Chapter 3 — Society and the schools

Part 4 Independent monitoring

The Task Force on Child Care Services 1980 refers to a most striking feature of the pre-Kennedy system of residential care as being ...‘...the alarming complacency and indifference of both the general public and the various government departments and statutory bodies responsible for the welfare of children’.

Until very late in the day, the contribution made by the Oireachtas or the news media towards supervision, or even education of the public, in regard to the Schools, appears to have been negligible. Pressure groups were rare and usually ineffective The general public was often uninformed and usually uninterested. All these pools of unknowing reinforced each other.

A trained social worker who practiced in the 1960s informed the Commission that: we knew that the Schools were ‘institutions’ with all that implied and were alert to try to avoid them or minimise a child’s stay there; but on the other hand we regarded them as safe places where the child would be if not positively cherished at least ‘protected from harm.

Part 5 Family links

The maintenance of family links was adversely affected by three issues, namely the geographical distribution of the Schools and the problem this posed for parental visits; keeping brother and sisters together; and home leave. The long-term social and psychological well-being of the children required that they keep their links with their families. This meant that siblings should as far as possible be in the same School and that resident children should be kept in touch with their families by holidays, parental visits and letters. These areas were often the subject of differences between the Department and the Schools. The Department appears to have appreciated the need for improvements but it was not sufficiently determined to overcome the opposition of the Schools to changes. The reason for this resistance was the Schools’ fear that liberalisation could undermine discipline. Using a mixture of persuasion and financial incentive, the Department effected some improvements. Where there was a cost, a good deal depended on who paid for the change; usually the Department ended up paying.

The fact that so many of the Schools were located a long way from the homes of their residents made contact with families almost non-existent, except for such limited holidays at home as were permitted. In practice, sending a Dublin boy to Letterfrack could sunder the family almost completely. In very occasional cases, family circumstances were thought to be so bad that children were deliberately sent to Schools at a distance from their homes in order to remove them from their parents.

The reason for the uneven geographic distribution of the Schools was explained in the Cussen Report:75 ... on the introduction of the system most of the Local Authorities were unwilling to contribute even towards the maintenance of the children, and as the Treasury grant was insufficient for the building and equipment of such schools, their establishment was a matter of some difficulty. As a result, various Religious Orders were requested to undertake the work, and those who agreed and provided suitable premises had them certified. Certificates were, therefore, granted with little regard to the geographical distribution of the schools.

Part 5 Family links

The difficulties were exacerbated by the fact that committals were disproportionately high in Dublin.76

As outlined in a Departmental memo in 1943, Munster had five senior Schools for boys and two junior Schools whereas Leinster had only two of each. The memo continued: At the present time north of a line between Dublin and Galway there are no Senior Boys’ Industrial Schools; the nearest south of that line is in Clonmel and after that recourse must be had to Glin and Tralee (both of which have now numbers in excess of the certified complement – as also, incidentally, have the schools in Salthill and Letterfrack), or to a cluster of schools in a limited area in the extreme southwest, namely, Greenmount, Upton and Baltimore. Only the two last-named of these are at present short of their certified numbers. They therefore become of necessity the dumping-grounds for Dublin boys who cannot be sent to Artane or Carriglea.

The Department was concerned about this problem.77 One way that it could use to ease the problem was in making transfer orders from junior to senior boys’ schools when boys were aged 10 years, on which occasion the Department could select Schools close to Dublin. In addition, there might be exceptional transfers, at other ages, including transfers to Dublin on emotional grounds.

An example of the way in which the Department could sometimes operate is shown in an internal Departmental memo of 18th September 1963. It was noted that ‘St George’s Limerick was a good school and that its Resident Manager has in a recent phone call, sharply rebuked the Department for its lack of interest in the school and its problems. The memo continues: Dr McCabe has been asked to call on the Inspector of the ISPCC Limerick with a view to channelling more committals to St George’s School and on the closing of Summerhill, Athlone next December, New Ross and Waterford should be kept in mind when arranging the transfer of the children if the addresses and family backgrounds permit this course.

In 1954, when the Christian Brothers announced that all offenders were to be sent to the School in Letterfrack, District Justice McCarthy requested that the proposed schools for offenders be located in a place less isolated than Letterfrack (eg Tralee or Glin) as he felt that Letterfrack would not be the most suitable place for the rehabilitation of boys from Dublin City. However, this aspect of the district justice’s complaint fell on stony ground. Br O’hAnluan of the Christian Brothers replied that they had fully considered the question and that they had decided on Letterfrack.

Naturally few of the resident’s families had cars and consequently a visit by them was effectively impossible, unless pubic transport was available. As an example of the limitations of this: although only 50 miles from Dublin, Daingean was even in 1966, served by a single daily bus from Dublin. A further restriction, according to Michael Viney, was that parents were allowed to visit Daingean only on the first Sunday of the month

If a Dublin boy’s family wished to visit him at Letterfrack it would be difficult to do so and return by public transport on the same day. It was said that, to facilitate such contact, the Manager was good enough to drive pupils to the nearest railway town, 50 miles away, so as to avoid the necessity of a two-day journey.78

More generally, the School authorities do not appear to have encouraged family visits.

In her evidence to the Commission, Sr Úna O’Neill of the Religious Sisters of Charity observed that there was nothing in place to give the impression that the visits of the parents to the children was a high priority ... I found no evidence of any expression of priority in terms of making sure that parents could visit their children.