884 entries for Government Department

There is no data for 1997 but the 1998 report indicates that the percentage of children from lone parent families increased to almost 40 per cent (38.58 percent). Also, worth noting is that this is the first year that ‘parent unable to cope’ (26.58 percent) was not the dominant reason for children being admitted to care; ‘neglect’ (26.71 percent) accounted for slightly more cases (five more children and a difference of less than half a percentage point). The term lone parent has been further qualified in recent years (since 2002) to highlight the distinct group of lone parents who are unmarried as opposed to divorced or widowed. In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available on children in care from the Department of Health, 2,221 or almost half (43 percent) of children in care that year came from ‘lone parent, unmarried’ families.109

The Tuairim Report also examined private voluntary homes for children, noting that there were 23 homes that they were aware of, 13 managed by religious Orders, catering for nearly 1,000 children. They noted that the informal system by which children were admitted to these homes had the advantage of bypassing the courts system, but that the danger existed that ‘illegitimate children may be dumped and conveniently forgotten’ there.132 In commenting on the Tuairim report, the Reformatory and Industrial Schools branch of the Department of Education observed: ‘It seems on the whole to have been compiled objectively though marred by a cheap jibe and untrue jibe at Irish.’133 The Department acknowledged that the system was in need as a complete overhaul and that: ...the majority of the faults found with the reformatory and industrial schools system are soundly based and confirmed by my experience. They highlight the necessity for a complete review and overhaul of the entire system in operation for the care of children who lack proper guardianship, including delinquents, many of whom such as families of distressed mothers and widows could be better cared for at less expense to the state without splitting up the family. The low grants given to these institutions compare very unfavourably with those given in most, if not all other European countries and pressure for increased grants in recent years has come mainly from the conductors of the boys’ schools as the majority of the girls schools are conducted by communities who engage in other activities the gains from which offset the losses on industrial schools. Virtually all the convent schools are will-nigh excellent, the glaring defect in the senior boys’ schools being the lack of the female hand in the domestic service. In the whole system the most serious defect is the absence of official after-care machinery. Secondly the operation of the domestic services in the senior boys schools should be undertaken by nuns or female lay staff.

One of inspectors of boarded out children134 in the Department of Health, Miss Clandillon135, in her review of the Tuairim report, although claiming that the report reflected some ‘muddled and out-moded thinking’ was broadly positive stating that: there are some sound recommendations in the Report. Everyone concerned with the welfare of deprived children would agree with the view that a new Children Act should supersede the present fragmented legislation and widen its scope.136

In addition to the report by Lysaght, the Department of Education received a detailed memo from the Association of Resident Managers of Reformatory and Industrial Schools on 24th January 1967. In the memo the Managers highlighted the decline in the number of children and the closure of a number of schools in the previous year. In addition, they highlighted a number of further issues, including the unsatisfactory operation of the School Attendance Act, the lack of adequate funding for aftercare and the need for additional psychologists and psychiatrists. A further issue raised was the number of ‘pupils who are retarded and should not be in these schools’.139 The memo argued that such children place ‘a heavy burden on managers and staffs and then there is the added difficulty of finding suitable employment for those pupils at sixteen years of age. There should be a Special School for such pupils for they are a handicap to the other children and being unable to keep up with the class, their education tends to become worse.’

Complainants spoke of beatings that were so severe that they ended up in the infirmary for a number of days and even weeks. Some said that the doctor or a nurse would have been aware of their condition but would not have been told how it had happened. In one case an interviewee said that she had marks all over her body from a beating with a whip and the doctor was told that it had been caused by an older girl. Another interviewee recalled Dr Anna McCabe, the Department of Education Inspector, seeing her. She believed Dr McCabe did not accept the explanation by the Resident Manager and insisted on speaking to the Resident Manager about the condition she found the child in. The interviewee believed that the particular nun who administered the beating did not beat the children as much after that event.

