Paragraphs 9.2 and 9.3 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read:
9.2 Centres for Young Offenders
Legislative Framework
Institutional reformatory and industrial schools, dating from the middle of the 19th century, were set up to provide custodial care for young offenders and neglected children. The Minister for Education and Science is statutorily obliged under the Children Act, 1908 to 1989 to provide places for young offenders. The Children Act, 2001 constitutes a fundamental revision of existing legislation. It provides a new legislative framework for the Departments of Education and Science, Health and Children, and Justice, Equality and Law Reform and their Agencies in the delivery of support services for children with special care needs or those in conflict with the law. On its enactment, it was intended that the Act would be commenced on a phased basis, with an original timeframe for implementation of 2006.
The Minister for Education and Science is responsible for the commencement of Section 88 (remand in custody) insofar as it relates to junior remand centres and Part 10 of the Act, which provides for the establishment of Children Detention Schools (under 16 year olds) to replace the existing reformatory and industrial schools. The necessary commencement orders have not been made yet.
Preparation for the introduction of the educational provisions of the Act is ongoing but these provisions cannot commence until separate detention facilities are provided for 16 and 17 year old boys and girls by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Accounting Officer informed me that at present there was no timescale for providing these facilities. However, having regard to the difficulties being encountered in implementing the Act, the Cabinet Committee on Children had recently approved an urgent review of the key obstacles to the implementation of the Act. The National Children's Office was co-ordinating this review.
The Special Residential Services Board was established in November 2003 under the Children Act, 2001 to provide policy advice to the Ministers for Health and Children, and Education and Science on the remand and detention of children in detention schools and special care units. It also has responsibility to advise on co-ordination of the delivery of residential accommodation and support services for children in these schools and units, the efficient use of the schools and units, and the level and nature of services available for children charged with offences, as well as those with behavioural problems and in need of special care and protection.
The Centres
The Department of Education and Science owns the five Centres for Young Offenders. They generally cater for children under 16 years of age who have been convicted or placed on remand by a Court. The centres are as follows:
Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre, Dublin (recently downsized to 12 places). This is an industrial school.
Oberstown Boys Centre, Lusk, Co. Dublin (20 places). This is a reformatory school.
Oberstown Girls Centre, Lusk, Co. Dublin (15 places). This is a reformatory school and unlike the Centres for boys, admits girls who are aged 16 years.
St. Joseph's Special School, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary (40 places). This is an industrial school.
Trinity House School Lusk, Co. Dublin (27 places). This is a reformatory school and is the only secure facility operated by the Department of Education and Science.
All of the schools, with the exception of St Joseph's School, Clonmel are certified by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform as places of detention for the purposes of Part V of the Children Act, 1908.
Scope of Audit
I examined the outturn of the Centres in terms of occupancy levels, staffing and capital and running costs.
I also reviewed how the Department discharged its overall responsibility for the Centres.
Occupancy and Staffing Levels
Refurbishment and renovation work, fire, safety and security concerns and current childcare practices determine the operational capacity of the Centres at any particular time.
Table 40 gives details of the occupancy, vacancy and staffing numbers for each of the Centres at the end of January in each of the last three years.
Table 40
|
|
Occupied beds
|
Vacancies
|
Non-teaching Staff
|
Teachers employed
|
Finglas Child and
|
2002
|
24
|
7
|
129
|
15
|
Adolescent Centre
|
2003
|
14
|
17
|
125
|
17
|
|
2004
|
21
|
5
|
119
|
12
|
Oberstown Boys Centre
|
2002
|
20
|
0
|
82
|
13
|
|
2003
|
20
|
0
|
89
|
12
|
|
2004
|
20
|
0
|
85
|
11
|
Oberstown Girls Centre
|
2002
|
8
|
7
|
49
|
—
|
|
2003
|
10
|
5
|
60
|
—
|
|
2004
|
9
|
6
|
67
|
—
|
St. Joseph’s School
|
2002
|
33
|
7
|
127
|
13
|
|
2003
|
31
|
9
|
131
|
13
|
|
2004
|
25
|
15
|
115
|
11
|
Trinity House
|
2002
|
22
|
2
|
103
|
10
|
|
2003
|
20
|
7
|
113
|
10
|
|
2004
|
18
|
9
|
112
|
9
|
The Department has indicated that the capacity requirements of the sector have been declining over the past number of years, with the provision of facilities for "out of control" young people within the health sector, the increasing view of detention being a last resort (a policy enshrined in the Children Act, 2001), demographic developments and the development of alternatives to custody.
