10,992 entries for Inspections - State
BackNeglect was frequently described by witnesses in the context of physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Neglect of a child’s care and welfare occurred both in the form of what was done to them by those who were responsible for their care and what they failed to do to protect and nurture them. Lack of adequate food, warmth, clothing, health care, hygiene and recreation are indicators of neglect of the care of children. Failure to provide for their safety, education and development are further indicators of neglect about which the Committee heard many reports, and which had implications for health, employment, social and economic status in later life.
Emotional abuse was also reported by witnesses in the form of lack of attachment and affection, loss of identity, deprivation of family contact, humiliation, personal denigration, exposure to fear and the threat of harm. Furthermore, many witnesses recalled the devastating emotional impact and feeling of powerlessness associated with observing their co-residents, siblings or others being abused. This trauma was acute for those who were forced to participate in such incidents.
Awareness of the abuse of children in schools and institutions was believed to exist within society at both official and unofficial levels. Professionals, including Government Inspectors, medical practitioners, and teachers had a role in relation to various aspects of children’s welfare while they were in schools and institutions. Local people were employed in most of the residential facilities as professional, care and ancillary staff. In addition, members of the public had contact with children in out-of-home care in the course of providing services to the institutions both at a formal and informal level. Witnesses commented that while many of those people were aware that life for children in the schools and institutions was difficult they failed to take action to protect them.
Contemporary complaints were made to the Gardaí, the Department of Education and others by witnesses, their parents and relatives, generally in the aftermath of an injury, when visible marks of a beating were observed or when a child who had run away was being returned to a children’s home, reformatory or industrial school. Gardaí were at times reported to request leniency on the child’s behalf when they were returned, in the knowledge that absconders were harshly treated.
Children with intellectual, physical and sensory impairments and children who had no known family contact were especially vulnerable in institutional settings. They described being powerless against adults who abused them, especially when those adults were in positions of authority and trust. Impaired mobility and communication deficits made it impossible to inform others of their abuse or to resist it. Children who were unable to hear, see, speak, move or adequately express themselves were at a complete disadvantage in environments that did not recognise or facilitate their right to be heard.
The enduring impact of childhood abuse was described by many witnesses who, while reporting that as adults they enjoyed good relationships and successful careers, had learned to live with their traumatic memories. Many other witnesses reported that their adult lives were blighted by childhood memories of fear and abuse. They gave accounts of troubled relationships and loss of contact with their siblings, extended families and with their own children. They also described lives marked by poverty, social isolation, alcoholism, mental illness, sleep disturbance, aggressive behaviour and self harm.
Seventy percent (70%) of witnesses reported receiving no second-level education and, while many witnesses reported having successful careers in business and professional fields, the majority of witnesses heard by the Committee reported being in manual and unskilled work for their entire working lives.
Testimony provided by over 1,000 men and women who attended the Confidential Committee to report their accounts of childhood abuse gave rise to the following proposals for consideration in the Commission’s overall recommendations for the future: <br><table><colgroup><col></col><col></col><col></col></colgroup><thead><tr><th><strong>Member</strong></th>
 <th><strong>Date of appointment</strong></th>
 <th><strong>Date of resignation (if applicable)</strong></th>
 </tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ms Mary Durack<br></br>
 Witness Support Officer</td>
 <td>16<sup>th</sup> August 1999</td>
 <td>12<sup>th</sup> August 2005</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Ms Helen Lynch<br></br>
 Administrator</td>
 <td>25<sup>th</sup> August 1999</td>
 <td>2<sup>nd</sup> March 2006</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Ms Jacqueline Curran<br></br>
 Witness Support Officer</td>
 <td>8<sup>th</sup> April 2002</td>
 <td>27<sup>th</sup> October 2003</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Ms Melanie Hall <br></br>
 Witness Support Officer</td>
 <td>13<sup>th</sup> September 2004</td>
 <td>11<sup>th</sup> March 2005</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Ms Norella Broderick<br></br>
 Administrator</td>
 <td>21<sup>st</sup> February 2006</td>
 <td>29<sup>th</sup> September 2006</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Ms Sandra Hoswell <br></br>
 Administrator</td>
 <td>9<sup>th</sup> October 2006</td>
 <td>30<sup>th</sup> April 2007</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Ms Danielle Griffin<br></br>
 Administrator and <br></br>
 Research Assistant</td>
 <td>30<sup>th</sup> April 2007</td>
 <td>29<sup>th</sup> August 2008</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Ms Catherine Mulligan<br></br>
 Administrator</td>
 <td>10<sup>th</sup> September 2008</td>
 <td>15<sup>th</sup> January 2009</td>
 </tr></tbody></table>
The Department of Education had overall responsibility for the Reformatory and Industrial School System and for Marlborough House detention centre. The Department provided finance to the schools and oversaw their operation, leaving day-to-day control to the Congregations and Orders that operated them. The Department had a duty to ensure that the rules and regulations were observed, that finances were correctly utilised and that reasonable standards were maintained. The principal method of monitoring the schools was the inspection system, which was carried out by members of the Department’s Reformatory and Industrial Schools Branch.
