884 entries for Government Department

On 18th May 1973, a draft memo for Government on the Kennedy Report was circulated in the Department of Education. The memo focused primarily on the issues of administrative responsibilities and the updating of legislation. The memo signalled that the Department of Education concurred with the recommendation of the Committee that ‘administrative responsibility for all aspects of child care should be transferred to the Department of Health. Responsibility for the education of children in care should remain with the Department of Education.’ However, this could not happen immediately as ‘the extensive measures of re-organisation and development which are currently engaging the attention of the Department of Health and the health authorities are unlikely to enable a transfer to take place without risk of some loss of efficiency.’

On this basis, the Department of Education proposed: (a)that administrative responsibility for the appropriate institutions remain with the Department of Education for the time being; (b)that the Department of Education take over, again for the interim period, the administration of similar institutions which, by reason of the fact that they do not accept children through the Courts, are at present under the Department of Health ; (c)that the Department of Health retain responsibility for boarding-out children; (d)that the planning of the development of facilities for the institutions and children in question be jointly undertaken by the two Departments in an inter-departmental committee under the direction of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and which would include also representation from the Department of Justice; (e)that the Department of Health arrange with the local health authorities, and through the inter-departmental committee, to place at the disposal of the schools the necessary psychological, psychiatric, medical and social worker service.

In addition, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Mr John Bruton outlined his views in a memo to the Minister. Noting the recommendation of both the Kennedy Committee and the CARE memorandum that responsibility for Residential Homes be vested in the Department of Health, he argued: ‘unlike the Department of Education, the Department of Health does not at this time have a staff with experience or competence in dealing with residential child care’. He also argued that: the multiplicity of agencies dealing with individual families and the lack of longterm overall planning – will not be solved by a simple transfer of Departmental responsibility for Residential Homes and Special Schools. Nor will it be solved by the setting up of a mere outside advisory body as proposed by CARE. It requires the establishment of more efficient means for co-ordination between Departments in dealing with both individual cases and overall policy.

Mr Bruton met with the Association of Workers for Children in Care (AWCC)213 on 4th July 1973 and sought their views on the transfer of residential childcare services to the Department of Health. Fr Gormley, on behalf of the organisation stated: that the administration of child care services by one Department would greatly facilitate the work, and the AWCC had stated this in its response to the Kennedy report. However, it was not for the Association to say which Department could best provide the services that were needed. As far as the Association was concerned, it was the quality of the administration and the back-up services which counted. The real problems facing workers in the Homes were often haphazard method referral, the lack of assessment facilities in many areas, inadequate finance, the lack of ongoing support for children after they have left care. The Association saw the need for a Family Welfare Department which would co-ordinate the work and generate the various services which were needed.

The Department of Health also drafted a memo for Government outlining their views on the situation, particular the need for decisions to be made on matters arising from both the Kennedy Report and the CARE memorandum and noting that ‘while the recommendations in the two reports differ in some respects basically CARE reiterated the recommendations in the earlier Kennedy Report’. The memo acknowledged that progress had been achieved in realising some of the recommendations of the Reports, ‘but there are two major areas which have not been dealt with – the recommendations regarding the administration of services and the need for comprehensive examination and up-dating of legislation in relation to child care’. the memo outlined that responsibility for the probation services, the juvenile liaison scheme and the children’s courts should be retained by the Department of Justice rather than being transferred to Health as recommended in the Kennedy Report. The memo argued that Government should accept in principle that adoption services should be transferred from the Department of Justice to the Department of Health, but that ‘further consideration should be given to the question when the transfer should take place’. On the issue of residential care, in relation to the reformatory schools and remand homes, the memo noted that: a view has been put forward that the residential and educational aspects of care given in these centres cannot be divorced and that special teaching related to the deficiencies of the children is a vital element; this is a cogent argument as there is no doubt that education must be a major element no matter what Minister is responsible for the centres. However, while there may be little, if any, health or welfare content in the case of a number of residents their initial medical and social assessment would be an essential element. Furthermore, the Department of Health has wide experience in the running of institutions and many of the problems which would arise in regard to the centres would be similar to those arising in other residential centres. The making of arrangements for more specialised care would be facilitated if one authority had responsibility for all centres. Again, there is a large educational element in mental handicap institutions – the Department of Education providing the necessary education works well. There is great need to build up expertise in the sphere of delinquent, aggressive and seriously disturbed behaviour and this almost certainly must be done on the health side. In the circumstances, the balance of argument appears to suggest that the Department of Health should take over responsibility for these centres.