The Special Residential Services Board has recommended a bed capacity of 88 plus 6 step-down beds and has recently introduced a centralised system whereby all bed requests from the Courts are channelled through it. The Department liaises with the Board in monitoring the on-going demand for beds. With the reduced capacity at Finglas, the current operational capacity for all Centres is 114 (99 male beds and 15 female beds).
Table 41 highlights the average staff numbers for each child detained based on occupancy levels at 31 January each year.
Table 41 Staff to Children Ratio in Centres
|
2002
|
2003
|
2004
|
Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre
|
6.0
|
10.1
|
6.2
|
Oberstown Boys Centre
|
4.7
|
5.0
|
4.8
|
Oberstown Girls Centre
|
6.1
|
6.0
|
7.4
|
St. Joseph’s School, Clonmel
|
4.2
|
4.6
|
5.0
|
Trinity House Lusk
|
5.1
|
6.1
|
6.7
|
Capital Costs
The Department is embarking on a capital redevelopment programme for the Lusk campus that will have regard to the split of beds between remand and committal beds, and within committal beds, the number of secure beds required; the provision for boys and girls; the educational and recreational needs of the young people; as well as the implications of shorter sentences envisaged under the Children Act. The dual function (the only Centre that caters for both Health Board and committal cases) of St. Joseph's School Clonmel and its certification under the Children Act, 2001 is also being addressed. On finalisation of this process, the Department proposes to agree a strategic plan for the sector.
Capital expenditure on Detention Centres in the period 2001 to 2003 is summarised in table 42.
Table 42
|
2001
|
2002
|
2003
|
|
€000
|
€000
|
€000
|
Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre
|
1,518
|
2,774
|
2,704
|
Oberstown Boys Centre
|
343
|
126
|
139
|
Oberstown Girls Centre
|
274
|
142
|
102
|
St. Joseph’s School, Clonmel
|
5,042
|
153
|
234
|
Trinity House School
|
1,135
|
4,030
|
1,509
|
Lusk Campus
|
1,454
|
273
|
—
|
Total
|
9,766
|
7,498
|
4,688
|
In total almost €22 million has been invested over the period. The major items within this expenditure included
The purchase of St. Joseph's School in Clonmel by the Department
The provision of a specialised unit at Trinity House catering for up to 6 young people displaying extremely challenging behaviour. The Department is currently considering the staffing requirements of the Unit and is examining its potential within the system in the context of the commencement of the Children Act, 2001
The refurbishment of the Care and Education Unit at Finglas
The provision of a security fence at the Lusk Campus
The provision of step-down facilities at Trinity House and Oberstown Girls Centre.
There was also ongoing capital investment to ensure that the schools meet modern childcare standards in accordance with best practice internationally.
The Department considers that the investment has maintained rather than increased the overall capacity of the system.
Running Costs
Table 43 gives the day-to-day running costs of the Centres for 2001 to 2003.
Table 43
|
|
Pay
|
Non-pay
|
Total
|
|
|
€
|
€
|
€
|
Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre
|
2001
|
5,462,491
|
910,273
|
6,372,764
|
|
2002
|
6,199,877
|
1,043,821
|
7,243,698
|
|
2003
|
5,828,252
|
1,047,317
|
6,875,569
|
Oberstown Boys Centre
|
2001
|
3,508,217
|
698,152
|
4,206,369
|
|
2002
|
4,164,114
|
572,541
|
4,736,655
|
|
2003
|
4,219,836
|
765,816
|
4,985,652
|
Oberstown Girls Centre
|
2001
|
1,825,648
|
375,512
|
2,201,160
|
|
2002
|
2,427,932
|
287,616
|
2,715,548
|
|
2003
|
2,326,067
|
342,902
|
2,668,969
|
St. Joseph’s School
|
2001
|
3,982,595
|
749,602
|
4,732,197
|
|
2002
|
4,835,922
|
786,915
|
5,622,837
|
|
2003
|
4,875,173
|
829,964
|
5,705,137
|
Trinity House
|
2001
|
4,205,775
|
803,578
|
5,009,353
|
|
2002
|
4,923,052
|
1,181,901
|
6,104,953
|
|
2003
|
5,582,799
|
1,079,516
|
6,662,315
|
Total cost 2001-2003
|
75,843,176
|
Table 44 shows the annual cost of maintaining a detention place for a young person in each of the Centres. It is based on average operational capacity and the level of running costs for 2001-2003. The cost includes the salaries of Teachers, Directors and Deputy Directors of the Centres but excludes any apportionment of capital costs and expenditure funded from income from Health Boards and Local Authorities.
