10,992 entries for Inspections - State

Mr Bruton met with the Association of Workers for Children in Care (AWCC)213 on 4th July 1973 and sought their views on the transfer of residential childcare services to the Department of Health. Fr Gormley, on behalf of the organisation stated: that the administration of child care services by one Department would greatly facilitate the work, and the AWCC had stated this in its response to the Kennedy report. However, it was not for the Association to say which Department could best provide the services that were needed. As far as the Association was concerned, it was the quality of the administration and the back-up services which counted. The real problems facing workers in the Homes were often haphazard method referral, the lack of assessment facilities in many areas, inadequate finance, the lack of ongoing support for children after they have left care. The Association saw the need for a Family Welfare Department which would co-ordinate the work and generate the various services which were needed.

The Department of Health also drafted a memo for Government outlining their views on the situation, particular the need for decisions to be made on matters arising from both the Kennedy Report and the CARE memorandum and noting that ‘while the recommendations in the two reports differ in some respects basically CARE reiterated the recommendations in the earlier Kennedy Report’. The memo acknowledged that progress had been achieved in realising some of the recommendations of the Reports, ‘but there are two major areas which have not been dealt with – the recommendations regarding the administration of services and the need for comprehensive examination and up-dating of legislation in relation to child care’. the memo outlined that responsibility for the probation services, the juvenile liaison scheme and the children’s courts should be retained by the Department of Justice rather than being transferred to Health as recommended in the Kennedy Report. The memo argued that Government should accept in principle that adoption services should be transferred from the Department of Justice to the Department of Health, but that ‘further consideration should be given to the question when the transfer should take place’. On the issue of residential care, in relation to the reformatory schools and remand homes, the memo noted that: a view has been put forward that the residential and educational aspects of care given in these centres cannot be divorced and that special teaching related to the deficiencies of the children is a vital element; this is a cogent argument as there is no doubt that education must be a major element no matter what Minister is responsible for the centres. However, while there may be little, if any, health or welfare content in the case of a number of residents their initial medical and social assessment would be an essential element. Furthermore, the Department of Health has wide experience in the running of institutions and many of the problems which would arise in regard to the centres would be similar to those arising in other residential centres. The making of arrangements for more specialised care would be facilitated if one authority had responsibility for all centres. Again, there is a large educational element in mental handicap institutions – the Department of Education providing the necessary education works well. There is great need to build up expertise in the sphere of delinquent, aggressive and seriously disturbed behaviour and this almost certainly must be done on the health side. In the circumstances, the balance of argument appears to suggest that the Department of Health should take over responsibility for these centres.

In relation to industrial schools, the memo argued that as these homes contained ‘an increasing proportion of children sent by Health Boards and which can be regarded, to a considerable extent, as part of a family care service’, that responsibility for the homes should be transferred to the Department of Health and that the ‘Health Boards have the necessary staff expertise etc. to ensure the best possible care for children in these homes’.

An Inter-Departmental Working Party, along the lines suggested by Education, was established, but difficulties were evident within the Department of Education in making progress in implementing the recommendations of the Report and on maintaining their day-to-day obligations in relation to Residential Homes, in particular, their inspectorial work. On 29th November 1973, Mr Ó Maitiú highlighted that the post of Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools had in effect been downgraded from an assistant principal officer to that of a higher executive officer (HEO). However, ‘because of the work involved in implementing the Kennedy Report these arrangements have proved entirely inadequate. The Report has involved the recasting of the system from top to bottom and involves work of very high quality. The HEO has not found it possible to carry out his executive duties as officer in charge of the section and, at the same time perform his statutory duties as Inspector. The inspectorial work has suffered.’ Mr Ó Maitiú noted that the Kennedy Report had recommended that ‘approximately five or six Inspectors would be required to operate a proper inspectorate’. Mr Ó Maitiú stated: This is a formidable indictment of the official attitude to the inspection of the homes and of the indifferent approach to the staffing of the Inspector post. Three years later the position, if anything, has worsened. Far from five or six Inspectors being appointed, there is now not even one Inspector fully on the job. Furthermore, the H.E.O. can only carry out an administrative inspection – he has no qualifications otherwise. He has not even the help of a Medical Inspector as this post has not been filled for some years. The situation is now arising where the personnel of the Schools is obtaining child-care qualifications (as a result of courses conducted on behalf of the Department), whereas the Department itself has no inspector qualified in this field. There is an urgent need now for an Inspector with suitable qualifications who will supervise the implementation of the Kennedy Report in the Schools and homes and advise and council staff, co-ordinate arrangements with Health boards and Courts, ensure that medical services etc. are provided, that children are securing the education best suited to their needs and aptitudes, that after-care is receiving proper attention.214

In addition, he noted that: the Kennedy Report also recommended that the Children Act 1908 and other relevant legislation be up-dated in a new composite Children’s Act. This has not yet been tackled – it was decided to wait until the outline of the new institutional and other services had emerged more clearly. However, considerable public pressure is now being exercised, as the existing legislation is entirely inappropriate to modern conditions.

