Chapter 2 — Finance

Adequacy of capitation

Cussen also suggested bringing the local authority contribution in line with the Department of Education payment and this was also done.

Chapter 4 of the report looked at the rate of capitation increase against inflation and concluded that ‘annual inflation exceeded changes in the capitation grant by 15 percent on average’ between 1939 and 1957. Between 1957 and 1969 ‘the annual capitation changes exceeded inflation by 58 percent on average’.12

As pointed out above, other factors such as the payment of capitation to the under-sixes; the accommodation limit being used as the basis for payment; and the introduction of the National School grant, all increased the actual income to the schools without an increase in the capitation allowance during the 1940s and therefore a simple comparison of capitation and inflation does not give the full picture.

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.