Right of Place - Submission to Minister (Review of Caranua)



Right of Place has made the following submission to the Minister in relation to the Terms of Reference of the review to take place of Caranua.

We have cognizance of the desire of the department to review the eligibility criteria only but we urged the review to include the below in its work, having regard for the already near two-year delay in these Terms being drafted.

This submission has taken three weeks to prepare and has involved consultation with Service users, the Board of Directors and staff/volunteers within Right of Place Second Chance. We also researched the Appeals officers reports to help inform us of this submission.

We understand the process by which this takes place and will make further submissions to the actual review in the coming months.

Our main points of note that we wish to see added and our reasons are outlined below;
  •  Timeline for the findings of the review

One of the biggest concerns for ROP/SC is the lack of a date as to when the review will come back with its findings. We find the existing delay (nearly two years later) inexcusable and therefore urge the Terms of Reference to include a date for findings, so that this process is not delayed any longer.

  •    To include Dependents and those who were in an institution but never received redress

We call on the Minister to review these two groups to be included specifically. The inter-generational effects of Institutional Abuse are well documented and the idea that those most vulnerable who couldn’t apply for redress are excluded is not acceptable. Rather than spending time deciding what the “widening eligibility” should be, we argue time should be spent reviewing how these groups can apply and not what types of groups can apply.

  •    Review waiting times of receiving support from Caranua

The current waiting times for existing applicants and new applications is not acceptable. We call on the review to investigate these times and make findings on a maximum time frame allowable for applications, both new and existing so that there is clear accountability.

  •   Review the reason & right to introduce a cap on services

To review whether the introduction of a cap has improved the Survivors experience and where in the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Act this decision was taken from. To investigate why Priority was given to new applicants, despite identified medical and housing needs of existing Applicants still being presented but not being processed.

  •   Review any underspend and set out how this is proposed to be spent

One of the biggest fears of Survivors is that this fund, if an underspend is likely, will be transferred to assist in the completion of the new National Childrens Hospital. Resulting it is appropriate to alleviate concerns if an underspend is indicated, that this will continue to go towards the needs of applicants and not transferred to any other area.

  •  Review the work being done for the closure of Caranua

It is important that the review investigates what work is being carried out in relation to the legislation that defines “enhancing existing services”. ROP/SC worries that the enhanced services some Survivors have experienced will be removed without any work being done to sustain this into the future, when the funding has been expended.

  •   The Reviews findings must be published and the evidence on which these are based.

The reviews findings must be published so that Survivors can have accountability and transparency into the work carried out by the Review itself. It is also imperative that any findings are identifiable with which evidence it used to reach its conclusion.

Ultimately, we expect throughout this process that existing information, data, reports, state funded Service Providers (Survivors specific organisations) and other agencies should be consulted to ensure a robust and well informed review take place.

The proposed Terms of Reference that Right of Place Second Chance recommends is;


Terms of Reference