4,228 entries for Historical Context

In relation to the neighbourhood youth projects, the letter stated that the Department of Education did ‘not consider it appropriate that the administration of any of these services should be allocated to regional health boards’ and that the Department did not support any plan to reduce the number of places in St Joseph’s Clonmel. The Department was prepared to accept responsibility for the two Special Schools for disruptive children, but in relation to traveller children, the letter stated: It is the Minister’s firm policy that, as far as possible, the education of traveller children should be integrated with that of ordinary children.266 Furthermore, there are at present over 100 travelling children in care in existing residential homes and special schools who have been integrated successfully with the other children. The Minister feels therefore that the question of providing a separate unit for the more difficult travelling children needs to be reconsidered. Given the nature and purpose of the two special schools proposed for disruptive boys and girls, he considers that any travelling children requiring special care could be adequately catered for in these schools, thus avoiding the stigma involved in a separate unit and the duplication of expensive facilities. In addition, the Minister believes that it would be difficult to provide effective security in a building of this type and that it is likely to encounter bitter opposition from local residents at the planning stage.

To move things forward, the letter also suggested ‘that the best way of doing this would be to set up a formal co-ordinating committee representative of the two Departments and of the Department of Justice on the lines already operated in regard to facilities for handicapped children’.

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.

In addition, the meeting noted that the cost of replacing St Joseph’s would be in the region of £1 million and economic considerations would have to be taken into account.

A further meeting took place on 13th October 1976 at which it was agreed to defer a decision on the issues regarding St Joseph’s Special School in Clonmel. In relation to the recommendation of the Interim Report that additional hostel accommodation be provided for homeless boys in Dublin, the Committee agreed that ‘a further effort should be made to confirm with the Eastern Health Board the extent of the problem and the best way of meeting it’. On the issue of the provision of accommodation for seriously disturbed boys and girls, it was decided that it would be ‘advantageous to arrange a discussion at which both the community care and psychiatric interests would be present’. In early 1977, a memorandum for Government was prepared to outline the proposed implementation programme arising from the Interim Report of the Task Force on Child Care Services. The memo noted that a number of developments had occurred since the publication of the interim report that addressed some of the recommendations contained in it, including the provision of an open residential centre for traveller children at Trudder House, in Newtownmountkennedy managed by the Dublin Itinerant Settlement Committee and the provision of additional accommodation for children at Madonna House in Blackrock, County Dublin.

In relation to the provision of a Special Secure School for boys, the memo noted that: the provision of this type of accommodation is regarded as urgent. Experience in this country is similar to that elsewhere: there is a small group of disruptive boys who are persistently and seriously delinquent and whom none of the existing institutions can cope with. Accommodation in a secure setting is required to meet the problem posed by them. The fact that such accommodation is not available enables these boys to flout the law with total impunity and leads others to follow their examples.

The memo also suggested that building a closed unit, situated beside Scoil Ard Mhuire in Oberstown, might be more economical than providing a completely new school, but that: the Oblate Fathers, who administer the school are quite adamant that they will not be involved in a custodial care situation. It would appear, therefore, that a closed school, whether built at Lusk or elsewhere, would have to be administered directly by the Department of Education.

The provision of a Special School for girls who ‘proved themselves too difficult for existing facilities’ was outlined. The memo stated: the school in question would principally be for girls who appear before the courts for offences and would correspond to the schools for boys at Finglas, Lusk and Clonmel. While the number of girls who commit offences are very small in comparison with those of boys, there is no such residential school at all for girls. Accordingly the provision of this school is also regarded as urgent. It is proposed that the centre for the residential assessment of girls for the courts would be associated with this school as in the case of boys at Finglas. The school and assessment centre would have to be administered directly by the Department of Education as the religious orders at present caring for girls have intimated that they do not wish to be involved in a custodial school.

The recommendation of the Interim Report that additional accommodation for homeless boys267 was required was called into question, as the memo outlined that with a view to confirming the extent of this problem and the extent to which it could be dealt with through available facilities, the Eastern Health Board were asked to consult with the various agencies already providing these facilities. As a result, some doubt has arisen as to the exact numbers to be catered for. It has been found that the numbers fluctuate. Some of those who appear to be homeless are not, in fact, so. They sleep rough for a few nights and then go back to their respective homes, only to be replaced by others, who in turn follow the same pattern. Some of the children who were thought to be homeless are itinerants and roam about at night until their parents come to collect them. Of those who were identified as positively homeless there were a number who would not in any event be suitable or amenable to normal hostel accommodation, even if there was a place which would take them. The problem as now understood might most appropriately be dealt with on the following basis: – (a) by the provision of a ‘casual’ hostel facility by the Eastern Health Board; (b) provision of the special secure school for boys; (c) making better use of existing hostel facilities; (d) making further progress with the steps being taken already to deal with the problem of itinerants.

