10,992 entries for Inspections - State

On the issue of staffing, he noted: there are wide variations in levels of staffing. However, in this case, the Department does consider that some rational basis of staffing can be worked out. Moreover, it is relation to the setting up of a recognised framework of staff salaries that the most insistent pressure is coming on the implementation of the Kennedy recommendation about financing. In regard to staffing, it may be said that the information supplied by homes is not a reliable guide to appropriate levels of staffing in that a low staff cost is more likely to indicate an inadequate service than to reflect prudent economy. In very few cases could staffing be regarded as adequate by present day standards in other countries.

He further elaborated that: In fact, the question of staffing could be regarded as the major weakness of the system as it is at present. New buildings and reconstruction grants are gradually bringing matters to a point where it will not be possible to allege that children are housed in poor accommodation. The authorities of the homes are solicitous in relation to the material well-being of the children in their care and it could not be denied that the children in these homes to-day are well-fed and adequately clothed and that they have proper medical services available. These are relatively tangible and measurable things, however. The real test of the quality of service provided by the homes lies in their success in fostering the personal development of the children. Many of these children come from broken homes and the painful experience of home life in these situations means that most of them carry some measure of emotional disturbance. The care of these children requires trained staff but, more importantly, adequate numbers of staff.

What was now required, he argued, was: to determine appropriate pay rates. It is perhaps the most persistent source of complaint in regard to financing that recognised rates of pay do not exist and that religious engaged in the work are not paid. The modern concept of residential child care is that it is a professional task, calling for certain qualities and skills. The idea of substitute parenthood is outdated. Formerly many of the children in the homes were illegitimate or orphans and came into the home as babies. With the development of adoption and fosterage this is no longer the case. Most children now coming into care have parents of their own and are in care because of a break-down in the natural home or of relationships within the home. Not only do they require the ‘nurturing’ care which parents normally provide; they also require remedial care relating in various degrees to the physical and mental damage which they have suffered in the home environment.

He further elaborated on the nature of children in residential care and the implications for child care workers. Some of these children express their disturbance in many forms of antisocial behaviour, ranging from violent aggression to complete withdrawal. The remedial task of the residential care worker is to assist such children to overcome the trauma of their home experience, to adjust to the residential situation and, in spite of its inherent disadvantages, to attain therein their full potential as human beings. He must always have in mind that the child should be returned to his natural home as soon as it is feasible to do so – this involves close liaison with the Health Boards and other agencies working to rehabilitate the entire family. Residential child care, therefore is now developing as a distinct discipline, with different levels of expertise. It has some of the elements of the task of social worker, the teachers and the nurse, together with separate qualities of its own.

In 1975, the Department of Education commissioned a detailed analysis of the financing of residential homes, which was completed in February.338 The report concluded that the present system of payments to homes from a variety of sources is administratively wasteful and places unnecessary burdens on the homes. Payments should be made, in present circumstances, only by the Department of Education which would subsequently recover the appropriate payments from the local authorities and the Department of Health.’

The report recommended that a budget system be put in place on the following grounds (a)It is administratively less expensive than direct payment of careworkers’ salaries. (b)It gives the Department greater control over expenditure in the homes and consequently over policy-making in the homes - capitation grants give the homes greater freedom to develop and implement their own policies. (c)Capitation grants are being phased out as a system of financing by the Department of Health. If residential homes are made the responsibility of the Department of Health, the transfer of responsibility would be facilitated by the introduction of budget financing as soon as possible. (d)It can be operated to facilitate homes in providing a satisfactory superannuation scheme.

However, the Department of Education continued to favour the capitation scheme on the grounds that it gave the homes greater freedom to manage their own affairs and to decide their own priorities. The Department of Finance on the other hand, in correspondence with the Department of Education on 20th February 1976, favoured another option outlined in the report, a capitation grant, but the salaries paid directly by the Department of Education, with the proviso that no additional staff could be employed in the homes and that contributions by local authorities be maintained in the same proportion as the currently paid. The Department of Education were in broad agreement with the report, but noted that salaries should take cognisance of the fact that staff did not work a rigid 40-hour week and would have to work anti-social hours. On the issue of the Department of Education paying the staff salaries directly, the Department replied to the Department of Finance stating they were: very doubtful about this. It would mean creating what would be to all intents a new cadre of public servants, paid directly by the State. Would your proposal that we pay these staff at their existing rates be workable? Some are paid nothing at all, some take notional salaries out of the grant, some are paid varying amounts, depending on what the particular home can afford. A few are being paid the rates for Lusk and Finglas, which we consider too high for the residential homes. If the State takes over, a claim for uniformity of remuneration will be irresistible and it will go for the highest level rather than the lowest. All the staff basically are doing the same job. With the State as paymaster these staffs would immediately become unionised and thereby gain immediate access to the Labour Court. We have been very disappointed at the rigid Union attitudes which have developed in Lusk and Finglas and which have led to demands which we consider grossly excessive....The Department is of the view that nothing should be done which would detract from the voluntary character of all these homes – whether they are financially supported by this Department, the Department of Health or a mixture of the two. The State should not interfere in this sensitive area any more than is necessary.

In addition to recommending a budget method of financing, the report recommended that the system of parental contributions, which applied to some children committed to the homes, be discontinued. The basis for this was that: it is clear that contributions from parents make at best a trivial contribution to the financing of the homes and indeed it is quite likely that the contribution is a negative one. There is no financial justification for these contributions and on the other hand it involves the Department of Education and the Gardaí in debt collection which does little to enhance the public image of either party.

