4,228 entries for Historical Context

The RMA also noted: references in the report to the services provided in the past and at present by religious orders tend to be both complimentary and confusing. For example, 15.7.6.303 This paragraph, as written, implies that religious are cloistered, naïve people whose lack of personal development precludes their being able to contribute to the development of the child. We think (and hope!) that this is a misinformed view. In terms of past experience and the present demands and expectations of religious in child care, it is unrealistic to think that they would or could continue to be responsible and accountable, if their involvement is to be as peripheral as the statement would seem to suggest.

The Association of Workers with Children in Care (AWCC) also responded stating that the report ‘must be welcomed by all working with children, particularly those nearest the most deprived in our society.’304 The AWCC looked specifically at four areas; the philosophy of the report; assessment and other concurrent needs; the organisational structures needed to administer the services and residential care. On the issue of administration, that stated that: Those of us involved in child care, would wholeheartedly agree with the Task Force statement, emphasising that residential child care evolved haphazardly, and did not result from any rationalisation of child care functions or the direct allocation of resources. This resulted in separate administration systems having evolved in a piecemeal fashion, leading to an unsatisfactory situation from the pint of view of effective planning and the co-ordination of resources. We feel that residential care has been particularly isolated, and is in a vulnerable position as new but not necessarily more effective services are developed, again independently rather than in an inter-related fashion.305

The Association also expressed concern with the proposed new administrative structure proposed by the Task Force and the increased bureaucracy that could stem from this. The submission noted that: A unique position exists where so much of residential care is provided by voluntary homes. With increased financial aid the voluntary nature of such homes is being increasingly eroded and the service becoming bureaucratic in nature. The challenge to all concerned is to develop a situation where accountability exists alongside humanistic caring service, meeting needs as they emerge. Our loudest cry would be to retain Our Autonomy in a responsible fashion so as to be able to pioneer and innovate as the Task Force suggests. A lessoning of bureaucratic structure enables services to re-evaluate and act more easily than that of large services with a top heavy administrative set up which is forced to simply behave with the rules.306

On the specific recommendations in relation to residential care, the Association stated that while they had some slight reservations, ‘the chapter on Residential Care is a commendable one’ and went on the outline that: We would agree with the Report that as a result of Kennedy Report of 1970, significant innovations in terms of the physical structure of homes, training courses and the introduction of lay staff, had come about. That such changes evolved from this report reflects once again the pragmatism of our work and sense of responsibility of our workers, however the fact that the work developed during this period independent of all other services was a major limiting factor. As outlined in our comments on administration we plead loudly for our inclusion within a comprehensive plan, otherwise, even at present if we develop our service, it would result in us fighting a system which had not adapted appropriately. No service is capable of such a challenge because it absorbs the energies of the workers.307

In May 1981, a document was prepared by the Department of Health in relation to the implications of the Task Force Report on the training and deployment of child care workers. The document observed that: the majority report of the Task Force on Child Care Services makes no specific recommendations on the training of child care workers apart from saying that its recommendations will require a considerable increase in the number of professional trained child care workers. However, the recommendations concerning increased specialisation and expertise in residential care and the employment of significant numbers of child care workers in the community have major implications for the training of child care workers. The supplementary report attached to the main report does consider the question of training in a little more depth. The supplementary report considers that child care workers in residential and day care and working with children in their own homes will constitute one of the most important resources of the child care system. The supplementary report places a major emphasis on the training of child care workers to work not only with children with serious problems but also with their families and in most residential and day centres, with the local community. The same report argues strongly that there is no valid reason for maintaining different levels of training for different forms of social work. It recommends that training for child care workers should be of an equal standard and an equal status of that of other social workers. They also suggest that the forms of training be brought together and the same qualifications be awarded.

Later that month, on 26th May 1981, a meeting was held in the Department of Education to discuss the Task Force Recommendations. At the meeting it was agreed that the Department of Health would be responsible for the introduction of a new Children Act and for setting up a statutory body for the registration of child care workers, but only in consultation with the Department of Education. The meeting had no objection to the transfer of Industrial Schools to the Department of Health, but not the Special Schools for ‘deviant children’. Specifically, the meeting, acknowledged that these schools cater for the most difficult sector of the child population and great expertise and financial resources are needed to provide proper services for them. The importance of education in the treatment programme was stressed. The possibility of agreeing to the transfer of responsibility for the residential care of the children to the Dept. of Health was discussed. Experience has shown, however, that two authorities looking after a problem area could lead to conflict. It was agreed that the children’s interests would best be served if these schools were retained by the Dept. of Education i.e. both the care and education element.

On 18th September 1981, Mr Ó Ceallachain in a memo to the Minister for Education observed that the Department of Health were proposing the transfer of various functions from the Department of Education to Health and recommended that the Department agree to the transfer of the Industrial Schools, but in relation to the Special Schools (Reformatories): the position recommended is that this Department enter a most serious reservation on the grounds that these establishments, providing as they do a structural programme of education, training and recreation with a view to rehabilitation belong more properly in the sphere of education and that moving them into the ‘care’ area would not be in the best interests of the pupils. While care functions do exist in these establishments and a caring atmosphere is cultivated this can be catered for adequately within the present responsibility structure through the format of management and services and the willingness to consult and co-ordinate as necessary with care authorities. Should the Government decide, however, to transfer this responsibility to the Minister for Health, the responsibility of the Minister for Education for all aspects of education within the establishment should be maintained.

