10,992 entries for Inspections - State

In November 1971, the journalist Nell McCafferty, in an article in the Irish Times, noted that a year had passed since the publication of the Kennedy Report and posed the question ‘Just what has been done about the Kennedy Report?’ Her answer was that the report contained 13 recommendations and that ‘the Government has taken action on one part of one recommendation, relating to the training of staff responsible for child care. A one month residential course for senior personnel was held in Dublin in July. Otherwise, nothing. It’s been a grim year for children.’200

In July and August 1971, a deputation from the Department of Education visited the Daingean Reformatory and the Salthill, Letterfrack and Clonmel Industrial Schools.

The stated purpose of the visit was ‘a contribution towards an attempt at arriving at some tentative conclusions and recommendations....in the context of considerations for a reorganised and modernised system of Industrial and reformatory Schools’.

A number of difficulties with the children described as ‘uncontrollable’ and ‘fire-bugs’ were identified by the manager of Daingean, Fr McGonagle, who stated that he was unwilling to accept such children for any period of detention. The delegation concluded from this: It needs to be stated that the present situation appears to be highly unsatisfactory. A boy who will not be accepted by the manager of Daingean or Letterfrack (and Clonmel, which is still more inappropriate for such a type of child) either has to be set free on probation or sent for one-month to Marlborough House (or to St. Patrick’s201, if 16 years of age – or to prison in certain circumstances, if he is 15 years of age). Such boys committed to Daingean or Letterfrack get to realise that the shortest route to release is to behave in such a way as lends to their again being brought before the Courts for a further offences and being committed to Marlborough House or being released on a suspended sentence. We mentioned tentatively to Fr. McGonagle the possibility of the provision of such a suitable secure unit in connection with the new Reformatory School in Oberstown. The boys in it would be separate from the boys in the Reformatory School and a separate programme of courses would have to be arranged for them. The staff, however, would be common to both institutions and it would be under the administrative management of the Oblate Fathers. Fr. McGonagle appeared to be well disposed to this idea but, of course, could not commit himself or the Order in any way and the matter was left in abeyance at that stage.

Following on from their visit to Letterfrack, Salthill and Clonmel Industrial Schools, the delegation observed that the function of the proposed new units at Finglas would have to be taken into account in any future policy. The memo noted that the centre at Finglas: is not a replacement for Marlborough House in that it does not make provision for the ‘one-month detainees’ or for the ‘uncontrollable or fire-bug’ type who might be sent to Marlborough House for one month. It will, however, assume the functions of Marlborough House in relation to Remand when the Remand and Assessment Centre is functioning. There remains the question of the provision to be made for the ‘one month detainees’ and the uncontrollable (including the fire-bug) type of boy. As already mentioned in this memorandum, Fr. McGonagle and Bro McKinney were adamant that open Training Centres were not adequate or suitable for a certain type of boy and that he could not be accepted in them. It had already been decided that he could not be accepted in St. Laurence’s Training Centre, Finglas. In the course of a discussion which representatives from the Leinster Regional Health Board had in August with officials of the Department of Education reference was made to this problem. Both Dr. McQuaid and Dr. McCarthy, who were members of the deputation, stated that they had recently become confirmed in their view that such a type of boy existed for whom the Training Centres as envisaged – such as St. Laurence’s – were inappropriate and in relation to whom only a high security unit would meet requirements. They stated that plans for the provision of such a unit at Dundrum was at an advanced stage of preparation and that its availability within perhaps two years would serve to relieve the Department of Education of the necessity of making special provisions for this type of boy. It seemed that until alternative arrangements can be made in relation to the future position with regard to the ‘one month detainee’, Marlborough House would have to be kept open on a restricted scale. The Minister for Justice has been requested to agree that discussions should take place between officials of the Departments of Justice and Education in relation to this matter.

