10,992 entries for Inspections - State

The debate that took place in relation to juvenile justice during the 1970s in Ireland, culminating in the Final Report of the Task Force, was essentially between two competing models of juvenile justice, a ‘welfare model’ which was the one broadly supported by the NGOs and the members of CARE on the Task Force, and a ‘justice model’ which was the one broadly supported by the majority of the members of the Task Force.

In September 1981, a memo was circulated which outlined the response of the Department of Health to the Task Force on Child Care Services. The memo stated: The Minister for Health accepts the general principles of the Report and is anxious that the initial steps should now be taken in regard to the implementation of these specific aspects of the Report and its supplementary recommendations that are acceptable to her. Some of the recommendations relate to areas of responsibility, which are already those of the Minister for Health. These are now being considered in association with the health boards and voluntary agencies concerned. Where the improvement of existing services is necessary this is a matter that will be considered by the Minister in the light of available financial resources if additional funding is involved. In so far as changes in the law will be necessary appropriate provision will be made in the Heads of the Children Bill, now being drafted, which will come before the Government at a later date. However, there is a number of important functions now the responsibility of either the Department of Justice or the Department of Education which in the light of the Report and the earlier Government decision of October 1973 should, in the Minister for Health’s view now be transferred to her department. The Minister is seeking approval in principle to their transfer to her Department so that necessary discussions about transfer can be instituted with the Departments concerned (including the important issue of implications for existing staff) and also to enable appropriate provisions to be made in the Heads of the Bill.

The rationale for many of these changes was that: In recent years, there has been a major swing away from the practice of compulsory placement in residential care through court committal in favour of voluntary placement through the health boards. This has resulted in the present situation where the great majority of the children in residential homes are now the responsibility of the health boards, although the Minister for Education retains responsibility for most of the homes themselves. In 1976, the Department of Education formally recorded its agreement with the Kennedy Report recommendation and since then, the Department of Health has taken the lead role in developing overall policy and programmes in residential care, including questions of finance and staffing. However the formal transfer of responsibilities for residential homes to the Department of Health has not yet taken place and the Minister for Health now seeks government approval to this being done so that her Department’s role in relation to these homes will be clarified and in order that necessary statutory provisions can be included in the Heads of Bill.

In relation to the Special Schools, while noting the objection of the Department of Education of their transfer, nonetheless, The Minister for Health considers that unification of responsibility is particularly desirable in the area of residential care. In accordance with the main tenor of the Task Force Report, the special schools should be seen as being mainly concerned with child care rather than with education as they are at present... The Minister for Health accepts the majority view of the Task Force that special schools are appropriate for integration into the general body of child care services under her Department. These would include the new secure unit at Lusk to replace Loughan House.

The Task Force also recommended that the existing school attendance committees should be discontinued and that school attendance officers should be transferred to the health boards and the memo noted that: The Minister for Health is in agreement with the proposed transfer of functions and of personnel as recommended and seeks the agreement of the Government to the inclusion of the necessary legislative provisions in the Heads of the Children Bill now being drafted.

In relation to adoption, the majority of the Task Force recommended that this be the subject of a separate study. But the ‘health representative recommended that adoption should form an essential part of the amalgam of child and family care services and that responsibility should be transferred to the Minister for Health’. The memo also claimed that this proposal had the support of a range of voluntary agencies and that as such ‘the Minister for Health proposes that responsibility for the Adoption Board and other aspects of the adoption machinery should be transferred to her Department from the Department of Justice. In relation to the Probation and Welfare Service, the memo noted that the members of the Task Force were divided on the role of the service in relation to young offenders. However, the memo concluded that: While appreciating that the service has developed very rapidly over the past few years and now has an administrative structure and favourable career prospects, the Minister is of the opinion that a supervisory role such as is envisaged for the health boards would be seen as a progressive measure and would be more compatible with the underlying philosophies of the Task Force Report which calls for community-based services, with a reduction in emphasis on specialised services and direct involvement with the courts for some categories of children. While it is accepted that the proposed transfer of functions will present problems in terms of maintaining existing conditions of work for existing staff, these problems are not insurmountable and will, of course, require considerable discussion between the Departments of Health and Justice and the staff interests concerned before any transfers take place.

Finally the memo noted that: a particularly important section of the report relates to the juvenile justice system. In view of the Minister for Health’s overall responsibility for the well-being of deprived children she would be anxious that both Departments would be seen to act simultaneously and in harmony in the matter of desirable legislative and administrative changes in this area. The Department of Justice has already indicated its view that legislative changes relating to the juvenile courts might be provided for in the proposed Children Bill thus making the Bill a comprehensive one in relation to child welfare. The Minister for Health accepts this suggestion and assumes that the assistance of officers of the Department of Justice will be available in regard to the preliminary and subsequent processing of the Bill.

The Resident Managers Association (RMA) responded to the Task Force by broadly endorsing their recommendations in relation to residential care. A key issue for them was that: Staff turn-over is at a totally unacceptable level in child care. Finding the causes of this and remedying them is regarded as one the primary tasks of child care policy makers. It is felt that inadequate salary and the absence of career structures are major causes but not so clearly evident is the lack of training and development of skills to cope with stressful and conflict situations.

