884 entries for Government Department

The decision to establish an interdepartmental committee and the deliberations that gave rise to it provide a useful example of the difficulty of implementation in the area of child welfare. The Kennedy Committee had recommended that the system of funding residential care move from a capitation system to a budget system and that responsibility for the administration of childcare be given to the Department of Health. However, this would not be finally agreed on and implemented until 1984 and involved the commissioning of a number of further reports, and the establishment of an inter-departmental committee, before formal agreement could be reached. The transfer of functions relating to Industrial Schools from the Minister for Education to the Minister for Health on 1st January 1984337 effectively centralised all statutory responsibilities for children’s homes to the Department of Health. From that date the Department of Health assumed statutory responsibility for 24 Industrial Schools in addition to the 17 approved homes for which it already had responsibility under the Health Act 1953. The only residential facilities for children in care operating outside the aegis of the Minister for Health were the four Special Schools, which were controlled and funded by the Minister for Education. January 1984 also marked a major change in the funding of children’s homes. Homes in the past were financed from a combination of public and private funds. Grants payable jointly by the State and local authorities in respect of the maintenance of children committed to certified Industrial Schools were provided for in the Children Act 1908. Grants took the form of a fixed sum per child per week – a capitation rate, with half the rate paid by the Minister for Education and half by the local authority. A school’s income from these sources was supplemented by fund-raising. As the number of children committed by the courts to the homes declined, the number of children placed by the health boards increased. Health boards paid the full capitation rate for these children and also for children placed by them in Approved Homes. This system of payment ceased from 1st January 1984 and children’s homes from that point were now funded directly on a budget basis by their local health board, following recommendations by a special inter-departmental committee established by the Minister for Health to examine the financing of all children’s homes.

On 23rd October 1974, Mr O Maitiú wrote to Mr Hensey in the Department of Health informing him that the Department of Education was studying the question of the financing of the residential homes and that discussions had taken place with the Association of Workers in Child Care in relation to recommendation 11 of the Kennedy Report. In his letter he stated that ‘because an increasing proportion of the children in the homes are the responsibility of the health authorities and particularly in view of the recent Government decision on the role of the Minister for Health in regard to child care, we think we should not go further with the matter at this stage until we have consulted with your Department’. Ó Maitiú enclosed a detailed memorandum on the issue which reflected the Department’s thinking at that time. The memo highlighted that: One of the points basic to the Kennedy Report recommendations was that children should be placed in, and retained in, residential care only when there was no suitable alternative. In this context, it was felt that a system of financing homes by capitation grant could encourage homes to try to retain children who should suitably be returned home or placed elsewhere under supervision.

The Department was also under pressure to deal with the financing of the homes. This pressure has come from two related sources. Firstly, it was also a major recommendation of the Kennedy Report that large institutional buildings should be sub-divided into small self-contained units or, where new buildings were needed, these should be in the form of small group homes. This recommendation was accepted by the Department and funds for the conversion of old buildings and the erection of new ones have been made available by the Department of Finance since 1971. It was in fact already being implemented independently, so far as their sources would allow, by some of the homes. The effect of a move to small groups is, obviously, some sacrifice of the more economical functioning of the larger institutional structures, particularly as concerns staff numbers. The second source of pressure on the Department has been the decline in the number of religious available to staff the homes and the consequent employment by the conductors of lay people as staff in much greater numbers than before. Such lay people are not prepared to work for the salary rates which the capitation grant permits the conductors to offer them, nor are they prepared to enter a type of employment where salary rates and other conditions are not agreed on a general basis.

In 1975, the Department of Education commissioned a detailed analysis of the financing of residential homes, which was completed in February.338 The report concluded that the present system of payments to homes from a variety of sources is administratively wasteful and places unnecessary burdens on the homes. Payments should be made, in present circumstances, only by the Department of Education which would subsequently recover the appropriate payments from the local authorities and the Department of Health.’

However, the Department of Education continued to favour the capitation scheme on the grounds that it gave the homes greater freedom to manage their own affairs and to decide their own priorities. The Department of Finance on the other hand, in correspondence with the Department of Education on 20th February 1976, favoured another option outlined in the report, a capitation grant, but the salaries paid directly by the Department of Education, with the proviso that no additional staff could be employed in the homes and that contributions by local authorities be maintained in the same proportion as the currently paid. The Department of Education were in broad agreement with the report, but noted that salaries should take cognisance of the fact that staff did not work a rigid 40-hour week and would have to work anti-social hours. On the issue of the Department of Education paying the staff salaries directly, the Department replied to the Department of Finance stating they were: very doubtful about this. It would mean creating what would be to all intents a new cadre of public servants, paid directly by the State. Would your proposal that we pay these staff at their existing rates be workable? Some are paid nothing at all, some take notional salaries out of the grant, some are paid varying amounts, depending on what the particular home can afford. A few are being paid the rates for Lusk and Finglas, which we consider too high for the residential homes. If the State takes over, a claim for uniformity of remuneration will be irresistible and it will go for the highest level rather than the lowest. All the staff basically are doing the same job. With the State as paymaster these staffs would immediately become unionised and thereby gain immediate access to the Labour Court. We have been very disappointed at the rigid Union attitudes which have developed in Lusk and Finglas and which have led to demands which we consider grossly excessive....The Department is of the view that nothing should be done which would detract from the voluntary character of all these homes – whether they are financially supported by this Department, the Department of Health or a mixture of the two. The State should not interfere in this sensitive area any more than is necessary.

