4,228 entries for Historical Context

The Report envisaged two categories of Residential Homes – Category 1 homes to include Lusk, Finglas and Clonmel that functioned as Residential Special Schools. These homes were to cater for young offenders in need of special education as well as specialised psychological treatment. Category 2 homes were to include all other Residential Homes for which the Department of Education had responsibility. As a rule, the report envisaged that these children would attend primary or post primary schools outside the home. For the Category 2 homes, the report recommended that care staff be sanctioned for each home on the basis of a staff/ child ratio of 1:4 with the following grades of care staff recognised. Resident Manager with overall responsibility for the homes; senior House parent with responsibility for the group; house parent providing care expertise and ensuring that trained staff is present with the children at all times and assistant house parent to co-operate with the house parents. The report further recommended that an incremental salary scale should be provided for each rank of careworker.

In addition to the report commissioned by the Department of Education, the Association of Workers for Children in Care (AWCC) commissioned Robert J Kidney & Co Chartered Accountants in 1976 to identify the costs of maintaining children in care in 1975.339 The report concluded that the appropriate capitation rate was £40.90 per week, with the salaries for childcare workers equivalent to those paid to the childcare workers at the special schools for young offenders at Finglas and Lusk, and recommended a staffing ratio of 1:4. The AWCC in commenting on the report argued: This capitation system was designed for a situation in which large numbers of children were being cared for in ‘institutional’ settings, mainly by religious workers for whom no salary provision was made. It is quite unsuited to present circumstances in which children are cared for in small, family type groups, within one complex, requiring inevitable duplication of some facilities and much greater staffing ratios. The considerable intake of staff in recent years has been almost entirely lay and these workers are entitled to a proper salary and career structure.

It went on to outline that: Lengthy negotiations over two years have apparently failed to convince the Department of Education of the validity of our case. Increases in the capitation grant have been made from time to time, but little progress has been made on the basic issue of a salary scale for child care workers. In the meanwhile, these workers have become increasingly frustrated, and the religious managers of the homes are in the position where they cannot pay the most experienced of their workers even the minimum levels obtaining at Lusk and Finglas. Dedicated and trained staff, realising their prior obligation to the children, and unwilling to engage in industrial action, will be forced to leave the field for which the State has expended money in training them.

In response to both reports, the Department of Education noted its role in relation to residential childcare was very much in decline with the majority of children entering residential care via the regional health boards rather than the courts. As a consequence, while retaining administrative responsibility for the homes, they asserted that they had ‘no control of input and no responsibility for many of the children in them. Planning, estimating etc. have been made extremely difficult and the whole thing is now an administrative nightmare.’ On this basis, it was argued that the difficulties which arise when administration is divided between Departments cannot be solved simply by co-operation between Departments and result in waste of both time and money...At working level the correct line would appear to be that residential homes should go to the Department of Health, but that, because of their specific educational role, the special residential schools for offenders should remain the responsibility of this Department.

On 23rd September 1976, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Mr John Bruton, in correspondence to the Taoiseach, Mr Liam Cosgrave, summarised the discussions that had taken place in relation to the financing of the homes and crucially stated that: I should refer to the fact that the Kennedy Report, in 1970, recommends that, in effect, the residential homes be transferred to the Department of Health. While this issue forms part of the remit of the Task Force on Child Care, I wish to state, at this point, that the Department of Education now wishes to formally record its agreement with the Kennedy Report recommendation particularly as the Government has since allocated the lead role in child care to the Minister for Health.

He also went on to say that: my Department is reviewing the position of he residential child care course in Kilkenny. It may be that some of the pressure for salary scales – and particularly for what we would regard as unreasonable levels of salary – arises from the expectations generated among graduates of a professional training course. The question is whether the course, in its aims and content, is pitched at too high a level and whether a course of that level is required by our needs. Since the course caters for personnel in homes administered by the Department of Health as well as in those administered by this Department, we propose to consult with the Department of Health before arriving at any policy lie in this matter.

