O’Rourke in the Department of Health wrote a memo addressed to Miss Murray¹⁴⁹ and Miss Clandillon, the Lady Inspectors of Boarded-out Children. The memo argued that the Department of Health:

should, at this stage, review the services, dealt with in this division, which are provided for children who come within the scope of the Children Acts and the relevant provisions of the 1953 Act. What I have in mind is that we should consider the adequacy and inadequacies of the services provided for boarded-out children, those placed in approved schools and those who are at nurse; that we should aim at suggesting improvements which might be made in the existing services or innovations which are required to meet needs that at present are unfulfilled; consider the type of service which will be developing during the next decade or so and which will have to be organised within the framework of the regional service envisaged in the White Paper; consider, in particular, in the context of those regional arrangements, the type of case work which will need to be done at local level and the appropriate nature of the regional and departmental supervision which such services will need and, finally, study the services for which we, in this Department, have responsibility in the context of the total services required by the deprived child in general.

4.102His memo went on to note that having reviewed the available statistical data on children in care, there was a:

constant and continuing decline in the number of children boarded-out; the consistent growth in those being adopted and a continuing fall in the number of children at nurse. The disquieting feature which it also shows is the increase in the number of children maintained by health authorities in approved schools despite the fact that policy, to date, has been to encourage boarding out or adoption to the greatest possible extent.

4.103In particular he wished the inspectors to

critically examine the service as it exists at present and comment, not alone on its advantages, but on the deficiencies existing in it.

4.104Mr O’Rourke observed that it appeared increasingly difficult to recruit foster parents and this needed to be addressed and that the supervision of children, both ‘at nurse’ and ‘boarded-out’ required attention. In relation to children maintained by health authorities in Industrial Schools, he noted that such children were not subject to any inspection by the Department of Health and consideration of how best to address this issue was required. Finally, Mr O’Rourke noted that the existing range of services was fragmented, and as a consequence ‘three departments all have partial responsibility for the provision of limited services for children who, for reasons varying from poverty to delinquency, come under central government control’ and this state of affairs ‘is not a satisfactory one’. While acknowledging that the Commission of Enquiry into Reformatory and Industrial Schools, a Commission, which in his view, ‘shows an uninhibited tendency to exceed its restricted terms of reference’ might deal with this issue in their report, Mr O’Rourke argued:

what may be needed most of all is a broadly based commission with very wide terms of reference which would enable it to inquire into the services available for all classes of deprived children and to make recommendations about the manner in which they would be provided in the future.

4.105Both Miss Murray and Miss Clandillon provided detailed written responses to the memo and these provide a snapshot of thinking in the Department of Health on the cusp of substantial changes in child welfare in Ireland. Responding to the query as to why the numbers of boarded–out children had declined over the previous decade, Miss Murray attributed it to introduction of legal adoption, the continuing emigration of unmarried mothers, and most importantly, the:

lack of interest in, or, in some cases, the positive antagonism to the scheme on the part of many health authorities and/or their officials. In Counties Louth and Sligo for example the boarding out scheme is almost non-existent while in some other areas it is barely tolerated. Boarding-out is the Cinderella of the local authority services and there is little informed opinion on the subject at a local level. The emphasis now is on legal adoption which was welcomed by the local authorities for the wrong reasons, viz. as a means of avoiding financial and supervisory responsibility for illegitimate children, and health authority officials have been known to put pressure on unmarried mothers to allow their children to be placed for adoption, even to the extent of refusing any alternative help.¹⁵⁰

4.106Murray argues that the advantages of boarded-out over other means of dealing with deprived children were well known and that the:

deficiencies in the boarding-out scheme as it operates in Ireland may be traced to a general lack of interest which manifests itself in the absence of a uniform system of supervision, the appointment of unsuitable officers, and as mentioned above, an unsympathetic attitude on the part of many health authorities. Failures involving the removal of the children are surprisingly rare in view of the haphazard administration, and in my area occur chiefly in Counties Dublin and Sligo…Boarding breaks down occasionally in Dublin due to (a) the background and heredity of some of the children which renders them more difficult to control than rural children, (b) careless and haphazard selection of foster homes and foster parents, and (c) the absence of preventative and remedial measures at a sufficiently early stage. Failures in Sligo are due, inter alia, to (a) the late age at which children are placed in foster homes (usually from Nazareth House, Sligo,) which militates against their settling down in normal surroundings, and (b) the complete lack of expertise in the selection of foster homes and foster parents.

4.107However, despite outlining these deficiencies and recognising that health authorities did not collect statistics on the after-care of boarded-out children, Murray nonetheless noted:

While the occasional failure in boarding-out is well publicised – usually by interested parties – the outstanding success of the scheme as a whole is rarely alluded to. Former boarded-out children are represented in all walks of life. They are to be found in farming and business, as members of Religious Orders of Brothers, among nuns, teachers, civil servants, and nurses, in the army and naval service, in the hotel trade and in all skilled occupations. At the moment a number of boarded-out children are attending Irish Universities, and at least four are studying for the priesthood. Foster parents have reason to be proud of the work they have accomplished down the years, frequently without significant assistance from the local authority.

4.108Miss Clandillon was equally positive abut the after-care employment of boarded-out children in her area, highlighting that ‘among the girls at least ten became nuns, one of whom is now on the missions in Zambia and three are teaching in England.’ Like Miss Murray, Clandillon was positive about the use of boarding-out and suggested that breakdowns in placement were comparatively rare. She observed:

the vast majority are illegitimate children who are born in mother-and-baby Homes and who are boarded-out at an early age with a view to being reared as members of the fostering family and of residing permanently with the foster parents. Removals are comparatively rare, the chief reasons being the death of a foster mother in the case of a young child.

4.109However, she did note:

the need for close liaison between Children’s Officers and the mother-and-baby homes….the mother’s background must be studied and also that of the putative father, although the latter is often difficult because of the inaccuracy or lack of information available. Time must be allowed to ‘match’ a child to a family – placing any child in any home is worse than useless and may lead to very poor results in which the child is always the sufferer.

4.110Commenting on the issue of standards in foster homes, Murray claimed that:

It is true that of recent years foster homes of an acceptable standard are in somewhat short supply but they are not as scarce as we are led to believe. The bias at local level against boarding-out may result in a prospective home being turned down for frivolous reasons, or a prospective foster parent being disqualified for not measuring up to the bizarre or unrealistic standard set by some local official.

4.111Miss Clandillon argued that one of reasons for the difficulties observed in recruiting foster parents was:

The maintenance allowances paid to foster parents by health authorities vary enormously throughout the country. At present the highest rates are paid by Donegal: £104 per year, and lowest by Roscommon: £36 per year for the older children…A review of the reasons for the very great variations between health authority rates should be undertaken, the old argument usually given in defence of low rates was that the health authority did not wish to attract the wrong type of foster parent. This danger could be overcome only if each health authority has trained social workers who can evaluate the attitudes of prospective foster parents and their reasons for wanting to rear a child. It is time that foster parents were considered more as members of a team working for the deprived child in a semi-professional capacity and that the allowance reflected this recognition of their very responsible role. The great gap between the £214 per annum paid for children removed to schools and present rates paid to foster parents should be closed.

4.112In relation to the increase in the number of children in approved schools and institutions, Murray argued that local authorities favoured this method of dealing with deprived children because:

the children are not subject to inspection either at local or Departmental level, no reports on their progress are called for, and no records or case histories have to be compiled in relation to them; frequently not even a register is kept despite continuous pressure by inspectors. Once admitted to a school, therefore, the Health Authority has no further trouble with a child apart from an occasional letter from the Department inquiring why he has not been boarded-out. The easy answer to this is that a suitable foster home is not available and there the matter rests.

4.113Murray elaborated on this issue noting:

Article 4 of the Boarding-Out of Children Regulations, 1954 lays down that a health authority shall not send a child to a school approved by the Minister unless such children cannot be suitably or adequately assisted in being boarded out. Health authorities were reminded of this in paragraph 2 of circular 5/64 and again in paragraph 5 of circular 23/70. It is, nonetheless, admitted that there are many children that health authorities cannot place in foster homes or for adoption, e.g. lack of parent’s consent, or some physical or mental deficiency. As you know, in spite of constant reminders to health authorities and representations by this Department’s Inspectors in respect of individual children, the number of children maintained by health authorities in institutions continues to grow. In 1968 and 1969 they were 648 and 715 respectively. Careful examination of the records for 1967 showed that the vast majority of these cases were children of broken homes or of parents suffering from mental or physical disabilities who refused consent to boarding out. Apart from the Industrial Schools (to which children are committed for minor offences as well as because they are in need of care and maintenance and of the use of which for Health Act children, the Department’s Inspectors have never been in favour) there are only nine institutions approved by the Minister for Health for the purposes of section 55. Three of these are for Protestant children only; one for children under two years; two for boys and three for girls. One of these, the Convent of Mercy, Kells, has only 6 Health Act children, placed there by counties Meath and Westmeath; the Grange Convent until this year accepted girls over 11 years and has room for 25. This year they have added a new building designed to accommodate only 12 children from infancy which will be run on group home lines.

4.114For Clandillon, one of the reasons for the increase in the number of children admitted to industrial schools and other institutions was the:

result of a poor staffing situation in particular counties. Usually where the County Medical Officer and a number of Public Health Nurses are charged with the care of deprived children and office staff are also involved in the maintenance of registers and casepapers there is little or no liaison with the mother-and-baby homes. Moreover, where a number of different people are involved in this work as a part of their main duties in another field, the results are usually poor and the service deteriorates because of the fragmentation of the staffing situation – what is everyone’s business becomes nobody’s business, e.g. Laois, Offaly and recently Kildare and Carlow.¹⁵¹

4.115In contrast, counties that employed a children’s officer maintained contact with the mother and baby homes and as a consequence:

The mothers maintained in the homes thus have an opportunity to discuss with the Children’s officer the alternatives open to them in making arrangements for their baby’s future. If the mothers wish to have their babies adopted they may be placed in homes in their county of origin (if the mothers do not object) or outside with the co-operation of the Children’s Officer for the outside area, or again, the mothers may decide they would prefer the adoption to be arranged directly by the Sisters in the Home. If a mother opts for boarding-out the Children’s Officer can arrange this in her own county. If, on the other hand, a mother wishes her child to be reared in an institution, possibly in the hope of visiting the child from time to time, the decision must be respected, though the disadvantages of such an upbringing will naturally be pointed out to the mother. I have pointed out in my reports the necessity for close liaison between the Children’s Officers and the mother-and-baby homes and the dangers for the future welfare of the children where it is lacking. In one county, Kilkenny, a few years ago I found there were eleven cases of mothers leaving the Homes with their infants, ostensibly to return to their own parents, and in none of these instances had any inquiries been made as to the final destination of these infants. Such babies may not be brought home at all but may be committed quite unnecessarily to industrial schools or placed at nurse in most unsuitable and unregistered foster homes. The seriousness of this situation is quite evident. Obviously if the case history shows that the girl’s parents were aware of her confinement no harm can be done by inquiring whether she and her child did, in fact, return home. If the parents were not aware of the case, inquiry is more difficult but can still be made if sufficient tact is used. This must be done in a number of cases where a mother’s whereabouts are unknown and her consent to adoption or boarding-out is required.

4.116In terms of the organisation of child welfare services, Clandillon argued that:

the work for deprived children should be removed from the public health offices (County Medical officers and Public Health Nurses) where this arrangement exists in my area, e.g. Laois/ Offaly where, as I have pointed out earlier, hardly any children are boarded-out yet over 140 are in schools; Wicklow, where the C.M.C. was brought into the work very recently; Carlow / Kildare where, with the resignation of the Children’s Officer the work deteriorated rapidly in a little over a year; Waterford, Kilkenny, Clare.

4.117Children’s officers should in her view be ‘professionally qualified social workers i.e. those with post-graduate qualifications, should be appointed to children’s officer posts, with a view to the eventual setting up of a social work department in each health authority area’. If this was to happen, such Departments, she argued:

should cater for a much wider section of the community than children in need of social work help. They should include families at risk of breakdown for various reasons, one parent families and unmarried mothers, Child Guidance services, social care of the physically handicapped, mentally ill and mentally subnormal and social services for the aged. They should also cater for those who are incapable of providing for themselves or their dependents. A ‘homemaker’ service is of vital importance and also the supervision of day nurseries which should be obliged to register with the social service department. Housing welfare services should also be included as many of the problems of family breakdown are associated with inadequate living accommodation. Adoption work should be transferred to the new Department and should be carried out only by staff having post-graduate training. It follows that social workers at present employed in various fields of social work would belong to the social services department: Children’s Officers, medical and psychiatric social workers, probation officers, housing welfare officers.

4.118What was required, Murray argued, was:

making children maintained in institutions under section 55 of the Health Act subject to inspection and reports both at local and departmental level, and by requiring health authorities to keep personal files and case histories of these children in the same manner as for boarded-out children. The Department’s inspectors would then be in a position to make recommendations regarding the suitability or eligibility of the children for fosterage. At present the inspectors have instructions not to visit children in approved schools and institutions; and it was only recently, and after years of pressure by the inspectors, that the Department agreed to instruct health authorities to submit half-yearly returns of such children.

4.119Clandillon made similar observations when noting that:

Although children are admitted to approved institutions under the Health Act and the Department and health authorities contribute to their maintenance there is no provision under the Act for their inspection by officers of the health authorities or of the Department.¹⁵² A Department circular issued to health authorities 2nd July 1954 (no. 37/54) drew attention to the lack of provision for inspection¹⁵³: Unfortunately this was not followed up and at a later date it was decided in the Department that as the schools were under the Department of Education and inspected by one of their officers there was no need for inspection by the Department of Health. Thus it came about that nobody visited the Health Act children to ascertain the reason for their admission in the first place, their level of mental and physical development and their suitability or otherwise for adoption or boarding-out, unless a mother had indicated that she wished her child to be reared in an institution. These children might be described during these years as the ‘forgotten ones’.

4.120Clandillon also highlighted that returns of such children were not requested until 1965 and these returns ‘revealed that a number of children had been admitted to Industrial Schools and other institutions such as St Clare’s Stamullen, directly from a mother and baby home without notice being given to the Department. Most of these children were moved on to senior Industrial Schools. By then, little or no information was available as to their backgrounds.’ Clandillon went on to stress the need for a system of inspection in the homes in order

to ascertain the reason for admission if not already clear, to follow up mothers to obtain their consent to the boarding-out or adoption of suitable children, to arrange for mental assessment in some cases and follow up for admission to Special Schools where recommended, and to check that physical defects are being treated, including those requiring surgery. The longer children live in institutions the less chance they have of integration into families and the dimmer become their hopes of adoption.

4.121More generally, Murray signalled that a new system of child welfare was required and a broad-based commission of inquiry as suggested by O’Rourke were required and that all services for deprived children should be the responsibility of a single Department. The system of institutional care was particularly in need of reform as Murray commented:

At present children coming before a juvenile court as a result of poverty, neglect, or minor delinquency may be committed either to an Industrial School or to the care of a ‘fit person’; but a ‘fit person’ within the meaning of the Children Act, 1908, does not include local authority. A local authority however may apply to the court to have a case dismissed and guarantee to take the child into care, but given the present climate of opinion at local level it is not surprising that apart from Dublin this solution is rarely availed of.

4.122Murray noted the limitation of the Children Act 1908 in this regard was removed in Britain and Northern Ireland and urged a similar legislative change in Ireland; however, she also noted:

this suggestion presupposes a properly organised and staffed social service department at local level capable of making the right decisions regarding the children confined to its care and with no motive other than their best interests. There appears to be no doubt that many of the children now condemned through no fault of their own in institutional life could be placed in a family circle if the law were amended and a serious effort made to provide the with foster parents.

4.123Clandillon offered a similar analysis arguing:

the greatest need is for a new and comprehensive Children Act which would include the children boarded-out or in schools under the Health Act, 1953, those covered by Parts I and II of the Children Acts, 1908-1957, and many more who are included under any of these. The new legislation would naturally indicate the need for one Government Department to be responsible for all the services for children in need of help, or a Children’s Department as a subsidiary of one Government Department as is the case in England and Wales. There has been adverse criticism for many years of the present arrangement whereby three Departments are concerned with different facets of the needs of deprived, delinquent or neglected children.

4.124She also found favour with the proposal for a broad-based Commission of Inquiry into Children’s Services, but argued that ‘there is no point in looking into the causes of deprivation – family breakdown, delinquency, illegitimacy and so on. There is little use in trying to improve the lot of a child if the unfavourable circumstances which caused the trouble are allowed to continue. This would be merely putting a thin coat of paint on rotten wood.’¹⁵⁴ Murray concluded her memo by stating:

Without anticipating the report of the Committee on Industrial Schools it may be assumed that the day of the large Industrial School is over, and that in future, institutions in this category will take the form of much smaller units capable of giving individual attention to the children and of catering for special needs. The Department of Health has a special interest in the pattern which will emerge as children in the care of local authorities who need the discipline of an institution or who are unsuitable or ineligible for fosterage must be catered for in some type of school. The recommendations of the Committee therefore will be awaited not alone with interest but with some degree of apprehension.

4.125The core ideas set out in the correspondence between Clandillon, Murray and O’Rourke were eventually encapsulated in a detailed circular issued in July 1970.¹⁵⁵ This circular effectively established the template for childcare services for the next two decades, in particular the shift from residential care to foster care as the primary form of extra-familial care in Ireland and is quoted in full in Appendix 1 to this report to give a sense of the importance of the document.

4.126The Incorporated Law Society of Ireland also contributed to the debate on the future of the Reformatory and Industrial School system in a memo to the Department of Education in April 1969. The memo recommended inter alia that separate institutions were required for children who committed an offence and those who were taken into care. It further advocated the appointment of a psychologist to each school and the development of group homes. The memo also highlighted the absence of any provision for non-Catholic children which they argued was:

completely unconstitutional and utterly unjust. If there were only one such child it is an inescapable obligation of the State to make precisely the same provision for that child as they would for a child of any other faith. It is accepted that there may be very few children of the Protestant faith or of the Jewish faith but it is believed that the statistics available are not reliable in as much as no committals are made of such children because there is no place for them to go. If there were a place for them to go undoubtedly many more cases would come to light. In any case the number of cases is quite beside the point. Under the Constitution and in justice equal provision must be made for all and this is a matter of the utmost urgency.¹⁵⁶

4.127The memo also argued that while their recommendations would involve greater demands on the Department of Finance, that:

Fortunately there is ample room for improvement here because at the present time the fees paid by the State to institutions for the accommodation of children of this kind are completely inadequate and is the prime factor leading to the complete breakdown in the system. Indeed were it not for the self-sacrifice and dedication of the people who run these schools the whole system would have broken down completely long ago.

4.128Thus, in the immediate years preceding the publication of the deliberations of the Committee of Enquiry into Reformatory and Industrial Schools Systems, a broad consensus had emerged on the difficulties with the existing system of child welfare, in particular the provision of substitute care. The need for new legislation was acknowledged by all and the dramatic decline in the numbers in residential care and the consequences of this for the capitation system of funding were widely realised.

The establishment of the Committee of Enquiry into Reformatory and Industrial Schools’ Systems

4.129On 5th January 1967, Mr John Hurley wrote to the Minister for Education, Mr Donagh O’Malley about the consequences of institutional life on a named young person. He also enclosed two documents, both written by Fr Kenneth McCabe, one on juvenile delinquency, which was based on McCabe’s studies of various institutions in the country, the second a descriptive account of St Patrick’s Training School in Belfast. The first report argued that:

Our reformatory and industrial school system as it stands, is at best, only punitive. Reformatory and industrial schools are absolutely inadequately endowed. No institution could run on £3-10-0 per boy per week (This may not be an exact sum). The result is as one would expect. The food is bad. Boys are disgracefully dressed. In Daingean when I was there (Summer 1964) boys were not supplied with handkerchiefs. Spitting was a common habit. The boys got one shower per month (this at the height of summer). The school had only seven showers. Too much time, far too much, is spent in the school square; a large yard where the boys just hang around for hours at a time. There is no segregation of new boys from the rest. A relatively good boy is thrown in with the rest and, within a month, he is as bad as all the others.

4.130He went on to claim that:

The system in all our reformatory and industrial schools is repressive. Given the facilities at the disposal of the schools it seems unlikely that it could be otherwise. Boys are taken out of the natural (if defective) atmosphere of their homes and placed in an institution. If the institution is to succeed it must be as like a home as is possible. It will have the added job of supplying the defects of the home which were probably the root causes of the delinquency. Perhaps the most obvious problem to begin with here is that of sex. Boys from 12 on are reaching the most difficult period of their emotional growth. Too often, even in reasonably good circumstances, the adolescent will turn to sex for an escape from the hardships of everyday life. Nowadays, even though it is largely neglected in Ireland, psychologists and educators insist on the need for positive sex instruction. The majority, if not all of, the boys in reformatory and industrial schools simply have no positive sex instruction. They are placed in a repressive system, at a time of intense emotional and sexual growth, with no instruction, and are expected to develop naturally. There is no need to go into the detail of how sex can ‘go wrong’ at this stage and how habits can be acquired that will cause endless unhappiness in later life. What can we say of boys in abnormal and repressive environments? We can certainly say that only a miracle could avoid an intensification of the usual sexual problems. I want to stress this point for one very important reason. In any boarding schools one must expect a certain degree of ’homosexual’ activity. We must emphasize, however, that homosexual activity is not the same as homosexuality. Placed in unnatural circumstances (an all boys school) boys will inevitably engage in such activities. They must be checked but they are not serious. In an ’intenser’ atmosphere, such as an industrial school, this will be magnified. Boys will look for an outlet from repression and unhappiness in physical pleasure, either alone or with others. I have evidence that this is, in fact, the case in all industrial schools. I also have definite evidence of serious incidents of homosexual practices in some schools. A circumstance that doesn’t help matters here is the very unsuitable situation of most industrial schools. Daingean is situated in a place where almost all outside contact is impossible. Letterfrack and Upton are even worse. It seems completely wrong to send a Dublin boy to an environment so different from his home environment.

4.131The following day, on 6th January 1967, the Taoiseach, Mr Lynch, wrote to Mr O’Malley noting that:

During the course of being interviewed as the ‘Person in Question’ on R.T.E. on Thursday (5th) evening, Very Reverend Brother M.C. Normoyle, Vicar General of the Irish Christian Brothers, mentioned the ‘difficulty in getting Government policy in regard to industrial schools’ and seemed to imply that this was a factor in closing some of them. This may be true but if it is not, much as I admire the Brothers, I would not wish to let the matter go without some comment. On the other hand, if there is something in what Brother Normoyle has said you might look into it.¹⁵⁷

4.132The response from Mr O’Malley to Mr Lynch on 19th January reiterated the point made by successive Ministers for Education, that the primary problem with the schools was the inadequacy of the capitation grant. For Mr O’Malley,

The only difficulty in regard to Government policy which these school managers have ever brought to the Department’s notice is that of the small size of grants and matters stemming from that. It is a constant cry with them that the grant is only about one-third that given in the six counties. There is of course something in this. It is not so easy for them to provide a building, maintain it, provide staffing, clothe and feed the pupils, take them on annual holiday, provide medical and other care for them, and so at £2.7s.6d per head per week. In fact, while the forty or so industrial schools generally are run very well, there are some marked deficiencies especially in relation to the provision for the psychiatric treatment of children.¹⁵⁸

4.133Mr O’Malley went on to dismiss Br Normoyle’s comments, claiming:

I don’t know exactly therefore what Br. Normoyle was getting at and I have a shrewd idea that he wouldn’t know either. It was probably his first appearance on television and his instinct was to fob off from the Order any blame that might be going on. On the whole I would be inclined to let the matter go at that. He is not a man who normally opens his mouth much.¹⁵⁹

4.134Mr O’Malley went on to express some minor reservations he himself had about the operation of the schools or, more importantly in his view, the public image of the schools, as he believed that:

One of the troubles in that regard is that Daingean reformatory, which is really suffering from very poor accommodation, understaffing and under-everything practically, is confused with the forty industrial schools of which the vast majority cater very well indeed for their children.¹⁶⁰

4.135He then went on to say that he had a ‘notion of setting up an ad-hoc committee’ to report to him on this matter, as ‘if it were to do nothing else, it might at least have the effect of allaying public unease.’¹⁶¹ Mr O’Malley proposed this to the Association of Resident Managers of Reformatory and Industrial Schools who responded positively ‘that a representative number of the schools visited by a group of persons, appointed by you, who would furnish you with a report on the position as they would see it.’ The Resident Managers in their reply on 1st April 1967 stated that they would:

co-operate with you in whatever steps you may take to improve the system and dissipate the public image which is detrimental to the pupils of these schools and frequently embarrassing to the managers and staffs. They also request that the visiting committee be appointed as soon as possible and that the report should be confidential and confined to yourself, the members of the committee and the managers.

4.136On 10th May 1967, Mr O’Malley received a deputation from the Dublin Junior Chamber of Commerce Mr DL Lennon, Mr J Freeley and Miss M McGivern. At the meeting the delegation outlined their interest in the work of the Artane Industrial School, particularly the extension of vocational educational classes in the school. From a note of the meeting, it appears that Mr O’Malley stated:

he was concerned about the public image of Reformatory and Industrial Schools and aware of a lot of vague public criticism of the system. He felt the time had come when a small lay independent committee should be set up to examine and report to him on the whole question in order to allay public disquiet.

4.137The matter was discussed with the delegation and the note of the meeting records:

it was agreed that a committee of about seven would be ideal. The Minister thought the proposed committee should, before commencing investigation, be as conversant as possible with similar problems in other countries. He also thought its inquiries might be extended to other associate fields, such as Magdalen Homes and that it should consider establishing liaison with other interested Departments, Health, Social Welfare, Justice and Labour. The Runai Cunta (D. O’Laoghaire) stated that the full co-operation of the schools could be counted on in any such investigation. The deputation assured the Minister that, if requested, one or two of their members would be willing to serve on the proposed Committee. Finally the Minister said he planned to get the Committee formed in the near future with a view to commencing its inquiries in the Autumn. Terms of reference would be prepared, followed by a thorough briefing of the Committee and he would hope to have their report in six to nine month’s time.

4.138Mr Ó Laoghaire wrote to Mr Ó Raifeartaigh on 23rd May 1967 outlining the outcome of the meeting with the deputation from the Junior Chamber of Commerce and noted that sanction had been obtained from the Department of Finance for payment of a travel and subsistence allowance for members of the committee and that the resident managers had agreed to co-operate with the inquiry. Mr Ó Raifeartaigh replied on 20th June stating that:

I think the terms of reference should be broad in scope and suggest the following:-

(1)to make a survey of the active reformatory and industrial school system and to report thereon to the Minister, making such recommendations and suggestions as they think might be helpful to him in considering the modification or improvement thereof, and

(2)to visit the schools and to furnish a separate report to the Minister on each of them with such comments or recommendations as they deem appropriate. The above suggested terms of reference do not include the Place of Detention, Glasnevin as it has already been decided to replace that institution and to frame fresh legislation which would considerably enlarge its functions and purpose.

4.139The following day, 21st June 1967, Fr Kenneth McCabe wrote to Mr O’Malley from St Anthony’s Presbytery in Middlesex, stating:

For many years I have been interested in the prevention and treatment of delinquents in Ireland. One aspect that interests me particularly just now is the ‘fate’ of so many reformatory and industrial school boys who fund their ways to Britain, and, almost inevitably, to trouble. I am just recently ordained but I can see possibilities and would like to begin as soon as possible to get something done for these boys. If anything is to be done, however, some change in policy at home would be essential. This would mainly entail an effort to keep track of where boys go in the months or year after they leave the schools, and, if they do come to Britain, to let us know. All this sounds elementary. From what I know of our present reformatory system, it would demand a radical reform of the whole approach to after-care. However, I won’t bore you with ideas. What I have in mind could only be adequately discussed in an interview. Should you be interested in doing something about the problem, I should be very glad to meet you when I am home in Dublin in early August. Do please let me know and I can put a tentative programme on paper. Just for the moment I would be grateful if you would please keep this letter confidential. I would ask in particular that you do no communicate it to the industrial school section of your department. If and when we meet I will let you know why I prefer to keep my suggestions separate from department level.¹⁶²

4.140On 24th June, Mr Ó Laoghaire wrote to the Assistant Secretary, Mr Mac Gearailt, outlining the terms for the proposed committee. He stated:

(a)The terms of reference should be as precise as possible as follows: To survey the Industrial and Reformatory School System and to make a report and recommendations to the Minister

(b)care must be taken to represent the opinion of the Secretary of the Managers Committee The report should be confidential and confined to yourself and to members of the Managers Committee – letter of 1/4/67. The members of the Committee should be instructed beforehand to be as discreet as possible and the question of what to do with the report should be left until the report is completed.

(c)Regarding the composition of the Committee, there are two proposed from the Junior Chamber of Commerce together with Declan Costello. I think two more from the country districts should be sufficient.

4.141Mr Ó Laoghaire further communicated with Mr MacGearailt on 30th June, stating:

As a result of our discussions with the Minister on 30/6/67, it was agreed

1.that the Managers would be approached and requested not to insist on the confidential clause

2.that the terms of reference would be at ‘A’ above

3.that the following would be members of the Committee: John Hurley, Chairman, Declan Lennon, Margaret McGivern, Sr. Kevin. A person to be nominated by Declan Costello T.D. I think it would be best if the Secretary spoke to Br. O’Raghallaigh about 1. and to Declan Costello about 3. We thought that a woman would result from 3 but on second thoughts maybe a man would suit better i.e. 3 men & 2 women instead of 2 men & 3 women.

4.142On 6th July 1967, Mr Ó Raifeartaigh wrote to Mr Declan Costello TD. In the letter he stated:

Further to our recent telephone conversation, please excuse my delay in letting you have the names of four people the Minister has in mind for the Committee on Industrial and Reformatory Schools which he proposes to set up. They are: -Mr. John Hurley, Chairman, Mr. Declan Lennon, Miss Margaret McGivern, Sr. Kevin. Mr. Hurley is Chairman of the Allied Cinemas group. Mr. Lennon was last year’s Chairman of Dublin Junior Chamber of Commerce. (He is also in the insurance business). Miss McGivern is also a member of Dublin Junior Chamber of Commerce. Sister Kevin is an expert in Social Science. I should explain that the Dublin Junior Chamber of Commerce has had for some time been especially interesting itself in the Artane Industrial School for Boys. The terms of reference of the Committee would be on the lines of: ‘To survey the Industrial and Reformatory School system and to make a report and recommendations to the Minister’. The Minister would be happy to have from you a suggestion for a fifth member.

4.143Mr Costello replied on 12th July and suggested the Rev Kenneth McCabe as a member. He outlined that:

I have known Father McCabe for a number of years. He was educated in Dublin and joined the Jesuit order here and was a member of that order until last year. He was most anxious to do social work (particularly in the field of juvenile delinquency) and with the permission of his authorities he left the order and went to a diocese in England. He was ordained a priest here in Dublin in the month of June but is now as indicated by his address working in an English diocese. I understand that he anticipates that he will be able to get permission from his Bishop to act on the Minister’s committee if it is thought fit to appoint him to it and that he will be able to travel to Dublin for the meetings of the Committee. Fr. McCabe has been intimately acquainted with problems of juvenile delinquency and also industrial schools for many years. I know that in addition to great personal interest in the problem, he now has a very wide knowledge of them. He has spent some time in the Daingean Reformatory and also, during his holidays, has studied the problem in Northern Ireland. He is a young man (in his early thirties) and is very intelligent and would make, I believe, a good committee member. He is a discreet person, but he has decided and firmly held views on how improvements in the present situation could be brought about and he would not, I believe, be in any way inhibited in expressing his views to the committee.

4.144On 4th August 1967, the Department of Education submitted a memo to Government proposing to establish a Committee to inquire into Reformatory and Industrial Schools. The terms of reference for the Committee were to ‘to survey the Reformatory and Industrial Schools systems and to make a report and recommendations to the Minister for Education’ and the rationale was that:

Representations have been made from time to time by various groups….that the conditions in reformatory and industrial schools are in urgent need of improvement. References have been made to this matter in the public press on many occasions. With a view to subjecting the problem to outside objective appraisal the Minister for Education proposes to appoint a committee to report and make recommendations to him in relation to it.¹⁶³

4.145The initial proposed membership of the committee were:

Chairman, Mr. John Hurley, Cinema manager – has wide social interests

Mr Declan Lennon and Miss Margaret McGivern – members of the Dublin Junior Chamber of Commerce which has interested itself in seeking improvements in the facilities and amenities provided in Artane Industrial School.

The Rev. Kenneth McCabe, S.J. Middlesex, England. He has done a great deal of work in the field of juvenile delinquency and neglected children. Specially recommended by Mr. Declan Costello, T.D., who for many years has interested himself in the problems of children suffering from physical or mental handicap.

An tSuir Caoimhin O’Caoimh – Little Sisters of the Assumption, Corbally, Limerick. Prominent social worker attached to Limerick Social Service Centre.

Br. Francis O’Reilly, Resident Manager Artane. Sec. Association of Resident Managers of Reformatory and Industrial Schools.

Dr. John Ryan, Medical Director, St. John of God’s Services for the Mentally Handicapped.’¹⁶⁴

4.146This proposal was submitted to Cabinet and was approved on 5th October 1967 subject to a number of changes on the proposed membership of the committee. These changes were:

(1)The deletion of Rev K. McCabe;

(2)John Hurley to be an ordinary member – not chairman;

(3)DJ Miss Eileen Kennedy¹⁶⁵ to be chairman; and

(4)the addition to the membership of the committee of a nominee each from the Ministers for Education, Justice and Health.¹⁶⁶

4.147On 12th September 1967, Mr Barry Early,¹⁶⁷ a member of Dublin City Council, was also appointed to the Committee and two days later, on 14th September 1967, the Department of Justice wrote to the Department of Education informing them that ‘the Minister’s nominee for membership of the committee is Mr Risteard Mac Conchradha, a higher executive officer, of the prisons division in this Department’. The other Departmental nominees were Dr JG O’Hagan, Senior Medical officer, Department of Health and Mr Antoin Ó Gormain, Psychologist, Department of Education. At the inaugural meeting of the Committee on 20th October 1967, O’Malley stated that his reason for establishing the Committee was that ‘various individuals and groups interested in sociological activities, had from time to time represented that the provision being made in our reformatory and industrial schools is in urgent need of improvement’. He further stated that the Committee ‘should not feel that limits are being placed on their investigations’.¹⁶⁸

The Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Reformatory and Industrial Schools’ Systems

4.148The publication of the of the Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Reformatory and Industrial Schools’ Systems on 12th November 1970 is generally viewed as a pivotal moment in the history of residential childcare in Ireland. The Report recommended, inter alia, that the childcare system should be geared to the prevention of family breakdown and residential care should be considered only when there are no satisfactory alternatives; that the system of institutional care should be replaced by small group homes; the Reformatory at Daingean be replaced by a modern Special School; Marlborough House be closed; childcare staff should be fully trained; children in residential care should be educated to the ultimate of their capacities; after-care should form an integral part of the child-care system; administrative responsibility for childcare should be transferred to the Department of Health, with responsibility for the educational element retained by the Department of Education; there should be a new updated Children’s Act; the age of criminal responsibility should be raised to 12 years; both Reformatory and Industrial Schools should be paid on a budget system rather than the existing capitation system; an independent advisory body with statutory powers should be established and there should be continuous research into childcare.

4.149In addition to these broad recommendations, the Committee made a number of recommendations specific to residential care. These included:

When children have to be placed in residential care, those from one family should, where at all possible, be kept together.
In order to create a home atmosphere the children should be reared in self-contained units in groups of not more than 7-9 children. In well populated areas these units could be purchased or rented houses in different housing areas.
The term ‘Industrial School’ should be replaced by the term ‘Residential Home’.
Each home should have house parents who would be responsible for the day-to-day running of the unit as a home. Where this is not feasible every home should have a house mother; continuity of staff in these units is fundamental.
There should be no suggestion of a dormitory system in units. Children should sleep in bedrooms with not more than three and, in some cases, only one in a bedroom.
Units should house both sexes as in a normal home and children should be of different age groups.
All homes catering for children in care should be subject to regular inspection.
The approach to deprived children in residential care should be one of over-compensation.
The children should enjoy the right to, and be encouraged to have, personal property. This means that they should be given pocket money, and should have some say in the choice of their clothes.
Children should be encouraged to join in as many outside recreational activities as possible and to use local facilities such as swimming pools, tennis courts, and playing fields. They should be encouraged to mix with friends from outside and allowed to bring them to their homes as well as to accept invitations to visit their friends.
Every effort should be made to foster the individuality of the children by allowing them to encounter and cope with circumstances existing outside the home as much as possible.
When new buildings are being planned, units should be separate from one another.
Where old buildings have to be adapted this adaptation should take the form of modern self-contained units with their own bedrooms, bathroom, lavatories, kitchen, living room, dining-room and entrances.
Where it is necessary to alter existing buildings not more than 3-4 units should be in the one building.
Grants should be made available for building purposes as in the case of schools and hospitals.
Before a child is admitted to residential care he should be assessed to ascertain where he can be suitably placed with most benefit to himself.
For this purpose every region should have one centre designated as a reception and assessment centre. This centre should also be a Residential Home.
This reception and assessment centre would receive all new cases and be responsible for collecting the background information required for the assessment of the child and his subsequent placement.
Before a child is placed into residential care from a reception and assessment centre certain records concerning him should be obtained. These should include birth, baptismal and confirmation certificates, a social background report, a schools report, other personal records. These reports should accompany the child when placed.

• A comprehensive record should be kept of every child in residential care including medical case history, school progress reports, psychological tests and any other relevant reports.’¹⁶⁹

4.150The apparent significance of the Report can be gauged by the observations of one commentator with a long involvement in the provision of residential care, who argued:

the impetus for change and improvement came with the Kennedy Report of 1970. A number of the larger, single sex, isolated institutions were closed down altogether. All the others began to develop small units within their buildings and/or group homes in the community. Alongside with this, training at a basic qualifying level was initiated, starting in 1971 with one training centre, eventually rising to six separate centres…¹⁷⁰

4.151More generally, he argued that the report:

brought about a remarkable shift in emphasis – from reformatory/punitive to caring; from large institution to small familial group homes; from controlling/corrective to understanding/caring; from custodial to educative; from basic vocational training to all-round education; from untrained, with no opportunity for training, to professionally trained and recognised care workers. It also pointed out that the deprived child needed an investment over and above that required for a child safely and securely growing up in its own family. It also set in train the up-dating of all laws relating to children and child care… ¹⁷¹

4.152Denis O’Sullivan argues that it was only from the late 1960s, that a ‘social risk’ model of childcare, which had influenced policy for the previous hundred years, became displaced by a more developmental model of childcare. This was brought about by the discovery of the ‘deprived child’ in Ireland. Prior to this period childcare intervention was viewed as ‘a means of social control rather than of individual fulfilment’.¹⁷² The primary facets of the emerging developmental model were disenchantment with institutionalisation and the need to move beyond a narrow interpretation of childcare. Rather than focusing, almost exclusively, on the physical needs of the child, the need to incorporate emotional and psychological dimensions in promoting the welfare of children gained acceptance. The Reformatory and Industrial Schools Systems Report (the Kennedy Report), prefaced with the statement that ‘All children need love, care and security if they are to develop into full and mature adults’¹⁷³ most clearly articulated this shift. O’Sullivan has argued that ‘[the] application of changing interpretations of equality to the life circumstances of children who came into care, mediated to the public through conferences, publications and considerable media coverage, was to be one of the major sources of the “discovery” of the deprived child in Ireland’.¹⁷⁴ However, while the Report was symbolically an important stage in the evolution of child welfare and, in particular, residential childcare services, it is perhaps better understood as the distillation of an understanding of the role, function and dysfunctions of residential care that had emerged most articulately since the mid-1960s. The key recommendations of the report, from the need for new legislation and the need to provide a coherent administrative structure were recognised and broadly accepted before the report was commissioned.

4.153Mr Padraig Faulkner, the Minister for Education who received the report of the Commission, in his memoirs recalled that:

It was an excellent report, highlighting as it did the serious deficiencies in the service, which I accepted. It gave my Department a base on which to build for the future….I remember being pleased that in reference to religious institutions the committee stated: ‘We are very much aware that if were not for the dedicated work of many religious bodies the position would be a great deal worse.¹⁷⁵

4.154He further stated that:

It was to be quite some time after I left the Department of Education that I first heard the word ‘paedophile’. During my time as Minister I hadn’t an inkling that child sex abuse existed. When I published the Kennedy Report in 1970 Dáil questions on a variety of aspects of it came thick and fast. Some deputies praised the diligence and selflessness of the religious orders in caring for children in care. Nobody raised the question of abuse. Dr. Noel Browne and Dr. John O’Connell were among my most persistent questioners and nobody doubts that if these two deputies had heard so much as a whisper about abuse they would immediately have raised the matter in the Dáil. I suppose in a way, like most people, I was living in an age of innocence when nobody believed that people in authority, be they religious or lay, could commit such heinous crimes.¹⁷⁶

Establishment of health boards and child welfare

4.155It was only with the construction of health boards in 1970, as a result of the Health Act 1970, that the State began to take a more active role in the provision of childcare services.¹⁷⁷ The Act established eight regional health boards and within each health board a number of community care areas. Previous to this Act, services were delivered by local authorities, for whom services for children formed only a very minor proportion of their multitude of tasks.¹⁷⁸ Health boards had responsibility for what were termed three ‘programmes’: (1) community care services; (2) general hospital services; and (3) special hospital services. Community care services are further sub-divided into three sub-programmes (i) community protection sub-programme; (ii) Community health services sub-programme; and (iii) community welfare sub-programme. Services for children were provided through the community welfare sub-programme of community care services.¹⁷⁹ Gilligan has argued that as health boards began to establish their own social work services, social workers employed by the boards identified childcare as a priority and quickly subsumed the Irish Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Children¹⁸⁰ as the key agents responsible for placing children in care.¹⁸¹ This was facilitated by utilising the ‘fit person’ order¹⁸² under the Children Act 1908,¹⁸³ a section long forgotten, but initiated by Eastern Health Board social workers and adopted by the other boards.¹⁸⁴

4.156The Department of Education were also reorganising their services at this time and on 16th July 1971, it was announced that ‘the industrial and reformatory schools branch will not henceforth exist as a separate branch but will be joined to the Special Schools Sub-Section of the Primary Administration branch under the Principal Officer L Lane and the Assistant Principal officer T Ó Gilín. L Ó Criodhain is appointed as an Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools in the grade of HEO’. Mr Ó Maitiú later commented that the work of this subsection was ‘innovatory and in some ways experimental. It calls for staff of a high quality’ Despite this re-organisation, by November 1973, Mr Ó Maitiú stated that ‘While significant headway has been made in bringing about the reform of the old discredited system, progress in some aspects has not been as satisfactory as it could have been, mainly because of staffing problems.’ As a consequence, he reported that ‘resort has been made to keep the work of the section above the water line’. These included:

(i) Formal inspections by HEO of residential homes and special schools suspended since June 1973, apart from a few urgent journeys. As the HEO is bound by law to inspect each school at least once a year, this is a matter of the gravest importance. (ii) Parental Monies (a) Visits by E.O. to homes of parents have practically ceased. (b) arrears in payments of parental monies not being fully investigated. As a result the weekly amounts collected have fallen: immediate action is necessary if the continuing loss in revenue to the State is to be countered. (iii) Other duties: Certain of the minor duties of the clerical assistants have been curtailed or eliminated.

Responses to the Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Reformatory and Industrial Schools’ Systems

4.157After the publication of the Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Reformatory and Industrial Schools’ Systems, the Department of Education invited observations on the recommendations contained in the report from various interested parties.¹⁸⁵ Before examining these responses, it is worth examining the initial response from the Department of Health. In a memo dated November to from PW to Mr O’Sullivan, it outlined that:

The main recommendation from the point of view of this Department would appear to be that the Commission recommends the taking over by this Department of the administration of the various Acts dealing with Child Care and the setting up within the Department of a Child Care Division which would deal with all aspects of child care.

4.158The consequences for the Department of Health was that:

Apart from finance which would mean transfer not only from the Vote of Education to the Vote for Health, but also from local authorities to health boards of the cost of maintenance of committed children, there would be an increase in the routine work in child care. This work is at present dealt with as part of the work of this section, which also deals with Public Health Nursing Services, and the Maternity and Infant Care Scheme, and by two posts of Inspectors of Boarded Out Children. At present, one of these posts is vacant. The Department of Education Reformatory and Industrial School Branch is staffed by one A.P.O. who also acts as Inspector of the Schools, one HEO, one E.O., one C.O. and 4 clerk typists. Individual returns are received from each school by the Department half yearly.

4.159The memo concluded

While the taking over the care of children committed through the Courts for indictable offences would be new to this Department, there is duplication between the work of this Department and the Department of Education where the taking of children into care for social reasons is concerned. I feel that this Department should take over administrative responsibility for the residential care of all children as recommended by the Committee, and that co-operation between the Department and the voluntary organisations running the schools might result in the closing of some of them and the adaptation of others to the requirements set by the Committee at the most economic price possible while meeting the high standards advocated.

4.160Miss Clandillon, who drafted a memo within three weeks of the publication of the Report, dated 4th December 1970, stressed the need for additional staff, particularly qualified social work staff and the limitations of the existing system of training.¹⁸⁶ She observed that:

If it is agreed by the Departments concerned that the Department of Health should take over the children in Approved Institutions at present under the Department of Education it is inevitable that inquiries will be made as to the present social work staff both in the Department of Health and at local authority level. At present there are no social workers employed by the H.A.s in the following areas: Carlow, Kildare, Kilkenny, Longford, Roscommon, Leitrim, Sligo, Donegal, Monaghan, Laois, Offaly, Meath, Westmeath, Waterford, Wicklow, Tipperary (N.R.) and Tipperary (S.R.) In Counties Wexford, Limerick, and Cavan the Children’s Officers have no formal training in social work. This applies to some of the Children’s Officers employed by Dublin Health authority and to one of the Cork Health Authority staff. While most of these officers are doing valuable work it would be a great help to them if a course of in-service training were set up either by the Department of Health (on the lines of those organised by the Home Office in England) or else as an extra mural course run by the Department of Social Science at U.C.D. consideration would have to be given to practical work as well as lectures on various aspects of social work. For family case work it might be possible to arrange placements of one or two students at a time with the Family Welfare Bureau of the Catholic Social Service Conference which arranges training for social science graduates during their post-graduate training. Practical experience of adoption placements and procedures might possibly be arranged, again for one or two at a time, with the Catholic Protection and Rescue Society, South Anne St., Dublin, which is the only registered adoption society in the country having sufficient trained staff. On the other hand, it might be found more convenient to send the few C.O.’s concerned to Britain for a training course. In areas where Public Health Nurses are working with deprived children this arrangement should be dropped and in these areas, listed above, qualified social workers should be appointed as soon as possible.

4.161Clandillon further argued that additional staff would be required in the Department of Health and that each social service department should not exceed that of the country areas, and within each department:

there should be a qualified Senior Social Workers, with post-graduate qualifications and experience…who would direct and co-ordinate the work of the other social workers so that the most appropriate member of the staff would take over each case and thus avoid overlapping and waste of time and personnel. A weekly case conference should be held but the Senior Social Worker should be available for consultation in any case of particular difficulty. She should also supervise all initial placements of children whether for boarding-out or adoption.

4.162In relation to the Adoption Board, Clandillon noted that ‘it is a matter of concern that only a small number of their welfare officers is qualified in social work and a recent advertisement in the daily press for further officers for adoption, probation and prison welfare work equates qualified with unqualified staff. At the present time I would not consider the Board a suitable agency to take people seconded for in-service training’. She further noted that she thought ‘it unlikely that the Department of Justice will agree to the inclusion of the Adoption Board and its officers under a new Children’s Department though this could be of benefit to the children to be adopted’.

4.163In more general terms, Clandillon suggested that when responsibility was transferred to the Department of Health:

All the remaining Industrial Schools and the two Reformatories should be visited to ascertain the numbers of committed children and the reasons for committal. All the information possible should be collected on each child, including psychological test results in cases of doubt. The normal children who have no marked disturbance or behavioural problems should be placed as soon as possible with suitable relatives or foster parents. Both categories should be asked to take the children on a boarded-out basis. They should get supportive help from a social worker in helping the children to integrate into the family. Disturbed children and members of families who are being kept together will require special study. Some emotionally disturbed children will be better cared for in small units for such children where the close ties and demands of small family would be too much for them. They should have psychiatric help and the support of a highly qualified social worker. The ground work done in this field should be of benefit to the new departments as they set up and form the basis from which to work towards the integration of more children into the community.

4.164In addition, she argued that:

the takeover of the children at present under the Department of Education should run quite smoothly in areas where there are good Children’s Officers. In other areas appointments of qualified and experienced social workers should be made as quickly as possible. These areas would need special help and consideration from the Inspector(s) of the Department at first but the Senior Social Worker could always keep in touch if any difficulty arose. It would be valuable to have a seminar for all the staff of the new departments here in the Department of Health to discuss the most efficient way to keep records and personal files, and so on, so that a similar pattern of organisation would be adopted in each region and in the county area offices throughout the country.

4.165Clandillon envisaged the replacement of the large industrial schools with small group homes,

housed in ordinary houses designed for family living in cities and towns. Again, ideally, the house should be run by married couples, the husband going out daily to his work and the wife doing the running of the home. It may be difficult to get sufficient numbers of married couples who would be interested in this work. It has been remarked that breakdown in child care of this kind may occur if the couple has children of their own in the pre-teenage group. It would be more useful, therefore, to look for couples whose families are grown up so that there is no conflict between the couple’s children and those entrusted to their care. If such couples are found they should be encouraged to meet each other from time to time in the presence of the appropriate social worker to discuss any problems.

4.166On 13th January 1971, the Irish branch of the Association for Child Psychology and Psychiatry provided the Department with their observations on the report. In a letter they stated:

It would appear that the Committee of Enquiry, although stating in its opening remarks that it intended to cover the whole field of Child Care, did not, in fact, do so. There is no definition of what percentage of the population is under discussion and there is no indication of what percentage of children require care. Although generally stating that reform is needed, the whole effect of the criticisms, which are many and entirely substantiated by our experience, is unstructured, failing in total impact and unconnected. The specific problem of four systems of central governmental control is not tackled satisfactorily. We would support the proposition that responsibility for all aspects of Child Care be transferred to the Department of Health and, furthermore, we would consider that ideally one department should be responsible for the whole system under review. The lack of an adequate system of Social Administration and the lack of an establishment for social workers within central and local government prevents any improvement or action on foot of the Committee of Enquiry’s proposals. Social workers are of vital importance to adequately gather and access knowledge of the child and his family before ‘care’ is instituted and assisting in adequately ‘paving the way’ on this charge. The inadequacy of present ‘would be’ social workers is perpetuating the naïve concept of Child Care and fails to recognize the developmental aspects of the child and his family.

4.167The letter concluded by stressing the grave concern of the Association that:

the many excellent recommendations for reform and improvement in the Child Care System contained on the Committee of Enquiry’s Report will not be acted upon or acted upon in a piece-meal fashion. It is obvious that a new Children’s and Families Bill should be presented to the Dáil. In furtherance of the objectives of the Committee of Inquiry’s Report, my committee is of the opinion that there is urgent need for a government established Commission of Enquiry into the present Child Care System and allied areas of Social Service.

4.168The Protestant Child Care Association also replied to the Department of Education on 13th January 1971. They welcomed the report and pressed for the speedy implementation of the recommendations. They also made a number of recommendations not included in the Committee of Enquiry’s report. These were:

revise law on minimum age of criminal responsibility;
age of criminal responsibility to be school leaving age;
no corporal punishment in any establishment;
part-time crash courses for senior staff;
hostel provision for handicapped;
protect the retarded;
fine for fund for family service as addition to maintenance orders for absconding husbands;
treatment advisory panel for juvenile court.

4.169They concluded by stating ‘We are strongly against placing the institutional Child into further institutions.’

4.170Comhairle le leas Oige¹⁸⁷ responded to the report on 14th January 1971 and stated:

We welcome the report and whole heartedly agree with the recommendations made by the Committee of Enquiry into the Reformatory & Industrial School System. We are especially pleased to note that the Committee recognises the need for specially trained personnel in this field and recommends a break from the institutional to small group unit as a basis for an adequate system of child care.

4.171The Protestant Adoption Society also replied on 14th January 1971, and opened their letter by stating, ‘In general this is a superb report’. However, they also noted:

the only reference of consequence to non Roman Catholic children is contained in paragraph 1.5 on page 3.¹⁸⁸ With this one paragraph the Committee appears to dismiss any further responsibility for non Roman Catholic Children. Although this paragraph so far as it applies to the rest of the Country may be correct, it is certainly not true of Cork. The position in Cork is that cases are referred by the Local Gardaí and the Inspector of the I.S.P.C.C. first to the Pastor of the child’s religious denomination and / or to a layman and it is only when they fail adequately to deal with the case that it is likely to come before the Courts. However, very few non Roman Catholic children are ever brought before the Courts in Cork. The Authorities have long since learned that this is a completely fruitless exercise. They know only too well that since there is no Institution to which a child in need of care can be committed the Courts are powerless to take any effective action in the matter. The result is that these children are permanently deprived of the right guaranteed by the Constitution to the same treatment as their peers. Whilst I recognise that the smallness of the number involved creates special difficulties it is not good enough for the Committee to sweep the problem under the carpet. If, however, the Committee’s excellent recommendation to replace Industrial Schools by small residential homes containing not more than seven to nine children is implemented, then the problem of non Roman catholic Children should be simple to solve.

4.172The letter went on to comment that the report noted the link between young female offending and prostitution, but that they ‘noted with some alarm however the first recommendation of the Committee on page 45 that a closed psychiatric unit for their treatment should be provided’. The letter writer, Mr John B Jermyn conceded that he may have misinterpreted the intention behind the recommendation, but that if it meant that:

they should all be locked up in some special form of mental Asylum than I heartily disagree with it. However I cannot think that the present homes which mostly seem to be run by Religious Orders are adequate to deal with the problem however good the intentions of the people who run them. I cannot think that a life of prayer and penance is an adequate substitute in the minds of a young prostitute for thee rewards of her profession. Experience has shown that Alcoholics Anonymous saves more people from alcoholism than all the Doctors and Psychiatrists put together. This is so because the alcoholics know they are being helped by others who have suffered the same torments as themselves. While I do not suggest by analogy that young prostitutes can be saved by ex-prostitutes neither do I believe that they can be rescued by professional Virgins. There must be a more reasonable solution than either permanent penance or incarceration in Asylums.

4.173In relation to after-care, the letter complimented the report on the excellent recommendations noting:

It is ludicrous to assume that a child brought up in the protective atmosphere of an Institution is capable of looking after himself at the age of 16. Even a well adjusted boy of this age with a sound and happy family background is not capable of doing so and must rely for some time upon the help and advice of understanding parents. The child from an Industrial School, unless he is extraordinarily lucky in his first placement, has no chance whatever of succeeding. The present failure rate is horrifyingly high.

4.174The letter also argued that:

There can be no doubt that it is far better for a child to be placed in a suitable foster home than in an Industrial School. However, the emphasis must be on the word suitable. In adoption cases the Adoption Board insists on a proper investigation of the home background and general suitability of the proposed adopting parents and ensure so far as it possible that the proposed adopting parents are of approximately the same social standing as the child’s natural parents. No less stringent enquiry should be made in the case of foster parents. It is a sad fact that the Cork Health Authority which is so excellent in every other respect falls down very badly indeed in this particular matter. Details of some of the more disastrous cases can be made available if required.

4.175In March 1971, the Council for Social Welfare¹⁸⁹ organised a seminar in Killarney, to discuss the implications of the Kennedy report. In an overview paper, Sr Winifred was broadly positive of both the analysis and the recommendations in the Report.

4.176However, she did highlight that:

there is not one word of appreciation or even commendation of the work done by voluntary bodies. We are told in the report if it were not for the dedicated work of many of our religious bodies the position would be a great deal worse than it is now! Talk about damning by faint praise. The one stark and most obvious fact in the situation is nowhere stated. Just how could any body, voluntary or statutory, be expected to provide a skilled and humane service on the pittance granted by the State?¹⁹⁰

4.177In her address to the seminar, Sr Stanislaus Kennedy highlighted what she claimed was a general lack of confidence amongst the Religious providing childcare services. This lack of confidence, she asserted, was:

due in no small way to newspaper articles and TV programmes written and produced with inaccurate data or little insight into the nature of the life of the people whom they analyse, and sometimes hold up to ridicule. Criticism of the religious, especially the nun, by both clergy and laity is a popular sport, and can be quite devastating. We are out of date, immature personalities, when we are given credit for having any personality at all. Our attitudes to life, sex, to literature are out of touch and archaic. Our child care standards are low and our living standards are high. We give our children too much, or else we give them too little. Each of us could add to this litany of comments we have heard. Feedback of this nature is shaking the confidence of the religious, and they are understandably sensitive.¹⁹¹

4.178In his contribution to the seminar, Mr Antoin O’Gorman, a member of the Kennedy Committee, responded to the points raised above about the role of the Religious in childcare, stated:

I think it is right and appropriate to mention that the Committee did state clearly and sincerely that in point(ing) out limitations in the systems of Reformatory and Industrial Schools it was not the intention of the Committee to criticise those responsible for running the schools. Another matter which I think should be stated is that it was not the stated intention either explicitly or implicitly that religious should cease to participate in the work or to run the homes and schools.¹⁹²

4.179In April 1971, the Association of Resident Managers of Reformatory and Industrial Schools responded to the Committee of Enquiry’s Report. It described the Report as ‘an important event in the history of child care in Ireland’¹⁹³ and went on to state that the report:

emphasised community responsibility in the matter and revealed the extent to which the community directly and through Government had failed to provide the support required by those within the system to attain the standards for which they strove….Media coverage following the publication of the Kennedy Report emphasised the shortcomings of the system, and in general it appears that much of the good work done and being done was overlooked or misunderstood by the public at large. This is considered to be unfortunate in that it provides a scapegoat and diverts attention from the central point that ultimately the community as a whole is responsible for the system and for its development to meet modern standards by modern means.

4.180The response outlined how the Report was discussed by assembled Managers at three specially convened means and that each Manager prepared and submitted an individual report which was collated to form a composite report which was then approved by the Association. The submission noted:

The Religious Orders wish to participate in the work and to contribute to the development of a better system. They welcome the Report of the Committee on Reformatory and Industrial Schools in that it emphasise the need for Government and community support. As this document shows, they are in agreement with the Report on many issues, and have themselves been advocating such changes for a very long time. They are dissatisfied with the system now in existence and feel they have tolerated for too long the lack of Government support and grossly inadequate financing. The Religious Orders involved in the field of Child Care wish to participate in the work but not necessarily to administer it, and they wish the Government to state without further delay their view on the role of religious in child care. The Association recommends the earliest possible establishment of an advisory body to co-ordinate the general effort, and proposes in the meantime to establish a voluntary advisory body representative of the Association and professional interests, to devote immediate attention to the areas of assessment, training, research and optimum use of existing facilities. The Association is prepared to make a positive contribution towards the establishment of a better system of Child Care in Ireland.

4.181The detailed recommendations made by the managers are to be found in Appendix 2. In addition, later that year, on 30th September, they reported:

The Association of Resident Managers of Industrial and Reformatory Schools have made it clear in a report to the Minister for Education their conviction that the community as a whole must more fully recognise its responsibility to provide an improved system to care for deprived children, and that a central co-ordinating authority with statutory powers is essential to the effective operation of the system. It is recognised by the Association that, at best, it will be many years before a statutory body can be formed, and they have decided in the meantime to establish an Advisory Council with powers to form executive committees who will conduct working programmes in agreed priority areas; who will advise the Association on ways and means of achieving the optimum utilisation of present resources, and how best to contribute to the development in Ireland of the best possible system of child care.¹⁹⁴

4.182The Eastern Health Board responded in July 1971 by enclosing the recommendations made by a number of personnel in the Eastern Health Board concerned with deprived children following a meeting in February of that year.¹⁹⁵ The group noted that the report ‘did not deal with all children in care, but rather concentrated on children in Industrial and Reformatory Schools’, but nonetheless, they broadly agreed with the recommendations of the Report. They did however, have a number of observations on the recommendations. They noted:

that there is a growing tendency to depart from the group home system in England because of the problem associated with operating a group home. Staffing problems present themselves, the hours of duty are a cause of concern to Trade Union Officials and the coming and going of staff members has the effect of subjecting the children to constant change, much to their detriment. It was felt that Group Homes have a part to play in a Child Care System but they not be accepted as recommended in the Report as the only form of Residential Care.

4.183The meeting also agreed ‘that a good Child Care Worker’ would be the best person to undertake the task of after-care. It was noted that the Health Authority had no knowledge of the release of children who were committed through Dublin Corporation and the Department of Education and it was suggested that after-care for all children should be the responsibility of the authority. It was agreed that there is a great need for Hostels in the Dublin area, ‘particularly to accommodate boys’. In relation to the administration of the system, the group argued that: ‘responsibility for all aspects of Child Care should not be divided between the Department of Health and the Department of Education, but rather that total responsibility should rest with the Department of Health.’

4.184In relation to residential care, the group ‘felt that the task of house-father and house mother may have to be left to the religious communities’ and that ‘consideration should be given to the concept of a new type of foster-parent who would take on the task as a regular working arrangement and be paid an appropriate salary by the Health Authority’. The group elaborated on this point arguing: ‘highly skilled women would be needed to undertake this arduous task. They should be the type who would not become emotionally involved with every child placed in their care, and they should be able to go looking after children, and accept the facts of the situation i.e. that the children will, at some stage, be taken from them’.

4.185The group also agreed that ‘there is a need for some form of detention for teen-age girls’ and that there ‘should be a two-sided approach to the problem of prostitution (a) the prevention of young girls from setting out on such a career (b) the provision of an escape route for girls who genuinely wish to reform their lives’. On legal issues, the group noted ‘the defining of Health Authorities as “fit persons” will greatly increase the responsibilities of those Authorities. It is essential that they have the resources necessary to meet the added responsibilities thrust upon them.’

4.186In addition, a few weeks later, on 5th August 1971, a deputation from the Eastern Health Board comprising the senior administrative officers of the Welfare Department, the Director of the Child Guidance Clinic in the Mater Hospital, the Chief Child Psychiatrist of the Board and the Section Officer of the Children’s Section met with representatives of the Department of Education in relation to accommodation for Dublin boys in Industrial Schools. The deputation highlighted that while 450 boys from Dublin were accommodated in Industrial Schools throughout the country, there were a further 90 to 100 boys for whom accommodation in Industrial Schools could not be found. The health board deputation claimed, ‘many of them are disturbed and the difficulty of getting schools to take many of them is resulting in their becoming a “hard core” of unwanted’. The Department of Education were of the view that this difficulty had largely arisen from the closure of the Artane Industrial School on 30th June 1969. However some spare capacity existed in the Salthill Industrial School in Galway and it was hoped that the opening of the new school in Finglas would alleviate some of the difficulties.¹⁹⁶

4.187The Department of Justice responded to the request for observations on the report on 20th April 1972. In relation to places of detention, they ‘considered that formal responsibility for providing places of detention for juveniles would be more appropriately exercised by your Department than by the Department of Justice which has heretofore had that formal responsibility as the successor to the “police authority” referred to in the Children Act, 1908’. Responding to criticisms made of St Patrick’s Institution and the aftercare of children leaving reformatory and industrial schools, they noted that improvements had been made to St Patrick’s since the preparation of the report and that the welfare service operated by the Department had expanded since the publication of the report with plans for further expansion.

4.188Although not formally a response to the invitation issued by the Department of Education, Mr O’Mahony in an article in the Irish Jurist provided an overview, both of the Report and of the case law on residential care in Ireland. In relation to the latter he observed that:

There is, perhaps unfortunately, a marked absence of reported decisions of the Irish courts on the provisions of the Children Acts dealing with residential care and the administrative and judicial procedures leading to it. This is somewhat surprising, and disquieting, particularly when one considers, in the light of the Irish Constitution, the wide scope of Section 58 of the 1908 Act (as amended) which gives statutory power to the Children’s Court to commit children, up to the age of 15 years, to long periods of detention in industrial schools for a variety of reasons far removed from the criminal law. Such a sense of disquiet is greater to-day if one accepts that the statutory definition of an ‘industrial school’ as being ‘a school for the industrial training of children in which children are lodged, clothed and fed as well as taught’ is not now, if it ever was, an accurate definition, and that a place of detention would be closer to reality.¹⁹⁷

4.189In relation to a core recommendation in the Kennedy Report and indeed a host of other reports that examined residential care in Ireland that the Children Act 1908 (as amended) should be replaced, Mr O’Mahony stated that:

in the short term and from a strictly legal viewpoint, the case for a completely new Children Act is not as obvious as many would make it out to be. Clearly, if the immediate effect of an updating and consolidation of the law on this subject was the blotting-out of the past and the providing of inspiration for the future it could be argued for that reason alone new legislation would be worthwhile. However, there is, at present, sufficient statutory power to have most of the recommendations of the Kennedy Report put into effect, because basically these recommendations come down to, (i) new buildings, and (ii) training and research as to what is best for children in residential care. New buildings require money from the State (i.e., the Department of Education) and there is sufficient statutory power for this to be done. Training and research also require money and time but not necessarily immediate new legislation.¹⁹⁸

Response of the Department of Health

4.190Having earlier considered the recommendations of the report, on 4th February 1972, Mr O’Sullivan drafted a commentary for Mr O’Rourke on the Kennedy Report. Acknowledging that the Department of Health had a representative on the Committee, he nonetheless went to say that:

The report of the Committee could be criticised on the grounds that it has dealt with services outside the terms of reference prescribed for it by the Government. While the recommendations made by the Committee are in general exceedingly valuable, they may be questioned for example on the grounds that while the Committee dealt with Boarding-out for children, it had neither a Children’s Officer nor a health authority officer conversant with that field of activity, amongst its members. This may be the reason why the services administered by Health Authorities under the Health Acts, the Children’s Acts and the Adoption Acts (boarded-out and nursed out children etc.,) were not examined in the same detail as those available to children in Industrial and Reformatory Schools, although the total number of children dealt with by Health Authorities exceeds those dealt with by the Department of Education in their residential schools. Furthermore the Report does not give all the credit it might to the enlightened approach of many health authorities in this field.

