884 entries for Government Department

This was agreed to by the Department of Health and the inaugural meeting of the Implementation Committee took place on 8th October 1976. In relation to the first recommendation of the Interim Task Force Report; the establishment of a Council for the Education and Training of Social Services personnel; the meeting agreed to establish a Manpower Committee, with the Department of Health having a lead role working in liaison with the National Council for Educational Awards and the Higher Educational Authority. On the second recommendation: the establishment of neighbourhood youth projects; it was agreed that the initial resources would be put into the Cork project and that the other projects would learn from their experience and with lead responsibility residing with the Department of Education. With regard to the third recommendation, the provision of accommodation for children on a short-term basis, it was agreed to expand the number of places available at Madonna House, but it was noted the ‘question of money being available is the only problem’. The fourth recommendation: the replacement of St Joseph’s School in Clonmel, was deferred until both Departments could agree on the size of the School.

On 1st November 1977, Mr O’Dwyer in the Department of Health highlighted in a memo to Mr O’Rourke, and the Secretary of the Department that while he did not believe that there was any justification for a public enquiry into the death of HT: The circumstances revealed in this case do focus attention on a number of issues in relation to residential care. It raises again the question of the extent to which the State should supervise the provision of residential care for children. It draws attention to the need to (a) quickly conclude discussions with the Conference of Major Religious Superiors regarding the appropriate staffing levels of the homes and the further training needs of existing child care workers; (b) further examine the qualifications and training of residential care staff, particularly those who have managerial or supervisory responsibilities; (c) review and if necessary, tighten up the procedures to be followed where children are allowed to be outside the homes; (e) lay down specific guidelines to be followed in establishing numbers of children present each night and the procedures to be put into operation where a child is missing from a home, including the arrangements for notification to the Gardaí.

Following meetings with various officers in the Eastern Health Board, the Department of Education, the Manager of Madonna House at that time, Sr Carmel Anthony, and the Manager of St Kyrans, Sr Xaveria, Mr O’Dwyer wrote: I would be optimistic about getting a very positive response from the managers of the homes and the Conference of Major Religious Superiors in bringing about changes and improvements in the existing procedures. Until the middle of 1977, the authorities were very much concerned with financial problems but they are now reasonably satisfied with the capitation rate, provided it is adjusted annually to take account of inflation and approved developments in the service.

Mr O’Dwyer also noted that no formal training for managers existed, although the Department of Education did provide a course for managers until 1977. On this issue, Mr O’Dwyer recommended that: discussions take place with the Conference of Major Religious Superiors to agree on future minimal qualifications and experience of managers of residential homes; Where the Order cannot find a suitable person, the post be advertised and filled by open competitions; Arrangements be made to meet the further training needs of existing managers; Pending decisions of the re-organisation of child care, the child care advisors of the Departments of Education and Health be consulted about any proposed new appointment of a manager and that one of them be on any interview board established to fill a manager post; agreement be reached on the future arrangements which will apply for the assignment and transfer of other religious staffs.

On 28th February 1978, the Department of Health wrote to the Rev Brendan Comiskey, the Secretary General of the Conference of Major Religious Superiors, outlining the recommendations following from the review into the death of HT. The letter outlined that the recommendations were discussed with the Department of Education and that both Departments wished procedures to apply to all children’s homes. The letter did note that: It is accepted that if the managers of the homes were to insist on a strict application of the statutory provisions, they need not necessarily comply with some of the suggestions which have been made. It would, however, be hoped that agreement would be reached on procedures which would apply to all children, pending the enactment of the legislation which is expected to follow on the report of the Task Force on Child Care Services.

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.

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.

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 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.

The meeting also noted that the Department of Justice were in the process of recruiting 320 additional prison officers and that the staff of Loughan House would be drawn primarily from this group. Mr Ó Maitiú reported, that on the instruction of the Minister for Education, sanction had been sought from the Department of Finance to fund the construction of a unit for 40 boys. At the ninth meeting of the team on 10th January 1978 the members were informed that Loughan House had ceased operating for 16-21-year-olds and that staff training for the new function commenced. At the next meeting on 13th February 1978: The question of adverse publicity about the Loughan House Project was then discussed and it was agreed that various organisations who had indulged in criticism (CARE, IASW etc.) had been given a great deal of information about the project and that there was no excuse for the inaccuracies in their statements.

