Chapter 4 — Residential child welfare in Ireland 1965-2008

Staff recruitment and the death of HT 270

On 31st June 1978, Fr Comiskey wrote to Mr O’Dwyer and suggested that the Executive of the Child Care Managers meet with representatives from the Department of Health and the Department of Education. Having suggested a number of dates, Fr Comiskey went on to state that: The Managers Executive has brought it to my attention that the Health Boards received the same document / letter prior to any discussion with, or reply from, them. They are deeply disturbed over this, as are their major superiors, and we would like this and a number of other points cleared up before proceeding any further with discussions on the document.

Mr O’Dwyer responded on 30th June stating: I am sorry to hear that your Superiors are concerned about the circulation of the document to the Programme Managers, Community Care, under Health Boards. First of all, this document has been circulated to them for information only. Secondly, there are a number of points raised which will require the co-operation of the health boards if they are to be implemented. Finally, we feel that it would be very desirable and necessary to have officers of the health boards involved in the discussions. You will appreciate that they are playing an ever increasing role in child care and the decisions which may emerge from our discussions are likely to affect them very much in the future.

A meeting between the various parties was arranged for 5th September 1978, and arising from that meeting, Mr O’Dwyer reported: The group have made very little progress in tackling the issues arising from my letter of 28 February 1978 and the meeting which took place on 28 July. They had only briefly and loosely discussed their ideas about the training of managers and about the role of social workers within and without the homes. There is very little prospect of their making progress unless they get a lot of help or some additional element is injected into their deliberations.

In relation to the role of social workers, Mr O’Dwyer reported that: A very confused discussion took place with regard to social workers. The managers seem to feel, not all of them for reasons that were clear to us, that they should have a social worker attached to each home. In the event, it was suggested to them that they should prepare a document setting out what is wrong with the present arrangements, what would be the role and function of the social worker attached to the home and what changes need to be made in the present position if they are to receive a resident social worker. The officers representing the Departments and the health boards indicated that they would be opposed to the introduction of residential social workers. A lot of dissatisfaction is apparently arising because of the turnover of social workers under health boards.

In November 1979, guidelines on the recruitment of child care workers were issued by the Resident managers Association, the Department of Health and the Department of Education. The guidelines outlined that: Those working in Residential Care must realize that the children they are caring for are not their own. They often are rejected, deprived, disturbed and insecure children. These children need all the parental care they can get but they also need professional, skilled people to help them work through insecurity towards full personal development. Residential work needs people with tremendous physical, mental and spiritual vitality. The person who is to become a residential care worker must be able to work with people in an intimate way. He or she should have a deep understanding of human nature and the needs of individuals, together with a genuine affection for deprived children. The work demands the highest level of training available. A child care worker is expected to use every opportunity to improve his or her skills in working with deprived children. Those wishing to train for a career in residential child care must work for at least a year in a residential home. Following successful completion of this year, the child care worker will be required to undertake formal training, which may involve attendance at day release or full-time courses at a training centre.

The qualities required by a childcare worker were also outlined and stated that: Those wishing to work with deprived children must be mature, stable and warm hearted adults, with a good and stable background. The worker must be able to communicate with others and must operate as a member of the team. He/she must understand and accept the philosophy of the establishment as a whole and be prepared to play his/her role as a fully responsible member. One of the most obvious skills in residential care is to be able to offer a warm and secure relationship to children. The child care worker must be able to organise the activities of a group of children, and show creativity in making the most constructive use of childrens’ leisure time. Skills in sewing, cooking, crafts and music are very useful as much of the day-to-day routine is taken up with looking after the physical needs of the children, washing clothes, cooking dinner and playing with the children. Applicants must have a good standard of education and a sound religious set of values.

As of December 1979, 474 staff were employed in residential care centres for deprived children. Half were under the age of 30 and while 31 percent had a diploma in childcare or other childcare qualification, nearly half had no relevant qualification. At this time, childcare training was provided in the School of Education, Kilkenny which opened in 1972, and provided a full-time year-long course for 20 students, but closed in 1981. The Dublin College of Catering at Cathal Brugha St offered a child care course from 1974 for 20 students per annum and Sligo Regional Technical College offered a course in childcare from 1979, primarily to train prison officers working in Loughan House. The ratio of staff to the number of children in the various homes varied considerably shown in figure 22. Figure 22: Staff – child ratio, 1979

Secure accommodation

The aforementioned memorandum for Government to outline the proposed implementation programme arising from the Interim Report of the Task Force on Child Care Services, in relation to St Joseph’s Clonmel, stated that ‘planning should proceed on the basis that the school may ultimately provide for 90 to 100 boys’. On the issue of the provision of facilities for children who were classified as ‘severely disturbed’, the memo noted: there is ample evidence that not enough of the right kind of residential facilities are available for the care of boys and girls who are severely emotionally disturbed. Such children require a high level of treatment and care. They have a very distressing and disturbing influence on other members of their families and on other children with whom they come into contact. The Task Force suggested the provision of special residential centres of the hostel type. It is not considered, however, that the provision of hostel type accommodation would, in itself, be sufficient to alleviate the problem. A number of recommendations made by the Henchy Committee, which considered the provision of treatment for juvenile offenders and potential juvenile offenders, would need to be implemented in order to provide enhanced residential assessment facilities, a secure centre for aggressive sociopaths, and facilities for treatment of acute psychiatric conditions. Until these or similar facilities are provided, the extent and need for special hostel type accommodation for the severely disturbed will not be clear.