4.191The memo, having dealt with the inadequacies of the Report, noted that it had:

made several fundamental recommendations aimed at providing an efficient and fully satisfactory care system for all children requiring it. The achievement of this objective will of necessity take many years, as it would involve the implementation of new legislation, the recruitment and training of staff, and considerable expenditure both on revenue and capital projects. The principal recommendation which affects this Department is one which suggests that administrative responsibility for all aspects of child care should be transferred to the Department of Health. The immediate effect of the implementation of this recommendation would be the handing over of administrative responsibility for 28 Industrial Schools, 3 Reformatory Schools and one Remand Home. A further recommendation made by the Devlin Committee¹⁹⁹ and supported by the Committee on Reformatory and Industrial Schools is that the Department of Health should take over from the Department of Justice responsibility for adoption work.

4.192Mr O’Sullivan went on to state that:

Ideally child welfare services should as far as possible be planned and be subject to supervision by one Department, to ensure that they are looked at in a comprehensive way and also to ensure there is no conflict in aims which may very well arise if the services are the responsibility of different Departments. Child care is but one aspect of family care and a proper family care service would in fact tend to eliminate the need for taking many children into residential care -e.g. children from broken homes or children whose mothers must go into hospital for short-term care. Similarly, it is not satisfactory to isolate the residential schools aspect of child care from the facilities provided for the community care of the child. For example the need to have a child committed to an Industrial School should be considered in the light of the ability of the mother or other member of the family to care for it in its own home, supported, where necessary, by ancillary services, including day nurseries. While Health Authorities avail of the accommodation provided in Industrial Schools this Department has no control, no legal right of entry to inspect the Schools. It seems to be that good grounds exist for having all social aspects of child care including crèches, day nurseries, boarding-out, residential care and adoption dealt with by the one Department. As it is not really feasible nor indeed desirable to separate child care from family care and as the latter seems to be a field in which the Department is becoming more and more involved it would seem logical that we should agree with the recommendations of the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Committee that all aspects of child care should be dealt with by this Department. The Department of Education would, however, continue to have control of the educational aspects affecting the Schools.

4.193While acknowledging the desirability of such an administrative change, he went on to note:

..it is equally clear that this Department is not in a position to assume responsibility for all aspects of child care, including residential care, until an adequate staff (both at professional and administrative level) becomes available to provide a proper service. No real improvement will be effected in the existing services merely by transferring functions relating to Industrial Schools etc., to this Department.

1. Adequate staff

(a) Departmental – both professional and administrative. The Report recommends that establishment of a child care division in the Dept!

(b) In the field – Health board staff providing child care services must be recruited in sufficient numbers and appropriately trained. This applies also to staff of voluntary agencies active in child care.

2. Adequate Services

(a) (missing)

(b) Residential schools and children’s homes must be modernised where necessary, and their role must be more closely linked with the necessary community services provided.

(d) After care services, including advisory services, placement in employment, provision of hostel or other accommodation must be expanded.

Unless control of these developments rests with one Government Agency, progress in child care will tend to remain uncoordinated as at present and will also be slow and haphazard.

4.194The memo concluded by arguing:

I feel that there is not much point in commenting on the very many other recommendations made by the Committee until a decision is first taken on whether this Department will have overall responsibility for the Residential Schools. The recommendations are, however, in general acceptable, but I would have reservations about the establishment of a Statutory Advisory Committee as suggested in the Report, which would act as a ‘watchdog committee’, to encourage the training of staff and the undertaking of research and publicity. If the other recommendations of the Committee are to be implemented, I would feel a better approach would be the establishment of a working group representative of the Departments concerned, the Health Boards and the organisations active in the field of child care, to consider existing legislation, to examine developments abroad, and to advise on the broad lines of legislation which might be developed here. This group would also be useful in that it would give an opportunity to the various voluntary organisations to air their views at the formative stage of legislation on certain controversial aspects of child care which are bound to arise, e.g. the question of compulsory notification of both legitimate and illegitimate children placed in residential care for reward or not. Finally, I would recommend that officers of the Department of Education should be invited to discuss the report with officers of this Department, if there is a difference of opinion between the two Departments as to who should be responsible for industrial schools.

4.195Mr O’Rourke in his response to this memo stated that he had:

some misgivings about the transfer of responsibility in relation to special schools and remand homes for those aged 15 and upwards to what is described in the report as a child care division. Nevertheless, I would accept that on balance the advantage lies in placing, in the one Department, administrative responsibility for various aspects of the care of deprived children mentioned in the report and on the whole my personal view would be that this recommendation is acceptable in principle. I would hope, however, that when the matter comes to be considered at Government level, it would be fully apparent that the radical improvement in services for deprived children suggested in this report is going to cost a great deal of money. Much of the expenditure will be on proper staffing and training and because of its nature will involve heavy revenue costs. There will also, if many of the report’s recommendations are accepted, be considerable capital expenditure involved on such residential homes and special schools will be continue to be needed even if an adequate level of prevention services is built up. It would highly undesirable, in my opinion that an impression should be given that these proposals are to be accepted in principle unless there is at the same time a definite commitment to capital and revenue expenditure of an amount adequate to implement the recommendations.

4.196He concluded by stating:

I would like to emphasise that in my opinion there can be no question of administrative responsibility for the services mentioned in this report being transferred to this Department without the establishment of a special division to undertake the reform of the services for deprived children…Unless there is an unequivocal commitment to providing the financial and staffing resources required to implement a reform programme in this field it would, in my opinion, be better to put the report away.

4.197In November 1971, the journalist Nell McCafferty, in an article in the Irish Times, noted that a year had passed since the publication of the Kennedy Report and posed the question ‘Just what has been done about the Kennedy Report?’ Her answer was that the report contained 13 recommendations and that ‘the Government has taken action on one part of one recommendation, relating to the training of staff responsible for child care. A one month residential course for senior personnel was held in Dublin in July. Otherwise, nothing. It’s been a grim year for children.’²⁰⁰

Residential accommodation for offending children

4.198In July and August 1971, a deputation from the Department of Education visited the Daingean Reformatory and the Salthill, Letterfrack and Clonmel Industrial Schools.

4.199The stated purpose of the visit was ‘a contribution towards an attempt at arriving at some tentative conclusions and recommendations….in the context of considerations for a reorganised and modernised system of Industrial and reformatory Schools’.

4.200A number of difficulties with the children described as ‘uncontrollable’ and ‘fire-bugs’ were identified by the manager of Daingean, Fr McGonagle, who stated that he was unwilling to accept such children for any period of detention. The delegation concluded from this:

It needs to be stated that the present situation appears to be highly unsatisfactory. A boy who will not be accepted by the manager of Daingean or Letterfrack (and Clonmel, which is still more inappropriate for such a type of child) either has to be set free on probation or sent for one-month to Marlborough House (or to St. Patrick’s²⁰¹, if 16 years of age – or to prison in certain circumstances, if he is 15 years of age). Such boys committed to Daingean or Letterfrack get to realise that the shortest route to release is to behave in such a way as lends to their again being brought before the Courts for a further offences and being committed to Marlborough House or being released on a suspended sentence. We mentioned tentatively to Fr. McGonagle the possibility of the provision of such a suitable secure unit in connection with the new Reformatory School in Oberstown. The boys in it would be separate from the boys in the Reformatory School and a separate programme of courses would have to be arranged for them. The staff, however, would be common to both institutions and it would be under the administrative management of the Oblate Fathers. Fr. McGonagle appeared to be well disposed to this idea but, of course, could not commit himself or the Order in any way and the matter was left in abeyance at that stage.

4.201Following on from their visit to Letterfrack, Salthill and Clonmel Industrial Schools, the delegation observed that the function of the proposed new units at Finglas would have to be taken into account in any future policy. The memo noted that the centre at Finglas:

is not a replacement for Marlborough House in that it does not make provision for the ‘one-month detainees’ or for the ‘uncontrollable or fire-bug’ type who might be sent to Marlborough House for one month. It will, however, assume the functions of Marlborough House in relation to Remand when the Remand and Assessment Centre is functioning. There remains the question of the provision to be made for the ‘one month detainees’ and the uncontrollable (including the fire-bug) type of boy. As already mentioned in this memorandum, Fr. McGonagle and Bro McKinney were adamant that open Training Centres were not adequate or suitable for a certain type of boy and that he could not be accepted in them. It had already been decided that he could not be accepted in St. Laurence’s Training Centre, Finglas. In the course of a discussion which representatives from the Leinster Regional Health Board had in August with officials of the Department of Education reference was made to this problem. Both Dr. McQuaid and Dr. McCarthy, who were members of the deputation, stated that they had recently become confirmed in their view that such a type of boy existed for whom the Training Centres as envisaged – such as St. Laurence’s – were inappropriate and in relation to whom only a high security unit would meet requirements. They stated that plans for the provision of such a unit at Dundrum was at an advanced stage of preparation and that its availability within perhaps two years would serve to relieve the Department of Education of the necessity of making special provisions for this type of boy. It seemed that until alternative arrangements can be made in relation to the future position with regard to the ‘one month detainee’, Marlborough House would have to be kept open on a restricted scale. The Minister for Justice has been requested to agree that discussions should take place between officials of the Departments of Justice and Education in relation to this matter.

4.202On 15th March 1972, CARE – the campaign for the care of deprived children²⁰² – wrote to the Minister for Education, Mr Padraig Faulkner, enclosing a paper setting out their views generally on residential care for young offenders, and specifically on the proposals to establish a new facility at Oberstown in North Dublin. They firstly outlined what they saw as the deficiencies in the system:

(a) In the first place there is excessive reliance on residential care as compared with care of children in their own homes, in the community. (b) The residential system generally is undifferentiated in respect of the needs of children. Children are classified roughly by sex and by age but not according to their needs. (c) The buildings are old and make it difficult to avoid institutionalisation and to provide effective homely care. (d) The staff, with few exceptions, are untrained. Marlborough House recruits staff through the labour exchange. (e) The institutions are in most cases quite apart from the community in which they are located, even more so from the communities from which the children are drawn. Thus they do not allow for a service which deals not just with the children but with their families too. (f) Until now there has been no adequate system of assessment and referral which would ensure at least that residential care staff know the background and problems of their charges. (g) Apart form Marlborough House and St. Patrick’s Institution all of the Institutions are run on a voluntary basis by Religious Orders and they retain the freedom to accept or reject children sent to them. In the past year the boys’ reformatory in particular has cut down on the number of boys it takes because of lack of facilities. In these circumstances the courts are often unable to dispose of children to residential care even if they need it. (h) There are no specialist residential facilities for distinct problem-groups e.g. the emotionally disturbed and psychopathic young persons. (i) Marlborough House, the Remand Home, has been particularly criticised for its complete lack of facilities and adequate personnel.

4.203The delegation was particularly opposed to the proposed new Reformatory School to be built at Oberstown as a replacement for the Daingean Reformatory (St Conleth’s). The reasons for their opposition were fourfold. Firstly,

the location of the proposed institution is wrong. An institution at Oberstown is still far from the city of Dublin from which most of the young offenders from St. Conleth’s are drawn, so far in fact that it would be quite impossible to provide a service dealing with not just the boys but with their families too. On a less sophisticated level visiting by families would still be very difficult. In addition access to specialist services is more of a problem the farther away from Dublin – or another city – the institution is and the more difficult it is for specialists to be involved on a part-time basis. Secondly the Oberstown project is too big. It is widely agreed that institutionalism is largely a function of size; in that respect Oberstown function would relate to boys from all over Ireland. There is a strong argument for decentralisation of this function as opposed to its concentration in one place. Thirdly, the thinking embodied in the Oberstown proposals is conservative and incoherent. The problems presenting themselves to the Government are clear, though probably wrongly defined, and Oberstown is intended as the main solution to them. It will fit into the existing pattern of juridical and administrative structures which are grossly deficient. If it embodies any new thinking, this thinking is not carried through to any logical conclusion. It retains too many of the inherent disadvantages of the old outmoded system, many of which are associated with the proposed size and type of location. Fourthly the Oberstown project cannot be conceived of as a temporary measure pending fundamental rethinking of legislation and comprehensive reform of services. The fact that it will cost so much and that it will exist in bricks and mortar will give it permanence, will make it liable to be cited as the solution to existing problems, and will thus pre-empt the choice of better options in the future.

4.204The paper also noted the reluctance of the Religious engaged in residential childcare to accept certain children and to operate ‘juvenile prisons’. Instead of the Oberstown project, CARE recommended that a secure unit for between 20-30 boys should be opened in, or close to, Dublin and ‘should be managed, for the time being at least, by the Department of Education’. On 2nd May 1972, a delegation²⁰³ from CARE held a meeting in the Department of Education with officials from the Departments of Education, Health and Justice. The record of the meeting made by the Department of Education noted that:

Much time was spent in discussing the security arrangements at the new school in Oberstown. The delegation from CARE was very much against the security unit being attached to the school for the reasons already discussed at other meetings. This resistance mellowed somewhat when it was explained in more detail by the Department what was involved – that it would not be a complete security like a prison – and the reasons underlying it. The CARE people were dissatisfied with the location and size of Oberstown and the way these two things combined to stifle any other initiative. In relation to the last point, they were informed that the Department was not adverse to any other arrangement, for example, community based, but that whatever arrangement was chosen, there would be a need for Oberstown in the future.

4.205CARE wrote to Mr Ó Floinn, Runai Cunta of the Department of Education, the following day thanking him for the helpful meeting and outlining:

We accept that the Oberstown project is going ahead and we hope to maintain an interest in its development and in the development of the associated establishments at Letterfrack, Clonmel and Finglas. On that basis I would like to reiterate a few points which we mentioned in our paper or which came up in the discussion. (a) We feel that children should be treated with reference to their needs and not with reference to their deeds: offenders, children who come before the courts, should not be segregated in committal from other children with the same problems who do not come before the courts. Thinking in terms of ‘reformatories’ and ‘junior reformatories’ would be a barrier to developments in this direction. (b) The future organisation of residential services for children will have to provide differentiated facilities to meet the different needs and problems of various groups. (c) If the high standard of services sought by CARE and envisaged by your Department are to be achieved and maintained it is not enough to have goodwill on the part of most of those who are engaged in planning and providing the services, which goodwill undoubtedly exists at present. It seems to us that detailed provision will have to be made with regard to inspection, co-ordination, training and research and that this will have to be guaranteed by regulations, stated standards, specific administrative structures, and procedures as appropriate.

The CARE memorandum

4.206At the end of June 1972, CARE published a detailed memorandum on deprived children and children’s services in Ireland.²⁰⁴ The memorandum claimed:

children’s services in Ireland are vastly underdeveloped in a number of respects as compared with other social services in Ireland or as compared with children’s services in other countries like ours. This is an indictment of our community and demands action now for reasons of justice and charity and even economy. The deficiencies in our provisions have long been recognised; they have been the subject of informed comment and protest for decades. But the protests have not been acted upon. The responsibility now devolves on us who can learn and speak out and act today. It is CARE’s purposes to strive that the community accepts this responsibility, that provisions are improved now – late in the day.²⁰⁵

4.207Both in the Memorandum and in subsequent publications, CARE argued for the need for co-ordination in the delivery of childcare services, arguing that ‘there is no one planning authority for services for deprived children, no co-ordinating machinery, no means of overall development. The interests of deprived children consequently suffer in the content of national planning.’²⁰⁶ In relation to residential care, CARE proposed:

That all institutions for deprived children while retaining their independence should be more fully integrated into a total child-care service under the Health Boards and should be inspected by the Boards’.²⁰⁷ That the regional care authorities in each health region should together, and in consultation with the Health Board, work out a plan for co-ordination and specialisation in residential care in the region’.²⁰⁸ The need for training for staff of residential care services.²⁰⁹ The need for extensive research designed to find the right methods of care for various categories of deprived children.²¹⁰

4.208Later that year, CARE, in conjunction with a range of other organisations²¹¹ submitted a memo to the Government demanding one Minister for children. Having outlined the difficulties with the existing system of administration, the memo proposed:

that one Government Minister should be designated as having overall responsibility, or the main responsibility, for deprived children and children’s services in Ireland. This means the allocation of additional functions to a present Minister, not the creation of a new Ministerial post. Any less radical solution, would not resolve the problems we have described. The establishment of a co-ordinating inter-departmental committee and the appointment of an advisory body, have been recommended elsewhere: such structures are desirable but they alone could not meet the needs of the present grave system. With regard to the choice of department we think that the Department of Health is the most appropriate department to have charge of deprived children. At the moment this department has many welfare responsibilities. In the long-term we foresee the possibility of the amalgamation of the Departments of Health and Social Welfare into one Department of Health and Welfare (as recommended by the Devlin Committee, 1969 and recently by the Catholic Bishops Council on Social Welfare) which would be responsible for health services, social security and social work services. Children’s services are only one part of social work services and when we talk of the co-ordination of children’s services we see this as a first step towards the ultimate co-ordination of social work services, or welfare services, at a national level. Children’s services, or welfare services generally, merge into other social services, such as housing and social security, at one end, and into custodial services at the other. For this reason one minister, or one department could not be responsible for all aspects of services which meet the needs of deprived children: what we are asking for is that responsibility, for the basic ‘children’s services’(emphasis in original) and responsibility for overall policy and planning in respect of deprived children should be defined and allocated to one Minister. It might be considered necessary to delegate this responsibility to a Parliamentary Secretary. In the first instance we would suggest that a children’s Services Section should be established within the Department of Health under a Principal Officer with no other responsibilities initially it would be the task of the section to survey all services for deprived children and to consult with relevant interests. It could then assume planning and executive responsibility for a range of services at present coming under the three departments. The decision in principle to have one minister and one department with the main responsibility in this area should give the section the necessary authority to approach its task with commitment and strength. It would be of the utmost importance that the new Children’s Services Section should command child care expertise, or social work expertise, of a high order. A senior qualified social worker with expertise in child care should be recruited to the section; if that is not possible expert personnel from Ireland or abroad should be retained as consultants, at least in the short term.

4.209The initial response by the Department of Education to the suggestion from CARE and others that one Minister and one Department be responsible for children’s service was:

There does seem to be logic in the recommendations in question. So far as this Department is concerned, this shows itself primarily in relation to the Residential Homes (formerly Industrial Schools) which now, with one or two exceptions, send all their children to school in the neighbouring national and post-primary schools and whose functions of caring for children seem most appropriately the administrative responsibility of a Welfare or Health Authority. In the case of the Special Schools (formerly Reformatory Schools), the residential and care function and the educational function are inextricably intertwined and it is difficult to see how they could be suitably separated.

4.210The note also observed that at the time of writing the Department of Health had not yet given their considered views on this recommendation, but that the Department of Education understood that while the Department of Health saw the merits of the case, the ‘Department felt itself to have so many commitments at the present time that it did not welcome the financial and personnel problem which would be attached to taking over a complex block of work’. In the Department of Health, Clandillon drafted a discussion document in late 1972, outlining the recommendations of both the Committee on the Reformatory and Industrial Schools System and the CARE memorandum. She noted that while the recommendations of the CARE memorandum ‘differ in some resects from those in the Kennedy Report, …basically it is a re-hash of the Kennedy recommendations’. In particular Clandillon noted that both reports recommended:

(a)that the Reformatory at Daingean and the Remand Home in Marlborough House should be replaced and that the present institutional system of residential care should be replaced by groups homes which would approximate as closely as possible the normal family unit;

(b)that an independent statutory board should be established. The Kennedy Report visualised this largely as an advisory board but interested in the promotion of child care. The CARE memorandum went further and visualised it as providing services directly and concerned with questions of planning, finance, organisation and personnel, and with responsibility for all residential establishments, for adoption and for preventative services.

(c)administrative responsibility for all aspects of child care should be transferred to the Department of Health. The Department would cater for all aspects of child care – prevention, boarding-out, remand, admission and committal to residential care, after-care and adoption.

4.211In relation to the recommendation that responsibility for all childcare services be transferred to the Department of Health, Clandillon noted some potential difficulties. She argued that the Department should not have responsibility for certain aspects of the childcare system, in particular, the juvenile liaison scheme, the juvenile courts, the adoption service or the probation service. She noted:

The concept of one Department having responsibility sounds …take over everything which could affect the welfare of children. Included would be family income maintenance, housing, employment and education. It would not, for instance, be feasible for a Minister for Health to have special responsibility regarding the type and amount of education which would be provided for children in poor areas. It is suggested that it has to be accepted that different Ministers must have responsibilities in the field of child care and that our efforts must be devoted to seeing –

(a) what is the most rational distribution of responsibilities,

(b) how can co-ordination best be achieved and how can we ensure that an overall view of the problem is taken.

On the distribution of services the main things in which it has been suggested that this Department should have responsibility are –

(a) adoption, the probation service, and the juvenile liaison service – all at present administered by the Department of Justice;

(b) relations with the juvenile courts;

In regard to adoption, the Reports do not offer persuasive arguments why this should be transferred to the Department of Health other than the fact that is an important aspect of child care and is a substitute form of care. The Department of Justice has not taken an official line on this matter but officers of that Department with whom the matter was discussed feel that there is no reason why it should be transferred. They have built up a certain amount of expertise and they have established relations with the various bodies dealing with adoption. They agreed that close co-operation and co-ordination between the Adoption Board and Health Boards are important. It must be remembered that the Adoption Board is an independent statutory body. I do not think that the taking over of the Adoption Board by this Department would lead to any substantial improvements although there is a theoretical justification for taking it over. In regard to probation, the officers of the Department of Justice felt that this service is closely linked with the Gardaí, the Courts and the prisons. It deals with both juvenile and adult offenders. They have 40 officers employed at present and it is intended to increase this number to 70. I do not think the taking over of this service is desirable. If we took it over we would have to establish close liaison with the adult service, with the prisons, the Gardaí, and the Courts and the position would probably be more complicated than it is at present. It is agreed that co-operation between the existing service and the Health Board service is very desirable. In regard to the juvenile liaison service, this is a system under which selected members of the Gardaí talk to young offenders and their parents and frequently, by advice and persuasion, succeed in stopping delinquency. This is a scheme operated by the Gardaí and I do not think it would desirable that this Department should take it over. I do not think it would be desirable that we should attempt to deal with the Courts. The problems of juvenile offenders are intimately linked with the whole problem of the operation of the Courts, the probation service, the work of the Gardaí and the criminal law. I see no advantage in our trying to accept responsibilities for one portion. The need for co-ordination with the various other interests involved would probably leave the position worse than it is at present.

4.212On the question of responsibility for reformatories and remand homes, Clandillon was of the view that:

It is not easy to make a firm recommendation in regard to which Department should have responsibilities for the reformatories and remand homes. The attitude of the Department of Education is that the residential and educational aspects of the care given in these centres cannot be divorced and that special teaching related to the deficiencies of the children is a vital element. There is a considerable amount in these views. On the other hand, the Department of Education has very limited responsibilities regarding the running of institutions. It is agreed that an input from the Health side is essential but whether this health aspect should outweigh the educational aspect is not easy to decide. If there is co-operation it seems to me that there is no great need for the transfer of these centres to this Department. There is, however, a particular factor which has to be borne in mind. There seems little doubt that there will be pressure in the coming years for a special security unit to deal with disturbed and aggressive children and those who tend to escape. We already have a proposal to provide a special unit at Dundrum but this is intended for mentally ill and severely emotionally disturbed children. There is a tendency for voluntary bodies to be selective and to pass on to somebody else those who create too much trouble. If we provide a special unit there is going to be considerable pressure on us to take anyone who causes any trouble and I could see considerable differences of opinion between us and Education. My feeling is that if Education want to keep the special schools we should agree, but that we should insist that they take the rough with the smooth and operate a special security unit as well as the normal centres where strict security is not a feature.

4.213In relation to Residential Homes, Clandillon noted the increase in the number of children placed by health boards and that the Department of Education ‘seem prepared to agree that these homes should be transferred to the Department of Health but the Parliamentary Secretary seems to have some misgivings and reservations. Again these places could be operated by either Department provided there is co-operation and liaison on balance, however, I think it would be more logical that they should be under the control of this Department.’ The recommendations outlined by Clandillon, as she acknowledged:

leave things as they are and may seem to suggest that there was no justification for the Reports. This is not so. A lot has happened since the reports were issued. On the Department of Justice side the welfare services have been expanded enormously and there are plans for further expansion. On the education side, Marlborough House has gone, Daingean is on the way out and new centres have been provided at Finglas and considerable improvements in the residential centres have been made. On our side we are developing our welfare services and we visualise a far greater development under the proposed Departmental re-organisation. On co-ordination, we could probably achieve this by regular meetings between ourselves, Justice and Education….Over and above all this is the question of new legislation…A possible solution would be for each Department to deal with its own bit of the legislation, but the various provisions are so inter-linked I think a comprehensive Act is essential. Instead, therefore, of simple liaison between the Departments of Health, Education and Justice, I would suggest the establishment of an advisory Council which would contain representatives of those Departments. It could be given as one of its first tasks the preparation of proposals for legislation. The Council should be appointed by the Minister for Health and it should report to him and he would take a lead role in the whole field. This, of course, will involve him in dealing with what will be a complicated, and possibly controversial, Bill. All this will be a futile exercise unless we have the staff and funds to deal with the problems which will arise.

Management of Residential Homes

4.214An emerging issue for both the Department of Education and the Department of Health was the future management of children’s Residential Homes. In an undated memo, but probably late 1972, relating to the closure of Letterfrack Industrial School and its possible replacement by a school in Dublin, the future role of religious Congregations in managing Residential Homes was discussed by the Department of Education:

The Christian Brothers, who conduct Letterfrack Special School for delinquent boys, have informed the Runai that they propose to phase out the school and have offered lands at Swords, Co. Dublin for a new school in replacement….It doesn’t automatically follow that because Letterfrack is to be closed it must immediately be replaced. A replacement school will cost something of the order of £300,000 to £400,000. The new schools at Finglas and Oberstown will not be fully operative until early 1973 and mid-1973, respectively, and it might be suggested that it will take some time before the impact of these new schools on the delinquency problem is clear. Moreover, opinion generally at the moment is against residential measures to cope with delinquency except as a last resort. As against this, if a replacement for Letterfrack is in fact needed, delay could result in a serious position for the Courts on the closure of Letterfrack. The Department of Justice strongly believes a replacement is needed. Growing urbanisation is likely to lead to an increase in the delinquency problem. While there is a certain overlap between Finglas and Letterfrack, the latter caters for a type of boy requiring a longer stay than is provided for in Finglas. Much of the opposition to residential institutions is misinformed: full development of welfare services will still have a residue of boys who cannot be effectively provided for except on a residential basis.

4.215It was also noted that:

Incidentally, while the Christian Brothers would operate the school in Swords, the land would be bought from them by the Department. This was done in Oberstown where the Oblates got the full market price from the State: there is no indication the Brothers would sell the property at Swords to the State for less than market value.

4.216In considering future arrangements, the memo noted the arrangement in the newly opened centre in Finglas where ‘the religious order administers the school on behalf of the Department. A management committee representative of the State, the order and independent lay people supervise the general operation of the school and the day-to-day running is undertaken by the religious Director who is legally manager. A similar arrangement will operate in Oberstown.’

4.217However, the memo highlighted that a number of difficulties had manifested themselves in this arrangement, in particular:

(1)With all schools conducted by religious orders, lay teachers and lay housemasters, who will form the bulk of staff, will have practically no promotional outlets. This applies particularly to the new service of house master which will be almost entirely confined to the four schools of this type.

(2)The decline in vocations and the pressure on the resources of religious orders are resulting in a position in Finglas and Oberstown where the orders concerned have a major say in the control and running of institutions owned, built and financed entirely by the State and staffed largely by lay people.

(3)The religious working in these schools are assigned by their orders without consultation with the Department. In view of the degree of the Department’s involvement with the schools, some of our recent experiences in relation to the assignment of personnel by the orders have been unsatisfactory.²¹²

(4)The orders concerned do not specialise in education with the disadvantaged and there are tendencies to transfer talented personnel to other fields in which an order may have wider commitments.

(5)Past experience engenders definite reservations on the suitability of the Christian Brothers in particular to conduct residential schools.’

4.218In considering the establishment of a school under lay administration, the memo notes:—

The objection to a proposal of this nature would be the fact that it would be a State school in the straightforward meaning of that term and, secondly, that the Christian Brothers could read into such an action wider implications for the State’s attitude to their place in Irish education generally. The management arrangements could accommodate the first of these objections to some extent and the second would be a matter of discretion in the approach to the Brothers. The proposal would also entail an approach to the Archbishop of Dublin and would not be feasible unless a site other than the Swords site were available. A further objection is that, with a religious order administering an institution, the Department escapes a certain kind of public criticism in relation to its day-to-day running. On the other hand, a new kind of criticism is developing in having all educational institutions conducted by orders and we have lately had raised with us the question of provision for Protestant children whose numbers are too small to warrant a special school.

4.219As the Department of Education was grappling with the management of reformatory and industrial schools, concern was expressed in the Department of Health in relation to the increase in the number of private orphanages, who because of rising costs, were seeking approval to allow health board children to be maintained by them. In a memo dated March 1973, it noted institutions seeking such approval in recent years included:

St. Saviour’s Boys Home, Dominick Street; Mrs. Smyly’s Homes; Nazareth Home, Fahan; Extensions to Kill O’ The Grange Convent; Sacred Heart Home for Girls, Drumcondra; St. Vincent’s, Glasnevin. As a result, Health Boards, in some cases, accepted maintenance of children already in these homes, e.g. Kirwan House, although when possible they examined the possibility of boarding these children out with relatives. Mrs. Smyly’s Homes, another Protestant orphanage, which includes a nursery from which children may be placed for adoption, had on 29.09.1972, 29 children being paid by Health Boards. Two other Protestant Homes had 15 H.A. children between them. These figures show an increasing reliance on Health Boards of private Protestant orphanages, which in former years were able to manage an income from investment and private subscriptions. Because we have recognised the value of such orphanages as Kill O’ the Grange Convent and St. Joseph’s Tivoli Road, we have in recent years approved of grants by the Eastern Health Board to assist in extending and improving them. We are particularly aware of these places because they assist and encourage the children to train for careers and keep in touch with them in after years. The Eastern Health Board which accepts a large number of children into care has difficulty in finding sufficient suitable foster homes. We encouraged St. Vincent’s Glasnevin to seek approval for the purposes of section 55. As you will recall this orphanage was not keen to seek approval. It has a high standard of teaching and results, and was afraid that the acceptance of Health Act children would lower its standards. Ten Health Act children, nine of them from Dublin, were being maintained there on 30.09.1972.

4.220Part of the reason for the increase in the numbers of children admitted to residential care was:

…that there are many children that health authorities cannot place in foster homes or for adoption, e.g. lack of parent’s consent, or some physical or mental deficiency. As you know, in spite of constant reminders to health authorities and representations by the Department’s Inspectors in respect of individual children, the number of children maintained by health authorities in institutions continues to grow.

4.221Later that month, a circular was issued to the health boards, which stated:

Having regard to Article 4 of the Boarding Out of Regulations 1954, the Minister notes with concern that over the past few years in some areas the numbers of children placed by Health Boards in institutions has showed a marked increase. He is aware that this may be due to a tendency on the part of health boards to accept into care children who at one time would not be regarded as eligible for such services. It appears nevertheless that in some areas the policy of not providing care for such children other than in an institution is not strictly observed. This may be due to difficulties encountered in finding suitable foster homes. Care should be taken to insert regularly in the public press advertisements seeking such homes. No doubt health board personnel with direct responsibility for children in care will be aware of families suitable to rear such children and should be of assistance in bringing to the notice of such families the health board’s advertisements. Health Boards do not have to be reminded of he present high cost of maintaining a child in an institution. In light of recent increases in the cost of living they should review upwards the maintenance rates payable to foster parents as well as clothing allowances.

Implementing Kennedy

4.222On 18th May 1973, a draft memo for Government on the Kennedy Report was circulated in the Department of Education. The memo focused primarily on the issues of administrative responsibilities and the updating of legislation. The memo signalled that the Department of Education concurred with the recommendation of the Committee that ‘administrative responsibility for all aspects of child care should be transferred to the Department of Health. Responsibility for the education of children in care should remain with the Department of Education.’ However, this could not happen immediately as ‘the extensive measures of re-organisation and development which are currently engaging the attention of the Department of Health and the health authorities are unlikely to enable a transfer to take place without risk of some loss of efficiency.’

4.223On this basis, the Department of Education proposed:

(a)that administrative responsibility for the appropriate institutions remain with the Department of Education for the time being;

(b)that the Department of Education take over, again for the interim period, the administration of similar institutions which, by reason of the fact that they do not accept children through the Courts, are at present under the Department of Health ;

(c)that the Department of Health retain responsibility for boarding-out children;

(d)that the planning of the development of facilities for the institutions and children in question be jointly undertaken by the two Departments in an inter-departmental committee under the direction of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and which would include also representation from the Department of Justice;

(e)that the Department of Health arrange with the local health authorities, and through the inter-departmental committee, to place at the disposal of the schools the necessary psychological, psychiatric, medical and social worker service.

4.224In relation to the recommendation in the Report that ‘all laws relating to child care should be examined, brought up-to-date and incorporated into a composite Children Act’, the memo outlined that:

pending provision of the new institutional arrangements which new legislation would embody, the exact outline of new legislation could not be anticipated. Moreover, it was difficult to see what direction new legislation should take in the absence of a decision in regard to administrative responsibility… The Minister therefore proposes that an inter-departmental committee be set up under the direction of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and comprising representatives of the Departments of Education, Health and Justice and of the Attorney general to examine the present framework of laws relating to children, to consider the amendments, deletions and additions demanded in these laws by present-day circumstances and policies, to make recommendations and to prepare for submission to the Government the heads of a Bill embodying their recommendations.’

4.225In addition, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Mr John Bruton outlined his views in a memo to the Minister. Noting the recommendation of both the Kennedy Committee and the CARE memorandum that responsibility for Residential Homes be vested in the Department of Health, he argued: ‘unlike the Department of Education, the Department of Health does not at this time have a staff with experience or competence in dealing with residential child care’. He also argued that:

the multiplicity of agencies dealing with individual families and the lack of longterm overall planning – will not be solved by a simple transfer of Departmental responsibility for Residential Homes and Special Schools. Nor will it be solved by the setting up of a mere outside advisory body as proposed by CARE. It requires the establishment of more efficient means for co-ordination between Departments in dealing with both individual cases and overall policy.

4.226In relation to this overall policy, he proposed that:

an interdepartmental committee should be set up with representation from the Departments of Health, Education, Justice, Finance and the Attorney General. This Committee should draft a new Children’s Act, prepare proposals for the long-term financing of Child Care Services and establish permanent consultation procedures between Departments in relation to policy. A transfer of responsibility will require legislation anyway and thus would properly form part of the new Children’s Act which should be prepared by he inter-departmental committee suggested in the last paragraph.

4.227Mr Bruton met with the Association of Workers for Children in Care (AWCC)²¹³ on 4th July 1973 and sought their views on the transfer of residential childcare services to the Department of Health. Fr Gormley, on behalf of the organisation stated:

that the administration of child care services by one Department would greatly facilitate the work, and the AWCC had stated this in its response to the Kennedy report. However, it was not for the Association to say which Department could best provide the services that were needed. As far as the Association was concerned, it was the quality of the administration and the back-up services which counted. The real problems facing workers in the Homes were often haphazard method referral, the lack of assessment facilities in many areas, inadequate finance, the lack of ongoing support for children after they have left care. The Association saw the need for a Family Welfare Department which would co-ordinate the work and generate the various services which were needed.

4.228The Department of Health also drafted a memo for Government outlining their views on the situation, particular the need for decisions to be made on matters arising from both the Kennedy Report and the CARE memorandum and noting that ‘while the recommendations in the two reports differ in some respects basically CARE reiterated the recommendations in the earlier Kennedy Report’. The memo acknowledged that progress had been achieved in realising some of the recommendations of the Reports, ‘but there are two major areas which have not been dealt with – the recommendations regarding the administration of services and the need for comprehensive examination and up-dating of legislation in relation to child care’. the memo outlined that responsibility for the probation services, the juvenile liaison scheme and the children’s courts should be retained by the Department of Justice rather than being transferred to Health as recommended in the Kennedy Report. The memo argued that Government should accept in principle that adoption services should be transferred from the Department of Justice to the Department of Health, but that ‘further consideration should be given to the question when the transfer should take place’. On the issue of residential care, in relation to the reformatory schools and remand homes, the memo noted that:

a view has been put forward that the residential and educational aspects of care given in these centres cannot be divorced and that special teaching related to the deficiencies of the children is a vital element; this is a cogent argument as there is no doubt that education must be a major element no matter what Minister is responsible for the centres. However, while there may be little, if any, health or welfare content in the case of a number of residents their initial medical and social assessment would be an essential element. Furthermore, the Department of Health has wide experience in the running of institutions and many of the problems which would arise in regard to the centres would be similar to those arising in other residential centres. The making of arrangements for more specialised care would be facilitated if one authority had responsibility for all centres. Again, there is a large educational element in mental handicap institutions – the Department of Education providing the necessary education works well. There is great need to build up expertise in the sphere of delinquent, aggressive and seriously disturbed behaviour and this almost certainly must be done on the health side. In the circumstances, the balance of argument appears to suggest that the Department of Health should take over responsibility for these centres.

4.229In relation to industrial schools, the memo argued that as these homes contained ‘an increasing proportion of children sent by Health Boards and which can be regarded, to a considerable extent, as part of a family care service’, that responsibility for the homes should be transferred to the Department of Health and that the ‘Health Boards have the necessary staff expertise etc. to ensure the best possible care for children in these homes’.

4.230An Inter-Departmental Working Party, along the lines suggested by Education, was established, but difficulties were evident within the Department of Education in making progress in implementing the recommendations of the Report and on maintaining their day-to-day obligations in relation to Residential Homes, in particular, their inspectorial work. On 29th November 1973, Mr Ó Maitiú highlighted that the post of Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools had in effect been downgraded from an assistant principal officer to that of a higher executive officer (HEO). However, ‘because of the work involved in implementing the Kennedy Report these arrangements have proved entirely inadequate. The Report has involved the recasting of the system from top to bottom and involves work of very high quality. The HEO has not found it possible to carry out his executive duties as officer in charge of the section and, at the same time perform his statutory duties as Inspector. The inspectorial work has suffered.’ Mr Ó Maitiú noted that the Kennedy Report had recommended that ‘approximately five or six Inspectors would be required to operate a proper inspectorate’. Mr Ó Maitiú stated:

This is a formidable indictment of the official attitude to the inspection of the homes and of the indifferent approach to the staffing of the Inspector post. Three years later the position, if anything, has worsened. Far from five or six Inspectors being appointed, there is now not even one Inspector fully on the job. Furthermore, the H.E.O. can only carry out an administrative inspection – he has no qualifications otherwise. He has not even the help of a Medical Inspector as this post has not been filled for some years. The situation is now arising where the personnel of the Schools is obtaining child-care qualifications (as a result of courses conducted on behalf of the Department), whereas the Department itself has no inspector qualified in this field. There is an urgent need now for an Inspector with suitable qualifications who will supervise the implementation of the Kennedy Report in the Schools and homes and advise and council staff, co-ordinate arrangements with Health boards and Courts, ensure that medical services etc. are provided, that children are securing the education best suited to their needs and aptitudes, that after-care is receiving proper attention.²¹⁴

4.231In addition, he noted that:

the Kennedy Report also recommended that the Children Act 1908 and other relevant legislation be up-dated in a new composite Children’s Act. This has not yet been tackled – it was decided to wait until the outline of the new institutional and other services had emerged more clearly. However, considerable public pressure is now being exercised, as the existing legislation is entirely inappropriate to modern conditions.

4.232A fortnight earlier, the Kennedy Report was debated in the Seanad, the first time the report was debated in either House. The Parliamentary Secretary at the Department of Education, Mr Bruton, outlined the progress on implementing the recommendations of the Report, but observed ‘to date there has been a certain amount of secretiveness in the approach of my Department and also of other Departments to this important subject. This was particularly marked during the tenure of office of the previous Government.’ On the issue of Departmental responsibility for child welfare services, he argued:

No matter where we draw the line as between one Department and the other, no matter where we lay the main responsibility, there will always be frayed edges, there will always be areas where demarcation will be unclear. Even within the terms of the Kennedy and CARE recommendations the Department of Education would retain responsibility for general education, for school psychological and child guidance service, for school attendance, for youth service, for remedial education, for education of the mentally handicapped and so on. All these are matters which bear very significantly on the life of the child in care and indeed on national policy in relation to children in care. To take another example, the Kennedy proposal that in the case of special schools one Department should have responsibility for the residential aspect of the special schools and another for the educational aspects, would introduce a duality of responsibility where in fact at the moment unity exists. It may be that the problem it is sought to solve, namely, the lack of co-ordination in overall policy-making and in dealing with the cases of individual children, can best be dealt with by more formalised contact between the various authorities at national, regional and local level rather than by shifting responsibilities around from one Minister to another.²¹⁵

Inter-departmental Working Party on the Kennedy Report

4.233In February 1974 an Inter-departmental working party was established to ‘review the extent to which the Kennedy Report has been implemented and to indicate the areas which still await implementation’ and that the Working Party ‘would form a briefing for a group to be set up to recommend action, including legislative action, which should be taken in regard to improvements in the field of childcare’. The Working Party systematically reviewed each of the recommendations in the report.

4.234Recommendation No 1 stated that ‘the whole aim of the child-care system should be geared towards the prevention of family breakdown and the problems consequent on it; the admission of children to residential care to be considered only when there was no satisfactory alternative’. The Working Party found that while it was not possible to compare the number of children in care in late 1973 with the position that existed at the time of the Kennedy Committee were reporting, in broad terms the number of children in Reformatory and Industrial schools had declined from 2,202 in 1969 to 1,495 in December 1973. It also noted that for Departmental purposes, Industrial Schools were now referred to as Residential Homes and Reformatory Schools referred to as Special Schools, although for legal purposes, they would retain their original designations. The decline in the number of children in Industrial Schools, the Working Party suggested, was due to a greater reluctance by the courts to commit children because of a lack of proper guardianship was a contributory factor in addition to ‘improved living standards generally and the continuing impact of the Adoption Act 1952, and of Department of Health policy favouring boarding-out as opposed to residential care.’ In relation to the Reformatory Schools, the introduction of the juvenile liaison scheme in the early 1960s²¹⁶ and a much expanded Probation and Welfare Service²¹⁷ helped divert many young people from having to be committed.

4.235In relation to the two other forms of residential care for children, homes approved by the Minister for Health under section 55 of the Health Act 1953 and voluntary homes which had not applied for approval, the Working party noted that ‘Information is not to hand however of the numbers of children in these institutions other than those placed by the health authorities not of numbers in voluntary homes which had not applied for approval. This makes it impossible on available data to state the present over-all position in relation to the numbers in residential care.’ They also noted that the numbers of children boarded-out had declined. This they suggested ‘may be due to increased utilization of adoption and a reduction, because of higher living standards and improved services, the numbers of families who are inadequate to the point where arrangements away from the family home have to be made for the children’. In relation to the question of improved services, the Working Party noted that ‘there are at present 50 social workers employed by the health boards together with 60 social workers employed by voluntary agencies providing services on behalf of health boards’ and that ‘The Minister for Health has stated his desire to have the numbers of professionally trained social workers engaged in community work substantially increased and to this end he has arranged with the two Dublin university colleges to provide 27 places this year on professional social work courses for sponsorship by health boards.’

4.236Recommendation No 2 of the Kennedy Report urged that the institutional system of residential care should be abolished to be replaced by group homes. The Working Party highlighted that over half the homes were in the process of adopting a group structure, this was done in three ways with the aid of grants from the Department of Education: (1) by erecting new purpose built group homes; (2) by purchasing private houses for adaptation as group homes; (3) by converting existing buildings to the group home system. The Working Party noted that the ‘general tenor of the report appears to envisage the present system of large institutional buildings being replaced by self-contained units for 7 to 9 children each, these units to be conducted by houseparents and approximating as closely as possible the normal family unit. This would seem to entail a radical reorganization of the residential care system, as it appears to imply numbers of small, independent units.’

4.237Recommendation No 3 drew attention to the inadequacy of the reformatory system, and in particular it said that St Conleth’s Reformatory, Daingean, should be closed and replaced by a more suitable building with trained childcare staff. The Working Party recorded that St Conleth’s closed in October 1973, and was been replaced by Scoil Ard Mhuire, in Lusk, County Dublin. The Industrial School at Letterfrack, treated in the Kennedy Report as a junior Reformatory, closed on 30th June 1974. The Working Party noted that:

Some controversy has surrounded the question of the provision of custodial accommodation in the new special schools. The Kennedy Report recommended that the schools be open but that each should have a secure wing. The religious who conduct the schools do not feel it appropriate that they should administer closed units. Pending experience of the working of the schools and having regard to practical problems, special arrangements for closed custody have not been made. There appears to be a small minority of sociopathic offenders who cannot be contained in a special school and who require treatment in a closed psychiatric unit. Proposals are at present being examined in the Department of Health for such a unit at Dundrum. It is possible that the presence of this small but destructive group and the fact that suitable provision has not as yet been made for them is influencing attitudes in relation to some secure provision in the special schools. If adequate special arrangements were made for this sociopathic group, it would help clarify this latter issue and it is possible that this would indicate that secure provision at the special schools would be needed for persistent absconders.

4.238Recommendation No 4 related to the replacement of the remand home and place of detention at Marlborough House, Glasnevin and the Working Party noted that Marlborough House closed on 1st August 1972²¹⁸ and was replaced by the Finglas children’s centre, which opened in January 1972, although the remand unit did not open until August 1973.²¹⁹ The Working Party acknowledged that the detention function of Marlborough House was ‘purely punitive and of no educational or rehabilitative value’ whereas the new Centre in Finglas provided special education of up to 12 months for those committed, in a addition to a designated assessment facility.²²⁰ Again, the Working Group remarked that:

There is a special problem at present in relation to a small number of unruly boys (probably less than 12 in number) aged between 14 and 16 years. Their physical development makes it difficult to cater for them, in view of their conduct, in the remand unit and they cannot legally be taken in St. Patrick’s Institution unless they are 16. Under the present law, paradoxically, they may be committed to prison if they are at least 15 years of age and if a court certifies that they are unruly. In the case of those between 14 and 15 years of age, there is at present no provision.

4.239Recommendation No 5 was to the effect that the staff engaged in childcare work should be fully trained. The Kennedy Committee said that this should take precedence over any other recommendations. In response to this recommendation, the Working Party noted that a full-time residential course in childcare, financed by the Department of Education, was established at the School of Social Education, Kilkenny in 1971 and to date 41 students had successfully qualified. The Department of Education also promoted the organisation of in-service training courses at St Patrick’s Training College, Drumcondra; St Vincent’s, Goldenbridge; the Waterford Regional College of Technology, and Saint Mary’s College, Cathal Brugha Street. The Working Group compared the numbers in child care training in 1969 and 1973 and while the number with full child-care training increased from 4 to 26, the numbers with no training also increased from 27 to 60.

4.240Recommendation No 6 dealt with the question of educating children in care ‘to the ultimate of their capacities’. The Working Party reported that, with the exception of two schools, the children in the remaining Residential Homes attend primary and secondary schools, and the grants system has been revised so that children in care can be paid for by the State while they complete their education, up to third level as appropriate. It noted that ‘Grants on this basis are at present being paid in respect of 70 such children.’

4.241Recommendation No 7 stated that after-care should form an integral part of the childcare system. In the case of the Residential Homes after-care is primarily the function of the Manager of the home, but the Working Party noted that the Kennedy Report did not consider this adequate. However, they also noted that the decline in the number of children in care has meant that it is easier for the homes themselves to keep contact with the children after they leave. Although the number of children in residential care was in decline, they argued that the children entering residential care tended, not, as in the past, to be illegitimate or orphaned, but were in residential care ‘because their families have been inadequate for the task of caring for them’. On that basis, they concluded that ‘until the expanding social work service of the regional health boards have developed beyond their present point of growth, it will not be possible to make fully satisfactory aftercare arrangements for those children including support for their families.’ In relation to the special schools, the Working Party noted:

arrangements have been made for the provision of after-care in the form of supportive supervision through the Welfare Service of the Department of Justice. Three ‘half-way houses’ run by voluntary community groups and affiliated to the Welfare Service provide for approximately 30 boys aged 14 to 17 years and there are proposals for opening three further such houses. In addition, arrangements have been made for after-care by the Welfare Service of the Department of Justice to be extended to boys on their release from special schools.

4.242Recommendation No 8 urged that administrative responsibility for all aspects of childcare be transferred to the Department of Health with responsibility for the education of children in care to remain with the Department of Education. The Working Party reported that:

While this matter has formed the subject of some inter-departmental discussions, no decision has yet been taken in this matter. Legislation would be required to carry this recommendation into effect. Pending such action, this recommendation has promoted increased liaison between the different Departments concerned and regular meetings are held between officers of the Departments in question.

4.243Recommendation No 9 dealt with the updating of all laws related to childcare into a proposed composite Children Act and Recommendation No 10 involved the raising of the age of criminal responsibility from 7 to 12 years. The Working Party recorded these recommendations had not yet been implemented.

4.244Recommendation No 11 was to the effect that the Special Schools and Residential Homes should be paid on a budget system rather than by capitation grant. The Working Party reported that the new Special Schools at Finglas and Lusk were being paid in this way and arrangements were in train for this arrangement to be applied to the other Special Schools. However, they noted:

No firm steps have yet been taken to put the recommendation into effect in the 26 residential homes. In the first place, while the homes continue to be the responsibility of the Department of Education there would be practical administrative problems entailed in the direct supervision by the Department of the detailed budgets of so many individual homes. Secondly, transfer to a budget system would require that prior agreement be reached at least on staff structures (numbers, grades, qualifications, remuneration). The matter is at present being approached from two directions. Firstly, the Association of Workers in Child Care (AWCC), representing the management of residential homes and special schools, has been asked to provide information in relation to actual costs of running homes. This will then be submitted to cost analysis with a view to considering the structure and financial implications of a possible budgetary basis of payment. The second approach is indirectly through the discussions on training referred to at the end of the notes on recommendation 5 above. Training requirements have consequences for career structures which in turn involve pay rates etc. Meanwhile, attention is being given to the maintenance as far as possible of the real value in money terms of the capitation grant. The rate of grant which had been doubled in 1969 was increased by 20 percent in 1972, by a further 10 percent in 1973 and approval is being sought for a further increase in 1974 which would bring the total increase since 1969 to 50 percent.

4.245Recommendation No 12 was that an independent advisory body be established at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the highest standards of childcare are attained and maintained and the Working Party noted that ‘this had not yet been done pending the determination of the matter of administrative responsibility’.

4.246Recommendation No 13 called attention to the need for continuous research in the field of childcare and the Working Party noted that ‘there is at present no research being done by Government Departments (as distinct from what may be in progress in University Departments)’.

4.247In relation to other recommendations contained in the Report, the Working Party reported:

Under the recent re-organisation of the Department of Health, a Welfare Division has been established which has responsibility for general welfare services including child care. There is a Children’s Inspector attached to this division and one of the aims stated by the Minister is to orientate the welfare services towards the family.

4.248The Group also reviewed the existing legislative provisions relating the major recommendations of the report, and noted:

The laws concerned are chiefly the Children Acts (1908, 1934, 1941, 1949 and 1957), the Health Act, 1953, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904. The Criminal Justice Act, 1960 and the prisons Act, 1970, relate to St. Patrick’s Institution. The Courts of Justice Act, 1924, governs the court procedures and probation is provided for in the probation of Offenders Act, 1907. Other existing legislation which may be considered relevant is the Adoption Acts, 1952 and 1964, and the School Attendance Acts, 1926 and 1967 – in particular, in the case of the 1926 Act, the power of the district court to send a child to an industrial school. No statutory amendments have been made in regard to the legal recommendations on p.78 of the report.

4.249The Working Party concluded their review by noting that the Kennedy Report, as its title suggested, was primarily concerned with the Reformatory and Industrial Schools system and did not contain a comprehensive overview of all aspects of childcare. On that basis, they recommended establishing a group, who would have access to civil service and outside experts, to consider and make recommendations in regard to:

(1)the identification of children at risk and the requirements by way of preventive measures;

(2)the assessment of children at risk;

(3)the court system and the adequacy of methods of disposition (including boarding-out or fosterage and residential care);

(4)standards of child care in regard to education, trained staff, specialist services, buildings and equipment, etc.;

(5)provisions as to after-care, employment, etc.

4.250They further recommended that:

In order that there be no undue delay, it should be possible for the group to consider more than one of the areas simultaneously and to make interim reports’. In addition, ‘It is essential that adequate, full-time secretarial services be available to the group….and recommendations by the group should be accompanied by (a) draft heads of legislation where appropriate (b) estimates of cost where possible.²²¹

4.251In addition to the review of the recommendations of the Kennedy Report by the Government Departments with varying levels of responsibility for residential childcare, the Association of Workers for Children in Care (AWCC) and CARE, also conducted their own review of the degree to which the recommendations had been implemented. The AWCC made the following commentary based on a survey of 1,215 children in 25 Residential Homes:

It is clear that family breakdown accounts for an increasing number of children coming into care. These children, in the main, are coming from disturbed family backgrounds and have to suffer the further traumatic experience of separation from their families, however inadequate. They are children with problems. They are in need of therapy and treatment in a relaxed, accepting situation. They need help exploring their own feelings towards themselves, their peers and their own family. The Kennedy Committee did not pay sufficient attention to the increasing incidence of disturbed children in residential care, and the implications of this for future planning. ….The group home model envisaged by Kennedy is suited to the long stay care of more or less normal children, and does not provide for the majority now in need of care, the children with problems.²²²

4.252They also argued that:

..some form of closed facility for boys who cannot or will not avail of the programmes offered in St. Laurences’s or Ard Mhuire is necessary. If children persistently abscond from both centres, they are eventually left at large in the community, often living rough and deteriorating both physically and socially. Young offenders have a very good understanding of the loopholes in the present legal system, and realise that if they are persistent enough they can escape the law.²²³

4.253However, the core concern for the AWCC was that:

there is as yet no salary scale or career structure available for child care workers. Despite protracted negotiations between the AWCC and the Department of Education, the Department has not yet accepted the principle that such a scale and structure should be established on a national basis. The present position is that the salaries of the 26 Residential Homes must be paid by the managers of these homes from the capitation grant provided by the Department. But increases in this grant have barely kept pace with the increase in the cost of living, and have in no way taken account of the radical restructuring of these homes in recent years, resulting in a considerable intake of staff, mostly lay. The religious orders managing these homes are placed in the invidious position of not being able to provide lay workers with the adequate salary and security which is their due….The provision of training facilities for child care workers, particularly the diploma course at the Kilkenny School of Social Education, has attracted many more lay people into the work and resulted in improved standards of care and greater professionalism. But elementary justice requires that an adequate salary scale be available to these workers, and in the opinion of the AWCC this salary must be paid by the Department concerned. It cannot be provided from a system of capitation designed for an entirely different staffing structure, composed in the main of members of religious orders who rarely received any formal salary whatsoever.²²⁴

4.254CARE also set out to review the recommendations of the Kennedy Report ‘individually and in sequence’. However, they argued that such an approach:

…was a mistake. A mistake in which the authorities responsible for implementing the Kennedy recommendations were implicated too. In general we would agree with the recommendations of the report, but if they were interpreted exactly and implemented as they stand, we would have created new problems in order to solve existing ones. In the report the overall subject indicated in the committee’s terms of reference is dealt with under various chapter headings, but this division, and the sequence, of the various aspects of the subject are not very systematic or logical. The report lacks coherence, it lacks perspective which would facilitate planning. The need for the overall planning of children’s services is recognised in the report, but the various disparate recommendations do not fit into an overall planning framework. For this reason Government agreement with the various recommendations is insufficient if the Government does not see them as part of a coherent purposeful approach to the problems of deprived children; in short, the Government must be concerned with planning for deprived children.²²⁵

4.255On 17th June 1974, Mr John Bruton, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, wrote to the Minister for Education, Mr Richard Burke, outlining the state of play. In his letter he stated:

while the Working party was originally intended to review progress and indicate gaps in the implementation of the Kennedy Report it has in its introductory statement gone farther and recommended the setting up of another working group. As I read the suggested terms of reference of this new working party it seems as if it would in effect be undertaking the production of another (albeit updated) Kennedy Report. This major undertaking is not demonstrably necessary. The major lines of policy are in fact accepted by all and their main problems are availability of resources, administrative procedures and enabling legislation. I feel that the proposed investigation is too broad and would stifle much needed action pending issue of its findings. It is also unwise in that it involves the handing over to a committee of issues which require more and not less political direction. I suggest that following alternative course of action. In order to provide a firm starting point for action, a decision should be taken now that the administrative responsibilities of each Department will remain as they are at present. To co-ordinate day-to-day implementation of policy an inter-departmental committee (similar to that in operation in relation to handicapped children)…To draw up legislation and consider such wider policy issues as may arise in the context of legislation another higher level; interdepartmental committee should be set up. As the primary task of this committee would be drawing up of substantive legislative proposals it would need to act under continuing political direction. Such continuing political direction would only be feasible if it consisted of public servants.

4.256On the basis of the proposals outlined in the letter, the Department of Education prepared a draft memorandum for Government. In this the Minister for Education outlined his position in respect of the proposal put forward by the Working Party, arguing ‘the modus operandi proposed by the Working party would appear as a recommendation for another (updated) Kennedy Report and would constitute a dilatory and abstract approach to the problem’. It reiterated the recommendation from the Kennedy Report in relation to administrative responsibility for childcare services, also noting that The Care Memorandum recommended ‘having one Minister and one Department have the “main responsibility” for deprived children and children’s services’. The memo went on to state that the CARE Memorandum ‘does not, however, attempt to define what should be the limits of this responsibility of the principal Minister (i.e. the Minister for Health) in relation to the services which would remain with the Ministers for Education and Justice. Moreover, it would seem to take no account of the very important principle that political accountability and administrative responsibility should rest with the same person.’²²⁶

4.257The view of the Department of Education was that:

the laudable purpose which the Kennedy Committee had in mind would be more appropriately achieved by establishing an efficient and politically directed system of co-ordination between the various Departments under which each would continue to play its existing specialist role as embodied in the concepts ‘Care’, ‘Education’ and ‘Justice’. To obtain the full benefits of specialisation, it is possible that services at present administered in one of the Departments for historical reasons might be more properly located in another. In the long-term, a re-arrangement of responsibility for services concerned preponderantly either with ‘education’ or ‘care’ may be necessary as between the Departments of Education and Health. This, for example, might involve the transfer of responsibility for residential homes (the former industrial schools) to the Department of Health. In the short term, however, the Minister for Education considers the present would not be an appropriate time for such a transfer. Many of the services concerned with deprived children are at present in the course of rapid development and the Minister fears that the task of undertaking a transfer of functions at this juncture, with all that this implies in the way of staff re-organisation and re-familiarisation, might retard rather than accelerate the immediate improvement and expansion of services.

4.258To achieve these objectives, the Minister argued that ‘the first task in order of priority, an inter-departmental committee be established to update all legislation relating to child-care and consider such wider policy issues as may arise in the context of such legislation’. He secondly, proposed the establishment of ‘a permanent committee (the ‘operations committee’) to be set up to co-ordinate day-to-day implementation of policy. The Committee would be representative of the Departments of Health, Education and Justice and would, in the first place, be a formalisation of close contacts at present being developed between the three Departments.’ He finally proposed that:

an independent advisory body at national level be set up as recommended in the Kennedy Report except that, at least pending the completion of the work of the legislation committee, the question of its having statutory powers should be postponed. The function of this committee for the time being would be to advise on specific matters referred to them by the legislation or operations committees or by the Government itself.

4.259The draft memo was circulated to various Departments who responded to the proposals outlined. The Attorney General noted that the memo proposed to reject the recommendation of the Kennedy Report, but that he believed ‘that the balance of the argument favours the Kennedy proposals’. The Minister for Public Service:

considered that a decision in principle should now be taken to allocate main responsibility in relation to child care to a single Department; the balance of logic and opinion suggests that the Department chosen should be the Department of Health. The first advantage of such a decision would be to indicate that the Government is committed to an approach based on ‘care’ rather than law enforcement in relation to children at risk and would direct the attention of the proposed inter-Departmental legislation Committee to the need for such an approach in dealing with the reform of legislation relating to children. Secondly, it would place responsibility for co-ordination on an area of Government under a single Minister rather than on a Committee answerable to no single authority: the establishment of a permanent committee to co-ordinate day to day implementation of policy, would, in the Minister’s view, tend to blur lines of responsibility.

4.260In addition, ‘because of the considerable organisation implications involved, a representative from the Department of Public Service should be included on this inter-departmental Committee’.

4.261The Minister for Health argued that the ‘Government’s objective should be to institute, as quickly as possible, a unified comprehensive children’s service, with administrative structures which reflect the needs of the children concerned. A new Children’s Act is required to provide a modern legal framework for the reformed services’. To achieve this, the Minister stated:

that the inter-departmental committee approach, even with the inclusion of outside experts, does not offer the best hope of a speedy review of law and policy in relation to children. Such a committee, because of the other commitments of those concerned, tend to be both slow and cumbersome….the Minister for Health believes that reform proposals can best be instituted by setting up a full-time task force, comprising representatives of the Departments concerned and selected outside experts. In all, he would not envisage more than ten task force members. This group would work directly to the Tanaiste and Minister for Health, and its function would be to prepare a new Children’s Bill and other reform proposals which he would bring to the Cabinet for decision. The task force would remain in existence until such time as the necessary reform proposals are laid before the Cabinet by the Tanaiste. It is envisaged that this should not take longer than 3-4 months, if the group is set up on a full-time basis….The Minister believes that unnecessary delay and confusion in planning will only be avoided if one Minister plays a lead role and he feels that he, as Minister for Health, with responsibility for a wide range of children’s services, should assume this role in planning the necessary reforms.

4.262The Department of Justice foresaw problems with vesting responsibility for children’s services in one Department arguing that such a proposal ignored:

the fundamental point that problems of young persons who come in conflict with the law or who are otherwise at risk cannot reasonably be divorced from problems of family stress; and that amongst factors that are relevant to family stress, such matters as housing and social welfare benefits are likely to be of major importance, so the argument for a ‘single department’ for children should logically lead to the conclusion that the Department should also deal with housing, social welfare benefits, not to mention family law, schools and other matters.

4.263In addition, in relation to matters of legislation,

it is the experience of the Department of Justice, repeated time and again, that attempts to produce ‘comprehensive’ legislation on what are very complex issues invariably not only prove more difficult (and time consuming) than originally estimated because of the number of unforeseen difficulties which the detailed examination throws up but also run up against the additional and important difficulty that a hold-up on one point means that everything is held up; and, in a matter as complex in its implications as this, there are bound to be very controversial points which will not prove possible to deal with quickly.

4.264However, the Minister was in favour of the establishment of the ‘Operations Committee’, but opposed to the establishment of an advisory committee on the grounds that:

it would bring no practical benefit but on the other hand would mean the generation of a constant stream of proposals beyond the capacity of the Government to pay for (and beyond the capacity of available resources to ‘process’ into workable schemes or acceptable legislation even if they were basically acceptable in principle) and that the practical result would be the existence of a Government-sponsored body which was serving only to generate public criticism.

4.265The Department of Education, in reviewing the submissions to the draft memo to Government, noted:

that there is a fairly wide divergence in the course of action proposed by each Department. On the question of administration, Departments of Health, Public Service and Attorney General believe that the main responsibility for planning and provision of child-care services should rest with the Minister for Health. Department of Justice, on the other hand, agree with this Department’s view that this is neither logical nor practicable. None of the ‘one-Department’ supporters have defined precisely what they mean by ‘child-care’ and none in effect have answered the point, that, in the nature of things, both the Departments of Education and Justice must continue to be responsible for many services in relation to children.