On 15th March 1972, CARE – the campaign for the care of deprived children202 – wrote to the Minister for Education, Mr Padraig Faulkner, enclosing a paper setting out their views generally on residential care for young offenders, and specifically on the proposals to establish a new facility at Oberstown in North Dublin. They firstly outlined what they saw as the deficiencies in the system: (a) In the first place there is excessive reliance on residential care as compared with care of children in their own homes, in the community. (b) The residential system generally is undifferentiated in respect of the needs of children. Children are classified roughly by sex and by age but not according to their needs. (c) The buildings are old and make it difficult to avoid institutionalisation and to provide effective homely care. (d) The staff, with few exceptions, are untrained. Marlborough House recruits staff through the labour exchange. (e) The institutions are in most cases quite apart from the community in which they are located, even more so from the communities from which the children are drawn. Thus they do not allow for a service which deals not just with the children but with their families too. (f) Until now there has been no adequate system of assessment and referral which would ensure at least that residential care staff know the background and problems of their charges. (g) Apart form Marlborough House and St. Patrick’s Institution all of the Institutions are run on a voluntary basis by Religious Orders and they retain the freedom to accept or reject children sent to them. In the past year the boys’ reformatory in particular has cut down on the number of boys it takes because of lack of facilities. In these circumstances the courts are often unable to dispose of children to residential care even if they need it. (h) There are no specialist residential facilities for distinct problem-groups e.g. the emotionally disturbed and psychopathic young persons. (i) Marlborough House, the Remand Home, has been particularly criticised for its complete lack of facilities and adequate personnel.

The delegation was particularly opposed to the proposed new Reformatory School to be built at Oberstown as a replacement for the Daingean Reformatory (St Conleth’s). The reasons for their opposition were fourfold. Firstly, the location of the proposed institution is wrong. An institution at Oberstown is still far from the city of Dublin from which most of the young offenders from St. Conleth’s are drawn, so far in fact that it would be quite impossible to provide a service dealing with not just the boys but with their families too. On a less sophisticated level visiting by families would still be very difficult. In addition access to specialist services is more of a problem the farther away from Dublin – or another city – the institution is and the more difficult it is for specialists to be involved on a part-time basis. Secondly the Oberstown project is too big. It is widely agreed that institutionalism is largely a function of size; in that respect Oberstown function would relate to boys from all over Ireland. There is a strong argument for decentralisation of this function as opposed to its concentration in one place. Thirdly, the thinking embodied in the Oberstown proposals is conservative and incoherent. The problems presenting themselves to the Government are clear, though probably wrongly defined, and Oberstown is intended as the main solution to them. It will fit into the existing pattern of juridical and administrative structures which are grossly deficient. If it embodies any new thinking, this thinking is not carried through to any logical conclusion. It retains too many of the inherent disadvantages of the old outmoded system, many of which are associated with the proposed size and type of location. Fourthly the Oberstown project cannot be conceived of as a temporary measure pending fundamental rethinking of legislation and comprehensive reform of services. The fact that it will cost so much and that it will exist in bricks and mortar will give it permanence, will make it liable to be cited as the solution to existing problems, and will thus pre-empt the choice of better options in the future.

The paper also noted the reluctance of the Religious engaged in residential childcare to accept certain children and to operate ‘juvenile prisons’. Instead of the Oberstown project, CARE recommended that a secure unit for between 20-30 boys should be opened in, or close to, Dublin and ‘should be managed, for the time being at least, by the Department of Education’. On 2nd May 1972, a delegation203 from CARE held a meeting in the Department of Education with officials from the Departments of Education, Health and Justice. The record of the meeting made by the Department of Education noted that: Much time was spent in discussing the security arrangements at the new school in Oberstown. The delegation from CARE was very much against the security unit being attached to the school for the reasons already discussed at other meetings. This resistance mellowed somewhat when it was explained in more detail by the Department what was involved – that it would not be a complete security like a prison – and the reasons underlying it. The CARE people were dissatisfied with the location and size of Oberstown and the way these two things combined to stifle any other initiative. In relation to the last point, they were informed that the Department was not adverse to any other arrangement, for example, community based, but that whatever arrangement was chosen, there would be a need for Oberstown in the future.

CARE wrote to Mr Ó Floinn, Runai Cunta of the Department of Education, the following day thanking him for the helpful meeting and outlining: We accept that the Oberstown project is going ahead and we hope to maintain an interest in its development and in the development of the associated establishments at Letterfrack, Clonmel and Finglas. On that basis I would like to reiterate a few points which we mentioned in our paper or which came up in the discussion. (a) We feel that children should be treated with reference to their needs and not with reference to their deeds: offenders, children who come before the courts, should not be segregated in committal from other children with the same problems who do not come before the courts. Thinking in terms of ‘reformatories’ and ‘junior reformatories’ would be a barrier to developments in this direction. (b) The future organisation of residential services for children will have to provide differentiated facilities to meet the different needs and problems of various groups. (c) If the high standard of services sought by CARE and envisaged by your Department are to be achieved and maintained it is not enough to have goodwill on the part of most of those who are engaged in planning and providing the services, which goodwill undoubtedly exists at present. It seems to us that detailed provision will have to be made with regard to inspection, co-ordination, training and research and that this will have to be guaranteed by regulations, stated standards, specific administrative structures, and procedures as appropriate.

