Chapter 4 — Residential child welfare in Ireland 1965-2008

Secure accommodation

When admitted to residential care, the memo outlined that it: should create the least amount of disruption in a child’s life, consistent with his total needs. A facility should be as accessible as possible to the child’s home. Where appropriate, every effort should be made to enable the child to retain a relationship with is family, especially where it is envisaged that he will return home in the short to medium term. Residential homes should provide for the child a stable, secure environment with a standard of living equivalent to the national average. The home’s environment should be enriching and stimulating and compensate for whatever deprivation the child may be experiencing.

In April 1986, the Department of Health published a Report on Health Services covering the period 1983-86. On the funding of child care services, the report outlined that: A new system whereby the local health board funds children’s homes directly on the basis of agreed budgets was introduced on the 1st January, 1984 to replace the highly unsatisfactory capitation system in operation for over a hundred years. Homes had found that despite regular revisions, capitation rates tended to lag behind real increases in the cost of looking after children and did not take account of differing cost structures in the homes. As a result, by the end of 1983 some homes had accrued considerable deficits. These deficits, totalling almost £1 million were cleared in 1984 in conjunction with the introduction of the budget system. The new funding arrangement is sufficiently flexible to enable health boards to respond to the particular needs of each individual home having regard to its staffing and clientele. It also brings homes and boards into a much closer working relationship than before. This gives boards a useful opportunity to re-organise the residential sector on a regional basis, broadly on the lines recommended by the Task Force on Child care Services. Each health board is now considering residential provision for child care in its area and hopes to agree future roles and functions with each of the homes in the near future.351

However, a short number of years later in 1989 the Report of the Commission on Health Funding concluded352 that: An issue of importance to child care services in recent years has been the role of residential homes, most of whom are operated by voluntary organisations. A small number are owned and operated by health boards. The homes have been funded directly by health boards on the basis of agreed budgets since 1984; this replaced an unsatisfactory capitation system. It has been submitted to us that some homes are over-selective in accepting placements, making it difficult to find accommodation for the more difficult cases. On the other hand, some of the voluntary organisations involved have submitted to us that they could not cope with children who would seriously disrupt the running of the home and cause strain to those already cared for there. It would therefore seem that the relationship between the homes and their funders should be changed. Both parties should negotiate to supply care for children who need it; the homes would become more accountable for the services they provide and the funders would make reasonably long-term contracts to ensure cover for the difficult as well as easier cases. We therefore recommend that Area General Managers should enter into formal contractual agreements with homes to ensure that the required range of care is available in each area. The homes would then be funded on the basis of an agreed level and type of service described in paragraph 17.37 .353

In a review of the Special Schools operating under the auspices of the Department of Education, a review by the Comptroller and Auditor General in 1990 highlighted a number of areas of concern. The report noted that the capitation system of funding the schools had ceased in 1981 and the schools were now funded on the basis of an annual grant. The report observed: It would be reasonable to suggest that the changeover to full financing by the State in 1981 should have led to greater involvement by the Department in the management and control of the schools but this is not the case. Specifically the Department did not:- (a) ensure that as full a service as the available resources were capable of providing was being provided; the schools were being funded on the basis that such a service would be provided. (b) take steps to ensure the introduction of procedures for the efficient running of the schools. (c) Regulate the schools or have an effective input into their admission and management policies. At the Finglas Children’s Centre, the Board of Management on which the Department of Education and Justice are represented acts only in an advisory capacity while, in contrast, Trinity House Board of management has executive powers. At St. Joseph’s there is no Board of Management as the religious order was unwilling to agree to the Department’s request to have a Board of management appointed when the new funding arrangements were introduced in 1981. (d) Establish a coherent policy on manning levels in the schools and consider the impact on school staffing of the public service embargo on recruitment. Indeed, the Department itself broke the public service embargo on some occasions by approving new posts in the schools and on other occasions by retrospectively sanctioning appointments already made in the schools. (e) operate a budgetary system which would ensure that the annual financial needs of the schools were being properly assessed. (f) Monitor the schools’ finances on an ongoing and regular basis. The absence of monitoring may have been a contributory factor to the scale of the Supplementary Estimate needed in 1990 to cover expenditure overruns by the schools. (g) ensure that adequate financial details were being provided in the monthly school returns. The returns submitted to the Department give a detailed breakdown of non-pay costs but the information provided in relation to pay costs (approximately 70 percent of total costs) is totally inadequate e.g. additional costs relating to weekend duties and for relief work involving the engagement of temporary staff are not revealed in the returns. (h) finalise the execution of a Deed of Trust for St. Joseph’s although it is aware since 1978 that such a deed is essential since the State has invested some £5 million in buildings and facilities. (The land at Clonmel is owned by the religious order). (i) carry out regular audits of systems and procedures in the schools.354

