10,992 entries for Inspections - State

In a review of the Special Schools operating under the auspices of the Department of Education, a review by the Comptroller and Auditor General in 1990 highlighted a number of areas of concern. The report noted that the capitation system of funding the schools had ceased in 1981 and the schools were now funded on the basis of an annual grant. The report observed: It would be reasonable to suggest that the changeover to full financing by the State in 1981 should have led to greater involvement by the Department in the management and control of the schools but this is not the case. Specifically the Department did not:- (a) ensure that as full a service as the available resources were capable of providing was being provided; the schools were being funded on the basis that such a service would be provided. (b) take steps to ensure the introduction of procedures for the efficient running of the schools. (c) Regulate the schools or have an effective input into their admission and management policies. At the Finglas Children’s Centre, the Board of Management on which the Department of Education and Justice are represented acts only in an advisory capacity while, in contrast, Trinity House Board of management has executive powers. At St. Joseph’s there is no Board of Management as the religious order was unwilling to agree to the Department’s request to have a Board of management appointed when the new funding arrangements were introduced in 1981. (d) Establish a coherent policy on manning levels in the schools and consider the impact on school staffing of the public service embargo on recruitment. Indeed, the Department itself broke the public service embargo on some occasions by approving new posts in the schools and on other occasions by retrospectively sanctioning appointments already made in the schools. (e) operate a budgetary system which would ensure that the annual financial needs of the schools were being properly assessed. (f) Monitor the schools’ finances on an ongoing and regular basis. The absence of monitoring may have been a contributory factor to the scale of the Supplementary Estimate needed in 1990 to cover expenditure overruns by the schools. (g) ensure that adequate financial details were being provided in the monthly school returns. The returns submitted to the Department give a detailed breakdown of non-pay costs but the information provided in relation to pay costs (approximately 70 percent of total costs) is totally inadequate e.g. additional costs relating to weekend duties and for relief work involving the engagement of temporary staff are not revealed in the returns. (h) finalise the execution of a Deed of Trust for St. Joseph’s although it is aware since 1978 that such a deed is essential since the State has invested some £5 million in buildings and facilities. (The land at Clonmel is owned by the religious order). (i) carry out regular audits of systems and procedures in the schools.354

The Department of Education in their response to the Comptroller and Auditor General noted that such schools were traditionally managed by religious Congregations and that: The system operated in a climate of trust necessary for the support of the difficult work involved and the Department, having regard to this feature, did not unduly interfere in the day to day running of the schools.

While acknowledging that an improved policy and budgetary framework was required for the schools, the Department stated that in their discussions with the Comptroller and Auditor General’s office prior to the finalisation of the report, they had drawn attention to: the complex nature of the child care area, the many factors which impact on the operation of the special schools, the delicacy of many aspects of our dealings with Orders which operate the schools on our behalf and our concern that the report constituted an over-simplification of the overall situation.

By mid-1980s, the majority of a declining number of children in residential care were in homes funded on a budget basis by the Department of Health and with the health boards having a role in the day-to-day operation of the service. The Department of Education had responsibility for a small number of schools for young people who entered care, primarily through the juvenile justice system, but also a small number who were placed in secure accommodation by the health boards. The Department of Education were reviewing their role in relation to the provision of secure care and by the end of the decade had concluded that they were not the appropriate Department to have this responsibility, but it was a further decade and a half before they finally relinquished responsibility for such centres. At the end of the 1980s, one experienced childcare worker gave his overview of the changes that had occurred in residential care in the previous 20 years: Dramatic and sweeping changes have taken place in residential care over the past twenty years. Large institutions have been broken up, staffing ratios increased and staff training commenced. Residential care has become more child orientated with a greater understanding of children and their problems. Yet the old stigma remains. Residential care is often blamed for causing the very ills of society for which it is trying to treat.355

In addition, he highlighted that: Increasingly allegations have been malpractice and abuse have been made against care workers. Recent experience of how these cases are investigated leave a lot to be desired. Both care workers and agencies are isolated, shunned and made to feel guilty until proven innocent. Many care workers are feeling very vulnerable and on a daily basis are analysing situations to reduce the risk factor. This is no way to work and it can only have an adverse effect on the children.356

In the early 1990s, the Department of Education argued that the centres operated by them did not ‘have the capacity, nor should they be expected to cater for the following situations: (a) youths whose primary difficulty stems from serious psychiatric problems which require intensive and ongoing attention. (b) youths whose behaviour is such as to place them in the category unruly/depraved. (c) youths in need of intensive therapy on foot of sexual problems.’ In the case of categories (a) and (c), they argued that: It is the firm view of the Department of Education that referral of serious psychiatric and sexually disturbed cases to centres for young offenders constitutes a serious and potentially very dangerous failing within the present system. What is required in such cases is the provision of a suitable dedicated and resourced facility which would focus on addressing the real needs of such people. It is the view of the Department of Education that responsibility for the provision of such facilities rests with the Department of Health. However, repeated attempts by the Department of Education to secure acceptance of responsibility for this area by the Department of Health, have proved unsuccessful.