At the end of June 1972, CARE published a detailed memorandum on deprived children and children’s services in Ireland.204 The memorandum claimed: children’s services in Ireland are vastly underdeveloped in a number of respects as compared with other social services in Ireland or as compared with children’s services in other countries like ours. This is an indictment of our community and demands action now for reasons of justice and charity and even economy. The deficiencies in our provisions have long been recognised; they have been the subject of informed comment and protest for decades. But the protests have not been acted upon. The responsibility now devolves on us who can learn and speak out and act today. It is CARE’s purposes to strive that the community accepts this responsibility, that provisions are improved now – late in the day.205

Both in the Memorandum and in subsequent publications, CARE argued for the need for co-ordination in the delivery of childcare services, arguing that ‘there is no one planning authority for services for deprived children, no co-ordinating machinery, no means of overall development. The interests of deprived children consequently suffer in the content of national planning.’206 In relation to residential care, CARE proposed: That all institutions for deprived children while retaining their independence should be more fully integrated into a total child-care service under the Health Boards and should be inspected by the Boards’.207 That the regional care authorities in each health region should together, and in consultation with the Health Board, work out a plan for co-ordination and specialisation in residential care in the region’.208 The need for training for staff of residential care services.209 The need for extensive research designed to find the right methods of care for various categories of deprived children.210

Later that year, CARE, in conjunction with a range of other organisations211 submitted a memo to the Government demanding one Minister for children. Having outlined the difficulties with the existing system of administration, the memo proposed: that one Government Minister should be designated as having overall responsibility, or the main responsibility, for deprived children and children’s services in Ireland. This means the allocation of additional functions to a present Minister, not the creation of a new Ministerial post. Any less radical solution, would not resolve the problems we have described. The establishment of a co-ordinating inter-departmental committee and the appointment of an advisory body, have been recommended elsewhere: such structures are desirable but they alone could not meet the needs of the present grave system. With regard to the choice of department we think that the Department of Health is the most appropriate department to have charge of deprived children. At the moment this department has many welfare responsibilities. In the long-term we foresee the possibility of the amalgamation of the Departments of Health and Social Welfare into one Department of Health and Welfare (as recommended by the Devlin Committee, 1969 and recently by the Catholic Bishops Council on Social Welfare) which would be responsible for health services, social security and social work services. Children’s services are only one part of social work services and when we talk of the co-ordination of children’s services we see this as a first step towards the ultimate co-ordination of social work services, or welfare services, at a national level. Children’s services, or welfare services generally, merge into other social services, such as housing and social security, at one end, and into custodial services at the other. For this reason one minister, or one department could not be responsible for all aspects of services which meet the needs of deprived children: what we are asking for is that responsibility, for the basic ‘children’s services’(emphasis in original) and responsibility for overall policy and planning in respect of deprived children should be defined and allocated to one Minister. It might be considered necessary to delegate this responsibility to a Parliamentary Secretary. In the first instance we would suggest that a children’s Services Section should be established within the Department of Health under a Principal Officer with no other responsibilities initially it would be the task of the section to survey all services for deprived children and to consult with relevant interests. It could then assume planning and executive responsibility for a range of services at present coming under the three departments. The decision in principle to have one minister and one department with the main responsibility in this area should give the section the necessary authority to approach its task with commitment and strength. It would be of the utmost importance that the new Children’s Services Section should command child care expertise, or social work expertise, of a high order. A senior qualified social worker with expertise in child care should be recruited to the section; if that is not possible expert personnel from Ireland or abroad should be retained as consultants, at least in the short term.

The initial response by the Department of Education to the suggestion from CARE and others that one Minister and one Department be responsible for children’s service was: There does seem to be logic in the recommendations in question. So far as this Department is concerned, this shows itself primarily in relation to the Residential Homes (formerly Industrial Schools) which now, with one or two exceptions, send all their children to school in the neighbouring national and post-primary schools and whose functions of caring for children seem most appropriately the administrative responsibility of a Welfare or Health Authority. In the case of the Special Schools (formerly Reformatory Schools), the residential and care function and the educational function are inextricably intertwined and it is difficult to see how they could be suitably separated.

The note also observed that at the time of writing the Department of Health had not yet given their considered views on this recommendation, but that the Department of Education understood that while the Department of Health saw the merits of the case, the ‘Department felt itself to have so many commitments at the present time that it did not welcome the financial and personnel problem which would be attached to taking over a complex block of work’. In the Department of Health, Clandillon drafted a discussion document in late 1972, outlining the recommendations of both the Committee on the Reformatory and Industrial Schools System and the CARE memorandum. She noted that while the recommendations of the CARE memorandum ‘differ in some resects from those in the Kennedy Report, ...basically it is a re-hash of the Kennedy recommendations’. In particular Clandillon noted that both reports recommended: (a)that the Reformatory at Daingean and the Remand Home in Marlborough House should be replaced and that the present institutional system of residential care should be replaced by groups homes which would approximate as closely as possible the normal family unit; (b)that an independent statutory board should be established. The Kennedy Report visualised this largely as an advisory board but interested in the promotion of child care. The CARE memorandum went further and visualised it as providing services directly and concerned with questions of planning, finance, organisation and personnel, and with responsibility for all residential establishments, for adoption and for preventative services. (c)administrative responsibility for all aspects of child care should be transferred to the Department of Health. The Department would cater for all aspects of child care – prevention, boarding-out, remand, admission and committal to residential care, after-care and adoption.

In relation to the recommendation that responsibility for all childcare services be transferred to the Department of Health, Clandillon noted some potential difficulties. She argued that the Department should not have responsibility for certain aspects of the childcare system, in particular, the juvenile liaison scheme, the juvenile courts, the adoption service or the probation service. She noted: The concept of one Department having responsibility sounds ...take over everything which could affect the welfare of children. Included would be family income maintenance, housing, employment and education. It would not, for instance, be feasible for a Minister for Health to have special responsibility regarding the type and amount of education which would be provided for children in poor areas. It is suggested that it has to be accepted that different Ministers must have responsibilities in the field of child care and that our efforts must be devoted to seeing – (a) what is the most rational distribution of responsibilities, (b) how can co-ordination best be achieved and how can we ensure that an overall view of the problem is taken. On the distribution of services the main things in which it has been suggested that this Department should have responsibility are – (a) adoption, the probation service, and the juvenile liaison service – all at present administered by the Department of Justice; (b) relations with the juvenile courts; (c) remand homes, reformatories and industrial schools – all now administered by the Department of Education. In regard to adoption, the Reports do not offer persuasive arguments why this should be transferred to the Department of Health other than the fact that is an important aspect of child care and is a substitute form of care. The Department of Justice has not taken an official line on this matter but officers of that Department with whom the matter was discussed feel that there is no reason why it should be transferred. They have built up a certain amount of expertise and they have established relations with the various bodies dealing with adoption. They agreed that close co-operation and co-ordination between the Adoption Board and Health Boards are important. It must be remembered that the Adoption Board is an independent statutory body. I do not think that the taking over of the Adoption Board by this Department would lead to any substantial improvements although there is a theoretical justification for taking it over. In regard to probation, the officers of the Department of Justice felt that this service is closely linked with the Gardaí, the Courts and the prisons. It deals with both juvenile and adult offenders. They have 40 officers employed at present and it is intended to increase this number to 70. I do not think the taking over of this service is desirable. If we took it over we would have to establish close liaison with the adult service, with the prisons, the Gardaí, and the Courts and the position would probably be more complicated than it is at present. It is agreed that co-operation between the existing service and the Health Board service is very desirable. In regard to the juvenile liaison service, this is a system under which selected members of the Gardaí talk to young offenders and their parents and frequently, by advice and persuasion, succeed in stopping delinquency. This is a scheme operated by the Gardaí and I do not think it would desirable that this Department should take it over. I do not think it would be desirable that we should attempt to deal with the Courts. The problems of juvenile offenders are intimately linked with the whole problem of the operation of the Courts, the probation service, the work of the Gardaí and the criminal law. I see no advantage in our trying to accept responsibilities for one portion. The need for co-ordination with the various other interests involved would probably leave the position worse than it is at present.