4.266The Department of Education therefore suggested that the:

Department of Health proposal that a full-time task force be set up to complete the job in 3 months is unrealistic. The Department of Justice rightly makes the point that this will be a complex and time-consuming task, which will call for controversial decisions. This is confirmed by own experience in making comparatively small amendments to the children’s acts. Current public controversies emphasise how difficult it will to be to produce legislation which will satisfy all shades of opinion in Church and State and meet constitutional requirements.

4.267In light of these difficulties, the Department of Education suggested:

A possible way out of the dilemma might be to set up a small full-time working group or task force controlled by a part-time steering committee representative of the Departments concerned plus outside interests. (This might be something on the lines of the OECD study on Investment in Education where a small team of full-time experts from Departments and Universities worked under the direction of a broadly based steering committee). Since this working group would have to seek advice from outside bodies anyway, it would seem reasonable to postpone the setting up of a formal advisory committee until a later stage.

4.268The Department of Education also considered the possible membership of this task force or working group, suggesting that outside expertise was required from ‘fields such as psychology, psychiatry, social sciences, education’ as well as various organisations with an expertise in the area. On the question of chairmanship of the Committee, Mr Ó Maitiú highlighted that would be ‘a crucial issue’ and outlined that:

We are not prepared to agree to have it operating under the aegis of the Minister of Health and presumably Dept of Health would be opposed to someone from this Dept as chairman. Would it go to sorting the situation if we proposed a chairman independent of all the Departments. Since law revision will be the task of the committee, I suggest that the Chairman should have a legal background – probably a member of the judiciary.

4.269The Parliamentary Secretary in reply stated that he was ‘favourable to outsiders being involved in law preparation if it is on the basis of strict confidentiality of proceedings and non-publication of recommendations. Does something need to be done to ensure this?’

4.270In the memorandum to Government, the Minister for Education noted that having considered the views of other Departments he remained of the view that the approach suggested by the Inter-Departmental Working party was the most appropriate, and while ‘a full-time task force as proposed by the Minister for Health has its merits, he considers that a time-scale of three months or so is unrealistic’. He proposed therefore that:

(1)administrative responsibilities to remain as at present in the short term.

(2)An inter-departmental committee to be established under continuing political direction to up-date all the laws relating to child care and to consider such wider policy issues as may arise in the context of such legislation. This Committee to be authorised to set up working parties, which would include experts from outside the public service, to consider specific proposals.

(3)A permanent inter-departmental committee on operational co-ordination to be set up. This Committee to promote the establishment of local-co-ordinating committees at health board level, starting with County Child Care teams which would review the position in each area,

(4)A national advisory council on child care as recommended in the Kennedy Report.²²⁷

4.271However, the view of the Department of Health prevailed and on 11th October 1974 the Government made a decision to firstly allocate to the Minister for Health the main responsibility, including that of co-ordination, in relation to childcare; and secondly authorised the Minister to set up a working party to report within three months on the necessary updating and reform of childcare legislation and of child care services. On 19th October 1974, Mr Brendan Corish, Tanaiste and Minister for Health and Social Welfare issued the following press release:

Last week the Government decided that I, as Minister for Health, should have the main responsibility for children’s services in the future. I welcome this decision, since the present arrangements whereby responsibility for children’s services is diffused between three Government Departments presents serious obstacles to reform. I intend to begin work immediately in the following areas. I intend to prepare a new Children’s Bill. Simultaneously, I will review and draw up proposals to improve and extend the services available to children. At the same time, it will be necessary to carry through reforms. To help me in this work, I am immediately setting up a full time task force comprising one representative from each of the Departments concerned with children’s services, together with a number of outside experts…Since the group will work on a full-time basis, I expect that my proposals for reform will be ready within a matter of very few months.²²⁸

4.272The Task Force on Child Care Services²²⁹ as it became known, was established with the following terms of reference:

(1) to make recommendations on the extension and improvement of services for deprived children and children at risk;
(2) to prepare a new Children’s Bill, updating and modernising the law in relation to children;

(3) to make recommendations on the administrative reforms which may be necessary to give effect to proposals at (1) and (2) above.²³⁰

4.273However, in relation to the first decision, no guidance as to the extent or nature of the ‘main responsibility’ to be given to the Minister for Health was provided and this was to adversely impact on both Ministerial and Departmental responsibility for different elements of the child welfare and juvenile justice for a further 30 years.

Interdepartmental Committee on Mentally Ill and Maladjusted Persons

4.274Before the decision was taken to establish a Task Force on Child Care Services, in August 1974 the Interdepartmental Committee on Mentally Ill and Maladjusted Persons published two interim reports. The first report was entitled Assessment Services for the Courts in Respect of Juvenile’ and the second The Provision of Treatment for Juvenile Offenders and Potential Juvenile Offenders. In respect of the first interim report, the primary recommendation of the Committee was that:

There should be established, on a permanent basis, an inter-departmental committee to co-ordinate the activities of the Government Departments concerned in relation to children and young persons. Its aim should be to keep the changing needs of the situation under constant review, to advise on any further provisions – remedial, administrative, legislative or otherwise – which it considers, from time to time, to be necessary or desirable in relation to young persons who have come or are likely to come in conflict with the law or who may be in need of psychiatric treatment. It should also have the opportunity of expressing its opinion on the provisions of any projected legislation likely to have an impact on the personal or social well-being of young people.²³¹

4.275The Committee also reported that:

It appears from enquiries made by the Committee that very little accurate information is available in regard to children and juveniles who appear before Irish Courts. In the absence of adequate information about themselves, their social background, the offences with which they are charged and the court decisions, it is very difficult to decide the nature and extent of the facilities requires’ and on this basis recommended the establishment of a ‘suitably staffed research and statistics unit as a matter of urgency.²³²

4.276Crucially, the Committee recommended that children and juveniles should only be referred to a residential unit after a full assessment and that ‘existing legislation should be amended to permit remands to assessment centres for periods of up to 21 days where the court finds that necessary.’²³³ It also recommended the development of additional assessment centres as the Committee noted that the existing centre in Finglas was insufficient to meet the ongoing needs. In their second report the Committee recommended the expansion of the role of welfare officers to provide non-residential services for young offenders. In terms of residential services, the committee recommended the development of small residential homes, an additional Special School to be built for young male offenders, and a closed unit for male offenders and a special residential school for female offenders between the ages of 12 and 17.

Submissions to the Task Force on Child Care Services

4.277After its establishment, the Task Force on Child Care Services sought submissions from interested parties. These submissions provide a useful snapshot of the views of various interest groups in the mid-1970s. In their submission to the Task Force on Child Care Services the Irish Association of Social Workers²³⁴, in relation to foster care argued that:

There should be a recruiting programme for Foster Parents for temporary and long tern care and children with special needs. At present, there is no legal provision for short term Foster Care i.e. Mother in hospital, Father can’t cope – this provision could prevent a long term break down of the family. At present, children in such emergency situations are placed in Children’s Homes where they cannot have such personal attention. There should be no Age Limit for Foster Care. It is assumed that only babies and small children are suitable for foster care but we feel all ages require and would benefit from such a personal type service as offered through Foster Care. Rules should be made governing the standards of assessment of Foster parents and the quality of support necessary to Foster Parents, the Foster Child and the natural family. Allowance should be made for adequate remuneration to Foster parents. All Agencies arranging Foster Care should be encouraged to understand the team approach, i.e. that Foster Parents should be seen as important members of the team caring for the child.²³⁵

4.278In relation to residential care, the Association argued:

There should be increased and improved training facilities for staff of Residential Homes. There should be increased facilities for the emotional, educational and social assessment of each child as to define the most appropriate type of care for the child. This assessment unit will, of course, have to be Residential and we would need such units throughout the country. Each Health Board should have a wide range of residential facilities available to ensure that children are not placed away from their cultural background and natural family. These should include small group homes, Hostels, Homes for severely handicapped boys and girls, and homes for severely disturbed boys and girls. There should be as few as possible single sex homes. There should be an overall plan worked out for each child between the Agency placing the child and the Home. There should be regular reviews of the child’s progress, the suitability of the placement and the Child’s After Care at least annually. The Placing Agency and, where appropriate, the responsible Health Board Social Worker should be represented on this Review Board. There should be a registration of all Homes and regular inspection to maintain minimum standards of entrance and physical and emotional care which, at the same times, would give each home the chance to develop their own speciality.²³⁶

4.279The Manager of the Magdalen Home in Sean MacDermott St in Dublin, Sr Lucy Bruton suggested the need for:

A facility for young itinerant offenders, who are becoming legion and cannot be accommodated in the present institutions, because such units are entirely alien to their culture and upbringing. I suggest a section of the Itinerant Settlement Committee, who could be appointed as ‘Fit Persons’ to look after such offenders.²³⁷

4.280The Social Workers of Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Dublin, in their submission argued that:

We feel that foster parents should be drawn from all stratas of society and that where possible the child should be placed with people of a similar background to his own. It is important that a child in a foster home should receive adequate stimulation, particularly in early years. In order to acquire the right type of foster parent we consider that it is an absolute necessity that they should receive adequate financial compensation: that it should be looked upon as a profession or career rather than a ‘vocation’ or doing a good deed as in the past.’²³⁸

4.281As part of their submission to the Task Force, the Western Health Board reviewed a sample of cases in their two residential facilities, St Joseph’s School and St Anne’s and provides a detailed analysis of the changes that had taken place in these two Industrial Schools since the publication of the Kennedy Report. The report, authored by R O’Flaherty, concluded:

Both institutions visited are making sincere efforts to put into effect the recommendations of the Kennedy Report and the CARE Memorandum. Small group living and eating arrangements are taking effect. Small, private bedrooms, in which family members live together, help to preserve the all important family connection. The elder children are thus readily available to give support to younger siblings, and the youngsters know that help is near from the older children. The staffs are obviously keenly interested in the welfare of the children charged to their care. Staff are in constant contact with the family in the home community, and I was impressed with the depth of their knowledge about home dynamics. I can see no reason why the group homes could not cater for both sexes. That said, the question still remains, why are these children in group homes? In only one case was a thorough pre-placement assessment done, with psychiatrist’s report recommending group home placement for a fixed time to provide needed controls. This treatment could just as well, I feel, have been provided in the child’s home community. One of the problem areas discovered, and one of the reasons why older children are placed residentially, is lack of ongoing casework services being available to foster home parents. With such help, foster parents could be aided in dealing with the child’s onset of adolescence (many manifestations of which are quite normal) while keeping him in the home….If at all possible, children should be allowed frequent visits to the natural family to both keep alive the family connection and to avoid over-identification with the institution which, in severe cases, may cause children to run back to the security they know, rather than try to get on in a new living arrangement…New foster parents should be recruited by arrangements being made more attractive to potential foster home parents and, of course, counselling should be available to such persons recruited.’²³⁹

4.282In a separate submission replying to O’Flaherty’s report, the Manager of St Joseph’s Residential Home in Lower Salthill, Br DE Drohan, made the following observations on the reasons why the children were in residential care:

The family structures and environment from which these children come from cannot supply the physical, emotional and psychological needs of the child. Most of the parents are very inadequate. Relationships between the parents are shallow and in some cases they are only co-existing. The relationship between the children and the parents before coming into residential care was often shallow and of little therapeutic value. This should have been very clear to Mr. Flaherty. We fail to see why it was necessary to ask this question. We can state that the group residential setting has helped improve the child/parent relationship. It is true that if long term case work backed up with in-depth social services had been given to these families there is the possibility that some of the children would not have come into residential care. But the hard fact must be faced that many of these parents are so damaged psychologically that they cannot give their children the love, concern, security and support that they need….We agree that every effort must be made to maintain the contact between the child and his parents. The parents should be allowed to visit the child frequently in the residential setting. Also the child should be allowed to visit his natural family frequently. The decision for this must rest with the professional child care worker after consulting other interested agencies. Serious ‘Stress’ can be put on the child who visits a home where the parents are suffering from psychiatric problems or where there are alcoholic parents / or a parent. This ‘stress’ can cause much disturbance to the child and retard the residential group home therapeutic programme. This is a point often missed by social workers.²⁴⁰

4.283The Manager of the other Residential Home in the Western Health Board, St Ann’s Residential Home, Lenaboy, Taylor’s Hill, Sr M Veronica Walsh also commented on the report, noting:

I fail to see how these children could be provided for in their own community even if special Education facilities were available as in Renmore. In most cases these children were emotionally disturbed prior to their admission and would require trained personnel to cater for their needs. I am not ruling out foster homes. There are exceptions but trained personnel are rarely found in such homes. We have personal experience in breakdown of foster homes, which leaves the children with a double rejection.²⁴¹

4.284The aforementioned Joint Committee of Women’s Societies and Social Workers also sent a detailed submission to the Task Force, noting:

In the past, children have been too readily removed from their families. We are convinced that the appointment of a sufficient number of trained social workers would, quite often, prevent this happening. They, with their special skills, would detect some of the beginnings of family breakdown. With this in mind we have often recommended that school attendance officers should be trained social workers…we do not agree, however, that Residential Homes (Industrial Schools) should be broken up into self-contained units, as this only perpetuates the old institutional environment. The Joint Committee of Women’s Societies would oppose the spending of State funds in this make-do manner. We want something better for our children…We must cease to institutionalise our children. We recommend in order of preference: Fosterage, chosen and supervised by properly qualified Children’s Officers, and payment for services rendered by Foster Parents should relate to such payments now made to institutions….Single houses, in various Housing Estates should be made available when enough foster homes cannot be found. This kind of placement is especially valuable when children of one family are taken into care. Cost must not be made an excuse for this kind of placement.²⁴²

4.285On the issue of juvenile justice, the Committee reiterated:

our demand that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised to, at least, 12 years. We repeat also that changes must be made in the Court for children. We would suggest the Magistrates type of Court similar to the one used in England, but the Chairman must be qualified to deal with difficult children, and magistrates should be chosen from a Panel chosen from people with a wide experience of their problem. Free legal Aid should be readily available, and there must be an increase in the number of Probation Officers throughout the Republic.²⁴³

4.286They also suggested an amendment to the Children Act 1908, as they argued:

Managers of such schools should not have the power, given in the Children’s Act 1908, to transfer a child to another School without the Court’s sanction. The date stated for leaving should be strictly adhered to, and not as at present when girls have remained in convents for long periods until they have become unfit for re-emergence into society.²⁴⁴

4.287The voluntary organisation, Children First²⁴⁵, suggested that:

The whole area of fosterage and residential care should be re-examined. Subject to proper regulations for supervision and inspection [both pre-and post-placement], fosterage, both short and long term, should be more widely encouraged. In cases where Residential Homes are the most satisfactory solution, the recommendations of the Kennedy Report should be implemented: Individual houses should be provided for 7-9 children of different ages and sexes cared for by a trained house mother and house father [the latter having, also a normal job].²⁴⁶

4.288The Manager of St Joseph’s, Tivoli Road, Dun Laoghaire,²⁴⁷ highlighted the importance of teachers and argued:

Teachers in Primary Schools should be reminded that they are the ones who are in the best position to detect possible home problems. Neglect at home shows itself at school in sleepiness, non-attention, lack of concentration, homework badly done etc. Problems thus detected should be made known to the Community Social Worker.²⁴⁸

4.289On the suitability of placements, the manager suggested that:

If children have to be put into care, it is very important that they should be put in the most suitable home. The amount of contact with the family which is desirable should be taken into account. Very often admissions are made on the criterion ‘wherever there is a vacancy’ [While proximity to the home and surroundings of the child might be held as the ideal, there are times when the opposite is best for all]. The Referral Agency should be able to protect the Residential Home from having to hand back innocent children to irresponsible parents who come and take them at whim.²⁴⁹

4.290In addition, she argued that:

A full Report on each child to be sent by the Referral Agency to the Residential Home. A decision made as to who the Social Worker is, who is responsible for the child being admitted. It is important that the Social Worker visit the child regularly. In the event of a change, the child should be told, and the new Social Worker taking over should be introduced by the one who is leaving. In regard to above, it is important that the Social Worker understand her role. She is the link between the child’s past and present, and she should support the child and help him to accept the fact of being ‘in care’.²⁵⁰

4.291The Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in its submission noted that section 14 of the Children Act 1908, which related to begging, was being ignored and stated:

We realise the futility of fining Itinerants as a deterrent, and it is a matter of concern to us, that, between the well-meaning efforts of the public who keep on giving money when approached, and the lenient ‘we have got to be the Travellers Friend’ attitude of Itinerant Settlement Committees Social Workers, many children are exposed to cold and wet conditions.²⁵¹

4.292For children in care, they recommended that there should be:

a Statutory obligation to review every three months the progress of any Child in Care whether committed through the Courts, or admitted Voluntarily by a Home or through the Health Board, whether short or long term. By progress, we mean the child’s physical, emotional, education and social well-being. Case Conferences should take place within the Homes so that caring Staff can be involved. We deplore the present system whereby Religious Staff in Residential care are often poorly qualified, unpaid and expected to work long hours under conditions of stress without adequate support or information. Offenders and non-offenders should not be mixed. Short term and long term should not be mixed. The only categories which should be mixed are sex, age and family structure. Residential care should be seen as therapeutic to alleviate emotional, physical, and psychological damage. Damage during developmental years may have resulted from inadequate parenting, poor housing and environmental deficiencies. All these homes will need properly trained Child Care Staff with Director: preferably, we feel who should not be a religious. The Homes need a Social Worker of their own, to act both inside the Unit with Staff and Children, and to liaise with outside Social Workers. We feel this is better than an outside Social Worker who is unable to support the Caring Staff, who indeed may make them feel ‘threatened’ and cannot be aware of the internal day to day stresses. The turnover of External Social Workers is high and, most important, some children in care may be neglected completely if there is no inside Social Worker.²⁵²

4.293The system of inspecting children’s homes also required rethinking, their submission argued:

The present system whereby the best toys and linen are brought out in anticipation of the visit from ‘The Department’ is futile. We feel that regular visiting of Children’s Homes by a qualified Social Worker who would do more than inspect the beds and have tea in the parlour. Administration Staff in Residential Care have many problems which could be ironed out if a sympathetic trained person visited regularly and spent perhaps a day or two getting the real feel of the home.²⁵³

4.294The Finglas Children’s Centre in their submission provided information on a sample of 442 boys who had been referred to the Centre by the Courts for assessment during the period 14.01.1972 to 1.07.1974 and noted that:

Inadequate parental support emerges as a salient contributory factor in the case of almost every boy who has been sent to the Centre for Assessment…While allowing for the fact that 43 percent of our boys were from economically depressed central city areas (predominantly Postal Area 1) and that 67 percent of them came from families in which there were at least seven children, (the contributory factors) are closely associated with a very distinctive feature of the children referred by the Courts for assessment, namely, physical diminutiveness.²⁵⁴

Interim Report of the Task Force on Child Care Services

4.295The Final Report of the Task Force was submitted to the Minister for Health in September 1980 and published in 1981 but, within a year of its establishment, the Task Force issued an interim report stating that they had been able to ‘isolate a number of the more glaring gaps in our existing range of services – gaps which we strongly feel should be filled as a matter of great urgency’.²⁵⁵ The Interim Report of the Task Force on Child Care Services was presented to the Minister on 19th September 1975 and was published on 18th November 1975. In presenting their report, the Task Force outlined their modus operandi to date, which included reviewing the childcare system in various countries, including visits to Scotland and London, and discussing various issues with relevant experts in Ireland. However, they noted that ‘a major difficulty we faced throughout the preparation of this Report is that the available Irish data is both partial and crude’.²⁵⁶ To in part remedy this situation, the Task Force, in collaboration with the Irish Association of Social Workers (IASW), conducted research on the extent of child deprivation in Ireland.²⁵⁷ The Interim Report made 14 main recommendations in all. They were:

The proposed Council for the Education and Training of Social Services Personnel should be instituted as a matter of urgency and its first priority should be to decide on the training needs of residential child-care staff.
Three Neighbourhood Youth projects should be initiated in the immediate future, one each in Dublin, Cork and Limerick.
Urgent consideration should be given to the provision of small residential units for very young children who need short-term care apart from their families and for whom foster care is not appropriate.
The existing buildings at St. Joseph’s Special School, Clonmel should be replaced by a special school providing residential care for 60 boys who need care or control additional to that provided by their families and who have serious educational problems as well.
Additional hostel accommodation should be provided in Dublin for 30 homeless boys aged from 14 years upwards.
A special residential centre should be provided in Dublin to cater for about 15 disturbed boys aged from 15 to 18 years.
The proposed Special Residential Home at Warrenstown House, Co. Dublin should provide intensive care for 24 acutely emotionally deprived boys and girls.
A special school should be established in the Dublin area to cater for 25 to 30 boys aged 12 to 16 years who cannot be coped with in existing residential institutions.
A special residential centre should be provided in Dublin to cater for 12 severely disturbed girls aged about 14 to 18 years.
A special school should be provided in the Dublin area for 25 girls aged from 12 to 17 years, who have shown themselves to be too difficult or disruptive for existing facilities.
A residential assessment centre for 10 girls should be provided in Dublin in association with the special school mentioned above.
Two new open residential centres should be provided in Dublin, each catering for about eight travelling children and providing a range of support services and day-care facilities for travelling families.
A special residential centre should be provided in Dublin for a group of approximately 12 travelling children who have been identified as being in need of residential care in a centre which can provide means of containment in the first instance.

• Within the existing law, certain modifications should be introduced with a view to achieving some reduction in formality in dealing with children’s cases in court.²⁵⁸

4.296The Task Force reported that they were ‘continuing our deliberations as rapidly as possible. Our task is a complex one, since there are no easy solutions to meeting the needs of deprived children. Our final report will be presented as soon as possible.’²⁵⁹ In a memo to Government it was argued that the Report should be published as a matter of urgency as ‘(a) Many of the recommendations contained in the Report are related to identified gaps in existing services which require to be filled as a matter of urgency (b) the Minister is under strong pressure from many sources dealing with the problem of Child Care to have the Report published.’ Notwithstanding the desire of the Minister to publish the Report, it was emphasised ‘that agreement to publication of the Report would not be taken as commitment to the recommendations and views which it contained’. Although the Departments of Education and Justice had no objection to the publication of the Report, the Department of Finance stated:

the Minister for Finance noting that the opinion that agreement to publication is not to be taken as a commitment to the recommendations or views contained in it is nevertheless concerned that publication of the report at this stage could lead to anticipation that the recommendations would be implemented at an early date. The Minister for Finance also wishes to remind the Government that in the prevailing financial and economic conditions no extra money can be provided in 1976 or for some time to come to implement any of the Report’s recommendations unless such money is made available as a result of genuine reductions in other Government expenditures; that no matter what humanitarian reasons may require improvements in health and social services, they cannot be met without extra resources and such resources are not available.²⁶⁰

4.297In addition to the reservations expressed by the Department of Finance, the Department of Education had a number of reservations about the recommendations. In relation to the issue of juvenile justice, Mr Ó Maitiú in a detailed memo on 15th December 1975 noted that the Department of Education had in front of it, three different reports on the provision of facilities for young offenders, the first and second interim reports of the Interdepartmental Committee on Mentally Ill and Maladjusted Persons (The Henchy Reports) and the interim report of the Task Force on Child Care Services. Mr Ó Maitiú observed that:

The Henchy Committee was a committee of experts with particularly strong representation from the legal and medical professions. The Task Force is a committee with a somewhat more limited range of expertise than Henchy (It does not, for instance, include any psychiatrist). A difference of approach therefore is to be expected in the reports, apart altogether from the fact that each committee had different terms of reference. Henchy is concerned mainly with offenders and potential offenders, whereas the Task Force deals with deprived children in a wider sense. Nevertheless both reports adopt a compassionate, non-punitive, stance. Both concentrate on the needs of children rather than on the nature of any offence committed and both concede that a whole range of facilities is necessary to satisfy these needs.

4.298In terms of responsibilities for the Department of Education, the services recommended by the Task Force ‘are basically the same as those recommended by Henchy. These in turn are based on proposals formulated by this Department over two years ago to which the Department of Finance agreed in principle but which have been held up awaiting the Task Force Report. There are some important variations however, which will have to have to be carefully considered.’ In terms of facilities for children, ‘the only additional facility recommended by the Task Force as far as this Department is concerned is the closed unit for aggressive and disturbed itinerants. We had made no distinction between itinerants and ordinary children similarly disturbed.’

4.299In relation to the specific recommendations of the Task Force, the Department of Education agreed that a Council for the Education and Training of Social Service Personnel was necessary; however in relation to the proposed establishment of Neighbourhood Youth Projects, the memo noted that this:

scheme was conceived by the special education section over two years ago and Finance sanction was received in principle for projects involving capital expenditure of about £100,000 in Dublin, Cork and Limerick. The Task Force agrees that the Cork project should go ahead under this Department, but recommends that the Dublin and Limerick projects be taken over by the Health Boards with less emphasis on formal education. This recommendation shows a complete lack of understanding of this Department’s plans, since the whole purpose of the projects is to get away from formal education. The Centres are intended mainly for truants, with whom formal education has failed. The programme would be ‘educational’ in the very widest sense of the term but would also be therapeutic and recreational. It is intended that the local committees administering the Centres will be representative of the various disciplines involved – including the ‘health’ disciplines – as are the Boards of Lusk and Finglas. It does not make sense therefore to split administrative responsibility between the Departments – this kind of split has been condemned as one of the evils of the present system. I think therefore that the three projects should continue to be the responsibility of this Department.

4.300In relation to St Joseph’s Industrial School in Clonmel, Mr Ó Maitiú noted that:

plans for a new school with 100 places were at an advanced stage when the scheme had to be postponed until the Task Force reported. The Task Force recommends that the accommodation be reduced to 60. This reflects the views of the CARE lobby which succeeded in reducing the accommodation in Lusk to 60 pupils also. As a result it is now a completely uneconomic unit to administer.²⁶¹

4.301The recommendation for a special school for boys who could not be coped with in existing institutions was deemed to be a ‘top priority’ by Mr Ó Maitiú,

since in its absence nothing else can work. There should be no illusions about the type of boy it will cater for – the young gang leaders mainly from Dublin and Cork – who carry out vicious assaults, terrorise old people, steal cars, steal and wantonly damage public and private property. Since they will not be taken in Lusk or Finglas (or can easily abscond from these schools) they are effectively out of the reach of the law until they reach 16 years of age, when St. Patrick’s Institution can take them. The proposed school will need to be very secure indeed and the staff will have to be carefully selected. To what extent education can help these boys is doubtful, but the effort must be made. Both Henchy and the Task Force agree that the accommodation should be provided for a maximum of 30 boys. The Task Force however visualises that this should be broken down into three different units – secure, intermediate and open respectively. While different degrees of security can be visualised it is hard to see how any part of the school can be ‘open’, especially as perimeter security will have to be maintained. Obviously this will have to be teased out before detailed planning takes place. One solution might be to provide the unit on the land which the Department already owns at Lusk, with Lusk itself serving as the open unit. This is likely to be objected to very strongly by the Oblates. In any case, any ‘secure’ unit will have to be under lay management since all the religious orders have indicated that they are no longer prepared to undertake responsibility for the custodial care of children.

4.302With regard to the Special School for girls under 17, Mr Ó Maitiú was in agreement with the recommendation of the Task Force, subject to the same reservations as was the case in relation to the equivalent unit for boys and also agreed that an assessment centre was required for girls, which would also provide remand facilities.

The Interim Report and traveller children

4.303In relation to the proposed closed centre for traveller children, Mr Ó Maitiú observed that

apparently the only reason the Department is being given responsibility for this is that under existing legislation the Minister for Education is the only Minister who can keep children under detention in secure custody. However it is difficult to see how any worthwhile education can be provided in such a centre and how such violent and anti-social children as these are known to be could be handled in such a small complex for 24 hours a day. As far as the education of travellers is concerned, the Department’s policy has been strongly in favour of integration in ordinary schools and to set up a separate school for itinerant offenders will breach this long established practice. It is not clear why the needs of these children cannot be met within the closed centres recommended at 2.0.8 and 2.0.10 and very strong reasons would have to be advanced for the duplication of expenditure which would follow if a separate centre were set up for the travelling children.

4.304Mr Ó Maitiú went on to make the following comments in relation to this issue:

The Department is getting the really dirty end of the stick – the ‘toughies’ whom no-one else can handle. The religious orders will not take on the closed schools so we will have to administer them directly with no expertise in this type of situation. Statutorily, however, we cannot escape this responsibility.

4.305The provision of residential care for traveller children had earlier been discussed in the Department of Education in April 1975, and each Residential Home and Special School was contacted in order to ascertain the number of ‘itinerant’ children in care on 17th April of that year. The returns from the homes and schools showed there to be 104 ‘itinerant’ children in care (84 in Residential Homes and 20 in Special Schools), which approximated to 8 percent of the total number of children in residential care.²⁶² On 30th April 1975, a meeting was held in the Department of Education to discuss ‘accommodation for ‘itinerant’ children in need of residential care.’ The meeting was attended by representatives from the Department of Education, Health, Local Government, Justice and the Dublin Itinerant Settlement Committee. The Department of Education outlined the existing services for such children and noted that there were insufficient places for such children in the Dublin area and the children tended to abscond at the earliest opportunity. The meeting noted: ‘It appears that the problem has arisen in an acute form only since the families began to move in to the Dublin area, attracted by the rich pickings of a prosperous city.’ The representative from the Itinerant Settlement Committee,²⁶³ Mr Victor Bewley, was of the view that there were 30-35 young itinerants in the Dublin area in need of residential care, but that a ‘high proportion of these would require secure care as they will not stay in open settings. A number of these children by now are extremely hostile and vindictive and very little can be done with them.’ He also informed that meeting that the Committee had obtained the use of Collinstown House in Clondalkin to accommodate itinerant children. The Department of Education informed the meeting that if the Itinerant Settlement Committee could obtain suitable premises, it would be prepared to seek the sanction of the Department of Finance to assist with the capital expenditure and they would pay the approved capitation grant for any children referred by the Courts. However, the representative from the Committee stated that they had neither the time nor the resources to undertake this work, but that the Committee would be prepared to participate in the management of such a unit.

4.306On 7th May 1975, the Parliamentary Secretary at the Department of Education, John Bruton, wrote to Larry McMahon, TD (Chair, Sub-Committee on Settlement of Travellers) and the Minister for Local Government, James Tully, TD to outline his concerns in relation to traveller children. In his letter, he noted:

… it would seem that some priority would need to be given to settlement of the real problem families, difficult though this may be. Otherwise the children will exact a terrible toll from society. Already it would seem that some of them at this stage are irredeemable.

4.307The primary response to the needs of these traveller children was the establishment of Trudder House in Newtownmountkennedy, County Wicklow in 1975 by the Dublin Itinerant Settlement Committee.²⁶⁴ Trudder House was established following a fire in a Dublin bookshop, the APCK bookshop in Dawson Street, in January 1975, apparently started by traveller children who were sleeping rough at the rear of the shop. Eight boys, aged between 10 and 14, were charged with starting the fire along with other charges. The case highlighted the lack of facilities for such children and Trudder House was the eventual outcome.²⁶⁵

Organisation of childcare services

4.308More generally in relation to the recommendations of the Interim Report, Mr Ó Maitiú observed:

the staffing situation will not permit us to handle any projects beyond those we are dealing with already. If there is a serious prospect that money will be made available, then we can assess the staff requirements more exactly. In particular we will need (a) a least one Assistant Principal Officer full-time. The present arrangement under which we nominally have Mr. Gillen’s Services on a half-time basis is ludicrous. It is now over a year since he was loaned to the Task Force for a job that was supposed to last three months; (b) Full-time architectural assistance will also be required (at present we have an Architect on a part-time basis for two days a week); (c) professional child care advisor. Recruitment of this officer is in hands but it is understood that the man selected will not be available before 2 February, 1976. (d) the existing law with all its illogicalities will still have to be contended with. As a result of the recent High Court case it now appears that a child guilty of many offences cannot be detained for more than a year unless convicted by a judge and jury. How could a secure centre be effective in their case? Obviously the legal position in such cases will now have to be clarified.

4.309On 6th March 1976, Mr Ó Maitiú formally wrote to the Department of Health outlining the response of the Department of Education to the Interim Report of the Task Force. The letter clearly outlined the role of the Department of Education in the provision of services to children:

I am to state that it should be clearly understood in this connection that the Minister for Education is prepared to shed his responsibility in connection with the proposals in the Task Force which are essentially educational in character. While he appreciates the very thorough and careful way in which the Task Force has investigated the issues involved, he would not necessarily agree with the details of every recommendation, particularly as there is an acknowledged conflict between certain of these recommendations and those of the Interdepartmental Committee on the Treatment of Mentally Ill and Maladjusted Young Offenders, chaired by Judge Henchy. In deciding these points of conflict, due weight must be given to both sets of recommendations.

4.310In relation to the neighbourhood youth projects, the letter stated that the Department of Education did ‘not consider it appropriate that the administration of any of these services should be allocated to regional health boards’ and that the Department did not support any plan to reduce the number of places in St Joseph’s Clonmel. The Department was prepared to accept responsibility for the two Special Schools for disruptive children, but in relation to traveller children, the letter stated:

It is the Minister’s firm policy that, as far as possible, the education of traveller children should be integrated with that of ordinary children.²⁶⁶ Furthermore, there are at present over 100 travelling children in care in existing residential homes and special schools who have been integrated successfully with the other children. The Minister feels therefore that the question of providing a separate unit for the more difficult travelling children needs to be reconsidered. Given the nature and purpose of the two special schools proposed for disruptive boys and girls, he considers that any travelling children requiring special care could be adequately catered for in these schools, thus avoiding the stigma involved in a separate unit and the duplication of expensive facilities. In addition, the Minister believes that it would be difficult to provide effective security in a building of this type and that it is likely to encounter bitter opposition from local residents at the planning stage.

4.311To move things forward, the letter also suggested ‘that the best way of doing this would be to set up a formal co-ordinating committee representative of the two Departments and of the Department of Justice on the lines already operated in regard to facilities for handicapped children’.

4.312This was agreed to by the Department of Health and the inaugural meeting of the Implementation Committee took place on 8th October 1976. In relation to the first recommendation of the Interim Task Force Report; the establishment of a Council for the Education and Training of Social Services personnel; the meeting agreed to establish a Manpower Committee, with the Department of Health having a lead role working in liaison with the National Council for Educational Awards and the Higher Educational Authority. On the second recommendation: the establishment of neighbourhood youth projects; it was agreed that the initial resources would be put into the Cork project and that the other projects would learn from their experience and with lead responsibility residing with the Department of Education. With regard to the third recommendation, the provision of accommodation for children on a short-term basis, it was agreed to expand the number of places available at Madonna House, but it was noted the ‘question of money being available is the only problem’. The fourth recommendation: the replacement of St Joseph’s School in Clonmel, was deferred until both Departments could agree on the size of the School.

4.313In addition, the meeting noted that the cost of replacing St Joseph’s would be in the region of £1 million and economic considerations would have to be taken into account.

4.314A further meeting took place on 13th October 1976 at which it was agreed to defer a decision on the issues regarding St Joseph’s Special School in Clonmel. In relation to the recommendation of the Interim Report that additional hostel accommodation be provided for homeless boys in Dublin, the Committee agreed that ‘a further effort should be made to confirm with the Eastern Health Board the extent of the problem and the best way of meeting it’. On the issue of the provision of accommodation for seriously disturbed boys and girls, it was decided that it would be ‘advantageous to arrange a discussion at which both the community care and psychiatric interests would be present’. In early 1977, a memorandum for Government was prepared to outline the proposed implementation programme arising from the Interim Report of the Task Force on Child Care Services. The memo noted that a number of developments had occurred since the publication of the interim report that addressed some of the recommendations contained in it, including the provision of an open residential centre for traveller children at Trudder House, in Newtownmountkennedy managed by the Dublin Itinerant Settlement Committee and the provision of additional accommodation for children at Madonna House in Blackrock, County Dublin.

4.315In relation to the provision of a Special Secure School for boys, the memo noted that:

the provision of this type of accommodation is regarded as urgent. Experience in this country is similar to that elsewhere: there is a small group of disruptive boys who are persistently and seriously delinquent and whom none of the existing institutions can cope with. Accommodation in a secure setting is required to meet the problem posed by them. The fact that such accommodation is not available enables these boys to flout the law with total impunity and leads others to follow their examples.

4.316The memo also suggested that building a closed unit, situated beside Scoil Ard Mhuire in Oberstown, might be more economical than providing a completely new school, but that:

the Oblate Fathers, who administer the school are quite adamant that they will not be involved in a custodial care situation. It would appear, therefore, that a closed school, whether built at Lusk or elsewhere, would have to be administered directly by the Department of Education.

4.317The provision of a Special School for girls who ‘proved themselves too difficult for existing facilities’ was outlined. The memo stated:

the school in question would principally be for girls who appear before the courts for offences and would correspond to the schools for boys at Finglas, Lusk and Clonmel. While the number of girls who commit offences are very small in comparison with those of boys, there is no such residential school at all for girls. Accordingly the provision of this school is also regarded as urgent. It is proposed that the centre for the residential assessment of girls for the courts would be associated with this school as in the case of boys at Finglas. The school and assessment centre would have to be administered directly by the Department of Education as the religious orders at present caring for girls have intimated that they do not wish to be involved in a custodial school.

4.318The recommendation of the Interim Report that additional accommodation for homeless boys²⁶⁷ was required was called into question, as the memo outlined that

with a view to confirming the extent of this problem and the extent to which it could be dealt with through available facilities, the Eastern Health Board were asked to consult with the various agencies already providing these facilities. As a result, some doubt has arisen as to the exact numbers to be catered for. It has been found that the numbers fluctuate. Some of those who appear to be homeless are not, in fact, so. They sleep rough for a few nights and then go back to their respective homes, only to be replaced by others, who in turn follow the same pattern. Some of the children who were thought to be homeless are itinerants and roam about at night until their parents come to collect them. Of those who were identified as positively homeless there were a number who would not in any event be suitable or amenable to normal hostel accommodation, even if there was a place which would take them. The problem as now understood might most appropriately be dealt with on the following basis: – (a) by the provision of a ‘casual’ hostel facility by the Eastern Health Board; (b) provision of the special secure school for boys; (c) making better use of existing hostel facilities; (d) making further progress with the steps being taken already to deal with the problem of itinerants.

4.319By the time of the publication of the Interim Report of the Task Force on Child Care Services was published, the broad principles that were to inform child welfare policy for the next 20 years or so, particularly in relation to alternative care, were largely established. However, a number of difficulties remained in relation to the provision of secure accommodation for young people, the function and purpose of the juvenile justice system and overall Ministerial and Departmental responsibility for the childcare system. The numbers of children in residential care were continuously declining and foster care (particularly with the establishment of the Fostering Resource Group, a dedicated team of social workers in the Eastern Health Board in 1977),²⁶⁸ increasingly became the favoured means of the meeting the needs of children for whom alternative care was required.

Section 4: Implementation, 1976-2001

4.3201970s, a range of implementation difficulties were emerging at a local level. One issue highlighted, but not fully resolved in earlier discussions, was the realisation that the relationship between Central Government and Residential Homes was altering. The regional health boards were developing childcare services and recruiting social work staff, and the number of trained lay childcare staff in residential care was growing following the establishment of a training course in Kilkenny in 1971. In addition, shorter in-service courses were established in Dublin, Cork and Waterford and later in a number of Institutes of Technology.²⁶⁹ The professionalisation of social work and childcare staff was placing a strain on the Religious Managers of the Homes and many of the structures for recruitment, staffing levels and pay had not always fully reflected these changes or as Mr Ó Maitiú had put it ‘naturally enough, these people are demanding the rate for the job’. A further issue was the provision of secure accommodation for children deemed to be ‘uncontrollable’ in open institutions, which although highlighted by both the Henchy Committee and the Interim Report of the Task Force, remained unresolved.

Staff recruitment and the death of HT ²⁷⁰

4.321The death of 9-year-old HT in the Royal British Hotel in Princess Street Edinburgh on 3rd October 1977 brought about a review of the recruitment of residential child managers and staff. HT, from the North Inner City of Dublin, was placed in the care of the Irish Sisters of Charity in Madonna House on 5th June 1974 along with a number of his siblings. HT remained in Madonna House until 1st September 1976, when his mother removed him and two of his siblings. A further sibling was removed on 24th December. The children were allowed to remain at home under the supervision of Eastern Health Board social workers. On 3rd February 1977 it was decided that HT and two of his siblings be returned to Madonna House. On the basis that the placement was now likely to be a long-term one, it was decided to transfer the children to St Kyran’s Residential Home, Rathdrum County Wicklow on 5th September 1977. One of the staff members in Madonna House was John Dwyer, originally from Wales, who had been interviewed for a post of trainee child care worker in Madonna House in September 1976, responding to an advertisement for female care assistants. Dwyer, who had spent 10 years with the De la Salle Brothers in England and had trained with them as a teacher before arriving in Ireland, commenced employment in Madonna House in September 1976. From an early stage, Dwyer took a particular interest in HT with the result that the Manager, Sr Carmel, warned him about his over-involvement with the child. Dwyer accompanied HT and a number of his siblings when they moved from Madonna House to St Kyran’s in Rathdrum. On Friday, 16th September Dwyer brought one of the siblings from St Augustine’s in Blackrock to St Kyrans. He then departed from St Kyran’s with HT. The following day, Dwyer and HT boarded a flight to London and subsequently went to Scotland. In a hotel in Edinburgh, Dwyer drowned HT in a bath and then attempted suicide, but survived.²⁷¹

4.322On 1st November 1977, Mr O’Dwyer in the Department of Health highlighted in a memo to Mr O’Rourke, and the Secretary of the Department that while he did not believe that there was any justification for a public enquiry into the death of HT:

The circumstances revealed in this case do focus attention on a number of issues in relation to residential care. It raises again the question of the extent to which the State should supervise the provision of residential care for children. It draws attention to the need to (a) quickly conclude discussions with the Conference of Major Religious Superiors regarding the appropriate staffing levels of the homes and the further training needs of existing child care workers; (b) further examine the qualifications and training of residential care staff, particularly those who have managerial or supervisory responsibilities; (c) review and if necessary, tighten up the procedures to be followed where children are allowed to be outside the homes; (e) lay down specific guidelines to be followed in establishing numbers of children present each night and the procedures to be put into operation where a child is missing from a home, including the arrangements for notification to the Gardaí.

4.323He went on to note:

It was decided early this year to adhere to the capitation system of financing, pending decisions on the future arrangements generally for the administration of child care. It was also felt that the nature of the care to be given could best be done by the present voluntary organisations with minimal interference from statutory authorities. That point of view is, in my opinion, still valid, but only in a situation where we have ensured that the managerial and staffing arrangements are adequate both in quantity and quality.

4.324On 25th January 1978, Mr O’Dwyer submitted a more detailed report to Mr O’Rourke, and the Secretary of the Department on the implications of the death of HT. In the note he outlined the terms of reference of a review of the case:

The Minister directed the officers of the Department should review the circumstances surrounding the abduction and subsequent murder of [HT] to identify any changes or improvements that should take place in the management, staffing, training and administrative procedures in children’s residential homes.

4.325Following meetings with various officers in the Eastern Health Board, the Department of Education, the Manager of Madonna House at that time, Sr Carmel Anthony, and the Manager of St Kyrans, Sr Xaveria, Mr O’Dwyer wrote:

I would be optimistic about getting a very positive response from the managers of the homes and the Conference of Major Religious Superiors in bringing about changes and improvements in the existing procedures. Until the middle of 1977, the authorities were very much concerned with financial problems but they are now reasonably satisfied with the capitation rate, provided it is adjusted annually to take account of inflation and approved developments in the service.

4.326On the relationship between the statutory bodies and the Managers of the Homes, Mr O’Dwyer observed:

The review of this particular case and the discussions which have been going on with the Conference of Major Religious Superiors during 1977 highlight the following issues: At present, managers as assigned by the head of the Order concerned without consultation with either the Department of Education or the health board. The nun or brother concerned may or may not have previous experience of child care. Some are drawn from the nursing and teaching professions. They may in turn and, in some cases at very short notice, be reassigned to either other duties or to another home. This may also happen in relation to religious staff at a lower level. This state of affairs was never very desirable but was probably more acceptable when most of the staffs in the homes were religious and when the provision of residential care for children had not been professionalized here the introduction of many more trained lay staff and the generally more difficult type of child now being placed in residential care has significantly changed the demands on and expectations of managers.

4.327Mr O’Dwyer also noted that no formal training for managers existed, although the Department of Education did provide a course for managers until 1977. On this issue, Mr O’Dwyer recommended that:

discussions take place with the Conference of Major Religious Superiors to agree on future minimal qualifications and experience of managers of residential homes; Where the Order cannot find a suitable person, the post be advertised and filled by open competitions; Arrangements be made to meet the further training needs of existing managers; Pending decisions of the re-organisation of child care, the child care advisors of the Departments of Education and Health be consulted about any proposed new appointment of a manager and that one of them be on any interview board established to fill a manager post; agreement be reached on the future arrangements which will apply for the assignment and transfer of other religious staffs.

4.328Mr O’Dwyer further noted that:

One of the more worthwhile points which emerge from the review was the need to clarify and emphasise the level at which and the way in which social workers responsible for the child in the community should relate to the authorities of the home. While they would obviously have casual contacts with all the staff dealing with the child, the formal relationship should be with the manager of the home, and with her agreement (which would normally be automatic,) with the person in charge of the group in which the child lives. As between the social worker and the appropriate person within the home, there is an absolute necessity for a complete exchange of information on any matter affecting the child. If either the social worker or the child care worker is in possession of information which could be relevant to the child, then each is under an obligation to tell the other, irrespective of any expectations of confidentiality which a third party may have as the original source of the information. (In the HT case, it would appear that the authorities of the home were not aware that John Dwyer had ambitions of becoming a foster parent to the child. He had confided this hope to the social worker dealing with the children). It is considered that this matter should be discussed with the Programme managers, Community care, and that appropriate guidelines be worked out between representatives of the health boards and the authorities of the homes.

4.329Mr O’Dwyer highlighted the recent substantial changes that had taken place in the functions of Managers of Residential Homes, including the shift towards group homes, the decline in the number of religious working in the Homes and the growth in trained lay staff. He further observed that the children entering residential care were somewhat more disturbed than in the past. The Managers now had to deal with trained social workers, employed either by the health boards or other voluntary agencies. Mr O’Dwyer went on to suggest that:

It is not clear that the implications of these changes have been fully recognised by all the managers. No significant initiative has been taken to help the managers cope with these changes and to look at the kind of training and support that they might now require. There are now more opportunities for problems arising in relation to selection, discipline, doubts about personal responsibility as between the manager and the person in charge of each group home, tension between the manager and the staff about salaries and other working conditions and, in general, a situation which demands more management skills than were perhaps required some years ago. During our discussions on the (HT) case, it was clear that occasions will arise when the manager will need to have access to specialist psychological and or other professional help on a ready basis.

4.330He went on to recommend that

Discussions should take place with the Conference of Major Religious Superiors to (a) discuss and agree the key functions of managers of residential homes (b) identify the kinds of professional support and advice that would appear to be required by managers; (c) agree on the arrangements which might be made to meet these needs.

4.331Mr O’Dwyer than outlined the procedures that were in operation when John Dwyer was recruited.

John Dwyer was interviewed by Sister Carmel and accepted as a trainee. Within a short period of joining her staff, he was assessed by a psychologist and found to be suitable for admission to the training course at Cathal Brugha Street. The arrangements for selection in the case of trainees vary from home to home but, in general, the candidates are normally interviewed by a suitably constituted board and references obtained from their previous employers or, where they have not been previously employed, from the persons nominated by them as referees. There are no definite guidelines at the moment in relation to the assessment of trainees. Generally speaking, most of the trainees have worked in a home for two years before they are sent on the training course and during the period of two years, if they are found unsuitable, their employment is discontinued. However, in some instances, because trainees have joined a union on starting work and because appropriate procedures have not been followed, it has not been always easy for the managers of homes to terminate the employment. There is, therefore, the possibility of managers taking the easy way out and not confronting those who may not be entirely suitable.

4.332He concluded:

This is clearly an area on which there should be uniformity of approach and very definite arrangements for ensuring that those who are to become child care workers are suitable for the job. We have already been discussing this matter with the Conference of Major Religious Superiors and it has been agreed that there should be a training period of 2 years, during which the trainee would, in effect, be on probation. The matter has not yet been discussed with the union but we have emphasised to the Conference that it is essential to retain the maximum period during which a person can be assessed. As a corollary, there must be a proper assessment procedure and an early warning system which gives the trainee full information on how he or she is viewed by a manager.

4.333Mr O’Dwyer then outlined a series of recommendations in relation to future staff recruitment:

It is recommended that agreement be reached with the Conference of Major Religious Superiors that the following procedures will in future apply to selection and assessment:-A person seeking employment as a child care worker, whether as a trainee or an experienced worker, will be interviewed by a panel consisting of the manager of the home, suitably professionally qualified person and a third person who can provide a competent objective view of the suitability of the candidate. The candidate’s written testimonials will be fully checked out and the manager of the home will make personal contact with the previous employers or those nominated as referees A police report on the person’s suitability will be obtained; The person will be asked to undergo a full medical examination and the medical report should include a psychiatric history; During the two year period in which the trainee will be on probation, there will be an agreed assessment process, on the lines already in use in the special schools at Lusk and Finglas, and there will be a system of open reporting which will involve the manager of the home discussing the regular assessment with the person concerned. If at any stage during the two years the person is deemed unsuitable, the manager will terminate his or her employment.

4.334On the responsibility of the Eastern Health Board, Mr O’Dwyer noted:

In the case of children, such as (HT), who are committed to the care of the health board, the health board is primarily responsible for controlling the location of the child at all times. Children committed by the courts to residential care are under the control of the manager of the home and the manager is not under any statutory obligation to consult with the Department of Education in relation to the child’s movements. However, there is in practice a very close liaison between the child care advisor of the Department of Education and the various managers of the homes. Consequently, it is felt that in the interests of co-ordination and the pending the enactment of amending legislation, we should try to have the managers apply basically the same approach to all the children in their homes. Transfers of children from one home to another are not very frequent. However, where they do occur there is a need to phase the transfer over a period as to enable the children to gradually become used to their new surroundings and the staff to looking after them. It is also necessary to ensure that all records are transferred from one home to another and that there is a proper briefing of the staff of the home receiving the children.

4.335On 28th February 1978, the Department of Health wrote to the Rev Brendan Comiskey, the Secretary General of the Conference of Major Religious Superiors, outlining the recommendations following from the review into the death of HT. The letter outlined that the recommendations were discussed with the Department of Education and that both Departments wished procedures to apply to all children’s homes. The letter did note that:

It is accepted that if the managers of the homes were to insist on a strict application of the statutory provisions, they need not necessarily comply with some of the suggestions which have been made. It would, however, be hoped that agreement would be reached on procedures which would apply to all children, pending the enactment of the legislation which is expected to follow on the report of the Task Force on Child Care Services.

4.336Fr Comiskey passed the correspondence on to the Chairman of the Resident Managers Association, Br Dermot Drohan, who stated that he had ‘a good look at it and I honestly cannot disagree with any of the terms laid out in the report. To me it is simply asking us to sit up and have a good look at ourselves.’ Two meetings were held by the Resident Managers in Dublin at Goldenbridge on 13th and 21st June 1978 to discuss the implications of the review. Fr McGonagle in his covering letter highlighted that:

During our two meetings there was much soul searching and a strong endeavour to face up to the demands daily arising in an ever-changing situation from the social point of view and attitudes towards Church involvement and Religious participation in our own particular field of caring. There was also present a very strong preparedness to accept that things are not going to get any easier for us in the future but hopefully a better service would evolve to the benefit of all – children in care, care-workers, management.

4.337On 31st June 1978, Fr Comiskey wrote to Mr O’Dwyer and suggested that the Executive of the Child Care Managers meet with representatives from the Department of Health and the Department of Education. Having suggested a number of dates, Fr Comiskey went on to state that:

The Managers Executive has brought it to my attention that the Health Boards received the same document / letter prior to any discussion with, or reply from, them. They are deeply disturbed over this, as are their major superiors, and we would like this and a number of other points cleared up before proceeding any further with discussions on the document.

4.338Mr O’Dwyer responded on 30th June stating:

I am sorry to hear that your Superiors are concerned about the circulation of the document to the Programme Managers, Community Care, under Health Boards. First of all, this document has been circulated to them for information only. Secondly, there are a number of points raised which will require the co-operation of the health boards if they are to be implemented. Finally, we feel that it would be very desirable and necessary to have officers of the health boards involved in the discussions. You will appreciate that they are playing an ever increasing role in child care and the decisions which may emerge from our discussions are likely to affect them very much in the future.

4.339A meeting between the various parties was arranged for 5th September 1978, and arising from that meeting, Mr O’Dwyer reported:

The group have made very little progress in tackling the issues arising from my letter of 28 February 1978 and the meeting which took place on 28 July. They had only briefly and loosely discussed their ideas about the training of managers and about the role of social workers within and without the homes. There is very little prospect of their making progress unless they get a lot of help or some additional element is injected into their deliberations.

4.340In relation to the role of social workers, Mr O’Dwyer reported that:

A very confused discussion took place with regard to social workers. The managers seem to feel, not all of them for reasons that were clear to us, that they should have a social worker attached to each home. In the event, it was suggested to them that they should prepare a document setting out what is wrong with the present arrangements, what would be the role and function of the social worker attached to the home and what changes need to be made in the present position if they are to receive a resident social worker. The officers representing the Departments and the health boards indicated that they would be opposed to the introduction of residential social workers. A lot of dissatisfaction is apparently arising because of the turnover of social workers under health boards.

4.341In November 1979, guidelines on the recruitment of child care workers were issued by the Resident managers Association, the Department of Health and the Department of Education. The guidelines outlined that:

Those working in Residential Care must realize that the children they are caring for are not their own. They often are rejected, deprived, disturbed and insecure children. These children need all the parental care they can get but they also need professional, skilled people to help them work through insecurity towards full personal development. Residential work needs people with tremendous physical, mental and spiritual vitality. The person who is to become a residential care worker must be able to work with people in an intimate way. He or she should have a deep understanding of human nature and the needs of individuals, together with a genuine affection for deprived children. The work demands the highest level of training available. A child care worker is expected to use every opportunity to improve his or her skills in working with deprived children. Those wishing to train for a career in residential child care must work for at least a year in a residential home. Following successful completion of this year, the child care worker will be required to undertake formal training, which may involve attendance at day release or full-time courses at a training centre.

4.342The qualities required by a childcare worker were also outlined and stated that:

Those wishing to work with deprived children must be mature, stable and warm hearted adults, with a good and stable background. The worker must be able to communicate with others and must operate as a member of the team. He/she must understand and accept the philosophy of the establishment as a whole and be prepared to play his/her role as a fully responsible member. One of the most obvious skills in residential care is to be able to offer a warm and secure relationship to children. The child care worker must be able to organise the activities of a group of children, and show creativity in making the most constructive use of childrens’ leisure time. Skills in sewing, cooking, crafts and music are very useful as much of the day-to-day routine is taken up with looking after the physical needs of the children, washing clothes, cooking dinner and playing with the children. Applicants must have a good standard of education and a sound religious set of values.

4.343As of December 1979, 474 staff were employed in residential care centres for deprived children. Half were under the age of 30 and while 31 percent had a diploma in childcare or other childcare qualification, nearly half had no relevant qualification. At this time, childcare training was provided in the School of Education, Kilkenny which opened in 1972, and provided a full-time year-long course for 20 students, but closed in 1981. The Dublin College of Catering at Cathal Brugha St offered a child care course from 1974 for 20 students per annum and Sligo Regional Technical College offered a course in childcare from 1979, primarily to train prison officers working in Loughan House. The ratio of staff to the number of children in the various homes varied considerably shown in figure 22.

Figure 22: Staff – child ratio, 1979

Secure accommodation

4.344The aforementioned memorandum for Government to outline the proposed implementation programme arising from the Interim Report of the Task Force on Child Care Services, in relation to St Joseph’s Clonmel, stated that ‘planning should proceed on the basis that the school may ultimately provide for 90 to 100 boys’. On the issue of the provision of facilities for children who were classified as ‘severely disturbed’, the memo noted:

there is ample evidence that not enough of the right kind of residential facilities are available for the care of boys and girls who are severely emotionally disturbed. Such children require a high level of treatment and care. They have a very distressing and disturbing influence on other members of their families and on other children with whom they come into contact. The Task Force suggested the provision of special residential centres of the hostel type. It is not considered, however, that the provision of hostel type accommodation would, in itself, be sufficient to alleviate the problem. A number of recommendations made by the Henchy Committee, which considered the provision of treatment for juvenile offenders and potential juvenile offenders, would need to be implemented in order to provide enhanced residential assessment facilities, a secure centre for aggressive sociopaths, and facilities for treatment of acute psychiatric conditions. Until these or similar facilities are provided, the extent and need for special hostel type accommodation for the severely disturbed will not be clear.

4.345On 17th May 1977, the Taoiseach, Mr Cosgrave, received a letter from the priests of the parish of Sean McDermott St.²⁷² They outlined that:

The inner city has many problems, such as inadequate housing, high levels of unemployment and the need for special and remedial classes in our schools and extra youth facilities. These must be tackled but we accept that all of them cannot be solved immediately. We are encouraged by the efforts of Tenants Associations, Dublin Corporation and voluntary bodies to help our young people. The immediate danger, however, is the uncontrollable lawlessness of youths under sixteen years of age, who rob, terrorise and destroy property with complete disregard for human life.²⁷³ These gangs are small in number, for most of the parents of this parish rear responsible, law-abiding families, often against extraordinary difficulties. The ultimate sanction for their contempt of the law at present is a lecture from a District Justice, after which the offenders must be realised to continue their law breaking. Most of them will not remain voluntarily in open children, or youth, centres. As you know, there is no custodial care for such law-breakers. We understand that Ireland is the only country in the E.E.C. in this unique position. In extreme cases where parental control has irretrievably broken down, it is unfortunately, at times, the only solution. Many of them have serious personal problems and for the sake of their own development, they urgently need – and have the right to expect – enlightened custodial care…Immediate emergency legislation introducing enlightened custodial care for young offenders under 16 years of age is urgently required to allay the fears of our parishioners, to cater for the needs of the youths concerned and to restore law and order.²⁷⁴

4.346A reply was received on 14th June 1977, which outlined that arrangements for the provision of secure accommodation for both boys and girls was receiving urgent attention from the Department of Education. A background note on the issue of secure accommodation, prepared for the Minister for Justice, outlined that:

When the new special school at Lusk for boys referred by the Courts was being planned in 1972 in replacement of the reformatory at Daingean, the Department of Education envisaged the inclusion of a measure of secure provision in one of the units being built. This proposal was opposed both by members of the Oblate Order (who conducted the school at Daingean and now conducts that at Lusk) and by outside elements associated with the CARE organisation. It was stated that the religious did not wish to find themselves cast in the role of gaolers…The School as planned, therefore, incorporated minimal provisions in the way of physical security and it became evident, soon after the school opened in early 1974, that it was incapable of catering for the disruptive type of boy in many cases.²⁷⁵

4.347On 8th September 1977, Mr Tunney, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, announced that ‘A specialised project team has now been set up to plan the new secure special schools for young offenders in the under 16 groups as recommended by the Henchy Committee on the Mentally Ill and Maladjusted and the Task Force on Child Care Services.’²⁷⁶ The first meeting of the Project Team on Secure Units was held in the Department of Education on 9th September 1977. The chairman

referred to the Government’s gave concern about the lack of facilities for coping with a small group of unmanageable young offenders. The matter had already been reported upon by the Henchy Committee and by the Task Force on Child Care Services and the decision to provide special units was in accordance with the recommendations of these bodies. (The Chairman also reminded members of the team of the requirements in regard to confidentiality in relation to the operation of the team.)

4.348The team agreed that secure accommodation was required for between 25-30 boys and 15 for girls. The options laid before the project team were to construct a new building that would provide the secure accommodation required, convert an existing building or use a temporary building pending the availability of either the first or second option. It was agreed members of the team would visit secure units in Northern Ireland; to contact the Rev Fr Comiskey, Secretary of the Conference of Major Religious Superiors, to see if any religious Congregation had a suitable building available and to acquire from the Office of Public Works a list of possible buildings.

4.349The second meeting of the team took place at Scoil Ard Mhuire on 13th September. The possibility of locating the proposed secure unit in Dundrum, where, the meeting was informed, the Department of Health were proposing to open a secure unit for 15 sociopaths between the ages of 12-15 was discussed as was the possibility reopening Daingean. At the third meeting of the team held on 29th September 1977, a report was given on the visit to Northern Ireland and:

It was mentioned confidentially that as a result of intensification of after care activities in the near future the Department of Justice might be able to supply vacant accommodation for, say, 15 boys in St. Patrick’s if the laws were altered to allow children in the 14-16 age group to be placed there. By and large the team was against placing children of such a young age in such an environment.

4.350In relation to reopening the former reformatory in Daingean, Fr MacGonagle, the former Manager, stated, ‘that while he would not favour it he felt that the newer part of the building there could be made reasonably suitable for such a unit provided the older part was demolished’. At the fourth meeting of the group, held on 12th October 1977, it was reported ‘to make it usable would be expensive; that the renovations would probably take more time than could be considered for a short-term solution, and that it could not be considered for a long term solution’. The committee agreed that while they ‘would not be very happy with using Daingean as a secure unit, it might be as well to keep it in mind in case nothing better was found’. The chairman, Mr Ó Maitiú, who had excused himself at the beginning of the meeting as he was meeting the Minister for Justice, Mr Collins and Mr Tunney, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, returned to the meeting after the discussion on Daingean had concluded. The minutes record that:

He was accompanied by R. Mac Conchradha, P.O. in the Department of Justice, who is now to serve on the Team at the request of the Minister for Justice and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. Both Mr. Collins and Mr. Tunney want the whole question of the Secure Unit for Boys treated as one of the utmost urgency – in fact, the Team is asked to take a decision within a fortnight so that an appropriate memorandum may be submitted to the Government.

4.351The chairman then asked Mr Mac Conchradha to address the meeting, who, the minutes record:

explained that his Department was recruiting a cadre of welfare officers who would be used to give intensive supervision to certain delinquents between 16 and 21 who could thus be released from custody. It was proposed to use, as an interim measure, the space made available in St. Patrick’s Institution or in an adjoining building in the North Circular Road complex to house intractable delinquents in the 12-16 years range. Until a long-term solution is finalised, those children will have to endure a prison regime. There is no alternative. His Minister proposes to paint a realistic picture to the public but can only do so if at the same time he shows that the long-term solution is being actively pursued. Hence the urgency. As no other site was available and as the acquisition of a site would take a considerable time, the Ministers were strongly of the view that the new school should be built on an unused portion of the present Oberstown Site.

4.352In response with which Sr Bruton agreed, Fr McGonagle outlined that:

while he appreciated the convenience of using the land at Lusk, he was completely against the Committee’s making a ‘crisis’ decision. A new building would interfere with the present site and with the continued development of Ard Scoil Mhuire as envisaged by its Board of management. A fortnight was much to short a time to make a decision, the results of which would stay with us for many years.

4.353At the fifth meeting of the team on 20th October 1977, Mac Conchradha gave a progress report and informed the meting that rather than using St Patrick’s Institution, it was now proposed to use the old infirmary, which would require extensive renovation. The minutes record that that after this briefing:

G. Granville, expressing his worry at what was being proposed, said that securing children in a place like St. Patrick’s had little to offer in terms of child care and could cause considerable damage; Fr. Pierce also expressed his opposition to what had been done and said it was not the purpose for which the Team had been set up.

4.354At the sixth meeting of the team on 2nd November 1977,

R. MacConchradha stated that he had since reported to the Minister for Justice on difficulties attached to the proposal to use St. Patrick’s Institution as an interim measure. As a result it was now proposed that Loughan House, Co. Cavan, an open institution for juvenile offenders aged 16-21 could be used…The distance was a problem to be met and this would be against its use as a permanent solution. The project team generally welcomed the revised proposal.

4.355At the seventh meeting of the team held on 16th November 1977, Mr Ó Gilín reported on his trip to the secure unit at Redbanks in Lancashire and informed the team that the authorities there considered 30 children the ideal number for a secure unit. The team also discussed an item which had appeared in the Sunday Independent reported a ‘bitter row behind the scenes’ in relation to the deliberations of the team. Mr Ó Maitiú stated, ‘that such a report was inaccurate, must be treated as conjecture but it did emphasise the need for care in discussing the affairs of the Team’. At the next meeting on 30th November 1977:

Reference was made to various letters and press reports concerning the Committee’s activities. The letters seem to cast doubt on the qualification of the members, and a letter was sent to the Daily Independent pointing out what their qualifications were but this had not been published. In reference to the letter from Mrs. M. Harding P.R.O, Irish Association of Social Workers, Sister Lucey said that its contents could not be regarded as I.A.S.W. policy because I.A.S.W. policy had not yet been defined.

4.356The meeting also noted that the Department of Justice were in the process of recruiting 320 additional prison officers and that the staff of Loughan House would be drawn primarily from this group. Mr Ó Maitiú reported, that on the instruction of the Minister for Education, sanction had been sought from the Department of Finance to fund the construction of a unit for 40 boys. At the ninth meeting of the team on 10th January 1978 the members were informed that Loughan House had ceased operating for 16-21-year-olds and that staff training for the new function commenced. At the next meeting on 13th February 1978:

The question of adverse publicity about the Loughan House Project was then discussed and it was agreed that various organisations who had indulged in criticism (CARE, IASW etc.) had been given a great deal of information about the project and that there was no excuse for the inaccuracies in their statements.

