168 entries for Marlborough

In June 1943, the Chief of the Dublin Fire Brigade inspected Summerhill and ‘condemned’ it and wanted its immediate closure, but he was unwilling to take such action ‘against a Government department’. The Department of Education informed the Department of Finance of this development, but sanction was still not forthcoming. The Department of Education resorted to making a submission to Government on 19th July 1943 on the issue. Finally, on 12th August 1943, the Department of Finance sanctioned the proposed alterations and finally made possible the use of Marlborough House as a place of detention for young boys.

The Minister for Justice registered Marlborough House as a place of detention for up to 50 male children under 17 years of age, to be administered by the Department of Justice. While in Summerhill children aged 4 years and upwards had been detained, in Marlborough House the lower age limit was 7 or 8. Between 1944 and 1972, there were approximately 21,500 admissions to Marlborough House. In 1943 the daily average number of boys detained in the School was 10. The daily average number in 1960 was 15. On 1st August 1972, when it closed, records show that there were 16 boys detained there.

Whilst the Department of Education had sole managerial responsibility for the Institution, the role of the Department of Justice pursuant to section 108(3) of the Children Act, 1908, was to satisfy itself as to the ‘suitability of the accommodation’ at Marlborough House. The Department of Justice in their Statement to this Committee wrote: The files in the Department of Justice (“the Departmental files”) reveal that the practice was that the administration and operation of Marlborough House was dealt with by the Department of Education and that this position was maintained by officials of the Department of Justice in dealings with the Department of Education ...

The management and administration of Marlborough House remained, therefore, the responsibility of the Department of Education, and the day-to-day administration was undertaken by lay persons who were employed by the Department of Education. Staffing levels increased over the years, rising from six staff in 1944 to 24 in 1972.

In 1944, the staff consisted of one Superintendent who was in charge of the overall administration of the Institution, one house mistress, one male attendant, two residential attendants, and one servant girl. The Superintendent and his wife, who was the matron, lived in the house with the boys. At that time, the average number of boys detained in one month was 8, and the highest in that year was 15.

By January 1963, staff levels had increased, and the Superintendent and his wife, were assisted by five attendants. There was one vacancy at that time.

By February 1972, the staff numbered 24, comprising one attendant in charge, one matron, 20 attendants and 2 female assistants. At that time, there were seven boys in detention. One Superintendent, a former Garda, held the position for over a decade. His wife, who was a trained nurse, was appointed matron. They lived on the premises. A part-time medical officer was employed to examine each child on admission and to attend as required.

The calibre of the staff was problematic from the very beginning, as they were recruited from the local Unemployment Exchange. Potential candidates were interviewed by the Superintendent, who then made a recommendation to the Department of Education for the appointment of the staff member. It is not clear what criteria the Superintendent applied in making these appointments. The staff were mainly male and had no childcare experience as this was not a requirement for the job at the time.

An Inter-Departmental memorandum of 15th March 1944 from the Department of Education to the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Finance, written two weeks before Marlborough House opened, indicated a high level of awareness as to the problems in Marlborough House: This circumstance has again set me thinking of the unsatisfactory nature of the present management of the Place of Detention. It is staffed by the lowest paid labour known to the Civil Service ... To speak with brutal candour, I view with alarm the impression they will make on visitors to the New Place of Detention.

He added: A direct result of the low calibre of the staff is that practically nothing is done for boys committed to the Place of Detention except to feed them and ensure that they do not escape. When one remembers that the Institution is run directly by this Department of State, that is an inexcusably low standard to be content with.

The memorandum concluded with the suggestion that the Department entrust the day-to-day management of Marlborough House to a religious Order, in particular the Hospitaller Order of St John of God. It calculated that the cost to the State of such a move would be the same as the present running costs, but the service provided would be better: The advantages are obvious. The whole tone of the establishment would be raised to a very high level. At the worst the boys’ would be catered for, both spiritually and physically, in a far better manner than at present. At the best, the Order might send one of its trained Psychiatrists to take charge.

The Department memorandum added: The Department would have disposed satisfactorily of responsibilities which, in my opinion it should never have undertaken and is, in the nature of things, unable to discharge satisfactorily.

In a subsequent letter to the Department of Finance dated 30th March 1944, the Department of Education referred again to the poor quality of staff: I am directed by the Minister for Education to inform you that the method of running the Place of Detention, formerly located at Summerhill and recently transferred to Marlborough House, Glasnevin, has never been regarded as satisfactory. The management is in the hands of a Superintendent (£50 per annum plus quarters) a Matron, the Superintendent’s wife, (£30 per annum) and three Attendants who receive, approximately, the same pay as messengers in Government Offices. With a staff of this calibre the maximum that can be expected is that the fundamental human needs of the youths detained there should be attended to and that they should be prevented from escaping. No personal reflection is intended on the present staff who are the best we have been able to get for the wages and conditions of service offered ... The Minister for Education is satisfied that this standard is inexcusably low for an Institution of its type which is managed directly by this Department. Public interest in juvenile delinquency and its associated problems has shown a marked increase in recent years. In England and elsewhere young offenders are subjected to observation and treatment by Psychiatrists in special clinics. There is in this country an ever-growing interest in this method of dealing with the problem. The growth of enlightened public interest has thrown into stark relief the already well known shortcomings of the Place of Detention and the Minister is satisfied that the present system cannot be allowed to continue any longer.

They sought sanction from the Department of Finance on 30th March 1944 for their proposal, citing that: After a careful examination of all aspects of the problem it has been decided that the best solution would be to hand the Place of Detention over to a suitably qualified Religious Order.

The Department of Finance, in a replying letter of 12th May 1944, stated there was no justification for transferring the management to a religious Order, as the only criticism against the place of detention was its location: That defect has been remedied by the transfer to Marlborough House, and until you have some experience of the system in new surroundings it seems to be somewhat premature to suggest a change in the manner of management which must, I feel, inevitably entail additional cost to the State.