The Muckraker Report

<div class="page traditional" style=" background-color: #fff; "> <article> <header> <h1 style=" color: #000;">Survivors</h1> Lyra McKee 2013-08-07 </header> <div class="main"> <img src="/uploads/51fee222a27a0.jpg" class="title-pic" alt=""/> I've been working on this story since 2008. In 2009, a brief, 50-word piece on it was published in Private Eye magazine. They were the only publication willing to publish it. Despite having a paper trail of evidence to back my claims up, I could not persuade newspaper editors in Northern Ireland to do the same. The full story has never been told. This has gnawed at me for many years. It led me to launch The Muckraker. It seems fitting that the first issue of the magazine should be about this story. Thanks to platforms like Twitter, journalists now have a vehicle for spreading stories that others choose to ignore. By publishing it, I hope to clear the name of two innocent women who dedicated their lives to a cause, only to be betrayed by a government that did not approve. There are wrongs you cannot fix. As a younger reporter, I found this so hard to stomach. For me, journalism was about saving the world; if I told the terrible stories, someone would have to do something about them. Someone would sit up and notice. That rarely happens. For the most part, people look the other way. As one of the women you'll meet in the story remarked: "When the world isn't ready to accept the truth, it ignores it." These are the stories you never forget. They haunt you at night. You see them in your nightmares, your subconscious' way of letting you know you fucked up. You didn't make things better. There's always one face you remember, one that stands out. That face sums everything up. Everything you did wrong and everyone you let down. For me, the face is of a childhood friend. She died before she made it to adulthood. Suicide. For months afterwards, people asked questions: what could make a kid that age kill herself? Years later, I found out. The details are sketchy but around 12 months before she died, she was raped. Every day, after school, she had to walk past her rapist. He would pretend they'd never met. She was a child and he was an adult. If she told the truth, who would believe her? It was July 2008. We were sitting in an office overlooking Donegall Street in Belfast, a forgotten side road of buildings that had seen better days. I remember it pretty well, for two reasons. #1: I'd just finished my A-Levels and was looking for a big story. Something to keep me occupied until university started in September. And #2: the lady in front of me was desperate for a cigarette. Eileen Calder worked for Northern Ireland's only Rape Crisis Centre. Since 1984 – with the help of volunteers and the Centre's other full-time staffer, Eileen Kelly – she'd been counselling every man, woman and child who walked through its doors. When no one would believe their story, they went to the Centre. The first thing I noticed about Calder was that she didn't ask what age I was. She didn't even seem to find it strange that an 18 year old was interviewing her. I was used to getting strange looks when I turned up on doorsteps; I looked much younger than my years. She talked quite openly. The Centre had been providing support to survivors on both sides of the religious divide in NI since 1981. They'd been funded by the Department of Health since 1989. They'd received threats from different quarters over the years. Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries had shown up at the office, claiming clients were "lying" about what happened to them. The most memorable moment was when a CIA officer came in for a chat. They'd helped thousands of survivors over the years – sometimes, thousands in a year. Rape and sexual assault were on the rise. They'd take calls at home, on weekends, at night. Cordless phones became necessary so they could disappear into another room, away from children and partners, when a call came through. It was their lives but not their livelihood. For the last two years, they'd been doing it for free. The call came on Wednesday 5th July 2006, to a volunteer's home. It was from the Department of Health. Could she come to Stormont for a meeting the next day? No but she could do Friday 7th July? That didn't suit as the civil servant who wanted to speak to her was going on leave. A phone call was arranged for the next afternoon. She didn't know what the purpose of the call was. The next day, she found out. She was called by not one but two senior civil servants who told her the Department would no longer fund the Centre. They pleaded with her for "no media involvement". Less than an hour later, reporters were calling Eileen Calder and Eileen Kelly. Why was the Department withdrawing their funding? They didn't know; they hadn't received anything in writing from the Department. Yet reporters had already received a copy of the termination letter. Where did they get it from? The Department of Health's press office. The events which led to that phone call on Wednesday 5th July 2006 are complicated. I've read hundreds of pages of paperwork - Department of Health reports, evaluations, internal