On 11th October 1976, the Taoiseach, Mr Cosgrave, received a letter from Sr M. Josephine, Superior General, Convent of the Mother of Mercy, Carysfort Park, Blackrock, County Dublin, where she sought an increase in the salaries to be paid to residential childcare workers, and stating that ‘we respectfully remind you that we who belong to your own constituency in which one of our residential homes is situated (St Anne’s, Booterstown), have a special claim on your consideration and support’. The Taoiseach contacted Mr Bruton at the Department of Education who, in outlining the situation to the Taoiseach, stated: The claim recently submitted by the Association of Workers for Children in Care would involve more than double the State expenditure on the homes, in real terms, in the first year alone. The whole trust of the claim is related to staff salaries rather than the cost of maintaining the children. About 65 percent of the State expenditure under the A.W.C.C. proposals would be in respect of staff salaries. Frankly, I think these expectations are unrealistic, especially in the present circumstances. One point I must emphasise is that we are totally opposed to any question of salary scales for child care workers in these homes being the same as those of housemasters in Lusk and Finglas. The A.W.C.C. claims that both groups are doing substantially the same work. We disagree. The boys in Lusk and Finglas, referred for persistent delinquency, are significantly more difficult to manage than the vast majority in the homes. However, apart from this, the Lusk and Finglas scales were deliberately designed to relate the housemasters with the teachers with whom they have to work closely. The staff in the homes, on the other hand, are similar to other staff in institutions for children who work alongside nurses. The implications for the cost of health services of paying child care staff in homes higher salaries than nurses could be enormous.

On 2nd November 1976, the Department of Finance, in response to a series of representations to the Taoiseach seeking the provision of a salary scale for childcare workers and the general financing of the homes, outlined its position in a letter which stated: ..before any radical changes are made in the current arrangements for providing State aid for these homes, every effort must be made to rationalise the child care system by reducing the number of homes to reflect fully the dramatic fall in the number of children in care from about 2,900 to 1,200 over the past 10 years. While it is appreciated that this fall in numbers resulted in the closure of some homes and enabled desirable improvements to be brought about in the standard of care of those remaining, it seems clear that there is still scope for rationalisation to produce economies in staff numbers and administration generally which would help to ensure that the system as a whole operates at a minimum cost in terms of public funds. The Minister is not convinced that the small group concept would suffer from phasing out smaller homes in favour of utilising the capacity of the larger homes. In this context the analogy of high-density social housing may be cited to refute the view, put forward by the Department of Education, that only small buildings are suited to family-type units for children in care. As in the case of social housing, economic and budgetary factors must play a significant role in determining our system of child care.

On 19th November 1976, a further meeting took place between the Departments of Finance, Education and Health to discuss the funding of the homes. One of the issues raised was the disbursement of £150,000, a savings made in 1976, on the basis that additional expenditure was sought on the expectation that advances would have been made during the years in the financing of homes. However, on 14th December 1976, the Department of Finance wrote to the Department of Education stating that ‘the making of special grants as proposed at this stage would be premature....and in the circumstances it is regretted that sanction as sought must be refused’.

On 4th March 1977, the Tanaiste and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Education met with representatives from the Conference of Major Religious Superiors (CMRS)340 to further discuss the financing of the homes. At the meeting the Tanaiste informed the delegation that the capitation fee was to increase from £18 to £22 with effect from 1st January 1977 and that he had established an inter-departmental group to examine the issue. The delegation from the CMRS outlined their disappointment at the level of the increase and highlighted that the report they had commissioned indicated that a rate of £40 was needed. On this basis, they felt they would have no option but to close a number of the homes and restrict further entries to the homes. The delegation highlighted: the problem they faced in relation to the salaries of staff: they also mentioned a number of subsidiary matters which needed attention including the arrangements for making payments and the provision of medical care for the children in the homes. They saw it as a State responsibility to ensure that children in care were properly looked after. They accepted that there was necessarily a lot of delicacy about the relationship between the State and the Religious Organisations involved in the provision of care. It could be assumed, however, that if the present difficulties were overcome the Religious Orders would wish to continue to make the same contribution as they are now making.

The inter-departmental working group mentioned by the Tanaiste, was established by the Minister for Health in February 1977 with the following terms of reference: Having regard to the analysis and recommendations made in the McDonagh and Kidney Reports, and to the decision in principle to adhere to the capitation system of financing, to (a) calculate a reasonable level of capitation payment at current prices; (b) recommend how such a rate, in real terms, might be introduced on a phased basis; (c) consider the implications of leaving salary determination for individual workers with the management of the homes; (d) make recommendations on the suggested next steps.

At a meeting of the inter-departmental group on 4th February, 1977 it was reported that the group accepted that the major problem facing the residential homes was one of finance. Reference was made to the various representations which had been received in recent months expressing dissatisfaction with the level of financing of residential homes. The main contention in these representations was that the existing capitation grants are not sufficient to enable the payment of adequate remuneration to the staff employment in the homes. Mr. Matthews said that the salaries were as low as £16 per week and that persons in receipt of such low salaries had a legitimate grievance. The policy of group homes necessitated more staff notwithstanding that the overall number of children was decreasing. Another problem is that some of the religious orders are threatening to pull out of such work, and in any event the number of vocations had declined significantly in the last twenty years.

