Chapter 8 — Letterfrack

Neglect

Team games did not appear to have been a significant feature of life in Letterfrack although, from the late 1950s, there were occasional references to boys entering handball and boxing competitions.

A film projector was installed in the school hall in 1948. From that year onwards, films were shown, although one Visitor expressed reservations at temporarily professed Brothers attending such performances: Whatever about the desirability of providing such entertainment for the boys and the people of the district, I think that the young brothers of T[emporary] P[rofession] should not be allowed to attend.

Despite the injunction against interaction with seculars, the local people appeared to be quite an important part of the life of the School, and attended functions there regularly.

According to the Opening Statement from the Congregation, when the time came for the boys to be released, they were either sent to parents or relatives, or to employers in a variety of trades and occupations. The Congregation submit that the work secured was usually directly related to the range of trades taught in the Institution.

1,356 boys were admitted and discharged between 1940 and 1974: 869 were discharged to relatives, 3 to hospital and 38 absconded; 131 were transferred to other institutions; and the balance of 318 to employment. Almost one-third of those went as farm workers.

The Congregation submitted that the provision of aftercare was a continual source of concern to the Provincial and Resident Managers over the years but, despite the suggestions and solutions put forward, all foundered on the twin rocks of lack of funding and manpower.

In its Final Submission the Congregation contended that aftercare, like trades, was another matter which the complainants did not wish to focus on. They submitted that there was no evidence to support a finding that the Congregation routinely placed boys in unsuitable or inappropriate employment.

The Children Act, 1908 specified that children committed to an industrial school remained up to the age of 18 under the supervision of the managers of the School. Children who were returned to parents or relatives no longer remained the responsibility of the Resident Manager. In the case of Letterfrack, therefore, over a 34-year period, the numbers for whom aftercare was required were relatively small – they averaged out at between nine and 10 per year. While in Artane and Glin a Brother undertook the work of visiting former pupils on a regular basis, in Letterfrack the position appears to have been that the Superior assumed the responsibility for aftercare, as there was no particular member of staff assigned to this task. The system was that application was made to the School by tradesmen or farmers who, if deemed suitable, would be assigned a boy for employment. The School did not actively seek employment for the boys. This would explain why the vast majority of boys ended up as farm workers, houseboys, or hotel staff. This was confirmed by ex-staff members in their interviews with Mr Bernard Dunleavy, who identified the lack of a dedicated staff member to look after past pupils as a serious flaw in the system.

The Congregation acknowledged that ‘without the allocation of a Brother to look after this aspect of the Institution’s duties, Letterfrack could not have been as effective in this area as other schools were’.

The boys of Letterfrack were especially vulnerable because they had been uprooted from their backgrounds and had spent years in a remote, inhospitable part of Ireland. Many were then returned to a city environment and were left without any support to help them make the adjustment.

Emotional abuse

The Congregation accepted that, for much of its existence, the School failed to cater for the emotional development of the child: They (the staff) were doing their best, thinking that this is the best, and in fact it says often there, they did the best they could under the circumstances but didn’t realise all the emotional needs that were there at the time and that they couldn’t fulfill them given the structure.

The Congregation submits that the emphasis of the School was on the physical care and well-being of the children. There was little understanding of the emotional impact of residential care on children, in particular the effect of separation from home and family. Staff did not receive childcare training. Indeed, the Congregation noted that, for much of the period under review, no such training was available. It was not until the late 1960s that the emotional needs of the children began to be understood and catered for. They accepted that the Cussen Report had highlighted the need for appropriate emotional care in the 1930s. However, they stated that this was impossible to achieve in Letterfrack. The high pupil-staff ratio and the necessity of maintaining a high level of discipline to ensure order meant that the individual needs of the children could not be catered for. However, they stressed that this state of affairs was due to a lack of resources and, therefore, was the fault of the State not the Congregation.

The physical location of the School was not conducive to ensuring that the emotional needs of the children were met. In the 1940s and 1950s, travelling to the School was difficult and out of the financial reach of most of the parents whose children were committed to the school. It was understandable, therefore, that small children with little understanding of these difficulties could feel abandoned. One complainant summarised the feeling of isolation well: The only contact we had was a letter and every letter sent home had to be a good letter. Every letter that was sent home you had to be having a great time, they were learning you how to swim, they were learning you how to play football, they were learning you how to play this. Everything had to be good before you got the letter sent out. If you sent a wrong letter, that you were after hurting yourself, they would tell you out straight you wouldn’t be able to send another letter home for two months because you shouldn’t have put that in the letter.

Br Francois, who was present in the late 1950s and early 1960s, described it as an isolating, frightening place with poor facilities for the boys.

Br Telfour said its location was bleak and isolated, and he felt he was transferred there because he had missed some of his early morning calls in another school.