By the time of the publication of the Interim Report of the Task Force on Child Care Services was published, the broad principles that were to inform child welfare policy for the next 20 years or so, particularly in relation to alternative care, were largely established. However, a number of difficulties remained in relation to the provision of secure accommodation for young people, the function and purpose of the juvenile justice system and overall Ministerial and Departmental responsibility for the childcare system. The numbers of children in residential care were continuously declining and foster care (particularly with the establishment of the Fostering Resource Group, a dedicated team of social workers in the Eastern Health Board in 1977),268 increasingly became the favoured means of the meeting the needs of children for whom alternative care was required. Section 4: Implementation, 1976-2001

1970s, a range of implementation difficulties were emerging at a local level. One issue highlighted, but not fully resolved in earlier discussions, was the realisation that the relationship between Central Government and Residential Homes was altering. The regional health boards were developing childcare services and recruiting social work staff, and the number of trained lay childcare staff in residential care was growing following the establishment of a training course in Kilkenny in 1971. In addition, shorter in-service courses were established in Dublin, Cork and Waterford and later in a number of Institutes of Technology.269 The professionalisation of social work and childcare staff was placing a strain on the Religious Managers of the Homes and many of the structures for recruitment, staffing levels and pay had not always fully reflected these changes or as Mr Ó Maitiú had put it ‘naturally enough, these people are demanding the rate for the job’. A further issue was the provision of secure accommodation for children deemed to be ‘uncontrollable’ in open institutions, which although highlighted by both the Henchy Committee and the Interim Report of the Task Force, remained unresolved.

The death of 9-year-old HT in the Royal British Hotel in Princess Street Edinburgh on 3rd October 1977 brought about a review of the recruitment of residential child managers and staff. HT, from the North Inner City of Dublin, was placed in the care of the Irish Sisters of Charity in Madonna House on 5th June 1974 along with a number of his siblings. HT remained in Madonna House until 1st September 1976, when his mother removed him and two of his siblings. A further sibling was removed on 24th December. The children were allowed to remain at home under the supervision of Eastern Health Board social workers. On 3rd February 1977 it was decided that HT and two of his siblings be returned to Madonna House. On the basis that the placement was now likely to be a long-term one, it was decided to transfer the children to St Kyran’s Residential Home, Rathdrum County Wicklow on 5th September 1977. One of the staff members in Madonna House was John Dwyer, originally from Wales, who had been interviewed for a post of trainee child care worker in Madonna House in September 1976, responding to an advertisement for female care assistants. Dwyer, who had spent 10 years with the De la Salle Brothers in England and had trained with them as a teacher before arriving in Ireland, commenced employment in Madonna House in September 1976. From an early stage, Dwyer took a particular interest in HT with the result that the Manager, Sr Carmel, warned him about his over-involvement with the child. Dwyer accompanied HT and a number of his siblings when they moved from Madonna House to St Kyran’s in Rathdrum. On Friday, 16th September Dwyer brought one of the siblings from St Augustine’s in Blackrock to St Kyrans. He then departed from St Kyran’s with HT. The following day, Dwyer and HT boarded a flight to London and subsequently went to Scotland. In a hotel in Edinburgh, Dwyer drowned HT in a bath and then attempted suicide, but survived.271

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.

He went on to note: It was decided early this year to adhere to the capitation system of financing, pending decisions on the future arrangements generally for the administration of child care. It was also felt that the nature of the care to be given could best be done by the present voluntary organisations with minimal interference from statutory authorities. That point of view is, in my opinion, still valid, but only in a situation where we have ensured that the managerial and staffing arrangements are adequate both in quantity and quality.

On 25th January 1978, Mr O’Dwyer submitted a more detailed report to Mr O’Rourke, and the Secretary of the Department on the implications of the death of HT. In the note he outlined the terms of reference of a review of the case: The Minister directed the officers of the Department should review the circumstances surrounding the abduction and subsequent murder of [HT] to identify any changes or improvements that should take place in the management, staffing, training and administrative procedures in children’s residential homes.