884 entries for Government Department

The Protestant Child Care Association also replied to the Department of Education on 13th January 1971. They welcomed the report and pressed for the speedy implementation of the recommendations. They also made a number of recommendations not included in the Committee of Enquiry’s report. These were: revise law on minimum age of criminal responsibility; age of criminal responsibility to be school leaving age; no corporal punishment in any establishment; part-time crash courses for senior staff; hostel provision for handicapped; protect the retarded; fine for fund for family service as addition to maintenance orders for absconding husbands; treatment advisory panel for juvenile court.

The meeting also agreed ‘that a good Child Care Worker’ would be the best person to undertake the task of after-care. It was noted that the Health Authority had no knowledge of the release of children who were committed through Dublin Corporation and the Department of Education and it was suggested that after-care for all children should be the responsibility of the authority. It was agreed that there is a great need for Hostels in the Dublin area, ‘particularly to accommodate boys’. In relation to the administration of the system, the group argued that: ‘responsibility for all aspects of Child Care should not be divided between the Department of Health and the Department of Education, but rather that total responsibility should rest with the Department of Health.’

In addition, a few weeks later, on 5th August 1971, a deputation from the Eastern Health Board comprising the senior administrative officers of the Welfare Department, the Director of the Child Guidance Clinic in the Mater Hospital, the Chief Child Psychiatrist of the Board and the Section Officer of the Children’s Section met with representatives of the Department of Education in relation to accommodation for Dublin boys in Industrial Schools. The deputation highlighted that while 450 boys from Dublin were accommodated in Industrial Schools throughout the country, there were a further 90 to 100 boys for whom accommodation in Industrial Schools could not be found. The health board deputation claimed, ‘many of them are disturbed and the difficulty of getting schools to take many of them is resulting in their becoming a “hard core” of unwanted’. The Department of Education were of the view that this difficulty had largely arisen from the closure of the Artane Industrial School on 30th June 1969. However some spare capacity existed in the Salthill Industrial School in Galway and it was hoped that the opening of the new school in Finglas would alleviate some of the difficulties.196

The Department of Justice responded to the request for observations on the report on 20th April 1972. In relation to places of detention, they ‘considered that formal responsibility for providing places of detention for juveniles would be more appropriately exercised by your Department than by the Department of Justice which has heretofore had that formal responsibility as the successor to the “police authority” referred to in the Children Act, 1908’. Responding to criticisms made of St Patrick’s Institution and the aftercare of children leaving reformatory and industrial schools, they noted that improvements had been made to St Patrick’s since the preparation of the report and that the welfare service operated by the Department had expanded since the publication of the report with plans for further expansion.

Although not formally a response to the invitation issued by the Department of Education, Mr O’Mahony in an article in the Irish Jurist provided an overview, both of the Report and of the case law on residential care in Ireland. In relation to the latter he observed that: There is, perhaps unfortunately, a marked absence of reported decisions of the Irish courts on the provisions of the Children Acts dealing with residential care and the administrative and judicial procedures leading to it. This is somewhat surprising, and disquieting, particularly when one considers, in the light of the Irish Constitution, the wide scope of Section 58 of the 1908 Act (as amended) which gives statutory power to the Children’s Court to commit children, up to the age of 15 years, to long periods of detention in industrial schools for a variety of reasons far removed from the criminal law. Such a sense of disquiet is greater to-day if one accepts that the statutory definition of an ‘industrial school’ as being ‘a school for the industrial training of children in which children are lodged, clothed and fed as well as taught’ is not now, if it ever was, an accurate definition, and that a place of detention would be closer to reality.197

Having earlier considered the recommendations of the report, on 4th February 1972, Mr O’Sullivan drafted a commentary for Mr O’Rourke on the Kennedy Report. Acknowledging that the Department of Health had a representative on the Committee, he nonetheless went to say that: The report of the Committee could be criticised on the grounds that it has dealt with services outside the terms of reference prescribed for it by the Government. While the recommendations made by the Committee are in general exceedingly valuable, they may be questioned for example on the grounds that while the Committee dealt with Boarding-out for children, it had neither a Children’s Officer nor a health authority officer conversant with that field of activity, amongst its members. This may be the reason why the services administered by Health Authorities under the Health Acts, the Children’s Acts and the Adoption Acts (boarded-out and nursed out children etc.,) were not examined in the same detail as those available to children in Industrial and Reformatory Schools, although the total number of children dealt with by Health Authorities exceeds those dealt with by the Department of Education in their residential schools. Furthermore the Report does not give all the credit it might to the enlightened approach of many health authorities in this field.

