Explore the Ryan Report

themes
Themes

People
themes
Places
themes
Executive Summary
themes
Contents
themes

Search the Ryan Report

Refine your search
Close

Chapter 2 — Finance

Back
Show Contents

Adequacy of funding

122

In 1960, the Visitor remarked: The financial position of the establishment is not too sound but if the numbers can be maintained about their present level [110] the place could carry on.

123

That forecast proved correct. In 1962 the Visitor observed: One wonders why the financial position of this house is not bad considering all the repairs and renovations which have been carried out during the past four years. If the various County Councils pay up their portion of the contribution due, the house should be solvent at the end of the year.

124

The financial situation was described as ‘sound’ in 1962 and ‘by no means bad’ in 1964. By 1972, the Visitor could state: Both house and school are in good financial condition. On December 30 1972, there was a balance of 12,000 pounds in the house accounts and of 15,000 pounds in the school account.

125

Letterfrack closed the following year.

126

These extracts from the Congregations’ Visitors do not indicate a chronic shortage of funds in Letterfrack. The shortage that was encountered by the reduction in numbers appears to have been quickly made up. Letterfrack, like all Industrial Schools, was largely dependent on the capitation allowance and it appears that even at a time of reduced numbers, this was sufficient to generate a substantial surplus by 1972.

127

In 1940, the Visitor to Tralee Industrial School made the following observation arising out of the separation of the Industrial School, St Joseph’s, from the larger Community of Brothers who lived in the adjoining monastery of St Mary’s: The only debt on the establishment is the sum of £600 due to St Mary’s Tralee. At the time the two Communities were separated it was arranged that St Joseph’s should contribute to St Mary’s £600 annually to help towards liquidating the debt on the new secondary school. This sum has been paid regularly up to 1938 but has not been paid for the year 1939.

128

In 1938, the total school grants to St Joseph’s amounted to £2,616 and £600 was a substantial portion of that. St Mary’s Secondary school was a completely separate institution and none of the boys from St Joseph’s attended it.

129

By 1941, the Visitor could state that although the school had operated at a deficit for that year: As the school has now a full enrolment, its income for the year will be at least £1000 higher than it was for last year. Hence the establishment is financially sound.

130

Throughout the 1940s, the school operated at a deficit although it did engage in considerable improvements during that time including the construction of a new chapel.

131

In 1953, the school acquired extra farm land for £3,000, which would appear to have been paid for out of the school funds. For most of the 1950s, the school account showed a debit balance whilst the house accounts showed a credit balance. In the latter part of the 1960s, the school began showing a surplus and by 1969 the Visitor described the finances as ‘very sound’.

132

Tralee was a small industrial school by Christian Brothers’ standards with a population of just over 100 during the 1950s. It had a small farm of no more than 60 acres and the school struggled to break even. The house, which received its income from stipends paid to the Brothers, had a steady surplus throughout the period and by 1966, there was £8,000 invested in the building fund.

133

Tralee illustrated the impact of low numbers and a small farm on the ability of a school to remain solvent.

134

These extracts from Visitation Reports are selective and out of context and are not intended to establish the particular facts about finance in the schools but rather to demonstrate the complexity of the issue and the background to the brief to Mazars.

135

Details of the building fund were furnished by the Christian Brothers between July 2007 and February 2008.

136

The Congregation stated The Building Fund consisted of monies which were forwarded to the Provincial Councils by communities for use in refurbishing existing schools and building new schools. A Community submitted excess funds to the Building Fund, which funds could be called on for refurbishments and/or erections of new buildings.

Footnotes
  1. Quoted in D of E submission, pp 103-4.
  2. Report of Commission of Inquiry into the Reformatory and Industrial School System, 1934-36, paras 165-7.
  3. 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:
  4. 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.
  5. Memo of 4th April 1951 from M O’Siochfradha states:
  6. 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.
  7. See also Education Statement, para 3.2.
  8. 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.
  9. Data provided by Mazars indicates that a single man at the lowest point of the salary scale was paid £145 in 1944.
  10. Appendices to the Mazars’ Report are included on the Commissions website (www.childabusecommission.ie)
  11. Mazars, Part 4.1.
  12. Mazars, Part 4.2.3.
  13. Section 44 of the Children Act 1908.
  14. Mazars, Part 4.2.3.
  15. Mazars, Part 4.3.1.
  16. Mazars, Part 4.3.1.
  17. Mazars, Part 4.3.1.
  18. Mazars, Part 4.4.2.
  19. Mazars, Part 4.4.3.
  20. Mazars, Part 4.4.4.
  21. Mazars, Part 4.4.4.
  22. Mazars ‘Analysis of Stipends in Lieu of Salaries & Teachers’ Pay, March 2008’.
  23. Mazars, Part 8.2.
  24. That is approx £69,000 out of a total of £726,881.
  25. That is £251,000 out of £726,881.
  26. Mazars, Part 8.2.
  27. Mazars, Part 7.2.
  28. Mazars, Part 5.1.
  29. Mazars, Part 5.1.
  30. Mazars, Part 5.2.
  31. Mazars, Part 5.2.
  32. Mazars, Part 5.2.
  33. Mazars, Part 5.2.
  34. Mazars, Part 5.4.
  35. 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).
  36. Ciaran Fahy Report: see Vol I, ch 7, Appendix.
  37. Mazars, Part 7.2.
  38. Mazars, Part 7.2.
  39. Mazars, Part 7.2.
  40. Mazars, Part 7.2.
  41. Mazars, Part 7.2.
  42. Mazars, Part 7.4.
  43. Mazars, Part 8.2.
  44. Mazars, Part 8.2.
  45. Mazars, Part 8.2.
  46. Mazars, Part 8.2.
  47. Mazars, Part 8.4.
  48. Mazars, Part 6.4.
  49. Mazars, Part 6.4.
  50. Mazars, Part 6.4.
  51. Rosminian Final Submissions, p 13.
  52. Rosminian Final Submissions, pp 13-14.
  53. Rosminian Final Submissions, p 17.
  54. Rosminian Final Submissions, pp 17-18. Cf p 19.
  55. Rosminian Final Submissions, p 19.
  56. Rosminian Final Submissions, p 17.
  57. Rosminian Final Submissions, p 20.
  58. Rosminian Final Submissions, p 22.
  59. Rosminian Final Submissions, p 23.
  60. Mazars, Part 9.2.
  61. Rosminian Final Submissions, p 15.