4.357The remaining meetings were then largely concerned with outlining the detailed requirements for the new secure unit to be built adjacent to Scoil Ard Mhuire and discussing whether the unit could cater for both boys and girls. At a meeting of a sub-committee of the team to discuss accommodation for girls on 24th April 1978, it was agreed that:

(1)at present it would be well not to press ahead with a two-sex secure school but that options should be left open for the future;

(2)what was required was a secure unit for 15 girls and an assessment unit for eight with provision for assessment on a daily basis as well as on a residential basis. The school could be planned in such a way that a further secure unit for 10 could be added if necessary;

(3)it would be as well not to use the site at Lusk for the girls school as it might turn the area into a delinquent ghetto;

(4)the school should be as near as possible to the city. To this end it was decided to explore the possibilities of obtaining land at St Loman’s, Blanchardstown Hospital, or St John of God’s Stillorgan. Mr O Mordha undertook to have the Dublin Corporation contacted to see if they might have 5-10 acres of land available. It was also agreed that the Conference of Major Religious Superiors should be written to on the matter.

4.358Despite substantial criticisms from a range of childcare organisations, pending the opening of a purpose-built unit in Oberstown, it was agreed that Loughan House, in Blacklion, County Cavan, would be certified as a Reformatory School for 12- to 16-year-old males and be managed by the Department of Justice and staffed by prison officers. Critics included the Prisoners Rights Organisation, who conducted a survey of 50 12–16-year-olds in the North Inner City which concluded that:

92 percent have or have had a brother or father in prison and 94 per cent believe that they themselves will end up in prison. The threat of prison is always present for these youngsters. Yet it does not deter them. When the morale of a community is broken and it has become unstable through lack of financial opportunities and social security the internal sanctions in the community which are largely manifested through parental control cease to operate. External sanctions, largely manifested in the criminal justice system, will not substitute. When people live in such disadvantaged circumstances the deterrent effect of prison exists only in the mind of the penologist. Loughan House can have no deterrent effect for these youngsters.²⁷⁷

4.359Others such as Fr Fergal O’Connor who operated a hostel for homeless girls in the North Inner City of Dublin were reported as arguing ‘if Loughan House was considered part of an overall system for children in trouble, and if boys were only sent there for a short time and on the advice of people who worked with them, it would be a useful institution’.²⁷⁸ However, the majority of child welfare organisations issued a statement outlining their opposition to the proposal to open Loughan House and for the Government ‘to review their plans and adopt a more enlightened approach to the treatment of young offenders’.²⁷⁹ Loughan House opened in October 1978 and the first pupil admitted on 27th October 1978, a 14-year-old from Dublin,²⁸⁰ and closed in March 1983 when Trinity House opened.²⁸¹

Division of responsibility for childcare services

4.360In early 1978 the issue of administrative responsibility for childcare services was raised in the Department of Education. Mr Ó Gilín, on 9th February, in a detailed memo to Mr Ó Maitiú, noted the Task Force on Child Care Services had effectively stopped meeting in January 1977. The Minister for Health, Mr Haughey TD, decided to ask it to complete its work and appointed Judge Sean Butler of the High Court as Chairman in December 1977, replacing Mr Flor O’Mahony who had stepped down in April 1977. Mr Ó Gilín noted that:

The task force has therefore now resumed work and, as a first objective, has set itself to produce a draft report on the question of administrative responsibility. It is considered that, at the present juncture, this will be a matter on which a decision can be made fairly quickly. As, in addition, it is one of the main issues on which the Task Force has to report, a decision on this matter is of major importance. For this reason, it is sought in this memorandum to confirm if earlier Departmental policy is unchanged in this regard. In particular, it is desired to establish the relevance to this matter of proposal no. 5 in the section of the Fianna Fail manifesto on ‘youth and youth employment’. The proposal is to the effect that a ‘Children’s Service Authority’ be established ‘with responsibility for deprived children or those at risk by the provision of the necessary medical and education services.

4.361Mr Ó Gilín outlined that in relation to administrative responsibility for childcare services:

The modus operandi adopted under the new chairman is to assign topics, which will form sections of the final report, to individual members to prepare memoranda on drafts. In accordance with this arrangement, a memorandum on administrative responsibility has been submitted by one of the non-civil servant members and is at present under discussion. The memorandum assumes that responsibility for child care services will in general be assigned, under the Department of Health, to the health boards and the memorandum is mainly concerned with how this assignment should be discharged within the health board structure.

4.362The memo prepared on administrative reform proposed four alternatives:

(1)existing directors of Community Care, advised by child care advisors attached to the programme manager’s office; or

(2)two kinds of director of community care, one having responsibility for health services, the other for social services and the latter being assigned the child care responsibility as part of his remit; or

(3)three kinds of director of community care, having responsibilities respectively for health services, social services and child care services; or

(4)a (fourth) programme manager, for child care exclusively. There is a simple logic to this, namely, beginning in (1) with minimal interference with the present structures and moving, via (2) and (3), to a major addition, in (4), to the existing structures. In fact, logically, there is another possibility between (3) and (4), that of a programme manager for social services including child care and something on these lines has now been suggested in an amendment by two members.

4.363However, Mr Ó Gilín reported that:

The Department of Health representative on the Task Force has opposed specific administrative structures for child care on the grounds that such would run counter to the direction of the present development of our health services….If, alone of all social services, child care were to have a separate administration, there would quickly come similar demands from other areas (e.g. community services for the old, the mentally-handicapped etc.). This would flatly contradict the integrated structure of health boards as set up under the 1970 Health Act. The advocates on the Task Force of some kind of specific child care administration fully realise the weight of the foregoing objection to their position. However, they argue as follows. Firstly and basically, they believe a separate structure is the only way of ensuring that child care will receive the attention it needs. Even the old and mentally-handicapped have votes and they are represented by powerful lobbies of friends and of parents. Deprived children, with generally inadequate parents and no friends, are the most defenceless group in the community. Secondly, it is claimed that community care, in the health board context, has, historically meant health care in the first instance and that the personal social service component is the junior, and fairly youthful, partner.

4.364Mr Ó Gilín then asked what effect the proposal in the Fianna Fail manifesto would have on the deliberations of the Task Force, noting that ‘if the advocates of a specific child care authority in the Task Force were aware of the manifesto proposal, they would make good use of it, to the chagrin of the Department of Health’. In relation to residential childcare, he highlighted two substantial changes in the nature of such provision since the publication of the Kennedy Report in 1970:

The first of these (already underway at the time of the report but now virtually complete) arises out of the change from the traditional industrial school (where the school was on the premises) to the present residential home, where the children go outside to schools in the local community. Applying the Kennedy Report recommendations to this situation, the Department of Health (or the health boards) should take over the homes completely, as they are now child care, and not educational (except in a very general sense) institutions. The residual education function should be discharged through advising the Inspectors (as it is now about to be done) on paying particular attention to the educational needs of children from the homes where they are found on the rolls of local national schools. The second development has been that, while at the time of the Kennedy Report the great majority of the children were committed through the courts (and were thus this Department’s responsibility under existing legislation), the position now is that the majority of the present population of the homes is placed there, and paid for by the health boards. In a few short years, this will be the case with almost all the residential home population. The two factors above are, together, almost unanswerable grounds for transferring administrative responsibility for the homes to the Department of Health. This has been our policy and it is presumed no change is contemplated.

4.365However, he went on to argue that ‘the position of the special schools is different’. The proposal from the Kennedy Report that the Department of Education provide the educational input to the schools and the Department of Health manage the residential element in Mr Ó Gilín’s view ‘would be detrimental to the achievement of the school’s objectives and thus of the welfare of the children’. However, he noted that he thought that proposals would be put forward to transfer the Special Schools to the Department of Health, the grounds being that:

if there is to be a children’s authority in any form, then this authority should have control over the full range of facilities (which would include special schools) for deprived children. Thus a child may, for a time need family support (home help) or social worker supervision. At a later time he may need placement in residential care (residential home or special school), following which there may be a further period of after-care under supervision. This kind of continuity of care, it will be argued, can only be effectively achieved if the care authority itself is responsible for the full range of services.

4.366The alternative view, according to Mr Ó Gilín was that:

special schools are principally schools, albeit of a particular kind. It is not simply the case the education happens (for convenience, as it were, or for other fortuitous reasons) to take place on the premises. Rather is the educational programme part of the essential basic purpose of the institution. There is a danger here that some people may see a degree of antipathy between education and care here. These children (young offenders) are generally educational failures to date and some see an education-oriented programme as an effort to administer further doses of medicine which has proved ineffective hitherto. Thus they would wish to make care basic, with education a secondary function. However, the mere existence of schools of this sort has been brought into question elsewhere, notably in Britain (though also on the Continent and in the U.S.A.). Research has shown that the schools are not effective in ‘curing’ delinquency and that they often succeed in further labelling children to the detriment of both children and society. If such schools are to be justified at all, it is only by taking the view that (1) there are certain children whose actions lead to society to refuse further tolerance to their being left in the community, (2) these children are either a danger to themselves or to others or have not got an effective family to control them, (3) the special schools can provide them with a degree of (a) care and (b) education, through specially designed programmes, which they would otherwise not get and which, while not in all cases succeeding in ‘curing’ their delinquency entirely, can effect major improvements in their educational levels and personality structure and thus future social behaviour, this conception of the role of the special school has seemed to pint in the direction of its being primarily a residential school with a specialised programme. As such, it should come under the administrative aegis of the Department of Education….It has been the intention therefore to press, at the Task Force, to have the special schools excluded from any proposed unification of services under the Department of Health. A direction is sought if this is to continue to be our policy. It is recommended that, for the reasons set out above, our policy should remain unchanged.

4.367Following this memo, Mr Ó Maitiú drafted a note for the Minister on 15th February 1978. In relation to residential care, he noted:

as far as non-delinquent children are concerned, the position is that the vast majority are now being taken into care via the Health Boards. This Department’s involvement in administering these homes is a complete anachronism. I agree therefore that the policy position already taken up by this Department should be maintained i.e. that administrative responsibility should be transferred to the Department of Health. The question of administrative responsibility for the special schools for young offenders is not so simple.

4.368He was of the view that:

the CARE representatives on the Task Force will undoubtedly press very hard to have the service transferred to the Department of Health. That Department may not be all that anxious to take it on – our experience is that none of the health boards or voluntary organisations want to have anything to do with young delinquents. The Department of Justice has never been anxious to take over the service and has only agreed to run Loughan House as a temporary expedient.’

4.369However, he was of the view:

that this service should be located in the Department of Education, even though the task is a thankless one and liable to misrepresentation in the media and elsewhere. I consider that this approach is consistent with the Department’s general policy that the Department or one of its agencies should administer all educational services, no matter where they are located. Similar arguments apply to the Youth Encounter Projects which provide the same type of programme as in the special schools with the children continuing to live at home. Furthermore, the Youth Service is actively involved in these projects at local level and at central level participates in the control of the projects and gives financial support. In this area of intermediate treatment there is scope for many more projects and for a multiplicity of approaches. There is no reason therefore why the Department of Health Neighbourhood Youth projects with their strong emphasis on social and community work – should not also proceed. (Incidentally the initiative for this type of project came from this Department, long before the Task Force was ever thought of).

International Year of the Child

4.3701979 was designated International Year of the Child by the United Nations General Assembly and a national steering committee was established in June 1978. The Association of Workers with Children in Care (AWCC) organised a conference in Trinity College Dublin to mark the event. Organised by the AWCC and FICE – the International Federation of Educative Communities and chaired by Br DE Drohan, the conference was entitled ‘The Right to be Brought Up in a Spirit of Peace and Universal Brotherhood’. On 24th June 1978, Br TL Furlong, the National Chair of the AWCC wrote to the Taoiseach, Mr Lynch, inviting him to both open and close the conference. He outlined that 1979 was designated International Year of the Child and stated:

The Irish Association of Workers with Children in Care, to mark this historic occasion are organising, in conjunction with the international child care organisation FICE an international conference in Dublin from 2nd July to 6th July 1979. The fact that Dublin has been chosen for this unique conference is a tribute to the high standard of child care in Ireland and is also a great honour.

4.371Mr Haughey, as Minister for Health at that time, wrote to Mr Lynch on 20th October 1979 stating, ‘given the association’s relatively minor status when compared to other organisations in this country, I would like to advise that an Uachtarain and yourself should decline the invitation to the conference’.²⁸² Mr Haughey himself opened the conference in July 1979.

Task Force on Child Care Services

4.372The Final Report of the Task Force on Child Care Services was published on 7th April 1981, having been presented to the Minister for Health the previous September. In the middle of 1980, when all hope of an agreed report disappeared, the then Taoiseach (Mr Haughey) directed the Task Force to submit its final report forthwith without proceeding to prepare a Children Bill as required by their terms of reference.²⁸³ In September 1980, the Task Force submitted its Final Report²⁸⁴ which ran to nearly 450 pages, contained a main report, a supplemental report and a number of reservations by members.²⁸⁵ The Task Force acknowledged ‘the tremendous work done for children over the years by voluntary bodies’²⁸⁶ and argued that:

the most striking feature of the child care scene in Ireland was the alarming complacency and indifference of both the general public and various government departments and statutory bodies responsible for the welfare of children. This state of affairs illustrated clearly the use by a society of residential establishments to divest itself of responsibility for deprived children and delinquent children.²⁸⁷

4.373In reviewing the administration of childcare services in Ireland, the Report reflected on the division of responsibility between the Departments of Health, Education and Justice and observed that the ‘division did not, in the main, result from any allocation or rationalisation of child care functions but rather evolved haphazardly in the sense that the services tended to come within the general control of the government department which succeeded the original agency in which the particular service originated’.²⁸⁸ The Report acknowledged that this division ‘resulted in an unsatisfactory situation from the point of view of effective planning and co-ordination of resources’²⁸⁹ and that ‘the absence of co-ordinated planning at departmental level in turn is reflected in the manner of delivery of services at a local level’.²⁹⁰

4.374Following a review of earlier recommendations in relation to administrative responsibility for child welfare services, the Task Force concluded: ‘We are satisfied that what is needed as a prerequisite to the most effective planning, development and delivery of services for deprived children is that these services should be unified under one government department as far as possible and that child care services should be integrated with family support services.’ The Report then recommended that the Department of Health should be that Department that would have responsibility for:

The implementation of the statutory provisions contained in a Children Act concerned with the welfare and protection of children, including the making of regulations, orders or rules to be provided in that Act; The development of the child care expertise necessary for formulation of policy, based on practical experience, professional knowledge and relevant research and information; The identification of children’s needs and the provision of services, including preventative services, designed to meet these needs in consultation, as necessary and appropriate, with other Government Departments, with child care authorities and other bodies providing services at local level’ The making of organisational arrangements for the delivery at local level of the services for which it is responsible in accordance with statutory provisions and in line with defined policy guidelines; The monitoring and evaluation of the services for which it has responsibility.²⁹¹

4.375Responsibility for the delivery of childcare services at a local level, the Report recommended, should be provided by an authority to be known as the Child Care Authority (CCA) and functions of the CCA would include establishing the need for services, providing services to meet these needs, preventative work, liaising with other public bodies to ensure that the interests of children and families are adequately reflected in their policies, implementing policy on family welfare services, including childcare services, and drawing together and developing all available resources concerned with the welfare of children in its area to ensure that these resources are maximised. The Task Force recommended that health boards be designated as child care authorities and that the boards perform the functions of the CCA. However, in doing this, the Report recommended that the CCA be a separate legal entity with specific statutory functions and that child care services, alongside family support services be a separate body of services, in particular separate from more general health services.

4.376The authors of the supplementary report to the Task Force, Mr Ó Cinnéide and Ms O’Daly, however, although agreeing with the other members of the Task Force that the Department of Health and the health boards should be given responsibility for the provision of childcare, went on to state that ‘We are not in agreement with our colleagues views that the existing administrative structures are adequate’(emphasis in original).²⁹² At Departmental level, they recommended that the existing childcare division be strengthened by providing the division with additional administrative and professional resources, but otherwise they saw no substantial problem with the existing structure. However, in terms of allocating responsibility to the regional health boards, they argued that ‘the allocation to them of entirely new responsibilities, does in our view present considerable problems’. They went on to claim that:

In short we believe that the health boards as they are at present organised could not carry out these responsibilities. We have concluded that the health boards, if they are to become Child Care Authorities, would need to be reorganised to some extent. It is on this basis that we have supported the recommendation that they should become Child Care Authorities.

4.377The rationale for this was that:

Firstly, if the health boards become Child Care Authorities they will have greatly expanded responsibilities, most of which have not previously been carried out within the public service. Secondly, the assumption of these responsibilities will require a new orientation or strategy of service; the development and recruitment of highly motivated specialist personnel; additional funds and good planning and management. Thirdly, the present administrative structures of the boards, and in particular the Community care programmes, were designed in conditions which were entirely different from those that exist today, not to talk of those which will exist if the Task Force recommendations are accepted; the Community Care Programme’s structure is seen to be ill-adapted for welfare services even in present conditions. When we relate these three sets of considerations we are forced to the conclusion that certain new structures are necessary within the health boards.²⁹³

4.378The Report was scrutinised in the Department of Education prior to publication and Mr Ó Maitiú drafted a lengthy response to the report dated 12th November 1980. He commented initially on the lack of agreement between the members and observed:

Given the diverse composition of the Task Force, one could hardly expect unanimity of view on all aspects of the subject studied. Nevertheless, the extent of disagreement is somewhat surprising. There is one main report, one minority report (claimed by its authors, Mr. S. O Cinnéide and Miss N.O’Daly, of CARE, as a supplemental Report), and four sets of reservations from (a) Mr. K. O’Grady, Department of Justice, (b) Mr. Tomas O Gilín, Department of Education, (c) Mr. John Hurley, Department of Health and (d) Mr. M. Russell, Office of the Attorney General. It is obvious, therefore, that in reforming the Child Care system in this country, the Government will have to choose between a number of different solutions. Since the Department of Health will have the lead role in this reform, it is very likely to push the alternatives which best suit its own interests, and great vigilance will be needed to ensure that the interests of this Department do not suffer.

4.379On the recommendation that child welfare services should be unified under one Department and this should be the Department of Health, he commented that:

This recommendation is unanimous and is in accord with this Department’s thinking. It is in the implementation of the proposal that disagreement occurs. A majority of the Task Force recommends that, in addition to the services for which it is already responsible, the Department of Health should take over (a) school attendance services; (b) advisory and some supervisory services for the Courts; (c) Community Youth Services and (d) residential services, including existing residential homes, special schools and hostels. In his reservations, this Department’s representative opposed (c), partially opposed (d) and reserved his position on (a). He was supported on (d) by the Department of Justice representative.

4.380He went on to state:

We have long ago agreed that the residential homes at present administered by us should go to the Department of Health, this Department retaining responsibility for the education of children. On the other hand, we have held the view that the Special Schools at Lusk, Finglas and Clonmel are educational establishments and should remain under the control of this Department. The arguments for and against are given in (i) the Report, and (ii) Mr. O Gilin’s and Mr O’Grady’s reservations. I must say that, if a Child Care Authority is set up, I can see some validity in the administration of the schools going to them, although this Department should retain responsibility for the educational programme, as in the Residential Schools for the handicapped.

4.381One of the reasons for the departure from the view held over the previous decade that the responsibility for the Special Schools be maintained by the Department of Education was that:

At the moment, the Health Boards tend to repudiate all responsibility for delinquents and from discussions with them, I gather they would not be at all averse to leaving delinquents with us. I’m not too sure that we should let them off the hook in this way. The operation of the schools for delinquents has given many headaches and there have been problems with children, with staff, with the Religious Orders and with local residents. While a fair degree of success has been achieved with the younger boys in Finglas and Clonmel, the outcome in the case of the older boys at Lusk has been very dubious. Apart from the high rate of absconding, all too often we hear of past-pupils finishing up in Loughan House or St. Patrick’s. The new secure school at Lusk will replace Loughan House and will involve the Department in running what is, in effect, a juvenile prison, without a religious Order to cushion it from day-to-day problems.

4.382For Mr Ó Maitiú, the consequences of the Department of Education retaining the Special Schools would be to ‘saddle itself, of course, with the very worst children – particularly the very violent and difficult 14-16-year-olds who are not amendable to any discipline. They will be a place of last resort for children which the Child Care Authority cannot handle or does not want to handle.’ He argued that:

The Health Boards have considerable expertise in running residential institutions. I feel that a solution on Kennedy lines would enable them to exercise this expertise in the case of special schools, while, at the same time, this Department would bring the benefit of its own expertise to the educational programme. It would be a better solution than the system in Britain where both the care and educational programme are under the Department of Health and Social Security, with not too satisfactory results. I would suggest, therefore, that the Department should now consider a compromise on Kennedy lines. If we adamant about retaining the Youth Service) as I think we should be, we might perhaps concede that the Health Boards should have School Attendance and that there should be a compromise as suggested in regard to the special schools.

4.383Mr Ó Maitiú was of the view that:

certain members of the Task Force are convinced that ‘there is no such thing as a bad boy’, that very few are really delinquent, and that most of their problems with the law are the fault of their families and society rather than of the children themselves. The effect of the Task Force recommendations would be to cut down drastically on the number of residential placements for delinquents. This is the argument that the CARE people have persisted in since the early 1970’s, in spite of all the evidence of their senses. At the same time, the Courts and the Gardaí have kept up a constant agitation for more places to which children coming before them can be sent. It was because the situation had become so desperate that the Minister for Justice had to open Loughan House. The number of residential places has, in fact, been drastically reduced over the past 10 years – Daingean has been closed, together with Letterfrack and Marlboro’ House – and, in my opinion, the number of places remaining – less than 200 for the entire country – is barely adequate to cater for the needs of the Courts. Youth Encounter and Neighbourhood Youth projects are doing a lot for the less serious offenders. However, for the more serious offenders and for those who live in impossible home conditions, residential care is still necessary. Community residential centres are no answer since they are conducted in a social work milieu, the children need a great deal more than care, and anyway the children will not stay in them.

4.384He concluded that:

In the circumstances, I recommend that the Department support the minority view of Mr. O Gilin, i.e. that this Department cannot agree to any reduction in the number of residential places for delinquent children until alternative services on the lines envisaged in the report have been provided and are seen to be at least as effective as the present Special Schools.

4.385On the issue of residential facilities for girls, he noted that:

The Task Force recommends that facilities for girls should be provided for within the mainstream of residential provision recommended by them, but that the existing units for teenage girls should continue their work in the interim period. The existing voluntary training units are conducted by two religious Orders and the absence of controversy in regard to facilities for girls shows that they are doing a good job, which I doubt if the Health Boards could better.

4.386In dealing with this issue, he recommended that:

reform in this aspect of child-care should consist in giving the existing centres sufficient resources to enable them to carry out their very dedicated work more effectively. The Task Force has changed its mind on a closed school for girls, and now states that the school recommended in its interim report should not be proceeded with. There was a certain problem, a few years ago with a number of very difficult girls who could not be contained in the existing centres. This problem seems to have subsided somewhat. There will be the odd girl who will not stay in an open centre and who needs containment – for her own protection, as much as anything else. While a separate closed school may not be necessary (and would be extremely expensive to run) – some provision for containment may be required – preferably by special arrangement in one of the existing centres, or in association with it.

4.387Mr Ó Maitiú concluded by observing that:

The general effect of the implementation of the Task Force Report will be to increase State involvement in all aspects of child-care and to regionalise this involvement in the Health Boards. Up to now, child-care has been seen as the responsibility of the parents themselves, supported by their various Church Authorities who have operated residential establishments of various kinds for children who, for one reason or another, had no parents to look after them. The State’s role has been limited to providing financial support and a certain degree of supervision. In the past, a change such as is now proposed, would have been looked upon with suspicion by the Churches. However, the fall in vocations has meant that for some years now, the work at the coal face is being done by lay people as much as by religious, so that the position of the Churches is not as strong as it used to be.²⁹⁴

4.388On the issue of juvenile justice, the Task Force was fundamentally split.²⁹⁵ Although oversimplifying the debate, the issue of the age of criminal responsibility in part encapsulates the split. The majority of the Task Force recommended that the age of criminal responsibility be left at 7, on the basis that they saw ‘an advantage in retaining a low age of criminal responsibility on the grounds inter alia that the commission of offences will lead in many instances to helpful intervention in the case of young children who might not otherwise receive it’.²⁹⁶ More generally, the majority were of the view that when a child admitted an offence or the offence was proven, the principles that should inform the court should aim to:

(a) Secure for the child such care, guidance, education, training and correction as will conduce to the welfare of the child and the public interest, (b) retain or promote relationships between the child and his parents and his family as far as possible, (c) avoid sending the child to a custodial institution unless there is no acceptable alternative that will satisfy his needs or afford society a reasonable protection.²⁹⁷

4.389The supplementary report produced by Mr Ó Cinnéide and Ms O’Daly argued that the recommendations by the majority of the Task Force did not involve any significant change on the existing system of juvenile justice and on the basis that it ‘was laid down over seventy years ago and, given the developments in knowledge and in public attitudes since then, it is retrograde to retain it’.²⁹⁸ They argued that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised to 15, and that interventions by the State should be based on a number of assumptions. They were:

that by and large parents want to look after their children well, to provide them with the care and education and discipline that they need; that if parents are unable to do this they are likely to avail of any helpful services which are provided to facilitate them; that the need for the state to intervene in a coercive way into the ordinary family will, and should, arise only in exceptional cases; that the state’s intervention should in general be a helpful one, concerned only with the welfare of the child and the family; that compulsory or coercive measures in respect of a child which are not solely helpful and concerned with his welfare should be clearly seen as such and should be invoked only in even more exceptional cases.²⁹⁹

4.390In the same year that the Task Force submitted its final report to the Minister for Health, the Report of the Commission of Enquiry into the Irish Penal System³⁰⁰ was published. In relation to juvenile justice they argued that:

Our low minimum age of criminal responsibility i.e., seven, the lowest incidentally in Europe, ensures that the trivial activities of little children come under censorious scrutiny of the criminal justice system. For many offenders, whether male or female, their criminal careers begin with early experience of reformatories or industrial schools precipitated by truancy from school or home, or family breakdown. Here again factors like differential police deployment can seriously affect the likelihood of a particular child becoming identified as deviant. The child in the bleak inner city, lacking private amenities, like gardens or playrooms or simply space, carries his activities onto the streets where he is in full public view. His scope for ‘safe’ deviancy is limited. Parents may not have money to steal or property to deface. His controls are few and he is highly visible particularly if, as there tends to be, there is a high level of police deployment in the area. There was an incredible pathos about the submission which began ‘When I was seven I was sent to Clonmel by Justice Kennedy. I was in it for nine years’.³⁰¹

4.391Despite these critical observations on the juvenile justice system, some commentators highlighted that significant changes were occurring within the system. Osborough, for example, contrasted ‘the casual approach, displays of judicial independence and a lack of guidelines on important subsidiary issues’ as evidence of a lack of formalism and an absence of a ‘system’ that characterised criminal justice practice in Ireland for a considerable period after independence. By the late 1970s, however, he argued:

the characteristic mark of the Irish criminal justice system is the growth of system and the growth of formalism. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the procedures for dealing with juvenile offenders. At every level there has in recent years occurred some critical development which can certainly be regarded as the antithesis of the casual, the haphazard and the informal. More care is taken, more officials are involved, there are more standards, more procedure; there is both more ‘system’ and more ‘law’.³⁰²

4.392The debate that took place in relation to juvenile justice during the 1970s in Ireland, culminating in the Final Report of the Task Force, was essentially between two competing models of juvenile justice, a ‘welfare model’ which was the one broadly supported by the NGOs and the members of CARE on the Task Force, and a ‘justice model’ which was the one broadly supported by the majority of the members of the Task Force.

Response to Task Force by the Department of Health

4.393In September 1981, a memo was circulated which outlined the response of the Department of Health to the Task Force on Child Care Services. The memo stated:

The Minister for Health accepts the general principles of the Report and is anxious that the initial steps should now be taken in regard to the implementation of these specific aspects of the Report and its supplementary recommendations that are acceptable to her. Some of the recommendations relate to areas of responsibility, which are already those of the Minister for Health. These are now being considered in association with the health boards and voluntary agencies concerned. Where the improvement of existing services is necessary this is a matter that will be considered by the Minister in the light of available financial resources if additional funding is involved. In so far as changes in the law will be necessary appropriate provision will be made in the Heads of the Children Bill, now being drafted, which will come before the Government at a later date. However, there is a number of important functions now the responsibility of either the Department of Justice or the Department of Education which in the light of the Report and the earlier Government decision of October 1973 should, in the Minister for Health’s view now be transferred to her department. The Minister is seeking approval in principle to their transfer to her Department so that necessary discussions about transfer can be instituted with the Departments concerned (including the important issue of implications for existing staff) and also to enable appropriate provisions to be made in the Heads of the Bill.

4.394The rationale for many of these changes was that:

In recent years, there has been a major swing away from the practice of compulsory placement in residential care through court committal in favour of voluntary placement through the health boards. This has resulted in the present situation where the great majority of the children in residential homes are now the responsibility of the health boards, although the Minister for Education retains responsibility for most of the homes themselves. In 1976, the Department of Education formally recorded its agreement with the Kennedy Report recommendation and since then, the Department of Health has taken the lead role in developing overall policy and programmes in residential care, including questions of finance and staffing. However the formal transfer of responsibilities for residential homes to the Department of Health has not yet taken place and the Minister for Health now seeks government approval to this being done so that her Department’s role in relation to these homes will be clarified and in order that necessary statutory provisions can be included in the Heads of Bill.

4.395In relation to the Special Schools, while noting the objection of the Department of Education of their transfer, nonetheless,

The Minister for Health considers that unification of responsibility is particularly desirable in the area of residential care. In accordance with the main tenor of the Task Force Report, the special schools should be seen as being mainly concerned with child care rather than with education as they are at present… The Minister for Health accepts the majority view of the Task Force that special schools are appropriate for integration into the general body of child care services under her Department. These would include the new secure unit at Lusk to replace Loughan House.

4.396The Task Force also recommended that the existing school attendance committees should be discontinued and that school attendance officers should be transferred to the health boards and the memo noted that:

The Minister for Health is in agreement with the proposed transfer of functions and of personnel as recommended and seeks the agreement of the Government to the inclusion of the necessary legislative provisions in the Heads of the Children Bill now being drafted.

4.397In relation to adoption, the majority of the Task Force recommended that this be the subject of a separate study. But the ‘health representative recommended that adoption should form an essential part of the amalgam of child and family care services and that responsibility should be transferred to the Minister for Health’. The memo also claimed that this proposal had the support of a range of voluntary agencies and that as such ‘the Minister for Health proposes that responsibility for the Adoption Board and other aspects of the adoption machinery should be transferred to her Department from the Department of Justice. In relation to the Probation and Welfare Service, the memo noted that the members of the Task Force were divided on the role of the service in relation to young offenders. However, the memo concluded that:

While appreciating that the service has developed very rapidly over the past few years and now has an administrative structure and favourable career prospects, the Minister is of the opinion that a supervisory role such as is envisaged for the health boards would be seen as a progressive measure and would be more compatible with the underlying philosophies of the Task Force Report which calls for community-based services, with a reduction in emphasis on specialised services and direct involvement with the courts for some categories of children. While it is accepted that the proposed transfer of functions will present problems in terms of maintaining existing conditions of work for existing staff, these problems are not insurmountable and will, of course, require considerable discussion between the Departments of Health and Justice and the staff interests concerned before any transfers take place.

4.398Finally the memo noted that:

a particularly important section of the report relates to the juvenile justice system. In view of the Minister for Health’s overall responsibility for the well-being of deprived children she would be anxious that both Departments would be seen to act simultaneously and in harmony in the matter of desirable legislative and administrative changes in this area. The Department of Justice has already indicated its view that legislative changes relating to the juvenile courts might be provided for in the proposed Children Bill thus making the Bill a comprehensive one in relation to child welfare. The Minister for Health accepts this suggestion and assumes that the assistance of officers of the Department of Justice will be available in regard to the preliminary and subsequent processing of the Bill.

4.399The Resident Managers Association (RMA) responded to the Task Force by broadly endorsing their recommendations in relation to residential care. A key issue for them was that:

Staff turn-over is at a totally unacceptable level in child care. Finding the causes of this and remedying them is regarded as one the primary tasks of child care policy makers. It is felt that inadequate salary and the absence of career structures are major causes but not so clearly evident is the lack of training and development of skills to cope with stressful and conflict situations.

4.400The RMA also noted:

references in the report to the services provided in the past and at present by religious orders tend to be both complimentary and confusing. For example, 15.7.6.³⁰³ This paragraph, as written, implies that religious are cloistered, naïve people whose lack of personal development precludes their being able to contribute to the development of the child. We think (and hope!) that this is a misinformed view. In terms of past experience and the present demands and expectations of religious in child care, it is unrealistic to think that they would or could continue to be responsible and accountable, if their involvement is to be as peripheral as the statement would seem to suggest.

4.401The Association of Workers with Children in Care (AWCC) also responded stating that the report ‘must be welcomed by all working with children, particularly those nearest the most deprived in our society.’³⁰⁴ The AWCC looked specifically at four areas; the philosophy of the report; assessment and other concurrent needs; the organisational structures needed to administer the services and residential care. On the issue of administration, that stated that:

Those of us involved in child care, would wholeheartedly agree with the Task Force statement, emphasising that residential child care evolved haphazardly, and did not result from any rationalisation of child care functions or the direct allocation of resources. This resulted in separate administration systems having evolved in a piecemeal fashion, leading to an unsatisfactory situation from the pint of view of effective planning and the co-ordination of resources. We feel that residential care has been particularly isolated, and is in a vulnerable position as new but not necessarily more effective services are developed, again independently rather than in an inter-related fashion.³⁰⁵

4.402The Association also expressed concern with the proposed new administrative structure proposed by the Task Force and the increased bureaucracy that could stem from this. The submission noted that:

A unique position exists where so much of residential care is provided by voluntary homes. With increased financial aid the voluntary nature of such homes is being increasingly eroded and the service becoming bureaucratic in nature. The challenge to all concerned is to develop a situation where accountability exists alongside humanistic caring service, meeting needs as they emerge. Our loudest cry would be to retain Our Autonomy in a responsible fashion so as to be able to pioneer and innovate as the Task Force suggests. A lessoning of bureaucratic structure enables services to re-evaluate and act more easily than that of large services with a top heavy administrative set up which is forced to simply behave with the rules.³⁰⁶

4.403On the specific recommendations in relation to residential care, the Association stated that while they had some slight reservations, ‘the chapter on Residential Care is a commendable one’ and went on the outline that:

We would agree with the Report that as a result of Kennedy Report of 1970, significant innovations in terms of the physical structure of homes, training courses and the introduction of lay staff, had come about. That such changes evolved from this report reflects once again the pragmatism of our work and sense of responsibility of our workers, however the fact that the work developed during this period independent of all other services was a major limiting factor. As outlined in our comments on administration we plead loudly for our inclusion within a comprehensive plan, otherwise, even at present if we develop our service, it would result in us fighting a system which had not adapted appropriately. No service is capable of such a challenge because it absorbs the energies of the workers.³⁰⁷

4.404In May 1981, a document was prepared by the Department of Health in relation to the implications of the Task Force Report on the training and deployment of child care workers. The document observed that:

the majority report of the Task Force on Child Care Services makes no specific recommendations on the training of child care workers apart from saying that its recommendations will require a considerable increase in the number of professional trained child care workers. However, the recommendations concerning increased specialisation and expertise in residential care and the employment of significant numbers of child care workers in the community have major implications for the training of child care workers. The supplementary report attached to the main report does consider the question of training in a little more depth. The supplementary report considers that child care workers in residential and day care and working with children in their own homes will constitute one of the most important resources of the child care system. The supplementary report places a major emphasis on the training of child care workers to work not only with children with serious problems but also with their families and in most residential and day centres, with the local community. The same report argues strongly that there is no valid reason for maintaining different levels of training for different forms of social work. It recommends that training for child care workers should be of an equal standard and an equal status of that of other social workers. They also suggest that the forms of training be brought together and the same qualifications be awarded.

4.405Later that month, on 26th May 1981, a meeting was held in the Department of Education to discuss the Task Force Recommendations. At the meeting it was agreed that the Department of Health would be responsible for the introduction of a new Children Act and for setting up a statutory body for the registration of child care workers, but only in consultation with the Department of Education. The meeting had no objection to the transfer of Industrial Schools to the Department of Health, but not the Special Schools for ‘deviant children’. Specifically, the meeting,

acknowledged that these schools cater for the most difficult sector of the child population and great expertise and financial resources are needed to provide proper services for them. The importance of education in the treatment programme was stressed. The possibility of agreeing to the transfer of responsibility for the residential care of the children to the Dept. of Health was discussed. Experience has shown, however, that two authorities looking after a problem area could lead to conflict. It was agreed that the children’s interests would best be served if these schools were retained by the Dept. of Education i.e. both the care and education element.

4.406On 18th September 1981, Mr Ó Ceallachain in a memo to the Minister for Education observed that the Department of Health were proposing the transfer of various functions from the Department of Education to Health and recommended that the Department agree to the transfer of the Industrial Schools, but in relation to the Special Schools (Reformatories):

the position recommended is that this Department enter a most serious reservation on the grounds that these establishments, providing as they do a structural programme of education, training and recreation with a view to rehabilitation belong more properly in the sphere of education and that moving them into the ‘care’ area would not be in the best interests of the pupils. While care functions do exist in these establishments and a caring atmosphere is cultivated this can be catered for adequately within the present responsibility structure through the format of management and services and the willingness to consult and co-ordinate as necessary with care authorities. Should the Government decide, however, to transfer this responsibility to the Minister for Health, the responsibility of the Minister for Education for all aspects of education within the establishment should be maintained.

4.407With regard to school attendance services:

it is acknowledged that the present operation of the School Attendance Act is in need of radical modification but it could be contended that such a modified service is more appropriate to the Minister for Education who prescribes a minimum period of education for all children and should therefore have the authority and the means to ensure that this prescription is met. It would therefore appear appropriate to enter a reservation on this matter as well.

4.408The functions of the Special Schools were further elaborated on by the Deputy Chief Inspector who argued that:

The main thrust of the work in the Special Schools should be to rehabilitate the pupils and provide access to work as recreational outlets which will allow students to accommodate themselves to the current demands of society. While care and a caring attitude are important components in the regime in these schools, the underlying philosophy of the Department of Education is that children’s attitudes can be changed by intervention and that there is little hope for their survival in the community unless they acquire the intellectual, emotional and social skills which a particular society demands. Our view is that such skills are best acquired through a highly structured, carefully sequenced and integrated programme of school and out-of-school experiences. We recognise that this conflicts with the underlying philosophy of many of the members of the Task Force, and we put it to the Government that the thinking of the Task Force in this regard is unsound. It would be the view of the Department of Education that any shortcomings in the Special School system to date were caused not because of the choice of Department which administered it but rather through lack of funding and lack of awareness in the public in relation to the quality and quantity of professional staff required in these establishments.

Replacing the Children Act 1908 (as amended)

4.409The Department of Health in a memorandum to Government in relation to ‘Proposals for comprehensive legislation to Extend and Up-date the Law in Relation to the Protection of Children’ in December 1982, stated that the Task Force:

supported the earlier government decision of October 1974 that the main central responsibility for child care should rest with the Minister for Health. Dealing with the problem of children in need of care, the report stressed the importance and integrity of the family and insisted that there should be minimal intervention in it by the State. It rejected the notion of placing the child in institutional care and removing it from the family setting unless this was absolutely unavoidable.³⁰⁸

4.410However, it went on to observe that:

notwithstanding the Government decision of 1974, the main responsibility for child care services has not yet been translated into legislation and the present legal responsibilities of the Minister for Health and the health boards in this area are quite limited. At present, there is no single statutory body with specific responsibility for meeting children’s needs. To remedy this situation, it is proposed to give health boards new statutory powers and obligations to identify families with children in need and to provide whatever services are required to meet these needs.³⁰⁹

4.411The broad changes proposed by the Children Bill 1982 were:

the imposition on the health boards of clear cut responsibility for a wide range of childcare services;
the creation of powers to regulate play groups, crèches, nursery schools etc.;
the taking over of full responsibility for children’s homes (formerly orphanages, Industrial Schools);
the taking over of responsibility for children’s special centres (formerly Reformatories);
the taking over of responsibility for the supervision of school attendance;
increasing the age of criminal responsibility from 7 to 12 years with consequently greater responsibility falling on social work staff;
the creation of special children’s courts with greater participation by health boards;
strengthening the powers of intervention where children are at risk; and

• control of sale of solvents.³¹⁰

4.412In relation to school attendance, the memo argued that:

The Task Force was of the opinion that, since early and intransigent truancy has often been found to be associated with severe family and social problems, it is inappropriate that emphasis on such cases should rest primarily on school attendance. In many instances frequent absence from school might indicate, not just a problem child, but a family with a variety of problems to be solved. The members of the Task Force agreed accordingly that certain functions at present performed by School Attendance Officers in relation to the problem of school-children should be integrated with the child welfare service. This would envisage the abolition of the existing school attendance officers to the health boards. The Minister for Health is in agreement with the proposed transfer of certain functions and of personnel as recommended and seeks the agreement of Government to the necessary legislative provisions which are included in the scheme of the Bill.³¹¹

4.413The memo did also note that:

The Minister for Education has expressed reservations regarding the proposed transfer of responsibility for School Attendance Services, and considers these services more appropriate to his responsibility as Minister for Education. As it rests with him to prescribe a minimum period of education for all children he feels that he should continue to have authority and have the means to ensure that this prescription is met. As the prescription of a minimum period of education for children is clearly the responsibility of the Minister for Education, the Minister for Health agrees that enforcement of the Acts by means of statutory warnings or prosecution of parents would remain the responsibility of the Minister for Education. The transfer of personnel is proposed as a means of developing the social work functions referred to in paragraph 12 and of ensuring close links between all schools and the health boards so that children experiencing difficulties which become identified at school can immediately receive attention.³¹²

4.414In relation to residential care, the memo outlined that:

The Scheme of the Bill provides for a new system of residential care for deprived children, to be administered under the aegis of the Minister for Health and the Health Boards. This system will replace the reformatory and industrial schools system for which the Minister for Education is responsible at present. A government decision of 25th August 1982 gave approval in principle to the transfer from the Minister for Education to the Minister for Health of functions in relation to children’s residential homes (formerly known as industrial schools) and the Scheme of the Bill provides for a similar transfer of responsibility for a number of special schools (formerly known as reformatories). ³¹³

4.415The memo acknowledged the reservations of the Department of Education in his regard stating:

The Department of Education has been consulted and has expressed serious reservations regarding the proposed transfer of responsibility in respect of special schools. It regards these as establishments the prime purpose of which is educational and suggests that this purpose is reflected in the preponderance of the activity in the institutions arising from their programmes of rehabilitation and reform. It considers that any measures which would have the effect of removing these schools from the mainstream of education would not be in the interests of the children. In the Department’s view, the care elements involved are being and can continue to be adequately catered for through the format of management and services available and through arrangements for consultation and co-ordination with care authorities.³¹⁴

4.416Having duly acknowledged these reservations, the memo nonetheless argued:

the Minister for Health considers that unification of responsibility is particularly desirable in the area of residential care. In accordance with the general tenor of the Task Force Report, the special schools should be seen as being mainly concerned with child care rather than with education at present. There is no doubt that education must be a major element no matter which Minister is responsible for these centres, but the major factor in deciding on responsibility for the schools must be the fact that they cater for those children who are probably the most seriously deprived, both emotionally and socially and should, therefore, be the concern of the Department which will have the main responsibility in relation to the general welfare of deprived children. It is hardly necessary to point out that if one Minister has authority for all centres for deprived children, the organization, operation and effectiveness of the system as a whole will be facilitated. Such a transfer would also be desirable for the purposes of facilitating continuity of services to the child and its family, with particular reference to the input of social work in relation to the child while in the centre and the provision of continuing care which would be required after discharge.³¹⁵

4.417In relation to St Joseph’s Special School in Clonmel the memo stated:

The Department is not seeking a transfer of responsibility for St. Joseph’s Special School, Clonmel but he considers that discussions might be held between his Department, the Department of Education and the authorities of the School before a final decision is taken regarding its future roles. The Minister now seeks government approval to the transfer of special schools to the Department of Health, as is provided for in the Scheme of the Bill.³¹⁶

4.418On the issue of juvenile justice, the memo outlines the broad principles that informed thinking on the issue, claiming that the proposed new system contained ‘elements of both the main Task Force Report and the Supplementary Report’. The memo went on to state:

the proposed system is based on the principle that arrangements made for children must be consistent with their dependent status, the principle that intervention in a child’s life should be limited to what is necessary to ensure that the child’s interests or the interests of others and the principle that children who need special help should also, as far as possible, have the same experience of growing up as is normal in their society (all of which principles were implicit in both the Main Report and the Supplementary Report).³¹⁷

4.419The broad scheme for a new juvenile justice system was as follows:

(a)If the state is to intervene in the life of a child on a compulsory basis, and interfere with the responsibility of his parent or guardian it should usually be with a view to helping the child; this intervention should be by order of a court to be made following care proceedings.

(b)Care proceedings should be conducted by a newly constituted juvenile court, consisting of a specially trained district justice and two lay assessors.

(c)The age of criminal responsibility should be raised to 12; persons under that age should not be subject to the criminal law i.e. they should not be prosecuted.

(d)A new type of control proceedings should be instituted, under which children under 12 who are a threat to the public can be made the subject of a control order; control proceedings should be conducted before the juvenile court, in separate hearings.

(e)In regard to children under 12 the Garda Síochána should be responsible for initiating Control Proceedings.

(f)In the case of a child between 12 and 15, prosecution should continue to be an option, although no child in this age range should be convicted unless the justice is satisfied as to his criminal capacity.

(g)Young persons between 15 and 17 years should be dealt with separately under the criminal law, as they are at present, with additional provisions to take account of their youth.³¹⁸

4.420On the issue of the age of criminal responsibility, the Bill proposed the age be raised from 7 to 12 on the basis that:

the Minister considers that this represents a more reasonable level at which to draw the line between children who might be regarded as lacking in understanding of the criminality of their acts and those who might be regarded as having reached a sufficient degree of maturity to understand substantially the nature of their wrong doing. The Minister accepts that in view of the present extent of juvenile delinquency any extension in age may provoke a certain amount of controversy. He feels, however, that public indignation at the extent of crime should not be allowed to prevent a non-retributive approach to troublesome children whose background in many instances will be one of considerable psychological or physical deprivation.³¹⁹

4.421For those children under the proposed age of criminal responsibility, the legislation included provision

for a new form of ‘control proceedings’ which will enable the State to intervene in the lives of such children, with the express purpose of affording necessary protection to others. In such extreme cases it would have to be a serious offence if committed by an adult, or that the child had committed an act or acts which caused (or were likely to cause) serious loss or damage to persons or property. The court would be empowered to make an order to ensure such minimal restraint or control as was necessary for the protection of the community.’³²⁰

4.422The background to the drafting of the Children Bill 1982 by the Department of Health lay in the Government decision of October 1974 to transfer the ‘main responsibility’ for childcare services to the Department of Health. In a memo to the Minister for Health in 1987, the background was outlined. Having outlined the recommendations of the Task Force on Child Care Services, the memo observed that:

The question of who was to take over responsibility for the new juvenile justice legislation was not settled at that time nor has it been since. This Department was prepared to co-ordinate the preparation of a comprehensive Children Bill with the juvenile justice aspects being drafted by the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice, on the other hand, held that it was up to the Department of Health to formulate the proposed bill in its entirety. Justice offered to comment on the proposals once they had been prepared but would take no part in their preparation. Faced with this attitude and under strong political pressure, the Department of Health attempted to prepare the outline of a comprehensive Children Bill, which would include provisions on the treatment of juvenile offenders, reform of the Children’s Courts and the age of criminal responsibility. Without the assistance and expertise of the Department of Justice it proved an almost impossible task. However, just before the change in Government in December 1982, the Minister (Dr. Woods) directed the Department to circulate for comment to the other Departments involved the (as yet incomplete) Heads of a Children Bill.³²¹

4.423With the change in Government, in February 1983, the new Minister directed that the heads of Bill were to be reviewed, particularly those aspects relating to juvenile justice. At this stage the Department of Justice had submitted its observations on the Bill, particularly in relation to juvenile justice, which ran to 38 pages and ‘identified a number of serious flaws and weaknesses in the proposals’. The Department of Justice firstly observed:

In the context of juvenile justice, the Bill apparently provides for a ‘welfare model’. In this model juvenile justice forms part of a more encompassing child care and protection system and it is interwoven with other more general services which the Heads would make available to children and young people. It also involves a high level of interference by the State’s Social Services. Furthermore, it emphasises in the first place the needs of the child irrespective of the act committed or its seriousness; much attention is given to social and psychological conditions surrounding the offence and decisions are aimed at the individual needs and interests of the juvenile. What is generally accepted as the main alternative to this ‘welfare model’ in this area, namely, the ‘justice model’ emphasises the committed act, the responsibility of the juvenile himself, the punishment related to the offence and the guarantees of due process. The Minister for Justice, in responding to the proposals from the Department of Health, is not advocating one or other of those models as being preferable to the other but, he considers that it would be useful for Government to be aware of the international experiences in this area. As far as the Minister for Justice is aware, it has been the experience in Europe – particularly in Holland and in Britain – that where ‘welfare models’ of criminal justice have been operating the countries concerned are reverting in varying degrees to the ‘justice model’.³²²

4.424On the issue of Departmental responsibility for certain children, the Department of Justice noted that the memorandum:

stated, ‘under the new legislation, it is proposed that committal to prison should not be an option in dealing with young persons (15-17 years old) although committals to other forms of institutional care will be possible’. The Minister would be concerned about where members of this age group are to be detained when charged or convicted of what in the case of an adult at any rate would be a criminal offence. The cumulative effect of the Heads seem to be that (a) ‘unruly’ children or young persons (12 to 17 years) on remand or convicted of particular serious offences and (b) convicted persons between the ages of 15 and 17 should be detained in such institutions (other than prisons) as may be ‘designated’ or ‘directed’ by the Minister for Justice. The Minister is assuming that the words ‘designate’ and ‘direct’ is intended to mean that the Minister for Justice should have responsibility for the actual day-to-day running of the institutions. The Minister for Justice, however, has the strongest objection (now that a fundamental revision of the whole area of juvenile justice is being undertaken) to the proposal that young person under 17 should be committed to institutions under his control. The Government will be aware of the outcry from certain groups (some of whose views are reflected in the Task Force Report) when the Government, in 1978, decided that 12 to 16 year old boys should be held in Loughan House under the control of the Department of Justice. At that time the Minister for Justice agreed to make Loughan House available for that age group as a temporary arrangement until such time as the Department of Education would have the secure school at Lusk (Trinity House) ready. Trinity House is now almost ready and on transfer of the boys to it from Loughan House the latter will revert to general prison usage – for which, it is badly needed -around April, 1983. In the circumstances it is strange, to say the least, that a Bill whose guiding concern is for the care and welfare of the child should now be providing that children as young as 12 years of age should be committed to institutions (presumably similar to Loughan House) under the control of the Minister for Justice. Indeed, over 40 years ago – in the Children Act, 1941 – the age at which a youthful offender could be committed to a certified reformatory school under the control of the Minister for Education was raised from sixteen years to 17 years.³²³

4.425The Department of Justice then outlined:

In the Minister’s view, the appropriate age at which youthful offenders should be committed to institutions under his control should be 17 years. However, if the Government consider that 17 years is too high in this context, the Minister would hope that, at least, there would be general acceptance that it would be unthinkable that a new ‘Children’s Charter’ should provide for the detention of anybody under 16 years of age in institutions under the control of the Minister for Justice. The proposal whereby a child or young person of unruly character could be committed to such an institution should, in the Minister’s view, be rejected. Apart from the objections already stated which apply to all children and young persons, such a provision could easily develop into a means whereby agencies who would hold primary responsibility for the care of children and young people could opt out of their responsibility to these young people where they proved difficult to control. To summarise on this point, it is the Minister’s view that nobody below 17 years should be detained in institutions under his control but that if the Government considers 17 too high, he would urge that the age should not be set as less than 16 years. Furthermore, he is of the view that persons under 17 or 16 years (as may be decided) should not be committed to such institutions on the ground that they are unruly. They should be detained in institutions run by caring agencies operating under the control of the Minister for Health or the Minister for Education and those agencies should be required to receive them and provide proper custodial facilities for them.³²⁴

4.426When the Department of Justice was contacted by the Department of Health in relation to redrafting the section on juvenile justice, the Minister for Justice replied that:

his Department would continue to give whatever assistance was possible by way of commenting on texts and by participating at occasional meetings but made it clear that Justice was not prepared to take over the preparation of the juvenile justice aspects of the bill.³²⁵

4.427The Department of Health, however, were of the view, that:

The preparation of new juvenile justice legislation is essentially a matter of refining and modifying criminal law and procedure as it affects children. Changes in the criminal law are entirely a matter for the Minister for Justice; similarly, changes in the role and procedures of the Gardaí and the Courts in relation to children are unlikely to take place without the active support and involvement of the Minister for Justice and his Department. Having examined the matter over the last few months I am convinced that the input which this Department is skilled to make in reforming the juvenile justice system and the role which health boards could be expected to play in any new system is limited to: —

(i)ensuring that the correct balance is maintained in the legislation between the protection of the public and the provision of care, support and rehabilitation to the young offender;

(ii)identifying children at risk of getting into trouble with the law and making available services and facilities which would seek to stem the drift towards crime and vandalism;

(iii)extending the range of options available to the courts by equipping health boards to provide counselling and remedial treatment programmes for young offenders who do not require custodial care.³²⁶

4.428At this stage, the Department of Health concluded that any attempt to introduce a comprehensive bill to replace the Children Act 1908 and the various Health Acts would face considerable difficulties and instead it was agreed that separate legislation would deal with the core substantive areas of child welfare and protection, adoption and juvenile justice. This series of reforms were agreed by Government and in 1984 a formal announcement of this decision was outlined by the Government in its national plan, Building on Reality, 1985-1987. Building on Reality stated:

It is intended to introduce three Bills in relation to the care and protection of children. Much of the existing legislation in this area is now outdated and not sufficiently in keeping with current concepts in regard to the well-being of the child. The first of the new Bills is at an advanced stage of preparation and will provide a wide range of new measures as well as considerable up-dating of the Children Act, 1908, which is the basis of much of the existing law in regard to child care. This Bill will impose a clear obligation on health boards to promote the care and protection of children. It will inter alia; provide for the registration and control of day care services for children; make amendments to the present provision in relation to foster care and give greater protection to children; provide for the registration and supervision of children’s homes; provide better and more flexible arrangements for taking children into care; include a range of new provisions aimed at protecting the child in regard to such matters as volatile substances; and provide protection for children in relation to pornography. The emphasis in the Bill will be on keeping the child in a family setting rather than in residential care….The Government is also committed to bringing forward revised measures in regard to juvenile justice. This will be the subject of a third Bill which is under examination at the moment.³²⁷

4.429However, the Department of Health noted that:

The plan gave no indication as to which Minister or Department would prepare the third Bill. The Department understood from the Minister that it would be done by Justice while Justice apparently believed that Health were to do it. In the event, neither Department has taken any initiatives in relation to the juvenile justice bill. There the matter rests. There have been no further contacts between the two Departments in the matter, apart from occasional skirmishes about responsibility for answering Parliamentary Questions on the subject. The Department of Justice have availed of every possible opportunity to promote the idea that this Department is responsible for new juvenile justice legislation. Their repeated attempts to have inserted in the Child Care Bill a provision prohibiting the hanging of persons under 18 is a typical example of this campaign.

4.430As noted earlier in the paper, legislation was prepared on this basis and the Child Care Bill 1988 was enacted into law by President Mary Robinson on 10th July 1991, as the Child Care Act 1991. The Act superseded the Child (Care and Protection) Bill 1985, which was designed to update and extend the law relating to the care and protection of children.³²⁸ The second stage of the Bill was passed in the Dáil on 23rd January 1987 but had not progressed further by the time of the dissolution of the Dáil in January 1987. The Bill had also ran into difficulties when a Supreme Court judgement, in a case known as KC and AC v An Bord Uchtála, cast serious doubts over the constitutionality of two of the key elements; firstly, proposals to make it easier for children to be placed in health board care and, secondly, provisions which would have enabled the courts to grant custody rights to foster parents. A number of non-profit agencies in the area of child welfare were also critical of the Bill arguing that:

in the context of the debate on children’s issues over the past two decades this Bill is seriously lacking and fails to address itself to some of the central issues which practitioners, policy makers and legislators have considered.³²⁹

4.431In preparing new legislation to replace the Child (Care and Protection) Bill, it was noted that initially:

the Bill as welcomed by all the major groups involved in child care. Subsequently, however, it was subjected to severe criticism on two main fronts. On the one side were those who felt it did not go far enough to promote the welfare of children and, on the other, were those who felt that it posed a threat to parental rights and family autonomy.³³⁰

4.432In drafting the replacement legislation, the Department of Health outlined that:

The main differences between the General Scheme and the Bill published by the previous Government are:

(i)the distinction between ‘children’ (those up to 15 years) and ‘young persons’ (those from 15-17 years) has been dropped; all persons under 18 years are now defined as children

(ii)the provisions regarding the supervision of child minding and children’s residential homes have been revised so as to avoid unnecessary intervention inthe operation of these services and to simplify the bureaucratic procedures involved.

(iii)The provisions in regard to placing children in health board care have been reformulated primarily in the light of the constitutional considerations already referred to;

(iv)Proposals which would have enabled foster parents to seek the custody of children in certain circumstances have been dropped because of doubts about their constitutionality and because child care interests were, on balance, opposed to them.

The introduction of new legislation in relation to child care services has been recommended by various official reports in recent years…Not all the proposals in these reports have been accepted but they have been nevertheless, a major influence in the preparation of the Scheme. Many of the recommendations in the reports were in the area of juvenile justice and the Minister considers that these should be dealt with in a separate juvenile justice bill which would, more appropriately, be the responsibility of the Minister for Justice.³³¹

4.433On the matter of juvenile justice, the explanation given by the Department of Health for the approach of the Department of Justice to the issue was:

it was the Minister for Health who established the Task Force

(i) it was the Minister for Health who asked the Task Force to prepare a new Children Bill which was, inter alia, to deal with young offenders;

(ii) it was the Minister for Health that the Task Force submitted its report;

(iii) following the disbandment of the Task Force, the task of preparing a new Children Bill, involving measures in relation to young offenders, devolved on the Minister for Health.³³²

4.434However, the Department of Health took the view that the decision of October 1974 was not as unambiguous as the Department of Justice were indicating. The Department of Health took the view that:

The Government decision of October, 1974, allocated to the Minister for Health the main responsibility in relation to child care. It did not assign him the main responsibility in relation to children. It was never intended that Health should take over responsibility for each and every service and piece of legislation that affects children. (If that were the case, the Department of Education should by now, have been subsumed into Health). The contention that juvenile justice legislation ‘belongs’ to Health simply because it affects children defies any reasonable interpretation of the Government decision. (emphasis in original)³³³

4.435The justification by the Department of Health for allocating to the Department of Justice responsibility for preparing new juvenile justice legislation was that firstly that the public mood for a welfarist approach had dissipated since the mid-1970s and secondly that since in its essence, the legislation was in the criminal justice domain, it was not appropriate for the Department of Health to be the lead Department. On the first point, the memo stated:

In 1974 the demand was for a shift to a welfare-oriented approach to juvenile offenders in which the health boards and social workers would play a lead role. Thirteen years later the social climate has changed dramatically. There has been an increase in crime and vandalism, much of it attributed to juveniles. In addition, the involvement of juveniles in such horrific cases as the Fairview Park murder and the killing of two youngsters in Ballyfermot in a so called ‘joy-riding’ incident has dampened enthusiasm for any relaxation of the law. The campaign for the raising of the age of criminal responsibility has lost much of its edge. In the situation in which we now find ourselves, the involvement of the Department of Heath in the preparation of new juvenile justice legislation is, to say the least, questionable, if not entirely inappropriate.³³⁴

4.436On the second point, it stated that:

The preparation of a new juvenile justice bill is essentially a matter of refining and modifying criminal law and procedure as it affects children and bringing about changes in the methods and approaches of the Gardaí and the Courts in relation to young offenders. Can it seriously be argued that this does not fall fairly and squarely within the remit of the Minister for Justice and his Department?³³⁵

4.437It was not until the early 1990s that responsibility was primarily allocated to the Department of Justice to prepare new juvenile justice legislation. At this stage, debates on formulating juvenile justice legislation on either ‘welfare’ or ‘justice’ principles were to a degree superseded by attempts to devise legislation on ‘restorative’ grounds.³³⁶ In December 1996, a Children Bill was published and the second stage was completed in the Dáil in February 1997. However, the Bill fell on the dissolution of the 27th Dáil, but in September 1997 it was restored to the order paper. In excess of 150 amendments to the Bill were put forward and, on this basis, it was agreed that a new Bill be prepared, the Children Bill 1999. This was eventually enacted as the Children Act 2001 as highlighted earlier in the paper.

Transfer of responsibility for children’s residential homes from the Minister for Education to the Minister for Health and Funding Homes

4.438In August 1982, a memorandum for Government was prepared on the transfer of responsibility for children’s residential homes from the Minister for Education to the Minister for Health. In addition to seeking to transfer the homes, the decision also sought ‘the allocation of the necessary funds to wipe out the accumulated deficits of these homes and to place them on a proper budgetary system’. The justification for the transfer to the Department of Health from the Department of Education was that:

(i)the homes should now be regarded as child care establishments rather than educational. This is particularly so at present in the situation where, in all but two of the homes, the children attend outside schools, thereby reducing significantly the involvement of the Department of Education with the homes;

(ii)the vast majority of the children in these homes are now the responsibility of the various health boards. The health boards pay for the children in the homes at the approved capitation rate and have the responsibility of providing supportive social work services for the children and their families as well as being responsible for the after-care of the children;

(iii)the transfer of ministerial responsibility to the Minister for Health would be consistent with the objective of unifying, as far as possible, responsibility for the child care services under one Minister.

4.439In addition, the memo noted:

The report of the Committee on Reformatory and Industrial Schools System (the Kennedy Report) recommended in 1970 that responsibility for children’s residential homes should be transferred to the Minister for Health. In 1976 the Department of Education formally recorded its agreement with the Kennedy Report recommendations. Since then the Department of Health has in fact taken the lead role in negotiating with the homes on matters of overall policy in the field of residential child care. More recently the Final Report of the Task Force on Child Care Services recommended the formal transfer of responsibility for these homes to the Minister for Health. The Department of Education, Finance and the Public Service have been consulted and they are in favour of such a transfer taking place.

4.440However, before the transfers could take place, the memo highlighted the financial position of the homes and the necessity of solving that issue.

At present the homes are financed by way of a weekly capitation payment in respect of each child. The payment is made by the authority responsible for the placement of the child which, as already stated, means the health board in the vast majority of cases, the capitation rate is revised on an annual basis and fixed by order of he Minister for Education after consultation with the Minister for Health and the Minister for Finance. The Managers of the homes claim that in recent years capitation has tended to lag behind real increases in the cost of looking after children and that, as a result, a number of homes have accrued considerable deficits. The Minister for Health made funds available in last year’s Supplementary Estimates to help clear these deficits. Notwithstanding this, and despite an increase since January 1982 from £54 to £68 in the weekly capitation rate, a number of homes have already this year indicated that they are in serious financial difficulty and anticipate considerable deficits by the end of the current year. The Managers of the homes have persistently expressed dissatisfaction with the capitation method of financing the homes and have requested that there should be an immediate transfer to a budget system of financing.

4.441The justification for moving from a capitation system to a budget system was that it would give ‘health boards greater control as regards the overall policies and afford the homes the benefit of the board’s expertise in the management of resources with particular reference to staffing, their major cost factor’. It was estimated by the Department of Health that £1.5 million would be needed to wipe out the accumulated deficits of the residential homes as at 31st December 1982 and to achieve the objectives of clearing the deficits and transferring the homes:

The Minister for Health proposes that as a preliminary step to a formal transfer of responsibility for these homes a group of officers of the Departments of Education, Finance and Health should analyse the statements of accounts and estimates submitted by the homes, with a view to arriving at a firm figures for the wiping out of the accumulated deficits of the homes and of transferring from capitation to a budget system of financing. This proposal has the support of the Departments of Finance and Education. He further seeks a commitment from the Government that the necessary funds be made available to him by way of a special allocation to allow him act on the findings of the group. In that connection the Minister would also look critically, in association with the health boards, at the present manner of operation of each residential centre particularly with a view to ensuring that children suitable for fosterage or other community based types of care are not institutionalised. Department of Finance consider that it would be inappropriate for the Government to make any decisions on the future financing of these homes and liquidating their deficits until the proposed inter-departmental committee has completed its examination of the homes financial position. However, the Minister for Health would not be prepared to take over responsibility in a situation where he would be faced with demands for additional funds necessary to put the homes on a sound financial footing and where such funds were not made available to him.

