4,228 entries for Historical Context

1979 was designated International Year of the Child by the United Nations General Assembly and a national steering committee was established in June 1978. The Association of Workers with Children in Care (AWCC) organised a conference in Trinity College Dublin to mark the event. Organised by the AWCC and FICE – the International Federation of Educative Communities and chaired by Br DE Drohan, the conference was entitled ‘The Right to be Brought Up in a Spirit of Peace and Universal Brotherhood’. On 24th June 1978, Br TL Furlong, the National Chair of the AWCC wrote to the Taoiseach, Mr Lynch, inviting him to both open and close the conference. He outlined that 1979 was designated International Year of the Child and stated: The Irish Association of Workers with Children in Care, to mark this historic occasion are organising, in conjunction with the international child care organisation FICE an international conference in Dublin from 2nd July to 6th July 1979. The fact that Dublin has been chosen for this unique conference is a tribute to the high standard of child care in Ireland and is also a great honour.

Mr Haughey, as Minister for Health at that time, wrote to Mr Lynch on 20th October 1979 stating, ‘given the association’s relatively minor status when compared to other organisations in this country, I would like to advise that an Uachtarain and yourself should decline the invitation to the conference’.282 Mr Haughey himself opened the conference in July 1979.

The Final Report of the Task Force on Child Care Services was published on 7th April 1981, having been presented to the Minister for Health the previous September. In the middle of 1980, when all hope of an agreed report disappeared, the then Taoiseach (Mr Haughey) directed the Task Force to submit its final report forthwith without proceeding to prepare a Children Bill as required by their terms of reference.283 In September 1980, the Task Force submitted its Final Report284 which ran to nearly 450 pages, contained a main report, a supplemental report and a number of reservations by members.285 The Task Force acknowledged ‘the tremendous work done for children over the years by voluntary bodies’286 and argued that: the most striking feature of the child care scene in Ireland was the alarming complacency and indifference of both the general public and various government departments and statutory bodies responsible for the welfare of children. This state of affairs illustrated clearly the use by a society of residential establishments to divest itself of responsibility for deprived children and delinquent children.287

In reviewing the administration of childcare services in Ireland, the Report reflected on the division of responsibility between the Departments of Health, Education and Justice and observed that the ‘division did not, in the main, result from any allocation or rationalisation of child care functions but rather evolved haphazardly in the sense that the services tended to come within the general control of the government department which succeeded the original agency in which the particular service originated’.288 The Report acknowledged that this division ‘resulted in an unsatisfactory situation from the point of view of effective planning and co-ordination of resources’289 and that ‘the absence of co-ordinated planning at departmental level in turn is reflected in the manner of delivery of services at a local level’.290

Following a review of earlier recommendations in relation to administrative responsibility for child welfare services, the Task Force concluded: ‘We are satisfied that what is needed as a prerequisite to the most effective planning, development and delivery of services for deprived children is that these services should be unified under one government department as far as possible and that child care services should be integrated with family support services.’ The Report then recommended that the Department of Health should be that Department that would have responsibility for: The implementation of the statutory provisions contained in a Children Act concerned with the welfare and protection of children, including the making of regulations, orders or rules to be provided in that Act; The development of the child care expertise necessary for formulation of policy, based on practical experience, professional knowledge and relevant research and information; The identification of children’s needs and the provision of services, including preventative services, designed to meet these needs in consultation, as necessary and appropriate, with other Government Departments, with child care authorities and other bodies providing services at local level’ The making of organisational arrangements for the delivery at local level of the services for which it is responsible in accordance with statutory provisions and in line with defined policy guidelines; The monitoring and evaluation of the services for which it has responsibility.291

Responsibility for the delivery of childcare services at a local level, the Report recommended, should be provided by an authority to be known as the Child Care Authority (CCA) and functions of the CCA would include establishing the need for services, providing services to meet these needs, preventative work, liaising with other public bodies to ensure that the interests of children and families are adequately reflected in their policies, implementing policy on family welfare services, including childcare services, and drawing together and developing all available resources concerned with the welfare of children in its area to ensure that these resources are maximised. The Task Force recommended that health boards be designated as child care authorities and that the boards perform the functions of the CCA. However, in doing this, the Report recommended that the CCA be a separate legal entity with specific statutory functions and that child care services, alongside family support services be a separate body of services, in particular separate from more general health services.

The authors of the supplementary report to the Task Force, Mr Ó Cinnéide and Ms O’Daly, however, although agreeing with the other members of the Task Force that the Department of Health and the health boards should be given responsibility for the provision of childcare, went on to state that ‘We are not in agreement with our colleagues views that the existing administrative structures are adequate’(emphasis in original).292 At Departmental level, they recommended that the existing childcare division be strengthened by providing the division with additional administrative and professional resources, but otherwise they saw no substantial problem with the existing structure. However, in terms of allocating responsibility to the regional health boards, they argued that ‘the allocation to them of entirely new responsibilities, does in our view present considerable problems’. They went on to claim that: In short we believe that the health boards as they are at present organised could not carry out these responsibilities. We have concluded that the health boards, if they are to become Child Care Authorities, would need to be reorganised to some extent. It is on this basis that we have supported the recommendation that they should become Child Care Authorities.