Table 44 Cost for each detained young person
|
2001
|
2002
|
2003
|
|
€
|
€
|
€
|
Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre
|
163,404
|
258,704
|
245,556
|
Oberstown Boys Centre
|
175,265
|
236,833
|
249,283
|
Oberstown Girls Centre
|
146,744
|
208,888
|
177,931
|
St. Joseph’s School, Clonmel
|
118,305
|
140,571
|
142,628
|
Trinity House, Lusk
|
208,723
|
226,109
|
246,752
|
The relatively low cost involved in St. Joseph's reflects the fact that, as an industrial school, dealing with the younger and less difficult cases, it requires less intensive staffing levels, and due to its size enjoys economies of scale that cannot be availed of by the other Centres.
Management of Centres
The Children Detention Centres are currently managed by administrative Boards of Management pending the appointment of newly composed Boards under the Children Act, 2001. One Board is responsible for the three schools on the Lusk campus while individual Boards of Management are in place for the Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre and St Joseph's School.
The main functions of the Boards are
Direct governance of the schools in accordance with policy guidelines and regulations made by the Minister for Education and Science
The selection, appointment and dismissal of staff subject to the Minister's approval
Financial management and control within approved budgetary procedures
The maintenance and upkeep of the premises, furniture and equipment
Providing the Minister with an annual report on the operation of the Centres and such other reports and information deemed necessary.
Review of Centres
In October 2001, the Department commissioned a consultant to undertake a review of existing residential provision for children convicted or held on remand by the Courts and having regard to the provisions in the Children Act, 2001, and best international practice. The consultant completed his review in December 2002 and concluded that the bed capacity should be maintained at its current level in the short-term.
Among the recommendations put forward was that "the management of the schools must be urgently addressed with the establishment of one Board of Management for all five schools and the appointment of a Chief Executive Officer with the requisite authority and staffing to manage the schools effectively".
I asked the Accounting Officer why this recommendation was not proceeded with.
He informed me that the recommendation was not proceeded with as the Department felt that there were inconsistencies between the recommendation and the requirements of the Children Act, 2001. Furthermore there was a potential overlap with the Special Residential Services Board and in any event the workload would be excessive for a part-time board. Nevertheless, he stated, the management of the sector was being kept under review pending the finalisation of the arrangements in the context of the commencement of the Children Act, 2001.
Measuring Performance
There are no performance measures identified for the Children Detention Centres. The main functions of the Centres are to provide appropriate educational and training programmes and facilities for the children referred to them by the Courts, and to promote their reintegration into society.
In response to my enquiries on the absence of performance measures for the Children Detention Centres and as to how the Department satisfies itself that the centres are currently delivering services in an efficient and cost effective manner, the Accounting Officer stated that while there were no formal performance targets identified for the Children Detention Centres they operate in accordance with the standards, procedures and guidelines prepared by the Department. Each Centre has its own individual statement of purpose and function, and individual care and education plans are drawn up for the children concerned. He pointed out that the Department maintained an ongoing review of bed utilisation in the schools and reviewed specific issues/aspects of service delivery as situations arose. He stated the Department's priority was the commencement of the relevant aspects of the Children Act, 2001 and in that context, work on codifying practices and policies across the schools is being undertaken. Once completed, this work and an agreed data framework would facilitate the introduction of consistent performance targets across the schools.
He said the Department was also examining staffing arrangements in terms of care staff ratios, pupil teacher ratios and administrative/clerical support. Once completed, this information would facilitate the adoption of standard ratios, which would allow comparisons across the sector.
Inspection of Centres
Section 46 of the 1908 Act provides for inspection of certified schools on an annual basis.