In July and August 1971, a deputation from the Department of Education visited the Daingean Reformatory and the Salthill, Letterfrack and Clonmel Industrial Schools.

The paper also noted the reluctance of the Religious engaged in residential childcare to accept certain children and to operate ‘juvenile prisons’. Instead of the Oberstown project, CARE recommended that a secure unit for between 20-30 boys should be opened in, or close to, Dublin and ‘should be managed, for the time being at least, by the Department of Education’. On 2nd May 1972, a delegation203 from CARE held a meeting in the Department of Education with officials from the Departments of Education, Health and Justice. The record of the meeting made by the Department of Education noted that: Much time was spent in discussing the security arrangements at the new school in Oberstown. The delegation from CARE was very much against the security unit being attached to the school for the reasons already discussed at other meetings. This resistance mellowed somewhat when it was explained in more detail by the Department what was involved – that it would not be a complete security like a prison – and the reasons underlying it. The CARE people were dissatisfied with the location and size of Oberstown and the way these two things combined to stifle any other initiative. In relation to the last point, they were informed that the Department was not adverse to any other arrangement, for example, community based, but that whatever arrangement was chosen, there would be a need for Oberstown in the future.

CARE wrote to Mr Ó Floinn, Runai Cunta of the Department of Education, the following day thanking him for the helpful meeting and outlining: We accept that the Oberstown project is going ahead and we hope to maintain an interest in its development and in the development of the associated establishments at Letterfrack, Clonmel and Finglas. On that basis I would like to reiterate a few points which we mentioned in our paper or which came up in the discussion. (a) We feel that children should be treated with reference to their needs and not with reference to their deeds: offenders, children who come before the courts, should not be segregated in committal from other children with the same problems who do not come before the courts. Thinking in terms of ‘reformatories’ and ‘junior reformatories’ would be a barrier to developments in this direction. (b) The future organisation of residential services for children will have to provide differentiated facilities to meet the different needs and problems of various groups. (c) If the high standard of services sought by CARE and envisaged by your Department are to be achieved and maintained it is not enough to have goodwill on the part of most of those who are engaged in planning and providing the services, which goodwill undoubtedly exists at present. It seems to us that detailed provision will have to be made with regard to inspection, co-ordination, training and research and that this will have to be guaranteed by regulations, stated standards, specific administrative structures, and procedures as appropriate.

The initial response by the Department of Education to the suggestion from CARE and others that one Minister and one Department be responsible for children’s service was: There does seem to be logic in the recommendations in question. So far as this Department is concerned, this shows itself primarily in relation to the Residential Homes (formerly Industrial Schools) which now, with one or two exceptions, send all their children to school in the neighbouring national and post-primary schools and whose functions of caring for children seem most appropriately the administrative responsibility of a Welfare or Health Authority. In the case of the Special Schools (formerly Reformatory Schools), the residential and care function and the educational function are inextricably intertwined and it is difficult to see how they could be suitably separated.

The note also observed that at the time of writing the Department of Health had not yet given their considered views on this recommendation, but that the Department of Education understood that while the Department of Health saw the merits of the case, the ‘Department felt itself to have so many commitments at the present time that it did not welcome the financial and personnel problem which would be attached to taking over a complex block of work’. In the Department of Health, Clandillon drafted a discussion document in late 1972, outlining the recommendations of both the Committee on the Reformatory and Industrial Schools System and the CARE memorandum. She noted that while the recommendations of the CARE memorandum ‘differ in some resects from those in the Kennedy Report, ...basically it is a re-hash of the Kennedy recommendations’. In particular Clandillon noted that both reports recommended: (a)that the Reformatory at Daingean and the Remand Home in Marlborough House should be replaced and that the present institutional system of residential care should be replaced by groups homes which would approximate as closely as possible the normal family unit; (b)that an independent statutory board should be established. The Kennedy Report visualised this largely as an advisory board but interested in the promotion of child care. The CARE memorandum went further and visualised it as providing services directly and concerned with questions of planning, finance, organisation and personnel, and with responsibility for all residential establishments, for adoption and for preventative services. (c)administrative responsibility for all aspects of child care should be transferred to the Department of Health. The Department would cater for all aspects of child care – prevention, boarding-out, remand, admission and committal to residential care, after-care and adoption.