The Department of Education in their response to the Comptroller and Auditor General noted that such schools were traditionally managed by religious Congregations and that: The system operated in a climate of trust necessary for the support of the difficult work involved and the Department, having regard to this feature, did not unduly interfere in the day to day running of the schools.

While acknowledging that an improved policy and budgetary framework was required for the schools, the Department stated that in their discussions with the Comptroller and Auditor General’s office prior to the finalisation of the report, they had drawn attention to: the complex nature of the child care area, the many factors which impact on the operation of the special schools, the delicacy of many aspects of our dealings with Orders which operate the schools on our behalf and our concern that the report constituted an over-simplification of the overall situation.

By mid-1980s, the majority of a declining number of children in residential care were in homes funded on a budget basis by the Department of Health and with the health boards having a role in the day-to-day operation of the service. The Department of Education had responsibility for a small number of schools for young people who entered care, primarily through the juvenile justice system, but also a small number who were placed in secure accommodation by the health boards. The Department of Education were reviewing their role in relation to the provision of secure care and by the end of the decade had concluded that they were not the appropriate Department to have this responsibility, but it was a further decade and a half before they finally relinquished responsibility for such centres. At the end of the 1980s, one experienced childcare worker gave his overview of the changes that had occurred in residential care in the previous 20 years: Dramatic and sweeping changes have taken place in residential care over the past twenty years. Large institutions have been broken up, staffing ratios increased and staff training commenced. Residential care has become more child orientated with a greater understanding of children and their problems. Yet the old stigma remains. Residential care is often blamed for causing the very ills of society for which it is trying to treat.355

In addition, he highlighted that: Increasingly allegations have been malpractice and abuse have been made against care workers. Recent experience of how these cases are investigated leave a lot to be desired. Both care workers and agencies are isolated, shunned and made to feel guilty until proven innocent. Many care workers are feeling very vulnerable and on a daily basis are analysing situations to reduce the risk factor. This is no way to work and it can only have an adverse effect on the children.356

In the early 1990s, the Department of Education argued that the centres operated by them did not ‘have the capacity, nor should they be expected to cater for the following situations: (a) youths whose primary difficulty stems from serious psychiatric problems which require intensive and ongoing attention. (b) youths whose behaviour is such as to place them in the category unruly/depraved. (c) youths in need of intensive therapy on foot of sexual problems.’ In the case of categories (a) and (c), they argued that: It is the firm view of the Department of Education that referral of serious psychiatric and sexually disturbed cases to centres for young offenders constitutes a serious and potentially very dangerous failing within the present system. What is required in such cases is the provision of a suitable dedicated and resourced facility which would focus on addressing the real needs of such people. It is the view of the Department of Education that responsibility for the provision of such facilities rests with the Department of Health. However, repeated attempts by the Department of Education to secure acceptance of responsibility for this area by the Department of Health, have proved unsuccessful.