The National Youth Policy Committee recommended that: There has been a considerable improvement in recent years in the quality of the special residential schools for boys, but this has not been matched by any corresponding facilities for girls. We recommend early assessment of needs in this area to see whether, as has been suggested to us, a small secure facility for girls is required.357

The response by the Government to the Report was that ‘a study will be undertaken by the Minister for Justice in consultation with the Minister for Education to determine the scope and type of facility necessary to deal adequately with the problem of young female offenders.358 In September 1986, a study group was established with terms of reference ‘to determine the scope and type of facility necessary to deal adequately with the problem of young female offenders and to furnish a report.’359 The Group, which reported in February 1988, noted that the only residential facility within the juvenile justice system for females was Cuan Mhuire Assessment Unit in Collins Avenue, Whitehall, Dublin 9, which was opened in 1984 to cater for young females between the ages of 10-16. The function of the centre was to allow the courts to remand young girls for a period of up to three weeks to facilitate an assessment of their needs. To assist the Group with their task, the Probation and Welfare Service and the Department of Education surveyed young female offenders under the age of 16 known to them between January 1985 and June 1986 in order to ascertain the need for residential care. The report stated that from the information gathered it was clear that, in addition to an assessment unit, there was need for a facility that could provide adequate long-term care for a small group of young female offenders who were particularly difficult or troublesome and for whom none of the community based facilities, residential homes or hostels currently in existence would be able to provide the necessary service.

In relation to the girls entering Cuan Mhuire, the report noted that: the majority of girls admitted....were referred by health boards because they appeared to be out of control or were at risk due to drug taking, solvent abuse, promiscuity or sleeping rough. In about 10 to 12 of these cases, the assessment report on the girls recommended that they receive residential care in a well-structured, secure facility which staffed and equipped to deal with difficult and disruptive girls. At present, there is no such facility available to the health boards.

The Group contemplated the establishment of a separate facility for such females, but ultimately argued: on economic grounds alone...it would appear that the best solution would be to have one facility which would cater for any girl who required special care, whether she be referred by the courts or by a health board. We are strengthened in this view by the fact that the needs of the girls for care and support would not differ significantly regardless of whether they were offenders or not and that their treatment and management would be very similar.

The Group concluded that there was a need for a facility which would incorporate a remand and assessment unit, a long-term unit and a secure unit, to collectively accommodate 25 girls with responsibility for the facility resting with the Department of Education. The year after the Study Group on Young Female Offenders reported, an Interdepartmental Committee on Crime was established, which reported in December 1989. The Department of Education, in their submission to the Interdepartmental Committee, argued: ..as it would be considered that children and young people committed by the Courts are primarily in need of care and education, places of detention, industrial schools and reformatory schools have come under the Minister for Education (Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924, fourth part of schedule). The Minister for Education considers that this situation should now be changed in relation to secure centres and that responsibility for such centres should be transferred to the Minister for Justice. There are a number of reasons for the Ministers view (1) The fact that the Department of Education is not directly involved with the Courts, Gardai or Probation and Welfare Service impedes its ability to respond to needs. (2) The Department of Education is not otherwise involved in the provision of security and does not have expertise in this area. (3) Many of the difficulties the Department has experienced in operating centres involving an element of security derive from the basic and unavoidable orientation of staff towards care and education rather than custody. (4) Because of their near-adult physique combined with unpredictable, explosive behaviour, young offenders in the 15/16 age group are among the most difficult of all offenders to handle; it is odd for the Department of Justice freed from responsibility for such a group. (5) It is exceptional in European terms to find responsibility for secure provision for young offenders with an education Ministry. The reason in our circumstances appears to have been the fact that the earlier industrial and reformatory schools were conducted by religious orders.