A fortnight earlier, the Kennedy Report was debated in the Seanad, the first time the report was debated in either House. The Parliamentary Secretary at the Department of Education, Mr Bruton, outlined the progress on implementing the recommendations of the Report, but observed ‘to date there has been a certain amount of secretiveness in the approach of my Department and also of other Departments to this important subject. This was particularly marked during the tenure of office of the previous Government.’ On the issue of Departmental responsibility for child welfare services, he argued: No matter where we draw the line as between one Department and the other, no matter where we lay the main responsibility, there will always be frayed edges, there will always be areas where demarcation will be unclear. Even within the terms of the Kennedy and CARE recommendations the Department of Education would retain responsibility for general education, for school psychological and child guidance service, for school attendance, for youth service, for remedial education, for education of the mentally handicapped and so on. All these are matters which bear very significantly on the life of the child in care and indeed on national policy in relation to children in care. To take another example, the Kennedy proposal that in the case of special schools one Department should have responsibility for the residential aspect of the special schools and another for the educational aspects, would introduce a duality of responsibility where in fact at the moment unity exists. It may be that the problem it is sought to solve, namely, the lack of co-ordination in overall policy-making and in dealing with the cases of individual children, can best be dealt with by more formalised contact between the various authorities at national, regional and local level rather than by shifting responsibilities around from one Minister to another.215

In February 1974 an Inter-departmental working party was established to ‘review the extent to which the Kennedy Report has been implemented and to indicate the areas which still await implementation’ and that the Working Party ‘would form a briefing for a group to be set up to recommend action, including legislative action, which should be taken in regard to improvements in the field of childcare’. The Working Party systematically reviewed each of the recommendations in the report.

Recommendation No 1 stated that ‘the whole aim of the child-care system should be geared towards the prevention of family breakdown and the problems consequent on it; the admission of children to residential care to be considered only when there was no satisfactory alternative’. The Working Party found that while it was not possible to compare the number of children in care in late 1973 with the position that existed at the time of the Kennedy Committee were reporting, in broad terms the number of children in Reformatory and Industrial schools had declined from 2,202 in 1969 to 1,495 in December 1973. It also noted that for Departmental purposes, Industrial Schools were now referred to as Residential Homes and Reformatory Schools referred to as Special Schools, although for legal purposes, they would retain their original designations. The decline in the number of children in Industrial Schools, the Working Party suggested, was due to a greater reluctance by the courts to commit children because of a lack of proper guardianship was a contributory factor in addition to ‘improved living standards generally and the continuing impact of the Adoption Act 1952, and of Department of Health policy favouring boarding-out as opposed to residential care.’ In relation to the Reformatory Schools, the introduction of the juvenile liaison scheme in the early 1960s216 and a much expanded Probation and Welfare Service217 helped divert many young people from having to be committed.

In relation to the two other forms of residential care for children, homes approved by the Minister for Health under section 55 of the Health Act 1953 and voluntary homes which had not applied for approval, the Working party noted that ‘Information is not to hand however of the numbers of children in these institutions other than those placed by the health authorities not of numbers in voluntary homes which had not applied for approval. This makes it impossible on available data to state the present over-all position in relation to the numbers in residential care.’ They also noted that the numbers of children boarded-out had declined. This they suggested ‘may be due to increased utilization of adoption and a reduction, because of higher living standards and improved services, the numbers of families who are inadequate to the point where arrangements away from the family home have to be made for the children’. In relation to the question of improved services, the Working Party noted that ‘there are at present 50 social workers employed by the health boards together with 60 social workers employed by voluntary agencies providing services on behalf of health boards’ and that ‘The Minister for Health has stated his desire to have the numbers of professionally trained social workers engaged in community work substantially increased and to this end he has arranged with the two Dublin university colleges to provide 27 places this year on professional social work courses for sponsorship by health boards.’

Recommendation No 2 of the Kennedy Report urged that the institutional system of residential care should be abolished to be replaced by group homes. The Working Party highlighted that over half the homes were in the process of adopting a group structure, this was done in three ways with the aid of grants from the Department of Education: (1) by erecting new purpose built group homes; (2) by purchasing private houses for adaptation as group homes; (3) by converting existing buildings to the group home system. The Working Party noted that the ‘general tenor of the report appears to envisage the present system of large institutional buildings being replaced by self-contained units for 7 to 9 children each, these units to be conducted by houseparents and approximating as closely as possible the normal family unit. This would seem to entail a radical reorganization of the residential care system, as it appears to imply numbers of small, independent units.’

