Chapter 11 — Glin

Neglect and emotional abuse

According to the Dunleavy Report, aftercare beyond one year was provided to boys as follows:

Years	Boys receiving more than 1 year aftercare	%
1940–1947	68	18%
1947–1966	61	15%

It is likely that most of these boys were discharged to places of employment, and had no relatives to look after them. The Brother in charge of aftercare made notes on pay, living conditions and contentedness of the boy.

Records were kept of the kinds of employment found for the boys. The following table taken from the Dunleavy Report covers the period:

Employment	1940–1947	1947–1966	Total
Farm boy	87	76	163
House boy	21	43	64
Hotel worker	10	16	26
Boot maker*	7	3	10
Shop boy	5	1	6
Tailor*	4	1	5
Religious order*		3	3
Cook*		2	2
Builders labourer	1	1	2
Blacksmith*	1		1
Monumental sculptor*		1	1
Subtotal	136	147	283

89% of the boys went into unskilled work on farms, or as houseboys or hotel workers. 16 boys between 1947 and 1966 went on to join the Army. A further 14 were charged with criminal offences.

The Congregation in its Submissions made the point that trade unions had made it difficult for boys to enter trades. However, a number of Visitation Reports pointed out that the limited trades taught were effectively useless to the boys upon leaving the Institution, as they were dictated by the requirements of the School rather than the kind of training that would prepare the boys for work.

The Submissions made by the Congregation on issues of neglect of the boys in Glin drew attention first to the General Inspection Reports of the Department of Education, which it stated were generally very favourable. It said that the process of inspection as carried out by Dr Anna McCabe was thorough and had good follow-up. At the end of each inspection, Dr McCabe made recommendations orally to the Manager of the School, which were then followed up by a letter from the Department, formally listing the recommendations. The process came to a close with a letter of confirmation from the Manager that the required alterations and improvements had been made. The Congregation contend that the Resident Manager responded promptly to the Department’s requirements, following both General Inspection Reports and Medical Inspection Reports. The reality, however, is that the Department Inspections were a good deal less effective than the Congregation’s description would suggest.

The Congregation also drew attention to favourable entries in the Visitation Reports. They included the statement in 1946 that the boys were well clothed and fed, and in 1949 and 1950 there were favourable comments about the variety and quantity of food.

The Submissions pointed out that Inspection Reports recorded improvements in recreational and cultural facilities, as well as holiday arrangements, from the end of the 1940s. Visitation Reports and Community annals also reported the provision of a variety of facilities. As against that, the Reports which were quoted at paras 1.147 and 1.149 above drew attention to the lack of recreation for the boys in Glin and that life was tedious for them.

The Brothers cited documentary records, indicating the availability of cultural and sporting activities. These included a choir, dancing classes, an orchestra, drama and boxing.

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.