The Report envisaged two categories of Residential Homes – Category 1 homes to include Lusk, Finglas and Clonmel that functioned as Residential Special Schools. These homes were to cater for young offenders in need of special education as well as specialised psychological treatment. Category 2 homes were to include all other Residential Homes for which the Department of Education had responsibility. As a rule, the report envisaged that these children would attend primary or post primary schools outside the home. For the Category 2 homes, the report recommended that care staff be sanctioned for each home on the basis of a staff/ child ratio of 1:4 with the following grades of care staff recognised. Resident Manager with overall responsibility for the homes; senior House parent with responsibility for the group; house parent providing care expertise and ensuring that trained staff is present with the children at all times and assistant house parent to co-operate with the house parents. The report further recommended that an incremental salary scale should be provided for each rank of careworker.

In addition to the report commissioned by the Department of Education, the Association of Workers for Children in Care (AWCC) commissioned Robert J Kidney & Co Chartered Accountants in 1976 to identify the costs of maintaining children in care in 1975.339 The report concluded that the appropriate capitation rate was £40.90 per week, with the salaries for childcare workers equivalent to those paid to the childcare workers at the special schools for young offenders at Finglas and Lusk, and recommended a staffing ratio of 1:4. The AWCC in commenting on the report argued: This capitation system was designed for a situation in which large numbers of children were being cared for in ‘institutional’ settings, mainly by religious workers for whom no salary provision was made. It is quite unsuited to present circumstances in which children are cared for in small, family type groups, within one complex, requiring inevitable duplication of some facilities and much greater staffing ratios. The considerable intake of staff in recent years has been almost entirely lay and these workers are entitled to a proper salary and career structure.

In response to both reports, the Department of Education noted its role in relation to residential childcare was very much in decline with the majority of children entering residential care via the regional health boards rather than the courts. As a consequence, while retaining administrative responsibility for the homes, they asserted that they had ‘no control of input and no responsibility for many of the children in them. Planning, estimating etc. have been made extremely difficult and the whole thing is now an administrative nightmare.’ On this basis, it was argued that the difficulties which arise when administration is divided between Departments cannot be solved simply by co-operation between Departments and result in waste of both time and money...At working level the correct line would appear to be that residential homes should go to the Department of Health, but that, because of their specific educational role, the special residential schools for offenders should remain the responsibility of this Department.

On 11th October 1976, the Taoiseach, Mr Cosgrave, received a letter from Sr M. Josephine, Superior General, Convent of the Mother of Mercy, Carysfort Park, Blackrock, County Dublin, where she sought an increase in the salaries to be paid to residential childcare workers, and stating that ‘we respectfully remind you that we who belong to your own constituency in which one of our residential homes is situated (St Anne’s, Booterstown), have a special claim on your consideration and support’. The Taoiseach contacted Mr Bruton at the Department of Education who, in outlining the situation to the Taoiseach, stated: The claim recently submitted by the Association of Workers for Children in Care would involve more than double the State expenditure on the homes, in real terms, in the first year alone. The whole trust of the claim is related to staff salaries rather than the cost of maintaining the children. About 65 percent of the State expenditure under the A.W.C.C. proposals would be in respect of staff salaries. Frankly, I think these expectations are unrealistic, especially in the present circumstances. One point I must emphasise is that we are totally opposed to any question of salary scales for child care workers in these homes being the same as those of housemasters in Lusk and Finglas. The A.W.C.C. claims that both groups are doing substantially the same work. We disagree. The boys in Lusk and Finglas, referred for persistent delinquency, are significantly more difficult to manage than the vast majority in the homes. However, apart from this, the Lusk and Finglas scales were deliberately designed to relate the housemasters with the teachers with whom they have to work closely. The staff in the homes, on the other hand, are similar to other staff in institutions for children who work alongside nurses. The implications for the cost of health services of paying child care staff in homes higher salaries than nurses could be enormous.

On 2nd November 1976, the Department of Finance, in response to a series of representations to the Taoiseach seeking the provision of a salary scale for childcare workers and the general financing of the homes, outlined its position in a letter which stated: ..before any radical changes are made in the current arrangements for providing State aid for these homes, every effort must be made to rationalise the child care system by reducing the number of homes to reflect fully the dramatic fall in the number of children in care from about 2,900 to 1,200 over the past 10 years. While it is appreciated that this fall in numbers resulted in the closure of some homes and enabled desirable improvements to be brought about in the standard of care of those remaining, it seems clear that there is still scope for rationalisation to produce economies in staff numbers and administration generally which would help to ensure that the system as a whole operates at a minimum cost in terms of public funds. The Minister is not convinced that the small group concept would suffer from phasing out smaller homes in favour of utilising the capacity of the larger homes. In this context the analogy of high-density social housing may be cited to refute the view, put forward by the Department of Education, that only small buildings are suited to family-type units for children in care. As in the case of social housing, economic and budgetary factors must play a significant role in determining our system of child care.

