4,228 entries for Historical Context

On the issue of residential facilities for girls, he noted that: The Task Force recommends that facilities for girls should be provided for within the mainstream of residential provision recommended by them, but that the existing units for teenage girls should continue their work in the interim period. The existing voluntary training units are conducted by two religious Orders and the absence of controversy in regard to facilities for girls shows that they are doing a good job, which I doubt if the Health Boards could better.

In dealing with this issue, he recommended that: reform in this aspect of child-care should consist in giving the existing centres sufficient resources to enable them to carry out their very dedicated work more effectively. The Task Force has changed its mind on a closed school for girls, and now states that the school recommended in its interim report should not be proceeded with. There was a certain problem, a few years ago with a number of very difficult girls who could not be contained in the existing centres. This problem seems to have subsided somewhat. There will be the odd girl who will not stay in an open centre and who needs containment – for her own protection, as much as anything else. While a separate closed school may not be necessary (and would be extremely expensive to run) – some provision for containment may be required – preferably by special arrangement in one of the existing centres, or in association with it.

Mr Ó Maitiú concluded by observing that: The general effect of the implementation of the Task Force Report will be to increase State involvement in all aspects of child-care and to regionalise this involvement in the Health Boards. Up to now, child-care has been seen as the responsibility of the parents themselves, supported by their various Church Authorities who have operated residential establishments of various kinds for children who, for one reason or another, had no parents to look after them. The State’s role has been limited to providing financial support and a certain degree of supervision. In the past, a change such as is now proposed, would have been looked upon with suspicion by the Churches. However, the fall in vocations has meant that for some years now, the work at the coal face is being done by lay people as much as by religious, so that the position of the Churches is not as strong as it used to be.294

On the issue of juvenile justice, the Task Force was fundamentally split.295 Although oversimplifying the debate, the issue of the age of criminal responsibility in part encapsulates the split. The majority of the Task Force recommended that the age of criminal responsibility be left at 7, on the basis that they saw ‘an advantage in retaining a low age of criminal responsibility on the grounds inter alia that the commission of offences will lead in many instances to helpful intervention in the case of young children who might not otherwise receive it’.296 More generally, the majority were of the view that when a child admitted an offence or the offence was proven, the principles that should inform the court should aim to: (a) Secure for the child such care, guidance, education, training and correction as will conduce to the welfare of the child and the public interest, (b) retain or promote relationships between the child and his parents and his family as far as possible, (c) avoid sending the child to a custodial institution unless there is no acceptable alternative that will satisfy his needs or afford society a reasonable protection.297

The supplementary report produced by Mr Ó Cinnéide and Ms O’Daly argued that the recommendations by the majority of the Task Force did not involve any significant change on the existing system of juvenile justice and on the basis that it ‘was laid down over seventy years ago and, given the developments in knowledge and in public attitudes since then, it is retrograde to retain it’.298 They argued that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised to 15, and that interventions by the State should be based on a number of assumptions. They were: that by and large parents want to look after their children well, to provide them with the care and education and discipline that they need; that if parents are unable to do this they are likely to avail of any helpful services which are provided to facilitate them; that the need for the state to intervene in a coercive way into the ordinary family will, and should, arise only in exceptional cases; that the state’s intervention should in general be a helpful one, concerned only with the welfare of the child and the family; that compulsory or coercive measures in respect of a child which are not solely helpful and concerned with his welfare should be clearly seen as such and should be invoked only in even more exceptional cases.299

In the same year that the Task Force submitted its final report to the Minister for Health, the Report of the Commission of Enquiry into the Irish Penal System300 was published. In relation to juvenile justice they argued that: Our low minimum age of criminal responsibility i.e., seven, the lowest incidentally in Europe, ensures that the trivial activities of little children come under censorious scrutiny of the criminal justice system. For many offenders, whether male or female, their criminal careers begin with early experience of reformatories or industrial schools precipitated by truancy from school or home, or family breakdown. Here again factors like differential police deployment can seriously affect the likelihood of a particular child becoming identified as deviant. The child in the bleak inner city, lacking private amenities, like gardens or playrooms or simply space, carries his activities onto the streets where he is in full public view. His scope for ‘safe’ deviancy is limited. Parents may not have money to steal or property to deface. His controls are few and he is highly visible particularly if, as there tends to be, there is a high level of police deployment in the area. There was an incredible pathos about the submission which began ‘When I was seven I was sent to Clonmel by Justice Kennedy. I was in it for nine years’.301

Despite these critical observations on the juvenile justice system, some commentators highlighted that significant changes were occurring within the system. Osborough, for example, contrasted ‘the casual approach, displays of judicial independence and a lack of guidelines on important subsidiary issues’ as evidence of a lack of formalism and an absence of a ‘system’ that characterised criminal justice practice in Ireland for a considerable period after independence. By the late 1970s, however, he argued: the characteristic mark of the Irish criminal justice system is the growth of system and the growth of formalism. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the procedures for dealing with juvenile offenders. At every level there has in recent years occurred some critical development which can certainly be regarded as the antithesis of the casual, the haphazard and the informal. More care is taken, more officials are involved, there are more standards, more procedure; there is both more ‘system’ and more ‘law’.302

The debate that took place in relation to juvenile justice during the 1970s in Ireland, culminating in the Final Report of the Task Force, was essentially between two competing models of juvenile justice, a ‘welfare model’ which was the one broadly supported by the NGOs and the members of CARE on the Task Force, and a ‘justice model’ which was the one broadly supported by the majority of the members of the Task Force.