emails and memos. For the last 15 months, I've wondered what I would write when the time came to start typing. Like any good story, it should start at the beginning. The trouble began after the first review. The Department had been funding the Centre since 1989. In 2000, they commissioned a review of the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland; specifically, the organisations they were funding. Each would undergo an evaluation of their services. For the Centre, that meant sharing clients files with the Department as well as other personal information, like notes from counselling sessions. They refused. "What they did then was to look at us and look at [another service] because we were the only two organisations at that time offering this [counselling for survivors of rape and sexual abuse]," says Eileen Kelly. “The fact was that both the organisations are there to fill the gaps that are not being filled within the mainstream system. We didn’t want to become part of that. [The other organisation], on the other hand, did agree to a lot of the things that were required, so ultimately we became the ones that was the duplication of service. It just went from bad to worse after that. They don’t like to fail." Following the first review, the Centre was inundated by audits and evaluations from the Department. "Every time we met their requirements, they moved the goal posts," says Eileen’s daughter, Tina Calder, a Centre volunteer. "It became a bureaucratic nightmare." "One time, they accused the Centre of misappropriating funds. This happened because they were paying creche fees for a volunteer [to have her children minded while she did counselling] and the Creche didn't put their name and address on the receipts." The Department's criticisms of the Centre are strange. During one review in 2006 (the findings of which were published when the Department terminated funding), they claimed that £18,406 of the Centre's funding – for rent – was unaccounted for, with no "evidence of original invoice". As the Centre pointed out in their response: <blockquote> "The Review Team were made aware that many original invoices were with the Department as [a Department civil servant] had insisted on seeing these on a quarterly basis and would not accept copies. [A member of the Review Team] told us that we should not give the originals to anyone even the Department. What are we to do in the face of such conflicting demands from a public body? A copy of the original invoice was in the black box made available to [the Review Team] over a period of several weeks. An original letter from MacFarlane & Smyth our long-suffering Landlord, dated, stamped and signed thanking us for the payment was shown to the Review Team. The amount on this corresponds exactly with that on the cheque stubb, ledger and bank statement. If that is not evidence enough for a reasonable person to conclude that the money was spent on rent then it is clear we need funding for the professional administrator promised to us, because we don't know what further necessary evidence we could provide. Furthermore our Landlords office is on the ground floor of our building, [the Review Team] are well aware of this. All they had to do was ask him." </blockquote> Another criticism of the Centre was that, on one occasion, they paid two staff salaries in cash instead of by cheque. They'd been wrangling with the Department over funding again so salaries hadn't been paid. Upon receiving confirmation that the Department would be releasing funds, the Centre's Chairperson requested a £3,000 overdraft from the bank to pay staff. The cash was recorded in their electronic ledger and a letter from the bank manager confirming the transaction and its purpose was given to the Review Team. Despite this, they still claimed the money was unaccounted for. Yet, in section 5.18 of their report, the Review Team referred to the £3,000 when calculating the amount of Department funding spent on salaries. The Centre was incredulous in their response: <blockquote> "Surely they cannot have it both ways? Either it is unaccounted for and the staff are coincidentally owed £3000 between them of lost wages or there is evidence that it was rightfully paid to staff." </blockquote> "I just want to clear my name." We were sitting in her office again. Eileen Calder was craving another cigarette. It had been four years since we'd last met there. She was wearier. Tired. "When my great granddaughter Googles my name, I don't want her to read those news reports and think that I did something wrong." One evaluation of the Centre was carried out by a consultancy company called PA Consulting. The Department of Health commissioned them to write a supposedly independent report, recommending whether the Department should continue funding the Centre. In his report, Dr. Michael Maguire - now the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland - wrote: <blockquote> "....in the absence of robust and meaningful feedback from clients and referral agencies, it is impossible for the Department to conclude that the Centre provides a quality service to survivors." </blockquote> Yet internal documents show this was not