The Report envisaged two categories of Residential Homes – Category 1 homes to include Lusk, Finglas and Clonmel that functioned as Residential Special Schools. These homes were to cater for young offenders in need of special education as well as specialised psychological treatment. Category 2 homes were to include all other Residential Homes for which the Department of Education had responsibility. As a rule, the report envisaged that these children would attend primary or post primary schools outside the home. For the Category 2 homes, the report recommended that care staff be sanctioned for each home on the basis of a staff/ child ratio of 1:4 with the following grades of care staff recognised. Resident Manager with overall responsibility for the homes; senior House parent with responsibility for the group; house parent providing care expertise and ensuring that trained staff is present with the children at all times and assistant house parent to co-operate with the house parents. The report further recommended that an incremental salary scale should be provided for each rank of careworker.

In addition to the report commissioned by the Department of Education, the Association of Workers for Children in Care (AWCC) commissioned Robert J Kidney & Co Chartered Accountants in 1976 to identify the costs of maintaining children in care in 1975.339 The report concluded that the appropriate capitation rate was £40.90 per week, with the salaries for childcare workers equivalent to those paid to the childcare workers at the special schools for young offenders at Finglas and Lusk, and recommended a staffing ratio of 1:4. The AWCC in commenting on the report argued: This capitation system was designed for a situation in which large numbers of children were being cared for in ‘institutional’ settings, mainly by religious workers for whom no salary provision was made. It is quite unsuited to present circumstances in which children are cared for in small, family type groups, within one complex, requiring inevitable duplication of some facilities and much greater staffing ratios. The considerable intake of staff in recent years has been almost entirely lay and these workers are entitled to a proper salary and career structure.

It went on to outline that: Lengthy negotiations over two years have apparently failed to convince the Department of Education of the validity of our case. Increases in the capitation grant have been made from time to time, but little progress has been made on the basic issue of a salary scale for child care workers. In the meanwhile, these workers have become increasingly frustrated, and the religious managers of the homes are in the position where they cannot pay the most experienced of their workers even the minimum levels obtaining at Lusk and Finglas. Dedicated and trained staff, realising their prior obligation to the children, and unwilling to engage in industrial action, will be forced to leave the field for which the State has expended money in training them.

In response to both reports, the Department of Education noted its role in relation to residential childcare was very much in decline with the majority of children entering residential care via the regional health boards rather than the courts. As a consequence, while retaining administrative responsibility for the homes, they asserted that they had ‘no control of input and no responsibility for many of the children in them. Planning, estimating etc. have been made extremely difficult and the whole thing is now an administrative nightmare.’ On this basis, it was argued that the difficulties which arise when administration is divided between Departments cannot be solved simply by co-operation between Departments and result in waste of both time and money...At working level the correct line would appear to be that residential homes should go to the Department of Health, but that, because of their specific educational role, the special residential schools for offenders should remain the responsibility of this Department.

On 23rd September 1976, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Mr John Bruton, in correspondence to the Taoiseach, Mr Liam Cosgrave, summarised the discussions that had taken place in relation to the financing of the homes and crucially stated that: I should refer to the fact that the Kennedy Report, in 1970, recommends that, in effect, the residential homes be transferred to the Department of Health. While this issue forms part of the remit of the Task Force on Child Care, I wish to state, at this point, that the Department of Education now wishes to formally record its agreement with the Kennedy Report recommendation particularly as the Government has since allocated the lead role in child care to the Minister for Health.

He also went on to say that: my Department is reviewing the position of he residential child care course in Kilkenny. It may be that some of the pressure for salary scales – and particularly for what we would regard as unreasonable levels of salary – arises from the expectations generated among graduates of a professional training course. The question is whether the course, in its aims and content, is pitched at too high a level and whether a course of that level is required by our needs. Since the course caters for personnel in homes administered by the Department of Health as well as in those administered by this Department, we propose to consult with the Department of Health before arriving at any policy lie in this matter.

On 11th October 1976, the Taoiseach, Mr Cosgrave, received a letter from Sr M. Josephine, Superior General, Convent of the Mother of Mercy, Carysfort Park, Blackrock, County Dublin, where she sought an increase in the salaries to be paid to residential childcare workers, and stating that ‘we respectfully remind you that we who belong to your own constituency in which one of our residential homes is situated (St Anne’s, Booterstown), have a special claim on your consideration and support’. The Taoiseach contacted Mr Bruton at the Department of Education who, in outlining the situation to the Taoiseach, stated: The claim recently submitted by the Association of Workers for Children in Care would involve more than double the State expenditure on the homes, in real terms, in the first year alone. The whole trust of the claim is related to staff salaries rather than the cost of maintaining the children. About 65 percent of the State expenditure under the A.W.C.C. proposals would be in respect of staff salaries. Frankly, I think these expectations are unrealistic, especially in the present circumstances. One point I must emphasise is that we are totally opposed to any question of salary scales for child care workers in these homes being the same as those of housemasters in Lusk and Finglas. The A.W.C.C. claims that both groups are doing substantially the same work. We disagree. The boys in Lusk and Finglas, referred for persistent delinquency, are significantly more difficult to manage than the vast majority in the homes. However, apart from this, the Lusk and Finglas scales were deliberately designed to relate the housemasters with the teachers with whom they have to work closely. The staff in the homes, on the other hand, are similar to other staff in institutions for children who work alongside nurses. The implications for the cost of health services of paying child care staff in homes higher salaries than nurses could be enormous.