4.442On 25th August 1982 the Government:

(1)agreed, in principle, that the functions in relation to children’s residential homes should be transferred from the Minister for Education to the Minister for Health; and

(2)decided that an Interdepartmental Committee comprising officials of the Department of Education, Finance, Health and Justice should be established to review the operation and financing of the homes.

4.443In December 1983, following receipt of the report of the interdepartmental committee, a memo was sent to Government formally seeking to transfer children’s homes from the Department of Education to the Department of Health.

Difficulties in implementation – transfer and finance

4.444The decision to establish an interdepartmental committee and the deliberations that gave rise to it provide a useful example of the difficulty of implementation in the area of child welfare. The Kennedy Committee had recommended that the system of funding residential care move from a capitation system to a budget system and that responsibility for the administration of childcare be given to the Department of Health. However, this would not be finally agreed on and implemented until 1984 and involved the commissioning of a number of further reports, and the establishment of an inter-departmental committee, before formal agreement could be reached. The transfer of functions relating to Industrial Schools from the Minister for Education to the Minister for Health on 1st January 1984³³⁷ effectively centralised all statutory responsibilities for children’s homes to the Department of Health. From that date the Department of Health assumed statutory responsibility for 24 Industrial Schools in addition to the 17 approved homes for which it already had responsibility under the Health Act 1953. The only residential facilities for children in care operating outside the aegis of the Minister for Health were the four Special Schools, which were controlled and funded by the Minister for Education. January 1984 also marked a major change in the funding of children’s homes. Homes in the past were financed from a combination of public and private funds. Grants payable jointly by the State and local authorities in respect of the maintenance of children committed to certified Industrial Schools were provided for in the Children Act 1908. Grants took the form of a fixed sum per child per week – a capitation rate, with half the rate paid by the Minister for Education and half by the local authority. A school’s income from these sources was supplemented by fund-raising. As the number of children committed by the courts to the homes declined, the number of children placed by the health boards increased. Health boards paid the full capitation rate for these children and also for children placed by them in Approved Homes. This system of payment ceased from 1st January 1984 and children’s homes from that point were now funded directly on a budget basis by their local health board, following recommendations by a special inter-departmental committee established by the Minister for Health to examine the financing of all children’s homes.

Financing residential childcare

4.445On 23rd October 1974, Mr O Maitiú wrote to Mr Hensey in the Department of Health informing him that the Department of Education was studying the question of the financing of the residential homes and that discussions had taken place with the Association of Workers in Child Care in relation to recommendation 11 of the Kennedy Report. In his letter he stated that ‘because an increasing proportion of the children in the homes are the responsibility of the health authorities and particularly in view of the recent Government decision on the role of the Minister for Health in regard to child care, we think we should not go further with the matter at this stage until we have consulted with your Department’. Ó Maitiú enclosed a detailed memorandum on the issue which reflected the Department’s thinking at that time. The memo highlighted that:

One of the points basic to the Kennedy Report recommendations was that children should be placed in, and retained in, residential care only when there was no suitable alternative. In this context, it was felt that a system of financing homes by capitation grant could encourage homes to try to retain children who should suitably be returned home or placed elsewhere under supervision.

4.446In addition:

A further recommendation in the Kennedy Report in relation to the need to provide separately for works of a capital nature has been accepted and in the provision since 1971/72 of a capital sub-head for new buildings and since 1973/74 of a sub-head for grants towards the modernisation and adaptation of existing buildings (sub-heads E & H in Vote 32).

4.447In relation to the system of capitation funding, the memo highlighted:

The capitation grant for children committed through the courts is paid in approximately equal shares by the Department of Education and the Co. Council or Co. Borough (except for children over 17 years of age, where the entire grant is paid by the Department). In recent years, to avoid the stigma of committal proceedings, the tendency has been to have the child referred to the home wherever possible by the Health Authority, under the provisions of section 55 of the Health Act, 1953. Health Authorities pay a capitation grant for the children for whom they are responsible equal to the total of the State grant plus local authority grant in the case of committed children. Voluntary cases are paid by their parents or relatives – the amounts contributed are usually nominal.

4.448He highlighted that not only was the Department concerned with the method of payment, but that the homes themselves were unhappy with the system of financing as:

the money comes from so many sources and there is often delay in payment. From the administrative point of view the system is anomalous, wasteful and archaic. As the Government has decided that health charges will be transferred from the local rates to the central exchequer, the Health Authority grants will in future be borne directly by the Department of Health, whereas the grants for committed children will continue to be borne jointly by the Department of Education and the Co./Co. Borough Councils. There is much to be said for making all the grants a charge on central funds: this would involve releasing the councils from the obligations laid upon them by the Children Acts.

4.449The Department was also under pressure to deal with the financing of the homes.

This pressure has come from two related sources. Firstly, it was also a major recommendation of the Kennedy Report that large institutional buildings should be sub-divided into small self-contained units or, where new buildings were needed, these should be in the form of small group homes. This recommendation was accepted by the Department and funds for the conversion of old buildings and the erection of new ones have been made available by the Department of Finance since 1971. It was in fact already being implemented independently, so far as their sources would allow, by some of the homes. The effect of a move to small groups is, obviously, some sacrifice of the more economical functioning of the larger institutional structures, particularly as concerns staff numbers. The second source of pressure on the Department has been the decline in the number of religious available to staff the homes and the consequent employment by the conductors of lay people as staff in much greater numbers than before. Such lay people are not prepared to work for the salary rates which the capitation grant permits the conductors to offer them, nor are they prepared to enter a type of employment where salary rates and other conditions are not agreed on a general basis.

4.450What made the situation particularly problematic was that:

The present rates of grant are not based on any rationally worked-out norms…grant increases since 1969 have aimed solely at maintaining the position attained at that time when the grant was somewhat arbitrarily doubled in face of growing public awareness of its hopeless inadequacy. The grant in most cases appears more than adequate to cover the cost of maintaining the children, but it is not adequate to cover as well the salaries of care staff and wages of domestic staff. Some homes show a small surplus on the year’s working, but closer examination reveals that they have allowed no salaries (or only notional salaries) for religious staff engaged in full-time care work. On the other hand homes employing a majority of lay staff show heavy deficits, especially where male staff have to be employed to care for senior boys in homes conducted by nuns.

4.451As a consequence, he argued:

there would be a great deal of difficulty, from an administrative point of view in converting entirely to a budget system, as recommended by the Kennedy Report. The information to hand suggests that it would be largely a futile exercise to have homes present estimates of expenditure in the absence of parameters which could be applied to the items in such expenditures. In these circumstances, the Department believes that there is no alternative for the present to continuing to pay grants in respect of non-pay expenditure on a capitation basis.

4.452On the issue of staffing, he noted:

there are wide variations in levels of staffing. However, in this case, the Department does consider that some rational basis of staffing can be worked out. Moreover, it is relation to the setting up of a recognised framework of staff salaries that the most insistent pressure is coming on the implementation of the Kennedy recommendation about financing. In regard to staffing, it may be said that the information supplied by homes is not a reliable guide to appropriate levels of staffing in that a low staff cost is more likely to indicate an inadequate service than to reflect prudent economy. In very few cases could staffing be regarded as adequate by present day standards in other countries.

4.453He further elaborated that:

In fact, the question of staffing could be regarded as the major weakness of the system as it is at present. New buildings and reconstruction grants are gradually bringing matters to a point where it will not be possible to allege that children are housed in poor accommodation. The authorities of the homes are solicitous in relation to the material well-being of the children in their care and it could not be denied that the children in these homes to-day are well-fed and adequately clothed and that they have proper medical services available. These are relatively tangible and measurable things, however. The real test of the quality of service provided by the homes lies in their success in fostering the personal development of the children. Many of these children come from broken homes and the painful experience of home life in these situations means that most of them carry some measure of emotional disturbance. The care of these children requires trained staff but, more importantly, adequate numbers of staff.

4.454What was now required, he argued, was:

to determine appropriate pay rates. It is perhaps the most persistent source of complaint in regard to financing that recognised rates of pay do not exist and that religious engaged in the work are not paid. The modern concept of residential child care is that it is a professional task, calling for certain qualities and skills. The idea of substitute parenthood is outdated. Formerly many of the children in the homes were illegitimate or orphans and came into the home as babies. With the development of adoption and fosterage this is no longer the case. Most children now coming into care have parents of their own and are in care because of a break-down in the natural home or of relationships within the home. Not only do they require the ‘nurturing’ care which parents normally provide; they also require remedial care relating in various degrees to the physical and mental damage which they have suffered in the home environment.

4.455He further elaborated on the nature of children in residential care and the implications for child care workers.

Some of these children express their disturbance in many forms of antisocial behaviour, ranging from violent aggression to complete withdrawal. The remedial task of the residential care worker is to assist such children to overcome the trauma of their home experience, to adjust to the residential situation and, in spite of its inherent disadvantages, to attain therein their full potential as human beings. He must always have in mind that the child should be returned to his natural home as soon as it is feasible to do so – this involves close liaison with the Health Boards and other agencies working to rehabilitate the entire family. Residential child care, therefore is now developing as a distinct discipline, with different levels of expertise. It has some of the elements of the task of social worker, the teachers and the nurse, together with separate qualities of its own.

4.456In 1975, the Department of Education commissioned a detailed analysis of the financing of residential homes, which was completed in February.³³⁸ The report concluded that

the present system of payments to homes from a variety of sources is administratively wasteful and places unnecessary burdens on the homes. Payments should be made, in present circumstances, only by the Department of Education which would subsequently recover the appropriate payments from the local authorities and the Department of Health.’

4.457The report recommended that a budget system be put in place on the following grounds

(a)It is administratively less expensive than direct payment of careworkers’ salaries.

(b)It gives the Department greater control over expenditure in the homes and consequently over policy-making in the homes – capitation grants give the homes greater freedom to develop and implement their own policies.

(c)Capitation grants are being phased out as a system of financing by the Department of Health. If residential homes are made the responsibility of the Department of Health, the transfer of responsibility would be facilitated by the introduction of budget financing as soon as possible.

(d)It can be operated to facilitate homes in providing a satisfactory superannuation scheme.

4.458However, the Department of Education continued to favour the capitation scheme on the grounds that it gave the homes greater freedom to manage their own affairs and to decide their own priorities. The Department of Finance on the other hand, in correspondence with the Department of Education on 20th February 1976, favoured another option outlined in the report, a capitation grant, but the salaries paid directly by the Department of Education, with the proviso that no additional staff could be employed in the homes and that contributions by local authorities be maintained in the same proportion as the currently paid. The Department of Education were in broad agreement with the report, but noted that salaries should take cognisance of the fact that staff did not work a rigid 40-hour week and would have to work anti-social hours. On the issue of the Department of Education paying the staff salaries directly, the Department replied to the Department of Finance stating they were:

very doubtful about this. It would mean creating what would be to all intents a new cadre of public servants, paid directly by the State. Would your proposal that we pay these staff at their existing rates be workable? Some are paid nothing at all, some take notional salaries out of the grant, some are paid varying amounts, depending on what the particular home can afford. A few are being paid the rates for Lusk and Finglas, which we consider too high for the residential homes. If the State takes over, a claim for uniformity of remuneration will be irresistible and it will go for the highest level rather than the lowest. All the staff basically are doing the same job. With the State as paymaster these staffs would immediately become unionised and thereby gain immediate access to the Labour Court. We have been very disappointed at the rigid Union attitudes which have developed in Lusk and Finglas and which have led to demands which we consider grossly excessive….The Department is of the view that nothing should be done which would detract from the voluntary character of all these homes – whether they are financially supported by this Department, the Department of Health or a mixture of the two. The State should not interfere in this sensitive area any more than is necessary.

4.459In addition to recommending a budget method of financing, the report recommended that the system of parental contributions, which applied to some children committed to the homes, be discontinued. The basis for this was that:

it is clear that contributions from parents make at best a trivial contribution to the financing of the homes and indeed it is quite likely that the contribution is a negative one. There is no financial justification for these contributions and on the other hand it involves the Department of Education and the Gardaí in debt collection which does little to enhance the public image of either party.

4.460The Report envisaged two categories of Residential Homes – Category 1 homes to include Lusk, Finglas and Clonmel that functioned as Residential Special Schools. These homes were to cater for young offenders in need of special education as well as specialised psychological treatment. Category 2 homes were to include all other Residential Homes for which the Department of Education had responsibility. As a rule, the report envisaged that these children would attend primary or post primary schools outside the home. For the Category 2 homes, the report recommended that care staff be sanctioned for each home on the basis of a staff/ child ratio of 1:4 with the following grades of care staff recognised. Resident Manager with overall responsibility for the homes; senior House parent with responsibility for the group; house parent providing care expertise and ensuring that trained staff is present with the children at all times and assistant house parent to co-operate with the house parents. The report further recommended that an incremental salary scale should be provided for each rank of careworker.

4.461In addition to the report commissioned by the Department of Education, the Association of Workers for Children in Care (AWCC) commissioned Robert J Kidney & Co Chartered Accountants in 1976 to identify the costs of maintaining children in care in 1975.³³⁹ The report concluded that the appropriate capitation rate was £40.90 per week, with the salaries for childcare workers equivalent to those paid to the childcare workers at the special schools for young offenders at Finglas and Lusk, and recommended a staffing ratio of 1:4. The AWCC in commenting on the report argued:

This capitation system was designed for a situation in which large numbers of children were being cared for in ‘institutional’ settings, mainly by religious workers for whom no salary provision was made. It is quite unsuited to present circumstances in which children are cared for in small, family type groups, within one complex, requiring inevitable duplication of some facilities and much greater staffing ratios. The considerable intake of staff in recent years has been almost entirely lay and these workers are entitled to a proper salary and career structure.

4.462It went on to outline that:

Lengthy negotiations over two years have apparently failed to convince the Department of Education of the validity of our case. Increases in the capitation grant have been made from time to time, but little progress has been made on the basic issue of a salary scale for child care workers. In the meanwhile, these workers have become increasingly frustrated, and the religious managers of the homes are in the position where they cannot pay the most experienced of their workers even the minimum levels obtaining at Lusk and Finglas. Dedicated and trained staff, realising their prior obligation to the children, and unwilling to engage in industrial action, will be forced to leave the field for which the State has expended money in training them.

4.463In response to both reports, the Department of Education noted its role in relation to residential childcare was very much in decline with the majority of children entering residential care via the regional health boards rather than the courts. As a consequence, while retaining administrative responsibility for the homes, they asserted that they had ‘no control of input and no responsibility for many of the children in them. Planning, estimating etc. have been made extremely difficult and the whole thing is now an administrative nightmare.’ On this basis, it was argued that

the difficulties which arise when administration is divided between Departments cannot be solved simply by co-operation between Departments and result in waste of both time and money…At working level the correct line would appear to be that residential homes should go to the Department of Health, but that, because of their specific educational role, the special residential schools for offenders should remain the responsibility of this Department.

4.464On 23rd September 1976, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Mr John Bruton, in correspondence to the Taoiseach, Mr Liam Cosgrave, summarised the discussions that had taken place in relation to the financing of the homes and crucially stated that:

I should refer to the fact that the Kennedy Report, in 1970, recommends that, in effect, the residential homes be transferred to the Department of Health. While this issue forms part of the remit of the Task Force on Child Care, I wish to state, at this point, that the Department of Education now wishes to formally record its agreement with the Kennedy Report recommendation particularly as the Government has since allocated the lead role in child care to the Minister for Health.

4.465He also went on to say that:

my Department is reviewing the position of he residential child care course in Kilkenny. It may be that some of the pressure for salary scales – and particularly for what we would regard as unreasonable levels of salary – arises from the expectations generated among graduates of a professional training course. The question is whether the course, in its aims and content, is pitched at too high a level and whether a course of that level is required by our needs. Since the course caters for personnel in homes administered by the Department of Health as well as in those administered by this Department, we propose to consult with the Department of Health before arriving at any policy lie in this matter.

4.466On 11th October 1976, the Taoiseach, Mr Cosgrave, received a letter from Sr M. Josephine, Superior General, Convent of the Mother of Mercy, Carysfort Park, Blackrock, County Dublin, where she sought an increase in the salaries to be paid to residential childcare workers, and stating that ‘we respectfully remind you that we who belong to your own constituency in which one of our residential homes is situated (St Anne’s, Booterstown), have a special claim on your consideration and support’. The Taoiseach contacted Mr Bruton at the Department of Education who, in outlining the situation to the Taoiseach, stated:

The claim recently submitted by the Association of Workers for Children in Care would involve more than double the State expenditure on the homes, in real terms, in the first year alone. The whole trust of the claim is related to staff salaries rather than the cost of maintaining the children. About 65 percent of the State expenditure under the A.W.C.C. proposals would be in respect of staff salaries. Frankly, I think these expectations are unrealistic, especially in the present circumstances. One point I must emphasise is that we are totally opposed to any question of salary scales for child care workers in these homes being the same as those of housemasters in Lusk and Finglas. The A.W.C.C. claims that both groups are doing substantially the same work. We disagree. The boys in Lusk and Finglas, referred for persistent delinquency, are significantly more difficult to manage than the vast majority in the homes. However, apart from this, the Lusk and Finglas scales were deliberately designed to relate the housemasters with the teachers with whom they have to work closely. The staff in the homes, on the other hand, are similar to other staff in institutions for children who work alongside nurses. The implications for the cost of health services of paying child care staff in homes higher salaries than nurses could be enormous.

4.467On 2nd November 1976, the Department of Finance, in response to a series of representations to the Taoiseach seeking the provision of a salary scale for childcare workers and the general financing of the homes, outlined its position in a letter which stated:

..before any radical changes are made in the current arrangements for providing State aid for these homes, every effort must be made to rationalise the child care system by reducing the number of homes to reflect fully the dramatic fall in the number of children in care from about 2,900 to 1,200 over the past 10 years. While it is appreciated that this fall in numbers resulted in the closure of some homes and enabled desirable improvements to be brought about in the standard of care of those remaining, it seems clear that there is still scope for rationalisation to produce economies in staff numbers and administration generally which would help to ensure that the system as a whole operates at a minimum cost in terms of public funds. The Minister is not convinced that the small group concept would suffer from phasing out smaller homes in favour of utilising the capacity of the larger homes. In this context the analogy of high-density social housing may be cited to refute the view, put forward by the Department of Education, that only small buildings are suited to family-type units for children in care. As in the case of social housing, economic and budgetary factors must play a significant role in determining our system of child care.

4.468On 19th November 1976, a further meeting took place between the Departments of Finance, Education and Health to discuss the funding of the homes. One of the issues raised was the disbursement of £150,000, a savings made in 1976, on the basis that additional expenditure was sought on the expectation that advances would have been made during the years in the financing of homes. However, on 14th December 1976, the Department of Finance wrote to the Department of Education stating that ‘the making of special grants as proposed at this stage would be premature….and in the circumstances it is regretted that sanction as sought must be refused’.

4.469On 4th March 1977, the Tanaiste and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Education met with representatives from the Conference of Major Religious Superiors (CMRS)³⁴⁰ to further discuss the financing of the homes. At the meeting the Tanaiste informed the delegation that the capitation fee was to increase from £18 to £22 with effect from 1st January 1977 and that he had established an inter-departmental group to examine the issue. The delegation from the CMRS outlined their disappointment at the level of the increase and highlighted that the report they had commissioned indicated that a rate of £40 was needed. On this basis, they felt they would have no option but to close a number of the homes and restrict further entries to the homes. The delegation highlighted:

the problem they faced in relation to the salaries of staff: they also mentioned a number of subsidiary matters which needed attention including the arrangements for making payments and the provision of medical care for the children in the homes. They saw it as a State responsibility to ensure that children in care were properly looked after. They accepted that there was necessarily a lot of delicacy about the relationship between the State and the Religious Organisations involved in the provision of care. It could be assumed, however, that if the present difficulties were overcome the Religious Orders would wish to continue to make the same contribution as they are now making.

4.470The inter-departmental working group mentioned by the Tanaiste, was established by the Minister for Health in February 1977 with the following terms of reference:

Having regard to the analysis and recommendations made in the McDonagh and Kidney Reports, and to the decision in principle to adhere to the capitation system of financing, to (a) calculate a reasonable level of capitation payment at current prices; (b) recommend how such a rate, in real terms, might be introduced on a phased basis; (c) consider the implications of leaving salary determination for individual workers with the management of the homes; (d) make recommendations on the suggested next steps.

4.471At a meeting of the inter-departmental group on 4th February, 1977 it was reported that the group accepted

that the major problem facing the residential homes was one of finance. Reference was made to the various representations which had been received in recent months expressing dissatisfaction with the level of financing of residential homes. The main contention in these representations was that the existing capitation grants are not sufficient to enable the payment of adequate remuneration to the staff employment in the homes. Mr. Matthews said that the salaries were as low as £16 per week and that persons in receipt of such low salaries had a legitimate grievance. The policy of group homes necessitated more staff notwithstanding that the overall number of children was decreasing. Another problem is that some of the religious orders are threatening to pull out of such work, and in any event the number of vocations had declined significantly in the last twenty years.

4.472On the same day, the Tanaiste and Minister for Health held a meeting with representatives from the Council for Social Welfare³⁴¹ regarding the financing of Residential Homes. At the meeting the Council’s representatives explained that there was considerable urgency attached to the provision of increased financial aid for the homes which otherwise, in many instances, would have to close because of the level of indebtedness. There was particular difficulty about the very low level of salaries that the homes were now paying to many of their staffs and the managements could no longer stand over this. The Tanaiste told the deputation that the capitation rate was being increased from £18 to £22 with effect from 1st January 1977 and that an inter-departmental working group was looking urgently at what further steps needed to be taken to overcome the immediate difficulties and that this group would report by 31st March, 1977. Members of the deputation also assured the Tanaiste that from the Hierarchy’s point of view there would be no problem about such matters as staffing being more rigidly controlled than had hitherto been the case. The briefing note prepared by the Department of Health for this meeting provides an overview of the thinking of key officials in the Department of Health at this time. The note firstly outlined the reasons for the request to meet. It outlined

(a)The Council for Social Welfare is a Committee of the Catholic Bishops Conference. At its meeting in October last the Committee received a request from the Conference of Major Religious Superiors that the Hierarchy should approach the Government regarding the serious situation that is emerging in residential child care centres as a result of the lack of any salary structure for the child care staffs in those centres.

(b)The Conference of Major Religious Superiors represents the Orders which are, inter alia, involved in the running of residential child care centres. Notwithstanding their approach through the Council for Social Welfare they wish to put their case direct to the effect that

(i)they have exhausted all options known to them in trying to keep the homes in operation and

(ii)the present capitation grant system in quite ineffective and that they are seeking a system of financing as outlined in the Kidney Report.’

4.473The note then went on to highlight ‘key points which may arise during discussions’ and they were identified as:

(i)What is the State’s position in relation to these children? What role do the Orders (existing managements) see themselves playing in the future? The State must, ultimately, where the parents fail ensure that the children receive proper care. The Orders may wish (although there is not much evidence at present to suggest this) to make a significant contribution in this area as part of their vocational work: in order to retain autonomy and flexibility they may, if possible, wish to share the burden of financing at least part of the costs. At a minimum, they presumably intend to remain in the management of the homes, if the States support is seen in their terms to be reasonable. These are issues which might be explored during the meeting.

(ii)Why are the Departments adhering to a capitation system of financing at this stage? After all nearly all ‘Health Institutions’ are now financed on a budget basis!

(a)it would probably be better, in the interests of the children involved, if the essential vocational nature of child care were retained and emphasised. This can best be done where there is a flexible approach between management and staff on conditions of work, leave arrangements, recruitment etc. and ‘a code of best practice’, rather than formally negotiated minimum national standards, is generally applied.

(b)A capitation system enables the managements to retain a reasonably autonomous and flexible approach to the running of their homes.

(c)Once a budget system is introduced, statutory involvement must occur on a wide range of management issues e.g. numbers and types of staff, salary levels, leave arrangements, recruitment and removal from office.

(d)A budget system will be considerably more expensive to the State, certainly in the long term. It could, within a relatively short time, lead to a doubling in real terms of existing costs.

(e)A longer term decision about a change in the method of financing could be better made when a number of possible alternative approaches to child care have been developed and explored. For example, a widening of the scope and level of support for fostering; the establishment of small domestic type homes with two house parents: or the wider use of homemakers could reduce the number of children in residential care and make alternative systems of financing more attractive. These are the types of options that the Departments would hope to discuss with the managements when the immediate ‘crisis’ has been overcome.

4.474The 15-page report of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Financing of Children’s Residential Homes was completed on 24th March 1977 and suggested that a reasonable rate of capitation should be in the region of £28-30 per week. The Group also considered it prudent and desirable to examine alternative forms of care for children:

(a) with a view to developing more effective, efficient and acceptable forms of care; (b) in order to identify issues which may need to be agreed with the staffs concerned and could possibly be very significant in negotiations on future pay and conditions; (c) before the future staffing and structures in residential homes are examined in more detail. Alternatives to residential care might include use of homemakers and full-time helps to keep families together or support ‘inadequate’ parents; development of boarding out arrangements, with special training for foster parents of difficult or disturbed children; and development of small group homes in residential areas which could be run with part-time domestic help.³⁴²

4.475The report recommended an early meeting with the Conference of Major Religious Superiors to acquaint them with their thinking and how best to resolve the pay issues in relation to residential care. The report also noted that ‘in this connection, it is significant to note that the members of the hierarchy who met the Tanaiste on 4th March emphasised that increased controls on the homes would be acceptable to the Hierarchy’.

4.476In a memorandum to Government from the Department of Health, dated 18th April 1977, it was noted that the CMRS was seeking a substantial increase in the capitation rate and ‘in the absence of a favourable response, eight homes will be closed and further seventeen will refuse new admissions’. It noted that the Inter Departmental Group found that a capitation rate of between £28 and £30 per week was necessary and sought agreement to negotiate an increased capitation rate of not more than £30 per week. The Minister for Finance in his comments on the memorandum noted that State support for the homes increased from £0.8m in 1972-73 to an estimated £1.6m in 1977 and that he considered:

that £30 per child per week should be the absolute limit of the Government grant in the current circumstances and that the Conference of Major Religious Superiors should be firmly informed accordingly. In his view the Government should not in any circumstances concede to unreasonable demands from any quarter whether it be the Conference of Major Religious Superiors or a more humbly titled organisation. It should be quite feasible to place most, if not all, of the children concerned in good homes within the community, to the advantage of the children, if an allowance of a lesser amount that £30 was payable to each child. In this connection it is relevant to point out that the highest weekly allowance currently payable to foster parents by Health Boards is understood to be of the order of £10 per child.

4.477The Minister for Health in response to the comments made by the Department of Finance noted that ‘it would always be necessary to have some children in residential care and that this form of care will be relatively expensive’.

4.478On 20th April and 11th May 1977 a series of meetings took place between the relevant Departments and the CMRS on the issue of financing the home and on 18th May 1977, a meeting took place between the CMRS and the Local Government and Public Services Union with representatives of the Departments of Health and Education in attendance. Following these meetings it was agreed that the capitation rate would be increased to £30 per child per week and that scales of pay and other conditions for child care staff would be recommended by the Union to their members. The Department of Health noted:

Notwithstanding the recommendation for a budget system, the Department of Education (which has administrative responsibility for the majority of the residential homes) still strongly favours the straight capitation system on the grounds that it gives the homes greater freedom to manage their own affairs and to decide their own priorities. They accept, however, the necessity to have the capitation rate adjusted regularly to allow for the effects of inflation and to provide reasonable remuneration for the staff, having regard to the nature of their work.

4.479In September 1979, a further review of the financing of residential homes was undertaken, with terms of reference to:

carry out a study of the organisation, staffing and financing of homes providing residential care for children under the Ministers for Education and Health to establish: the existing financial position in each home, including the extent of the deficit, and to make recommendations on the appropriate arrangements to be made in event of a decision to finance the homes on a budget basis, including the appropriate level of staffing and other costs involved, procedures for the agreement of an annual budget through Health Boards and the phasing in of a budget system; and a realistic interim capitation made for 1980.

4.480To aid their deliberations, the committee undertook a survey of the financing, staffing and organisation of the homes and replies were received from 38 homes catering for approximately 1,200 children. The committee found that the average cost of maintaining a child in residential care averaged £51.13 per child per week, albeit that wide variation was evident. The report also found that the estimated cumulative deficit in the homes was expected to be in the region of £1.5m. The committee agreed in principle that the financing of homes would transfer to a budget system when the resources permitted. To deal with the deficits, a system of capitation (deficiency payments) was established, totalling payments to the homes of £54,000 in 1980, £402,300 in 1981 and £777,700 in 1982. The cumbersome nature of payment was also highlighted.

Three Ministers are involved in the making of the necessary regulations. Adjustments in the level of payment are justified on historic costs e.g. increases in the cost of living index in the previous year and pay awards under National wage Agreements. Given the high level of inflation, this means that the homes are continuously in debt, and a number have considerable overdrafts. In addition, the present system where the home may receive payment from four different sources – the Departments of Education and Justice, local authorities and the health boards also lead to delay.

4.481The Final Report of the Task Force on Child Care Services also contributed to the discussion stating:

The present capitation system of contributing to the financing of residential centres has been found unsatisfactory, particularly in the case of centres having relatively few children. We understand that consideration is already being given to the making of arrangements to have residential homes placed on a budget basis and we recommend that this system be extended to all centres as soon as possible.³⁴³

4.482The Task Force concluded, in relation to the homes, that because responsibility rested with two Government Departments, while almost all the facilities are provided by voluntary bodies supported by State grants, no coherent systematic planning procedures existed for children in residential care. Accordingly they recommended that responsibility for all children’s Residential Homes should be vested in the Minister for Health. The Task Force also recommended that, as far as possible, residential facilities should be situated near the homes of children who will require such care. They considered that different kinds of residential facilities were required to meet the differing needs of children and recommended that:

[each] area of the country, roughly coinciding with existing community care areas of the health boards, should have access to one identified residential centre located in or adjacent to the area. These centres, should be multi-purpose in nature in the sense that they should cater for the ordinary needs of the area through the provision of short-tem or medium-care for children of all ages from the area.³⁴⁴

4.483In addition the Task Force recommended that ‘small community centres for about 4 or 6 children would be required’ to cater for children with delinquent tendencies and for other children with serious personal problems who require intensive, personalised care. This was accepted by the Department of Health who stated they were:

examining, in consultation with the health boards, the feasibility of existing residential facilities adapting their structures and revising roles and objectives to facilitate development along these lines. The Minister’s aim is to have under his aegis a comprehensive and inter-locking locally based child care system serving the needs of identified communities. Residential homes would be only one of the elements within this system with a very specifically defined, though complementary, role to play. Homes will fall into one of the categories…, each category being given clear objectives for the service they are providing. Homes will, it appears, tend to be small units, providing a defined service for a clearly identified client group. Indeed, the process of changing to the smaller family style residential unit is now well advanced although there remains a small number of homes still operating along old institutional lines. Plans are almost complete to replace three of these institutions with purpose built group homes in the immediate future.

4.484Following the aforementioned Government decision of 13th August 1982, an inter-departmental committee comprising officials of the Department of Education, Finance, Health and Justice was established to review the operation and financing of the homes. The inaugural meeting of the Committee took place in the Department of Health on 17th December 1982 and subsequently met on 12 occasions. Following a detailed discussion at the inaugural meeting, the Committee adopted the following terms of reference:

(1)to determine the financial system most appropriate to children’s Residential Homes, based on an examination of their financial records and their perspective financial position;

(2)to recommend appropriate transitional financial arrangements on transfer of responsibility for the 24 Residential Homes (former Industrial Schools) from the Minister for Education to the Department of Health;

(3)to identify acceptable cost and other guidelines appropriate to monitoring and financing children’s residential homes in the future. ³⁴⁵

4.485The final report of the Committee was completed in September 1983. It explored in detail the emergence of the capitation system of fund and the pros and cons of that system of funding. The increase in the capitation fee from the early 1970s is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Capitation Fee for Residential Homes, 1972-1982

	Central authority	Local authority	Total
01/07/1972
01/04/1973	£5.70	£5.30	£11.00
01/04/1974	£6.50	£6.00	£12.50
01/01/1975	£7.80	£7.20	£15.00
01/01/1976	£9.00	£9.00	£18.00
01/01/1977	£11.00	£5.70	£16.70
01/02/1977	£15.00	£15.00	£30.00
01/02/1978	£16.25	£16.25	£32.50
01/03/1978	£17.00	£17.00	£34.00
01/03/1979	£19.25	£19.25	£38.50
01/06/1979	£20.50	£20.50	£41.00
01/03/1980	£23.25	£23.25	£46.50
01/01/1981	£27.00	£27.00	£54.00
01/01/1982	£34.00	£34.00	£68.00

4.486The report also commented that:

The homes’ current financial position under capitation is also a consequence of the manner in which the service is organised. Each home is independent and privately run and could have children maintained in it by any one of the eight health boards, or the local authorities and the Department of Education. The former industrial schools constitute the major element of residential capacity and statutory overall responsibility for their operations at present rests with the Minister for Education. However some 70 percent of children in them have been placed by the health boards. This has inevitably created a grey area as to which authority controls budgets, ultimately decides care standards and determines the client group to be served by the homes. It would appear that this, coupled with the development of the capitation deficiency payments system has given individual homes freedom to design their own care programmes without regard to any concept of overall care policy, standards or clear definition of the type of child to be served.

4.487Ultimately, the Committee rejected the capitation method of financing Residential Homes and recommended ‘the funding of residential homes by way of annual allocation, based on budgets agreed with the local health board for projected expenditure, and paid monthly in advance’. The Committee also noted that while the proposed transfer of responsibility for the homes from the Department of Education to the Department of Health was a welcome step in clarifying responsibility, this by itself would not be sufficient. It argued that:

It must be coupled with a clear statement of overall policy in elation to residential care services setting out the rationale for care of each client group intended to be served by the homes, standards of care to be provided, both in relation to accommodation and maintenance, and to the quality of the care input from staff. We have found no evidence of the existence of such a statement without which in our opinion the monitoring process cannot function.

4.488On 25th October 1984, the Department of Finance wrote to the Department of Health agreeing with recommendations of the Committee.

4.489A key recommendation of the Committee was that the Department of Health, ‘as a matter of urgency formulate and promulgate service objectives in relation to the care of children to guide health board policy’. In late 1984, the Department of Health produced a detailed memo on the operation of residential care in Ireland as well as outlining a philosophy for the future operation of residential care in Ireland.³⁴⁶ In relation to the operationalisation of the recently agreed budget system of funding, the memo reported that:

Responsibility for financial control of individual homes rests with an officer designated by the local health board’s Finance Officer. They have reported coming up against a number of problems in implementing the budget system one being with homes’ accountants and auditors. In the case of some homes Officers had serious doubts abut their objectivity and hence the impartiality of the accounts submitted. Also, officers found that the homes’ accountants were over-estimating pay and non-pay expenditure for ‘bargaining’ purposes. Discrepancies also appeared in the number of staff actually employed in the homes as against alleged complements returned at various stages to the Department. All this resulted in long delays before homes could be told of their budgets for 1984. Hopefully, most of this can be put down to teething problems and the mutual understanding arising out of this year’s exercise should facilitate speedy agreement to budgets next year.³⁴⁷

4.490The memo went to outline that within the 41 Residential Homes managed by the Department of Health, some 1,200 places were available, but that they were rarely full to capacity. More significantly, the memo noted the ongoing decline in the number of children in residential care, the primary reason for this being ‘the Department’s policy of trying to maintain children in their own family setting as long as possible or placing them in foster care instead of in a residential home’. The memo acknowledged that there would always be a need for residential care for certain categories of children, but that:

Based on past trends expansion in the number of residential places available in children’s homes appears unwarranted. In fact, our view is that residential provision in children’s homes should stabilise at something below 1000 places by the end of this decade. This will require a reduction in the size of some homes, which we hope can be achieved through our capital programme, and through the possible closure of some individual units.³⁴⁸

4.491On the registration and mechanisms of entry to residential care, the memo reported that:

The new Child (Care and Protection) Bill will contain proposals to repeal the sections relating to industrial schools in the 1908 Children Act and those relating to the approval of homes in the Health Act 1953. These provisions will be replaced by a registration procedure, which will apply to all children’s homes including homes, which are not subject to controls at present. (It should be mentioned that the only homes whose operations are currently subject to statutory regulation are the certified industrial schools. The 1953 Health Act simply requires the approving of homes for the bringing of children into care; it does not specify any requirements as to operations, standards etc). They will also contain provision for a new admissions to care procedure, and for the removal of the power of the courts to commit children directly to residential care. In future it is intended that all children in residential care be placed only after full assessment by the health boards’ social work service. Mainly because of the recent decline in religious vocations, the bill will enable health boards to directly provide residential care for children. Generally speaking the provisions in the bill are broad and enabling. The important regulatory provisions and controls on the homes, their procedures, practices and inter-face with the health boards, will have to be dealt with in regulations under the new Act.³⁴⁹

4.492The memo went to outline a philosophy for the use of residential care for children, which was to be issued to the regional health boards. The objective of residential care was:

to meet, in co-operation with other elements of the child care system (e.g. family support services, day care, fostering and adoption,) clearly defined deficiencies in the lives of certain children, for whom placement in a residential centre for a given period of time, is considered by professional opinion to be the best means of achieving their well being and security. These children will include those who: have been rejected; are being neglected or ill-treated; lack parental control; are sleeping rough or are involved in minor delinquencies; have a short-term crisis in their home e.g. illness of a parent. Residential care programmes should be designed to enable such children to return to family life as soon as possible given their needs, their family situation and other circumstances.

4.493Children should only be given a long-term placement in residential care where:

it has been definitely established that the child has no effective family to which he can return and substitute family care such as adoption and foster-care is inappropriate or cannot be made available. The latter cases could include children who are in need of care and control, additional to that available within their own homes, which cannot be provided in the community or have problems such as acute emotional deprivation or severe disturbance. It might be emphasised, however, that your Board’s child care services should be based on the principle that the family setting is the best one unless it is clear that the child’s well-being demands otherwise. (emphasis in original).³⁵⁰

4.494When admitted to residential care, the memo outlined that it:

should create the least amount of disruption in a child’s life, consistent with his total needs. A facility should be as accessible as possible to the child’s home. Where appropriate, every effort should be made to enable the child to retain a relationship with is family, especially where it is envisaged that he will return home in the short to medium term. Residential homes should provide for the child a stable, secure environment with a standard of living equivalent to the national average. The home’s environment should be enriching and stimulating and compensate for whatever deprivation the child may be experiencing.

4.495In April 1986, the Department of Health published a Report on Health Services covering the period 1983-86. On the funding of child care services, the report outlined that:

A new system whereby the local health board funds children’s homes directly on the basis of agreed budgets was introduced on the 1st January, 1984 to replace the highly unsatisfactory capitation system in operation for over a hundred years. Homes had found that despite regular revisions, capitation rates tended to lag behind real increases in the cost of looking after children and did not take account of differing cost structures in the homes. As a result, by the end of 1983 some homes had accrued considerable deficits. These deficits, totalling almost £1 million were cleared in 1984 in conjunction with the introduction of the budget system. The new funding arrangement is sufficiently flexible to enable health boards to respond to the particular needs of each individual home having regard to its staffing and clientele. It also brings homes and boards into a much closer working relationship than before. This gives boards a useful opportunity to re-organise the residential sector on a regional basis, broadly on the lines recommended by the Task Force on Child care Services. Each health board is now considering residential provision for child care in its area and hopes to agree future roles and functions with each of the homes in the near future.³⁵¹

4.496However, a short number of years later in 1989 the Report of the Commission on Health Funding concluded³⁵² that:

An issue of importance to child care services in recent years has been the role of residential homes, most of whom are operated by voluntary organisations. A small number are owned and operated by health boards. The homes have been funded directly by health boards on the basis of agreed budgets since 1984; this replaced an unsatisfactory capitation system. It has been submitted to us that some homes are over-selective in accepting placements, making it difficult to find accommodation for the more difficult cases. On the other hand, some of the voluntary organisations involved have submitted to us that they could not cope with children who would seriously disrupt the running of the home and cause strain to those already cared for there. It would therefore seem that the relationship between the homes and their funders should be changed. Both parties should negotiate to supply care for children who need it; the homes would become more accountable for the services they provide and the funders would make reasonably long-term contracts to ensure cover for the difficult as well as easier cases. We therefore recommend that Area General Managers should enter into formal contractual agreements with homes to ensure that the required range of care is available in each area. The homes would then be funded on the basis of an agreed level and type of service described in paragraph 17.37.³⁵³

4.497In a review of the Special Schools operating under the auspices of the Department of Education, a review by the Comptroller and Auditor General in 1990 highlighted a number of areas of concern. The report noted that the capitation system of funding the schools had ceased in 1981 and the schools were now funded on the basis of an annual grant. The report observed:

It would be reasonable to suggest that the changeover to full financing by the State in 1981 should have led to greater involvement by the Department in the management and control of the schools but this is not the case. Specifically the Department did not:- (a) ensure that as full a service as the available resources were capable of providing was being provided; the schools were being funded on the basis that such a service would be provided. (b) take steps to ensure the introduction of procedures for the efficient running of the schools. (c) Regulate the schools or have an effective input into their admission and management policies. At the Finglas Children’s Centre, the Board of Management on which the Department of Education and Justice are represented acts only in an advisory capacity while, in contrast, Trinity House Board of management has executive powers. At St. Joseph’s there is no Board of Management as the religious order was unwilling to agree to the Department’s request to have a Board of management appointed when the new funding arrangements were introduced in 1981. (d) Establish a coherent policy on manning levels in the schools and consider the impact on school staffing of the public service embargo on recruitment. Indeed, the Department itself broke the public service embargo on some occasions by approving new posts in the schools and on other occasions by retrospectively sanctioning appointments already made in the schools. (e) operate a budgetary system which would ensure that the annual financial needs of the schools were being properly assessed. (f) Monitor the schools’ finances on an ongoing and regular basis. The absence of monitoring may have been a contributory factor to the scale of the Supplementary Estimate needed in 1990 to cover expenditure overruns by the schools. (g) ensure that adequate financial details were being provided in the monthly school returns. The returns submitted to the Department give a detailed breakdown of non-pay costs but the information provided in relation to pay costs (approximately 70 percent of total costs) is totally inadequate e.g. additional costs relating to weekend duties and for relief work involving the engagement of temporary staff are not revealed in the returns. (h) finalise the execution of a Deed of Trust for St. Joseph’s although it is aware since 1978 that such a deed is essential since the State has invested some £5 million in buildings and facilities. (The land at Clonmel is owned by the religious order). (i) carry out regular audits of systems and procedures in the schools.³⁵⁴

4.498The Department of Education in their response to the Comptroller and Auditor General noted that such schools were traditionally managed by religious Congregations and that:

The system operated in a climate of trust necessary for the support of the difficult work involved and the Department, having regard to this feature, did not unduly interfere in the day to day running of the schools.

4.499While acknowledging that an improved policy and budgetary framework was required for the schools, the Department stated that in their discussions with the Comptroller and Auditor General’s office prior to the finalisation of the report, they had drawn attention to:

the complex nature of the child care area, the many factors which impact on the operation of the special schools, the delicacy of many aspects of our dealings with Orders which operate the schools on our behalf and our concern that the report constituted an over-simplification of the overall situation.

4.500By mid-1980s, the majority of a declining number of children in residential care were in homes funded on a budget basis by the Department of Health and with the health boards having a role in the day-to-day operation of the service. The Department of Education had responsibility for a small number of schools for young people who entered care, primarily through the juvenile justice system, but also a small number who were placed in secure accommodation by the health boards. The Department of Education were reviewing their role in relation to the provision of secure care and by the end of the decade had concluded that they were not the appropriate Department to have this responsibility, but it was a further decade and a half before they finally relinquished responsibility for such centres. At the end of the 1980s, one experienced childcare worker gave his overview of the changes that had occurred in residential care in the previous 20 years:

Dramatic and sweeping changes have taken place in residential care over the past twenty years. Large institutions have been broken up, staffing ratios increased and staff training commenced. Residential care has become more child orientated with a greater understanding of children and their problems. Yet the old stigma remains. Residential care is often blamed for causing the very ills of society for which it is trying to treat.³⁵⁵

4.501In addition, he highlighted that:

Increasingly allegations have been malpractice and abuse have been made against care workers. Recent experience of how these cases are investigated leave a lot to be desired. Both care workers and agencies are isolated, shunned and made to feel guilty until proven innocent. Many care workers are feeling very vulnerable and on a daily basis are analysing situations to reduce the risk factor. This is no way to work and it can only have an adverse effect on the children.³⁵⁶

Secure accommodation for females

4.502In the early 1990s, the Department of Education argued that the centres operated by them did not ‘have the capacity, nor should they be expected to cater for the following situations: (a) youths whose primary difficulty stems from serious psychiatric problems which require intensive and ongoing attention. (b) youths whose behaviour is such as to place them in the category unruly/depraved. (c) youths in need of intensive therapy on foot of sexual problems.’ In the case of categories (a) and (c), they argued that:

It is the firm view of the Department of Education that referral of serious psychiatric and sexually disturbed cases to centres for young offenders constitutes a serious and potentially very dangerous failing within the present system. What is required in such cases is the provision of a suitable dedicated and resourced facility which would focus on addressing the real needs of such people. It is the view of the Department of Education that responsibility for the provision of such facilities rests with the Department of Health. However, repeated attempts by the Department of Education to secure acceptance of responsibility for this area by the Department of Health, have proved unsuccessful.

4.503The National Youth Policy Committee recommended that:

There has been a considerable improvement in recent years in the quality of the special residential schools for boys, but this has not been matched by any corresponding facilities for girls. We recommend early assessment of needs in this area to see whether, as has been suggested to us, a small secure facility for girls is required.³⁵⁷

4.504The response by the Government to the Report was that ‘a study will be undertaken by the Minister for Justice in consultation with the Minister for Education to determine the scope and type of facility necessary to deal adequately with the problem of young female offenders.³⁵⁸ In September 1986, a study group was established with terms of reference ‘to determine the scope and type of facility necessary to deal adequately with the problem of young female offenders and to furnish a report.’³⁵⁹ The Group, which reported in February 1988, noted that the only residential facility within the juvenile justice system for females was Cuan Mhuire Assessment Unit in Collins Avenue, Whitehall, Dublin 9, which was opened in 1984 to cater for young females between the ages of 10-16. The function of the centre was to allow the courts to remand young girls for a period of up to three weeks to facilitate an assessment of their needs. To assist the Group with their task, the Probation and Welfare Service and the Department of Education surveyed young female offenders under the age of 16 known to them between January 1985 and June 1986 in order to ascertain the need for residential care. The report stated that

from the information gathered it was clear that, in addition to an assessment unit, there was need for a facility that could provide adequate long-term care for a small group of young female offenders who were particularly difficult or troublesome and for whom none of the community based facilities, residential homes or hostels currently in existence would be able to provide the necessary service.

4.505In relation to the girls entering Cuan Mhuire, the report noted that:

the majority of girls admitted….were referred by health boards because they appeared to be out of control or were at risk due to drug taking, solvent abuse, promiscuity or sleeping rough. In about 10 to 12 of these cases, the assessment report on the girls recommended that they receive residential care in a well-structured, secure facility which staffed and equipped to deal with difficult and disruptive girls. At present, there is no such facility available to the health boards.

4.506The Group contemplated the establishment of a separate facility for such females, but ultimately argued:

on economic grounds alone…it would appear that the best solution would be to have one facility which would cater for any girl who required special care, whether she be referred by the courts or by a health board. We are strengthened in this view by the fact that the needs of the girls for care and support would not differ significantly regardless of whether they were offenders or not and that their treatment and management would be very similar.

4.507The Group concluded that there was a need for a facility which would incorporate a remand and assessment unit, a long-term unit and a secure unit, to collectively accommodate 25 girls with responsibility for the facility resting with the Department of Education. The year after the Study Group on Young Female Offenders reported, an Interdepartmental Committee on Crime was established, which reported in December 1989. The Department of Education, in their submission to the Interdepartmental Committee, argued:

..as it would be considered that children and young people committed by the Courts are primarily in need of care and education, places of detention, industrial schools and reformatory schools have come under the Minister for Education (Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924, fourth part of schedule). The Minister for Education considers that this situation should now be changed in relation to secure centres and that responsibility for such centres should be transferred to the Minister for Justice. There are a number of reasons for the Ministers view

(1) The fact that the Department of Education is not directly involved with the Courts, Gardai or Probation and Welfare Service impedes its ability to respond to needs.

(2) The Department of Education is not otherwise involved in the provision of security and does not have expertise in this area.

(3) Many of the difficulties the Department has experienced in operating centres involving an element of security derive from the basic and unavoidable orientation of staff towards care and education rather than custody.

(4) Because of their near-adult physique combined with unpredictable, explosive behaviour, young offenders in the 15/16 age group are among the most difficult of all offenders to handle; it is odd for the Department of Justice freed from responsibility for such a group.

(5) It is exceptional in European terms to find responsibility for secure provision for young offenders with an education Ministry. The reason in our circumstances appears to have been the fact that the earlier industrial and reformatory schools were conducted by religious orders.

4.508This viewpoint marked a significant shift in official thinking in the Department of Education, signalling that their direct involvement in the managing and administration of Reformatory and Industrial Schools should cease and be transferred to Justice. However, as noted earlier, it was not until 2007 that the transfer suggested by Education formally took place. The Inter-departmental report outlined that:

The Group considers that the main problems in this area are, firstly, the fact that, other than the remand and assessment facilities at Cuan Mhuire, there are no residential places at all provided for young female offenders. Secondly, as regards male offenders, there are insufficient number of residential places for the 14-16 years age bracket. Apart from being a problem in its own right, this also causes difficulties in that less troublesome offenders must be housed with the more disruptive type of offenders. In addition, there is the problem of male offenders, who have been placed in a secure centre, returning when they have served their term, direct to their communities without any opportunity of preparing in advance to adjust to normal life.

4.509On this basis:

The Group has come to the conclusion that there is a need for (i) of the order of 70 additional places for young male offenders, principally in the 14-16 age bracket and (ii) of the order of 15 additional places for young female offenders (I.e. exclusive of the provision for girls at Cuan Mhuire); 3-5 of these places should be secure. In considering the question of the need for secure places for both male and female offenders, the Group is conscious of the fact that a secure centre, as well as providing places for particularly disruptive offenders, enables other schools in the system to operate under a less restricted regimes. Accordingly, the Group makes the following recommendations.

(a) Scoil Ard Mhuire, Lusk, should be re-opened as soon as possible as a Centre for 40 older [14-16 (17) years age group] male offenders – (legally as a reformatory)

(b) A half-way house hostel should be provided to cater for boys who have been in secure accommodation in Trinity House School before they return to their communities

(c) A facility is provided to cater for 23-25 young female offenders. (the Department of Education have indicated that such a facility should ideally be located on the Departments lands at Finglas Children’s Centre-this would allow use to be made of existing assessment, dining and recreational facilities and of teaching staff already in place at the complex.

(d) Temporary facilities be provided as a matter of urgency for young female offenders pending the construction of the new accommodation at Finglas Children’s Centre proposed at (c) above. (i.e. Lusk)

(e) The making available for young offenders of up to 40 additional (non-secure) places in Department of Education Centres as a result of the phasing out of the use of such places by ‘Health’ clients. …The Department of Health accepts that use by Health Boards of these 40 places could be phased out over a period of time, thus freeing them for Court referrals. However, they emphasise that this can only be done in the context of the implementation of proposals to:

(1) provide an additional 42 residential specialised places for adolescents

(2) maintain and extend the development of a number of initiatives targeted at groups identified as being particularly at risk, viz. young homeless, young travellers and young substance abusers.

(3) Develop services for mentally ill adolescents.

4.510Arising from the recommendations of this Group, the Oberstown Girls School, on the site of the now disused Scoil Ard Mhuire, was opened in March 1990 as a place of detention by the Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to accommodate up to eight young persons on remand, replacing Cuan Mhuire. In September 1991 a second unit was opened which was certified as a Reformatory School by the Minister for Education and Science under the Children Act 1908 to accommodate up to seven young persons. However, this was only to be a temporary arrangement as it was intended to construct a new and larger facility for young females on the grounds adjoining the Finglas Children’s Centre. The rationale for this expansion was in response to ‘major public disquiet over the level of delinquency among young females and the apparent inadequacy of custodial facilities to deal with the situation’.³⁶⁰ In this context, the Finglas site was selected as an urgent response was deemed to be required and ‘the ready availability of a State owned site which was deemed suitable on the basis of expert advice, provided the best solution available in the time allowed’. However, it transpired that the demand for places at Oberstown did not materialise and as a consequence, the decision to develop the Finglas site was reviewed and in July 1992, the Department decided to drop the plan. The Oberstown Boys School was established in 1991 as recommended by the Inter-Departmental Group and is certified as a Reformatory School by the Department of Education and Science under the Children Act 1908. Ten of the beds are certified as places of detention by the Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Conclusion

4.511In the early 1990s, the Resident Managers Association and the Streetwise National Coalition³⁶¹ commissioned a report in respect of the dimensions, organisation and funding of residential child care in Ireland.³⁶² The report explored the key recommendations of the Kennedy Report and reported on the progress made. In relation to funding, the report, while noting the shift from a capitation system of funding to a budget system, nonetheless argued that:

The current system of funding for residential care varies enormously both within and between the residential sectors. There is evidence of little rationale in the current system of budgeting, which appears to be determined by tradition, individual negotiation by each home with the relevant government departments and agency, and the strength of the trade union. Funding has immense significance in determining the levels of staffing available to children, the quality of care and the necessary resources each individual child and young person requires.³⁶³

4.512In relation to funding, the report noted that a ratio of level of one member of staff to every four children in residence was established as the norm following the publication of the Kennedy Report. However, the research reported noted:

this level of staffing is anomalous and is not adhered to within the services. Great variations have developed in the past twenty years both within and between the different residential sectors. These variations have been determined by tradition, individual negotiation, trade union negotiation and political expediency.³⁶⁴

4.513On the issue of the integration and planning of services, the research noted that three Government Departments remained responsible for different aspects of the residential child care system and that this division:

causes confusion and a lack of cohesion and planning in residential care services. In consequence, residential care services have developed haphazardly, with certain sectors contracting and others expanding. It is also apparent from the research that there is a lack of integration between the four separate residential categories -group homes, special schools, residential psychiatric units, adolescent units -in terms of policy, planning and service delivery.³⁶⁵

4.514In 1993, Gilligan in a paper prepared for the Conference of Major Religious Superiors, the Catholic Social Service Conference and the Sacred Heart Home Trust identified a malaise among religious providers of child care services. He identified a number of contributory factors, including:

the low prestige of the field inside and outside the Church; the hurt and anxiety felt in the face of adverse publicity about past services; the scandals in this field which have publicly broken over the heads of religious in various places; the increasing complexity of the task and what seems to be experienced as the ever widening gulf between the level of competence available and that required by the task; the rising cost of providing services to the necessary standards and the shrinkage of financial and human resources available; the prospect of the erosion of the traditional autonomy of services provided by religious orders as the state system exacts greater accountability, partly as the prices of greater aid; unremitting pessimism about the value of residential care in many professional circles and the absence of a sufficiently well argued and influential counter view; the absence of a structure for independent and sympathetic professional advice to congregations or their representatives on negotiating with statutory authorities and researching needs and planning responses within their particular set of resources.³⁶⁶

4.515A short number of years later, a further report on the organisation and structure of residential childcare in Ireland was published. Reflecting on the 25th anniversary of the publication of the Committee of Enquiry into Reformatory and Industrial Schools’ Systems, the authors concluded that:

There have been major changes in child care since the publication in 1970 of the Kennedy Report…There is a new sense of professionalism about the service on the ground, new services have been developed and some other services have contracted. It is a matter of great concern, nevertheless, that many of the concerns highlighted in this research were identified in the Kennedy Report 25 years ago, and although substantial and far reaching changes have taken place in the system, many of the recommendations of that report since remain to be implemented.³⁶⁷

4.516As noted in the introduction to this paper, it was not until 2007 that the policy recommendations articulated in a series of reports and other documents, particularly the Kennedy Report and the Task Force on Child Care Services were by and large, fully implemented. Of course, over that period new areas of concern have emerged that neither report fully engaged with or discussed. Nonetheless, in quantitative terms, less than 10 percent of children in care are now in residential care, and this is in spite of an increase in children entering care in recent years. This paper has not aimed to evaluate the system as it currently operates nor does it offer an explanation for the current configuration of services. Rather, it has attempted to outline and describe a selective series of events that have contributed to the current organisation of child welfare in Ireland. It is not comprehensive in its treatment of the child welfare system; rather it focused primarily on residential care. In doing so it hopes that by allowing the disparate viewpoints of civil servants, lobby groups, Church organisations and other commentators on the residential child care system to be outlined, it can form the basis for a more comprehensive understanding of this crucial area of intervention by the State and others in the lives of children and their families.

Appendix 1: Department of Health. Children in Care of Health Authorities Circular No 23/70 15 July 1970

I am directed by the Minister for Health to state that he has had under review the services provided by Health Authorities for certain classes of children under Sections 55 and 56 of the Health Act, 1953 and the Children Acts, 1908-1957. The existing legislation relating to these children needs codification and extension to simplify it and bring into line with modern concepts of the help which a local authority should provide for children in need of care. A committee established by the Minister for Education, whose Report is expected to be available soon, is reviewing the institutional aspects of he services; examination of other aspects and the possible introduction of new legislation will be considered after publication of the Report.

In the interim, health authorities should review carefully the present services which they provide for deprived children and consider, in consultation with the staff concerned, what can be done to remedy any defects which may exist in these in these services. In deciding on the nature of care to be made available in any particular case, health authorities should be guided primarily by what is best for the child and financial considerations alone should not be the deciding factor as to the services to be provided. In cases where it is necessary to arrange for the placement of a child for adoption or in a foster home or in an approved school or institution, the parent (s) should be fully advised, impartially and objectively, of the implications and relative advantage of each such system.

Eligible classes of children

The classes of children eligible for boarding-out or maintenance in approved schools are set out in Section 55 of the Health Act, 1953. The Minister is aware that cases sometimes arise where assistance is required for children who do not come within the scope of that section, e.g. children whose mothers have gone into hospital or who have left home. In some such cases, health authorities have solved the temporary problems arising by making a contribution towards the cost of maintaining children in an appropriate home. In other cases it has been found desirable to afford assistance from public assistance funds, e.g. to supplement a family’s income to enable them to provide a home help and thus avoid the admission of the children to an institution. The solution of problems of this nature will be much easier when the statutory power to provide a home help service under the Health Act, 1970 is implemented after the establishment of the Health Boards.

Voluntary Organisations

Throughout the country there are a number of voluntary institutions and organisations concerned with the care of children, e.g. orphanages, children’s homes, and societies such as the ISPCC; local community councils also may become involved in problems relating to children. There should be close co-operation between health authorities and all these bodies, and to that end voluntary organisations should be made aware of the services which the health authority provides and encouraged to use them. Each health authority should arrange with the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children to consult with the health authority before initiating steps to have children committed to an Industrial School.

Children Placed in Approved Schools

Since the introduction of legal adoption there has been an appreciable decrease in the number of children who are boarded-out under the Health Acts but there has been an increase in the number of children accommodated in approved institutions. The Minister especially directs the attention of health authorities to Article 4 of the Boarding-Out of Children Regulations, 1954, which provides that the health authority shall not send a child to an approved school unless the child cannot suitably and adequately be assisted by being boarded-out. In some areas children are accepted privately into institutions by authorities of those institutions and the health authority are subsequently requested to accept liability for their maintenance. This practice should be discouraged and health authorities should make it clear that only in the most exceptional circumstances will they accept liability for such children and only then on satisfying themselves that the child is not suitable for being boarded out or placed for adoption. The authorities of the institutions concerned should be advised to get in touch with the health authority before accepting a child directly into care, if application is made, or is likely to be made, at a later stage to the health authority for the maintenance of the child.

In Circular No 37/54 of 8 Iúil 1954 health authorities were requested to provide that where a child is placed in a school in pursuance of Section 55 of the Health Act, 1953 the arrangement between the health authority and the manager of the school should include provision that the child may be visited at any reasonable time by an authorised officer of the health authority or of the Minister. Authorised officers of the health authority should visit children maintained in approved schools and institutions at regular intervals to ascertain if any of them are suitable for transfer to relatives or to foster homes.

Finding of Suitable Foster Homes

It is important to ensure that there are sufficient suitable foster homes in each health authority area to cater for all children who are suitable for boarding out and that no child is kept in a residential school or other approved institution because of a lack of suitable foster homes. Health authorities should therefore advertise regularly for persons who would be prepared to act as foster parents for boarded-out children and they might also ask staff engaged on district duties – e.g. public health nurses – to keep them informed of any persons in their district who might be interested in maintaining a board-out child. In the course of selecting foster homes health authorities might become aware of homes where the foster mother would have training or experience which would make her suitable for a child suffering from a defect which would normally preclude him from being boarded-out. In such cases, the Minister would have no objection to the payment of a maintenance rate in excess of the normal one to the foster parent concerned.

Maintenance Rates

The maintenance rate for children maintained in approved Industrial Schools was recently increased to £8.5s.0d. per week. The rate payable for the maintenance of board-out children (including the clothing allowance) has not been increased for some time in a number of health authorities. While rates should not be so high that they would encourage persons to accept boarded-out children purely for financial reasons, neither should they be so low as to inhibit prospective foster-parents from accepting children because it would impose a financial burden on them.

Unmarried Mothers

The facilities provided for unmarried mothers have been subject to criticism from time to time and it is clear that the public are not fully aware of the services provided by health authorities for such mothers. Accordingly, health authorities should make it known that they have staff who will deal in strictest confidence with any enquires relating to unmarried mothers and they will make any necessary arrangements. This information, together with the name and addresses of the staff concerned, should be brought to the notice of the public by such means as the health authority may decide and in particular to the notice of the clergy, doctors and nurses working in their area and organisations or persons concerned with her problem. Health authorities should keep in touch with the unmarried mother who has been admitted at their request to a special home and she should be made aware that their services are at her disposal after discharge from the special home. Should she decide to retain her child she should be given all appropriate assistance by the health authority. Correspondence with unmarried mothers should be kept to a minimum and should be addressed to them in handwriting in plain stamped envelopes.

Appendix 2: Response by the Association of Resident Managers of Reformatory and Industrial Schools to the Kennedy Report.

Substitute Care 4.8

Residential care should be regarded in itself as a particular service. For children who require this service residential care is essential in many areas, and is often superior to broken family life, it should not be regarded as a last resort. However, the Association stresses that it should be resorted to when nothing more can be done for the family at home.

Buildings 4.7

The Association feels that there is a disproportionate emphasis on buildings in the Kennedy Report. In the case of existing buildings it is untrue to say that many of them were originally built for child care purposes. Some of these buildings have been very well adapted, and care should be taken to avoid wasteful building. In the case of new buildings and further adaptations of old ones the Association stresses that a thoroughly realistic approach must immediately be adopted. For all further building 100 percent State grants are required. A Department architect should be employed to recommend alteration or replacement of buildings. However, he should work in conjunction with the school’s own architect and school manager. This is recommended in the interests of the best results being obtained. The resident manager and local architect can relate the plans to local needs and environment, while the architect appointed by the Department will have greater experience of modern trends in such buildings. The Department should refund for recently altered buildings.

Keeping Families Together 4.8

Since it is highly desirable that brothers and sisters of the same family be kept together the Government and Local Authorities should make more provision for this. With adequate facilities boys and girls over 14 years of age could share homes. In the case of a problem child special facilities should be available.

Group Homes 4.9

Before embarking totally on this new system it should be carefully examined, and the Government should speak clearly on its future. A testing scheme should be provided in pilot areas. While most schools approve of this system basically, especially since some schools have been working on this approach for some time, the Association wishes to draw attention to some of its more obvious disadvantages. The conversion of all existing buildings would cost £4 million. The time element involved would also have to be considered. The system will present great problems of continuity of staff and finance. It may not always allow for emergency accommodation; reception areas would be required. Some emotionally disturbed children are unable to adjust within a confined area and it would seem that this small unit system would tend to ignore the vital factor of space. Reformatory and industrial schools should have individual house names and street names where possible.

Contact with Parents 3.4.

Children are encouraged to visit their children. Contact with parents is essential.

Clothing and Private Property 4.14-15

Children in homes all wear ordinary clothes and are given private property so that they will learn to appreciate and respect the property of others.

Bedroom Accommodation 4.10

It is not necessary for children to have a bedroom of their own. Most of these children come from homes where they were used to sharing bedrooms. For senior children in pre-release units the one child per bedroom idea could be good.

Houseparents 4.9

The provision of House parents will present great problems. House parents would not always be acceptable to the child’s real parents as they do not want their place in the child’s affection usurped. However, proper training would enable House parents to become involved while remaining objective.

Continuity of Staff 4.9

Religious could contribute towards the alleviation of the problem of continuity of staff. In order to achieve continuity of staff in this field, the work will have to have a better status in the future.

