Chapter 2 — Finance

Analysis of individual accounts

Goodbody’s calculation was based on valuing the work of an average of 24 members of the Oblate Order throughout the period in question at the average weekly wage of an industrial civil servant, which meant a person working at unskilled or craft work.

The question whether the Oblate Congregation profited from its operation of Daingean Reformatory thus resolves itself into a consideration of whether it is legitimate to value the work of the members of the community in the way suggested by Goodbody in their report. If so, the institution could not have operated except for the net contribution made by the Congregation. If that approach is not to be considered legitimate, then it follows that the Congregation was in a position to enjoy a surplus and it would also seem to follow that the capitation payments were at least adequate.

On the basis of the discussion already outlined on the issue of the value of the work done by the Order, it is reasonable to conclude that Daingean Reformatory was adequately funded during the relevant period.

Very limited financial information was available for these institutions. In respect of Upton, there were no records for 1940-49 but there were financial documents for the years 1952, 1953, 1960-66. In relation to Ferryhouse, there were some records only for the years 1941, 1947, 1951-54, and 1960-69. In addition to the above, Mazars were also provided with the accounts of the Province for the periods 1952-53 and 1961-69.

Because of the incompleteness of the records the figures can only be regarded as indicative. With that qualification, for the years for which financial records exist, it appears that Upton enjoyed a surplus of €24,284 and Ferryhouse a surplus of €26,901.44

Mazars quoted from the submission made by the Order: The submission made by the Rosminian Fathers draws attention to a number of issues that are relevant not only to those Schools run by the Order, but also to the system of Reformatories and Industrial Schools in its entirety. These have been dealt with, in that context, in the early sections of this report. In summary, the issues raised by the Order are as follows; No State monies were available to assist with the provision of buildings and other facilities in the Industrial Schools. • The Order also notes ‘It must be kept in mind that the two Industrial Schools were only part of the financial burden on the Province that also had to provide and maintain houses for students who were called to join the Institute and who did not pay any fees for their training. From 1945 onwards, the Province had a further call on its limited financial resources when it was required to provide for the travelling expenses, health care and much more, of the members who went on mission to East Africa.’ The question of State funding of the property is, as we have already seen, complex, and is relevant to our understanding of the relationship between the State and the Orders and their collective perception of their respective roles in relation to the provision of the Reformatory and Industrial Schools’45

Mazars responded to these points: With regard to the additional financial burdens on the Order, we note that this question is relevant to an understanding of how the Religious Communities viewed the Schools as a potential contributor to other unfunded or under-funded activities of the Order. From our examination of the financial information made available to us by the Rosminian Fathers it is our view that the Schools did leave the Order in a net surplus position, to the extent that the closing balance sheets of the schools show an improved position on the earliest available accounts. However, the contribution of the Schools to other Community activity does not, based on the available information, appear to have been sufficient to yield the Order a significant surplus.46

The Rosminian Order made a more reflective submission as part of its final submissions to the Investigation Committee. They stated that the ‘Mazars draft report raises many controversial issues’.47

They submitted that The predominant financial characteristic of the Schools was persistent under funding and accumulated debt. Where funding increased it was too little and too late, and the financial relationship between the schools and the State was adversarial. We have already described how the Schools financial position was a struggle. In fact the relationship with the State is best described overall as dysfunctional. This is illustrated by two phenomena. Firstly, the Schools’ Inspector usually (but not always) characterised the quality of provisions in school as satisfactory, but increases in State grants were usually accompanied by the requirement that school conditions be improved. The underlying conflict in those assessments disguised a lack of focused thought, and guided standard. Secondly, if it is assumed that funding was even barely adequate, the temptation for the Schools to seek maximum numbers of boys on the basis of economies of scale (same overheads, more income) was destructive to standards of performance, because boys were then being kept for money, and not vice versa.48

The Rosminians also submitted that a ‘definition of the purpose of State funding to the schools’ was irrelevant because: Whilst the use of its property was clearly donated to the Industrial School Purpose, the Order itself had very little other resources, and as the buildings aged and standards of living rose, the Industrial School project as a whole obviously had increasing capital needs. Whilst the issue of capital expenditure might well have become part of the polemic of the acquisition of State funding and increases, it was plainly unrealistic to expect an Order without substantial means to carry and ever increasing burden. This is very clearly acknowledged in the Cussen Report.49

The Rosminians rejected the benchmarks used by Mazars as unsuitable comparators. For example the Rosminians object to the capitation grant compared to welfare grants as they feel that it is unjust as the State never used such comparisons when determining the level of the capitation grant.50 They also rejected the reasons advanced for not comparing the Irish capitation rates to British rates.

The Rosminians posited the view that: The level of capitation grant was never claimed to be enough by the State. It was envisaged as contributory funding. It was calculated on compromise and accepted in desperation.51

The Rosminians argue that the capitation grant was deficient even when capital expenses are excluded. ‘Comparison with weekly industrial earnings distributed per capita shows a shortfall in all but 3 of the 30 years between 1939 and 1969.’52

They do however concede that ‘Some fault could be attributed to the religious for not pursuing closer accounting with the State.’53 The Rosminians also dispute that the relationship between the State and the religious as ‘outsourcing’, as claimed by Mazars. The Rosminians counter that the religious were used as it was known that they would ‘act on the basis of charity’: The two Rosminian Schools operated under constant financial constraint and uncertainty. Amongst other influences, this aggravated disciplinary issues. Broken windows or equipment, soiled or torn clothes, perceived waste or stolen food, were punished partly because of the need for stringent economy.54

The Rosminians concluded: Allowing for debate on the complaints, three things are clear beyond interpretation or opinion: What was achieved by the Schools was only possible through significant financial contributions outside State funding. There is no evidence was waste or misdirection in the accounts. State funding was never regarded as adequate by the State or Schools...’55