Chapter 2 — Finance

Analysis of individual accounts

This fact alone is a matter of serious criticism of the Community. When private bodies receive State funding there is an absolute responsibility to account for how that money was spent. That was even truer in the middle of the last century when money was scarce and public funding limited. It is difficult to form any definitive view on Goldenbridge in the absence of proper records.

However, the analysis by Mazars on the level of funding by reference to contemporaneous indices would indicate that, as a large institution, the capitation grant should have been adequate to provide a reasonable standard of physical care. Goldenbridge did not have a farm and did not have profit-making trades shops, but it did have a thriving bead-making industry during the 1950s and into the 1960s. No financial records survived about this income but Mazars were able to establish an estimate of the income it generated. They stated:

Bead Income
Number of children	120	90	60	30
Income per decade	IR£0.11	IR£0.11	IR£0.11	IR£0.11
Income per annum	IR£3,432	IR£2,574	IR£1,716	IR£858
Discounted income per annum	IR£2,869	IR£2,152	IR£1,435	IR£717

The major outgoings were food (34%), wages (21%), clothes (12%), building repairs and decoration (11%), fuel and light (7%), furniture and fittings (3%), medical (1%) and other (11%). Wages comprised staff wages, payments to the Resident Manager and payments to the reverend mother. Limited information is available in relation to the staffing levels during the period 1939– 69. We understand that generally the staffing consisted of two nuns (both teaching and one having the dual responsibility of resident manager), two lay teachers and a number of other staff (seamstress, domestic, etc). We note that based on records of 1955 there were eight members of staff excluding the nuns and teachers. This increased to eleven members of staff in 1958.34

The school accounts available for the period 1955-69 showed a surplus of €33,410.

As already outlined above, the accounts of the Carysfort Mother House revealed monthly payments totalling approximately €5,000. €9,000 per annum were received from ‘National Education Goldenbridge.’ Mazars observed: 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.35

The Report noted that the total capital expenditure during the period 1951-69 was €158,745. Capital expenditure using the school account was primarily on building repairs and decorations and furniture and fittings. In the 1960s this amounted to 19 percent of expenditure. In 1969 repairs to buildings made up 29 percent of expenditure. We have received some records in respect of a building account held in the 1960s which was funded by the school account and various grants. It is unclear how much of these funds were used for properties other than for the industrial school; although based on a sample review of such expenditure we did note a certificate of payment in respect of Rathdrum in the amount of IR£750. The accounts of the industrial school indicate funding given to capital expenditure of IR£2,000 for the purchase of a holiday home in 1954, with further contributions to the building fund account of IR£2,000 in 1959 and IR£4,000 in 1960, before a subsequent repayment from the building fund account to the school account of IR£1,050.36

Mazars’ conclusion was that based on the limited information available, the financial position of Goldenbridge over the period 1939-69 ‘are probably best characterised as being one of being close to break even’.37

Where accounts are available, the position is summarised as follows:

Total Expenditure	€351,743	100%
Funded by:
State and Local; Authorities	€282,239	80%
Other Income	€102,913	29%
Surplus	€33,410	9%

The analysis by the Sister of Mercy accountants acknowledged weakness in the fact that it was not possible to get supplementary explanations of various figures in the accounts.

However, based on the financial information available, it suggested that in the period for which accounts were largely available, 1951-69, the school did manage. It was however submitted that this was ‘probably best characterised as being close to break-even’. It suggested that whilst Goldenbridge had an overall surplus in the period analysed, this largely accrued from the mid 1960s when pupil numbers increased and there was a 100 percent increase in capitation grant in 1969.

Unfortunately, much of this analysis is guesswork and there is no real way of knowing the extent to which Goldenbridge contributed to the mother house or how any surplus funds were spent.

An analysis of income and expenditure for the period 1940-69 indicated that ‘the school operated at approximately a break-even position for the first two decades under review but ran into deficit during the third decade.’39 The deficit in 1969 was €20,602.

The primary sources of income were government and local authority grants. Other sources of income included farm sales, stipends, and sundry sales. Indirect sources of income involved the labour of the boys in the trade workshops.

Mazars noted that the expert report commissioned by the Oblates of Mary Immaculate and prepared by Goodbody Economic Consultants suggested that had the school paid wages to the religious staff working there the deficit would have been larger. Mazars accepted that the calculations carried out by Goodbody’s were reasonable but did not take into account: (1) the fact that the reformatory was not a State school; and (2) the system did not provide for the payment of wages at the time.

Separate accounts were not kept for the farm. The school accounts showed the farm making a loss of €25,003 over the period 1940-69. These figures do not, however, take into account the value of farm produce consumed by both the boys and the Brothers and Fathers resident at the School. In availing of farm produce to feed the boys and Brothers, there was, presumably, both a financial saving to the school, which would have resulted in lower total expenditure and lower deficits than if these costs were incurred externally, as well as a corresponding loss of potential income. Similarly, the accounts do not reflect the fact that labour on the farm was largely that of the boys and the Brothers. Again, there would have been a certain saving to the school in using this ready pool of labour as opposed to employing additional farm labourers.40