his original conclusion. In an email to Maguire dated 15th October 2003, a senior civil servant writes: <blockquote> "We have considered the draft evaluation report in respect of the above named organisation [the Centre]….Initial consideration of the report has raised the following issues and I would be grateful if you could contact me on [number redacted] to arrange a suitable date to meet and discuss the report in full. Issues for discussion: Given significant and continued Departmental support and on-going non-compliance by the organisation, the appropriateness to recommend continued Department funding and 12 month timescale recommended to demonstrate improvement." </blockquote> In a meeting 12 days later, Maguire argued in favour of the Centre. According to the minutes of the meeting, he: <blockquote> "agreed there was sufficient and significant evidence within the report to recommend that funding to this organisation cease, however…it may be more appropriate to reassess the current level of Departmental funding and direct it to provide one administrative post." </blockquote> The Department's civil servants, however, were not happy with this. They argued against it. Consequently, it was agreed that "the core of the evaluation report would remain the same with the issues as listed above incorporated within the subsequent report". Maguire agreed to "amend the report accordingly and forward to the Department as soon as is practical." His recommendation that the Department continue funding the Centre was dropped from the final draft. When asked for comment, Mr Maguire said: <blockquote> "My report accepted at every stage that while there were some organisational difficulties which needed to be addressed, there was no question there was a need for a service for victims of rape, and it had to be funded." </blockquote> It's July 2013. I'm sitting with Eileen Kelly outside the Northern Whig bar in Belfast. She's exhausted. For 5 years after the Department removed the Centre's funding, she worked full-time for free, as did Eileen Calder. It was their lives' work. A remortgaged house and thousands of pounds of debt later, neither is sure how much longer they can keep it running. They continue to work at the Centre, part-time. Their landlord, "a Christian man", does not complain about the missed rent payments. During a phone call, Tina Calder tells me the whole episode ruined her mother's life: "It is disgraceful that two women who put 30 years of their lives into an organisation are reduced to being two part-time volunteers. They became victims of the system they were trying to protect women from." Despite the evidence that their civil servants interfered in what should have been an independent report, the Department of Health has never been reprimanded. Questions remain unanswered: why did they want to cut the Centre's funding? Were their other reviews and "findings" similarly influenced? Will there ever be some form of justice for the Centre? For Eileen Kelly, justice, if it's coming, has come too late. <blockquote> "I think it’s getting to the point that Eileen [Calder] and I need to talk about whether we’re going to go on or not. I don’t think we can, to be quite honest with you….We won’t even get a chance to pass the legacy on, to pass our treatment knowledge on. I don’t know if there’ll ever be another Rape Crisis here for some unknown reason." </blockquote> Update 17:00pm 7th August 2013: The Department of Health has finally responded to the story. I offered them the right to reply to each allegation made in the story. Their statement is below. “The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety provided grant funding to the Rape Crisis and Sexual Abuse Centre for many years as a contribution to the organisation’s salary and running costs. The Centre had long-standing difficulties in maintaining its financial affairs and did not fully comply with all of the terms and conditions for government funding. Departmental Officials worked extensively with the Centre to help it overcome its difficulties and in doing so provided significant additional support to the Centre, over and above that provided to any of the other voluntary organisations funded by the Department. “Despite receiving extensive practical and financial support from the Department, the Centre continually failed to meet the necessary government accounting requirements for the receipt of grants. The Department has a responsibility to protect the public purse and consequently was left with no option, other than to cease funding to the Centre. That decision to cease funding for the Centre was not taken lightly. “Pearl Gray, Chair of the Centre was asked to attend a meeting on Thursday 6 July 2006 to be briefed on the relevant issues and given a formal letter from the Department’s Permanent Secretary, Andrew McCormick, setting out the position concerning future Government funding to the Centre. Pearl Gray indicated she was unable to attend but that she would be content to deal with the matter by telephone. A telephone conversation took place between Pearl Gray and Andrew Hamilton of the Department as arranged at 3.00pm on Thursday 6 July 2006, when the contents