In relation to industrial schools, the memo argued that as these homes contained ‘an increasing proportion of children sent by Health Boards and which can be regarded, to a considerable extent, as part of a family care service’, that responsibility for the homes should be transferred to the Department of Health and that the ‘Health Boards have the necessary staff expertise etc. to ensure the best possible care for children in these homes’.

An Inter-Departmental Working Party, along the lines suggested by Education, was established, but difficulties were evident within the Department of Education in making progress in implementing the recommendations of the Report and on maintaining their day-to-day obligations in relation to Residential Homes, in particular, their inspectorial work. On 29th November 1973, Mr Ó Maitiú highlighted that the post of Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools had in effect been downgraded from an assistant principal officer to that of a higher executive officer (HEO). However, ‘because of the work involved in implementing the Kennedy Report these arrangements have proved entirely inadequate. The Report has involved the recasting of the system from top to bottom and involves work of very high quality. The HEO has not found it possible to carry out his executive duties as officer in charge of the section and, at the same time perform his statutory duties as Inspector. The inspectorial work has suffered.’ Mr Ó Maitiú noted that the Kennedy Report had recommended that ‘approximately five or six Inspectors would be required to operate a proper inspectorate’. Mr Ó Maitiú stated: This is a formidable indictment of the official attitude to the inspection of the homes and of the indifferent approach to the staffing of the Inspector post. Three years later the position, if anything, has worsened. Far from five or six Inspectors being appointed, there is now not even one Inspector fully on the job. Furthermore, the H.E.O. can only carry out an administrative inspection – he has no qualifications otherwise. He has not even the help of a Medical Inspector as this post has not been filled for some years. The situation is now arising where the personnel of the Schools is obtaining child-care qualifications (as a result of courses conducted on behalf of the Department), whereas the Department itself has no inspector qualified in this field. There is an urgent need now for an Inspector with suitable qualifications who will supervise the implementation of the Kennedy Report in the Schools and homes and advise and council staff, co-ordinate arrangements with Health boards and Courts, ensure that medical services etc. are provided, that children are securing the education best suited to their needs and aptitudes, that after-care is receiving proper attention.214

A fortnight earlier, the Kennedy Report was debated in the Seanad, the first time the report was debated in either House. The Parliamentary Secretary at the Department of Education, Mr Bruton, outlined the progress on implementing the recommendations of the Report, but observed ‘to date there has been a certain amount of secretiveness in the approach of my Department and also of other Departments to this important subject. This was particularly marked during the tenure of office of the previous Government.’ On the issue of Departmental responsibility for child welfare services, he argued: No matter where we draw the line as between one Department and the other, no matter where we lay the main responsibility, there will always be frayed edges, there will always be areas where demarcation will be unclear. Even within the terms of the Kennedy and CARE recommendations the Department of Education would retain responsibility for general education, for school psychological and child guidance service, for school attendance, for youth service, for remedial education, for education of the mentally handicapped and so on. All these are matters which bear very significantly on the life of the child in care and indeed on national policy in relation to children in care. To take another example, the Kennedy proposal that in the case of special schools one Department should have responsibility for the residential aspect of the special schools and another for the educational aspects, would introduce a duality of responsibility where in fact at the moment unity exists. It may be that the problem it is sought to solve, namely, the lack of co-ordination in overall policy-making and in dealing with the cases of individual children, can best be dealt with by more formalised contact between the various authorities at national, regional and local level rather than by shifting responsibilities around from one Minister to another.215

Recommendation No 1 stated that ‘the whole aim of the child-care system should be geared towards the prevention of family breakdown and the problems consequent on it; the admission of children to residential care to be considered only when there was no satisfactory alternative’. The Working Party found that while it was not possible to compare the number of children in care in late 1973 with the position that existed at the time of the Kennedy Committee were reporting, in broad terms the number of children in Reformatory and Industrial schools had declined from 2,202 in 1969 to 1,495 in December 1973. It also noted that for Departmental purposes, Industrial Schools were now referred to as Residential Homes and Reformatory Schools referred to as Special Schools, although for legal purposes, they would retain their original designations. The decline in the number of children in Industrial Schools, the Working Party suggested, was due to a greater reluctance by the courts to commit children because of a lack of proper guardianship was a contributory factor in addition to ‘improved living standards generally and the continuing impact of the Adoption Act 1952, and of Department of Health policy favouring boarding-out as opposed to residential care.’ In relation to the Reformatory Schools, the introduction of the juvenile liaison scheme in the early 1960s216 and a much expanded Probation and Welfare Service217 helped divert many young people from having to be committed.

