Chapter 15 — Daingean

Introduction

In their Opening Statement, the Oblates stated that, by the 1960s, many of the staff were ‘growing old and falling sick’. In January 1966, in a report for the General Chapter, the Provincial noted that only nine active members of staff were expected to cater at all times, from 7:00 in the morning until 10:30 at night, seven days a week. The average age of these men was over 40, and the strain was evident by the fact that six Brothers in five years had suffered nervous breakdowns.

In their Opening Statement, the Oblates set out the categories of boy who came to be sent to Daingean. The overwhelming majority of the pupils were ‘young offenders’, whose ages ranged from 12 to 18 years.

Daingean was also used as a place of remand but there were only 12 remand places at any time. Unlike industrial schools, Daingean had insignificant numbers of ‘voluntary’ pupils admitted who were not supported by the State. The Oblates provided statistics relating to the pupils in the School and the following figures for the age spread and numbers of pupils in the School in Daingean:

Period	Total presences at end of school year	Average per annum
1941–1949 = 9 years	1,947	216.3
1950–1959 = 10 years	1,589	158.9
1960–1969 = 10 years	1,550	155.0
1970–1973 = 4 years	189	47.2
Total = 33 years	5,275	159.8

Age spread in a sample year in the 1960s was:

%	Age
6%	13 years +
11%	14 years +
31%	15 years +
35%	16 years +
15%	17 years +
2%	18 years +

The following Table is based on Department of Education Records and shows the offences committed by a total of 87 pupils, which led to their detention in Daingean in 1955–1956:

Grounds for committal	Number committed
Larceny and receiving	28
Shop/House breaking	49
Arson	1
Indecent assault	2
Burglary	2
Common assault	2
Others	3

The Oblates stated that the typical social class of the pupil in their school was urban working class. The boys were mainly from the larger Irish cities of Dublin, Cork and Limerick. The levels of literacy among the boys committed were significantly lower in a sample of boys compared with a normal national school. Of the complainants who gave evidence to the Committee, many ended up in Daingean for trivial offences that owed more to poverty than criminality, particularly those admitted under the first two categories set out above. The urban-rural divide

In an article entitled ‘The Juvenile Offender’ written in 1963 the author, James O’Connor, wrote: The offences which merit committal to Daingean vary from court to court, but more particularly from city to country. In Dublin a boy might have eight or nine previous convictions before he receives a reformatory sentence, whereas in the country he may have committed his first offence.

Fr Luca also wrote about the urban-rural divide in the School and the differences and difficulties this presented to the school authorities. Most of the boys in the School came from an urban background. Fr Luca stated that the rural boys were more difficult to deal with than even the toughest boy from the city. He stated that, for a rural boy to be sent to Daingean, he must have done something ‘very radically wrong’: A boy or girl who seriously offended would be regarded as sort of social outcasts, they would be marked as people not fit to be in that area.

He also stated, somewhat contradictorily, that the District Justices in the country wanted to stamp out crime problems in their area and therefore if a country boy offended he was sent straight to Daingean immediately. The city court Judges tended to avail of the Probation Act more often and gave the offenders numerous chances.

Daingean did not receive boys who were guilty of non-attendance at school.

In their Opening Statement the Oblates referred to a particular issue, which they considered especially relevant to this inquiry. The issue was how the system failed to meet the special needs of some of the pupils.

The Oblates identified two types of pupils: those who ‘... were in no frame of mind to respond to its programme for whatever reasons. These had needs that were not compatible with the School’s ethos’, and those who ‘should not have been sent to the school because their capacity to respond was limited through psychological or educational difficulties that called for a specialist approach that the school did not have’.

The Oblates, in other words, acknowledged that the Institution failed to provide for the special needs of the vast majority of its pupils.

The Resident Manager in the 1960s explicitly referred to the situation he was faced with as ‘unjust’ to the pupils, but it was clear that the regime in Daingean was incapable of responding to individual needs.

Severely psychiatrically disturbed children also ended up in Daingean, and these children could not have been properly looked after by the reformatory system. The Oblates were correct in stating that these children were let down by the State, which failed to provide specialist facilities.