Despite substantial criticisms from a range of childcare organisations, pending the opening of a purpose-built unit in Oberstown, it was agreed that Loughan House, in Blacklion, County Cavan, would be certified as a Reformatory School for 12- to 16-year-old males and be managed by the Department of Justice and staffed by prison officers. Critics included the Prisoners Rights Organisation, who conducted a survey of 50 12–16-year-olds in the North Inner City which concluded that: 92 percent have or have had a brother or father in prison and 94 per cent believe that they themselves will end up in prison. The threat of prison is always present for these youngsters. Yet it does not deter them. When the morale of a community is broken and it has become unstable through lack of financial opportunities and social security the internal sanctions in the community which are largely manifested through parental control cease to operate. External sanctions, largely manifested in the criminal justice system, will not substitute. When people live in such disadvantaged circumstances the deterrent effect of prison exists only in the mind of the penologist. Loughan House can have no deterrent effect for these youngsters.277

In early 1978 the issue of administrative responsibility for childcare services was raised in the Department of Education. Mr Ó Gilín, on 9th February, in a detailed memo to Mr Ó Maitiú, noted the Task Force on Child Care Services had effectively stopped meeting in January 1977. The Minister for Health, Mr Haughey TD, decided to ask it to complete its work and appointed Judge Sean Butler of the High Court as Chairman in December 1977, replacing Mr Flor O’Mahony who had stepped down in April 1977. Mr Ó Gilín noted that: The task force has therefore now resumed work and, as a first objective, has set itself to produce a draft report on the question of administrative responsibility. It is considered that, at the present juncture, this will be a matter on which a decision can be made fairly quickly. As, in addition, it is one of the main issues on which the Task Force has to report, a decision on this matter is of major importance. For this reason, it is sought in this memorandum to confirm if earlier Departmental policy is unchanged in this regard. In particular, it is desired to establish the relevance to this matter of proposal no. 5 in the section of the Fianna Fail manifesto on ‘youth and youth employment’. The proposal is to the effect that a ‘Children’s Service Authority’ be established ‘with responsibility for deprived children or those at risk by the provision of the necessary medical and education services.

Mr Ó Gilín then asked what effect the proposal in the Fianna Fail manifesto would have on the deliberations of the Task Force, noting that ‘if the advocates of a specific child care authority in the Task Force were aware of the manifesto proposal, they would make good use of it, to the chagrin of the Department of Health’. In relation to residential childcare, he highlighted two substantial changes in the nature of such provision since the publication of the Kennedy Report in 1970: The first of these (already underway at the time of the report but now virtually complete) arises out of the change from the traditional industrial school (where the school was on the premises) to the present residential home, where the children go outside to schools in the local community. Applying the Kennedy Report recommendations to this situation, the Department of Health (or the health boards) should take over the homes completely, as they are now child care, and not educational (except in a very general sense) institutions. The residual education function should be discharged through advising the Inspectors (as it is now about to be done) on paying particular attention to the educational needs of children from the homes where they are found on the rolls of local national schools. The second development has been that, while at the time of the Kennedy Report the great majority of the children were committed through the courts (and were thus this Department’s responsibility under existing legislation), the position now is that the majority of the present population of the homes is placed there, and paid for by the health boards. In a few short years, this will be the case with almost all the residential home population. The two factors above are, together, almost unanswerable grounds for transferring administrative responsibility for the homes to the Department of Health. This has been our policy and it is presumed no change is contemplated.

However, he went on to argue that ‘the position of the special schools is different’. The proposal from the Kennedy Report that the Department of Education provide the educational input to the schools and the Department of Health manage the residential element in Mr Ó Gilín’s view ‘would be detrimental to the achievement of the school’s objectives and thus of the welfare of the children’. However, he noted that he thought that proposals would be put forward to transfer the Special Schools to the Department of Health, the grounds being that: if there is to be a children’s authority in any form, then this authority should have control over the full range of facilities (which would include special schools) for deprived children. Thus a child may, for a time need family support (home help) or social worker supervision. At a later time he may need placement in residential care (residential home or special school), following which there may be a further period of after-care under supervision. This kind of continuity of care, it will be argued, can only be effectively achieved if the care authority itself is responsible for the full range of services.