- 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
BackAdequacy of capitation
Having compared the capitation rates and economic conditions and the cost of living, Mazars concluded: Taking the review period in its entirety, the funding per head to schools did not decline in real/purchasing power terms as changes in the capitation grant more than match movements in the general price level.13
The chapter then addressed the issue of adequacy of funding, which it approached from two points of view adequacy in accordance with the 1908 Act; adequacy in comparison with other frameworks of reference suggested.
For the first, they used benchmarks that identified the cost of maintaining a child as opposed to maintaining an institution and used: average household income per head; unemployment benefit.
Specifically, Mazars did not accept the comparisons used by the Christian Brothers in some of their submissions, which sought to compare the costs of a residential institution in Ireland with one in the North or UK because of the different economic and social circumstances and because the capitation system had been abolished in the UK in the 1920s and had been replaced with a block grant system that was not dependent on large numbers of children being committed. It did, however, note that the rate of increase in the two jurisdictions was largely in tandem.
Mazars also believed it was invalid to apply modern childcare standards retrospectively as suggested by the Oblates in their opening statement.
Under the household income per head analysis, Mazars concluded: on average, the industrial school capitation grant was 88 percent of household income per head.14
When compared with unemployment benefit, Mazars concluded: For the 30-year period, the industrial school capitation grant was on average 122 percent of unemployment benefit payments. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the capitation payments were sufficient to support a child as they exceed what was expected to support an adult male.15
Mazars used the Central Statistics Office’s household budget survey covering the 1939–69 period to ascertain expenditure on child maintenance and concluded: This analysis suggests that the weekly capitation was appropriate for its intended purpose as weekly capitation exceeded expenditure incurred per child by a typical household.16
Mazars also noted that the analysis demonstrated economies of scale associated with child maintenance. As the numbers of children in a household increase two things happen: (a) the incremental or marginal cost of that additional child is less than the incremental cost of the maintaining previous child; and (b) this serves to drag the average maintenance cost per child downwards. Unfortunately we do not have data to measure the economies of scale likely to arise in a Reformatory or Industrial School situation.17
Mazars concluded that the capitation grant was sufficient to feed, clothe and accommodate the children in Industrial Schools to a basic but adequate level – no child should have been hungry, cold or neglected.
For many institutions other important factors came in to play. This was particularly true in the case of the larger boys’ schools where farming was a significant benefit to the running costs of the schools. Large farms in schools like Artane, Letterfrack and Daingean were worked on by the boys and allowed these schools to be almost self-sufficient in terms of food and even generated extra income through selling produce.
In addition, it was a consistent complaint even in contemporary documents that industrial training was used as a means of providing for the needs of the institution rather than the needs of the children. The impact of this varied from school to school and as between boys’ and girls’ schools.
Clothing, footwear, food, cooking and property maintenance were provided to the institution by the industrial training provided to the boys.
Clothing, cleaning, cooking and childcare were provided to the school by the industrial training offered to the girls.
In some Sister of Mercy schools such as Goldenbridge, rosary bead making and other industries provided a considerable extra income to the school.
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.