of the letter were read out and discussed with her. Pearl Gray provided an email address so that the letter could be emailed to her immediately afterwards and this was done. The letter was also issued by post on the same day. “In accordance with Departmental grant making terms and conditions, if an organisation ceases to be effective or indeed is non-compliant, its grant can be withdrawn. Departmental grant making terms and conditions state that: “the agreement may be terminated by either party at any time giving the other at least 3 months notice in writing”<a href="https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?shva=1#14059627f8cb871e__ftn1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">[1]</a> This is why funding was not withdrawn until October 2006. “In respect of point 9, the Department disagrees with your interpretation of the content of the Department’s letter to Michael Maguire (PA Consulting) on 15 October 2003 and the note of the meeting which took place on 27 October 2003. “The suggestion that a senior civil servant told Michael Maguire that they questioned “the appropriateness to recommend continued Department funding and 12 month timescale to demonstrate improvement” is incorrect. In the letter to Michael Maguire on 15 October 2003, there are a total of 6 issues identified for further discussion (at a meeting to be arranged) one of which includes: · ...given significant and continued Departmental support and on-going non compliance by the organisation, the appropriateness to recommend continued Departmental funding and 12 month timescale recommended to demonstrate improvement.... “At the meeting on 27 October 2003, a number of those issues identified in the letter of 15 October 2003 were subsequently considered. The Department does not agree with your analysis of the note of the meeting. “An extract from the note of the meeting of 27 October 2003 reveals: · Michael agreed that there was sufficient and significant evidence within the report that funding to this organisation cease, however, in order to address the need for the service, should this need be quantified, that it may be more appropriate to reassess the current level of Departmental funding and direct it to provide one administrative post. · XXXXX* raised the issue that the organisation was currently receiving funding for two administrative posts i.e. a centre manager and training co-ordinator and as such the Department was already providing assistance for direct administration which was not currently effective. · It was agreed that the core of the evaluation report would remain the same with the issues as listed above incorporate within the subsequent report. The need for reassurance for the Department regarding actual funding spend and the current non-compliance of the organisation would also be addressed. · Michael will amend the report accordingly and forward to the Department for consideration as soon as possible. “The Department stands by its action previously undertaken with respect to the funding of the Centre and the commissioning of an external evaluation of the Centre through the Government Procurement Service in 2003. “To ensure that there has been no reduction in services for victims of sexual violence, Departmental funding previously given to the Centre was re-directed to the Health and Social Care Board for services for victims of rape and sexual violence. “The Department remains fully committed to funding quality services which provide support for all victims of sexual violence and abuse in Northern Ireland. This includes Northern Ireland’s first Regional Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC), called The Rowan, which went live on Tuesday 7th May 2013. The Rowan is a high level outcome of the Tackling Sexual Violence and Abuse Strategy (published in June 2008). It is a partnership initiative between DHSSPS and the PSNI and is hosted and managed by the Northern Health and Social Care Trust. The capital investment was in the order of £2m and the operational running costs will be approximately £900K per annum. “The Rowan delivers a 24/7 service 365 days per annum to all victims (adults and children) of sexual crime. The service has commenced with PSNI referrals in the first instance to enable the new practices and protocols to be embedded. A full service (which will include self referral and third party referrals including GPs) will be available from Monday 2 September 2013. [Lyra's note: The Rowan was due to launch in 2010. It launched three years late. I reported on how the project was running over schedule in The Muckraker in 2012: <a href="http://muckraker.me/2012/06/14/about-that-2m-centre-for-rape-victims-northern-ireland-was-promised/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://muckraker.me/2012/06/14/about-that-2m-centre-for-rape-victims-northern-ireland-was-promised/</a>'] “Work has also commenced to develop a new joint Domestic and Sexual Violence Strategy to be published early 2014. The new joint strategy will be taken forward through strong partnership working between statutory, voluntary and community sector stakeholders.” </div> </article> </div>

Share

01

End of Free Preview