- Volume 1
- Volume 2
-
Volume 3
- Introduction
- Methodology
- Social and demographic profile of witnesses
- Circumstances of admission
- Family contact
- Everyday life experiences (male witnesses)
- Record of abuse (male witnesses)
- Everyday life experiences (female witnesses)
- Record of abuse (female witnesses)
- Positive memories and experiences
- Current circumstances
- Introduction to Part 2
- Special needs schools and residential services
- Children’s Homes
- Foster care
- Hospitals
- Primary and second-level schools
- Residential Laundries, Novitiates, Hostels and other settings
- Concluding comments
- Volume 4
Chapter 2 — Finance
BackValue of work done by the Order
According to the accounts furnished by the Order, 10 percent of the total income received by the institution was paid to the Order by way of stipends or direct payment to the Province20. If the figure suggested by Goodbody’s for food and accommodation was added to that, a total of €251,000 was used by the Order out of the capitation grant, which represented approximately 1/3rd of all income21.
An important added factor is that Daingean accommodated a large number of retired priests who had little or no contact with the school. A former Resident Manager of the Order was asked about this at hearing. It was pointed out to him that of the five priests listed in Daingean, only one appeared to have direct involvement with the school, and he said in respect of the other four: They were there for different purposes. It would often give a choice of say confessor for a boy.
A former Resident Manager said that one priest was interested in arts and crafts and another in music and that they involved themselves in those activities.
Of the 19 Brothers, only six or seven appeared to be involved with the school and the former Resident Manager mentioned a number of Brothers who were retired and still living in the Community and still receiving stipends.
He confirmed that in addition to these stipends, a levy was paid to the Province to pay for the training of new members. You see every community was expected to make some contribution to the central fund because men had to be provided and trained and things like that and this was common enough.
He had a difficulty with this because he ceased paying this contribution in the 1960s when he became Manager:
Mazars observed: The Industrial and Reformatory Schooling system during the period under review did not provide for payment by the State, of salaries of those employed in the running of the institutions. The matter of salaries would not appear to be a matter which was raised by the Order at the time they ran the Reformatory in Daingean. Rather they appeared to accept the responsibility of managing the Reformatory and, in so doing, participated in the system as it prevailed at that time.22
The analysis by Goodbody’s was designed to show that the Order had not profited from the operation of Daingean Reformatory but it actually illustrated the lack of clarity around the ‘voluntary’ or ‘charitable’ nature of the work. Whilst it may be an interesting exercise to calculate the money that could have been paid to religious for the work done, the fact is this was not the understanding at the time. This school was a charitable venture undertaken by a religious Order in pursuance of its mission and was supported in that by the State.
In their response to the Mazars report, the Rosminians stated: Whilst the Rosminians had a certain desire for autonomy in the operation of their Schools, it was not for the sake of protection of property as such, it was to preserve independence in undertaking charitable works. This was the nature of the support by the religious which the State undertook. ....The religious were used because they could be relied upon to act on the basis of charity and because they were the largest supplier of social service/welfare in the Country. As they provided a service on trust, their claim to be struggling should have been taken more seriously.
This goes to the core of the matter – the Congregations were on trust but were not willing to reciprocate this trust by being transparent in their dealings with the State. There was no attempt to identify institutions that, because of their size or their lack of a farm or even the age profile of their pupils, would have been genuinely struggling to make ends meet. The Resident Managers’ Association, dominated as it was by Managers from the large senior boys’ schools, had no real interest in disclosing how they spent the capitation and therefore smaller schools that had a genuine case were not heard.
In the module on Goldenbridge, Sr Xaveria stated that prior to the appointment of Sr Bernadine in 1943, the capitation grant was paid to the convent and an allowance was then given to the Sisters who were engaged in the running of the school. Although that practice stopped, the few financial accounts that survived showed significant payments to Carysfort Mother House and to the reverend mother: The accounts of Carysfort Mother House indicate payments received between 1939 and 1954 on a monthly basis totalling between approximately €5000 and €9000 per annum described as ‘National Education Goldenbridge’. The Carysfort accounts indicate payments totalling between approximately €1000 and €5000 per annum to the Goldenbridge Convent and Goldenbridge school expenses. The source of the income is not clear nor is the extent to which the payments related to wages. It is also not clear how much of this income, or expenditure, relates to the industrial school, rather than the adjacent national school.23
Mazars also noted a payment of £90 per month to the reverend mother but were unable to say what this payment represented because of a lack of information.
The Sisters of Mercy did not offer any explanation for these payments, but they did not suggest that in assessing the capitation grant adequacy, monetary value should be placed on the work of the Sisters in Goldenbridge.
