4,228 entries for Historical Context

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.

At the end of June 1972, CARE published a detailed memorandum on deprived children and children’s services in Ireland.204 The memorandum claimed: children’s services in Ireland are vastly underdeveloped in a number of respects as compared with other social services in Ireland or as compared with children’s services in other countries like ours. This is an indictment of our community and demands action now for reasons of justice and charity and even economy. The deficiencies in our provisions have long been recognised; they have been the subject of informed comment and protest for decades. But the protests have not been acted upon. The responsibility now devolves on us who can learn and speak out and act today. It is CARE’s purposes to strive that the community accepts this responsibility, that provisions are improved now – late in the day.205

Both in the Memorandum and in subsequent publications, CARE argued for the need for co-ordination in the delivery of childcare services, arguing that ‘there is no one planning authority for services for deprived children, no co-ordinating machinery, no means of overall development. The interests of deprived children consequently suffer in the content of national planning.’206 In relation to residential care, CARE proposed: That all institutions for deprived children while retaining their independence should be more fully integrated into a total child-care service under the Health Boards and should be inspected by the Boards’.207 That the regional care authorities in each health region should together, and in consultation with the Health Board, work out a plan for co-ordination and specialisation in residential care in the region’.208 The need for training for staff of residential care services.209 The need for extensive research designed to find the right methods of care for various categories of deprived children.210

Later that year, CARE, in conjunction with a range of other organisations211 submitted a memo to the Government demanding one Minister for children. Having outlined the difficulties with the existing system of administration, the memo proposed: that one Government Minister should be designated as having overall responsibility, or the main responsibility, for deprived children and children’s services in Ireland. This means the allocation of additional functions to a present Minister, not the creation of a new Ministerial post. Any less radical solution, would not resolve the problems we have described. The establishment of a co-ordinating inter-departmental committee and the appointment of an advisory body, have been recommended elsewhere: such structures are desirable but they alone could not meet the needs of the present grave system. With regard to the choice of department we think that the Department of Health is the most appropriate department to have charge of deprived children. At the moment this department has many welfare responsibilities. In the long-term we foresee the possibility of the amalgamation of the Departments of Health and Social Welfare into one Department of Health and Welfare (as recommended by the Devlin Committee, 1969 and recently by the Catholic Bishops Council on Social Welfare) which would be responsible for health services, social security and social work services. Children’s services are only one part of social work services and when we talk of the co-ordination of children’s services we see this as a first step towards the ultimate co-ordination of social work services, or welfare services, at a national level. Children’s services, or welfare services generally, merge into other social services, such as housing and social security, at one end, and into custodial services at the other. For this reason one minister, or one department could not be responsible for all aspects of services which meet the needs of deprived children: what we are asking for is that responsibility, for the basic ‘children’s services’(emphasis in original) and responsibility for overall policy and planning in respect of deprived children should be defined and allocated to one Minister. It might be considered necessary to delegate this responsibility to a Parliamentary Secretary. In the first instance we would suggest that a children’s Services Section should be established within the Department of Health under a Principal Officer with no other responsibilities initially it would be the task of the section to survey all services for deprived children and to consult with relevant interests. It could then assume planning and executive responsibility for a range of services at present coming under the three departments. The decision in principle to have one minister and one department with the main responsibility in this area should give the section the necessary authority to approach its task with commitment and strength. It would be of the utmost importance that the new Children’s Services Section should command child care expertise, or social work expertise, of a high order. A senior qualified social worker with expertise in child care should be recruited to the section; if that is not possible expert personnel from Ireland or abroad should be retained as consultants, at least in the short term.

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.

On the question of responsibility for reformatories and remand homes, Clandillon was of the view that: It is not easy to make a firm recommendation in regard to which Department should have responsibilities for the reformatories and remand homes. The attitude of the Department of Education is that the residential and educational aspects of the care given in these centres cannot be divorced and that special teaching related to the deficiencies of the children is a vital element. There is a considerable amount in these views. On the other hand, the Department of Education has very limited responsibilities regarding the running of institutions. It is agreed that an input from the Health side is essential but whether this health aspect should outweigh the educational aspect is not easy to decide. If there is co-operation it seems to me that there is no great need for the transfer of these centres to this Department. There is, however, a particular factor which has to be borne in mind. There seems little doubt that there will be pressure in the coming years for a special security unit to deal with disturbed and aggressive children and those who tend to escape. We already have a proposal to provide a special unit at Dundrum but this is intended for mentally ill and severely emotionally disturbed children. There is a tendency for voluntary bodies to be selective and to pass on to somebody else those who create too much trouble. If we provide a special unit there is going to be considerable pressure on us to take anyone who causes any trouble and I could see considerable differences of opinion between us and Education. My feeling is that if Education want to keep the special schools we should agree, but that we should insist that they take the rough with the smooth and operate a special security unit as well as the normal centres where strict security is not a feature.

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.

It was also noted that: Incidentally, while the Christian Brothers would operate the school in Swords, the land would be bought from them by the Department. This was done in Oberstown where the Oblates got the full market price from the State: there is no indication the Brothers would sell the property at Swords to the State for less than market value.

In considering future arrangements, the memo noted the arrangement in the newly opened centre in Finglas where ‘the religious order administers the school on behalf of the Department. A management committee representative of the State, the order and independent lay people supervise the general operation of the school and the day-to-day running is undertaken by the religious Director who is legally manager. A similar arrangement will operate in Oberstown.’

However, the memo highlighted that a number of difficulties had manifested themselves in this arrangement, in particular: (1)With all schools conducted by religious orders, lay teachers and lay housemasters, who will form the bulk of staff, will have practically no promotional outlets. This applies particularly to the new service of house master which will be almost entirely confined to the four schools of this type. (2)The decline in vocations and the pressure on the resources of religious orders are resulting in a position in Finglas and Oberstown where the orders concerned have a major say in the control and running of institutions owned, built and financed entirely by the State and staffed largely by lay people. (3)The religious working in these schools are assigned by their orders without consultation with the Department. In view of the degree of the Department’s involvement with the schools, some of our recent experiences in relation to the assignment of personnel by the orders have been unsatisfactory.212 (4)The orders concerned do not specialise in education with the disadvantaged and there are tendencies to transfer talented personnel to other fields in which an order may have wider commitments. (5)Past experience engenders definite reservations on the suitability of the Christian Brothers in particular to conduct residential schools.’

In considering the establishment of a school under lay administration, the memo notes:— The objection to a proposal of this nature would be the fact that it would be a State school in the straightforward meaning of that term and, secondly, that the Christian Brothers could read into such an action wider implications for the State’s attitude to their place in Irish education generally. The management arrangements could accommodate the first of these objections to some extent and the second would be a matter of discretion in the approach to the Brothers. The proposal would also entail an approach to the Archbishop of Dublin and would not be feasible unless a site other than the Swords site were available. A further objection is that, with a religious order administering an institution, the Department escapes a certain kind of public criticism in relation to its day-to-day running. On the other hand, a new kind of criticism is developing in having all educational institutions conducted by orders and we have lately had raised with us the question of provision for Protestant children whose numbers are too small to warrant a special school.

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.