The RMA also noted: references in the report to the services provided in the past and at present by religious orders tend to be both complimentary and confusing. For example, 15.7.6.303 This paragraph, as written, implies that religious are cloistered, naïve people whose lack of personal development precludes their being able to contribute to the development of the child. We think (and hope!) that this is a misinformed view. In terms of past experience and the present demands and expectations of religious in child care, it is unrealistic to think that they would or could continue to be responsible and accountable, if their involvement is to be as peripheral as the statement would seem to suggest.

The Association of Workers with Children in Care (AWCC) also responded stating that the report ‘must be welcomed by all working with children, particularly those nearest the most deprived in our society.’304 The AWCC looked specifically at four areas; the philosophy of the report; assessment and other concurrent needs; the organisational structures needed to administer the services and residential care. On the issue of administration, that stated that: Those of us involved in child care, would wholeheartedly agree with the Task Force statement, emphasising that residential child care evolved haphazardly, and did not result from any rationalisation of child care functions or the direct allocation of resources. This resulted in separate administration systems having evolved in a piecemeal fashion, leading to an unsatisfactory situation from the pint of view of effective planning and the co-ordination of resources. We feel that residential care has been particularly isolated, and is in a vulnerable position as new but not necessarily more effective services are developed, again independently rather than in an inter-related fashion.305

The Association also expressed concern with the proposed new administrative structure proposed by the Task Force and the increased bureaucracy that could stem from this. The submission noted that: A unique position exists where so much of residential care is provided by voluntary homes. With increased financial aid the voluntary nature of such homes is being increasingly eroded and the service becoming bureaucratic in nature. The challenge to all concerned is to develop a situation where accountability exists alongside humanistic caring service, meeting needs as they emerge. Our loudest cry would be to retain Our Autonomy in a responsible fashion so as to be able to pioneer and innovate as the Task Force suggests. A lessoning of bureaucratic structure enables services to re-evaluate and act more easily than that of large services with a top heavy administrative set up which is forced to simply behave with the rules.306

On the specific recommendations in relation to residential care, the Association stated that while they had some slight reservations, ‘the chapter on Residential Care is a commendable one’ and went on the outline that: We would agree with the Report that as a result of Kennedy Report of 1970, significant innovations in terms of the physical structure of homes, training courses and the introduction of lay staff, had come about. That such changes evolved from this report reflects once again the pragmatism of our work and sense of responsibility of our workers, however the fact that the work developed during this period independent of all other services was a major limiting factor. As outlined in our comments on administration we plead loudly for our inclusion within a comprehensive plan, otherwise, even at present if we develop our service, it would result in us fighting a system which had not adapted appropriately. No service is capable of such a challenge because it absorbs the energies of the workers.307

In May 1981, a document was prepared by the Department of Health in relation to the implications of the Task Force Report on the training and deployment of child care workers. The document observed that: the majority report of the Task Force on Child Care Services makes no specific recommendations on the training of child care workers apart from saying that its recommendations will require a considerable increase in the number of professional trained child care workers. However, the recommendations concerning increased specialisation and expertise in residential care and the employment of significant numbers of child care workers in the community have major implications for the training of child care workers. The supplementary report attached to the main report does consider the question of training in a little more depth. The supplementary report considers that child care workers in residential and day care and working with children in their own homes will constitute one of the most important resources of the child care system. The supplementary report places a major emphasis on the training of child care workers to work not only with children with serious problems but also with their families and in most residential and day centres, with the local community. The same report argues strongly that there is no valid reason for maintaining different levels of training for different forms of social work. It recommends that training for child care workers should be of an equal standard and an equal status of that of other social workers. They also suggest that the forms of training be brought together and the same qualifications be awarded.

Later that month, on 26th May 1981, a meeting was held in the Department of Education to discuss the Task Force Recommendations. At the meeting it was agreed that the Department of Health would be responsible for the introduction of a new Children Act and for setting up a statutory body for the registration of child care workers, but only in consultation with the Department of Education. The meeting had no objection to the transfer of Industrial Schools to the Department of Health, but not the Special Schools for ‘deviant children’. Specifically, the meeting, acknowledged that these schools cater for the most difficult sector of the child population and great expertise and financial resources are needed to provide proper services for them. The importance of education in the treatment programme was stressed. The possibility of agreeing to the transfer of responsibility for the residential care of the children to the Dept. of Health was discussed. Experience has shown, however, that two authorities looking after a problem area could lead to conflict. It was agreed that the children’s interests would best be served if these schools were retained by the Dept. of Education i.e. both the care and education element.

On 18th September 1981, Mr Ó Ceallachain in a memo to the Minister for Education observed that the Department of Health were proposing the transfer of various functions from the Department of Education to Health and recommended that the Department agree to the transfer of the Industrial Schools, but in relation to the Special Schools (Reformatories): the position recommended is that this Department enter a most serious reservation on the grounds that these establishments, providing as they do a structural programme of education, training and recreation with a view to rehabilitation belong more properly in the sphere of education and that moving them into the ‘care’ area would not be in the best interests of the pupils. While care functions do exist in these establishments and a caring atmosphere is cultivated this can be catered for adequately within the present responsibility structure through the format of management and services and the willingness to consult and co-ordinate as necessary with care authorities. Should the Government decide, however, to transfer this responsibility to the Minister for Health, the responsibility of the Minister for Education for all aspects of education within the establishment should be maintained.