I asked the Accounting Officer for details of inspections carried out in the five-year period 1999 to 2003. He informed me that inspections were carried out by the Department on all five Centres in 1999. He went on to say that Departmental policy had shifted towards having inspections carried out by an external agency. The first such inspection was at the Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre in 2002.
The inspection of the Finglas Centre found that the organisation was in acute crisis, lacking clear direction and not meeting a number of basic requirements, and having internal undermining conflicts. The inspector was retained by the Department to monitor progress in the Finglas Centre and has made a further four visits to the Centre in late 2002 and during 2003 to monitor implementation of his recommendations.
A further review of the operations of the Finglas Centre completed in May 2004 reported that the staff and management of the Centre were of the view that they had lost their capacity for the day-to-day delivery of care to young people, and that the Centre could not continue to operate in its current state. It has since been downsized from 3 units catering for 26 persons to 2 units catering for 12 persons.
It appears that the problems continued to mount despite the Department's investment of some €5m in the Centre since 2001.
The Accounting Officer stated that the Department had no indications that difficulties in the nature of those experienced in Finglas exist in the other four Centres. He also stated that an inspection of the Clonmel School had recently been completed and found the school to operate efficiently and effectively and to make good use of the resources available.
The remaining three Centres (Oberstown Boys and Girls Centres, and Trinity House, Lusk) have not been inspected, notwithstanding a key recommendation of the December 2002 independent review that
"All schools should be subject to independent inspection by the end of March next year (March 2003) in order that the central management, organisation, policy and practice issues within each of the schools are identified and a plan formulated to address them".
The Accounting Officer informed me that having regard to the provisions of the Children Act, 2001 the following were being considered the appointment of an Inspector of Children Detention Schools
provision for each school to be inspected every six months the feasibility of retaining the Irish Social Services Inspectorate to undertake the inspection function.
Management Information
The Department is considering with the Directors of the Centres the feasibility of introducing a management information system which would store data on young people, produce reports and statistical information and assist in the tracking of young people within the sector. Data from the Centres will also be incorporated in a primary school database being developed by the Department.
Work on codifying practices and policies across the schools is being undertaken in the context of the commencement of the Children Act, 2001. Once completed, this work and an agreed data framework will facilitate the introduction of consistent performance targets across the schools, e.g. in terms of level of absconding, incidents of removal from the group, etc.
The Department has introduced a system of electronic staffing returns which will provide data for use in the filling of vacancies, identifying ratios and highlighting differences from Centre to Centre.
Post-Release Monitoring
Trinity House School introduced a tracking system in 2002 in conjunction with the establishment of a step down/pre-release unit. The primary aims of the tracking system are to retain information on the care provided at the school and to identify supports required by young people during their transition from residential care to independent living.
A step down unit has been established in Oberstown Girls Centre and a tracking system is being developed there also.
The Accounting Officer informed me that the tracking system was an initiative undertaken by the Director of Trinity House School in 2002 following the development of the step-down unit. The position of the 57 persons covered by the system was that within six months of their being discharged, 25 were residing at home, 24 were reported to be in prison, 3 were in residential care in the Health Board sector, 2 were reported to be homeless and 1 had returned to Trinity House School. The whereabouts of the remaining 2 is unknown. The re-offending rate for 2003 regarding young people leaving the school was 50%. He pointed out that eight young people who picked up new charges after leaving the school did not go to prison because of direct intervention by the step-down unit.
The Department is considering the introduction of a tracking system across all schools in the context of introducing a management information system.
9.3Qualified Audit Certification ofAppropriation Account
Accounting Officers are required by law to sign and present for audit the Appropriation Accounts for their Votes to the Comptroller and Auditor General before the 1st day of April in the year following the financial year to which they relate. It is the responsibility of the Comptroller and Auditor General to audit the Accounts and to report on them by 30 September of the same year.
The Appropriation Account for Vote 26 for the year ended 31 December 2003 was signed on 31 March 2004 and submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General for audit on that date.
The Appropriation Account presented by the Accounting Officer on 31 March 2004 was accompanied by a note stating that due to technical difficulties associated with the introduction of the new Financial Management System (FMS) it had not been possible to execute the reconciliation process required for completion of Note 5 (Net Liability to the Exchequer) and associated tables in the attached Appropriation Account for 2003 by the 31 March deadline.