Recommendation No 2 of the Kennedy Report urged that the institutional system of residential care should be abolished to be replaced by group homes. The Working Party highlighted that over half the homes were in the process of adopting a group structure, this was done in three ways with the aid of grants from the Department of Education: (1) by erecting new purpose built group homes; (2) by purchasing private houses for adaptation as group homes; (3) by converting existing buildings to the group home system. The Working Party noted that the ‘general tenor of the report appears to envisage the present system of large institutional buildings being replaced by self-contained units for 7 to 9 children each, these units to be conducted by houseparents and approximating as closely as possible the normal family unit. This would seem to entail a radical reorganization of the residential care system, as it appears to imply numbers of small, independent units.’

Recommendation No 5 was to the effect that the staff engaged in childcare work should be fully trained. The Kennedy Committee said that this should take precedence over any other recommendations. In response to this recommendation, the Working Party noted that a full-time residential course in childcare, financed by the Department of Education, was established at the School of Social Education, Kilkenny in 1971 and to date 41 students had successfully qualified. The Department of Education also promoted the organisation of in-service training courses at St Patrick’s Training College, Drumcondra; St Vincent’s, Goldenbridge; the Waterford Regional College of Technology, and Saint Mary’s College, Cathal Brugha Street. The Working Group compared the numbers in child care training in 1969 and 1973 and while the number with full child-care training increased from 4 to 26, the numbers with no training also increased from 27 to 60.

Recommendation No 8 urged that administrative responsibility for all aspects of childcare be transferred to the Department of Health with responsibility for the education of children in care to remain with the Department of Education. The Working Party reported that: While this matter has formed the subject of some inter-departmental discussions, no decision has yet been taken in this matter. Legislation would be required to carry this recommendation into effect. Pending such action, this recommendation has promoted increased liaison between the different Departments concerned and regular meetings are held between officers of the Departments in question.

On the basis of the proposals outlined in the letter, the Department of Education prepared a draft memorandum for Government. In this the Minister for Education outlined his position in respect of the proposal put forward by the Working Party, arguing ‘the modus operandi proposed by the Working party would appear as a recommendation for another (updated) Kennedy Report and would constitute a dilatory and abstract approach to the problem’. It reiterated the recommendation from the Kennedy Report in relation to administrative responsibility for childcare services, also noting that The Care Memorandum recommended ‘having one Minister and one Department have the “main responsibility” for deprived children and children’s services’. The memo went on to state that the CARE Memorandum ‘does not, however, attempt to define what should be the limits of this responsibility of the principal Minister (i.e. the Minister for Health) in relation to the services which would remain with the Ministers for Education and Justice. Moreover, it would seem to take no account of the very important principle that political accountability and administrative responsibility should rest with the same person.’226

The view of the Department of Education was that: the laudable purpose which the Kennedy Committee had in mind would be more appropriately achieved by establishing an efficient and politically directed system of co-ordination between the various Departments under which each would continue to play its existing specialist role as embodied in the concepts ‘Care’, ‘Education’ and ‘Justice’. To obtain the full benefits of specialisation, it is possible that services at present administered in one of the Departments for historical reasons might be more properly located in another. In the long-term, a re-arrangement of responsibility for services concerned preponderantly either with ‘education’ or ‘care’ may be necessary as between the Departments of Education and Health. This, for example, might involve the transfer of responsibility for residential homes (the former industrial schools) to the Department of Health. In the short term, however, the Minister for Education considers the present would not be an appropriate time for such a transfer. Many of the services concerned with deprived children are at present in the course of rapid development and the Minister fears that the task of undertaking a transfer of functions at this juncture, with all that this implies in the way of staff re-organisation and re-familiarisation, might retard rather than accelerate the immediate improvement and expansion of services.

In addition, ‘because of the considerable organisation implications involved, a representative from the Department of Public Service should be included on this inter-departmental Committee’.