Closed Psychiatric Unit for Girls 6.21

There is a similar need for one for boys. The period of stay here should be one year at a minimum and preferably two years.

High Security Unit for Girls and Boys

There is an urgent need for high security units for boys and girls within the reformatory school system. In the administration of these units, religious Orders do not wish to be directly involved.

Staff Suitability 4.6

Many of the religious personnel involved in this work have been specially chosen and are fully trained. The British survey – ‘New Thinking on Institutional Care’ 1967 would show that our situation compares favourably with that in England. For people involved in this work suitability of personality is very important. This should be considered before candidates are admitted to training. All staff cannot be adequately trained until State salaries and grants are introduced.

Institutional Approach 4.7

The references here to an ‘institutional approach’ in these schools are unjustified and therefore misleading.

Training 4.1

Full time specialised courses are urgently needed in Ireland. A Child Care Centre must be established immediately so as to give professional status to those involved in the work. It could take the form of a consortium or centre for training with outside lecturers from the laity and religious. All students in Child Care should have a good basic education was well as suitability of personality. For those already involved in Child Care work, courses of one month should be run for at least three years. In this way, experience gained by these people would be considered and acknowledged.

Training and Finance 5.11

The State must finance staff training. A proper salary structure for all those involved in Child Care must be established. This salary structure should include superannuation allowances. There should be a clear definition of functions of all staff involved in this work, with appropriate salary deductions.

Inadequate Staffing 4.6

There should never be a situation where staff are compelled to hold two posts and work a 24 hour day.

Residential Assessment Centre 4.25-26

A Residential Assessment Centre independent of all schools is of prime importance. This would facilitate a deep and comprehensive assessment of each child. It would entail the child’s living in for a required period. The establishment of an assessment Centre will involve the introduction of new legislation on reception into care. However, an Assessment Centre will be of little value until schools are more specialised. At the end of assessment a child’s report should be sent to the preferred school manager who should reserve the right to refuse admissions. This report should contain recommendations for treatment, to avoid the child being reassessed on admission.

Personal Record Files 4.27

These are essential and prove and invaluable help when supplied. At present, personal files are being kept to some degree. A report on children’s social background is very necessary and is often difficult to obtain. Provision must be made to supply a social background report for all children being admitted into care in future.

Admittance 6.27

The manager of each school should reserve the right to refuse the admittance of a child in the interest of the child’s own well-being and the well-being of the other children in the school. No authority should over-ride the power of the manager on a question of admittance. The School Manager must have a greater say than at present in the matter of releasing a child.

Special Education 7.4

Special education facilities are urgently required as many children admitted to these schools are educationally backward or retarded. To facilitate this need, schools catering for children from reformatory and industrial schools should be given grants for remedial education and psychological services pro rata. The Department should give preference to teachers from such schools for admittance to their courses in remedial education. Surveys have shown how retarded many of our 15 year olds are. Special education is therefore required at post-primary level in some schools.

Counselling 7.5

All schools should be provided with counselling and career guidance services.

School Attendance 7.6

Local school attendance is highly recommended. In the case of delinquents the home school is probably more suitable as there they should be able to receive the special education they require. The discretion of the manager would obviously play a prominent part in this decision.

Local Activities and Social Integration 4.16–4.18

Children in homes generally mix a lot locally. Local children play in the home. Home children attend local birthday parties. In rural areas, many schools entertain local children. But perhaps the best form of social integration is that of holidays with normal families in foster homes or in their own homes.

Aftercare 8.6

Aftercare is in dire need of attention. The lack of proper aftercare is perhaps responsible for the many failures in our system to-date. This matter deserves strong government financial support. A trained aftercare officer paid by the Department should be attached to each school and should work in conjunction with the child’s family or with the local social worker attached to the area where the child is placed after leaving the home. Where possible a child’s parents should be involved in his aftercare. They can be prepared for their child’s return by the social worker. More hostels, youth clubs and night classes are needed. It is desirable that local people should become more involved in this problem.

Further Education 5.13, 10.11

State aid for pupils should continue up to the age of 18 years or after depending on education or training requirements, allowances for third level education should also be available. This would be in keeping with the Commission’s theory of overcompensation. To date, many children have been given further education at the expense of Religious Orders in nursing and domestic economy.

Administrative Responsibility 5.14

The Commission’s suggestion that child care should be transferred to the Department of Health and that responsibility for the education of children in care should remain with the Department of Education is thought a good one. This development should be regarded as a step towards the establishment of a family welfare department. Important also is the quality of Government personnel involved in this field.

Legislation 2.9

The Association feels that, since new legislation takes so long to introduce, we should first amend the 1908 Children’s Act and have it allow for greater flexibility within the system.

Children in Court 10.13

The whole body of legislation regarding the committal of children to care, must be reviewed. Children, orphaned or neglected, should never have to appear in court. It is highly undesirable for a child to have to share a courtroom with adults as happens in provincial areas. A child responsible for a criminal act who must appear in court should be assessed beforehand ad his full report presented in court.

Offenders and Non-Offenders 8.4.

Serious and non-serious offenders should not be mixed in one school. However, petty offenders and non-offenders could indeed be mixed. While these terms ‘offenders’ and non-offenders’ are used here for convenience, there is a pressing need to redefine them.

Babies 4.12

It is felt that if babies are liable to be adopted, they should be sent to special reception areas so that their departure will not unsettle the other children in the home.

Age of Criminal Responsibility, 2.10

The age of criminal responsibility should certainly be raised to 12 years. The time has come to eliminate entirely this term ‘criminal responsibility’ in regard to youth. Our schools should be so treatment oriented as to meet the individual needs of each child and thereby eliminate the element of punishment.

System of Payment 5.8, 5.9

The proposed new system of payment by budget would be very welcome. This should cater for all expenses with the exception of extensions and renovations on buildings separate grants should be made available for these.

Free Medical Care 5.7

Free medical treatment is essential for all these schools.

Increased Family Allowances 5.2

This is essential since every effort should be made to avoid a family break up. That a full family support system be introduced is very desirable. Financial benefits do not always suffice. A proper system will, of course, entail social services, nurseries and other facilities.

Watch Dog Committee 4.5

An advisory body is thought to be essential but not a watch dog committee. This advisory body should have fair representation from the schools themselves and the Government Departments involved as well as other independent personnel. This advisory body would supervise research and visit schools, thus replacing an inspectorate.

Research 2.13

This is very necessary but it should be related and specific so that it can be fed back into schools. It could be placed under the supervision of the advisory body. Research should be approved by the schools managers who will be prepared to put personal files and accommodation at the disposal of the researchers.

¹In drafting this paper, I received considerable assistance from the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, in particular Ms Feena Robinson and the Commissioners themselves, and for this I am most grateful. Mr Alan Savage facilitated my access to relevant files in the Department of Health and Children and his courtesy and unfailing assistance was much appreciated. The paper has benefited from productive conversations over a long number of years with Dr Helen Buckley, Dr Shane Butler and Professor Robbie Gilligan. In particular, I would like to thank Jessica Breen and Nicola Carr for their unfailing assistance and contribution to this paper.

²For example, the paper does not deal with adoption policy during this period, although it may be argued that the legalisation of adoption in 1952 contributed, in part, to the decline in the numbers of children placed in residential care. For further details on adoption policy in Ireland, see Shanahan, S (2005) ‘The Changing Meaning of Family: Individual Rights and Irish Adoption Policy, 1949-99’. Journal of Family History, 30, 1, 86-108 and Maguire, M (2002) ‘Foreign Adoptions and the Evolution of Irish Adoption Policy, 1945-1952’. Journal of Social History, 36, 2, 387-404.

³See Fuller, L (2002) Irish Catholicism since 1950: The Undoing of a Culture. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan and Donnelly, JS (2002) ‘The Troubled Contemporary Irish Catholic Church’ in Bradshaw, B and Keogh, D (eds) Christianity in Ireland: Revisiting the Story. Dublin: The Columba Press.

⁴See for example, Curtin, C and Varley, A (1984) ‘Children and Childhood in Rural Ireland: A Consideration of the Ethnographic Literature’ in Curtin, C, Kelly, M and O’Dowd, L (eds) Culture and Ideology in Ireland. Galway: Galway University Press; Kennedy, F (2001) Cottage to Crèche: Family Change in Ireland. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration; Walsh, T (2005) ‘Constructions of Childhood in Ireland in the Twentieth Century: A View from the Primary School Curriculum 1900-1999’. Child Care in Practice, 11, 2, 253-69; and Earner-Byrne, L (2007) Mother and Child: Maternity and Child Welfare in Dublin, 1922-60. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

⁵See for example, Cousins, M (1999) ‘The Introduction of Children’s Allowances in Ireland 1939-1944’. Irish Economic and Social History, 26, 35-53; McCashin, A (2004) Social Security in Ireland. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan and Fahey, T, Russell, H and Whelan, CT (eds) (2007) Best of Times? The Social Impact of the Celtic Tiger. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.

⁶The changing role of the Irish State is debated in Adshead, M, Kirby, P and Millar, M (eds) 2008) Contesting the State: Lessons from the Irish Case. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

⁷For a representative sample, see Girvin, B (2008) ‘Church, State and Society in Ireland since 1960’. Eire-Ireland, 43, 1&2, 74-98; Fuller, L (2005) ‘Religion, Politics and Socio-Cultural Change in Twentieth-Century Ireland’. The European Legacy, 10, 1, 41-54; Daly, ME (2006) ‘Marriage, Fertility and Women’s Lives in Twentieth-Century Ireland’ (c 1900-c 1970). Women’s History Review, 15, 4, 571-85; Foster, RF (2007) ‘“Changed Utterly”? Transformation and Continuity in Late Twentieth – Century Ireland’. Historical Research, 80, 209, 425; Ferriter, D (2008) ‘Women and Political Change in Ireland since 1960’. Eire-Ireland, 43, 1&2, 179-204 and Breathnach, C (2008) ‘Ireland Church, State and Society’, 1900-1975. The History of the Family. 13, 4. 333-9.

⁸As McCullagh has argued in relation to the juvenile justice system ‘Since the foundation of the state, there has been a remarkable agreement about the juvenile justice system. There was consensus that it was not working, there was considerable consensus over how it should be reformed, and there was a seeming consensus that nothing would or could be done about it.’ McCullagh, C (2006) Juvenile Justice in Ireland: Rhetoric and Reality in O’Connor, T and Murphy, M (eds) Social Care in Ireland: Theory, Policy and Practice. Cork: CIT Press. p 161. In a similar vein, O’Connor observed: ‘One of the puzzling enigmas of Irish Social Policy is the contrast between, on the one hand, the clear endorsement of the family as the pivotal unit in Irish Society and, on the other hand, the reluctance up to very recently to initiate legislative reform to protect the most vulnerable members of that group – children. O’Connor, P (1992) ‘Child Care Policy: A Provocative Analysis and Research Agenda’. Administration, 40, 3, 215.

⁹See, Brennan, C (2007) ‘Facing What Cannot be Changed: The Irish Experience of Confronting Institutional Child Abuse’. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 29, 3-4, 245-63; Ferguson, H (2007) ‘Abused and Looked After Children as “Moral Dirt”: Child Abuse and Institutional Care in Historical Perspective’. Journal of Social Policy, 36, 1, 123-39; Ferguson, H (2000) ‘States of Fear, Child Abuse and Irish Society’. Doctrine and Life, 50, 1, 20-30 and Christie, A (2001) ‘Social Work in Ireland’. British Journal of Social Work, 31, 1, 141-8.

¹⁰See for example, Gallagher, B (2000) ‘The Extent and Nature of Known Cases of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse’. British Journal of Social Work, 30, 6, 795-817; Corby, B, Doig, A and Roberts, V (2001) Public Inquiries into Abuse of Children in Residential Care. London: Jessica Kinglsey; Colton, M (2002) ‘Factors Associated with Abuse in Residential Child Care Institutions’. Children and Society, 16, 1, 33-44; Colton, M, Vanstone, M and Walby, C (2002) ‘Victimization, Care and Justice: Reflections on the Experiences of Victims/Survivors Involved in Large-scale Historical Investigations of Child Sexual Abuse in Residential Institutions’. British Journal of Social Work, 32, 5, 541-51; Stein, M (2006) Missing Years of Abuse in Children’s Homes. Child and Family Social Work, 11, 1, 11-21; Shaw, T (2007) Historical Abuse Systemic Review: Residential Schools and Children’s Homes in Scotland 1950-1995. Edinburgh: Scottish Government; Sen, R, Kendrick, A, Milligan, I and Hawthorn, M (2008) ‘Lessons Learnt? Abuse in Residential Child Care in Scotland’. Child and Family Social Work, 13, 4, 411-22. For a critical account of the claims of historic abuse in children’s homes, see Smith, M (2008) ‘Historical Abuse in Residential Child Care: An Alternative View’. Practice: Social Work in Action, 20, 1, 29-41.

¹¹See Bessner, R (1998) Institutional Child Abuse in Canada. Ottawa: Law Commission of Canada; Law Commission of Canada (2000) Restoring Dignity: Responding to Child Abuse in Canadian Institutions. Ottawa: Law Commission of Canada; Hall, M (2000) ‘The Liability of Public Authorities for the Abuse of Children in Institutional Care: Common Law Developments in Canada and The United Kingdom’. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 14, 3, 281-301.

¹²It is estimated that over 43,000 children were placed in residential homes managed by the Sisters of Mercy between 1846 and 1997. See, Clarke, M (1998) Lives in Care: Issues for Policy and Practice in Irish Children’s Homes. Dublin: Mercy Congregation and the Children’s Research Centre, TCD. pp 123-4.

¹³These were: Trinity House School, Lusk, County Dublin; Oberstown Boys Centre, Lusk, County Dublin; Oberstown Girls Centre, Lusk, County Dublin; and Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre, Finglas West, Dublin 11.

¹⁴The children detention school in Clonmel became premises provided and maintained by the Heath Service Executive under the Child Care Act 1991. Established in 2005, the Health Service Executive replaced a complex structure of regional health boards, the Eastern Regional Health Authority and a number of other different agencies and organisations.

¹⁵According to the Report, ‘The primary aim of the proposed Youth Justice Service is to bring together the services for all young offenders under one governance and management structure. The Youth Justice Service should therefore assume responsibility for the operation of the children detention schools. Existing staff, financial resources and infrastructure for these schools would transfer to the new Youth Justice Service. The Department of Education and Science should continue to play an essential role in the provision of appropriate educational supports.’ Government of Ireland (2006) Report on the Youth Justice Review. Dublin: Stationery Office. p 40. The Irish Youth Justice Service (IYJS) was established in December 2005 and the main responsibilities of IYJS are to: develop a unified youth justice policy; devise and develop a national strategy to deliver this policy and service; link this strategy where appropriate with other child related strategies; manage and develop children detention facilities; manage the implementation of provisions of the Children Act 2001 which relate to community sanctions, restorative justice conferencing and diversion; Co-ordinate service delivery at both national and local level; establish and support consultation and liaison structures with key stakeholders including at local level to oversee the delivery of this service and response; and develop and promote information sources for the youth justice sector to inform further strategies, policies and programmes.

¹⁶Section 1(V) of the Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924 set out that ‘The Department of Education which shall comprise the administration and business generally of public services in connection with Education, including primary, secondary and university education, vocational and technical training, endowed schools, reformatories, and industrial schools, and all powers, duties and functions connected with the same, and shall include in particular the business, powers, duties and functions of the branches and officers of the public services specified in the Fourth Part of the Schedule to this Act, and of which Department the head shall be, and shall be styled, an t-Aire Oideachais or (in English) the Minister for Education.’

¹⁷In addition, the IYJS will assume operational responsibility for the detention of children aged 16 and 17. These children are currently detained within the Irish Prison Service in St Patrick’s Institution. When Part 9 of the Children Act 2001 is fully commenced, 16- and 17-year-old offenders will be detained in a children detention centre(s), operational responsibility for which should reside with the Irish Youth Justice Service.

¹⁸Government of Ireland (2006) Report on the Youth Justice Review. Dublin: Stationery Office. p 40.

¹⁹It should be noted that this was proposed as an interim measure as the Review highlighted that the most appropriate body was one which had responsibility for the care of young people and argued that ‘this would reflect the practice in other international jurisdictions which have placed youth justice in structures which also have responsibility for the delivery of broad child-related services. However, no existing social service structure seems appropriate for the incorporation of a youth care and justice service at this time. The capacity of care and social services would have to be expanded to cope with the introduction of these additional services and the organisational structures would need revision to an extent not practical in the short term. Therefore, as an interim measure, it is proposed that a Youth Justice Service, which would take responsibility for offending children only, be established under the aegis of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Government of Ireland (2006) Report on the Youth Justice Review. Dublin: Stationery Office. p 39.

²⁰These criticisms predate the foundation of the State. For example, in 1899, it was argued ‘In Ireland we are at once met by the fact that State interference with children is carried out by different authorities who are not bound to consult each other. The Inspector of Reformatories and Industrial Schools does not deal with children in workhouses. The Poor-Law Inspector is not concerned with those in Industrial Schools. The Pauper Children’s Act sanctions another interloper who is to inspect Local Government Board schools. The Prison authorities play the part of awkward foster parents to children who drift into gaols. School Attendance Committees also have a finger in the pie. And various boards of guardians can, to a large extent, experiment independently, according to their understanding, or want of it, with childhood in its helpless stages…..it is a matter of chance under which regime a child may fall, according as he first meets a relieving officer, a policeman, or a philanthropist connected with some school.’ (Daly, ED (1899) ‘The Children and the State’. The New Ireland Review, July, pp 262-3). Millin, a decade later argued that ‘What we want in Ireland is a Department for Children, which will in no way be connected with the workhouse, nor bear a name which will cast a stigma on the children. The management of that Department should be largely, if not exclusively, in the hands of women. There should be full power to board out any child in any part of Ireland; and no child should be sent to an industrial school, unless sanctioned by the Department, after boarding-out has been tried, and has proved a failure in each particular case. (Millin, SS (1909) ‘The Duty of the State towards the Pauper Children of Ireland’. Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland, Vol xii, pp 260-1.) After independence, the issue was debated in the Report of the Commission on the Relief of the Poor, which rejected the establishment of a state department dealing entirely with children, arguing that ‘we are not convinced that the interests of the children would be better served by a single ‘mixed’ authority exercising a number of unrelated duties than by the several departments amongst which these duties are at present distributed’. Report of the Commission on the Relief of the Sick and Destitute Poor, including the Insane Poor. (1928) Dublin: Stationery Office, p 74.

²¹The National Children’s Strategy, Our Children — Their Lives, was published in November 2000. The three national goals of the strategy are: (1) Children will have a voice in matters which affect them and their views will be given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity; (2) Children’s lives will be better understood; their lives will benefit from evaluation, research and information on their needs, rights and the effectiveness of services; and (3) Children will receive quality supports and services to promote all aspects of their development. On the background to the Strategy, see Pinkerton, J (2001) ‘Ireland’s National Children’s Strategy – An Inside Outsider’s View’. Children and Society, 15, 2, 118-21.

²²The National Children’s Office (NCO) was established in 2001 to lead and oversee the implementation of the National Children’s Strategy. The NCO was given the lead responsibility for Goal 1 (children’s participation) and Goal 2 (research). In regard to Goal 3 (improving supports and services), the NCO had a particular responsibility for progressing key policy issues identified as priorities by the Cabinet Committee on Children and which require cross-departmental/interagency action.

²³Austin Currie first held the post between 2nd December 1994 and 26th June 1997. He was followed by Frank Fahey (8th July 1997 – 1st February 2000); Mary Hanafin (1st February 2000-6th June 2002); Brian Lenihan (19th June 2002 – 14th June 2007); Brendan Smith (20th June 2007 – 7th May, 2008). Chris Flood held a co-ordinating post between Health and Education between 1991 and 1994.

²⁴The Special Residential Services Board was established in 2001, having had an interim board from April 2000, and put on a statutory basis in November 2003 pursuant to Part 11 of the Children Act 2001. Under this Act the functions of the Board included the provision of policy advice to the Ministers with responsibility for Health and Children and Education and Science on the remand and detention of children in detention schools and special care units. The Board also had a remit to both co-ordinate and advise the courts on the appropriate placement of children in children detention schools.

²⁵The final sections of the Child Care Act 1991 were enacted on 18th December 1996.

²⁶All sections of the Act, not already enacted, were enacted on 23rd July 2007 (SI No 524 of 2007 Children Act 2001 (Commencement) (No 3) Order 2007).

²⁷In addition, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was ratified by Ireland in September 1992 and came into force on 21st October, 1992. For further details, see Kilkelly, U (2008) Children’s Rights In Ireland: Law, Policy and Practice. Tottel Publishing.

²⁸The Act superseded the Child (Care and Protection) Bill 1985. The second stage of the Bill was passed in the Dáil on 23rd January 1987 but had not progressed further by the time of the dissolution of the Dáil in January 1987. For further details on the Act, see Ferguson, H and Kenny, P (1995) On Behalf of the Child: Child Welfare, Child Protection and the Child Care Act, 1991. Dublin: A&A Farmar; Gilligan, R (1996) ’Irish Child Care Services in the 1990s: The Child Care Act 1991 and Other Developments’ in Hill, M and Aldgate, J (eds) Child Welfare Services: Developments in Law, Policy, Practice and Research. London, Jessica Kingsley, pp 56-74 and Ward, P (1997) The Child Care Act, 1991. Dublin: Roundhall.

²⁹A number of studies have attempted to review and evaluate the effectiveness of the Child Care Act 1991 in achieving the objectives set out in the Act. A non-exhaustive list of research on aspects of residential care includes: Gilligan, R (1996) ‘Children Adrift in Care?-Can the Child Care Act 1991 Rescue the 50 percent who are in Care Five Years and More?’. Irish Social Worker, 14, 1, 17-19; Stein, M, Pinkerton, J and Kelleher, P (2000) ‘Young People Leaving Care in England, Northern Ireland and Ireland’. European Journal of Social Work, 3, 3, 235-46; Buckely, H (2002) ‘Issues in Residential care’ in Buckely, H (ed) Child Protection and Welfare – Innovations and Interventions. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration; Gilligan, R (2007) ‘Adversity, Resilience and Educational Progress of Young People in Public Care’. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 12, 2, 135-45; Mayock, P and O’Sullivan, E (2007) Lives in Crisis: Homeless Young People in Dublin. Dublin: Liffey Press.

³⁰See SI 259 of 1995 Child Care (Placement of Children in Residential Care) Regulations 1995 and SI No 397 of 1996 Child Care (Standards in Children’s Residential Centres) Regulations 1996. In addition, a Guide to Good Practice in Children’s Residential Centres was published by the Department of Health. The Department of Health published National Standards for Children’s Residential Centres in 2001 and the Department of Education and Science published Standards and Criteria for Children Detention Schools in 2002. In 2006, the Health Service Executive published detailed guidance on promoting best practice on leaving care and aftercare. Health Service Executive (2006) Model for the Delivery of Leaving Care and Aftercare Services in HSE North West Dublin, North Central Dublin and North Dublin. Dublin: HSE.

³¹Corporal punishment was effectively prohibited from February 1982, when the Department of Education issued new regulations which outlined that ‘1. Teachers should have a lively regard for the improvement and general welfare of their pupils, treat them with kindness combined with firmness and should aim at governing them through their affections and reason and not by harshness and severity. Ridicule, sarcasm or remarks likely to undermine a pupil’s self-confidence should not be used in any circumstances. 2. The use of corporal punishment is forbidden. 3. Any teacher who contravenes sections (1) or (2) of this rule will be regarded as guilty of conduct unbefitting a teacher and will be subject to severe disciplinary action.’ For further information on corporal punishment in Ireland, see Maguire, MJ and Ó Cinnéide, S (2005) ‘“A Good Beating Never Hurt Anyone”: The Punishment and Abuse of Children in Twentieth Century Ireland’. Journal of Social History, 38, 3, 635-52.

³²For further details on the provisions of the Act, see McDermot, PA and Robinson, T (2003) Children Act, 2001. Dublin: Thomson / RoundHall, Kilkelly, U (2006) ‘Reform of Youth Justice in Ireland: The “New” Children Act 2001. Part 1’. Irish Criminal Law Journal, 16, 4, 2-7 and Kilkelly, U (2007) ‘Reform of Youth Justice in Ireland: The “New” Children Act 2001. Part 2’. Irish Criminal Law Journal, 17, 1, 2-8.

³³Shannon, G (2005) Child Law. Dublin: Thomson/Round Hall. p vii. For a comprehensive overview of juvenile justice in Ireland, see Walsh, D (2005) Juvenile Justice. Dublin: Round Hall and Bowe, J (2005) Literature Review and System Review. Dublin: Irish Association for the Study of Delinquency and for a comparative history, Caul, B (1984) A Comparative Study of the Juvenile Justice Systems of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Unpublished PhD thesis. Trinity College, Dublin.

³⁴On this shift, see Seymour, M (2006) ‘Transition and Reform: Juvenile Justice in the Republic of Ireland’ in Junger-Tas, J and Decker, SH (eds) International Handbook of Juvenile Justice. Springer, pp 117-44 and O’Dwyer, K (2001) Restorative Justice Initiatives in the Garda Siochana: Evaluation of the Pilot Project. Templemore: Garda Research Unit.

³⁵In a comparative context, this shift is somewhat at odds with a general drift towards more punitive polices for young offenders. See for example, Muncie, J (2008) ‘The “Punitive Turn” in Juvenile Justice: Cultures of Control and Rights Compliance in Western Europe and the USA’. Youth Justice, 8, 2, 107-21 and Muncie, J (2006) ‘Repenalisation and Rights: Explorations in Comparative Youth Criminology’. The Howard Journal, 45, 1, 42-70.

³⁶There are 10 community sanctions available to the courts under the Act: They are: community service order: a child of 16 or 17 years of age agrees to complete unpaid work for a set total number of hours; day centre order: a child is to go to a centre at set times and, as part of the order, to take part in a programme of activities; probation order: this places a child under the supervision of the Probation Service for a period during which time the child must meet certain conditions which are set by the court; training or activities order: a child has to take part in and complete a programme of training or similar activity. The programme should help the child learn positive social values; intensive supervision order: a child is placed under the supervision of a named probation officer and has to attend a programme of education, training or treatment as part of their time under supervision; residential supervision order: this is where a child is to live in a suitable hostel. The hostel is to be close to where they normally live, attend school or go to work; a suitable person (care and supervision) order: with the agreement of the child’s parents or guardian, the child is placed in the care of a suitable adult; a mentor (family support) order: a person is assigned to help, advise and support the child and his/her family in trying to stop the child from committing further offences; restriction of movement order: this requires a child to stay away from certain places and to be at a specific address between 7pm and 6am each day; a dual order: this combines a Restriction of Movement Order with either supervision by a probation officer or attendance at a day centre. The growing involvement with the Probation Service with young offenders was reflected in the creation of Young Person’s Probation (YPP), which is a division of the Probation Service. The YPP works with approximately 600 young offenders nationally. As part of their role in working to reduce offending, the YPP has responsibility for the implementation of certain provisions under the Children Act 2001.

³⁷An exception is made for 10- and 11-year-olds charged with very serious offences, such as unlawful killing, a rape offence or aggravated sexual assault. In addition, the Director of Public Prosecutions must give consent for any child under the age of 14 years to be charged. Although the Act in general prohibits children less than 12 years of age from being charged and convicted of a criminal offence, they do not enjoy total immunity from action being taken against them. Section 53 of the Act as amended by section 130 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 places an onus on the Gardaí to take a child under 12 years of age to his/her parents or guardian, where they have reasonable grounds for believing that the child has committed an offence with which the child cannot be charged due to the child’s age. Where this is not possible the Gardaí will arrange for the child to be taken into the custody of the Health Service Executive (HSE) for the area in which the child normally resides. It is possible that children under 12 years of age who commit criminal offences will be dealt with by the HSE and not the criminal justice system.

³⁸Kilkelly, U (2007) ‘Reform of Youth Justice in Ireland: The “New” Children Act 2001. Part 1’. Irish Criminal Law Journal, 17, 1, 2. The provisos in relation to age of criminal responsibility are discussed above. In relation to the diversion programme, the primary change is to expand to remit of the scheme to children aged 10 and 11, i.e. below the age of criminal responsibility, for those deemed to be involved in anti-social behaviour. The changes in the arrangements for the detention children relate to the transfer of administrative responsibility from the Department of Education and Science to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The issue that generated most adverse publicity was the introduction of new provisions for children deemed to be involved in anti-social behaviour. For further details, see Garrett, PM (2007) ‘Learning from the “Trojan Horse”? The Arrival of ‘Anti-Social Behaviour Orders’ in Ireland’. European Journal of Social Work, 10, 4, 497-511 and Hamilton, C and Seymour, M (2006) ‘ASBOs and Behaviour Orders: Institutionalised Intolerance of Youth?’ Youth Studies Ireland, 1, 1, 61-75.

³⁹For further details, see, Ward, P (1995) ‘Homeless Children and the Child Care Act, 1991’. Irish Law Times, 13, 19-21 and Whyte, G (2002) Social Inclusion and the Legal System: Public Interest Law in Ireland. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.

⁴⁰PS v Eastern Health Board (unreported, 27th July 1994), High Court, Geoghegan J.

⁴¹For further information, see Kenny, B (2000) Responding to the Needs of Troubled Children: A Critique of High Support and Secure Care Provision in Ireland. Dublin: Barnardo’s and Social Information Systems (2003) Definition and Usage of High Support in Ireland. Dublin: Special Residential Services Board.

⁴²DB (a minor suing by his mother and next friend SB) v The Minister for Justice, The Minister for Health, The Minister for Education, Ireland and The Attorney General and the Eastern Health Board (unreported, 29th July 1998).

⁴³The key distinction between high support units and special care units is that a child can be detained in a special care unit but not in a high support unit, but there has been confusion as to the precise purpose and functions of high support units. See Social Information Systems (2003) Definition and Usage of High Support in Ireland. Dublin: Special Residential Services Board.

⁴⁴See Carr for further details on the mechanisms by which children enter such units. Carr, N (2008) ‘Exceptions to the Rule? The Role of the High Court in Secure Care in Ireland’. Irish Journal of Family Law, 11, 4, 84-91.

⁴⁵For further details, see Fahey, T (1992) ‘State, Family and Compulsory Schooling in Ireland’. Economic and Social Review, 23, 4, 369-95 and Department of Education (1994) School Attendance/Truancy Report. Dublin: Department of Education.

⁴⁶Commission on the Garda Síochána (1970) Remuneration and Conditions of Service. Dublin: Government Publications Office. p 201.

⁴⁷Committee of Enquiry into Reformatory and Industrial Schools’ Systems. (1970) Report. Dublin: Stationery Office. p 82.

⁴⁸Ibid. p 82.

⁴⁹They are: clinical biochemists, medical scientists, psychologists, chiropodists/podiatrists, dieticians, orthoptists, physiotherapists, radiographers, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, social care workers and social workers.

⁵⁰Department of Health (1996) Report on the Inquiry into the Operation of Madonna House. Dublin: Stationery Office. p xi.

⁵¹See, O’Brien, L (2008) ‘Protection through Inspection: An Exploration of the Effectiveness of Irish Inspection Services in Relation to Promoting a Child’s Right to Make a Complaint in Residential Care’. Scottish Journal of Residential Child Care, 7, 1, 14-20.

⁵²See, Martin, F (2006) ‘Key Roles of the Ombudsman for Children in Ireland: Promotion of Rights and Investigation of Grievances’. Dublin University Law Journal, 26, 56-82.

⁵³Department of Health (1976) Report of the Committee on Non Accidental Injury to Children. Dublin: Stationery Office. In early 1977, a group of social workers published a discussion document on child abuse in Ireland: see. Dear, L, Hand, D, Harding, M, McCarthy, I and Smyth, P (1977) Suffer the Children: A Discussion Document on Child Abuse in Ireland. Dublin: North Dublin Social Workers.

⁵⁴Ibid. p 10.

⁵⁵Department of Health (1977) Memorandum on Non-Accidental Injury to Children, Dublin: Department of Health.

⁵⁶Greene, D (1979) ‘Legal Aspects of Non-accidental Injury to Children’. Administration, 27, 4, p 460.

⁵⁷Department of Health (1980) Guidelines on the Identification and Management of Non-Accidental Injury to Children. Dublin: Department of Health.

⁵⁸Buckley, H (1996) ‘Child Abuse Guidelines in Ireland: For whose Protection?’ in H Ferguson and T McNamara (eds) Protecting Irish Children: Investigation, Protection and Welfare. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration, pp 37-56.

⁵⁹For further information on the incorporation of child sexual abuse in child abuse guidelines, see Cooney, T and Torode, R (1988) Report of the Child Sexual Abuse Working Party. Dublin: Irish Council for Civil Liberties and McKeown, K and Gilligan, R (1991) ‘Child Sexual Abuse in the Eastern Health Board Region of Ireland in 1988: An Analysis of 512 Confirmed Cases’. Economic and Social Review, 22, 2, 101-34.

⁶⁰Irish Council for Civil Liberties (1988) Report of the Child Sexual Abuse Working Party. Dublin: ICCL. p 12.

⁶¹Similar Committees of Enquiry had been established in England/Wales and Scotland in 1925 and 1926 respectively to examine similar concerns, see Smart, C (2000) ‘Reconsidering the Recent History of Child Sexual Abuse, 1910-1960’. Journal of Social Policy, 29, 1, 55-72. A similar reconsideration of the extent of knowledge of child sexual abuse is also evident in the UK. See for example, Jackson, LA (2000) Child Sexual Abuse in Victorian England. London: Routledge and Davidson, R (2001) ‘“This Pernicious Delusion”: Law, Medicine, and Child Sexual Abuse in Early-Twentieth-Century Scotland’. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 10, 1, 62-77.

⁶²NA H247/41a. p 2.

⁶³NA H247/41a. p 5.

⁶⁴NA H247/41a. p 2.

⁶⁵For further details see, Keogh, D (1994) Twentieth-Century Ireland: Nation and State. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, pp 71-3; Finnane, M (2001) ‘The Carrigan Committee of 1930-31 and the “moral condition of the Saorstat”’. Irish Historical Studies, xxxii (128): 519-36; Kennedy, F (2000) ‘The Suppression of the Carrigan Report – A Historical Perspective on Child Abuse’. Studies, 86 (356), 354-63; Luddy, M (2007) Prostitution and Irish Society, 1800-1940. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp 227-37; Maguire, MJ (2007) ‘The Carrigan Committee and Child Sexual Abuse in twentieth-century Ireland’. New Hibernia Review, 11, 2, 79-100; McAvoy, S (1999) ‘The Regulation of Sexuality in the Irish Free State, 1929-1935’ in Jones, G and Malcolm, E (eds). Medicine, Disease and the State in Ireland, 1650-1940. Cork: Cork University Press. pp 253-66; Smith, JM (2004) ‘The Politics of Sexual Knowledge: The Origins of Ireland’s Containment Culture and “The Carrigan Report”’ (1931), Journal of the History of Sexuality, 13, 2, 208-33. Crowley, U and Kitchin, R (2008) ‘Producing “decent girls”: Governmentality and the Moral Geographies of Sexual Conduct in Ireland (1922-1937)’. Gender, Place and Culture, 15, 4, 355-72.

⁶⁶South Eastern Health Board (1993) Kilkenny Incest Investigation – Report presented to Mr Brendan Howlin T.D. Minister to Health by South Eastern Health Board, May 1993. Dublin: Stationery Office. This investigation concerned the sexual and physical abuse of a young woman by her father over many years. The notoriety surrounding the case arose out of media reports of the father’s trial and sentencing for incest. It became known that the health and social services had had over 100 contacts with the family in the 13 years prior to the prosecution, during which time the abuse had continued. The television coverage of the case included an interview with the young woman, known by the pseudonym of ‘Mary’, in which she criticised the social worker involved. In the wake of further widespread condemnation of the child care services, the Minister for Health announced a public inquiry, the first of its kind in Ireland. The inquiry team, under the chairpersonship of a judge, Catherine McGuinness, reported after three months. The report identified a number of deficiencies in both the child protection system, and in the professional activities of the various practitioners involved, particularly in relation to poor inter-agency cooperation and weaknesses in management. For Ferguson in his analysis of the investigation argued that ‘The case has heightened public awareness, made child abuse into a political issue and increased expectations that such cases “won’t happen again”. There is, of course, no guarantee that a “Kilkenny”-type case will not happen again. But if, or when, it does it is doubtful that an inquiry will be as reluctant to criticise individual professionals and the relevant government departments.’ See, Ferguson, H (1993-4) Child Abuse Inquiries and the Report of the Kilkenny Incest Investigation: A Critical Analysis. Administration, Vol 41, No 4, p 406.

⁶⁷See Holden, W (1994) Unlawful Carnal Knowledge: The True Story of the Irish ‘X’ Case. London: Harper Collins and Smyth, A (1993) ‘The “X” Case: Women and Abortion in the Republic of Ireland, 1992’. Feminist Legal Studies, 1, 2, 163-77.

⁶⁸Keenan, O (1996) Kelly: A Child is Dead. Interim Report of the Joint Committee on the Family. Dublin: Government Publications Office.

⁶⁹See, McKay, S (1998) Sophia’s Story. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan and Sgroi, SM (1999) ‘The McColgan case: Increasing Public Awareness of Professional Responsibility for Protecting Children from Physical and Sexual Abuse in the Republic of Ireland’. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 8, 1, 113-27. Sophia McColgan’s father, Joseph McColgan, was convicted in 1995 of raping and abusing his children over a 20-year period which only ended in 1993. McColgan, dubbed ’the West of Ireland farmer’, was sentenced to 12 years in prison.

⁷⁰See Moore, C (1995) Betrayal of Trust: The Father Brendan Smyth Affair and the Catholic Church: Dublin: Marino Books. Smyth, a member of the Norbertine Order, who died of natural causes in the Curragh prison in August 1997, was sentenced to 12 years in jail having pleaded guilty to 74 charges of indecent and sexual assault committed over a period of 35 years. He had previously served three years in jail in Northern Ireland for 43 similar offences. Ferguson in a critical analysis of the popularisation of the ‘Paedophile Priest’ has argued that ‘The intense focus on the sexuality of priests constitutes a selective response to recent disclosures of sexual abuse which not only raise issues for the church, but serious questions about men, masculinity, the family, sexuality, and organisations. In constructing the debate in terms of clerical celibacy and the “paedophile priest”, attention is deflected from the fundamental issue that men from all social backgrounds commit such crimes of violence and are policed by a range of organisations that are male dominated.’ Ferguson, H (1995) ‘The Paedophile Priest: A Deconstruction’. Studies, 84, 335, 247-56.

⁷¹Report on the Inquiry into the Operation of Madonna House. (1996) Dublin: Department of Health. Madonna House was opened on 20th January 1955 on the request of the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr McQuaid, and managed by the Irish Sisters of Charity. It closed in 1995.

⁷²This documentary detailed the recollections of a former pupil in St Vincent’s Industrial School in Dublin during the 1950s (more commonly known as Goldenbridge). Inglis has argued that ‘The story of Goldenbridge is really a story of the power of the media in Irish society and how it has become a dominant player in every social field. It demonstrates the ability of the media, particularly television, to change the language and the stories about nuns and the Church and thereby to shatter the myth which had been established. The ongoing, unquestioned, predisposition through which the nuns were perceived, known and understood was broken. The documentary reflected the demise of the Church’s ability to have only good stories told about itself.’ Inglis, T (1998) Moral Monopoly: The Rise and Fall of the Catholic Church in Modern Ireland. Dublin: UCD Press, pp 229-30.

⁷³For an overview of aspects of the consequences of institutional sexual abuse in an Irish context, see O’Riordan, M and Arensman, E (2007) Institutional Child Sexual Abuse and Suicidal behaviour: Outcomes of a Literature Review, Consultation Meetings and a Qualitative Study. Dublin: National Suicide Research Foundation.

⁷⁴Dolan, P (1995) ‘Innocent but never exonerated! Guilty but never caught!’ Irish Social Worker, 13, 1, p 11.

⁷⁵Buckley, H, Skehill, C and O’Sullivan, E (1997) Child Protection Practices in Ireland: A Case Study. Dublin: Oak Tree Press; Ferguson, H and O’Reilly, M (2001) Keeping Children Safe: Child Abuse, Child Protection and the Promotion of Welfare, Dublin: A & A Farmar.

⁷⁶Report of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Advisory Committee on Child Sexual Abuse by Priests and Religious (1996) Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response. Dublin: Veritas.

⁷⁷Department of Health (1997) Putting Children First: Promoting and Protecting the Rights of Children. Dublin: Government Publications.

⁷⁸In March 2003 the Minister for Health and Children announced the establishment of the Inquiry into the handling of allegations of child sex abuse in the Diocese of Ferns. See Murphy, F, Buckley, H and Joyce, L (2005) The Ferns Report: Presented to the Minister for Health and Children. Dublin: Stationery Office and Crowe, C (2008) The Ferns Report: Vindicating the Abused Child. Eire-Ireland, 43, 1&2, 50-73.

⁷⁹Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs (2008) National Review of Compliance with Children First: National Guidelines for the Protection & Welfare of Children.

⁸⁰Buckley, H, Whelan, S, Carr, N and Murphy, C (2008) Services Users’ Perceptions of the Irish Child Protection System. Dublin: Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs.

⁸¹Data for this section of the are culled from two primary sources: The Annual Statistical Report of the Department of Education which are available from the 1920s and the Department of Health Surveys of Children in the Care of Health Boards which commenced in 1978.

⁸²The Department of Education in reviewing the organisation of Reformatory and Industrial Schools in 1927 compared the numbers of children in such schools in England and concluded that a key reason why so many children in Ireland were placed in Industrial Schools was that: ‘whereas in Britain the Industrial School is almost entirely a school for the conviction of delinquents in Saorstát Eireann it is mainly a camouflaged Poor Law School and that it has since the beginning of the century tended more and more to this use so that now it contains a much greater number of children who normally would be in Poor Law Institutions than the latter institutions themselves. The contrast with Great Britain in this respect is very remarkable and one of the tasks of any Commission set up to enquire into the Industrial School system here would be to report as to whether it would not be more desirable that all children who have to be supported by rates or taxes because of destitution should not be dealt with in this way.’

⁸³This trend was not unique to Ireland. For example, in the USA, the number of children in institutional care fell from 144,000 in 1933 to 43,000 in 1977. See Jones, MB (1993) ‘Decline of the American Orphanage, 1941-1980’. Social Service Review, 67, 459-80. In England and Wales, the numbers of children in residential care declined 35,000 in the mid-1950s to 13,300 in 1991. Butler, I and Drakeford, M (2003) Scandal, Social Policy and Social Welfare. Bristol: Policy Press.

⁸⁴This figure excludes other forms of care such as pre-adoptive placements, those at home under care orders, supported lodgings and other ad-hoc arrangements to facilitate the time series.

⁸⁵This apparent increase may be a result of a change in the method for recording children in care, see below for further details.

⁸⁶Although cross-national comparisons are fraught with difficulties, the rate in Ireland is lower than the rate in England which was over five children per 1,000 population in 2006, but which had declined from a rate of nearly eight in the early 1980s. See Rowlands, J and Statham, J (2009) ‘Numbers of Children Looked After in England: A Historical Analysis’. Child and Family Social Work, 14, 1, 79-89.

⁸⁷This figure excludes other forms of care such as pre-adoptive placements, at home under care orders, supported lodgings and other ad-hoc arrangements to facilitate the time series. The majority of these placements appear to be separated children seeking asylum.

⁸⁸These national figures conceal considerable variations by health board area. For further details on foster care in Ireland, see Gilligan, R (1990) ‘Foster Care for Children in Ireland: Issues and Challenges for the 1990s’. Dublin: Department of Social Studies, Trinity College Dublin; Gilligan, R (1996) ‘The Foster care Experience in Ireland: Findings from a Postal Survey’. Child: Care, Health and Development, 22,2, 85-98; Horgan, R (2002) ‘Foster Care in Ireland’. Irish Journal of Applied Social Studies, 3, 1, 30-50; Daly, F and Gilligan, R (2005) Lives in Foster Care – The Educational and Social Support Experiences of Young People Aged 13-14 years in Long Term Foster Care. Dublin: Children’s Research Centre.

⁸⁹While this section of the paper provides an overview of the number of children in the care system based on administrative data, relatively few studies have supplemented this secondary data with primary data. Notable exceptions in respect of residential care not already cited include: Craig, S, Donnellan, M, Graham, G and Warren, A (1998) ‘Learn to Listen’: The Irish Report of a European Study on Residential Child Care. Dublin: DIT; Edmond, R (2002) Learning from their Lessons: Study of Young People in Residential Care and their Experiences of Education. Dublin: Children’s Research Centre; Fahey-Bates, B (1996) Aspects of Childhood Deviancy: A Study of Young Offenders in Open Centres in the Republic of Ireland. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Department of Education, University College Dublin.

⁹⁰The category ‘Returned to parents or friends’ is a sum of the three categories ‘Returned to Parents or Friends’, ‘Returned to parents or guardians for employment’, and ‘Returned to parents or friends for further education’.

⁹¹This School closed in the school year 1975-76.

⁹²This school closed in June 1974.

⁹³Opened 14th January 1972.

⁹⁴For further information on the Daingean Reformatory School, see McLaughlin, K (1987) The History of Irish Reformatory Schools, 1858-1970. Unpublished Msc in Education, School of Education, Trinity College Dublin.

⁹⁵As Osborough has noted, this site ‘ was close to the very place where Walter Crofton planned to establish the first reformatory school in Ireland in the late 1850s’. Osborough, N (1974) ‘The Penal System in Ireland – 2’. Irish Times, 3rd January p 12.

⁹⁶The origins of the School lay in the early 1940s, when the Archbishop of Dublin, John Charles McQuaid, wrote to the Department of Education seeking to establish a reformatory school to ‘receive girls under 17 who either (1) are convicted of legal sexual offences or (2) are placed in dangerous surroundings and have marked tendencies towards sexual immorality’. The Department noted that it was possible to place girls in either category in Industrial Schools, provided they were less than 15 years of age. However, for those aged between 15 and 17, committal to a reformatory school was only possible if the girl had been convicted for soliciting keeping a brothel, procuring for a prostitute, and being a reputed prostitute and loitering in a public place for the purpose of prostitution. However, the number of girls convicted for those offences was small. Based on figures supplied by the Department of Justice, the Department of Education noted that over 80 girls were defiled annually. The Department of Education classified such girls into three categories. ‘(1) girls who live in surroundings which could not be considered as bad; (2) girls who live in surroundings which conduce to their downfall; and (3) girls who might be described as prostitutes.’ The Department was of the view that girls in categories 2 and 3 were in need of committal to a suitable institution, but rarely were so placed. Up to the early 1940s, the primary method of dealing with young girls, either convicted of a sexual offence, or deemed to be sexually aware, was to place them in the only Girl’s Reformatory, St Joseph’s in Limerick, run by the Sisters of the Good Shepherd. However, in a number of cases, the manager of the school, believing that such girls were not amendable to reformation, placed them in one of the Magdalene Homes run by the same Congregation. From the early 1940s, the Good Shepherd nuns started to refuse to accept any girl believed to be tainted with sexual immorality. The main reason behind this decision was to force the Department of Education to provide them with funding for a second reformatory school, which would cater exclusively for such girls. However, when the Department of Education decided to establish such a school, it was the Sisters of Charity of Our Lady of Refuge who were entrusted with the management. This new school was the St Anne’s Reformatory school for girls, which although established in the mid-1940s, was only legislated for in 1949, under the Children (Amendment) Act 1949.

⁹⁷Cuan Mhuire was owned by the Irish Federation of the Sisters of Charity of our Lady of Refuge. The building was originally constructed as a group home in 1997 and ceased that function in 1982.

⁹⁸For further information on the legal status of these schools and the categories of children that were eligible for admittance, see Ring, ME (1991) ‘Custodial Treatment for Young Offenders’. Irish Criminal Law Journal, 1, 1, pp 59-67.

⁹⁹In March 2008, the Government approved the development of new national children detention facilities on the Oberstown campus. The Government decision was informed by the report of the expert group on children detention schools. The development will increase the accommodation capacity in the detention school service from 77 to 167 places and will be carried out in phases. There are already three detention schools on the site and the proposed development will involve the demolition of some existing buildings on site and the retention of others but will consist mainly of newly constructed facilities. After the design of the new facilities has been completed during 2009, a tendering process will be undertaken to progress the construction element of the project, the first phase of which is estimated for completion in 2012. This will provide 80 places to accommodate 16- and 17-year-old boys in order to remove this age group from St Patrick’s Institution and to facilitate the transfer of boys from the existing Oberstown boys school buildings. The second phase, which is envisaged for completion in 2014, will entail the demolition of the buildings currently housing Oberstown boy’s school and the long-term unit of Oberstown girl’s school, as well as several other buildings. This phase will also involve the construction of facilities for 57 young people. Some of the existing buildings, including Trinity House School, will be retained, providing a total of 167 places when both stages of the project are completed. Expert Group on Children Detention Schools (2007). Final Report. Dublin: Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

¹⁰⁰O’Sullivan provides one of the few accounts of the understanding that children committed to an Industrial school (Letterfrack) had of the process that led to their committal. He argues that those he interviewed ‘repeatedly defined the location of their prosecution and committal as a court of law – the fact that it has held in a special building or a special room, on a different day or at a different time from the regular court sessions had no significance for them. Their interpretation had a stark reality: they had been apprehended by the police and had appeared in court; their committal had been the responsibility of the prosecuting police than of the Justice; they had been sentenced rather than committed; in short their interpretation was a reflection of the adult criminal process of the adult criminal process of apprehension, sentencing and incarceration.’ O’Sullivan, D (1977) ‘The Administrative Processing of Children in Care: Some Sociological Findings’. Administration, 25, 3, p 428.

¹⁰¹The category ‘Returned to parents or friends’ is a sum of the three categories ‘Returned to Parents or Friends’, ‘Returned to parents or guardians for employment’, and ‘Returned to parents or friends for further education’.

¹⁰²For further details, see O’Brien, V (2002) ‘Relative Care: A Different Type of Foster Care’ in Kelly, G and Gilligan, R (eds) Implications for Practice in Issues in Foster Care: Policy, Practice and Research. London, Jessica Kingsley.

¹⁰³For example, physical abuse did not exist as a reason for placement in care in 1978, however, for continuity children in the category ‘non-accidental injury to child’ (n=34) are included in the physical abuse category. Similarly, for 1979 the physical abuse figure represents a sum of the categories ‘confirmed non-accidental injury’ (N=37) and ‘suspected non-accidental injury’ (N=30).

¹⁰⁴For 1978, parent unable to cope represents the sum of the categories ‘mother deserted, father unable to care’ (82); ‘unmarried mother, unable to care’ (389); ‘mother dead, father unable to care’ (36); ‘no family home’ (39); and ‘unsatisfactory home conditions’ (100). Physical illness/ disability in other family member is based upon the category ‘long-term illness of parent/guardian’ (93). Short term crisis represents the category ‘short-term illness of parent/guardian’ (189). For 1979, this same figure is a sum of the categories ‘single mother, unable to care’ (925); ‘parent deserted, remaining parent unable to care’ (341); ‘parent dead, remaining parent unable to care’ (198). Physical illness/ disability in other family member is based upon the category ‘long-term illness of parent/guardian’ (82). Parental disharmony is ‘martial breakdown’ (188) and ‘short term crisis’ represents the ‘short-term illness of parent/guardian’ (177). For 1980, ‘other’ includes ‘both parents dead’ (61); parent unable to cope is a sum of ‘unmarried mother unable to cope’ (1207); and ‘one parent family (other than unmarried mother) can’t cope’ (458). Parental disharmony once again represents ‘martial breakdown’ (320); and ‘short term crisis’ is based on ‘sudden family crisis’ (397). finally, in 1981, ‘other’ is ‘both parents dead’ (60); parental disharmony represents ‘marital disharmony’ (302); and short term crisis is ‘sudden family crisis’ (464).

¹⁰⁵For 1978 the category ‘child abandoned/rejected’ is a sum of the categories ‘No parent or guardian’ (10) and ‘Abandoned or deserted’ (66).

¹⁰⁶According to the 1979 report, all ‘children awaiting adoption’ (257) were apparently children of ‘single mothers’.

¹⁰⁷Children recorded as under ‘supervision’ refer to cases where the Health board has been notified by parents of private fostering arrangements they have procured for their children (1978:2).

¹⁰⁸Children recorded as ‘extra-marital’ in status presumably meant that either the mother or the father of the child was married, but not to one another.

¹⁰⁹This was noted early on in the collection of health board data, but the level of data was to crude to allow for any explanation. See O’Higgins and Boyle (1988) State Care – Some Children’s Alternative: An Analysis of the Data from the Returns to the Department of Health, Child Care Division, 1982. Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute. See also Richardson (1985) for an analysis of children in residential care in the Eastern Health Board area. Richardson (1985) Whose Children? An Analysis of Some Aspects of Child Care Policy in Ireland. Dublin: Family Studies Unit.

¹¹⁰These are residential care units for children whose behaviour cannot be adequately catered for in other residential care units and as a consequence, such units have extra staffing, education on site and access to specialist therapeutic services.

¹¹¹These are secure residential care units for children aged between 12 and 17 who can be detained there under a court order for their own welfare and safety. The latest data available from the Children Act Advisory Board indicates that there are 25 places in special care units nationally (see: Social Information Systems (2008) Review of Special Care Applications. Dublin: CAAB.

¹¹²This figure excludes other forms of care such as pre-adoptive placements, at home under care orders, supported lodgings and other ad-hoc arrangements to facilitate the time series. The majority of these placements appear to be separated children seeking asylum.

¹¹³The published data on children in care includes information on such crucial issues as family type, length of stay in care or reason for admission to care but does not distinguish between residential care and other forms of care.

¹¹⁴Although the nomenclature foster care has been in use for a considerable period of time, it only gained legal currency with the publication of foster care regulations in 1995. SI No 260 of 1995. Child Care (Placement of Children in Foster Care) Regulations 1995. Until 1995, the correct term was boarded –out children. For example, starting in 1979, the term foster care rather than ‘Boarding-out’, is used by the Department of Health in compiling data on children in the care of the health boards. For further details, see Gilligan, R (1990) Foster Care for Children in Ireland Issues and Challenges. Dublin: Department of Social Studies and Hogan, R (2002) ‘Foster Care in Ireland’. Irish Journal of Applied Social Studies, 3, 1, pp 30-50.

¹¹⁵In 1995, the Irish National Teachers Organisation in a report on youthful offending recommended that ‘ A research unit on the provision of services for young offenders should be established: to compile data from all residential homes, to profile clients more extensively, to evaluate the effectiveness of current service, to provide information to policy formulators and decision makers at Government level. The research unit should be adequately resourced in order to carry out its functions effectively. The research unit should liaise with the social science departments of universities in establishing specific research projects in the various residential homes. Annual reports on the operation of the Juvenile Justice System should be published by the Department of Justice in conjunction with the Departments of Education and Health. INTO (1995) Youthful Offending – A Report. Dublin: INTO. p 87.

¹¹⁶Annual Report of the Committee Appointed to Monitor the Effectiveness of the Diversion programme for 2007 (2008) Dublin: National Juvenile Office. p 14.

¹¹⁷Data on the ages of those committed on conviction to prison and places of detention between 1995 and 2000 is not available.

¹¹⁸O’Donnell, I, O’Sullivan, E and Healy, D (2005) Crime and Punishment in Ireland 1922-2002: A Statistical Sourcebook. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration and Irish Prison Service (2008) Annual Report 2007. Dublin: Irish Prison Service.

¹¹⁹In a review of children in residential care in Europe in 1992, Ireland, along with Sweden, England, Wales and Scotland were described as making comparatively high use of foster care. Madge, N (1994) Children and Residential Care in Europe. London: National Children’s Bureau. p 71. Hazel, in an earlier comparative study, highlighted that in Belgium, the majority of children in care were in residential care compared to the three other countries she surveyed, Sweden, England and Wales. Sweden had negligible numbers of children in residential care and for those in residential care, their stay was minimal. England and Wales operated a more balanced system with approximately 40 percent of children in need of alternative care in foster care. Hazel, N (1976) Child Placement Policy: Some European Comparisons. British Journal of Social Work, 6, 3, 315-26.

¹²⁰In addition, as Buckley et al (2006) argue in relation to child care information in Ireland, ‘caution must necessarily be applied when reviewing statistical information. For example, when statistics indicate an increase in the take up of a certain service, it is clearly the case that what is being signified is as likely to be an increase in service provision for this particular issue as it is to be an increase in the particular problem for which the service is intended. False assumptions may exist concerning the consistency of criteria for counting certain data. Likewise, the data only illustrate activities that are taking place with children and families who are in contact with services, therefore does not indicate the level of unmet need in the population and the degree to which services are reaching or are accessible to vulnerable sectors. Buckely, H, Giller, H and B Brierley, M (2006) ‘The Formation of Information in Child Care: Herding Cats or Counting Sheep’. Administration, 54, 1, 72-87.

¹²¹Friis, H (1965) Development of Social Research in Ireland. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration. This report resulted in the Economic Research Institute, established in 1959, expanding its brief to include social research and becoming known as the Economic and Social Research Institute. The Institute was subsequently to publish two significant reports on children in care. See, O’Higgins, K and Boyle, K (1988) State Care: Some Children’s Alternatives. Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute and O’Higgins, K (1993) Family Problems – Substitute Care: Children in Care and their Families. Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute.

¹²²Department of Education (1965) Investment in Education: Annexes and Appendices. Dublin: Stationery Office. p 32.

¹²³Ibid. p 33.

¹²⁴Fine Gael (1965) Towards a Just Society. Dublin: Dorset Press. pp 25-6.

¹²⁵Department of Health (1966) ‘The Health Services and their Further Development’. Dublin: Stationery Office.

¹²⁶Chaired by John Charles McQuaid, the commission examined the issue of juvenile delinquency. The Commission noted that young persons found guilty of a criminal offence and committed to Industrial schools formed only a small proportion of those committed and that ‘mostly they are destitute or neglected children who are sent to the Industrial Schools for their own protection.’ The Commission went on to argue, ‘What these children really need is a home, a want which no institution can effectively supply. Family life being the ideal life for the young, we recommend that, in cases in which it is found desirable to remove juveniles from their existing environment, consideration should be given to the possibilities of boarding out as an alternative to continued detention in the Industrial School, cases being reviewed periodically to determine suitability for boarding out. We further recommend that in connection with boarding out, opportunities for training in agricultural and non-agricultural work be considered. An essential in any boarding out scheme would be an adequate system of inspection. For those for whom it is necessary to provide institutional treatment in Reformatory or Industrial Schools we recommend that, with a view to making up for the lack of family atmosphere, these institutions be re-organised on a small unit basis and that women be included on the staff of institutions catering for boys.’ Commission on Youth Unemployment (1951) Report. Dublin: Stationery Office. p 40.

¹²⁷Established in early 1957 at the request of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, Councillor Robert Briscoe, TD, following a meeting on 4th December 1956 organised by the Streets Committee of Dublin Corporation where groups concerned ‘at the increase in vandalism and misconduct among juveniles in the City’ were invited to attend. Chaired by DA Hegarty of the Civics Institute of Ireland, it included representatives from the Catholic Social Welfare Bureau, the Irish National Teachers Organisation, the Legion of Mary and the Society of St Vincent de Paul amongst others. In their report the Committee outlined ‘an expert with long experience of work, expressed the opinion to us that our system of Institutions for juveniles is in certain respects not keeping with modern practices. We do not feel competent to express an authoritative judgment on this assessment, but we do consider that grounds have been put forward to suggest the need for a review of the system. We desire to make it clear, however, that any criticisms expressed refer only to the system and not to the people who have to operate it, many of whom are engaged on work requiring considerable self-sacrifice and which would only be undertaken by dedicated men and women.’ The Report then went on to highlight a number of areas, which they believed required changes. They included: ‘Institutions too large: Our Industrial Schools and Reformatories are Institutions in which the boys are far removed from any family atmosphere. They are thus deprived of one of the most important influences in the shaping of character – in the preparation for life and in the provision of that sense of security which psychologists attach so much importance. Other countries have endeavoured to provide for this by breaking these Institutions down into ‘large family’ size units. This has happened to a very limited extent in this Country. Segregation: Children are committed to Industrial Schools for widely different reasons. Some of these children are merely unfortunate and innocent of any misdemeanour, i.e. the family is destitute, the children have been grossly neglected by their parents, or they have none. On the other hand, children are sent to Industrial Schools when they may have committed a comparatively serious offence – only a small proportion are sent to reformatories. These different types of boys present different problems and there appears to be a case for segregating them into special schools after they have spent a period in a grading centre. This would also reveal the mentally defective or subnormal children who should be sent to special institutions. Short Term Schools: Under the present system, boys are generally committed for a long period, but serious consideration should be given to the establishment of properly organised short term schools (also properly segregated) where boys could be sent from three to six months as a measure of correction. In these schools the truant, the boy who has gone beyond control, or the minor delinquent, might learn his lesson and acquire a sense of discipline making it possible for him to return to his home for a normal family upbringing.’

¹²⁸Cowen, P (1960) ‘Dungeons Deep: A monopgraph on prisons, bortstals, reformatories and industrial schools in the Republic of Ireland, and some reflections on crime and punishment and matters relating thereto’. Dublin: Marion Printing.

¹²⁹This Committee received its warrant of appointment from the then Minister for Justice, Mr Haughey, TD. The Committee was chaired by Mr Peter Berry, Secretary of the Department of Justice and had representation from the Departments of Health, Education and Industry and Commerce. The terms of reference of the Committee were to ‘inquire into the present methods for the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders, giving attention, in particular, to the following matters: (a) juvenile delinquency (b) the probation system (c) the institutional treatment of offenders and their after-care, and to recommend such changes in the law and practice as the Committee considers desirable and practicable. It recommended for example that: ‘The term industrial school should be abolished; Larger state grants should be made to industrial schools; A visiting committee should be appointed for every industrial school and in appropriate cases after-care committees should be set up as well; The industrial schools should be inspected more frequently than is at present and to enable this to be done an additional inspector should be appointed in the Industrial and Reformatory Schools Branch of the Department of Education; To ensure that adequate, proper bedding, clothing, footwear etc. is issued to the inmates of industrial schools, the scale of issue – showing minimum standards – should be prescribed by regulations; Adequate financial provision should be made for carrying out of essential maintenance and repair work and for the supply of proper recreational, ablutionary etc facilities at industrial schools; A matron / Nurse should be appointed to the staffs of all industrial schools for boys and similar institutions; Generally speaking, boys from urban centres should not be set to serve lengthy sentences in an industrial school in a rural environment.’

¹³⁰London Branch Study Group (1966) Some of Our Children: A Report on the Residential Care of the Deprived Child in Ireland. Tuairim Pamphlet No 13. Tuairim (the word means opinion in Irish) was established in 1954 to provide an impartial discussion of ideas and policies. Describing itself as an association of people who are interested in ideas and are not afraid of discussing them and learning the other man’s point of view, it published 18 pamphlets between the 1950s and early 1970s on a host of diverse topics, ranging from the Irish Fish Industry, to Ireland and the United Nations, to Irish education policy. It appears to have become defunct in the early 1970s. For further details on Tuairim, see Hederman, M (2008) ‘The Tuairim Phenomenon – A Forum for Challenge in 1950s Ireland’ in Thornley, I (ed) Unquiet Spirit: Essays in Memory of David Thornley. Dublin: Liberties Press. One of the members of the Tuairim branch that produced the report on residential care was Peter Tyrrell. Tyrell, originally from East Galway, was sent to the Letterfrack Industrial School in 1924. Tyrell, who died in 1967 having deliberately set fire to himself, had written an account of his time in Letterfrack, but his account of the School only came to light when historian Dairymaid Whelan found the manuscript in the papers of Dr Owen Sheehy Skeffington. The manuscript was published in 2006 (see Tyrell, P (2006) ‘Founded on Fear’: Letterfrack Industrial School, War and Exile. Dublin: Irish Academic Press and Whelan, D (2006) ‘Peter Tyrrell’s Account of Letterfrack, war and Exile’. Saothar – Journal of the Irish Labour History Society, 31, 111-8). In addition to publishing the pamphlet on residential care, Mr James O’Connor, a Dublin solicitor, read a paper on juvenile delinquency to a meeting of Tuairim on Friday 6th March 1959 and a revised version of that paper was published in the Jesuit journal Studies in 1963. In that paper O’Connor argued that: ‘The system of institutional treatment in Ireland has serious defects and the courts, left with no alternative, imposes it with reluctance. None of our schools are graded, and boys are committed there indiscriminately without regard to their background, medical history, antecedents or suitability for the training which they are to receive. The atmosphere is somewhat unreal, particularly in regard to lack of contact with the opposite sex and this unnatural situation frequently leads to a degree of sexual maladjustment in the inmates. The numbers in these institutions are very large and are comprised of cases, which limits, if it does not render impossible, individual attention being given to boys who may be in need of special treatment. Discipline is rigid and severe, approaching at times pure regimentation, with the result that the inmates are denied the opportunity of developing friendly and spontaneous characters; their impulses become suffocated, and when they are suddenly liberated their reactions are often violent and irresponsible’. O’Connor, J (1963) ‘The Juvenile Offender’, Studies, lii, 1,.80-81.

