Chapter 11 — Glin

Neglect and emotional abuse

In respect of education, it was pointed out that, from 1952 onwards, small numbers of boys in each year attended outside secondary school or vocational school.

The Congregation conceded in regard to vocational training: As regards the standards reached in the Shops, it is doubtful if it went much beyond repairs and mending ... However, judging by the very poor record of placement of boys in boot-making and tailoring the skills most of the boys had to offer were not very considerable.

The Congregation contended that the Medical Inspection Reports were also favourable, that the medical records were well kept, and that the local doctor visited the School regularly. On the subject of dental treatment, they suggested that the number of boys referred for treatment was quite low. Quoting the Medical Reports, therefore, the general picture was one of compliance with the standards set out by Dr McCabe, who was satisfied when the School met with her requirements and was also very appreciative of Managers’ efforts to improve conditions for the residents. Healthcare was satisfactory, as recorded in the documents that are available. Similarly, hygiene was satisfactory. There are, however, very critical entries in the reports, particularly the Visitation Reports as disclosed.

The Congregation Submission was selective when referring to the available documentation, making no reference, for example, to significant criticisms in its own Visitation Reports.

There was a marked contrast between the Christian Brothers’ Visitation Reports and the Department of Education Inspection Reports. The former were more in-depth and thorough, whereas the latter tended to be more cursory. The Visitation Reports were consistently critical of the dilapidated state of the School, and concerns about the damp walls in the dormitories, the atrocious state of the lavatories and the treacherous state of the schoolyard were expressed. Dr McCabe also made reference to these issues but not with the same sense of urgency. She did not make any reference to the effect that such sub-standard facilities might have on the children.

In some Visitation Reports, when the Brothers noted the shabby state of the boys’ clothing, no corresponding comment was made by Dr McCabe. When she did note that the boys’ clothing was tattered and patched, she did not press the matter or make suggestions as to how shortages in supplies could be addressed.

The Brothers conceded in the Visitation Report of 1948 that there was little in the way of stimulating recreational facilities for the boys, but this was not an issue raised by Dr McCabe.

The standard of education was another area where there were conflicting reports. The Visitation Reports were very negative about the standard of education and trades training in the School. It was not an issue that came within Dr McCabe’s remit, but the Department’s Education Inspector made a favourable report on the School and did not pick up on the criticisms of the Visitors.

The limited trades available were dictated by the requirements of the School, rather than the kind of training needed to prepare the boys for work. A number of Visitation Reports pointed out that these trades were effectively useless to the boys upon leaving the Institution. Boys were ill-prepared for the outside world: they did not fare well after being discharged and often tended to drift from job to job before ending up in England or joining the Army.

Dr McCabe’s Inspection Reports, particularly in later years, would suggest that the inspections were not particularly probing, and were, in many respects, superficial. In areas where she did make criticisms, she did not tend to suggest practical solutions to the problems.

A comparison of both the Department and Visitation Reports suggests that the Visitation Reports provided a more reliable source of information about conditions in the School.

General conclusions

General conclusions 1. Glin had a severe, systemic regime of corporal punishment. 2. The Congregation transferred two Brothers to Glin, despite evidence or suspicion of sexually abusing boys in another Institution under the control of the Christian Brothers. This decision protected both the Congregation and the Brothers but endangered the boys in Glin. 3. Documentary sources revealed serious deficiencies in the physical care, facilities, accommodation, education, training and aftercare in Glin Industrial School. 4. Problems affecting the standard of care in Glin persisted, despite being reported by both the Congregation’s Visitor and the Department of Education Inspectors. 5. Glin Industrial School failed in its fundamental requirement to provide care, education and training for the boys. 6. The Department of Education failed in its supervisory duties. Its role was protective of the institution and its response to serious complaints was cursory and dismissive.