Chapter 2 — Finance

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.

Full itemised accounts should have been available to the Department of Education clearly outlining the expenditure of the State grant. These accounts would have helped form a more accurate view of the financial aspects of these schools if they had been preserved by the Congregations.

Not all Congregations behaved the same. There was evidence from smaller institutions with small numbers and little extra income that were clearly struggling to survive. Notwithstanding that, accounts of neglect and hunger were just as prevalent in the large boys’ schools that were well funded particularly during periods of high occupancy.

Analysis of individual accounts

Before discussing the Mazars’ report and the submissions made, some preliminary observations are necessary. A central point is that the sources of information and documentation about financing the institutions are limited and in some cases virtually non-existent. If proper records were available, it would be a relatively simple matter to analyse the accounts and to identify the relevant issues to be considered. It is not possible to do that because either those records are not available, or they were not kept in a manner that would enable such analysis to be made.

Although the Christian Brothers records were reasonably detailed, they did not provide enough of a breakdown to establish what payments were made. This was particularly true under the wages and maintenance sections. There was no way of knowing whether these sums related to Congregation or school expenses.

Other Congregations, such as the Sisters of Mercy and the Rosminians, have hardly any records at all. It is not clear whether these were never kept in the first place or were subsequently destroyed.

It is a significant criticism of the Congregations that they did not maintain proper records so as to establish, to their own satisfaction if to nobody else’s, that they were using all the money that they received from the State to provide for the children in care. They were in receipt of considerable financial aid at a time when money and resources were scarce and they had an obligation to account for this money properly.

The first simple point accordingly, is that there is an extraordinary dearth of financial records in regard to the Industrial Schools and that is the fault – and the serious fault – of the Congregations.

The Mazars’ report noted that: Two separate sets of books and records were maintained by the Brothers in respect of the institution at Artane – school accounts and house accounts. The school accounts recorded all of the activities deemed to relate to the operation of the school, including the farm and trade activity. The house accounts recorded the activity of the community of Brothers resident at Artane. The community also invested in the Order building fund, and details of balances held to the account of Artane are recorded in the financial information presented to us by the Christian Brothers.24

The school accounts for the period 1940-69 show that expenditure exceeded income by €70,818. The House Accounts for the same period show that income exceeded expenditure by €339,724. The most significant items contributing to the recorded surpluses are stipends or allowances for the Brothers engaged in the day to day management of the institution, and income generated from the disposal of lands. During the 1940s stipends represented 85 percent of total income of the house. In the 1950s stipends represented 68.6 percent of income, with sales of land generating a further 10.6 percent of total income. In the 1960’s stipends represented 22 percent of total income, with sales of land accounting for 63.2 percent.25

The Report concluded that the school: was virtually self-sufficient, providing the majority of its needs from the farm and the various other activities carried on within the school. This is evidenced by the low levels of expenditure on clothing and provisions, and is also reflected in a number of the Visitation Reports... It is particularly evident that figures for the 1960s are impacted significantly by the reducing number of children attending the school. However, over a number of categories expenditure was relatively consistent for the period, for example provisions purchased, clothing and fuel, light and power, reflecting the unchanging requirement for this expenditure.26

The trades and the farm contributed very significantly to the financial position of the institution.

In regard to capital expenditure there were no major items in the 1940s and the school achieved a surplus after capital expenditure in the 1950s. Such spending was at its greatest in the 1960s, ‘reflecting perhaps the need to address degeneration in the standard of accommodation over time’.27 However, It is not apparent from the Visitation Reports as to why the decision to take an extensive programme of upgrade and refurbishment was undertaken, when reports from the later part of the 1950s stressed the uncertainty of the future of the institution and the inappropriateness of incurring such costs in that environment. The most significant element of the capital expenditure incurred by the school was during the period 1963 to 1968, when the numbers of children in the institution were significantly in decline.28

This expenditure was funded: primarily from the school account – with the exception of the items funded in the 1940s by the house, and refunds received from the Board of Works referred to above. The house accounts in the 1950s and 1960s show very low levels of capital expenditure. 29