In relation to the recommendation that responsibility for all childcare services be transferred to the Department of Health, Clandillon noted some potential difficulties. She argued that the Department should not have responsibility for certain aspects of the childcare system, in particular, the juvenile liaison scheme, the juvenile courts, the adoption service or the probation service. She noted: The concept of one Department having responsibility sounds ...take over everything which could affect the welfare of children. Included would be family income maintenance, housing, employment and education. It would not, for instance, be feasible for a Minister for Health to have special responsibility regarding the type and amount of education which would be provided for children in poor areas. It is suggested that it has to be accepted that different Ministers must have responsibilities in the field of child care and that our efforts must be devoted to seeing – (a) what is the most rational distribution of responsibilities, (b) how can co-ordination best be achieved and how can we ensure that an overall view of the problem is taken. On the distribution of services the main things in which it has been suggested that this Department should have responsibility are – (a) adoption, the probation service, and the juvenile liaison service – all at present administered by the Department of Justice; (b) relations with the juvenile courts; (c) remand homes, reformatories and industrial schools – all now administered by the Department of Education. In regard to adoption, the Reports do not offer persuasive arguments why this should be transferred to the Department of Health other than the fact that is an important aspect of child care and is a substitute form of care. The Department of Justice has not taken an official line on this matter but officers of that Department with whom the matter was discussed feel that there is no reason why it should be transferred. They have built up a certain amount of expertise and they have established relations with the various bodies dealing with adoption. They agreed that close co-operation and co-ordination between the Adoption Board and Health Boards are important. It must be remembered that the Adoption Board is an independent statutory body. I do not think that the taking over of the Adoption Board by this Department would lead to any substantial improvements although there is a theoretical justification for taking it over. In regard to probation, the officers of the Department of Justice felt that this service is closely linked with the Gardaí, the Courts and the prisons. It deals with both juvenile and adult offenders. They have 40 officers employed at present and it is intended to increase this number to 70. I do not think the taking over of this service is desirable. If we took it over we would have to establish close liaison with the adult service, with the prisons, the Gardaí, and the Courts and the position would probably be more complicated than it is at present. It is agreed that co-operation between the existing service and the Health Board service is very desirable. In regard to the juvenile liaison service, this is a system under which selected members of the Gardaí talk to young offenders and their parents and frequently, by advice and persuasion, succeed in stopping delinquency. This is a scheme operated by the Gardaí and I do not think it would desirable that this Department should take it over. I do not think it would be desirable that we should attempt to deal with the Courts. The problems of juvenile offenders are intimately linked with the whole problem of the operation of the Courts, the probation service, the work of the Gardaí and the criminal law. I see no advantage in our trying to accept responsibilities for one portion. The need for co-ordination with the various other interests involved would probably leave the position worse than it is at present.