¹³¹The rationale by Tuairim for selecting the Department of Health was: ‘the Department of Health already runs a number of residential schools and Homes; it supervises boarding out of deprived children and places children in certified schools and Homes under Section 55 of the Health Act, 1953; it has a basis on which local services could be built and local health authorities employ public health nurses; the provision of substitute homes for children deprived of their natural home and the ensuring of their mental and physical health is primarily the province of a health authority; the Department of Health has considerable experience of organising and administering new services in recent years.’

¹³²London Branch Study Group (1966) Some of Our Children: A Report on the Residential care of the Deprived Child in Ireland. Tuairim Pamphlet No 13, p 33.

¹³³The ‘jibe’ referred to was in relation to the absence of training courses for welfare workers and child care workers in Ireland which, it was argued that ‘One of the results of this is a complete lack of understanding of the problems and needs of the deprived children. Provided he is physically healthy, well clothed, obedient and can speak Irish, officialdom is satisfied’. pp 14-15.

¹³⁴These posts arose from concern with the system of private fosterage or ‘baby farming’ for children, which resulted in the passing of the Infant Life Protection Act 1872, which allowed the officers of the Local Government to inspect homes that were fostering or ‘nursing’ more than one child. Children in private fosterage, or ‘Nurse Children’, were placed in foster homes by their own relatives – often-unmarried mothers – or by philanthropic societies or other persons who paid for them. They were not supported out of the poor rate or any public fund. In March 1902, The Lord Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury sanctioned the employment of a lady as an inspector, and the appointment of a second lady inspector in November 1902. The duties of these inspectors were principally connected with the boarding-out and hiring out of pauper children; but they also reported upon the administration of the Infant Life Protection Act 1897.The two inspectors appointed, Mrs Dickie and Miss Kenny-Fitzgerald, were the first women to hold senior posts in the civil service in Ireland. Daly, ME (1997) The Buffer State. The Historical Roots of the Department of the Environment. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration, p 34. The post of Inspector of Boarded-out Children was ‘confined to women because of their superior knowledge of matters relating to the health and up bringing of children’. NA S9880.

¹³⁵Ms Fidelma Clandillon was appointed to the newly formed Department of Health as an Inspector of boarded-out children in 1948, covering all counties south of a line from Dublin to Galway. From the early 1970s her post was reorganised as Social Work Advisor in Child Care, she retired in 1980. Following the retirement of Miss Murray in 1970, she had responsibility for boarded-out children in Ireland. For further details, see McCabe, A (2003) The Inspection of Boarded Out Children in Ireland – The Legacy of Fidelma Clandillon. Irish Social Worker, 21, 1-2, pp 22-6.

¹³⁶Department of Health and Children. RM/INA/0/489385.

¹³⁷Commission of Inquiry on Mental Illness (1966) Report. Dublin: Stationery Office, p 74.

¹³⁸Viney, M (1966) ‘The Young Offenders’. Irish Times, 25th April. Viney wrote eight articles on aspects of the juvenile justice system in 1966. They were ‘The Trouble with Larry’ (27th April); ‘Patterns of Crime’ (28th April); ‘The Caution Man’ (29th April); ‘What Price Probation’ (2nd May); ‘The Hidden Motives’ (3rd May); ‘The Dismal World of Daingean’ (4th May); ‘Children at Risk’ (May 5th) and ‘’The Young Offenders’ (6th May).

¹³⁹The memo was signed by Fr William McGonagle, OMI (Chairman and Manager of the Daingean Reformatory) and Br FA O’Reilly (Hon Secretary and Manager of the Artane Industrial School) on behalf of the Association.

¹⁴⁰In an interview given on 30th April 2002, Mr Mac Conchradha stated that prior to moving to the Department of Justice in the early 1960s, he had worked in the Department of Education for 15 years and claimed that his appointment to the Committee of Enquiry into Reformatory and Industrial Schools’ Systems was not welcomed in the Department of Education as ‘I was a poacher turned gamekeeper. I knew the way they operated. I knew what a backwater the reformatory and industrial school sector was…They [Education] didn’t want it. By and large the people placed in that section wouldn’t have been placed anywhere else’. Keating, A (2002) Secrets and Lies: An Exploration of the Role of Identity, Culture and Communication in the Policy Process Relating to the provision of Protection and Care for Vulnerable Children in the Irish Free State and Republic 1923-1974. Unpublished PhD Thesis, School of Communications, Dublin City University

¹⁴¹The terms of reference were (1) to investigate the probation and after-care service at first hand, (2) to report on the improvements that might be feasible and necessary, (3) to implement those recommendations that might be approved and (4) for the duration of the assignment to carry out the duties of the probation administration officer. Mac Conchradha, R (1969) Report on an Assignment to Investigate the probation and After-Care Service and to submit recommendations for Consideration. (Edited and Furnished to the Department of Finance). p 1.

¹⁴²Ibid. p 7.

¹⁴³Ibid. p 7.

¹⁴⁴Ibid. p 8.

¹⁴⁵Ibid. p 9.

¹⁴⁶The Joint Committee was established in 1937 with the objectives of working ‘together in matters of mutual interest affecting women, young persons and children and to study social legislation and recommend necessary reforms’. It comprised of approximately 17 organisations including the Institute of Almoners, the Irish Countrywomen’s Association, the Mothers Union and the Soroptimists. The Joint Committee campaigned on a range of issues and had a particular interest in children in care. Only a few short years after their establishment, the Joint Committee published a detailed ‘Memorandum on Children in Institutions, Boarded out and Nurse Children.’ In the memorandum they argued inter alia that foster care had many advantages over institutional care for children; that all institutions for children, both public and private, should be subject to regular inspection; that legal adoption was urgently required; that foster care allowances were inadequate and that children’s officers be appointed to inspect foster children. In relation to residential care, the memorandum recommended: ‘that all orphanages, institutions and industrial schools should be subject to frequent inspections.’ The issue of inspection was a continuous demand from the Committee over the decades. For example, in 1963, the Committee wrote to the Minister for Education asking him to consider the ‘setting up of a visiting committee such as those operating in other institutions’. In 1967 the Committee sent a further memorandum to the then Minister for Education, Donagh O’Malley arguing that ‘over the years the Joint Committee has insisted that children should seldom be removed from a family and placed in an institution and that instead, every assistance should be given to maintain the family intact either by financial help or long term supervision by qualified social workers’ Joint Committee of Women’s Societies and Social Workers (1967) Children in Care or Children’s Institutions. Dublin. For further details on the work of the Committee, see Skehill, C (1999) The Nature of Social Work in Ireland. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellon Press and Skehill, C (2004) History of the Present of Child Protection and Welfare Social Work in Ireland. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellon Press.

¹⁴⁷Irish Times, 24th June 1970.

¹⁴⁸All correspondence between O’Rourke, Clandillon and Murray is contained in the Clandillon papers, file no RM/INA/0/489385 held by the Department of Health and Children.

¹⁴⁹Mary E Murray was appointed in 1946 as Inspector of Boarded out children and retired in 1970. She had responsibility for such children in Dublin and all the counties north of a line between Dublin and Galway. See McCabe, A (2000) The Inspection of Boarded-out Children 1897-2000 and its Impact on Child Care Standards. A Dissertation submitted to the National University of Ireland, Dublin in part fulfilment of the degree of Master of Social Science (Social Work).

¹⁵⁰Reply from Ms Murray and Ms Clandillon to Minute from Mr O’Rourke to Miss Murray and Miss Clandillon 23/10/68 re: review of child care services.

¹⁵¹Clandillon provided her report on Offaly as an example. The report showed that the vast majority were transferred from the county home or mother and baby homes such as the Manor House Castlepollard. Clandillon described these returns as ‘appalling’ stating ‘the ‘reasons for admission’ reveal a complete indifference to the fate of deprived children. Obviously no effort whatsoever is made to find homes or adoptive parents for them’. She noted that in Counties Laois and Offaly that there were 146 children in institutions and the ‘vast majority of whom appear to be sent automatically’ and that ‘the present state of affairs should not be allowed to continue’.

¹⁵²Section 47(3) of the Public Assistance Act 1939 allowed for (a) an inspector appointed by the Minister may at any time visit and inspect such school and make such examination of the condition and management of such school and the state and treatment of the children therein as he shall consider requisite; (b) whenever an inspector visits and inspects such school under the next preceding paragraph of this sub-section, he shall report to the Minister the result of such visit and inspection and of any examination made by him in the course thereof; (c) any public assistance authority which has sent a child to such school may, at any time while such child is in such school, appoint a suitable person to visit such school, and such person may visit and inspect such school accordingly; (d) the managers of such school shall permit and give facilities for every such visitation, inspection, and examination as is authorised by any of the foregoing paragraphs of this sub-section. The Health Act 1953, repealed this section. In a memo dated 18th January 1963, both Murray and Clandillon highlighted this situation and recommended that ‘the right of visiting such children be restored. There is no question of inspecting the school or of examining the conditions or management, which may be considered to be a function of the Dept. of Education, but simply of visiting the children with a view to having as many as possible placed in foster homes’.

¹⁵³‘Where a child is placed in a school in pursuance of Section 55, the arrangements between the health authorities and the Manager of the School should include provision that the child may be visited at any reasonable time by an authorised officer of the health authority or of the Minister’.

¹⁵⁴She also argued ‘at least 80 percent of the membership of the Commission should be professional social workers who are already working in various fields where children and their families are involved. A great deal of time and energy is wasted if members have not got first hand knowledge of the matters to be studied. There should be a professional social worker from the Family Welfare Bureau, of the Catholic Social Welfare Bureau, which provides training in family casework for social science graduates during their professional training. There should also be professional workers from the probation service and also housing welfare officers. The ISPCC should be represented by one of their qualified social workers, and the Civics Institute, which does valuable work in caring for the young children of working mothers in their day nurseries or crèches, should also be represented’.

¹⁵⁵Circular 23/70 15th July 1970 Children in Care of Health Authorities. Department of Health.

¹⁵⁶Irish Times, 22nd April 1969. The memo was prepared by Mr John B Jermyn, Mr Patrick Noonan and Mr William A Osborne.

¹⁵⁷Memo for Government: Proposed committee for Reformatory and Industrial schools. NA D/T 98/6/156 Children – General.

¹⁵⁸Letter from O’Malley to Lynch 19/1/67. NA D/T 98/6/156 Children-General.

¹⁵⁹D/T 98/6/156 Children – General.

¹⁶⁰NA D/T 98/6/156 Children – General.

¹⁶¹NA D/T 98/6/156 Children – General.

¹⁶²McCabe wrote again on 9th July 1967 thanking O’Malley for his letter of the 3rd July and stating ‘I should be glad to prepare a confidential memorandum for you, if you could let me know the particular aspects of the problem that interest you particularly’.

¹⁶³D/T 98/6/156 Children – General.

¹⁶⁴NA D/T 98/6/156 Children – General.

¹⁶⁵Born in 1914, Ms Kennedy, who initially trained as nurse, was appointed a Justice of the District Court and Justice of the Metropolitan Children’s Court in 1964: the first women to be appointed as a District Justice in Ireland.

¹⁶⁶NA D/T 98/6/156 Children – General.

¹⁶⁷Early, in commenting on the composition of the committee observed that the ‘membership was unusual in many ways. Three of the members were women including the Chairman; three were Civil Servants of whom only one was an administrator; two were clerics. Four members of the committee had little or no practical experience of dealing with deprived children and in particular children in residential care. Three of these members were actively involved with the Junior Chamber of Commerce who were pressing for changes in the system.’ He also commented that ‘As with most committees which sit for a long time the interest of some members waned. At the end of the period the active members had been reduced to less than half of the total.’ Early, B (1974) ‘The Kennedy Committee and Its Work’. CARE Newsletter, 1, 2, 2-3.

¹⁶⁸Irish Times, 21st October 1967.

¹⁶⁹Reformatory and Industrial Schools Systems (1970) Report. Dublin: Stationery Report. pp 23-5.

¹⁷⁰Brennan, PD (1994) ‘Ireland: Changes and New Trends in Extrafamilial care in the last Two Decades’ in Gottesman, M (ed) Recent Changes and New Trends in Extrafamilial Child Care: An International Perspective. London: Whiting and Birch. pp 91-2.

¹⁷¹Ibid. p 92.

¹⁷²O’Sullivan, D (1979) ‘Social Definition in Child Care in the Irish Republic: Models of Child and Child Care Intervention’. Economic and Social Review, 10, 3, p 211.

¹⁷³Report on Industrial Schools and Reformatories (The Kennedy Report) (1970). Dublin: The Stationery Office p v.

¹⁷⁴O’Sullivan, D (1979) ‘Social Definition in Child Care in the Irish Republic: Models of Child and Child Care Intervention’. Economic and Social Review, Vol 10, No 3, p 215.

¹⁷⁵Faulkner, P (2005) As I Saw It: Reviewing Over 30 Years of Fianna Fail and Irish Politics. Dublin: Wolfhound Press. p 68.

¹⁷⁶Ibid. pp 70-1.

¹⁷⁷In a review of Social Work Services in 1985, it was noted ‘Both the Health Act, 1953 and the Children (Amendment) Act, 1957 (which extended the powers of the Children Act, 1908) made specific provision for certain child welfare services. The 1953 Act and regulations made under it provided for the boarding out of children in certain circumstances. Regulations under the 1957 Act related to the discharge of children from residential care. These provisions led to the appointment in 1959 of twelve children’s officers throughout the country (Donegal, Mayo, Kerry, Cork, Carlow / Kildare, Cavan, Galway, Wexford, Limerick, Tipperary and two in Dublin). In addition to their duties under the legislation, these officers gave assistance to unmarried mothers and ensured that no child was admitted to residential care who could be boarded out or adopted. These children’s’ officers, who reported to assistant county managers, were not, initially, social workers. They were, for the most part, nurses. In 1959, Galway Health Authority was the only agency to appoint a social worker for this work.’ The Report noted that while the Health Act 1970, which established the regional health boards, did not make any specific provision for social work, the establishment of community care teams ensured the provision of a minimum level of social service provision in the community. On 19th January 1973, the Department of Health issued guidelines on to the regional health boards on the development of social work within the community care services. In terms of priorities, the memo stated, ‘the existing statutory requirements in relation to the provision of services for deprived children must be given the highest priority. Where a trained social worker is employed on this work its discharge is normally most effective; where the work is at present being undertaken by officers whose primary training has not been in the social work field the appointment of a trained social worker would facilitate a professional review of such service’. The memo also noted ‘currently the Department has an Inspector who advises on child care work and three temporary Social Work Advisors who are seconded from health boards.’

¹⁷⁸Skehill highlighted that certain difficulties existed in relation to the role of social workers in this new administrative configuration and to the nature of the social work task itself, observing that ‘social work as a strategy did not even feature in the draft proposals for the newly structured health boards in 1970 (McKinsey Consultants, 1970). Moreover, evidence on social work developments and practices between 1970 and 1991 suggests that the profession was fraught with dispute and confusion over whether social workers should be experts in child protection or generic practitioners over this time period.’ Skehill, C (2003) ‘Social Work in the Republic of Ireland: A History of the Present’. Journal of Social Work, 3, 2, p 149.

¹⁷⁹NESC (1987) Community Care Services: An Overview. Dublin: National Economic and Social Council.

¹⁸⁰A National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) was established in London in 1889 and a Dublin branch established in the same year. By the 1930s, more than 30 such branches were established in Ireland. In 1956, the Irish branches of the NSPCC split forming an Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. See Ferguson, H (1996) Protecting Irish Children in Time: Child Abuse as a Social Problem and the Development of the Child Protection System in Ireland. Administration, Vol 44, No 2, pp 5-36.

¹⁸¹Gilligan, R (1993) ‘Ireland’ in Colton, MJ and Hellinckx (eds) Child Care in the EC: A country-specific guide to foster and residential care. Aldershot: Arena, pp 121-2. See also Ferguson, H (1996) ‘Protecting Irish Children in Time: Child Abuse as a Social Problem and the Development of the Child Protection System in Ireland’. Administration, Vol 44, No 2, pp 5-36, for a similar analysis of the growth of statutory social work in Ireland. The number of social work staff employed by the Eastern Health Board in childcare work rose from 13 in 1973 to 287 in 1998. McQuillan, P (1977) ‘Family Support in Ireland’ in: CARE, Planning for Our Children. The Report of a Care Conference. Dublin: CARE. p 39. On the development of social work and social work training in Ireland see Kearney, N (1987) ‘The Historical Background’ in Social Work and Social Work Training in Ireland: Yesterday and Tomorrow. Department of Social Studies, Occasional Paper No 1. Dublin: Department of Social Studies; Darling, V (1972) ‘Social Work in the Republic of Ireland’. Social Studies, 1, 1, 24-37 and Luddy, M (2005) Women, Philanthropy and the Emergence of Social Work in Ireland. Dublin: School of Social Work and Social Policy, Trinity College Dublin.

¹⁸²The validity of using this mechanism was the subject of the parliamentary question and the note the Minister was as follows: A ‘Fit Person’ Order is an order, made by a court of competent jurisdiction, for the committal of a child or young person to the care of a relative of the child or young person, or to the care of some other fit person named by the Court, such person being willing to undertake such care. According to section 38 of the 1908 Act, the expression ‘fit person’ in this context includes ‘any society or body corporate established for the reception or protection of poor children or the prevention of cruelty to children’. This section does not however, provide an exhaustive definition of a fit person and ‘some other person (section 21) other than a relative, society or body corporate may be regarded by the Court as a fit person. Health Boards, established under the Health Act 1970 are bodies corporate. However, they are not established solely for ‘the reception or protection of poor children or the prevention of cruelty to children’. Moreover, although section 38 of the Children Act, 1908 appears in Part II of the Act, the functions of a Health Board (as specified in section 6 of the Health Act, 1970) do not extend beyond Part I of the Children Act. Notwithstanding the above position, the Departments former legal advisor was of the opinion that a health board can act as ‘fit person’ as defined in the Children Act, 1908. A similar opinion was given by Mr Peter Shanley in his capacity as legal advisor to the Task Force on Child Care Services. In practice, health boards are named as fit persons, but as the legal validity of this situation has never been tested, the position remains in some doubt. Doubts expressed as to the validity of ‘Fit Person’ orders are usually based on the question of the legality or otherwise of health boards acting as ‘fit persons’ as described above. The Department is not aware that the constitutional validity of the procedure has come into doubt publicly although the Department of Education in 1976 suggested that, without a right of appeal, the exercise of ‘fit person’ rights by a health board could be challenged on constitutional grounds. The suggestion arose from the fact that the 1957 Amendment of the Children Act, 1908 gave parents a right of appeal in the event of a refusal by the Minister for Education to accede to request by them for discharge of a committal order. This provision was made in legislation because an earlier High Court case had questioned the adequacy of the Children Acts as they stood to afford due constitutional protection to parental rights. Note for Minister PQ Children Act, 1908 28.06.78 –Children Act, 1908 – Health Boards as Fit Persons C1.04.02.

¹⁸³However, it was found in 1989 by the Supreme Court in the case of The State (D and D) v G and the Midland Health Board that health boards were in fact not ‘fit persons’ under the Children Act, 1908. This judgment necessitated the introduction of emergency legislation to remedy the situation. The Children Act 1989 provided that ‘the expression fit person in section 38 of the Children Act, 1908, includes and shall be deemed always to have included a Health Board established under the Health Act, 1970, and the functions of a Health Board shall include and be deemed always to have included the functions conferred on a fit person by the first mentioned act as amended by any subsequent Act’.

¹⁸⁴Gilligan, R (1993) ‘Ireland’ in Colton, MJ and Hellinckx (eds) Child Care in the EC: A country-specific guide to foster and residential care. Aldershot: Arena, pp 121-2. See also Ferguson, H (1996) ‘Protecting Irish Children in Time: Child Abuse as a Social Problem and the Development of the Child Protection System in Ireland’. Administration, 44, 2, pp 5-36, for a similar analysis of the growth of statutory social work in Ireland.

¹⁸⁵Somewhat ironically, the first substantial criticism of the Report were directed against the Chairperson of the Committee, District Justice Eileen Kennedy, when Nell McCafferty highlighted in a series of articles in the Irish Times the gap between the rhetoric of the report and the day-to-day reality of the Children’s Court in Dublin, presided over by Eileen Kennedy. See, McCafferty, N (1970) ‘Children in Court -1: Notes on Reality’. Irish Times, 9th December 1970, more generally, see McCafferty, N (1981) In the Eyes of the Law. Dublin: Ward River Press. pp 74-93. Dr Ian Hart, later to become a member of CARE and the Task Force on Child Care Services, provided this description of the Children’s Court in Dublin in the Early 1970s. ‘…the Dublin Metropolitan Children’s Court, it must be plainly said that the court building was generally unsatisfactory. There was no proper waiting room, only a dirty room with a couple of benches. There was no consultation room for lawyers and the cell was dark and windowless. The child had to stand for the duration of his trial even though there were usually vacant benches. Gardaí had a habit of mumbling their evidence to the justice and the author often had great difficulty in hearing what they said. Cases were listed for only two times during the day, i.e. for the morning or afternoon session. Consequently, those involved in a case might have to waste a full morning or afternoon if the case was not called. There was a long delay in hearing appeals against sentences, often of the order of four to six months. Basically, the main defect was that the justice who worked about a four and a half day hearing cases, five days a week, had to deal with about 15,000 cases in a year (16,586 in 1970. The justice thus had to deal with perhaps 5,000 children in the course of one year.’ Hart, I (1974) Factors Relating to Reconviction among Young Dublin Probationers. Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute. Paper No 76. p 67. On 14th January 1974, the Editor of the Evening Herald wrote to the Minister for Justice in relation to the Children’s Court, which he described as ‘a sad affair – mumbled evidence, poor representation and every sign of conveyor belt justice’. He continued that ‘I have been there and really it does little to even grapple with the clear result of every case – that the defendant will be back again…a more humane approach, plus rehabilitation is needed in the Children’s Court…I had a feeling that the free legal aid in the Children’s Court was of poor quality’ (D/Taoiseach 2005-7-21. Trial of Children). The Children’s Court remains the subject of considerable criticism in recent times. Kilkelly, in 2003 and 2004 aimed to evaluate the extent to which the Children Courts operate in line with national and international standards. She concluded, ‘Apart from the problems of delay and general inefficiency, the Court does not fare well when measured against international standards. Although the Children Act 2001 attempts to distinguish the Children Court from its adult counterpart the fact that its provisions are inadequately implemented in practice means that, at best, the process is slow and inefficient and, at worst, it is failing to minimize the negative impact for a young person of an appearance in court, contrary to the Act’s objectives. The Children Act 2001‘s provisions deal more with the administration of the court list than the administration of justice and, taken on their own, they fall short of prescribing how the Court is to be transformed into a specialist tribunal in which young people have the right to age-appropriate treatment, to have their privacy respected, and to understand and participate in their criminal proceedings as required by international standards. To a large extent, the Children Court continues to operate like an adult District Court and inadequate attention has been given to how to transform the court into a specialized forum for dealing in an age appropriate manner with young defendants. Nor is sufficient importance attached to the rights of young offenders – their right to a fair and expeditious hearing in the presence of their parents, and their right to be heard and to understand the proceedings that have such a dramatic effect on their lives. Inadequate efforts have been made to ensure that the young people before the Children Court are dealt with in a manner that takes account of not just their age, but also their maturity and intellectual and emotional capacities.’ Kilkelly, U (2008) ‘Youth Courts and Children’s Rights: The Irish Experience’. Youth Justice, 8,1, p 53. See also McPhillips, S (2005) Dublin Children Court: A Pilot Research Project. Dublin: Irish Association for the Study of Delinquency.

¹⁸⁶Skehill estimates that by 1970, less than 100 social workers were employed in Ireland, and most of them were working in hospitals. In relation to training, she notes ‘UCD was the first to establish a social science degree in 1954. TCD introduced its degree in social studies in 1962, and UCC established a social science degree course in 1968. Course curricula for this period shows that teaching of social work theories only became an essential component of teaching from the late 1960s onward. In UCD, for example, Fr Kavanagh’s (1954) Manual of Social Ethics, based on Catholic and Christian principles, remained on reading lists up to the 1970s. Thus, whereas in Britain, social workers were becoming an established part of the growing welfare state and were being employed as child care officers, probation officers, almoners, and so on, Irish social work was struggling to establish itself as a profession, gain recognition from other professions, and find occupational spaces within which it could expand and develop.’ Skehill, C (2000) ‘An Examination of the Transition from Philanthropy to Professional Social Work in Ireland’. Research on Social Work Practice, 10, 6, p 698.

¹⁸⁷Comhairle was established in 1942 as a sub-committee of the City of Dublin Vocational Educational Committee and renamed The City of Dublin Youth Service Board in 1995.

¹⁸⁸‘Children other than Roman Catholics who come before the Courts are entrusted through the local Gardaí to the charge of the local Pastor of their own denomination who sees to it that they are placed in the care of suitable families or School.’

¹⁸⁹A Committee of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference.

¹⁹⁰Sr Winifred (1971) ‘Current Trends in Residential Child Care’ in Child Care – Papers of a Seminar held by the Council for Social Welfare. Dublin: Council for Social Welfare. p 11.

¹⁹¹Kennedy, S (1971) ‘The Role of the Religious in Child Care’ in Child Care – Papers of a Seminar held by the Council for Social Welfare. Dublin: Council for Social Welfare. p 22.

¹⁹²O’Gormain, A (1971) ‘Report on Industrial and Reformatory School Systems’ in Child Care – Papers of a Seminar held by the Council for Social Welfare. Dublin: Council for Social Welfare. p 62.

¹⁹³The response of the Resident Mangers to the Kennedy Report was considerably more positive than their response to an earlier inquiry, chaired by Mr GP Cussen which sat between 1934 and 1936. This inquiry had terms of reference to ‘inquire into and report to the Minister for Education on the present Reformatory and Industrial School system in Saorstát Eireann, and matters connected therewith, including: (1) The existing statutory provisions and other regulations in relation to Reformatories, Industrial Schools and places of detention, and to the committal of children and young persons thereto. (2) The care, education and training of children and young persons in Reformatories and Industrial Schools, and their after-care and supervision when discharged from these institutions. (3) The treatment and or disposal of children committed to Industrial Schools who are found to be suffering from physical or mental defects. (4) The staffing of Reformatory and Industrial Schools, and the qualifications and conditions of service of the teachers employed therein. (5) The arrangements for defraying the expenses of these institutions.’ The Managers in a letter dated 8th May 1937, gave their response to the report which was published in September 1936, and outlined that ‘the Managers felt that an undeserved slur was cast on their work in some of their findings, due to the prejudice on the part of some member or members of the Commission. It is matter of serious moment that men and women who have given their lives and labour in the cause of the education of these poor and often-times wayward children amidst hardships, worries, inconveniences and misunderstandings; and all this time at considerable saving to the State, should be harshly judged and found fault with by members of a Commission appointed by the Beneficiary. The members of the Commission had no first hand experience of the work of the Industrial Schools and could not know what it entails. Even the notes of appreciation in the Report appear to have been grudgingly given. It is easy for Critics to tear a work to pieces but it is a different matter to re-construct.’

¹⁹⁴The members of the Advisory Council were: Fr William McGonagle, OMI, Chairman, Dr Paul McQuaid, Mr Seamus O Cinneide, Fr Jim Clarke, Mr Joe Dillon, Mr Dermod J Cafferky, Br Leo Clancy, Sr Carmel, Sr Liguori, Sr Kevin, Sr Veronica, Sr Bernard, Sr Vincent, Sr Regina, Fr Vincent Kennedy, Br Stapleton and Miss Irene Diffy.

¹⁹⁵These were Mr FJ Donohue, Senior Administrative Officer, Welfare Department; Dr Paul McCarthy, Chief Child Psychiatrist, Dublin Health Authority; Rev Sr Bernadette, Sister in Charge, St Patrick’s Home; Rev Sr Patricia, St Patrick’s Home; Mr PM Sheehan, Section Officer, Children’s Section; Mr MJ O’Connor, Secretary, St Louise Adoption Society; Misses K Neary and B Rutledge, Children’s Officers; Misses C Clyne, M Cox, E Lyng and S O’Reilly, Social Workers.

¹⁹⁶The Department of Education also noted that they were in the process of opening a new school for young male offenders in North County Dublin. In a memo to the Minister, it outlined, ‘Work on a new Training School at Oberstown Balrothery, North County Dublin, began last April. It was planned following visits by officers of the Department, members of the Oblate Community, and the Department’s Architect to modern training schools in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is being built on a sixty-acre site, which has been purchased from the Oblate fathers. Oberstown will not be a new Daingean in a new setting. Qualified staff would cater for every need in the new Training School – educational, psychological and sociological. It will be staffed and administered on the most modern lines and will represent a completely new approach down to the last detail. Accommodation will be provided at Oberstown in 4 self-contained units for 70 boys in the age-range 12-17. The modern concept of the role and function of a reform school is that of rehabilitation of the young offender so that he may learn to take his place as a useful member of the community. This general programme of rehabilitation will consist of (a) a school programme to be implemented at times when schools normally operate (b) an educational programme based on recreational and extra curricular activities for out-of-school periods (evenings, weekends, holidays) and (c) a social-action programme including the provision of family counselling and after-care services. Such a programme is expected to function ideally in the unit system which will obtain in Oberstown, where separate recreational, refectory and sleeping accommodation and common educational facilities will be in operation. Oberstown will be designated a special school and as such will have generous pupil/teacher ratio.’

¹⁹⁷O’Mahony, MV (1971) ‘Legal Aspects of Residential Child Care’. The Irish Jurist (ns). pp 227-8.

¹⁹⁸Ibid. p 234.

¹⁹⁹The Report of Public Services Organisation Review Group, better known as the Devlin Committee, after its chairman Mr Liam St J Devlin, was established in 1966 with the following terms of reference: ‘Having regard to the growing responsibilities of Government, to examine and report on the organisation of the Departments of State at the higher levels, including the appropriate distribution of functions as between both Departments themselves and Departments and other bodies …’.The recommendation was that ‘An Bord Uchtala (Adoption Board) and functions related to the welfare of children generally should be transferred to the Department of Heath and Welfare’ (1969: 237).

²⁰⁰McCafferty, N (1971) ‘Remember the Kennedy Report?’ Irish Times, 12th November, p 6.

²⁰¹On the history of St Patrick’s, see Osborough, WN (1975) Borstal in Ireland: Custodial Provision for the Young Adult Offender 1906-1974. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.

²⁰²Originally called the ‘Group for the Advancement of Child Care’, CARE was established at the end of 1970 and was formally launched in early February 1971. The initial publicity for the organisation stated that: ‘The Group for the Advancement of Child Care is an independent, authoritative, single purpose body which has been founded to promote actively the welfare of deprived children in Ireland and to look for improvements in children’s services. Deprived children are children who, because of their family circumstances, or the environment in which they live, are deprived of their facilities, the care and the opportunities, which they need and are entitled to. The group was founded by, and is made up of, persons with expert knowledge and/or practical expertise of the problems of, and the services at present available for, deprived children. These founder members now comprise the Council of the Group…members of the Group act in an individual capacity; they do not represent organisations or special interests other than the common interest of the Group. The Group is unique in being concerned with the whole field of deprived children and in having no function other than a promotional or campaigning one.’ Of the founding two members, two had served as members of the Committee of Enquiry into Reformatory and Industrial Schools’ Systems and a further two were to become members of the Task Force on Child Care Services established in 1974. A Department of Education memo in the early 1980s stated that ‘Since the group got power into their hands through the Task Force they seem to have become comparatively quiet.’ CARE eventually disbanded in the mid-1990s.

²⁰³They were Seamus Ó Cinnéide, Paul McQuaid, Ian Hart, Peter Shanley and Kathleen O’Higgins.

²⁰⁴A series of empirical studies of children in residential care, particularly institutions for young offenders which appeared in the late 1960s and early 1970s, which focused on the social and personal characteristics of institutionalised children provided a research base, albeit comparatively small, for organisations such as CARE. The picture that emerged from these studies showed institutionalised young offenders to be primarily male, overwhelmingly from working class backgrounds, overwhelmingly from urban centres, the majority displaying low levels of literacy and numerical ability, low IQ levels, coming from larger than average size families, and high levels of parental separation. See Flynn, A, McDonald, N and O’Doherty, EF (1967) ‘A Survey of Boys in St Patrick’s Institution: Project on Juvenile Delinquency’. The Irish Jurist, Vol 2; Hart, I (1967) ‘The Social and Psychological Characteristics of Institutionalised Young Offenders in Ireland’. Administration, Vol 16, pp 167-77; Hart, I (1970) ‘A Survey of some Delinquent Boys in an Irish Industrial School and Reformatory’. Economic and Social Review, Vol 1, pp 182-214; Hart, I (1974) Factors Relating to Reconviction among Young Dublin Probationers. Dublin: ESRI. General Research Series No 76; Hart, I and McQuaid, P (1974)’ Empirical Classifications of Types among Delinquent Referrals to a Child Guidance Clinic’. Economic and Social Review, Vol 5, No 2, pp 163-73; Power, B (1971) ‘The Young Lawbreaker’. Social Studies, Vol 1, pp 56-79.

²⁰⁵CARE (1972) Children Deprived: The CARE Memorandum on Deprived Children and Children’s Services in Ireland. Dublin: Care. p 28.

²⁰⁶Ibid. p 28. CARE subsequently organised a conference on the topic of ‘Planning for Our Children’ on 4th and 5th April 1974.

²⁰⁷Ibid. p 67.

²⁰⁸Ibid. p 69.

²⁰⁹Ibid. p 70.

²¹⁰Ibid. p 72.

²¹¹These included the National Social Service Council, the Irish National Teachers Organisation, the Catholic Bishops’ Council on Social Welfare, the Irish Association of Social Worker, the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Irish medical Association, the Association of Workers for Children in Care, the Psychological Society of Ireland, the Incorporated Law Society and the National Youth Council of Ireland.

²¹²Denis O’Sullivan, who was conducting research in the Letterfrack Industrial School at this time noted that ‘Discussions with present and past staff members of the Research School and other correctional schools controlled by the religious Congregation suggested that in the past the allocation of a Brother to the Research school had been sometimes used as a disciplinary measure, and even in recent times Brothers reported being sent to the school to help them resolve religious and personal difficulties. In fact, shortly after field work was completed two members of the teaching staff left the order. The Manager, like the other Brothers, had expressed no desire to serve in the Research School and had no particular interest in this type of work or schooling before being allocated to the school. His experience in the Research School however generated an interest in this type of work, but his superiors’ refusal to allow him to attend a course in Residential Child Care indicated to him that his service in a correctional school was to be short lived. The other Brothers do not appear to have developed any special interest in the type of pupil they were dealing with. It was, for them, a phase in their career to which they applied themselves vigorously and with professional concern, but none of them expressed a desire to devote himself entirely to this type of work. For the manager and staff, then, it was a phase which soon would pass when they would be transferred back into the regular school system.’ O’Sullivan, D (1978) ‘Negotiation in the Maintenance of Social Control: A Study in an Irish Correctional School’. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 6, 1, 34. Barry Coldrey, himself a Christian Brother, has argued that: ‘the least qualified in the Religious Orders gravitated to work in childcare institutions. In addition, before the Christian Bothers established specialist aged-care facilities for its own members, old, sick, odd and mentally unstable members were commonly ‘hidden’ in institution communities. Brothers or Sisters who worked long years ‘on the orphanage circuit’ had low status within their Congregations.’ Coldrey, B (2000) ‘A Strange Mixture of caring and Corruption’: Residential Care in Christian Brother orphanages and Industrial Schools during their last Phase, 1940s to 1960s. History of Education, 29, 4, 349-50. The historian, Professor Tom Dunne, reflecting on his time in the Christian Brothers and their role in Industrial Schools has written that ‘it was generally believed in the order that men were often sent to staff such terrible places because they had proved difficult, or inadequate, or had got into trouble in ‘normal’ schools. They, too, often felt punished and incarcerated, and the threat of banishment, especially to the more remote schools like Daingean (sic), was often the subject of nervous jokes. While their ‘houses of formation’ were staffed with their brightest and best, the Brothers, it seems, often left the far more needy boys of their industrial schools to the inadequate or the troubled, who were given no special training and little supervision.’ Dunne, T (2002) ‘Seven Years in the Brothers’. Dublin Review, 6, 28-29.

²¹³The Association of Workers with Children in Care (AWCC) was founded in the early 1970s and was effectively the new name for Association of Managers of Reformatory and Industrial Schools The AWCC, which included both Managers and Staff in residential care, had its beginnings in the early 1970s and at its foundation and through its early years was dominated by religious. That dominance dwindled over time with the decline in vocations and the movement away from residential child care by some of the religious orders. In the late 1980s, the staff formed their own association, the Irish Association of Care Workers, later renamed as the Irish Association of Social Care Workers. The original objectives of the organisation were: (1) to promote the welfare, education and rehabilitation of children in care; (2) to promote a high standard of training and work in the care of children; (3) to encourage the development of an integrated child care service by promoting co-operation and understanding between the various agencies concerned with the welfare of children; (4) to act in liaison, as required, between children’s homes, childcare agencies, Government Departments and regional health boards etc.; (5) to promote the welfare of those caring for children by seeking to establish and maintain for them secure and adequate salaries and conditions of service; (6) to promote a wide knowledge of recent developments in child care and to seek to show their relevance and application to Ireland; (7) to review research and scientific literature and to initiate or promote research in Ireland.

²¹⁴On 14th May 1975, the post of Child Care Advisor in the Department of Education was advertised. The advert stated that ‘Candidates will be required to have about three years experience in social work, including experience in child care after obtaining an appropriate professional or academic qualification such as a degree or diploma in Social Science or a certificate in Residential Child Care or in Residential Social Work or a diploma in Institutional Management’. The successful appointee was Mr Graham Granville.

²¹⁵Seanad Eireann, Vol 76, 15th November 1973.

²¹⁶For further details, see Shanley, P (1970) ‘The Formal Cautioning of Juvenile Offenders’, The Irish Jurist. (NS) 2, 262-79.

²¹⁷By early 1972 there were 24 probation officers and 47 by 1974, with officers now deployed outside of Dublin and a caseload of nearly a thousand. For further details, see McNally, G (2007) ‘Probation in Ireland: A Brief History of the Early Years’. Irish Probation Journal, 4, 1, 5-24 and Geiran, V (2005) ‘The Development of Social Work in Probation’ in Kearney, N and Skehill, C (eds) Social Work in Ireland: Historical Perspectives. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.

²¹⁸For further details on Marlborough House, see Keating, A (2004) ‘Marlborough House: A Case Study of State Neglect’. Studies, 93, 371, 323-35.

²¹⁹The establishment of a remand home and assessment centre for children, which was eventually was established in the early 1970s in Finglas, owed its origins to a proposal in 1946 from Dr McQuaid, the Archbishop of Dublin. However, McQuaid wished to have the centre managed by a religious order, which the Minister for Education agreed to, but the Archbishop was unable to locate an order for this work until the early 1960s. The De la Salle Order, had to wait a further ten years before commencing the management of the centre, despite constant urgings from the Archbishop to establish the centre. In a letter to the Taoiseach in 1966, McQuaid stated that: ‘I am grateful for your note informing me of the position regarding the new remand home in Finglas. The delay is easily understood by me, but if I stress that I initiated this project at least 19 years ago with the Department of Justice, you will realize my desire to save so many lives that could be saved. When I see such vast sums being expended on the roads of Dublin and the neighbouring counties, I may be pardoned in wishing that something could have been spent on straightening the crooked souls of very many youths in the past two decades.’ The De La Salle Brothers withdrew from the Centre in June 2004 over ongoing differences in opinion between the Brothers and the Departments of Education and Justice on the role and function of St Michael’s Assessment Unit.

²²⁰For further information on the remand and assessment functions of Finglas, see Mayock, P (1995) Residential Assessment: A Comparative Study of Assessment Practices for Children and Young People ‘At Risk’ or ‘In Trouble’ in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Unpublished M.Ed thesis, UCD; Anderson, S and Graham, G (2006) The Custodial Remand System for Juveniles in Ireland. Administration, 54, 1, 50-71 and Seymour, M and Butler, M (2008) Young People on Remand. Dublin: Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs.

²²¹D/Taoiseach 2005/7/94. Children General.

²²²AWCC (1974) Options in Residential Care. CARE Newsletter, 1, 2, 10.

²²³Ibid. p 10.

²²⁴Ibid. pp 10-11.

²²⁵CARE Newsletter, 1, 2, 5.

²²⁶D/Taoiseach 2005/7/94. Children General.

²²⁷D/Taoiseach 2005/7/94. Children General.

²²⁸Ibid.

²²⁹As one commentator acerbically noted ‘The title of the committee – a Task Force – suggests an image of urgency and incisiveness that the committee’s deliberations did its best to overturn.’ McCullagh, C (1992) Reforming the Juvenile Justice System: The Examination of Failure. Paper presented to the Conference on the State of the Irish Political System, University College Cork, May, 1992.

²³⁰The members of the Task Force were: Mr Flor O’Mahony, Advisor to the Minister for Health (Chair); Mr P Feeney, Department of Finance; Mr Tomas O Gilin, Department of Education; Mr Ian Hart, Psychologist; Mr Seamus Ó Cinnéide, Social Administration; Miss Niav O’Daly, Social Worker; Mr Kevin O’Grady, Department of Justice; Mr P O Suilleabhain, Department of Health; Mr Matthew Russell, Office of the Attorney General. The Secretary to the Task Force was Mr Brendan Ingoldsby, Department of Health and Councillor Peter Shanley, BL provided legal assistance to the Task Force. An tOnorach Sean de Buitleir was appointed Chairman in December 1977 replacing Mr Flor O’Mahony; Mr JV Hurley, Department of Health replaced Mr P O Suilleabhain in December 1977 and Mr Brian Murphy, Department of the Public Service replaced Mr P Feeney in December 1977. Dr Ian Hart died in March 1980 and An tOnorach Sean de Buitleir died in July 1980.

²³¹First Interim Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Mentally Ill and Maladjusted Persons (1974) Assessment Services for the Courts in Respect of Juveniles. Dublin: Stationery Office. p 4. This Committee was established by the Minister for Justice in January 1972 with the following terms of reference: ‘To examine and report on the provisions, legislative, administrative and otherwise, which the Committee considers to be necessary or desirable in relation to persons (including drug abusers, psychopaths and emotionally disturbed and maladjusted children and adolescents) who have come, or appear likely to come, in conflict with the law and who may be in need of psychiatric treatment’. Chaired by the Hon Mr Justice Henchy of the Supreme Court, other members included Risteard Mac Conchradha who had been a member of the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Systems Report; Padraig Ó Maitiú who was the Principal in the Reformatory and Industrial Schools section of the Department of Education and Dr JA Robins from the Department of Health. In addition to the two reports mentioned above, a third Interim Report entitled ‘Treatment and care of persons suffering from mental disorder who appear before the courts on criminal charges’ was published in 1978.

²³²Ibid. p 5.

²³³Ibid. p 7.

²³⁴The Irish Association of Social Workers was formed in May 1971, and was the amalgamation of the Irish Society of Medical and Psychiatric Social Workers and the Irish Association of Social Workers.

²³⁵Recommendations (Part 1) on Developments in Child Care Services prepared by the Irish Association of Social Worker. p 6. The Committee that prepared the document were Sr Marie Barry (Child Study Centre, St Vincent’s); Miss Colette Delaney (ISPCC); Miss Letitia Lefroy (Dr Barnardos); Mr Chris Morris (Department of Justice); Mrs Clodagh McStay (Temple Street Hospital); Sr Meave O’ Sullivan (Child and family Centre, Ballyfermot); Sr Francis Regis (Temple Street Hospital); Miss Brid Rutledge (Eastern Health Board); Mr John Stokes (Church of Ireland Social Services); Sr Francis Xaviour (Child Guidance Clinic, Temple Street); Mrs Gemma Rowley (Convener, Organising Secretary, IASW).

²³⁶Recommendations (Part 1) on Developments in Child Care Services prepared by the Irish Association of Social Worker. pp 6-7.

²³⁷Submission to the Task Force on Child Care Services from Sr Lucy Bruton, Convent of Our Lady of Mercy, Lower Sean MacDermott Street, Dublin 1, 10th December 1974. Department of Health C.4.01.03 Task Force Submissions Vol 1.

²³⁸Recommendations and suggestions from the Social Workers of Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Dublin 12 to the Task Force on Child Care Services, 12th December 1974. Department of Health C.4.01.03 Task Force Submissions Vol 1.

²³⁹Summary of study of children in residential care in Western Health Board region by R O’Flaherty, August 1974 submitted to the Task Force on Child Care Services. Department of Health C.4.01.03 Task Force Submissions Vol 1.

²⁴⁰Comments and suggestions re/ Mr Flaherty’s Report by DE Drohan, 7th November 1974. Department of Health C.4.01.03 Task Force Submissions Vol 1.

²⁴¹Response to Report by Mr Flaherty, 17th November 1974. Department of Health C.4.01.03 Task Force Submissions Vol 1.

²⁴²Recommendations to the ‘Task Force’…..re. Child Care Services from the Joint Committee of Women’s Societies and Social Workers, 5th December 1974. Department of Health C.4.01.03 Task Force Submissions Vol 1.

²⁴³Ibid.

²⁴⁴Ibid.

²⁴⁵‘Children First’ was founded in May 1974 and gave priority to the following aims: to ensure that each child whose interests would best be served by adoption should be eligible for adoption; to work for improvements in the practice of adoption placement so that an adopted child can be guaranteed, as far as is possible, a secure and loving home; to provide information, help and advice to prospective adoptive parents and to adoptive parents; and to provide a forum for discussion of adoption and of possible improvements in adoption; to encourage research and to promote a greater awareness of the value and merits of adoption.

²⁴⁶Submission from ‘Children First’ to the Task Force on Child Care Services. Department of Health C.4.01.03 Task Force Submissions Vol 1.

²⁴⁷St Joseph’s Tivoli Road, Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin was managed by the Daughters of the Sacred Heart of Mary. It was established in 1860 and was certified, from 1st April 1964, for the reception of children under section 55 of the Health Act 1955.

²⁴⁸Submission from Sr Maureen Hallissey, Manager, St Joseph’s, Tivoli Road, Dun Laoghaire to the Task Force on Child Care Services. Department of Health C.4.01.03 Task Force Submissions Vol 1.

²⁴⁹Ibid.

²⁵⁰Ibid.

²⁵¹Submission to the Task Force from the ISPCC Social Workers. Department of Health C.4.01.03 Task Force Submissions Vol 1.

²⁵²Submission to the Task Force from the ISPCC Social Workers. Department of Health C.4.01.03 Task Force Submissions Vol 1.

²⁵³Submission to the Task Force from the ISPCC Social Workers. Department of Health C.4.01.03 Task Force Submissions Vol 1.

²⁵⁴Memorandum submitted by the management committee of Finglas Children’s Centre to Task Force on the Reform of Child Care Legislation and Services. Department of Health C.4.01.03 Task Force Submissions Vol 1.

²⁵⁵Task Force on Child Care Services (1975) Interim Report to the Tanaiste and Minister for Health. Dublin: Stationery Office. p 6.

²⁵⁶Ibid. p 6.

²⁵⁷Butler, S (1975) Report of IASW/Task Force Research project on Deprived Children. September.

²⁵⁸Task Force on Child Care Services (1975) Interim Report to the Tanaiste and Minister for Health. Dublin: Stationery Office. pp 8-9.

²⁵⁹Ibid. p 6.

²⁶⁰National Archives, Department of An Taoiseach, Children: General File. Memorandum for the Government, Interim Report of the Task Force on Child Care Services, 10th October 1975.

²⁶¹In a separate memo, O Gilin, the Department of Education representative on the Task Force outlined the process by which the figure of 60 was arrived at: ‘(1) as a figure as high as 100 is redolent of old, unreformed child care, and cannot be swallowed – on principle; being a school, there is some recognition of the fact that the modern child care – preferred type of number such as 20 or 30 is altogether unrealistic in the circumstances; (3) so let’s split the difference and arrive at 60 or so (At any rate, don’t let’s try to see if the a figure like 100 is not irrevocably attached to old style institutionalism.’

²⁶²The application of the relevant provisions of the Children Act 1908 and the School Attendance Act 1926 to traveller children was earlier discussed by the Commission on Itinerancy. Established in 1960 and reporting in 1963, the Commission reported that ‘From enquiries made by the Department of Education, there were in September 1960, only 160 itinerant children on the school rolls throughout the country, of whom 114 were said to be regular attenders. These figures must be contrasted with the census figures, which showed that there were 1,642 children between the ages of 6 and 14 years in itinerant families in December 1960, and 1,472 children in this age group in June 1961. It is clear that almost no itinerant children attend school. The reasons for this, the Commission explained, was that ‘it appears to have been decided by the Department of Education that it is impossible to deal effectively with the non-attendance of the children of itinerants at school under the existing law laid down in the Children Acts and the School Attendance Acts because, inter alia, of their quick passage from place to place and the requirement that it is necessary that a parent be convicted on a second and subsequent offence before a child can be committed to an industrial school for non-attendance at school.’….‘Section 118 of the Children Act, 1908, provides for the imposition of penalties on persons who habitually wander from place to place and thereby prevent children from receiving education. The Commission were unable to obtain information regarding the number of children of itinerant parents who had been committed to industrial schools for non-attendance at school’. The Commission concluded by stating they ‘fear that little if anything can be done in the immediate future for the education of the children of those itinerants who continuously wander. A solution on the lines contemplated by Section 21 of the School Attendance Bill, 1942, might be attempted, but in the view of the Commission such measures would be far too drastic. In present circumstances, it is economically impossible for most itinerant families to remain in one district for the period of the school year. The application of such provisions could only result in most itinerant children being taken from their families and placed in institutions. Itinerants are very attached to their children and the evil social consequences and the suffering which must follow would far outweigh the ‘advantages’ of an education imposed in such conditions with its lasting legacy of bitterness. Indeed such a ‘solution’ of the itinerant problem generally has been suggested to the Commission – not with a view to education as such but based on the belief that a separation of parents and children would result in the children growing up outside the itinerant life and that thus in one generation the itinerants as a class would disappear.’ Commission on Itinerancy (1963) Report. Dublin: Stationery Office. p 64. For a more recent overview of traveller children in care, see O’Higgins, K (1993) ‘Surviving Separation: Traveller Children in Substitute Care’ in Ferguson, H, Gilligan, R and Torode, R (eds) Surviving Childhood Adversity: Issues for Policy and Practice. Dublin: Social Studies Press.

²⁶³Itinerant Settlement Committees were established in every local authority area in 1969 following a recommendation in the Commission on Itinerancy. For further information, see Crowley, UM (2005) Liberal Rule through Non-Liberal Means: The Attempted Settlement of Irish Travellers (1955-1975). Irish Geography, 38, 2, 128-50.

²⁶⁴A residential home for Traveller girls, Derralossary House, in County Wicklow was opened a decade later.

²⁶⁵Trudder House closed in April 1995 and residents were moved to a new centre in Clondalkin, Co Dublin. This followed a series of allegations of child sexual abuse in the home. Trudder House was reopened in 1996 as a High Support Unit and renamed Newtown House. More generally, Helleiner argues that, ‘[w]hile direct experiences of institutionalization and frequent threats of removal were certainly part of Traveller childhood, there is, to date, no evidence of a systematic state policy of intervention in the case of Traveller children.’ Helleiner, J (1998) ‘For the protection of the children: The politics of minority childhood in Ireland’. Anthropological Quarterly, 71, 2, 56. See also Breathnach, A (2006) Becoming Conspicuous: Irish Travellers, Society and the State, 1922-1970. Dublin: UCD Press, pp 81-2 for a similar analysis.

²⁶⁶This policy was developed in the late 1960s in a report produced by a Committee in the Department of Education to review educational facilities for the children of itinerants largely in response to the aforementioned Commission on Itinerancy, which reported in 1963. The Report stated that ‘The general aim in regard to itinerants is to integrate them with the community, and the Department accepts that educational policy in regard to their children must envisage their full integration in ordinary classes in ordinary schools. The degree to which such integration can take place will vary with circumstances and time, and implementation of the policy, to some extent at least, may have to keep in step with progress made towards the general integration of itinerants with the community.’ (An Roinn Oideachais, The Provision of Educational Facilities for the Children of Itinerants – reprinted in vol 5 of Oideas, the academic journal of the Department of Education and Science.)

²⁶⁷With the gradual demise of the Industrial Schools, homeless children became more visible on the streets of Dublin, and a number of voluntary agencies responded to their needs. In 1966 the Los Angeles Society was established following a survey conducted by a number of voluntary agencies which estimated that as many as 150 boys were sleeping rough in Dublin. The Society, after spending a year on various fund-raising projects, set up its first hostel for homeless boys at 26 Arran Quay. In 1968, arising from the same movement which had led to the establishment of the Los Angeles Society, a group of people with a common belief in the need for the provision of hostel accommodation, especially for homeless girls in Dublin, formed the Homeless Girls Society and set about trying to raise sufficient funds to establish such an intervention. Sherrard House in the North Inner City opened in 1970. A limited after-care service was also available in Dublin for those children exiting the Industrial School system. Our Lady’s Hostel for Boys at 64-65 Eccles Street, operating under the patronage of the Archbishop of Dublin, opened in 1963. Known as the Catholic Boys Home, and managed by a committee of the Society of St Vincent de Paul, it targeted boys aged between 15 and 19 years. In September 1973, the newly established Simon Ireland produced a report on unattached youth in Dublin. The report noted that while a number of general hostels accommodated young people under the age of 25, only seven hostels existed specifically for what were termed unattached youths (generally aged 14 to 20). For young males, three hostels were identified, with a capacity of 52 beds. One of the hostels catered primarily for young persons in breach of the criminal law and the remaining two were described a catering for ‘young boys from a variety of backgrounds – illegitimate, broken homes, orphanages, alcoholic parents etc’. However, neither home had the capacity to accept ‘casuals’ i.e. emergency placements. A further four hostels provided accommodation for 60 young girls, with 10 of them designated for emergency purposes. On 16th February 1976, An Coisde Cuspoiri Cioteann (The General Purposes Standing Committee of Dublin City Council) requested that ‘a report be prepared by our Community and Environment Department on the problem of children who are begging or sleeping rough’ (1976:1). The report was duly presented to the Committee in December of the same year. Distinguishing between traveller and non-traveller children who were sleeping rough, the report argued that the ‘nearest consensus regarding figures we have been able to secure from agencies involved in the problem is that the number of children sleeping rough on any one night is likely to be measured in tens rather than hundreds’. In the same year as An Coisde Cuspoiri Cioteann requested a report on children sleeping rough, a new lay voluntary organisation was established to attempt to meet the needs of children, particularly boys, who were sleeping rough and not accessing appropriate emergency accommodation. HOPE was founded in October 1975 by a German social worker who, when visiting Dublin, was struck by the number of children sleeping rough. A public meeting was held on 29th September 1976 to outline their objectives of obtaining both funding and a premises to allow them to develop ‘an open house project – a place where young people could come to get food, shelter and friendship’. However, they experienced considerable difficulty and it was only on 21st March 1977 that HOPE was in a position to open a hostel at 42 Harcourt Street, Dublin 2.

²⁶⁸See Gilligan, R (1997) ‘Ireland’ in Colton, M and Williams, M (eds) (1997) The World of Foster Care – An International Sourcebook on Foster Family Care Systems. Aldershot: Arena.

²⁶⁹For further information on the training of child care workers, see O’Connor, P (1992) ‘The Professionalisation of Care Work in Ireland: An Unlikely Development’. Children and Society, 6, 3, 250-66 and Crimmens, D (1998) ‘Training for Residential Child Care Workers in Europe: Comparing Approaches in the Netherlands, Ireland and the United Kingdom’. Social Work Education, 17, 3, 309-20.

²⁷⁰All information in this section is contained in Department of Health and Children – C.10.03.05.

²⁷¹This incident formed the basis of the book, Lamb by Bernard McLaverty and the subsequent film of the same name.

Chapter 5
Interviews

5.01A total of 493 witnesses were interviewed by members of the Investigation Committee’s legal team. These interviews covered over 150 Industrial Schools, Reformatories, special schools, residential homes, national schools, secondary schools, hospital and other childcare facilities. Some of the institutions were cited by only one or two witnesses. The material catalogued here consisted of uncorroborated allegations that were unchallenged and unproven and therefore did not have probative value in yielding conclusions about any institution or event. The interviews do, nevertheless, demonstrate the range of abuse complained of in such institutions and the circumstances in which it can arise and are a reference for identifying weaknesses in the systems and indicating areas needing diligence and possibly reform.

5.02Interviews are summarised in the following categories:

Boys Industrial Schools and Reformatories
Girls Industrial Schools and Reformatories
Orphanages
Hospitals
Special schools and schools for the deaf
National schools
Other childcare facilities.

Boys’ Industrial and Reformatory Schools

5.03Interviews were conducted in respect of 10 schools that admitted boys only. Nine of these were the subject of Investigation Committee reports. Over 250 ex-residents attended for interview many of whom proceeded to oral hearing.

Physical abuse

5.04The principal complaint of male interviewees was of physical abuse. The persons identified as being responsible for harsh physical abuse were almost exclusively religious Brothers, priests or nuns. Lay teachers did not feature prominently in the accounts of physical punishment given by interviewees although a small number described lay teachers and lay staff who were employed as night-watchmen, or farm workers as cruel and severe.

5.05Almost all of those interviewed described a regime of punishment. Although the 10 schools that were covered under this category were in different parts of the country and run by different religious orders, the accounts of physical abuse from all of them were strikingly similar.

5.06There was a constant threat of punishment that left the boys fearful all the time. The pervasiveness of punishment derived from the fact that even slight or small misdemeanours attracted blows with the leather strap and most Brothers carried leather straps with them at all times. Boys were beaten if their beds were not made properly or if they were last out of the showers. Boys were also beaten in the classroom for failure at lessons. Many ex-residents stated they were beaten for bed-wetting and this was a practice across all of the schools in this category.

5.07Severe beatings were often associated with allegations of impurity or masturbation, which was also common across all of the schools.

5.08In addition to punishment for offences either trivial or grave, there was the added fear created by punishments administered for no apparent reason. Interviewees recalled being called out of the classroom or being taken out of the dormitory and being beaten without any explanation. This made it impossible to avoid punishment and many recalled a sense of constant fear. As one man stated ‘You got hit for nothing’.

5.09Religious staff members were described as volatile and unpredictable by some complainants: ‘He would fly off the handle a lot’; ‘he was a bully’; ‘he was a vicious man’ and some were described as being obsessed with immorality and sex. One or two Brothers were described as smelling of alcohol when they beat the boys.

5.10There were some differences in the way in which physical punishment was administered across the different schools. In some schools boys were stripped and beaten across the back and buttocks with leather straps for fairly trivial offences. In other schools such punishments were rarer although there were instances of severe, almost ritualistic beatings in almost all schools.

5.11Absconding was treated as a very serious offence in all schools and usually attracted the most severe punishment. In all cases, boys who absconded were punished and in almost all cases this punishment took the form of severe physical beatings with a leather or a cane. Head shaving was reported by some interviewees in some schools.

5.12Punishments were usually administered either in the presence of or within the hearing of other boys. One interviewee recalled a boy being taken out of the classroom and being savagely kicked and beaten by a Brother. He said that he could actually hear the punches and kicks and the boy crying for the Brother to stop.

5.13There was no evidence from the interviews that any attempt was made to hide or disguise the fact that severe beatings were administered. On the contrary, many recalled the fear and terror of seeing and hearing these beatings: ‘the whole class went silent and could hear what was going on’.

5.14Boys who were in these schools in the late 1970s reported less systemic abuse but could still recall incidents of severe corporal punishment either directed at them or other boys.

5.15The most common implement reported for inflicting punishment was the leather strap. In nine out of the 10 schools covered by this category, it was the norm to receive blows with the leather on the hands or the buttocks. A number of interviewees stated that there were coins stitched into these straps and some recalled a larger heavier strap as well as a smaller one. One teacher was described as having a special stick made. There was no consistency as to the number of strokes and it appeared to depend on the individual teacher.

5.16Other implements, such as hurleys, canes, chair legs and dowels, were mentioned as well as fists and feet.

Sexual abuse

5.17Sexual abuse by members of staff was alleged in respect of all the schools in this category. The number of persons alleging abuse varied from over 50 percent of complainants in some schools to 10 percent in others. In most schools the range was between 30 and 40 percent of complainants interviewed.

5.18Sexual abuse, where it was perpetrated by staff members, followed similar patterns. The boy was usually alone with the perpetrator, and the abuse, which ranged from inappropriate touching to rape, was usually conducted in a way that made the boy fearful of a beating if he resisted. Boys were instructed to tell no-one about what occurred and they felt they had no option but to stay silent. There were some reports of staff offering kinder treatment to boys they had singled out for sexual abuse. One interviewee said that although he knew that what the Brother who abused him was doing was wrong, he tolerated it because it made him feel special and loved in the school. He said the Brother would give him treats and watch out for him and he never blamed the Brother for what he did to him. It was a matter of survival for him.

5.19In general, however, witnesses alleged that sexual abuse was conducted in a random and impersonal manner. The boy did not appear to matter a great deal and there appeared to be no communication or affection shown to him by the perpetrator. This was one of the more striking aspects of sexual abuse in boys’ institutions. In most cases, even where boys alleged that they were assaulted over a long period by a particular Brother, there was no evidence that any kind of ‘relationship’ built up.

5.20Boys who were sexually abused felt ashamed and did not discuss what had occurred with their fellow pupils. Interviewees reported seeing boys coming out of Brothers’ rooms looking distressed, but they did not discuss what had happened even though they, the onlookers, were aware that the boys had been abused. The secrecy enforced by threats by the perpetrator was reinforced by shame and humiliation on the part of the victim and the boys themselves.

5.21In a handful of cases, the victims reported abuse to the management of the school. These complaints usually resulted in a beating and nothing was done to prevent the abuse. In some cases the interviewees said that the alleged perpetrator was transferred although they did not know if there was any connection with their complaint and the transfer.

5.22In a small number of cases, boys reported being sexually abused by female carers. They were fondled and taken into bed with the carer. They were generally young children of five or six when this occurred.

5.23Many interviewees stated that they were aware of sexual abuse of other boys by staff members. In particular, interviewees recalled boys being removed from their beds at night and being taken to a Brothers’ room. Interviewees also stated that some night-watchmen in three schools abused boys during the night. Interviewees alleged sexual abuse by visitors and lay staff, but the incidence was far less than that perpetrated by religious staff..

5.24In all schools abuse by other boys was a problem but in some schools it was endemic and there appeared to be little done to control the bullying that younger, weaker boys were subjected to. One interviewee described peer abuse as ‘rampant’ in his school and another said that he was raped by a gang that operated in the school. Boys who lived in schools where supervision was weak and peer sexual activity and abuse were common described the constant fear and helplessness they felt. They could not report what was happening to them for fear of reprisals and they had to suffer in silence.

5.25Many of the men who alleged experiences of sexual abuse reported feelings of shame and deep anger. For some it left them sexually confused for many years after leaving the institution and led to lifelong psychological problems as well as problems with relationships and friendships.

Emotional abuse and neglect

5.26General physical conditions were not a particular feature of boys’ complaints apart from food, which was generally described as poor and inadequate with many recalling hunger during their childhood in the schools. They alleged that food, even where it was adequate, was often almost inedible. In one school the food was described as quite good but there was not enough of it.

5.27Issues such as overcrowding, poor clothing and bad hygiene were not regarded as being as significant as the physical and sexual abuse and bullying that were described by most of the complainants. Fear, loneliness, and isolation were, however, dominant themes.

5.28These 10 schools were the bigger residential schools and therefore large numbers of residents were a feature. Many described their fear at seeing the huge number of boys older and bigger than they were and for many of them being bullied became part of their lives..

5.29Lack of family contact was a significant factor. Many of the pupils had one or both parents alive, but contact was minimal.

5.30Interviewees were asked for positive memories of their time in the schools and, for most of them, these revolved around sport and recreation. Where games were organised for the boys, they were generally enjoyed and appreciated. Films, music and games were mentioned. A significant number of interviewees had no positive memories.

Girls’ Industrial Schools and Reformatories

5.31Twenty-two girls’ Industrial Schools and Reformatories were mentioned by complainants in the course of interviews with the Commission. Of these, one school was also the subject of a full Investigation Committee report. The other 21 schools were each the subject of a small number of complaints. They were small schools run by religious orders of nuns and were generally in rural locations throughout Ireland.

Physical abuse

5.32Twenty of the 22 girls’ Industrial Schools were cited by interviews for administering physical punishment that in their view amounted to abuse. Although most of the complaints were in respect of pervasive, arbitrary and unpredictable punishments, a significant number of complainants described incidents of extreme abuse and cruelty. The accounts given at interview disclosed a wide divergence between different schools and there was less evidence of a policy of abuse across the system.

5.33There was variation from school to school and the level and severity of physical punishment appeared to depend to a very large extent on the Resident Manager. In all schools in which physical punishment was alleged, the complainants spoke about the pervasiveness of such punishments and said that even minor misdemeanours would be punished by a slap or a ‘clatter’.

