Honourable Dwight Duncan
Minister of Finance and Chair of Treasury Board/Management Board of
Cabinet
C/o Budget Secretariat
Frost Building North 3rd
Floor
95 Grosvenor Street
Toronto ON M7A 1Z1
February 26, 2011
Dear Minister Duncan,
Thank you for the
opportunity to provide input into the development of the 2011 Provincial
Budget. OPSEU represents a number of members who provide Child
Protection services in our communities. I believe that I can help
you with some perspective on the current situation in our Child Welfare
System. As a mandated service we are seized with the
responsibility to help and protect Society’s children and to work with
their families. Children’s Aid Societies provide services where often
there are no other services available or even welcomed in the most
marginalized of families.
In response to your
request regarding hearing Ontarians’ views on what more the government
can do to create jobs and improve services for people, while eliminating
the deficit, please listen and consider making Children’s Aid Society’s
a priority in your budget.
Keeping families together
and working towards our mandate of the “best interests of the child”
are being stretched beyond
capacity.
The Ontario government
approved a reform in child
welfare well known-
Transformation.
Transformation had seven pillars which the Child Welfare system
was to build its practices upon. Those seven pillars are:
Permanency, Differential Response, Alternative to Court Processes,
Flexible Intake and Assessment Model, Single Information System and
Child Welfare Research Capacity. The
policy, in principle,
is
good policy; however,
front-line staff is not able to implement the tools and assessment
skills required in a way that embraces the “ideals”
of Transformation
due to numerous unresolved issues. These include administrative
burdens, workload issues, complexity of cases, geography issues........all
of which severely
curtail front line workers ability to successfully implement the
intent of Transformation
with successful outcomes.
The recent program
“shifts” occurring in Child Welfare as the result of the
recommendations from the Commission
for Sustainability in Child Welfare
is now moving the Child Welfare field in a new direction.
The
Commissions efforts to streamline and correct previous faults in the
child welfare system are not incompatible with the “ideals” of
Transformation.. The idea of their mandate is to have every
child serviced in their own community, with equitable services to each
child, is also excellent but remains idealistic at this point in time,
and with aggressive timelines is creating an unprecedented amount of
instability across the sector.
Front line workers are
suffering under very complex workloads with directives regarding
compliance, accountability and timely outcome measurements being the
priority. Keeping families together and working towards our
mandate of the “best interests of the child”
has stretched the
capacity of the Child
Welfare system beyond its limits.
The commissions report,
A Description of the Child Welfare System Landscape in Ontario,
dated November 2, 2010, points to many complex issues within the system
that need attention.
The suggested mergers
and amalgamations (Tier one 13 Societies) will create larger agencies,
enabling a potential for equitable service across the province for
children but at what cost to our children and families? We urge
that in working through our mandate of the “best interests of the
child”,
there is a need to be cognizant of the intricacies of bringing all the
recommendations made by the Commission, Transformation and other
new changes and regulations yet to come, into reality. There
continues to be a need to recognize the great amounts of stress on
families, children, workers and the system that the implementation of
these
ideals takes.
Financially,
amalgamations and mergers may not be profitable, and revenue
neutral financial outcomes may take several years to develop. In a
Report completed by Robert Pickens “Amalgamated and Integrated
Agencies Report” 3/ 4 2010 on behalf of the Eastern Zone Executive
Directors states:
“The merged Children’s
Aid Societies could not be confident that the merger resulted in
savings. The expansion of jurisdiction resulted in some savings
and efficiencies but similar to the integrated agency, the broader scope
required additional staffing. For example, only one financial
manager is required but additional financial staff support is required
to complete the increased work.” Pg 4/5 Furthermore
the report states: “If the merger is for efficiencies only, those
found will not be equal to the costs of change.” P 5/5
Concerning client
access for the larger geographical mergers the Report states
that access for clients was significant:
“The cross jurisdictional
merged CAS noted no difference in access to services for clients other
than through improved overall service development that occurred within
the agency. The larger geographical area created by the merger is
more likely to create access difficulties than solve them, and has
resulted in additional costs related to travel and the management of
satellite offices.”
The larger merged
geographical changes are creating a sense of anxiety for families,
children and workers in the Child Welfare system. Child welfare
workers care a great deal for their families and their children and are
concerned about changes in relationships because of geographical changes
in foster homes, schools, access visits and recreational activities.
Child welfare workers worry that this will create instability for the
child and family when the child, family and or workers move or have been
moved to different geographical areas. The potential for worker
changes is very real as transportation and worker time will increase
with such moves and if this is not protected services to our family and
children will suffer.
Issues within the Child
Welfare Field itself in areas of roles, expectations, directives and
responsibilities are varied, causing divisions and discrepancies within
the Field.
The document “A
Description of the Child Welfare System Landscape in Ontario”
dated November 2, 2010 clarifies this issue:
In the experience of CASs, complex,
multiple roles and the lack of clarity of responsibilities and
integration between the ministry corporate and regional levels can
contribute to conflicting system management requirements and
inconsistencies in the application of policy, directives and standards.
CASs also find that the high compliance and administrative burden on
societies (e.g. compliance reporting, recording keeping, etc.) can take
away time and focus from serving the needs of children. Pg. 8
Furthermore, the
Report indicates that key cost drivers need to be identified and
incorporated into a funding model that is inclusive of the real needs of
the Societies. These have been identified in the report by the
Commission as: