10,992 entries for Inspections - State

On the question of responsibility for reformatories and remand homes, Clandillon was of the view that: It is not easy to make a firm recommendation in regard to which Department should have responsibilities for the reformatories and remand homes. The attitude of the Department of Education is that the residential and educational aspects of the care given in these centres cannot be divorced and that special teaching related to the deficiencies of the children is a vital element. There is a considerable amount in these views. On the other hand, the Department of Education has very limited responsibilities regarding the running of institutions. It is agreed that an input from the Health side is essential but whether this health aspect should outweigh the educational aspect is not easy to decide. If there is co-operation it seems to me that there is no great need for the transfer of these centres to this Department. There is, however, a particular factor which has to be borne in mind. There seems little doubt that there will be pressure in the coming years for a special security unit to deal with disturbed and aggressive children and those who tend to escape. We already have a proposal to provide a special unit at Dundrum but this is intended for mentally ill and severely emotionally disturbed children. There is a tendency for voluntary bodies to be selective and to pass on to somebody else those who create too much trouble. If we provide a special unit there is going to be considerable pressure on us to take anyone who causes any trouble and I could see considerable differences of opinion between us and Education. My feeling is that if Education want to keep the special schools we should agree, but that we should insist that they take the rough with the smooth and operate a special security unit as well as the normal centres where strict security is not a feature.

In relation to Residential Homes, Clandillon noted the increase in the number of children placed by health boards and that the Department of Education ‘seem prepared to agree that these homes should be transferred to the Department of Health but the Parliamentary Secretary seems to have some misgivings and reservations. Again these places could be operated by either Department provided there is co-operation and liaison on balance, however, I think it would be more logical that they should be under the control of this Department.’ The recommendations outlined by Clandillon, as she acknowledged: leave things as they are and may seem to suggest that there was no justification for the Reports. This is not so. A lot has happened since the reports were issued. On the Department of Justice side the welfare services have been expanded enormously and there are plans for further expansion. On the education side, Marlborough House has gone, Daingean is on the way out and new centres have been provided at Finglas and considerable improvements in the residential centres have been made. On our side we are developing our welfare services and we visualise a far greater development under the proposed Departmental re-organisation. On co-ordination, we could probably achieve this by regular meetings between ourselves, Justice and Education....Over and above all this is the question of new legislation...A possible solution would be for each Department to deal with its own bit of the legislation, but the various provisions are so inter-linked I think a comprehensive Act is essential. Instead, therefore, of simple liaison between the Departments of Health, Education and Justice, I would suggest the establishment of an advisory Council which would contain representatives of those Departments. It could be given as one of its first tasks the preparation of proposals for legislation. The Council should be appointed by the Minister for Health and it should report to him and he would take a lead role in the whole field. This, of course, will involve him in dealing with what will be a complicated, and possibly controversial, Bill. All this will be a futile exercise unless we have the staff and funds to deal with the problems which will arise.

An emerging issue for both the Department of Education and the Department of Health was the future management of children’s Residential Homes. In an undated memo, but probably late 1972, relating to the closure of Letterfrack Industrial School and its possible replacement by a school in Dublin, the future role of religious Congregations in managing Residential Homes was discussed by the Department of Education: The Christian Brothers, who conduct Letterfrack Special School for delinquent boys, have informed the Runai that they propose to phase out the school and have offered lands at Swords, Co. Dublin for a new school in replacement....It doesn’t automatically follow that because Letterfrack is to be closed it must immediately be replaced. A replacement school will cost something of the order of £300,000 to £400,000. The new schools at Finglas and Oberstown will not be fully operative until early 1973 and mid-1973, respectively, and it might be suggested that it will take some time before the impact of these new schools on the delinquency problem is clear. Moreover, opinion generally at the moment is against residential measures to cope with delinquency except as a last resort. As against this, if a replacement for Letterfrack is in fact needed, delay could result in a serious position for the Courts on the closure of Letterfrack. The Department of Justice strongly believes a replacement is needed. Growing urbanisation is likely to lead to an increase in the delinquency problem. While there is a certain overlap between Finglas and Letterfrack, the latter caters for a type of boy requiring a longer stay than is provided for in Finglas. Much of the opposition to residential institutions is misinformed: full development of welfare services will still have a residue of boys who cannot be effectively provided for except on a residential basis.

It was also noted that: Incidentally, while the Christian Brothers would operate the school in Swords, the land would be bought from them by the Department. This was done in Oberstown where the Oblates got the full market price from the State: there is no indication the Brothers would sell the property at Swords to the State for less than market value.

In considering future arrangements, the memo noted the arrangement in the newly opened centre in Finglas where ‘the religious order administers the school on behalf of the Department. A management committee representative of the State, the order and independent lay people supervise the general operation of the school and the day-to-day running is undertaken by the religious Director who is legally manager. A similar arrangement will operate in Oberstown.’

However, the memo highlighted that a number of difficulties had manifested themselves in this arrangement, in particular: (1)With all schools conducted by religious orders, lay teachers and lay housemasters, who will form the bulk of staff, will have practically no promotional outlets. This applies particularly to the new service of house master which will be almost entirely confined to the four schools of this type. (2)The decline in vocations and the pressure on the resources of religious orders are resulting in a position in Finglas and Oberstown where the orders concerned have a major say in the control and running of institutions owned, built and financed entirely by the State and staffed largely by lay people. (3)The religious working in these schools are assigned by their orders without consultation with the Department. In view of the degree of the Department’s involvement with the schools, some of our recent experiences in relation to the assignment of personnel by the orders have been unsatisfactory.212 (4)The orders concerned do not specialise in education with the disadvantaged and there are tendencies to transfer talented personnel to other fields in which an order may have wider commitments. (5)Past experience engenders definite reservations on the suitability of the Christian Brothers in particular to conduct residential schools.’

In considering the establishment of a school under lay administration, the memo notes:— The objection to a proposal of this nature would be the fact that it would be a State school in the straightforward meaning of that term and, secondly, that the Christian Brothers could read into such an action wider implications for the State’s attitude to their place in Irish education generally. The management arrangements could accommodate the first of these objections to some extent and the second would be a matter of discretion in the approach to the Brothers. The proposal would also entail an approach to the Archbishop of Dublin and would not be feasible unless a site other than the Swords site were available. A further objection is that, with a religious order administering an institution, the Department escapes a certain kind of public criticism in relation to its day-to-day running. On the other hand, a new kind of criticism is developing in having all educational institutions conducted by orders and we have lately had raised with us the question of provision for Protestant children whose numbers are too small to warrant a special school.

As the Department of Education was grappling with the management of reformatory and industrial schools, concern was expressed in the Department of Health in relation to the increase in the number of private orphanages, who because of rising costs, were seeking approval to allow health board children to be maintained by them. In a memo dated March 1973, it noted institutions seeking such approval in recent years included: St. Saviour’s Boys Home, Dominick Street; Mrs. Smyly’s Homes; Nazareth Home, Fahan; Extensions to Kill O’ The Grange Convent; Sacred Heart Home for Girls, Drumcondra; St. Vincent’s, Glasnevin. As a result, Health Boards, in some cases, accepted maintenance of children already in these homes, e.g. Kirwan House, although when possible they examined the possibility of boarding these children out with relatives. Mrs. Smyly’s Homes, another Protestant orphanage, which includes a nursery from which children may be placed for adoption, had on 29.09 .1972, 29 children being paid by Health Boards. Two other Protestant Homes had 15 H.A. children between them. These figures show an increasing reliance on Health Boards of private Protestant orphanages, which in former years were able to manage an income from investment and private subscriptions. Because we have recognised the value of such orphanages as Kill O’ the Grange Convent and St. Joseph’s Tivoli Road, we have in recent years approved of grants by the Eastern Health Board to assist in extending and improving them. We are particularly aware of these places because they assist and encourage the children to train for careers and keep in touch with them in after years. The Eastern Health Board which accepts a large number of children into care has difficulty in finding sufficient suitable foster homes. We encouraged St. Vincent’s Glasnevin to seek approval for the purposes of section 55. As you will recall this orphanage was not keen to seek approval. It has a high standard of teaching and results, and was afraid that the acceptance of Health Act children would lower its standards. Ten Health Act children, nine of them from Dublin, were being maintained there on 30.09 .1972.

Part of the reason for the increase in the numbers of children admitted to residential care was: ...that there are many children that health authorities cannot place in foster homes or for adoption, e.g. lack of parent’s consent, or some physical or mental deficiency. As you know, in spite of constant reminders to health authorities and representations by the Department’s Inspectors in respect of individual children, the number of children maintained by health authorities in institutions continues to grow.

Later that month, a circular was issued to the health boards, which stated: Having regard to Article 4 of the Boarding Out of Regulations 1954, the Minister notes with concern that over the past few years in some areas the numbers of children placed by Health Boards in institutions has showed a marked increase. He is aware that this may be due to a tendency on the part of health boards to accept into care children who at one time would not be regarded as eligible for such services. It appears nevertheless that in some areas the policy of not providing care for such children other than in an institution is not strictly observed. This may be due to difficulties encountered in finding suitable foster homes. Care should be taken to insert regularly in the public press advertisements seeking such homes. No doubt health board personnel with direct responsibility for children in care will be aware of families suitable to rear such children and should be of assistance in bringing to the notice of such families the health board’s advertisements. Health Boards do not have to be reminded of he present high cost of maintaining a child in an institution. In light of recent increases in the cost of living they should review upwards the maintenance rates payable to foster parents as well as clothing allowances.

On 18th May 1973, a draft memo for Government on the Kennedy Report was circulated in the Department of Education. The memo focused primarily on the issues of administrative responsibilities and the updating of legislation. The memo signalled that the Department of Education concurred with the recommendation of the Committee that ‘administrative responsibility for all aspects of child care should be transferred to the Department of Health. Responsibility for the education of children in care should remain with the Department of Education.’ However, this could not happen immediately as ‘the extensive measures of re-organisation and development which are currently engaging the attention of the Department of Health and the health authorities are unlikely to enable a transfer to take place without risk of some loss of efficiency.’

On this basis, the Department of Education proposed: (a)that administrative responsibility for the appropriate institutions remain with the Department of Education for the time being; (b)that the Department of Education take over, again for the interim period, the administration of similar institutions which, by reason of the fact that they do not accept children through the Courts, are at present under the Department of Health ; (c)that the Department of Health retain responsibility for boarding-out children; (d)that the planning of the development of facilities for the institutions and children in question be jointly undertaken by the two Departments in an inter-departmental committee under the direction of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and which would include also representation from the Department of Justice; (e)that the Department of Health arrange with the local health authorities, and through the inter-departmental committee, to place at the disposal of the schools the necessary psychological, psychiatric, medical and social worker service.

In relation to the recommendation in the Report that ‘all laws relating to child care should be examined, brought up-to-date and incorporated into a composite Children Act’, the memo outlined that: pending provision of the new institutional arrangements which new legislation would embody, the exact outline of new legislation could not be anticipated. Moreover, it was difficult to see what direction new legislation should take in the absence of a decision in regard to administrative responsibility... The Minister therefore proposes that an inter-departmental committee be set up under the direction of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and comprising representatives of the Departments of Education, Health and Justice and of the Attorney general to examine the present framework of laws relating to children, to consider the amendments, deletions and additions demanded in these laws by present-day circumstances and policies, to make recommendations and to prepare for submission to the Government the heads of a Bill embodying their recommendations.’

In addition, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Mr John Bruton outlined his views in a memo to the Minister. Noting the recommendation of both the Kennedy Committee and the CARE memorandum that responsibility for Residential Homes be vested in the Department of Health, he argued: ‘unlike the Department of Education, the Department of Health does not at this time have a staff with experience or competence in dealing with residential child care’. He also argued that: the multiplicity of agencies dealing with individual families and the lack of longterm overall planning – will not be solved by a simple transfer of Departmental responsibility for Residential Homes and Special Schools. Nor will it be solved by the setting up of a mere outside advisory body as proposed by CARE. It requires the establishment of more efficient means for co-ordination between Departments in dealing with both individual cases and overall policy.

In relation to this overall policy, he proposed that: an interdepartmental committee should be set up with representation from the Departments of Health, Education, Justice, Finance and the Attorney General. This Committee should draft a new Children’s Act, prepare proposals for the long-term financing of Child Care Services and establish permanent consultation procedures between Departments in relation to policy. A transfer of responsibility will require legislation anyway and thus would properly form part of the new Children’s Act which should be prepared by he inter-departmental committee suggested in the last paragraph.