This viewpoint marked a significant shift in official thinking in the Department of Education, signalling that their direct involvement in the managing and administration of Reformatory and Industrial Schools should cease and be transferred to Justice. However, as noted earlier, it was not until 2007 that the transfer suggested by Education formally took place. The Inter-departmental report outlined that: The Group considers that the main problems in this area are, firstly, the fact that, other than the remand and assessment facilities at Cuan Mhuire, there are no residential places at all provided for young female offenders. Secondly, as regards male offenders, there are insufficient number of residential places for the 14-16 years age bracket. Apart from being a problem in its own right, this also causes difficulties in that less troublesome offenders must be housed with the more disruptive type of offenders. In addition, there is the problem of male offenders, who have been placed in a secure centre, returning when they have served their term, direct to their communities without any opportunity of preparing in advance to adjust to normal life.

On this basis: The Group has come to the conclusion that there is a need for (i) of the order of 70 additional places for young male offenders, principally in the 14-16 age bracket and (ii) of the order of 15 additional places for young female offenders (I.e. exclusive of the provision for girls at Cuan Mhuire); 3-5 of these places should be secure. In considering the question of the need for secure places for both male and female offenders, the Group is conscious of the fact that a secure centre, as well as providing places for particularly disruptive offenders, enables other schools in the system to operate under a less restricted regimes. Accordingly, the Group makes the following recommendations. (a) Scoil Ard Mhuire, Lusk, should be re-opened as soon as possible as a Centre for 40 older [14-16 (17) years age group] male offenders – (legally as a reformatory) (b) A half-way house hostel should be provided to cater for boys who have been in secure accommodation in Trinity House School before they return to their communities (c) A facility is provided to cater for 23-25 young female offenders. (the Department of Education have indicated that such a facility should ideally be located on the Departments lands at Finglas Children’s Centre-this would allow use to be made of existing assessment, dining and recreational facilities and of teaching staff already in place at the complex. (d) Temporary facilities be provided as a matter of urgency for young female offenders pending the construction of the new accommodation at Finglas Children’s Centre proposed at (c) above. (i.e. Lusk) (e) The making available for young offenders of up to 40 additional (non-secure) places in Department of Education Centres as a result of the phasing out of the use of such places by ‘Health’ clients. ...The Department of Health accepts that use by Health Boards of these 40 places could be phased out over a period of time, thus freeing them for Court referrals. However, they emphasise that this can only be done in the context of the implementation of proposals to: (1) provide an additional 42 residential specialised places for adolescents (2) maintain and extend the development of a number of initiatives targeted at groups identified as being particularly at risk, viz. young homeless, young travellers and young substance abusers. (3) Develop services for mentally ill adolescents.

Arising from the recommendations of this Group, the Oberstown Girls School, on the site of the now disused Scoil Ard Mhuire, was opened in March 1990 as a place of detention by the Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to accommodate up to eight young persons on remand, replacing Cuan Mhuire. In September 1991 a second unit was opened which was certified as a Reformatory School by the Minister for Education and Science under the Children Act 1908 to accommodate up to seven young persons. However, this was only to be a temporary arrangement as it was intended to construct a new and larger facility for young females on the grounds adjoining the Finglas Children’s Centre. The rationale for this expansion was in response to ‘major public disquiet over the level of delinquency among young females and the apparent inadequacy of custodial facilities to deal with the situation’.360 In this context, the Finglas site was selected as an urgent response was deemed to be required and ‘the ready availability of a State owned site which was deemed suitable on the basis of expert advice, provided the best solution available in the time allowed’. However, it transpired that the demand for places at Oberstown did not materialise and as a consequence, the decision to develop the Finglas site was reviewed and in July 1992, the Department decided to drop the plan. The Oberstown Boys School was established in 1991 as recommended by the Inter-Departmental Group and is certified as a Reformatory School by the Department of Education and Science under the Children Act 1908. Ten of the beds are certified as places of detention by the Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

In the early 1990s, the Resident Managers Association and the Streetwise National Coalition361 commissioned a report in respect of the dimensions, organisation and funding of residential child care in Ireland.362 The report explored the key recommendations of the Kennedy Report and reported on the progress made. In relation to funding, the report, while noting the shift from a capitation system of funding to a budget system, nonetheless argued that: The current system of funding for residential care varies enormously both within and between the residential sectors. There is evidence of little rationale in the current system of budgeting, which appears to be determined by tradition, individual negotiation by each home with the relevant government departments and agency, and the strength of the trade union. Funding has immense significance in determining the levels of staffing available to children, the quality of care and the necessary resources each individual child and young person requires.363