Recommendation No 3 drew attention to the inadequacy of the reformatory system, and in particular it said that St Conleth’s Reformatory, Daingean, should be closed and replaced by a more suitable building with trained childcare staff. The Working Party recorded that St Conleth’s closed in October 1973, and was been replaced by Scoil Ard Mhuire, in Lusk, County Dublin. The Industrial School at Letterfrack, treated in the Kennedy Report as a junior Reformatory, closed on 30th June 1974. The Working Party noted that: Some controversy has surrounded the question of the provision of custodial accommodation in the new special schools. The Kennedy Report recommended that the schools be open but that each should have a secure wing. The religious who conduct the schools do not feel it appropriate that they should administer closed units. Pending experience of the working of the schools and having regard to practical problems, special arrangements for closed custody have not been made. There appears to be a small minority of sociopathic offenders who cannot be contained in a special school and who require treatment in a closed psychiatric unit. Proposals are at present being examined in the Department of Health for such a unit at Dundrum. It is possible that the presence of this small but destructive group and the fact that suitable provision has not as yet been made for them is influencing attitudes in relation to some secure provision in the special schools. If adequate special arrangements were made for this sociopathic group, it would help clarify this latter issue and it is possible that this would indicate that secure provision at the special schools would be needed for persistent absconders.

Recommendation No 4 related to the replacement of the remand home and place of detention at Marlborough House, Glasnevin and the Working Party noted that Marlborough House closed on 1st August 1972218 and was replaced by the Finglas children’s centre, which opened in January 1972, although the remand unit did not open until August 1973.219 The Working Party acknowledged that the detention function of Marlborough House was ‘purely punitive and of no educational or rehabilitative value’ whereas the new Centre in Finglas provided special education of up to 12 months for those committed, in a addition to a designated assessment facility.220 Again, the Working Group remarked that: There is a special problem at present in relation to a small number of unruly boys (probably less than 12 in number) aged between 14 and 16 years. Their physical development makes it difficult to cater for them, in view of their conduct, in the remand unit and they cannot legally be taken in St. Patrick’s Institution unless they are 16. Under the present law, paradoxically, they may be committed to prison if they are at least 15 years of age and if a court certifies that they are unruly. In the case of those between 14 and 15 years of age, there is at present no provision.

Recommendation No 5 was to the effect that the staff engaged in childcare work should be fully trained. The Kennedy Committee said that this should take precedence over any other recommendations. In response to this recommendation, the Working Party noted that a full-time residential course in childcare, financed by the Department of Education, was established at the School of Social Education, Kilkenny in 1971 and to date 41 students had successfully qualified. The Department of Education also promoted the organisation of in-service training courses at St Patrick’s Training College, Drumcondra; St Vincent’s, Goldenbridge; the Waterford Regional College of Technology, and Saint Mary’s College, Cathal Brugha Street. The Working Group compared the numbers in child care training in 1969 and 1973 and while the number with full child-care training increased from 4 to 26, the numbers with no training also increased from 27 to 60.

Recommendation No 6 dealt with the question of educating children in care ‘to the ultimate of their capacities’. The Working Party reported that, with the exception of two schools, the children in the remaining Residential Homes attend primary and secondary schools, and the grants system has been revised so that children in care can be paid for by the State while they complete their education, up to third level as appropriate. It noted that ‘Grants on this basis are at present being paid in respect of 70 such children.’

Recommendation No 7 stated that after-care should form an integral part of the childcare system. In the case of the Residential Homes after-care is primarily the function of the Manager of the home, but the Working Party noted that the Kennedy Report did not consider this adequate. However, they also noted that the decline in the number of children in care has meant that it is easier for the homes themselves to keep contact with the children after they leave. Although the number of children in residential care was in decline, they argued that the children entering residential care tended, not, as in the past, to be illegitimate or orphaned, but were in residential care ‘because their families have been inadequate for the task of caring for them’. On that basis, they concluded that ‘until the expanding social work service of the regional health boards have developed beyond their present point of growth, it will not be possible to make fully satisfactory aftercare arrangements for those children including support for their families.’ In relation to the special schools, the Working Party noted: arrangements have been made for the provision of after-care in the form of supportive supervision through the Welfare Service of the Department of Justice. Three ‘half-way houses’ run by voluntary community groups and affiliated to the Welfare Service provide for approximately 30 boys aged 14 to 17 years and there are proposals for opening three further such houses. In addition, arrangements have been made for after-care by the Welfare Service of the Department of Justice to be extended to boys on their release from special schools.