5.34In some schools, the Resident Manager was described as being extremely abusive. Girls were punished by being beaten with leather straps, canes, and other implements. They said they were beaten on all parts of their bodies, with or without clothing on.

5.35Complaints of physical punishment in girls’ Industrial Schools mentioned as a particular feature lay workers who were alleged by a large number of interviewees to have perpetrated severe punishment and abuse without any accountability to the nuns who managed the schools. In addition, older girls were often left in charge of younger children and were permitted to use such physical punishment as they deemed appropriate without any supervision or control.

5.36Other punishments were cited, such as being locked into a dark room for a long period of time, being deprived of food and privileges, and in one or two cases girls having their hair shaved or cut tightly.

5.37Even in schools in which corporal punishment was described as fairly mild, there was still an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty amongst the children because of the arbitrary and unpredictable nature of the punishment. Children who were engaged in ordinary day-to-day activities could be smacked, slapped or beaten for little or no reason. This made children distrustful of adults and they felt isolated and undermined throughout their childhood.

5.38Complainants spoke of beatings that were so severe that they ended up in the infirmary for a number of days and even weeks. Some said that the doctor or a nurse would have been aware of their condition but would not have been told how it had happened. In one case an interviewee said that she had marks all over her body from a beating with a whip and the doctor was told that it had been caused by an older girl. Another interviewee recalled Dr Anna McCabe, the Department of Education Inspector, seeing her. She believed Dr McCabe did not accept the explanation by the Resident Manager and insisted on speaking to the Resident Manager about the condition she found the child in. The interviewee believed that the particular nun who administered the beating did not beat the children as much after that event.

5.39Interviewees reported beatings mainly for misbehaviour consisting of answering back or being careless or inadvertent in their chores or daily activities. They also reported physical punishment in school and many reported being fearful whilst in the classroom. Most of the children in these smaller Industrial Schools were educated in external schools and many reported feeling singled out and ‘picked on’ by nuns and teachers in the external school.

Sexual abuse

5.40Sexual abuse did not feature regularly in the complaints of interviewees who were pupils of girls’ Industrial Schools. No school was described of having an endemic or systemic problem of sexual abuse. However, individual serious incidents of sexual abuse were reported by interviewees against priests, lay workers, godparents, and men in families to whom the children had been sent on work placements. The sexual abuse alleged ranged from inappropriate touching to rape, and in all cases where children were sexually abused by men there was a fear and reluctance in reporting the abuse to the management of the schools.

5.41Where a priest was alleged to have abused girls, a number of interviewees said that they believed his activities were known to the management of the school but were not addressed by them. Even if girls stated that they were uncomfortable about being with the priest in many cases no notice was taken. This was not universally the case: one or two examples were cited where girls complained about the behaviour of a priest and they were never again placed in the position of being alone with that priest.

5.42A number of interviewees spoke of being sexually abused by older girls in the Industrial School. This abuse, which was often in the context of physical bullying as well as sexual bullying, occurred in two or three schools that were mentioned by interviewees.

5.43The majority of interviewees spoke about being completely ignorant about the facts of life and of not being properly prepared for, or provided for, when menstruation occurred. Many girls reported being terrified when they got their first period and having to depend on older girls to tell them how to deal with it.

5.44In general, the attitude to sexuality was repressive and humiliating. Many interviewees reported feeling ashamed of their own bodies and embarrassed and overly modest even in the company of other girls.

Emotional abuse and neglect

5.45Some interviewees recalled that food was generally fair and they had no recollection of being hungry in the institution. Others said that the food was very bad. All of the accounts of the food would indicate that it was meagre or basic in most institutions although one interviewee stated that she never felt any hunger while she was in the convent, that there was lots of food served there and that the only time they were hungry was if they were deprived of food as a punishment.

5.46In general interviewees did not complain about clothing, although some did say that they felt marked out by their clothes when they attended external national schools. Accommodation and standards of cleanliness varied from school to school and depended on the Resident Manager who was in charge. In general, however, the school was kept to a very high standard and girls were required to polish and scrub and clean the premises on a daily basis. There was a very big emphasis on chores and work and many interviewees described drudgery and hard physical labour as being their predominant memory of life during their childhoods.

5.47Very many of the interviewees from girls’ Industrial Schools had been in care all of their lives. Those who came later into the institutions tended to come as a result of family breakdown or illness or death. The children in girls’ Industrial Schools tended to be there for a longer period of time and their memories of their childhood were compressed over a 10- or even 14-year period. However, the predominant and most commonly cited memory of girls who had been placed in Industrial Schools was the humiliation and degradation that they were subjected to by the religious and lay staff. Girls, particularly those born out of wedlock, reported being denigrated because of their birth. One interviewee stated that a feature of the school was the fact that no-one ever felt that you were part of any family or had any real identity. She said there were no birthday celebrations, no toys and no real recreation.

5.48Many of the interviewees reported very low self-esteem. One interviewee said that she felt the biggest complaint that she had was that there was no emotional support for the children whatsoever. She said birthdays were not celebrated and that children had very little to look forward to in their day-to-day lives.

5.49Many interviewees reported that their education was affected by having to work in the institution. They said that they were taken out of classes early in order to care for children or to wash and clean or to do work in the farms or gardens. They also claimed that their education stopped before the Primary Certificate because they were moved full time into working in the institution. Very few interviewees proceeded beyond national school level and this was a source of great disappointment and frustration to many of them who felt that had they been given a chance in their childhood they could have had better careers and better standards of living in their adult lives.

5.50Most interviewees said they had very little contact with the Industrial School once they had left at 16 years of age even though they had lived most, if not all, of their childhood in the care of the school. Very few reported any emotional attachment to the people who had cared for them or to the school itself. When asked whether they had positive memories interviewees would sometimes identify a particular nun or a particular care worker as having been kind. Some interviewees said that their most positive memory of their time in their school were the friendships they made. They said that although there was a degree of bullying from older girls, by and large the girls looked out for each other and this created strong bonds between some of them that they had to this day.

5.51Many of the interviewees were concerned at the impact their experiences in Industrial Schools had had on their own parenting skills. Some of them felt that they had to struggle very hard to be good parents to their own children and many of them felt they had failed in this regard.

5.52In general, the interviewees stated that they were not prepared properly for life after the institution and were not properly supported by the institution once they left. Many of these women suffered life-long problems with addictions and depression and they stated that the damage done in these early years stayed with them throughout their lives.

Orphanages

5.53The Committee’s legal team heard complaints about a total of 12 orphanages that operated in the state during the relevant period. Nine of these institutions had fewer than four complainants, one had six complainants, and two others had 13 and 14 complainants respectively. Unlike Industrial Schools, orphanages did not take children that were committed by the courts but instead children were sent to orphanages by families who had either broken down irretrievably or who were going through a temporary traumatic event or had suffered bereavement. Children usually stayed in the orphanage until they were 12 and then they either went back to their family or extended family or they were placed in an Industrial School if there was no family available to care for them. Orphanages were run by Religious Orders of nuns, Brothers and by lay people. They did not have internal national schools and children from orphanages attended outside national schools. Orphanages did not provide industrial training of any sort although children were required to do quite an extensive round of chores and maintenance in the school.

5.54Where a parent was still alive at the time of a child’s committal to an orphanage, there tended to be more contact between the child and the parent and in many cases the stay in the orphanage was terminated by the child’s return to the family.

Physical abuse

5.55The 12 orphanages whose residents were interviewed by the Commission varied greatly in terms of physical punishment and abuse reported by interviewees. In cases where the interviewee was also attending to discuss an Industrial School, the orphanage was sometimes contrasted very favourably with the school that the child subsequently attended. For example, one complainant said that he had been placed in the orphanage because of abuse by his father. He stated that he and his brother were sexually and physically abused whilst he was at home and that he was removed to a children’s home in Dublin. He said that he had great memories of the home that they ‘looked after the children 100 percent’. He said that a lot of love was felt and shown to the children in that home. He was subsequently sent to another institution that he experienced as extremely abusive and about which he had come specifically to the Commission to complain.

5.56There was a wide range of different experiences across different institutions and whilst some orphanages were described as well equipped with good food and clothing, others were described as grim, frightening places. In these institutions physical punishment was the first response to any misdemeanour or wrong doing. Institutions varied as to the level of physical punishment administered. In orphanages that catered exclusively for boys, the level of physical punishment was quite high and children were beaten with canes, leathers and other implements by religious and lay staff.

5.57Bed-wetting was a problem for many of the interviewees as they were in these institutions as very young children. The standard response to an incident of bed-wetting was to be punished physically and humiliated in front of other children.

Emotional abuse

5.58Interviewees who were in orphanages during their childhood were often there for short periods during traumatic times in the family. For these children the experience of being committed to an orphanage was one of extreme isolation and loneliness. They spoke of how badly they missed their parents and their family and they found it very difficult to settle into the regime of the institution.

5.59Other children were committed to the orphanage because they were born out of wedlock and for these children a lifetime in care was usually the norm. All of the interviewees who experienced childcare in the orphanage system prior to going in to the Industrial School system described the orphanage system as being kinder and more benign than that experienced in the Industrial School system. Although the regime could be harsh and discipline severe, it was not as cruel as their experiences in subsequent institutions.

5.60Where orphanages were described as cruel, it was usually because of one or two staff members who were particularly harsh. There was no evidence that there was a systemic policy of cruelty throughout the institutions and there was some evidence that, where staff members were abusive towards children, management intervened and eventually the perpetrator was removed.

Hospitals

5.61Nine hospitals were mentioned by interviewees to the Investigation Committee’s team. Each institution was subject to one complaint except one hospital, which was the subject of five complaints.

Physical abuse

5.62Six hospitals were described by complainants as being physically abusive, some to a greater extent than others.

5.63In terms of hospital treatments two complainants in two separate institutions complained about the lack of pain relief they were given following medical treatments or during illnesses. One complainant stated that they were in great pain when attending the physiotherapist in one particular hospital, and another recalled the immense pain of the physical exercises he would have to perform in his callipers. This was exacerbated in both cases by the lack of any explanation given to the children as to the procedures they were undergoing, or the details regarding their specific illnesses. One complainant recalled how she genuinely believed she was going to die and was not given any reassurance or shown any compassion by those in charge.

5.64Three complainants complained about being slapped for wetting the bed and wetting the floor. One complainant described how she wet the bed as her calls for the bedpan to be brought to her were ignored by those in charge. She stated that once the bed was wet she was left sitting in it for hours and slapped as a punishment. Another complainant, who was a patient in another hospital, described a similar situation were she wet the bed because she wore a restraint in bed and was therefore unable to get up to go to the toilet. As punishment she was made to wear the wet bed sheets.

5.65Nearly all the complainants described an oppressive atmosphere within the hospitals, with punishments often meted out for simple indiscretions or accidents such as spilling milk on the floor or dropping a Bible. Complainants described the generally very rough nature in which they were treated on a daily basis; one complainant particularly recalled the rough, uncaring way in which her hair was brushed by a nun. Other complainants remember generally the feelings of dislike shown to them by the nuns and nurses and were often called names such as ‘nuisance’ and ‘pest’ while being slapped.

5.66A few complainants recalled being slapped and beaten about the head, while one described being beaten with a number of implements including keys and plastic tennis rackets. Furthermore, some recall being stripped before receiving their punishment.

5.67One interviewee described the teacher who taught within the hospital as particularly severe. He recalled the teaching nun as a ‘brute’ and a ‘savage’ and described how she beat him during lessons even though he was still confined to his bed at this point. The complainant eventually became well enough to receive schooling whilst sitting at his desk, but states that the beatings became even worse at this point and he was beaten with a stick.

5.68Two complainants complained about being beaten for not eating the food served to them, which they found extremely distasteful. One complainant recalled hiding food she could not eat under her pillow as she was scared about the reaction of the nuns. However, she was caught and beaten as a result.

Sexual abuse

5.69Two individuals made complaints to the Commission regarding sexual abuse. These complaints involved two hospitals. One complainant described being abused by a visiting priest on a number of occasions. She stated that the nurses did not seem to know about the abuse, as they would call her out of the ward to do odd jobs or fetch things for the priest, and it was during this time that the abuse took place. She stated that she did not blame the nurses, as she believed they were genuinely oblivious to the abuse. She remembered being upset when her mother came to visit, but did not reveal the abuse at this stage. She did reveal the abuse some time later to her sister.

5.70A male complainant stated that he was abused by the doctor who has treating him. He remembered that he was moved into a private room, and it was here during the evening times when there was only one nurse on duty that the abuse took place. The complainant recalled that the abuse occurred on two separate occasions, but after that the doctor ‘never came near him’ again. He also recalled that his father paid the doctor in cash for the procedure and that the doctor gave his father a small amount back, stating that his son was ‘a great patient’. The complainant described this as a ‘door closing’ for him and he felt as if he were trapped. He never disclosed the abuse to his father or anyone else until he undertook counselling as an adult.

Neglect and emotional abuse

5.71The main complaint made in this respect was the fact that the children were often confined to bed, suffering from intense boredom and fear. Many described the oppressive draconian regime as one that instilled fear within them, and the nuns and nurses who cared for them as ‘cold, rude and unpleasant’. Nearly all complainants, covering all institutions made a similar complaint to some degree. A few stated that they were provided with recreation time, albeit for a limited period. One complainant recalled being allowed out in the yard for half an hour daily, while another recalled being allowed to play with other children in the gymnasium for a short time.

5.72A number of the complainants recalled being given very little information about why they were in the hospital or what procedures they were undergoing.. This extended to the belief that their parents were not given sufficient information about procedures and treatment their children were undergoing. One complainant also mentioned that the nurses would tell the children what to say to the doctors when they were being examined, and enforced this through fear of punishment.

5.73In relation to visits by parents, circumstances differed between individual complainants in individual hospitals. Some complainants recalled their parents visiting at regular intervals, often every week. However a few complainants recalled that their parents were often turned away from visiting them or encouraged to cut down on the number of visits they made. One complainant recalled that her parents were only allowed to wave at her through a window.

5.74One complainant highlighted the fact that although her mother visited her every second week there was always staff around and so she was unable to tell her mother about any difficulties she may have been experiencing. Furthermore, those complainants whose parents were able to visit them recalled that often gifts or treats given to them by their parent were taken away by the nuns.

5.75Food was another major complaint registered to the Commission. Several complainants recalled being made to eat distasteful food and a small number stated that they were often hungry. As punishment, one complainant recalled being beaten for not eating, while another remembers being jeered at and called names for being sick after eating the porridge. One resident stated that while they received a good breakfast, their dinners were ‘terrible’ and stated that the older children were fed better than the younger ones.

5.76Within the hospitals, the standard of education appears to have ranged quite significantly. A number of complainants spoke in complimentary terms as regards the education they received during their stay in hospital. One complainant stated that she was given the opportunity to attend classes when she started to recover and that she enjoyed these classes. Another complainant recalled completing her Primary Certificate while resident in the hospital and a further complainant stated that she was well educated during her stay in one particular institution.

5.77In contrast, one complainant recalled there being no designated part of the hospital for education and stated that she only saw the teacher once a month and only learned a song during her time in hospital. Another complainant experienced severe physical punishment during class, not only from the teacher in charge, but also his fellow pupils who were encouraged to hit him for misdemeanours and threatened with beatings themselves if they did not hit him hard enough.

5.78Two complaints were made as regards physical neglect in two separate institutions. One complainant alleged that she received only two bed baths during her six-month stay in the hospital and never had her hair washed at all during this period.

Positive experiences

5.79A few complainants recalled instances of kindness during their stays in the hospitals and could pick out one or two more kind and compassionate nuns and nurses.

5.80One complainant described how, while he was resident in one hospital, the regime changed for the better with the arrival of a new nun. He described the nun as ‘progressive with great vision’. She got rid of the old staff and improved the education of the children by introducing new teachers from the training college. He described the improvement of the food and how they were brought on trips to Croke Park and Butlins. This same complainant also stated that Christmas was a good time in the hospital and that birthdays were marked.

Adult life experiences

5.81Nearly all complainants have suffered ongoing negative results stemming from their time in these hospitals. Many described frequent nightmares and many continue to suffer from depression often accompanied by a social phobia and a sense of separation from their family members, particularly their parents and their own children.

5.82One complainant was also treated for eating disorders, while another has received treatment for obsessive–compulsive disorder.

Deaf and special schools

5.83Nine deaf and special schools were named by complainants in the interview process. The Investigation Committee interviewed 81 individuals in relation to these schools. Three of these schools were the subject of a report by the Investigation Committee.

Physical abuse

5.84Of the 81 complainants heard in the deaf and special schools, the vast majority complained of some form of physical abuse. Physical abuse seemed to permeate every aspect of their daily lives in these schools. Almost all the complainants described beatings, which were often severe and capricious.

5.85Physical abuse was described as being used as a method of control and many complainants felt they were hit for no reason most of the time. Others described how they were unaware of the offence they had committed and did not understand why they were struck. A number of complainants described incidents for which they were punished including: not eating quickly, signing, poor performance in class, bed-wetting, refusal to eat food and failure to comply with the regimented toilet regime. Complainants referred to numerous implements being used during incidents of physical abuse. The most commonly cited was a leather strap, along with bamboo canes, keys, blackboard dusters, a bicycle pump, electrical flex and wooden spoons.

5.86During the interview process, many incidents of extreme violence were described. Some complainants talked about specific individuals being particularly violent and recalled incidents where they were punched and kicked in the face and abdomen. Others recalled having their hair pulled and being beaten on the bare buttocks. The children in the deaf schools described being slapped around the ears, which was particularly painful because they had hearing aids.

5.87In relation to education, individuals reported being fearful in the classroom. They described being physically punished for bad handwriting, writing with their left hand, poor speech and use of signing.

5.88Complaints described being beaten if they made an accusation of sexual abuse against a religious, lay staff or fellow student. They stated that on many occasions they were unjustly accused of inappropriate sexual behaviour, for which they were severely beaten.

5.89Peer abuse was also described as a regular occurrence in some schools. A number of complainants described how they were beaten by other boys in the schools and how the religious and lay staff was unaware or indifferent to it.

Sexual abuse

5.90Although it appears from the interview process that sexual abuse was not as widespread as physical abuse, the majority of interviewees recounted some form of sexual abuse. These included sexual abuse by lay staff, members of the religious and their peers. Descriptions of these incidents include fondling, groping, attempted rape, oral rape and inappropriate discussions of a sexual nature.

5.91A large number of the interviewees noted being touched inappropriately whilst in various locations in the schools. A number of interviewees recalled the abuse occurring in the dormitories, showers and classrooms. In relation to the dormitories, a number of complainants recalled incidents of being fondled in their beds. Other noted that the abuse occurred when they were ill and had been sent to the infirmary. Numerous complainants described being fondled in the showers and others noted being watched while showering. Another form of sexual abuse that witnesses recalled was inappropriate conversations. Such conversations were graphic in nature and left the complainants feeling uncomfortable.

5.92A small number of complainants described how visitors to the school, in particular other religious persons, abused them. This abuse was largely described as fondling.

5.93Complaints involving lay staff were also recalled. A number of complainants stated that they had been sexually abused by night-watchmen. A number of complaints also talked about peer abuse in this context. They described such abuse as being rampant, with the older boys often sexually abusing the younger ones.

Emotional abuse and neglect

Education

5.94The biggest complaint with regard to the deaf and special schools was the poor level of education received. That said, opinions differed and some individuals felt institutions offered them great educational opportunities they would otherwise have been denied.

5.95The overriding feeling from the interviews, however, was that these institutions had let them down in terms of their education and many felt lasting effects on their adult lives.

5.96There were a number of issues unique to the deaf schools. A lot of these complainants took issue with the prevalence of ‘oralism’ as the method of teaching. Most of the children were taught in this way but a large number of the complainants described how they struggled to get to grips with this method of teaching and fell behind in their education as a result. ‘Signing’ was forbidden and children could be physically punished if they were caught ‘signing’. The strapping of hands was another method used to prevent children from ‘signing’.

5.97The deaf and dumb children were allowed to use ‘signing’. However, as they were in the minority they felt stigmatised by this. Further to this, the partially deaf students were segregated from the profoundly deaf students and a number of these complainants described being looked upon as stupid and felt that the other children were favoured.

5.98Some of the children in the special schools felt that they had been misdiagnosed and sent to the wrong type of institution. As a consequence they complained that they struggled to fulfil their potential while in these schools.

5.99In general, the majority of interviewees were very unhappy with the standard of education. Many complainants recalled being called stupid and being terrified of making a mistake in school for fear of punishment. The environment of fear and punishment in these schools stifled their ability to learn. As a result, many stated that they struggled finding employment and had difficulty with some of basic tasks in their every day lives such as reading and writing.

Food

5.100Another major issue arising from the interview process was the standard of food in the schools. Many complainants noted that the food lacked variety and described it as being very bad, smelly, salty and stale. Some used the term ‘prison food’ and others felt it was served in a prison-like fashion, with bars on the windows and a military style of serving food.

5.101Some complainants stated that there was never enough food and thus they were always hungry. This resulted in them having to steal food from the kitchen or eat things such as raw onions from the garden to supplement their diet.

5.102Interviewees recalled that when they returned home on holidays, or if relatives came to visit them, their thin appearance would be noted. Many described being ravenous and would devour their food when they returned home. Complainants stated that they used their home visits as a way of gaining weight that they had lost while in these schools.

5.103Incidents of force feeding were also recorded. Complainants felt coerced into finishing their meals through threats of physical punishment. This regime of force feeding coupled with the poor quality of food as described above left many of the complainants feeling ill after meals.

Toilet regime

5.104A strictly regimented toilet regime was recounted to the Investigation Committee in the interview process. Many noted that they were forced to go to the toilet every morning and failure to perform resulted in physical punishment. One individual spoke of being given laxatives to enable him to follow the routine. Many described how they suffered fear and anxiety as a result of this. Some complainants now believe that this toilet regime has caused them long-term side effects such as bowel problems.

5.105Interviewees also talked about being humiliated and slapped for bed-wetting. This was a common theme throughout many of the interviews.

5.106Many complainants felt that the general atmosphere of fear that pervaded these schools resulted in them being fearful even of teachers and religious staff whom they described as being good and caring. This resulted in complainants being fearful of reporting various incidents of physical, sexual and emotional abuse to these members of staff.

National schools

5.107The Investigation Committee examined in detail the career of one teacher, Mr John Brander¹, who had physically and sexually abused children in national and secondary schools for over 40 years. The report into Mr John Brander is outlined in full in Volume II of this Report and covers many of the circumstances of abuse outlined by interviewees to the Commission.

5.108Interviews were conducted in respect of 63 national schools that were situated all over the country. These schools were owned and managed by the diocese in which they were located or by religious congregations. They were operated by lay teachers or religious or both. Interviewees spoke of experiences of physical, sexual and emotional abuse whilst attending school, principally at the hands of teachers.

5.109Of the 63 national schools mentioned by complainants, 52 were each the subject of one allegation. Nine were the subject of two allegations. Two schools were the subject of more than two allegations of abuse; one had five past pupils who made allegations of abuse and one had 10 past pupils making such allegations.

5.110Sixty-nine interviewees were male and 16 were female.

Physical abuse – male interviewees

5.111Over 95 percent of the adult male interviewees complained of physical abuse by one or more teachers during their school days. These complainants acknowledged that corporal punishment was the practice at the time in national schools and were quite clear on the difference between ordinary physical chastisement and abusive and excessive beatings. Although there were some allegations against lay teachers and nuns, the overwhelming majority of complaints were against religious teaching Brothers.

5.112Complainants appeared to have been most frightened and most damaged by teachers who lost control of their tempers. One Brother was described as beating ‘in a frenzy’. Another was described as ‘losing it completely’ and yet another as ‘frothing at the mouth’ during a beating. Where teachers lost control in this way, the children were subjected to extreme and excessive punishments. Beatings were administered with leathers, sticks and other such implements and were on all parts of the bodies. Boys were punched and kicked and terrorised for long periods. In some schools boys were required to drop their trousers and receive strokes of the leather or cane on the bare buttocks. These beatings were most frequently a response to a failure at lessons rather than any misbehaviour on the part of the child.

5.113Interviewees reported seeing children bleeding and bruised after such beatings. Actual physical harm was also reported, such as the loss of teeth or being knocked unconscious, although doctors or parents were usually not told the real cause of the injury.

5.114Extreme and excessive beatings administered regularly in the classroom had a negative impact, not just on the child who was the victim of the beating but on all the children in the classroom and those within earshot. Interviewees said that the pain, anger and humiliation caused by excessive beatings prevented them from learning properly at school. Many reported leaving school at 13 years of age with a very low standard of education.

5.115It was frequently observed by complainants that not all pupils were treated the same way by violent teachers. This indicated that although there was a lack of control there was also awareness on the part of the teacher that beating some children would cause more trouble and they were able to control their violence in respect of these children.

5.116Brothers or teachers who were violent were known within the school system .Interviewees often singled out two or even three Brothers in the same school who were excessively harsh on pupils and could often name other Brothers who were kind and good. It was regarded by interviewees as significant that Brothers who themselves did not operate a violent regime, tolerated and/or ignored violence in their fellow teachers. This was particularly marked where the principal of a school had a violent disposition. In those instances the children felt hopeless and isolated in the face of the cruelty they experienced whilst in school.

5.117The majority of interviewees said that they did not speak to their parents about what was occurring in the classroom. They believed that their parents would not support them and that it would make matters worse when they returned to class. Some parents did appear to regard severe beatings as a normal part of school life; as one said: ‘sure we all got beaten’.

5.118Some children did speak to their parents and where parents intervened there was some evidence that this reduced the violence the child was subsequently subjected to. In general, however, parents appeared to be as helpless and intimidated by the teachers as the child was. Many witnesses indicated an awareness of the helplessness of their parents and said they kept the suffering to themselves rather than worry and upset their parents who they believed could have done nothing about it anyway.

5.119In addition to information about excessive and violent teachers, interviewees also spoke of the constant and pervasive presence of high levels of physical punishment in classrooms. The strap or the cane was used extensively and was the response to even minor infractions. Many complainants identified this as a significant factor in preventing them from succeeding academically. They said they were paralysed with fear and incapable of absorbing information or of learning school work.

5.120Interviewees were able to distinguish teachers who used excessive punishment from those who did not. Teachers who behaved in a moderate, controlled non-threatening manner were singled out as being better teachers and interviewees reported learning much more in classes where violence was not a feature. Even if a child encountered only one or two benign and kindly teachers in the course of their national school education, this was often enough to give them a basic foundation in education and they recalled those teachers with gratitude.

5.121A number of male interviewees were in national schools run by female Religious Orders until the ages of six or seven after which they moved to boys-only schools. Although in general experiences in very young classes were better than in older classes, a significant number of interviewees described extremely harsh and excessive physical punishment on very young children. Nuns and teachers were described as using leathers, canes, sally rods² and heavy rulers on children as young as three and four. Where children were treated with cruelty at such an early age, their ability to advance in school was greatly impaired.

5.122Because physical punishment was accepted as the norm in all national schools until the 1980s, it was difficult for children to be heard and listened to when they tried to identify cruel or excessive violence. Very often violent teachers were seen as good teachers and parents tolerated excessive punishments in the belief that their children would benefit in the long term. The opposite was more often the case.

5.123There was no evidence of school principals, school inspectors, fellow teachers or boards of management taking the initiative to curb excesses in teachers. Occasionally, where parents made complaints, the child would see that the violence was reduced, but there was no sanction taken against the offending teacher. Some interviewees described how the teacher was very well respected in the local community and had the support of local clergy and was therefore regarded as ‘untouchable’ by the ordinary people in the parish.

5.124Interviewees who had been subjected to excessive, extreme or constant physical punishment in their national schools were angry and damaged even into late adulthood by the experience. Many of them said that it resulted in loss of religion, dependence on alcohol and drugs, depression and psychological illness, and an inability to trust or form relationships. Many also said that they themselves responded with violence to situations in their own lives, as it had become a learned response for them.

5.125It is impossible to calculate the impact of a culture of severe physical punishment in some primary schools that permeated the education system in Ireland until the mid 1980s. What was clear however was that although some adults survived and even thrived in primary education many suffered greatly as a result of their experience.

Sexual abuse – male interviewees

5.126Forty male interviewees reported being sexually abused whilst in national school. Thirty four of these reported that their abuser was a male religious. Two reported a female religious and four stated they were abused by male lay teachers.

5.127Although two or three interviewees reported a ‘benign and kindly’ relationship with the teacher who sexually abused them, in general sexual abuse was accompanied by violence and the threat of violence. Children were brought to the front of the classroom and fumbled and touched inappropriately by teachers in front of other school pupils. This led to humiliation and jeering and for many interviewees was the most enduring and painful part of the experience of sexual abuse. Much abuse went further than fondling and some interviewees reported been kept back after class or brought to isolated areas of the school where they were subject to a much more serious level of sexual assault, amounting for some of them to full rape. In almost all cases where teachers sexually assaulted pupils, interviewees reported that the abuse was on-going for the duration of the child’s time in the teacher’s classroom. Interviewees reported being sickened, terrified and humiliated by sexual abuse in the classroom and feeling isolated and hopeless in the face of the teacher’s apparent power.

5.128In general interviewees did not speak to their parents about what was happening. Most of them said that they thought their parents would not believe them. In some cases where the child did tell the parents what happened they were disbelieved and punished for speaking ill of the teacher.

5.129There were some assertions that the activities of some Brothers and some visiting clergymen were known to the management and teachers in particular schools. Evasive action was taken to try to prevent children being alone with particular priests or Brothers. In one instance an interviewee reported that schools would be rung ahead to warn them that a particular priest was coming and the children would be prevented from being alone with them.

5.130Where sexual abuse went beyond touching and inappropriate fondling, it was conducted in secret and with the threat of violence if the activity was disclosed.

5.131What was the most significant element of the reports of sexual abuse of children who were attending day schools was the helplessness and powerlessness and isolation they felt. Children were not listened to and not believed. Adults who saw what was happening ignored it and instead of confronting the abuser they sought to minimise the contact with children. This was totally ineffectual as the abuser was usually able to devise means of singling children out and accessing them alone.

5.132The impact of sexual abuse on the adult lives of victims varied with the individual, but a number of significant responses did emerge. In general, men who had experienced sexual abuse at the hands of religious Brothers or priests reported that they had no religion or no respect for religion. Interviewees were in general extremely damaged by what had occurred. Many of them reported feelings of great anger and hurt, depression and other psychological illnesses, drug and drink addiction and an inability to form relationships in adult life. Many wanted to see the abuser named and punished for what had occurred and were anxious to establish whether other children had suffered in the same way that they had. Many victims carried the humiliation, embarrassment and fear throughout adulthood.

Physical abuse – female interviewees

5.133Female interviewees reported physical abuse by nuns, female lay teachers and male lay teachers. Although there were individual reports of extreme and excessive violence, in general female interviewees spoke of physical punishment as being more pervasive than extreme. Complainants recalled an atmosphere of constant fear in some classrooms with leathers, canes, rulers and other implements such as chair legs being used.

5.134Punishment was administered for failure at lessons and for minor infractions and was reported as being disproportionate and unpredictable.

5.135A small number of interviewees reported physical abuse at the hands of male teachers, which was excessive and dangerous. Very small children were subjected to kicks and punches by male teachers, which could have caused serious injury.

5.136Boys who attended girls’ schools up to the age of seven or eight reported a less harsh regime than that which operated in boys’ national schools, although individual teachers, lay and religious, were identified as being cruel and vindictive.

5.137Where girls reported physical abuse to their parents, there tended to be a more positive reaction. One interviewee recalled that her father confronted a nun who had beaten her with a bamboo cane and she was not beaten again. She said that she would have told her father sooner if she had known what the outcome would have been.

5.138Many interviewees recalled the intense fear they felt whilst in an abusive class situation. One recalled feeling sick every morning at the prospect of the day ahead and another recalled begging her mother not to send her to school. The fear was not just of the prospect of being beaten themselves but the horror of watching other children being beaten. What was striking in the case of female interviewees was how many of them were subjected to severe punishments with sticks and straps when they were little more than babies.

5.139Interviewees reported that the impact of the physical abuse experienced in national schools stayed with them into adulthood. It impacted on their ability to learn and on their attitude to school generally. It gave them low self-esteem and poor self-confidence and many felt that it impaired their ability to succeed in later life.

Sexual abuse – female interviewees

5.140Three female interviewees reported sexual abuse by male teachers whilst in national school. They were aged between five and eight when the abuse began and it involved invasive touching and kissing. All three complainants reported feeling embarrassed and ashamed but they did not tell their parents at the time. They suffered severe after effects of the abuse, including nervous breakdown, eating disorders, nightmares and low self-esteem.

Emotional abuse

5.141Although interviewees reported psychological and emotional effects from physical or sexual abuse, children in national schools were less vulnerable to emotional abuse than those in institutional care. Three interviewees specifically complained of emotional abuse whilst in national school, although many did refer to emotionally abusive attitudes and practices in schools generally. In particular, children were mocked or jeered because of their family backgrounds, or because of poverty. Many reported being humiliated or verbally abused in the course of physical punishment. For most interviewees, the emotional scars they carried into adulthood were because of the frightening atmosphere in classrooms, the feeling of anger and helplessness in the face of abusive teachers and the apparent indifference of adults to the plight of children left at the mercy of harsh and irrational teachers. Some interviewees mentioned feeling let down by parents who knew what was happening but did not try to prevent it.

5.142Not all schools were abusive and the people who came to the Commission were those who had had particularly unhappy experiences. Many were anxious to point out that not all nuns, Brothers or lay teachers were bad, and that many were good and kind teachers.

5.143All interviewees were asked whether they were interested in reconciliation but the vast majority said they were not. For many the hatred they felt for the teacher who had mistreated them was still quite real and they did not think they would be able to forgive the perpetrator.

Children’s home

5.144Three complainants were interviewed in relation to a children’s home and each had distinct and individual experiences. One alleged corporal punishment was used regularly, two alleged serious sexual abuse by different lay staff and one of these also alleged lack of supervision by care staff which led to him being sexually abused by a relative who visited him. The complainant implied that his abuser had easy access to him, stating that there were no gates or cameras in the home. This complainant notified staff of the abuse but they did not take any action.

Mother and baby homes

5.145There were two complainants from mother and baby homes, who had given birth to children there whilst under 18 years of age. They both described a regimented ‘prison-like’ atmosphere, where they were made to wear uniforms and punished for talking and laughing. They further described how both pre- and post-natal care was non-existent. They described suffering humiliation at the hands of the nuns who were both verbally and physically abusive; one interviewee described being hit on the back of the legs with a leather strap. They described how they were emotionally traumatised during their time in the home.

5.146A third complainant recalled her time spent in the home as a young child. She was neglected and claimed she was left for long periods alone in a cot and consequently suffered delayed development.

Private schools

5.147In relation to the complaints against private schools there were two interviewees. Both complained of sexual abuse; one complainant described ongoing sexual abuse by a priest on staff for a period of four years. This complainant further stated that other boys were victims of this priest. The sexual abuse was primarily fondling. The complainant stated that this priest would, following football matches, pick different boys for ‘inspection’ and bring them to his room to make sure that they had washed themselves properly. In response to this allegation the Congregation in question stated that they did not intend to dispute the complainant’s statement and apologised.

5.148A lay member of staff was alleged to have sexually abused the second complainant on one occasion. He detailed how approximately six years later he informed his family but was not believed. A number of years later he made a statement to the Gardaí. He also described how he was the victim of peer abuse as the older boys in the school bullied him. He described the food as extremely bad.

5.149Neither complainant reported the abuse while in school.

Conclusions

5.150Many of the children in these institutions were particularly vulnerable because they were ill, or were suffering from some disability or were orphans without adults to protect them. The guiding principle that the more vulnerable the person, the greater the duty of care, should have ensured the institutions provided the kind of care commensurate with the children’s needs. The complainants not merely claimed that their needs were not met but alleged that some adults exploited their vulnerability by abusing them and by not according them the respect due to all human beings. Children must be respected and consulted, and their interests must always be paramount in the way in which care is provided.

5.151In national schools, the assumption that children are being educated in a professional way should not be taken for granted. The Department of Education and Science, the diocese, the board of management and parents need to assess the quality of the school by looking beyond its academic proficiency. The developmental and psychological needs of the child are equally important. Children must be facilitated in making complaints and their complaints must be listened to.

5.152It must never be assumed that any particular teacher or carer ‘would never behave like that’. There are no recognisable or common traits that mark people out as abusers. People who are otherwise respectable, law-abiding pillars of the community can be child abusers and it is the responsibility of all adults in society to listen to and protect children from such people.

¹This is a pseudonym.

² Sally rod – a long, thin wooden stick, generally made from willow, used mostly in Ireland as a disciplinary implement.

Chapter 6
Conclusions

6.01Physical and emotional abuse and neglect were features of the institutions. Sexual abuse occurred in many of them, particularly boys’ institutions. Schools were run in a severe, regimented manner that imposed unreasonable and oppressive discipline on children and even on staff.

6.02The system of large-scale institutionalisation was a response to a nineteenth century social problem, which was outdated and incapable of meeting the needs of individual children. The defects of the system were exacerbated by the way it was operated by the Congregations that owned and managed the schools. This failure led to the institutional abuse of children where their developmental, emotional and educational needs were not met.

6.03The deferential and submissive attitude of the Department of Education towards the Congregations compromised its ability to carry out its statutory duty of inspection and monitoring of the schools. The Reformatory and Industrial Schools Section of the Department was accorded a low status within the Department and generally saw itself as facilitating the Congregations and the Resident Managers.

6.04The capital and financial commitment made by the religious Congregations was a major factor in prolonging the system of institutional care of children in the State. From the mid 1920s in England, smaller more family-like settings were established and they were seen as providing a better standard of care for children in need. In Ireland, however, the Industrial School system thrived.

6.05The system of funding through capitation grants led to demands by Managers for children to be committed to Industrial Schools for reasons of economic viability of the institutions.

6.06The system of inspection by the Department of Education was fundamentally flawed and incapable of being effective.

The Inspector was not supported by a regulatory authority with the power to insist on changes being made.

There were no uniform, objective standards of care applicable to all institutions on which the inspections could be based.

The Inspector’s position was compromised by lack of independence from the Department.

Inspections were limited to the standard of physical care of the children and did not extend to their emotional needs. The type of inspection carried out made it difficult to ascertain the emotional state of the children.

The statutory obligation to inspect more than 50 residential schools was too much for one person.

Inspections were not random or unannounced: School Managers were alerted in advance that an inspection was due. As a result, the Inspector did not get an accurate picture of conditions in the schools.

The Inspector did not ensure that punishment books were kept and made available for inspection even though they were required by the regulations.

The Inspector rarely spoke to the children in the institutions.

6.07Many witnesses who complained of abuse nevertheless expressed some positive memories: small gestures of kindness were vividly recalled. A word of consideration or encouragement, or an act of sympathy or understanding had a profound effect. Adults in their sixties and seventies recalled seemingly insignificant events that had remained with them all their lives. Often the act of kindness recalled in such a positive light arose from the simple fact that the staff member had not given a beating when one was expected.

6.08More kindness and humanity would have gone far to make up for poor standards of care.

Physical abuse

6.09The Rules and Regulations governing the use of corporal punishment were disregarded with the knowledge of the Department of Education.

The legislation and the Department of Education guidelines were unambiguous in the restrictions placed on corporal punishment. These limits however, were not observed in any of the schools investigated. Complaints of physical abuse were frequent enough for the Department of Education to be aware that they referred to more than acts of sporadic violence by some individuals. The Department knew that violence and beatings were endemic within the system itself.

6.10The Reformatory and Industrial Schools depended on rigid control by means of severe corporal punishment and the fear of such punishment.

The harshness of the regime was inculcated into the culture of the schools by successive generations of Brothers, priests and nuns. It was systemic and not the result of individual breaches by persons who operated outside lawful and acceptable boundaries. Excesses of punishment generated the fear that the school authorities believed to be essential for the maintenance of order. In many schools, staff considered themselves to be custodians rather than carers.

6.11A climate of fear, created by pervasive, excessive and arbitrary punishment, permeated most of the institutions and all those run for boys. Children lived with the daily terror of not knowing where the next beating was coming from.

Seeing or hearing other children being beaten was a frightening experience that stayed with many complainants all their lives.

6.12Children who ran away were subjected to extremely severe punishment.

Absconders were severely beaten, at times publicly. Some had their heads shaved and were humiliated. Details were not reported to the Department, which did not insist on receiving information about the causes of absconding. Neither the Department nor the school management investigated the reasons why children absconded even when schools had a particularly high rate of absconding. Cases of absconding associated with chronic sexual or physical abuse therefore remained undiscovered. In some instances all the children in a school were punished because a child ran away which meant that the child was then a target for mistreatment by other children as well as the staff.

6.13Complaints by parents and others made to the Department were not properly investigated.

Punishments outside the permitted guidelines were ignored and even condoned by the Department of Education. The Department did not apply the standards in the rules and their own guidelines when investigating complaints but sought to protect and defend the religious Congregations and the schools.

6.14The boys’ schools investigated revealed a pervasive use of severe corporal punishment.

Corporal punishment was the option of first resort for breaches of discipline. Extreme punishment was a feature of the boys’ schools. Prolonged, excessive beatings with implements intended to cause maximum pain occurred with the knowledge of staff management.

6.15There was little variation in the use of physical beating from region to region, from decade to decade, or from Congregation to Congregation.

This would indicate a cultural understanding within the system that beating boys was acceptable and appropriate. Individual Brothers, priests or lay staff who were extreme in their punishments were tolerated by management and their behaviour was rarely challenged.

6.16Corporal punishment in girls’ schools was pervasive, severe, arbitrary and unpredictable and this led to a climate of fear amongst the children.

The regulations imposed greater restrictions on the use of corporal punishment for girls. Schools varied as to the level of corporal punishment that was tolerated on a day-to-day basis. In some schools a high level of ritualised beating was routine whilst in other schools lower levels of corporal punishment were used. The degree of reliance on corporal punishment depended on the Resident Manager, who could be a force for good or ill, but almost all institutions employed fear of punishment as a means of discipline. Some Managers administered excessive punishment themselves or permitted excesses by religious and lay staff. Girls were struck with implements designed to maximise pain and were struck on all parts of the body. The prohibition on corporal punishment for girls over 15 years was generally not observed.

6.17Corporal punishment was often administered in a way calculated to increase anguish and humiliation for girls.

One way of doing this was for children to be left waiting for long periods to be beaten. Another was when it was accompanied by denigrating or humiliating language. Some beatings were more distressing when administered in front of other children and staff.

Sexual abuse

6.18Sexual abuse was endemic in boys’ institutions. The situation in girls’ institutions was different. Although girls were subjected to predatory sexual abuse by male employees or visitors or in outside placements, sexual abuse was not systemic in girls’ schools.

6.19It is impossible to determine the full extent of sexual abuse committed in boys’ schools. The schools investigated revealed a substantial level of sexual abuse of boys in care that extended over a range from improper touching and fondling to rape with violence. Perpetrators of abuse were able to operate undetected for long periods at the core of institutions.

6.20Cases of sexual abuse were managed with a view to minimising the risk of public disclosure and consequent damage to the institution and the Congregation. This policy resulted in the protection of the perpetrator. When lay people were discovered to have sexually abused, they were generally reported to the Gardai. When a member of a Congregation was found to be abusing, it was dealt with internally and was not reported to the Gardaí.

The damage to the children affected and the danger to others were disregarded. The difference in treatment of lay and religious abusers points to an awareness on the part of Congregational authorities of the seriousness of the offence, yet there was a reluctance to confront religious who offended in this way. The desire to protect the reputation of the Congregation and institution was paramount. Congregations asserted that knowledge of sexual abuse was not available in society at the time and that it was seen as a moral failing on the part of the Brother or priest. This assertion, however, ignores the fact that sexual abuse of children was a criminal offence.

6.21The recidivist nature of sexual abuse was known to religious authorities.

The documents revealed that sexual abusers were often long-term offenders who repeatedly abused children wherever they were working. Contrary to the Congregations’ claims that the recidivist nature of sexual offending was not understood, it is clear from the documented cases that they were aware of the propensity for abusers to re-abuse. The risk, however, was seen by the Congregations in terms of the potential for scandal and bad publicity should the abuse be disclosed. The danger to children was not taken into account.

6.22When confronted with evidence of sexual abuse, the response of the religious authorities was to transfer the offender to another location where, in many instances, he was free to abuse again. Permitting an offender to obtain dispensation from vows often enabled him to continue working as a lay teacher.

Men who were discovered to be sexual abusers were allowed to take dispensation rather than incur the opprobrium of dismissal from the Order. There was evidence that such men took up teaching positions sometimes within days of receiving dispensations because of serious allegations or admissions of sexual abuse. The safety of children in general was not a consideration.

6.23Sexual abuse was known to religious authorities to be a persistent problem in male religious organisations throughout the relevant period.

Nevertheless, each instance of sexual abuse was treated in isolation and in secrecy by the authorities and there was no attempt to address the underlying systemic nature of the problem. There were no protocols or guidelines put in place that would have protected children from predatory behaviour. The management did not listen to or believe children when they complained of the activities of some of the men who had responsibility for their care. At best, the abusers were moved, but nothing was done about the harm done to the child. At worst, the child was blamed and seen as corrupted by the sexual activity, and was punished severely.

6.24In the exceptional circumstances where opportunities for disclosing abuse arose, the number of sexual abusers identified increased significantly.

For a brief period in the 1940s, boys felt able to speak about sexual abuse in confidence at a sodality that met in one school. Brothers were identified by the boys as sexual abusers and were removed as a result. The sodality was discontinued. In another school, one Brother embarked on a campaign to uncover sexual activity in the school and identified a number of religious who were sexual abusers. This indicated that the level of sexual abuse in boys’ institutions was much higher than was revealed by the records or could be discovered by this investigation. Authoritarian management systems prevented disclosures by staff and served to perpetuate abuse.

6.25The Congregational authorities did not listen to or believe people who complained of sexual abuse that occurred in the past, notwithstanding the extensive evidence that emerged from Garda investigations, criminal convictions and witness accounts.

Some Congregations remained defensive and disbelieving of much of the evidence heard by the Investigation Committee in respect of sexual abuse in institutions, even in cases where men had been convicted in court and admitted to such behaviour at the hearings.

6.26In general, male religious Congregations were not prepared to accept their responsibility for the sexual abuse that their members perpetrated.

Congregational loyalty enjoyed priority over other considerations including safety and protection of children.

6.27Older boys sexually abused younger boys and the system did not offer protection from bullying of this kind.

There was evidence that boys who were victims of sexual abuse were physically punished as severely as the perpetrator when the abuse was reported or discovered. Inevitably, boys learned to suffer in silence rather than report the abuse and face punishment.

6.28Sexual abuse of girls was generally taken seriously by the Sisters in charge and lay staff were dismissed when their activities were discovered. However, nuns’ attitudes and mores made it difficult for them to deal with such cases candidly and openly and victims of sexual assault felt shame and fear of reporting sexual abuse.

Girls who were abused reported that it happened most often when they were sent to host families for weekend, work or holiday placements. They did not feel able to report abusive behaviour to the Sisters in charge of the schools for fear of disbelief and punishment if they did.

6.29Sexual abuse by members of religious Orders was seldom brought to the attention of the Department of Education by religious authorities because of a culture of silence about the issue.

When religious staff abused, the matter tended to be dealt with using internal disciplinary procedures and Canon Law. The Gardaí were not informed. On the rare occasions when the Department was informed, it colluded in the silence. There was a lack of transparency in how the matter of sexual abuse was dealt with between the Congregations, dioceses and the Department. Men with histories of sexual abuse when they were members of religious Orders continued their teaching careers as lay teachers in State schools.

6.30The Department of Education dealt inadequately with complaints about sexual abuse. These complaints were generally dismissed or ignored. A full investigation of the extent of the abuse should have been carried out in all cases.

All such complaints should have been directed to the Gardai for investigation.

The Department, however, gave the impression that it had a function in relation to investigating allegations of abuse but actually failed to do so and delayed the involvement of the proper authority. The Department neglected to advise parents and complainants appropriately of the limitations of their role in respect of these complaints.

Neglect

6.31Poor standards of physical care were reported by most male and female complainants.

Schools varied as to the standard of physical care provided to the children and while there was evidence from many complainants that conditions improved in the late 1960s, in general no school provided an adequate standard of care across all the categories.

6.32Children were frequently hungry and food was inadequate, inedible and badly prepared in many schools.

Witnesses spoke of scavenging for food from waste bins and animal feed.

In boys’ schools there was so little supervision at meal times that bullying was widespread and smaller, weaker boys were often deprived of food.

The Inspector found that malnourishment was a serious problem in schools run by nuns in the 1940s and, although improvements were made, the food provided in many of these schools continued to be meagre and basic.

6.33Witnesses recalled being cold because of inadequate clothing, particularly when engaged in outdoor activities.

Clothing was a particular problem in boys’ schools where children often worked for long hours outdoors on farms. In addition, boys were often left in their soiled and wet work clothes throughout the day and wore them for long periods.

Clothing was better in girls’ schools and some individual Resident Managers made particular efforts in this regard but in general girls were obliged to wear inadequate ill-fitting clothes that were often threadbare and worn.

In all schools up until the 1960s clothes stigmatised the children as Industrial School residents.

6.34Accommodation was cold, spartan and bleak. Sanitary provision was primitive in most boys’ schools and general hygiene facilities were poor.

Children slept in large unheated dormitories with inadequate bedding, which was a particular problem for children with enuresis.

Sanitary protection for menstruation was generally inadequate for girls.

6.35The Cussen Report recommended in 1936 that Industrial School children should be integrated into the community and be educated in outside national schools. Until the late 1960s, this was not done in any of the boys’ schools investigated and in only in a small number of girls’ schools.

6.36Where Industrial School children were educated in internal national schools, the standard was consistently poorer than that in outside schools.

National school education was available to all children in the State and those in Industrial Schools were entitled to at least the same standard as that available in the country generally. Internal national schools were funded by a national school grant and teachers were paid in the same way as in ordinary national schools. The evidence was however that the standard of education in these schools was poor.

There was evidence particularly in girls’ schools that children were removed from their classes in order to perform domestic chores or work in the institution during the school day. In general, Industrial School children did not receive the same standard of national school education as would have been available to them in the local community. This lack of educational opportunity condemned many of them to a life of low-paying jobs and was a commonly expressed loss among witnesses.

6.37Academic education was not seen as a priority for industrial school children.

When discharged, boys were generally placed in manual or unskilled jobs and girls in positions as domestic servants. There were exceptions, and particularly in girls’ schools in the later years, some girls received the opportunity of a secretarial or nursing qualification. Education usually ceased in 6th class, after which children were involved in industrial trades, farming and domestic work with very limited education thereafter. Even where religious Congregations operated secondary schools beside industrial schools, children from the Industrial Schools were very rarely given the opportunity of pursuing secondary school education.

6.38Industrial Schools were intended to provide basic industrial training to young people to enable them to take up positions of employment as young adults. In reality, the industrial training afforded by all schools was of a nature that served the needs of the institution rather than the needs of the child.

This was a problem that had been pointed out by the Cussen Commission in 1936 and continued to be a feature of industrial training in these schools throughout the relevant period. Child labour on farms and in workshops was used to reduce the costs of running the Industrial Schools and in many cases to produce a profit. Clothing and footwear were often made on the premises and bakeries and laundries provided facilities to the school and in some cases to the general public. The cleaning and upkeep of girls’ Industrial Schools was largely done by the girls themselves. Some of these chores were heavy and arduous and exacting standards were imposed that were difficult for young children to meet. In girls’ schools also, older residents were expected to care for young children and babies on a 24-hour basis. Large nurseries were supervised and staffed by older residents with only minimal supervision by adults.

Emotional abuse

6.39A disturbing element of the evidence before the Commission was the level of emotional abuse that disadvantaged, neglected and abandoned children were subjected to generally by religious and lay staff in institutions.

Witnesses spoke of being belittled and ridiculed on a daily basis. Humiliating practices such as underwear inspections and displaying soiled or wet sheets were conducted throughout the Industrial School system. Private matters such as bodily functions and personal hygiene were used as opportunities for degradation and humiliation. Personal and family denigration was widespread, particularly in girls’ schools. There was constant criticism and verbal abuse and children were told they were worthless. The pervasiveness of emotional abuse of children in care throughout the relevant period points to damaging cultural attitudes of many who taught in and operated these schools.

6.40The system as managed by the Congregations made it difficult for individual religious who tried to respond to the emotional needs of the children in their care.

Witnesses from the religious Congregations described the conflict they experienced in fulfilling their religious vows, whilst at the same time providing care and affection to children. Authoritarian management in all schools meant that staff members were afraid to question the practices of managers and disciplinarians.

6.41Witnessing abuse of co-residents, including seeing other children being beaten or hearing their cries, witnessing the humiliation of siblings and others and being forced to participate in beatings, had a powerful and distressing impact.

Many witnesses spoke of being constantly fearful or terrified, which impeded their emotional development and impacted on every aspect of their life in the institution. The psychological damage caused by these experiences continued into adulthood for many witnesses.

6.42Separating siblings and restrictions on family contact were profoundly damaging for family relationships. Some children lost their sense of identity and kinship, which was never recovered.

Sending children to isolated locations increased the sense of loss and made it almost impossible for family contact to be maintained. Management did not recognise the rights of children to have contact with family members and failed to acknowledge the value of family relationships.

6.43The Confidential Committee heard evidence in relation to 161 settings other than Industrial and Reformatory Schools, including primary and second-level schools, Children’s Homes, foster care, hospitals and services for children with special needs, hostels, and other residential settings. The majority of witnesses reported abuse and neglect, in some instances up to the year 2000. Many common features emerged about failures of care and protection of children in all of these institutions and services.

Witnesses reported severe physical abuse in primary schools, foster care, Children’s Homes and other residential settings where those responsible neglected their duty of care to children.

The predatory nature of sexual abuse including the selection and grooming of socially disadvantaged and vulnerable children was a feature of the witness reports in relation to special needs services, Children’s homes, hospitals and primary and second-level schools. Children with impairments of sight, hearing and learning were particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse.

Witnesses reported neglect of their education, health and aftercare in all residential settings and foster care. No priority was given to the special care needs of children who were placed away from their families.

Children in isolated foster care placements were abused in the absence of supervision by external authorities. They were placed with foster parents who had no training, support or supervision. The suitability of those selected as foster parents was repeatedly questioned by witnesses who were physically and sexually abused.

Many witnesses described losing their sense of family and identity when placed in out-of-home care, they reported that separation from siblings and deprivation of family contact was abusive and contributed to difficulties reintegrating with their family of origin when they left care. Witnesses reported emotional abuse in institutions, foster care and schools when they were deprived of affection, secure relationships and were exposed to personal denigration, fear and threats of harm.

When witnesses left care the failure to provide them with personal and family records contributed to disadvantage in later life. Many witnesses spent years searching for information to establish their identity.

The failure of authorities to inspect and supervise the care provided to children in hospitals and special needs services was noted as contributing to abuse which occurred in those facilities. The absence of structures for making complaints or investigating abuse allowed abuse to continue.

When opportunities were provided for children to disclose abuse they did so.

Witnesses reported that the power of the abuser, the culture of secrecy, isolation and the fear of physical punishment inhibited them in disclosing abuse.

Chapter 7
Recommendations

7.01Arising from the findings of its investigations and the conclusions that were reached, the Commission was required to make recommendations under two headings:

(i)To alleviate or otherwise address the effects of the abuse on those who suffered

(ii)To prevent where possible and reduce the incidence of abuse of children in institutions and to protect children from such abuse

(i) To alleviate or otherwise address the effects of the abuse on those who suffered

7.02A memorial should be erected.

The following words of the special statement made by the Taoiseach in May 1999 should be inscribed on a memorial to victims of abuse in institutions as a permanent public acknowledgement of their experiences. It is important for the alleviation of the effects of childhood abuse that the State’s formal recognition of the abuse that occurred and the suffering of the victims should be preserved in a permanent place:

On behalf of the State and of all citizens of the State, the Government wishes to make a sincere and long overdue apology to the victims of childhood abuse, for our collective failure to intervene, to detect their pain, to come to their rescue.

7.03The lessons of the past should be learned.

For the State, it is important to admit that abuse of children occurred because of failures of systems and policy, of management and administration, as well as of senior personnel who were concerned with Industrial and Reformatory Schools. This admission is, however, the beginning of a process. Further steps require internal departmental analysis and understanding of how these failures came about so that steps can be taken to reduce the risk of repeating them.

The Congregations need to examine how their ideals became debased by systemic abuse. They must ask themselves how they came to tolerate breaches of their own rules and, when sexual and physical abuse was discovered, how they responded to it, and to those who perpetrated it. They must examine their attitude to neglect and emotional abuse and, more generally, how the interests of the institutions and the Congregations came to be placed ahead those of the children who were in their care.

An important aspect of this process of exploration, acceptance and understanding by the State and the Congregations is the acknowledgement of the fact that the system failed the children, not just that children were abused because occasional individual lapses occurred.

7.04Counselling and educational services should be available.

Counselling and mental health services have a significant role in alleviating the effects of childhood abuse and its legacy on following generations. These services should continue to be provided to ex-residents and their families. Educational services to help alleviate the disadvantages experienced by children in care are also essential.

7.05Family tracing services should be continued.

Family tracing services to assist individuals who were deprived of their family identities in the process of being placed in care should be continued. The right of access to personal documents and information must be recognised and afforded to ex-residents of institutions.

(ii) To prevent where possible and reduce the incidence of abuse of children in institutions and to protect children from such abuse

7.06Childcare policy should be child-centred. The needs of the child should be paramount.

The overall policy of childcare should respect the rights and dignity of the child and have as its primary focus their safe care and welfare. Services should be tailored to the developmental, educational and health needs of the particular child. Adults entrusted with the care of children must prioritise the well-being and protection of those children above personal, professional or institutional loyalty.

7.07National childcare policy should be clearly articulated and reviewed on a regular basis.

It is essential that the aims and objectives of national childcare policy and planning should be stated as clearly and simply as possible. The State and Congregations lost sight of the purpose for which the institutions were established, which was to provide children with a safe and secure environment and an opportunity of acquiring education and training. In the absence of an articulated, coherent policy, organisational interests became prioritised over those of the children in care. In order to prevent this happening again childcare services must have focused objectives that are centred on the needs of the child rather than the systems or organisations providing those services.

7.08A method of evaluating the extent to which services meet the aims and objectives of the national childcare policy should be devised.

Evaluating the success or failure of childcare services in the context of a clearly articulated national childcare policy will ensure that the evolving needs of children will remain the focus of service providers.

7.09The provision of childcare services should be reviewed on a regular basis.

Out-of-home care services should be reviewed on a regular basis with reference to best international practice and evidence-based research. This review should be the responsibility of the Department of Health and Children and should be co-ordinated to ensure that consistent standards are maintained nationally. The Department should also maintain a central database containing information relevant to childcare in the State while protecting anonymity. Included in such a database should be the social and demographic profile of children in care, their health and educational needs, the range of preventative services available and interventions used. In addition, there should be a record of what happens to children when they leave care in order to inform future policy and planning of services. A review of legislation, policies and programmes relating to children in care should be carried out at regular intervals.

7.10It is important that rules and regulations be enforced, breaches be reported and sanctions applied.

The failures that occurred in all the schools cannot be explained by the absence of rules or any difficulty in interpreting what they meant. The problem lay in the implementation of the regulatory framework. The rules were ignored and treated as though they set some aspirational and unachievable standard that had no application to the particular circumstances of running the institution. Not only did the individual carers disregard the rules and precepts about punishment, but their superiors did not enforce the rules or impose any disciplinary measures for breaches. Neither did the Department of Education

7.11A culture of respecting and implementing rules and regulations and of observing codes of conduct should be developed.

Managers and those supervising and inspecting the services must ensure regularly that standards are observed.

7.12Independent inspections are essential.

All services for children should be subject to regular inspections in respect of all aspects of their care. The requirements of a system of inspection include the following:

There is a sufficient number of inspectors.
The inspectors must be independent.
The inspectors should talk with and listen to the children.
There should be objective national standards for inspection of all settings where children are placed.
Unannounced inspection should take place.
Complaints to an inspector should be recorded and followed up.
Inspectors should have power to ensure that inadequate standards are addressed without delay.

7.13Management at all levels should be accountable for the quality of services and care.

Performance should be assessed by the quality of care delivered. The manager of an institution should be responsible for:

Making the best use of the available resources
Vetting of staff and volunteers
Ensuring that staff are well trained, matched to the nature of the work to be undertaken and progressively trained so as to be kept up to date
Ensuring on-going supervision, support and advice for all staff
Regularly reviewing the system to identify problem areas for both staff and children
Ensuring rules and regulations are adhered to
Establishing whether system failures caused or contributed to instances of abuse
Putting procedures in place to enable staff and others to make complaints and raise matters of concern without fear of adverse consequences.

7.14Children in care should be able to communicate concerns without fear.

Children in care are often isolated with their concerns, without an adult to whom they can talk. Children communicate best when they feel they have a protective figure in whom they can confide.

The Department of Health and Children must examine international best practice to establish the most appropriate method of giving effect to this recommendation.

7.15Childcare services depend on good communication.

Every childcare facility depends for its efficient functioning on good communication between all the departments and agencies responsible. It requires more than meetings and case conferences. It should involve professionals and others communicating concerns and suspicions so that they can act in the best interests of the child. Overall responsibility for this process should rest with a designated official.

7.16Children in care need a consistent care figure.

Continuity of care should be an objective wherever possible. Children in care should have a consistent professional figure with overall responsibility.

The supervising social worker should have a detailed care plan the implementation of which should be regularly reviewed, and there should be the power to direct that changes be made to ensure standards are met. The child, and where possible the family, should be involved in developing and reviewing the care plan.

7.17Children who have been in State care should have access to support services.

Aftercare services should be provided to give young adults a support structure they can rely on. In a similar way to families, childcare services should continue contact with young people after they have left care as minors.

7.18Children who have been in childcare facilities are in a good position to identify failings and deficiencies in the system, and should be consulted.

Continued contact makes it possible to evaluate whether the needs of children are being met and to identify positive and negative aspects of experience of care.

7.19Children in care should not, save in exceptional circumstances, be cut off from their families.

Priority should be given to supporting ongoing contact with family members for the benefit of the child.

7.20The full personal records of children in care must be maintained.

Reports, files and records essential to validate the child’s identity and their social, family and educational history must be retained. These records need to be kept secure and up to date. Details should be kept of all children who go missing from care. The privacy of such records must be respected.

7.21‘Children First: The National Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of Children’ should be uniformly and consistently implemented throughout the State in dealing with allegations of abuse.

Leave a comment
Comments 0

rapevictimsofthecatholicchurch

Roman Catholic Church Child Abuse

Ireland’s Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Volume Four

Chapter 1 Department of Education

Part 1 The functions of the Department

Introduction

Part 2 The structure of the Department of Education

The Reformatory and Industrial School Branch

Schools’ dominance over the Department

Part 3 Departments of Health and Justice

Differences in attitude between the Departments of Education and Health – ‘boarding out’

Reasons for the different attitudes of Health and Education

The Department of Justice

Part 4 The Cussen Commission

Cussen on Resident Manager

Lenaboy Girls Industrial School, Sisters of Mercy Salthill, Galway

St Michael’s Cappoquin, Sisters of Mercy, Waterford

Smaller schools

Lack of educational qualifications

Education in the Reformatories and Industrial Schools

Literary instruction

Differing needs of the residents: children with intellectual disabilities

Post-primary education in Industrial Schools

Applications for extension of detention

Cussen recommendations on training

Post-Cussen

The Cussen recommendations on aftercare

Post-Cussen

Part 5 The inspection system

General inspections

Medical inspections

Frequency of inspections

Other limitation on the inspections

One-off inspections

Kennedy on inspections

Diet and nutrition in the schools

Dr McCabe and the Managers

Corporal punishment

Punishment book

Dr McCabe’s illness

Part 6 Innovations and Improvements

Structural reforms

Closure

Part 7 The beginnings of change

Reports and other indicators

(1) OECD Report

(2) The Commission on Mental Handicap

(3) The Inter-Departmental Committee on Crime Prevention and Treatment of Offenders

(4) The Tuairim Report

(5) A play at the Abbey Theatre

The Kennedy Report

Kennedy’s recommendations

Part 8 The Department’s handling of complaints

Complaints from parents and members of the public

Enforcement

Part 9 Missing files

Introduction

Archival and discovery reports

(1) 27,000 missing pupil files

(2) Incomplete and early discharge files

(3) The Kennedy working papers

(4) Material separately held in safe storage within the Department

(5) Incident books

(6) Precedent books

(7) Miscellaneous files one would expect to find

Sex abuse files

Mr Brander and TN030

Renmore

St Joseph’s Cabra

Lota missing files

Concluding comment

Could the government have done more to make the schools better run?

Chapter 2 Finance

Historical background: the capitation grant system

The basic cost of keeping a child in an industrial school

The request for accounts in 1945

The request for accounts in 1947

The request for accounts in 1951

The request for accounts in 1954

The process for increases in the capitation grant

Chapter 1
Department of Education

Chapter 2
Finance

Appendix
Review of Financial Matters relating to the system of the Reformatory and Industrial Schools, and a number of individual institutions 1939–69 (30th November 2007)