On 17th May 1977, the Taoiseach, Mr Cosgrave, received a letter from the priests of the parish of Sean McDermott St.272 They outlined that: The inner city has many problems, such as inadequate housing, high levels of unemployment and the need for special and remedial classes in our schools and extra youth facilities. These must be tackled but we accept that all of them cannot be solved immediately. We are encouraged by the efforts of Tenants Associations, Dublin Corporation and voluntary bodies to help our young people. The immediate danger, however, is the uncontrollable lawlessness of youths under sixteen years of age, who rob, terrorise and destroy property with complete disregard for human life.273 These gangs are small in number, for most of the parents of this parish rear responsible, law-abiding families, often against extraordinary difficulties. The ultimate sanction for their contempt of the law at present is a lecture from a District Justice, after which the offenders must be realised to continue their law breaking. Most of them will not remain voluntarily in open children, or youth, centres. As you know, there is no custodial care for such law-breakers. We understand that Ireland is the only country in the E.E.C. in this unique position. In extreme cases where parental control has irretrievably broken down, it is unfortunately, at times, the only solution. Many of them have serious personal problems and for the sake of their own development, they urgently need – and have the right to expect – enlightened custodial care...Immediate emergency legislation introducing enlightened custodial care for young offenders under 16 years of age is urgently required to allay the fears of our parishioners, to cater for the needs of the youths concerned and to restore law and order.274

A reply was received on 14th June 1977, which outlined that arrangements for the provision of secure accommodation for both boys and girls was receiving urgent attention from the Department of Education. A background note on the issue of secure accommodation, prepared for the Minister for Justice, outlined that: When the new special school at Lusk for boys referred by the Courts was being planned in 1972 in replacement of the reformatory at Daingean, the Department of Education envisaged the inclusion of a measure of secure provision in one of the units being built. This proposal was opposed both by members of the Oblate Order (who conducted the school at Daingean and now conducts that at Lusk) and by outside elements associated with the CARE organisation. It was stated that the religious did not wish to find themselves cast in the role of gaolers...The School as planned, therefore, incorporated minimal provisions in the way of physical security and it became evident, soon after the school opened in early 1974, that it was incapable of catering for the disruptive type of boy in many cases.275

On 8th September 1977, Mr Tunney, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, announced that ‘A specialised project team has now been set up to plan the new secure special schools for young offenders in the under 16 groups as recommended by the Henchy Committee on the Mentally Ill and Maladjusted and the Task Force on Child Care Services.’276 The first meeting of the Project Team on Secure Units was held in the Department of Education on 9th September 1977. The chairman referred to the Government’s gave concern about the lack of facilities for coping with a small group of unmanageable young offenders. The matter had already been reported upon by the Henchy Committee and by the Task Force on Child Care Services and the decision to provide special units was in accordance with the recommendations of these bodies. (The Chairman also reminded members of the team of the requirements in regard to confidentiality in relation to the operation of the team.)

The team agreed that secure accommodation was required for between 25-30 boys and 15 for girls. The options laid before the project team were to construct a new building that would provide the secure accommodation required, convert an existing building or use a temporary building pending the availability of either the first or second option. It was agreed members of the team would visit secure units in Northern Ireland; to contact the Rev Fr Comiskey, Secretary of the Conference of Major Religious Superiors, to see if any religious Congregation had a suitable building available and to acquire from the Office of Public Works a list of possible buildings.

The second meeting of the team took place at Scoil Ard Mhuire on 13th September. The possibility of locating the proposed secure unit in Dundrum, where, the meeting was informed, the Department of Health were proposing to open a secure unit for 15 sociopaths between the ages of 12-15 was discussed as was the possibility reopening Daingean. At the third meeting of the team held on 29th September 1977, a report was given on the visit to Northern Ireland and: It was mentioned confidentially that as a result of intensification of after care activities in the near future the Department of Justice might be able to supply vacant accommodation for, say, 15 boys in St. Patrick’s if the laws were altered to allow children in the 14-16 age group to be placed there. By and large the team was against placing children of such a young age in such an environment.

In relation to reopening the former reformatory in Daingean, Fr MacGonagle, the former Manager, stated, ‘that while he would not favour it he felt that the newer part of the building there could be made reasonably suitable for such a unit provided the older part was demolished’. At the fourth meeting of the group, held on 12th October 1977, it was reported ‘to make it usable would be expensive; that the renovations would probably take more time than could be considered for a short-term solution, and that it could not be considered for a long term solution’. The committee agreed that while they ‘would not be very happy with using Daingean as a secure unit, it might be as well to keep it in mind in case nothing better was found’. The chairman, Mr Ó Maitiú, who had excused himself at the beginning of the meeting as he was meeting the Minister for Justice, Mr Collins and Mr Tunney, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, returned to the meeting after the discussion on Daingean had concluded. The minutes record that: He was accompanied by R. Mac Conchradha, P.O. in the Department of Justice, who is now to serve on the Team at the request of the Minister for Justice and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. Both Mr. Collins and Mr. Tunney want the whole question of the Secure Unit for Boys treated as one of the utmost urgency – in fact, the Team is asked to take a decision within a fortnight so that an appropriate memorandum may be submitted to the Government.

The chairman then asked Mr Mac Conchradha to address the meeting, who, the minutes record: explained that his Department was recruiting a cadre of welfare officers who would be used to give intensive supervision to certain delinquents between 16 and 21 who could thus be released from custody. It was proposed to use, as an interim measure, the space made available in St. Patrick’s Institution or in an adjoining building in the North Circular Road complex to house intractable delinquents in the 12-16 years range. Until a long-term solution is finalised, those children will have to endure a prison regime. There is no alternative. His Minister proposes to paint a realistic picture to the public but can only do so if at the same time he shows that the long-term solution is being actively pursued. Hence the urgency. As no other site was available and as the acquisition of a site would take a considerable time, the Ministers were strongly of the view that the new school should be built on an unused portion of the present Oberstown Site.