On 19th November 1976, a further meeting took place between the Departments of Finance, Education and Health to discuss the funding of the homes. One of the issues raised was the disbursement of £150,000, a savings made in 1976, on the basis that additional expenditure was sought on the expectation that advances would have been made during the years in the financing of homes. However, on 14th December 1976, the Department of Finance wrote to the Department of Education stating that ‘the making of special grants as proposed at this stage would be premature....and in the circumstances it is regretted that sanction as sought must be refused’.

On 4th March 1977, the Tanaiste and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Education met with representatives from the Conference of Major Religious Superiors (CMRS)340 to further discuss the financing of the homes. At the meeting the Tanaiste informed the delegation that the capitation fee was to increase from £18 to £22 with effect from 1st January 1977 and that he had established an inter-departmental group to examine the issue. The delegation from the CMRS outlined their disappointment at the level of the increase and highlighted that the report they had commissioned indicated that a rate of £40 was needed. On this basis, they felt they would have no option but to close a number of the homes and restrict further entries to the homes. The delegation highlighted: the problem they faced in relation to the salaries of staff: they also mentioned a number of subsidiary matters which needed attention including the arrangements for making payments and the provision of medical care for the children in the homes. They saw it as a State responsibility to ensure that children in care were properly looked after. They accepted that there was necessarily a lot of delicacy about the relationship between the State and the Religious Organisations involved in the provision of care. It could be assumed, however, that if the present difficulties were overcome the Religious Orders would wish to continue to make the same contribution as they are now making.

On the same day, the Tanaiste and Minister for Health held a meeting with representatives from the Council for Social Welfare341 regarding the financing of Residential Homes. At the meeting the Council’s representatives explained that there was considerable urgency attached to the provision of increased financial aid for the homes which otherwise, in many instances, would have to close because of the level of indebtedness. There was particular difficulty about the very low level of salaries that the homes were now paying to many of their staffs and the managements could no longer stand over this. The Tanaiste told the deputation that the capitation rate was being increased from £18 to £22 with effect from 1st January 1977 and that an inter-departmental working group was looking urgently at what further steps needed to be taken to overcome the immediate difficulties and that this group would report by 31st March, 1977. Members of the deputation also assured the Tanaiste that from the Hierarchy’s point of view there would be no problem about such matters as staffing being more rigidly controlled than had hitherto been the case. The briefing note prepared by the Department of Health for this meeting provides an overview of the thinking of key officials in the Department of Health at this time. The note firstly outlined the reasons for the request to meet. It outlined (a)The Council for Social Welfare is a Committee of the Catholic Bishops Conference. At its meeting in October last the Committee received a request from the Conference of Major Religious Superiors that the Hierarchy should approach the Government regarding the serious situation that is emerging in residential child care centres as a result of the lack of any salary structure for the child care staffs in those centres. (b)The Conference of Major Religious Superiors represents the Orders which are, inter alia, involved in the running of residential child care centres. Notwithstanding their approach through the Council for Social Welfare they wish to put their case direct to the effect that (i)they have exhausted all options known to them in trying to keep the homes in operation and (ii)the present capitation grant system in quite ineffective and that they are seeking a system of financing as outlined in the Kidney Report.’

In a memorandum to Government from the Department of Health, dated 18th April 1977, it was noted that the CMRS was seeking a substantial increase in the capitation rate and ‘in the absence of a favourable response, eight homes will be closed and further seventeen will refuse new admissions’. It noted that the Inter Departmental Group found that a capitation rate of between £28 and £30 per week was necessary and sought agreement to negotiate an increased capitation rate of not more than £30 per week. The Minister for Finance in his comments on the memorandum noted that State support for the homes increased from £0.8m in 1972-73 to an estimated £1.6m in 1977 and that he considered: that £30 per child per week should be the absolute limit of the Government grant in the current circumstances and that the Conference of Major Religious Superiors should be firmly informed accordingly. In his view the Government should not in any circumstances concede to unreasonable demands from any quarter whether it be the Conference of Major Religious Superiors or a more humbly titled organisation. It should be quite feasible to place most, if not all, of the children concerned in good homes within the community, to the advantage of the children, if an allowance of a lesser amount that £30 was payable to each child. In this connection it is relevant to point out that the highest weekly allowance currently payable to foster parents by Health Boards is understood to be of the order of £10 per child.

The Minister for Health in response to the comments made by the Department of Finance noted that ‘it would always be necessary to have some children in residential care and that this form of care will be relatively expensive’.