In relation to Residential Homes, Clandillon noted the increase in the number of children placed by health boards and that the Department of Education ‘seem prepared to agree that these homes should be transferred to the Department of Health but the Parliamentary Secretary seems to have some misgivings and reservations. Again these places could be operated by either Department provided there is co-operation and liaison on balance, however, I think it would be more logical that they should be under the control of this Department.’ The recommendations outlined by Clandillon, as she acknowledged: leave things as they are and may seem to suggest that there was no justification for the Reports. This is not so. A lot has happened since the reports were issued. On the Department of Justice side the welfare services have been expanded enormously and there are plans for further expansion. On the education side, Marlborough House has gone, Daingean is on the way out and new centres have been provided at Finglas and considerable improvements in the residential centres have been made. On our side we are developing our welfare services and we visualise a far greater development under the proposed Departmental re-organisation. On co-ordination, we could probably achieve this by regular meetings between ourselves, Justice and Education....Over and above all this is the question of new legislation...A possible solution would be for each Department to deal with its own bit of the legislation, but the various provisions are so inter-linked I think a comprehensive Act is essential. Instead, therefore, of simple liaison between the Departments of Health, Education and Justice, I would suggest the establishment of an advisory Council which would contain representatives of those Departments. It could be given as one of its first tasks the preparation of proposals for legislation. The Council should be appointed by the Minister for Health and it should report to him and he would take a lead role in the whole field. This, of course, will involve him in dealing with what will be a complicated, and possibly controversial, Bill. All this will be a futile exercise unless we have the staff and funds to deal with the problems which will arise.

An emerging issue for both the Department of Education and the Department of Health was the future management of children’s Residential Homes. In an undated memo, but probably late 1972, relating to the closure of Letterfrack Industrial School and its possible replacement by a school in Dublin, the future role of religious Congregations in managing Residential Homes was discussed by the Department of Education: The Christian Brothers, who conduct Letterfrack Special School for delinquent boys, have informed the Runai that they propose to phase out the school and have offered lands at Swords, Co. Dublin for a new school in replacement....It doesn’t automatically follow that because Letterfrack is to be closed it must immediately be replaced. A replacement school will cost something of the order of £300,000 to £400,000. The new schools at Finglas and Oberstown will not be fully operative until early 1973 and mid-1973, respectively, and it might be suggested that it will take some time before the impact of these new schools on the delinquency problem is clear. Moreover, opinion generally at the moment is against residential measures to cope with delinquency except as a last resort. As against this, if a replacement for Letterfrack is in fact needed, delay could result in a serious position for the Courts on the closure of Letterfrack. The Department of Justice strongly believes a replacement is needed. Growing urbanisation is likely to lead to an increase in the delinquency problem. While there is a certain overlap between Finglas and Letterfrack, the latter caters for a type of boy requiring a longer stay than is provided for in Finglas. Much of the opposition to residential institutions is misinformed: full development of welfare services will still have a residue of boys who cannot be effectively provided for except on a residential basis.

As the Department of Education was grappling with the management of reformatory and industrial schools, concern was expressed in the Department of Health in relation to the increase in the number of private orphanages, who because of rising costs, were seeking approval to allow health board children to be maintained by them. In a memo dated March 1973, it noted institutions seeking such approval in recent years included: St. Saviour’s Boys Home, Dominick Street; Mrs. Smyly’s Homes; Nazareth Home, Fahan; Extensions to Kill O’ The Grange Convent; Sacred Heart Home for Girls, Drumcondra; St. Vincent’s, Glasnevin. As a result, Health Boards, in some cases, accepted maintenance of children already in these homes, e.g. Kirwan House, although when possible they examined the possibility of boarding these children out with relatives. Mrs. Smyly’s Homes, another Protestant orphanage, which includes a nursery from which children may be placed for adoption, had on 29.09 .1972, 29 children being paid by Health Boards. Two other Protestant Homes had 15 H.A. children between them. These figures show an increasing reliance on Health Boards of private Protestant orphanages, which in former years were able to manage an income from investment and private subscriptions. Because we have recognised the value of such orphanages as Kill O’ the Grange Convent and St. Joseph’s Tivoli Road, we have in recent years approved of grants by the Eastern Health Board to assist in extending and improving them. We are particularly aware of these places because they assist and encourage the children to train for careers and keep in touch with them in after years. The Eastern Health Board which accepts a large number of children into care has difficulty in finding sufficient suitable foster homes. We encouraged St. Vincent’s Glasnevin to seek approval for the purposes of section 55. As you will recall this orphanage was not keen to seek approval. It has a high standard of teaching and results, and was afraid that the acceptance of Health Act children would lower its standards. Ten Health Act children, nine of them from Dublin, were being maintained there on 30.09 .1972.