With regard to school attendance services: it is acknowledged that the present operation of the School Attendance Act is in need of radical modification but it could be contended that such a modified service is more appropriate to the Minister for Education who prescribes a minimum period of education for all children and should therefore have the authority and the means to ensure that this prescription is met. It would therefore appear appropriate to enter a reservation on this matter as well.

The functions of the Special Schools were further elaborated on by the Deputy Chief Inspector who argued that: The main thrust of the work in the Special Schools should be to rehabilitate the pupils and provide access to work as recreational outlets which will allow students to accommodate themselves to the current demands of society. While care and a caring attitude are important components in the regime in these schools, the underlying philosophy of the Department of Education is that children’s attitudes can be changed by intervention and that there is little hope for their survival in the community unless they acquire the intellectual, emotional and social skills which a particular society demands. Our view is that such skills are best acquired through a highly structured, carefully sequenced and integrated programme of school and out-of-school experiences. We recognise that this conflicts with the underlying philosophy of many of the members of the Task Force, and we put it to the Government that the thinking of the Task Force in this regard is unsound. It would be the view of the Department of Education that any shortcomings in the Special School system to date were caused not because of the choice of Department which administered it but rather through lack of funding and lack of awareness in the public in relation to the quality and quantity of professional staff required in these establishments.

The Department of Health in a memorandum to Government in relation to ‘Proposals for comprehensive legislation to Extend and Up-date the Law in Relation to the Protection of Children’ in December 1982, stated that the Task Force: supported the earlier government decision of October 1974 that the main central responsibility for child care should rest with the Minister for Health. Dealing with the problem of children in need of care, the report stressed the importance and integrity of the family and insisted that there should be minimal intervention in it by the State. It rejected the notion of placing the child in institutional care and removing it from the family setting unless this was absolutely unavoidable.308

However, it went on to observe that: notwithstanding the Government decision of 1974, the main responsibility for child care services has not yet been translated into legislation and the present legal responsibilities of the Minister for Health and the health boards in this area are quite limited. At present, there is no single statutory body with specific responsibility for meeting children’s needs. To remedy this situation, it is proposed to give health boards new statutory powers and obligations to identify families with children in need and to provide whatever services are required to meet these needs.309

The broad changes proposed by the Children Bill 1982 were: the imposition on the health boards of clear cut responsibility for a wide range of childcare services; the creation of powers to regulate play groups, crèches, nursery schools etc.; the taking over of full responsibility for children’s homes (formerly orphanages, Industrial Schools); the taking over of responsibility for children’s special centres (formerly Reformatories); the taking over of responsibility for the supervision of school attendance; increasing the age of criminal responsibility from 7 to 12 years with consequently greater responsibility falling on social work staff; the creation of special children’s courts with greater participation by health boards; strengthening the powers of intervention where children are at risk; and • control of sale of solvents.310

In relation to school attendance, the memo argued that: The Task Force was of the opinion that, since early and intransigent truancy has often been found to be associated with severe family and social problems, it is inappropriate that emphasis on such cases should rest primarily on school attendance. In many instances frequent absence from school might indicate, not just a problem child, but a family with a variety of problems to be solved. The members of the Task Force agreed accordingly that certain functions at present performed by School Attendance Officers in relation to the problem of school-children should be integrated with the child welfare service. This would envisage the abolition of the existing school attendance officers to the health boards. The Minister for Health is in agreement with the proposed transfer of certain functions and of personnel as recommended and seeks the agreement of Government to the necessary legislative provisions which are included in the scheme of the Bill.311

The memo did also note that: The Minister for Education has expressed reservations regarding the proposed transfer of responsibility for School Attendance Services, and considers these services more appropriate to his responsibility as Minister for Education. As it rests with him to prescribe a minimum period of education for all children he feels that he should continue to have authority and have the means to ensure that this prescription is met. As the prescription of a minimum period of education for children is clearly the responsibility of the Minister for Education, the Minister for Health agrees that enforcement of the Acts by means of statutory warnings or prosecution of parents would remain the responsibility of the Minister for Education. The transfer of personnel is proposed as a means of developing the social work functions referred to in paragraph 12 and of ensuring close links between all schools and the health boards so that children experiencing difficulties which become identified at school can immediately receive attention.312

In relation to residential care, the memo outlined that: The Scheme of the Bill provides for a new system of residential care for deprived children, to be administered under the aegis of the Minister for Health and the Health Boards. This system will replace the reformatory and industrial schools system for which the Minister for Education is responsible at present. A government decision of 25th August 1982 gave approval in principle to the transfer from the Minister for Education to the Minister for Health of functions in relation to children’s residential homes (formerly known as industrial schools) and the Scheme of the Bill provides for a similar transfer of responsibility for a number of special schools (formerly known as reformatories). 313