The rationale for this was that: Firstly, if the health boards become Child Care Authorities they will have greatly expanded responsibilities, most of which have not previously been carried out within the public service. Secondly, the assumption of these responsibilities will require a new orientation or strategy of service; the development and recruitment of highly motivated specialist personnel; additional funds and good planning and management. Thirdly, the present administrative structures of the boards, and in particular the Community care programmes, were designed in conditions which were entirely different from those that exist today, not to talk of those which will exist if the Task Force recommendations are accepted; the Community Care Programme’s structure is seen to be ill-adapted for welfare services even in present conditions. When we relate these three sets of considerations we are forced to the conclusion that certain new structures are necessary within the health boards.293

The Report was scrutinised in the Department of Education prior to publication and Mr Ó Maitiú drafted a lengthy response to the report dated 12th November 1980. He commented initially on the lack of agreement between the members and observed: Given the diverse composition of the Task Force, one could hardly expect unanimity of view on all aspects of the subject studied. Nevertheless, the extent of disagreement is somewhat surprising. There is one main report, one minority report (claimed by its authors, Mr. S. O Cinnéide and Miss N.O’Daly, of CARE, as a supplemental Report), and four sets of reservations from (a) Mr. K. O’Grady, Department of Justice, (b) Mr. Tomas O Gilín, Department of Education, (c) Mr. John Hurley, Department of Health and (d) Mr. M. Russell, Office of the Attorney General. It is obvious, therefore, that in reforming the Child Care system in this country, the Government will have to choose between a number of different solutions. Since the Department of Health will have the lead role in this reform, it is very likely to push the alternatives which best suit its own interests, and great vigilance will be needed to ensure that the interests of this Department do not suffer.

On the recommendation that child welfare services should be unified under one Department and this should be the Department of Health, he commented that: This recommendation is unanimous and is in accord with this Department’s thinking. It is in the implementation of the proposal that disagreement occurs. A majority of the Task Force recommends that, in addition to the services for which it is already responsible, the Department of Health should take over (a) school attendance services; (b) advisory and some supervisory services for the Courts; (c) Community Youth Services and (d) residential services, including existing residential homes, special schools and hostels. In his reservations, this Department’s representative opposed (c), partially opposed (d) and reserved his position on (a). He was supported on (d) by the Department of Justice representative.

He went on to state: We have long ago agreed that the residential homes at present administered by us should go to the Department of Health, this Department retaining responsibility for the education of children. On the other hand, we have held the view that the Special Schools at Lusk, Finglas and Clonmel are educational establishments and should remain under the control of this Department. The arguments for and against are given in (i) the Report, and (ii) Mr. O Gilin’s and Mr O’Grady’s reservations. I must say that, if a Child Care Authority is set up, I can see some validity in the administration of the schools going to them, although this Department should retain responsibility for the educational programme, as in the Residential Schools for the handicapped.

One of the reasons for the departure from the view held over the previous decade that the responsibility for the Special Schools be maintained by the Department of Education was that: At the moment, the Health Boards tend to repudiate all responsibility for delinquents and from discussions with them, I gather they would not be at all averse to leaving delinquents with us. I’m not too sure that we should let them off the hook in this way. The operation of the schools for delinquents has given many headaches and there have been problems with children, with staff, with the Religious Orders and with local residents. While a fair degree of success has been achieved with the younger boys in Finglas and Clonmel, the outcome in the case of the older boys at Lusk has been very dubious. Apart from the high rate of absconding, all too often we hear of past-pupils finishing up in Loughan House or St. Patrick’s. The new secure school at Lusk will replace Loughan House and will involve the Department in running what is, in effect, a juvenile prison, without a religious Order to cushion it from day-to-day problems.

For Mr Ó Maitiú, the consequences of the Department of Education retaining the Special Schools would be to ‘saddle itself, of course, with the very worst children – particularly the very violent and difficult 14-16-year-olds who are not amendable to any discipline. They will be a place of last resort for children which the Child Care Authority cannot handle or does not want to handle.’ He argued that: The Health Boards have considerable expertise in running residential institutions. I feel that a solution on Kennedy lines would enable them to exercise this expertise in the case of special schools, while, at the same time, this Department would bring the benefit of its own expertise to the educational programme. It would be a better solution than the system in Britain where both the care and educational programme are under the Department of Health and Social Security, with not too satisfactory results. I would suggest, therefore, that the Department should now consider a compromise on Kennedy lines. If we adamant about retaining the Youth Service) as I think we should be, we might perhaps concede that the Health Boards should have School Attendance and that there should be a compromise as suggested in regard to the special schools.

Mr Ó Maitiú was of the view that: certain members of the Task Force are convinced that ‘there is no such thing as a bad boy’, that very few are really delinquent, and that most of their problems with the law are the fault of their families and society rather than of the children themselves. The effect of the Task Force recommendations would be to cut down drastically on the number of residential placements for delinquents. This is the argument that the CARE people have persisted in since the early 1970’s, in spite of all the evidence of their senses. At the same time, the Courts and the Gardaí have kept up a constant agitation for more places to which children coming before them can be sent. It was because the situation had become so desperate that the Minister for Justice had to open Loughan House. The number of residential places has, in fact, been drastically reduced over the past 10 years – Daingean has been closed, together with Letterfrack and Marlboro’ House – and, in my opinion, the number of places remaining – less than 200 for the entire country – is barely adequate to cater for the needs of the Courts. Youth Encounter and Neighbourhood Youth projects are doing a lot for the less serious offenders. However, for the more serious offenders and for those who live in impossible home conditions, residential care is still necessary. Community residential centres are no answer since they are conducted in a social work milieu, the children need a great deal more than care, and anyway the children will not stay in them.

He concluded that: In the circumstances, I recommend that the Department support the minority view of Mr. O Gilin, i.e. that this Department cannot agree to any reduction in the number of residential places for delinquent children until alternative services on the lines envisaged in the report have been provided and are seen to be at least as effective as the present Special Schools.