The deferential and submissive attitude of the Department of Education towards the Congregations compromised its ability to carry out its statutory duty of inspection and monitoring of the schools. The Reformatory and Industrial Schools Section of the Department was accorded a low status within the Department and generally saw itself as facilitating the Congregations and the Resident Managers.

The system of inspection by the Department of Education was fundamentally flawed and incapable of being effective. The Inspector was not supported by a regulatory authority with the power to insist on changes being made. There were no uniform, objective standards of care applicable to all institutions on which the inspections could be based. The Inspector’s position was compromised by lack of independence from the Department. Inspections were limited to the standard of physical care of the children and did not extend to their emotional needs. The type of inspection carried out made it difficult to ascertain the emotional state of the children. The statutory obligation to inspect more than 50 residential schools was too much for one person. Inspections were not random or unannounced: School Managers were alerted in advance that an inspection was due. As a result, the Inspector did not get an accurate picture of conditions in the schools. The Inspector did not ensure that punishment books were kept and made available for inspection even though they were required by the regulations. The Inspector rarely spoke to the children in the institutions.

The Rules and Regulations governing the use of corporal punishment were disregarded with the knowledge of the Department of Education. The legislation and the Department of Education guidelines were unambiguous in the restrictions placed on corporal punishment. These limits however, were not observed in any of the schools investigated. Complaints of physical abuse were frequent enough for the Department of Education to be aware that they referred to more than acts of sporadic violence by some individuals. The Department knew that violence and beatings were endemic within the system itself.

Sexual abuse by members of religious Orders was seldom brought to the attention of the Department of Education by religious authorities because of a culture of silence about the issue. When religious staff abused, the matter tended to be dealt with using internal disciplinary procedures and Canon Law. The Gardaí were not informed. On the rare occasions when the Department was informed, it colluded in the silence. There was a lack of transparency in how the matter of sexual abuse was dealt with between the Congregations, dioceses and the Department. Men with histories of sexual abuse when they were members of religious Orders continued their teaching careers as lay teachers in State schools.

The Department of Education dealt inadequately with complaints about sexual abuse. These complaints were generally dismissed or ignored. A full investigation of the extent of the abuse should have been carried out in all cases. All such complaints should have been directed to the Gardai for investigation. The Department, however, gave the impression that it had a function in relation to investigating allegations of abuse but actually failed to do so and delayed the involvement of the proper authority. The Department neglected to advise parents and complainants appropriately of the limitations of their role in respect of these complaints.

At the same time as the decision to close Carriglea was made, the decision was also made to confine admissions to Letterfrack to boys convicted of offences that would incur imprisonment if committed by an adult. This decision is discussed in full in the Letterfrack chapter. It met with strong opposition from the Department of Education, the Department of Justice and members of the Judiciary. The objections all focused on the unsuitability of Letterfrack because of its isolation and distance from Dublin, from where most of these children came. The Christian Brothers were adamant, however, and Letterfrack was designated in 1954 as the Christian Brothers’ industrial school for all convicted children under 14.

Clearly, it would have been a better decision for the children in care to close Letterfrack and keep Carriglea open. There was no record of such a suggestion being put to the Provincialate by either the relevant Departments or by District Judges. The fact that the Brothers owned the schools meant they were entitled to do what they liked with their own property. Irrespective of whether the property had been donated2 for a particular purpose, or had been purchased through fund-raising, once the legal title was vested in the Congregation, the Department of Education was powerless to influence the decision.

In addition to oral evidence, the Investigation Committee considered documents received from the Christian Brothers, the Department of Education and Science, An Garda Síochána and the Archbishop of Dublin.

The stress and anxiety Br Rene endured whilst managing Carriglea were described in a letter he wrote to the Department of Education, responding to criticisms made by Dr Anna McCabe9 following her inspection of the School in 1939.

Another complainant who was in Carriglea in the late 1940s and early 1950s gave evidence that he was regularly punished for not knowing his schoolwork. This practice was specifically prohibited by the Christian Brothers’ and the Department of Education’s Rules.