In September 1981, a memo was circulated which outlined the response of the Department of Health to the Task Force on Child Care Services. The memo stated: The Minister for Health accepts the general principles of the Report and is anxious that the initial steps should now be taken in regard to the implementation of these specific aspects of the Report and its supplementary recommendations that are acceptable to her. Some of the recommendations relate to areas of responsibility, which are already those of the Minister for Health. These are now being considered in association with the health boards and voluntary agencies concerned. Where the improvement of existing services is necessary this is a matter that will be considered by the Minister in the light of available financial resources if additional funding is involved. In so far as changes in the law will be necessary appropriate provision will be made in the Heads of the Children Bill, now being drafted, which will come before the Government at a later date. However, there is a number of important functions now the responsibility of either the Department of Justice or the Department of Education which in the light of the Report and the earlier Government decision of October 1973 should, in the Minister for Health’s view now be transferred to her department. The Minister is seeking approval in principle to their transfer to her Department so that necessary discussions about transfer can be instituted with the Departments concerned (including the important issue of implications for existing staff) and also to enable appropriate provisions to be made in the Heads of the Bill.

The rationale for many of these changes was that: In recent years, there has been a major swing away from the practice of compulsory placement in residential care through court committal in favour of voluntary placement through the health boards. This has resulted in the present situation where the great majority of the children in residential homes are now the responsibility of the health boards, although the Minister for Education retains responsibility for most of the homes themselves. In 1976, the Department of Education formally recorded its agreement with the Kennedy Report recommendation and since then, the Department of Health has taken the lead role in developing overall policy and programmes in residential care, including questions of finance and staffing. However the formal transfer of responsibilities for residential homes to the Department of Health has not yet taken place and the Minister for Health now seeks government approval to this being done so that her Department’s role in relation to these homes will be clarified and in order that necessary statutory provisions can be included in the Heads of Bill.

In relation to the Special Schools, while noting the objection of the Department of Education of their transfer, nonetheless, The Minister for Health considers that unification of responsibility is particularly desirable in the area of residential care. In accordance with the main tenor of the Task Force Report, the special schools should be seen as being mainly concerned with child care rather than with education as they are at present... The Minister for Health accepts the majority view of the Task Force that special schools are appropriate for integration into the general body of child care services under her Department. These would include the new secure unit at Lusk to replace Loughan House.

The Task Force also recommended that the existing school attendance committees should be discontinued and that school attendance officers should be transferred to the health boards and the memo noted that: The Minister for Health is in agreement with the proposed transfer of functions and of personnel as recommended and seeks the agreement of the Government to the inclusion of the necessary legislative provisions in the Heads of the Children Bill now being drafted.

In relation to adoption, the majority of the Task Force recommended that this be the subject of a separate study. But the ‘health representative recommended that adoption should form an essential part of the amalgam of child and family care services and that responsibility should be transferred to the Minister for Health’. The memo also claimed that this proposal had the support of a range of voluntary agencies and that as such ‘the Minister for Health proposes that responsibility for the Adoption Board and other aspects of the adoption machinery should be transferred to her Department from the Department of Justice. In relation to the Probation and Welfare Service, the memo noted that the members of the Task Force were divided on the role of the service in relation to young offenders. However, the memo concluded that: While appreciating that the service has developed very rapidly over the past few years and now has an administrative structure and favourable career prospects, the Minister is of the opinion that a supervisory role such as is envisaged for the health boards would be seen as a progressive measure and would be more compatible with the underlying philosophies of the Task Force Report which calls for community-based services, with a reduction in emphasis on specialised services and direct involvement with the courts for some categories of children. While it is accepted that the proposed transfer of functions will present problems in terms of maintaining existing conditions of work for existing staff, these problems are not insurmountable and will, of course, require considerable discussion between the Departments of Health and Justice and the staff interests concerned before any transfers take place.

Finally the memo noted that: a particularly important section of the report relates to the juvenile justice system. In view of the Minister for Health’s overall responsibility for the well-being of deprived children she would be anxious that both Departments would be seen to act simultaneously and in harmony in the matter of desirable legislative and administrative changes in this area. The Department of Justice has already indicated its view that legislative changes relating to the juvenile courts might be provided for in the proposed Children Bill thus making the Bill a comprehensive one in relation to child welfare. The Minister for Health accepts this suggestion and assumes that the assistance of officers of the Department of Justice will be available in regard to the preliminary and subsequent processing of the Bill.

The Resident Managers Association (RMA) responded to the Task Force by broadly endorsing their recommendations in relation to residential care. A key issue for them was that: Staff turn-over is at a totally unacceptable level in child care. Finding the causes of this and remedying them is regarded as one the primary tasks of child care policy makers. It is felt that inadequate salary and the absence of career structures are major causes but not so clearly evident is the lack of training and development of skills to cope with stressful and conflict situations.