Vol. 291 No. 8
asked the Minister for Education the improvements that have been made in child care since 1974; and if he considers that the capitation system in existence at present is sufficient to enable the AWCC to run residential homes without incurring huge debts.
5.
asked the Minister for Education when it is proposed to introduce a salary structure and budgetary system for residential homes run by the AWCC.
6.
asked the Minister for Education if he has received an analyst's report on a salary structure and a budgetary system for the AWCC; when it was submitted; and when he hopes to make a decision on the report.
7.
asked the Minister for Education if he will consider paying a salary to members of the AWCC who are looking after children in the orphanage and who are not paid any salary at present.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 together.
The functions of my Department which relate to children in care mainly concern the residential establishments for deprived children and for children referred by the courts under the Children Acts, 1908 to 1957. These establishments comprise two groups referred to at present as "special schools" and "residential homes". The following are the main improvements carried out since 1st January, 1974:
1. There has been a further decline of about 8 per cent—from 1,477 to 1,355—in the total number of children in care in the homes and schools. This reflects improvements in the health and social services which enable more children to be cared for within the community rather than be taken into residential care.
2. The process of replacing the institutional system of residential care by family group homes has continued to the following extent:
(a) new purpose-built homes have been completed or are under construction at Drogheda, Cappoquin, Limerick, Killarney, Fethard, Rathdrum, Galway and Dublin (Sandymount). Thirteen homes in all are involved at an estimated cost of £535,000;
(b) In addition, private houses have been purchased at a number of centres for use as group homes and substantial works of adaptation and modernisation have been carried out to existing buildings. State grants for this purpose since January, 1974 have amounted to approximately £122,000;
(c) A new special school for boy offenders was completed in Lusk, County Dublin early in 1974 at a cost of £660,000. This school provides a programme of care, education and rehabilitation for young offenders on modern lines.
3. The training of child care staff has received special attention. In addition to the residential child care course in Kilkenny, a new in-service course for child care staff was started in September, 1974, at St. Mary's College, Cathal Brugha Street, Dublin. This was extended in September, 1975 to a three-year full professional course. Several in-service courses for senior personnel have also been held.
4. A professional child care adviser was appointed to my Department in February, 1976 and is now actively engaged in counselling and assisting the managements and staffs of the homes.
5. Two inter-departmental committees on which my Department are represented—the Committee on Mentally Ill and Maladjusted Persons and the Task Force on Child Care— furnished interim reports in 1975 recommending further improvements in the child care services. These recommendations are being considered.
6. Under the existing administrative arrangements, the financing of the residential homes is shared by my Department, the Regional Health Boards and the local county or county borough councils. Some 30 per cent of the homes' current income comes from my Department, 22 per cent from the local authorities and 48 per cent from the health boards. The replacement of the present capitation system by a budgetary system of financing would not, of itself, improve the financial position of the homes. The capitation system gives great freedom to the home to develop its own individual approach to care whereas a budgetary system involves very close supervision and control by the State. All the issues involved were analysed in a report on "The Financing of Residential Group Homes" completed by an officer of my Department in February, 1975. The various alternatives proposed in the report—including the question of a salary structure —are at present being evaluated. Over the period from January, 1974 to date the rate of capitation grant has been increased from £11 to £15 per child per week and the adequacy of the present rate is at present receiving consideration.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the residential homes I was concerned with are in my own constituency, particularly in the city end of it, and is he aware that in one case when they pay their total expenses for the feeding, clothing and medical attention of the children they have in care, they have £10,000 left to pay 13 members of the staff, and would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that 13 members of the staff are expected to live on that salary?
I am aware that some of the homes have financial problems, but there are two points at issue here. There is the question of deciding whether or not to provide more resources and the other issue is the method whereby those resources may be divided up between the individual homes. It is in the latter respect that the question of the introduction of a budgetary system as against a capitation system is relevant.
Regarding the new homes the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned being set up throughout the country, could he say whether it is proposed that, when these new homes are built, the existing ones should close?
In most cases these homes are being built at the location of existing homes. They are intended to provide better facilities for children who are already in residential care in Drogheda, Cappoquin, Limerick and so on.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary further aware that if 1 per cent of the gross expenditure on education in one year was spent on child care it would considerably solve the problem? Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree?
I do not have figures for percentages to hand at present but I am sure that any increase in resources would be of assistance.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary say whether or not the Minister has received a request from the AWCC to meet him to discuss the whole problem?
I do not have any information available to me at present as to whether or not such a request was received but I think it may have been.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise it is very unfair that workers in those institutions are not paid a salary? In my town there are four people involved, two nuns and two lay people. If they run the place efficiently, naturally they will have sufficient money left at the end of the year with which to pay themselves. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to consider having a salary paid to those people who work in such institutions.
The position at present is that what is, in effect, a block grant in relation to the number of children in a home is paid to each home out of which the expenses of the home, including salaries, are paid. It is a big question to decide whether or not to separate out from that the salaries of individual people working in the homes because then one has to establish different ratios, staff to children. Also, one has to do a careful study as to the relativities of this salary scale to other salary scales of other people with similar training.
Question No. 8.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House whether salaries are being paid to any of the workers in any of the residential homes throughout the country?
The situation is that the homes are being paid on a capitation basis; money is being paid over to the homes and they——
All of them?
I asked were all of them?
——but, in relation to the residential homes with which my Department is concerned, they are paid on a capitation basis.
I have allowed a long series of questions. I have called the next question. A brief question from Deputy O'Kennedy.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary concede that if the position is as seems from the questions put by Deputies that there is inadequate money available to pay the salaries, this is deplorable? The Parliamentary Secretary seems to be excusing himself by virtue of the scheme of payment on a capitation basis. Would the Parliamentary Secretary accept that these people are entitled to and must be paid for the work they are doing and that it is an obligation on his Department to ensure that they will?
The situation is that it is a question for the homes—once they are paid the capitation grant—to decide whether they want to use that money to pay staff or to meet other expenses. They have freedom within the capitation payment to decide on their relative priorities, to give to increased staff or to increases in other forms of expenditure.
