Chapter 13 — Special needs schools and residential services

Sexual abuse

Two (2) Brothers were identified by name as sexually abusive by six separate witnesses and three other Brothers were each identified by name by two separate witnesses. A further 14 other religious and lay staff were each the subject of single reports of sexual abuse.

The following table lists the number of named and unnamed sexual abusers, by their reported position:

Position of reported sexual abusers	Males	Females
Religious
- Authority figure	1	0
- Care staff	16	0
- Teacher	1	0
- Ancillary workers	1	0
- External clergy	1	0
Lay
- Care staff	1	1
- Ancillary worker	6	1
Visiting professional	1	0
Weekend or holiday placement carer	1	0
Volunteer worker	1	0
General public	1	0
Co-resident	23	4
Total	54	6

Twelve (12) witnesses identified 16 co-residents by name as sexually abusive. One co-resident was identified by name by three witnesses. There were a further 11 reports of sexual abuse by co-residents who were not named. In five instances witnesses reported being frequently sexually abused by co-residents over a period of years. As with staff members, there may be some overlap between those co-residents who were named as abusers and those who were not specifically named.

Those reported as sexually abusive included three groups of male co-residents who were described as threatening and physically intimidating in addition to being sexually abusive. Two (2) witnesses described being assaulted by groups of co-residents who restrained them and subjected them to penetration by objects. As witness information regarding the precise numbers of abusive co-residents is incomplete the numbers reported above could be considered an under-representation.

In addition to staff members and co-residents who were reported as sexual abusers there were five witness reports of sexual abuse being perpetrated by the following male adults who were external to the institution: a visiting GP, a chaplain, a father in a ‘holiday’ family, a male member of the public, and a volunteer worker who took residents out to the cinema. There was a man ... (member of the public)... he used to watch me, he was always a bit of a loner. ... He came across me one day when I was alone and he invited me into ... (the)... shed and he started touching me. It happened on 3 occasions. He wasn’t part of the staff but he used to use the facilities. To begin with he used to just touch me, then he removed my clothes. ... There was a dirty mattress and he pushed me down and he got on top of me, he was pushing himself up and down on top of me, he had his clothes off. I didn’t really understand what he was doing. • When I was taken out... (by holiday family)... I was abused, I was sexually abused, it was a man... (father in holiday family).... I was sent out nearly every weekend and holidays and it went on for years and years of my life...distressed...I can’t get over it, it just gets to me. I was 7 years of age.

Neglect

Failure to care for the child which results, or could reasonably be expected to result, in serious impairment of the physical or mental health or development of the child or serious adverse effects on his or her behaviour or welfare.7 This section summarises witness accounts of general neglect. Descriptions of neglect refer to all aspects of the physical, social and emotional care and welfare of the witnesses. It also describes other forms of neglect that are regarded as having a negative impact on the individual’s emotional health and development, for example failure to protect from harm, to educate and to adequately supervise.

There were 25 reports of neglect heard by the Committee from 13 male and 12 female witnesses in relation to 11 special needs schools; three of the schools were the subject of reports by both male and female witnesses. Sixteen (16) reports were related to witnesses’ experiences in schools for children with sensory impairments. Six (6) schools were the subject of between two and seven reports, totalling 20 reports. Five (5) schools were each the subject of single reports.

The forms of neglect reported to the Committee included inadequate education and training, poor and insufficient food, poor hygiene, lack of recreational activities and inadequate supervision.

Eleven (11) witnesses identified poor supervision as a source of neglect in the schools where they were placed. One witness described being sexually abused by a member of religious staff at night in his bed although a Brother had supervisory duties in the dormitory and ‘was there in a flash if you whispered to another boy’. Nine (9) witnesses, both male and female, reported being physically and sexually abused by staff and co-residents in circumstances where there was no effective supervision. Witnesses also reported being abused by groups of co-residents in circumstances where there was no available protection and where older residents had unsupervised access to younger, vulnerable residents.

Witnesses described making various attempts to protect themselves or seek protection from others. One witness who was sexually abused by a co-resident was separated from the abusive co-resident by care staff to whom he had disclosed the abuse. This resulted in an improvement in his situation until the following year when there was a change of staff and he was once again placed in proximity to the person who had previously abused him. He was once again abused on a regular basis for some time by that person. Another witness reported being repeatedly sent to a holiday family where she was sexually abused, despite her protests that she did not want to return there. She believed that staff should have responded to her indications that she was unhappy although she felt unable to articulate that she was being sexually abused.

Fourteen (14) witnesses reported inadequate education as their main form of neglect. They gave examples of educational disadvantage caused by being made to work instead of attending school. Witnesses reported that in schools for children with sensory impairments classwork was primarily focussed on using disability aids, such as hearing aids, speech and vocalisation aids and touch text for those with sight impairments. Most of the 14 witnesses reported that their education was impeded by fear of physical abuse in the classroom. The inspectors would come in, but they ...(teachers)... generally knew when they were coming. ... Everything was lovely, the stick would be put away, out of sight.

Three (3) witnesses reported that their sensory impairment was not recognised and they were inappropriately placed in schools for learning disabled children where their educational needs were neglected.

Witnesses with sensory, physical and intellectual disabilities commented on the accompanying communication difficulties they experienced. Deaf witnesses described the distress they endured when forced to communicate through speech instead of sign language and the considerable time and effort that was devoted to teaching them Oralism while forbidding any other form of communication: They were treating me like a stupid ...child... because I didn’t learn properly. I was very intelligent when I was small, I was very quick at picking up things through sign but I couldn’t learn through oralism, I was very, very low, my confidence was gone, my self-esteem was gone. I was very, very disappointed with myself, because I couldn’t learn through oralism, and then they would hit you if you didn’t understand and so we pretended to understand to avoid being hit all the time.

Witnesses with intellectual disabilities repeatedly commented on the fact that ‘nobody explained anything’ as a result of which they did not understand what they were supposed to do and at times why they were being punished or abused. Witnesses with sight and physical disabilities commented that they were treated as if they were deaf, that staff frequently spoke about them as if they were not there and that nobody ever asked them for their opinion.

In addition to the reports of inadequate classroom education five witnesses reported that the education and training offered in the workshops attached to the schools did not prepare them for independent living following their discharge. The lack of preparation for independent living was reported as abusive. They commented on the traumatic impact of being discharged from the shelter of residential settings without any aftercare or follow up: (Discharge preparation)...didn’t give us a great start, the best of us got through, if you had a strong character and if you came from a strong family home, that would support you but if you didn’t have that going for you, you kind of fell into a survival method.