The timeframe of this investigation falls between the publication of the Cussen Commission’s Report into Reformatories and Industrial Schools in 1936 and the Kennedy Report on the Schools in 1970. The Cussen Report endorsed the system contingent upon the implementation of its 51 principal conclusions and recommendations, but the implementation of these recommendations by the Department of Education was inconsistent and intermittent. Consequently, the system continued largely unchanged until the late 1960s. By the time the Kennedy Report was published in 1970, the system had greatly declined and the report itself was more of an obituary than a death sentence. The events that led to the ending of the system had little to do with policy decisions by the Department of Education, and that also is part of the story. Consideration of the Department’s role is thus largely confined to the 34 years between these two reports.
The Secretary of the Department of Education in evidence to the Investigation Committee in June 2006 admitted that there had been ‘significant failings’ by the Department: As Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science I wish to state publicly here today that there were significant failings in relation to the Department’s responsibility to the children in care in these institutions and that the Department deeply regrets this. Children were sent to industrial and reformatory schools by the State acting through the courts. While the institutions to whose care they were committed were privately owned and operated the State had a clear responsibility to ensure that the care they received was appropriate to their needs. Responsibility for ensuring this lay with the Department of Education, whose role it was to approve, regulate, inspect and fund these institutions. It was clear that the Department was not effective in ensuring a satisfactory level of care. Indeed, the very need to establish a Commission of Inquiry testifies this.
This chapter deals with general topics: particular events and the Department’s role in them are discussed in the chapters on individual schools.
The Minister for Education had legal responsibility in respect of schools. Under the Children Act 1908, children could only be committed to a school that was certified. The Minister held the crucial legal power of certification (1908 Act, sections 45, 58 and 91). Certification was granted for an indefinite period, not on an annual basis. The Minister had the power under section 47 to withdraw certification from schools; certification was intended to be the means by which the Minister could control many significant features of the schools. However once a school had been certified, there were heavy pressures against the use of derecognition and there are no cases of its actually being done.
When certified, schools were furnished with a document that stated the name of the school, geographical location, date of certification, conditions of admission, the number of children for which the school was certified and the name of the agency running the school. The document was signed and dated by the Minister for Education and by the manager of the school.
Certification of a school was contingent upon acceptance by the school’s management of the entire ‘Rules and Regulations for the Certification of an Institution as an Industrial School’, and these rules were listed in the certification document. It was a seven-page document that set out the legal framework for almost every aspect of a resident’s circumstances, including accommodation, clothing, diet, instruction, conditions on which children may attend National Schools, industrial education, inspection, religious exercises and worship, discipline, punishments, recreation, visits from friends and relatives, children placed out on licence or on apprenticeships, treasury grants, discharge, visitors to the school, timetables, journals, the medial officer, inquests and returns to the Department. However, there were no regulations governing the ratio of staff to children.