On the same day, the Tanaiste and Minister for Health held a meeting with representatives from the Council for Social Welfare341 regarding the financing of Residential Homes. At the meeting the Council’s representatives explained that there was considerable urgency attached to the provision of increased financial aid for the homes which otherwise, in many instances, would have to close because of the level of indebtedness. There was particular difficulty about the very low level of salaries that the homes were now paying to many of their staffs and the managements could no longer stand over this. The Tanaiste told the deputation that the capitation rate was being increased from £18 to £22 with effect from 1st January 1977 and that an inter-departmental working group was looking urgently at what further steps needed to be taken to overcome the immediate difficulties and that this group would report by 31st March, 1977. Members of the deputation also assured the Tanaiste that from the Hierarchy’s point of view there would be no problem about such matters as staffing being more rigidly controlled than had hitherto been the case. The briefing note prepared by the Department of Health for this meeting provides an overview of the thinking of key officials in the Department of Health at this time. The note firstly outlined the reasons for the request to meet. It outlined (a)The Council for Social Welfare is a Committee of the Catholic Bishops Conference. At its meeting in October last the Committee received a request from the Conference of Major Religious Superiors that the Hierarchy should approach the Government regarding the serious situation that is emerging in residential child care centres as a result of the lack of any salary structure for the child care staffs in those centres. (b)The Conference of Major Religious Superiors represents the Orders which are, inter alia, involved in the running of residential child care centres. Notwithstanding their approach through the Council for Social Welfare they wish to put their case direct to the effect that (i)they have exhausted all options known to them in trying to keep the homes in operation and (ii)the present capitation grant system in quite ineffective and that they are seeking a system of financing as outlined in the Kidney Report.’

The note then went on to highlight ‘key points which may arise during discussions’ and they were identified as: (i)What is the State’s position in relation to these children? What role do the Orders (existing managements) see themselves playing in the future? The State must, ultimately, where the parents fail ensure that the children receive proper care. The Orders may wish (although there is not much evidence at present to suggest this) to make a significant contribution in this area as part of their vocational work: in order to retain autonomy and flexibility they may, if possible, wish to share the burden of financing at least part of the costs. At a minimum, they presumably intend to remain in the management of the homes, if the States support is seen in their terms to be reasonable. These are issues which might be explored during the meeting. (ii)Why are the Departments adhering to a capitation system of financing at this stage? After all nearly all ‘Health Institutions’ are now financed on a budget basis! (a)it would probably be better, in the interests of the children involved, if the essential vocational nature of child care were retained and emphasised. This can best be done where there is a flexible approach between management and staff on conditions of work, leave arrangements, recruitment etc. and ‘a code of best practice’, rather than formally negotiated minimum national standards, is generally applied. (b)A capitation system enables the managements to retain a reasonably autonomous and flexible approach to the running of their homes. (c)Once a budget system is introduced, statutory involvement must occur on a wide range of management issues e.g. numbers and types of staff, salary levels, leave arrangements, recruitment and removal from office. (d)A budget system will be considerably more expensive to the State, certainly in the long term. It could, within a relatively short time, lead to a doubling in real terms of existing costs. (e)A longer term decision about a change in the method of financing could be better made when a number of possible alternative approaches to child care have been developed and explored. For example, a widening of the scope and level of support for fostering; the establishment of small domestic type homes with two house parents: or the wider use of homemakers could reduce the number of children in residential care and make alternative systems of financing more attractive. These are the types of options that the Departments would hope to discuss with the managements when the immediate ‘crisis’ has been overcome.

The 15-page report of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Financing of Children’s Residential Homes was completed on 24th March 1977 and suggested that a reasonable rate of capitation should be in the region of £28-30 per week. The Group also considered it prudent and desirable to examine alternative forms of care for children: (a) with a view to developing more effective, efficient and acceptable forms of care; (b) in order to identify issues which may need to be agreed with the staffs concerned and could possibly be very significant in negotiations on future pay and conditions; (c) before the future staffing and structures in residential homes are examined in more detail. Alternatives to residential care might include use of homemakers and full-time helps to keep families together or support ‘inadequate’ parents; development of boarding out arrangements, with special training for foster parents of difficult or disturbed children; and development of small group homes in residential areas which could be run with part-time domestic help.342