Conclusions
The extent to which money was paid out of capitation to the Congregation varied from school to school. Although it may not have represented a full wage for some of the work done, when added to the living expenses provided by the school to the religious staff, it amounted to a significant payment for this work.
The submission by two of the Congregations that attempted to place a monetary value on the work of their religious did not address the charitable nature of the undertaking.
Footnotes
- Quoted in D of E submission, pp 103-4.
- Report of Commission of Inquiry into the Reformatory and Industrial School System, 1934-36, paras 165-7.
- These reforms are explained in a cogent six page Minute of 14th March 1944 written by the Department (Ó Dubhthaigh, Leas Runai) to the Runai, Department of Finance. The Minute also questioned the certification system’s legality:
- There is no justification for the ‘Certificate’ system. The Children Acts, 1908 to 1941, lay down the circumstances in which children may be committed to industrial schools. The Courts commit children to them in accordance with these Acts. At this stage the Certificate system operates inconsistently to allow payment of the State Grant on some of the children so committed and to forbid it on others. There seems to be no reason for the State’s failure to contribute to the support of some arbitrary number of those children. No such distinction is made, for instance, in the case of youthful offenders committed to Reformatories under the same Acts or of people sent to jail. If the purpose is to limit the number of children to which the Children Acts may apply, its legality is questionable.
- Memo of 4th April 1951 from M O’Siochfradha states:
- In all cases the actual accommodation limit was greater than the certified number and in many cases it was considerably greater viz., Glin – accommodation 220, certified number 190; Letterfrack, accommodation 190, certified number 165; Artane, accommodation 830, certified number 800.
- See also Education Statement, para 3.2.
- At certain periods (e.g. 1940s) anxious consideration was given to the question of how many places to certify – whether to raise or lower the previous year’s figure or to leave it the same. Among the factors weighing with the person taking the decision (usually there was a significant contribution from Dr McCabe) was: the numbers of committals anticipated; the suitability of the schools (e.g. accessibility from Dublin); the need to assist small schools with disproportionately high overheads; a desire to avoid creating jealousy among the schools.
- Data provided by Mazars indicates that a single man at the lowest point of the salary scale was paid £145 in 1944.
- Appendices to the Mazars’ Report are included on the Commissions website (www.childabusecommission.ie)
- Mazars, Part 4.1.
- Mazars, Part 4.2.3.
- Section 44 of the Children Act 1908.
- Mazars, Part 4.2.3.
- Mazars, Part 4.3.1.
- Mazars, Part 4.3.1.
- Mazars, Part 4.3.1.
- Mazars, Part 4.4.2.
- Mazars, Part 4.4.3.
- Mazars, Part 4.4.4.
- Mazars, Part 4.4.4.
- Mazars ‘Analysis of Stipends in Lieu of Salaries & Teachers’ Pay, March 2008’.
- Mazars, Part 8.2.
- That is approx £69,000 out of a total of £726,881.
- That is £251,000 out of £726,881.
- Mazars, Part 8.2.
- Mazars, Part 7.2.
- Mazars, Part 5.1.
- Mazars, Part 5.1.
- Mazars, Part 5.2.
- Mazars, Part 5.2.
- Mazars, Part 5.2.
- Mazars, Part 5.2.
- Mazars, Part 5.4.
- Submission of the Christian Brothers on the Review of Financial Matters Relating to the System of the Reformatory and Industrial Schools, and a Number of Individual Institutions 1939 to 1969 - Appendices to the Mazars’ Report are included on the Commissions website (www.childabusecommission.ie).
- Ciaran Fahy Report: see Vol I, ch 7, Appendix.
- Mazars, Part 7.2.
- Mazars, Part 7.2.
- Mazars, Part 7.2.
- Mazars, Part 7.2.
- Mazars, Part 7.2.
- Mazars, Part 7.4.
- Mazars, Part 8.2.
- Mazars, Part 8.2.
- Mazars, Part 8.2.
- Mazars, Part 8.2.
- Mazars, Part 8.4.
- Mazars, Part 6.4.
- Mazars, Part 6.4.
- Mazars, Part 6.4.
- Rosminian Final Submissions, p 13.
- Rosminian Final Submissions, pp 13-14.
- Rosminian Final Submissions, p 17.
- Rosminian Final Submissions, pp 17-18. Cf p 19.
- Rosminian Final Submissions, p 19.
- Rosminian Final Submissions, p 17.
- Rosminian Final Submissions, p 20.
- Rosminian Final Submissions, p 22.
- Rosminian Final Submissions, p 23.
- Mazars, Part 9.2.
- Rosminian Final Submissions, p 15.