Two of Galway’s biggest IPAS centres got the thumbs up from regulators for their treatment of residents — but were breaching some regulations by not carrying out risk assessments or fire drills.

The two International Protection Accommodation Service (IPAS) centres — formerly known as direct provision centres — that were each the subject of two-day inspections by the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) were located on Dominick Street and in Salthill.

The Dominick St facility housed 115 residents, including 55 children, in 30 apartments and five townhouses. The family units have a kitchen and living space, bathroom and separate bedrooms and laundry facilities. Inspectors found that 36 residents had received refugee or subsidiary protection status but were unable to move out due to lack of alternative accommodation.

Eglinton Centre had 195 residents in 14 apartments, eight townhouses and 42 bedrooms. Families and single people in the 42 ensuite bedrooms had access to communal cooking, dining and living spaces. Families in the 14 apartments had no separate sleeping area but had their own kitchen/dining and living space. A total of 58 residents had been approved to stay but again were unable to find housing.

In both centres, inspectors encountered positive feedback from residents about staff.

In Dominick St, they said “they were treated with kindness, care and respect” and were “supported to integrate into the local community”. In the former Eglinton Hotel, “residents experienced a good quality of life”, describing staff as “helpful and approachable” and told the inspectors: “it feels like home”.

Dominick Street had a worse report card in terms of breaching the regulations — out of 28, the centre was deemed fully compliant with only eight and non-compliant with four. The remainder were either “partially” or “substantially” meeting the regulations.

Where the city centre complex fell down was procedures, which inspectors experienced at first hand.

“During the course of the inspection, the service provider was issued with an immediate action to seek medical attention for a resident to ensure that their needs were addressed.

“While the management team responded appropriately following the intervention of the inspectors, the absence of a detailed assessments and support plan impacted the ability of the service provider to be assured that residents’ needs were appropriately identified and addressed,” HIQA stated.

Fire drills had not been carried out in the previous 13 months even though their policy stated they should be carried twice a year.

The owner had not completed a thorough risk analysis for the centre.

“They had not identified or assessed all risks evident in the centre, such as the lack of school placements, adult siblings sharing a bedroom with younger siblings of the opposite gender, or fire evacuation of residents with additional needs.”

Management roles and areas of responsibility were not clearly defined, and the management structure did not provide clear governance for the centre.

“While there was an on-call system in place, the arrangements for this system were not fully implemented or understood by the staff team, as there were occasions where managers who were not on call had been contacted.

“There was no system in place to record welfare concerns that had arisen regarding residents, including children living in the centre, to support the staff team to monitor issues over time. Regular welfare checks were not undertaken, particularly in situations where concerns had been identified for a resident.”

Some 11 staffers had not completed training in domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, and 13 staff members required training in mental health and suicide prevention, which was required under the guidelines.

Salthill got a better bill of health, with inspectors finding no blatant breach of the rules and fully compliant with 11 out of 26 and substantially or partially meeting the rest.

Again, there wasn’t an adequate risk register.

“Risks were identified during the inspection which had not been assessed. These included the configuration and allocation of accommodation, ongoing welfare concerns or persistent difficulties between residents. The lack of a comprehensive assessment of these risks meant that there were incidents which had not been escalated internally or externally.”

The type of accommodation in the former Eglington hotel was a cause of concern for the regulator.

Some parents shared a bedroom with their children, including six families where the children were teenagers. Some single unrelated residents shared their bedroom with up to two other adult residents “which did not promote the privacy and dignity of these residents”.

“There were occasions where difficulties between residents were ongoing and it was not evident that safeguarding plans were implemented to ensure all residents were safeguarded.”

Both centres did well supporting families with their children’s education but didn’t quite meet the requirements when it came to providing them with necessities other than food.

Dominick St residents received a prepaid debit card they could use in local shops to purchase groceries for their family and cook in their own unit. They were meant to be provided with nappies and baby formula as well as toiletries but the centre directed them to approach local agencies for these.

In the Eglinton, there was an onsite shop and residents purchased their own food for cooking using a points system. While they were provided with nappies and baby food, residents had to use their allocated points to purchase toiletries and cleaning products, such as washing powder, which took much of their allocated weekly points.

In both cases the centres have been given a number of months to address the breaches.

Pictured: The Eglinton IPAS centre in Salthill.