The National Youth Policy Committee recommended that: There has been a considerable improvement in recent years in the quality of the special residential schools for boys, but this has not been matched by any corresponding facilities for girls. We recommend early assessment of needs in this area to see whether, as has been suggested to us, a small secure facility for girls is required.357

The response by the Government to the Report was that ‘a study will be undertaken by the Minister for Justice in consultation with the Minister for Education to determine the scope and type of facility necessary to deal adequately with the problem of young female offenders.358 In September 1986, a study group was established with terms of reference ‘to determine the scope and type of facility necessary to deal adequately with the problem of young female offenders and to furnish a report.’359 The Group, which reported in February 1988, noted that the only residential facility within the juvenile justice system for females was Cuan Mhuire Assessment Unit in Collins Avenue, Whitehall, Dublin 9, which was opened in 1984 to cater for young females between the ages of 10-16. The function of the centre was to allow the courts to remand young girls for a period of up to three weeks to facilitate an assessment of their needs. To assist the Group with their task, the Probation and Welfare Service and the Department of Education surveyed young female offenders under the age of 16 known to them between January 1985 and June 1986 in order to ascertain the need for residential care. The report stated that from the information gathered it was clear that, in addition to an assessment unit, there was need for a facility that could provide adequate long-term care for a small group of young female offenders who were particularly difficult or troublesome and for whom none of the community based facilities, residential homes or hostels currently in existence would be able to provide the necessary service.

In relation to the girls entering Cuan Mhuire, the report noted that: the majority of girls admitted....were referred by health boards because they appeared to be out of control or were at risk due to drug taking, solvent abuse, promiscuity or sleeping rough. In about 10 to 12 of these cases, the assessment report on the girls recommended that they receive residential care in a well-structured, secure facility which staffed and equipped to deal with difficult and disruptive girls. At present, there is no such facility available to the health boards.

The Group contemplated the establishment of a separate facility for such females, but ultimately argued: on economic grounds alone...it would appear that the best solution would be to have one facility which would cater for any girl who required special care, whether she be referred by the courts or by a health board. We are strengthened in this view by the fact that the needs of the girls for care and support would not differ significantly regardless of whether they were offenders or not and that their treatment and management would be very similar.

The Group concluded that there was a need for a facility which would incorporate a remand and assessment unit, a long-term unit and a secure unit, to collectively accommodate 25 girls with responsibility for the facility resting with the Department of Education. The year after the Study Group on Young Female Offenders reported, an Interdepartmental Committee on Crime was established, which reported in December 1989. The Department of Education, in their submission to the Interdepartmental Committee, argued: ..as it would be considered that children and young people committed by the Courts are primarily in need of care and education, places of detention, industrial schools and reformatory schools have come under the Minister for Education (Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924, fourth part of schedule). The Minister for Education considers that this situation should now be changed in relation to secure centres and that responsibility for such centres should be transferred to the Minister for Justice. There are a number of reasons for the Ministers view (1) The fact that the Department of Education is not directly involved with the Courts, Gardai or Probation and Welfare Service impedes its ability to respond to needs. (2) The Department of Education is not otherwise involved in the provision of security and does not have expertise in this area. (3) Many of the difficulties the Department has experienced in operating centres involving an element of security derive from the basic and unavoidable orientation of staff towards care and education rather than custody. (4) Because of their near-adult physique combined with unpredictable, explosive behaviour, young offenders in the 15/16 age group are among the most difficult of all offenders to handle; it is odd for the Department of Justice freed from responsibility for such a group. (5) It is exceptional in European terms to find responsibility for secure provision for young offenders with an education Ministry. The reason in our circumstances appears to have been the fact that the earlier industrial and reformatory schools were conducted by religious orders.

This viewpoint marked a significant shift in official thinking in the Department of Education, signalling that their direct involvement in the managing and administration of Reformatory and Industrial Schools should cease and be transferred to Justice. However, as noted earlier, it was not until 2007 that the transfer suggested by Education formally took place. The Inter-departmental report outlined that: The Group considers that the main problems in this area are, firstly, the fact that, other than the remand and assessment facilities at Cuan Mhuire, there are no residential places at all provided for young female offenders. Secondly, as regards male offenders, there are insufficient number of residential places for the 14-16 years age bracket. Apart from being a problem in its own right, this also causes difficulties in that less troublesome offenders must be housed with the more disruptive type of offenders. In addition, there is the problem of male offenders, who have been placed in a secure centre, returning when they have served their term, direct to their communities without any opportunity of preparing in advance to adjust to normal life.