The imbalance on the Appropriation Account presented was €4.6 million.
The practical effect of the unresolved imbalance is that it is not possible to determine the proper charge to the Vote for the purpose of establishing a correct surrender figure to the Exchequer. While the Department has reduced the imbalance to €681,035 and is continuing to try to bring the account into balance, it is unable to do so within a time frame which would allow me to meet my statutory date for reporting on the Appropriation Accounts to Dáil Éireann. I have therefore qualified my audit certificate accordingly.
I enquired as to the circumstances that gave rise to the imbalance and the action being taken to resolve the matter.
Accounting Officer's Response
Background
A number of major changes and new procedures were introduced in the Department's accounting processes during 2003. On 1 July 2003, the Department moved from four Votes to a single Vote. On 7 July 2003, the Department began operating its new FMS. In addition, during 2003, the payment of pensions to retired teachers changed from a system of warrants to payable orders. Furthermore, in mid-2003, the Paymaster General (PMG) viz. the Department's banker, implemented a new computer system which caused some initial problems for the Department. The fact that the end-year reconciliation was the first using the new FMS, together with the major changes in the overall accounting process, added hugely to the complexity of the operation in the short-term.
Scope of the Problem
Arising from the introduction of the changed Vote structure from July 2003, the Department produced balanced accounts to the end of June 2003. The Department has agreed its receipts and payments with the PMG for all of 2003. The difficulties can be therefore isolated to the six months following the introduction of FMS and specifically to the bookkeeping part of the system. The balance at bank per the PMG is greater than the Department's trial balance is indicating it should be. There is nothing to suggest fraud or money loss. Rather the difficulty is in tracing transactions and their history in order to complete the Appropriation Account.
What Caused the Problem
In the course of the investigation of the sources of the specific problem with the Appropriation Account, the Department identified a number of issues requiring attention but which, of themselves, do not explain or identify precisely why the system has failed to deliver the required results. Essentially, until it is established with reasonable precision the totality of what went wrong it is not possible to be definitive about what caused the difficulties or to apportion weight to individual contributory factors.
Among the factors identified during the investigation to date were a combination of
human errors
data input errors
FMS treatment of data
omissions arising from how reports extracted data from FMS.
These factors led to the miscoding of transactions, inconsistencies in postings to ledgers, use of invalid codes, misposting of cancelled payments and incorrect treatment of foreign currency transactions. In terms of difficulty in producing the Appropriation Account, the essential point was that while all the data was in the system, some of it was not stored correctly or in a location where report software as designed would pick it up.
A key underlying constituent of the problems that emerged was the pressure on the Finance Unit to cope with the additional workload involved in the changeover to the new system — dealing with an enormous volume of financial transactions together with the requirement to reconcile and transfer additional data onto the new system and operating both the old and new systems for the first three months. The pressure was compounded by the fact that the advent of the FMS brought with it the introduction of more advanced accounting approaches to the line and bookkeeping sections. The lack of expertise of Departmental staff coupled with the lack of understanding on the part of the software consultants of government accounting requirements meant that efforts to satisfactorily address some of the problems as they arose foundered. It was in this context that the necessary functionality had not been built into the new system.
Remedial Action
The Department has adopted a multi-pronged approach to accelerate a resolution of the problem. First, it is continuing to work on the 2003 Appropriation Account with particular attention directed on how the system is handling records of the PMG bank account transactions. Second, it is moving ahead to bring all 2004 reconciliation work up to date while applying any insights gained to date from the work on the 2003 account. It is also enhancing its IT capacity by a combination of additional in-house and external IT resources. The aim is to have the enhanced IT assistance both facilitate further checks on the 2003 data and the 2004 reconciliation work, through additional reports as the need for them is identified, and at the same time to put into place any enhancements to the FMS that are considered necessary.
In order to strengthen expertise in the Finance Unit, professional accounting advice has been provided in recent months and further training for the key areas is planned during 2004.
As part of the ultimate response to this experience, it is intended to put in place an extensive review of the Department's financial systems and procedures.
The Department further augmented the internal resources deployed to resolve the issue in July 2004, in parallel with a top down in-depth assessment being conducted by the system's developer. It has also engaged additional professional accounting expertise to advise the Department and to recommend, where appropriate, improvements to its systems, processes and procedures.