Achieving Sustainable Child Welfare
Lunchtime seminar
McGill University CRCF
7 Nov 2012
Dr Wendy Thomson
Context
1.
Recap of “Our Starting Point” and the Resulting
Vision and Strategy for Sustainability
2.
Highlights of our Strategy
– The change we are driving
– Progress and Results
3.
Final Report
2
Starting Point
Commission Terms of Reference …
“The mandate of the Commission is to develop and implement initiatives that will
contribute to moving the children’s aid societies and ministry towards sustainability
and the reinvestment in better outcomes for children and youth in need of
protection.”
Commission Definition of
A Sustainable Child Welfare System ..
•
Constantly adapts to evolving challenges, needs and knowledge
•
Leverages available resources to maximize positive outcomes for
children and youth
•
Balances current needs and demands while building a strong system
for tomorrow
3
The Systems Approach to Sustainable
Child Welfare
Governance – Should child welfare services continue to
be delivered through independent organizations, each
with their own board?
Policy Character – Is the Transformation agenda the right
approach?
Program & Service Configuration – Should there be
changes to the way programs are defined and services
structured and delivered? Is 53 the right number of CAS?
Funding Approach – What approach to funding services
will encourage equity between agencies and value for
children and communities?
Culture
Systems of Accountability – What systems of
accountability will best deliver results, for children as well
as government ministers? How do we ensure that we
know how the system is performing and what kind of
outcomes it is producing?
Culture – Is there consistency in cultural orientation
between the sector and government? Does the culture
promote sustainability?
4
The Commission’s Early Conclusions
 CAS spending is not “out of control”
 Transformation is working, but obstacles to be removed to move
forward
 Opportunities for improvement within the sector, MCYS, and between
sectors
 Sustainability will require:
– CAS reconfiguration to achieve scale and capacity
– A new approach to funding
– A new approach to accountability – with clearer CAS and MCYS
roles
– A fundamental change in approach to Aboriginal child welfare
– Attention to direct services, particularly: strengthening families,
securing permanence; shortening time in out-of-home care; and
administrative burden
5
Fifteen Year Trends in Child Welfare Spending
% annual increase (based on nominal dollars)
35%
Uploading from
municipalities takes effect
over these two years.
Province assumes remaining
20% of cost of child welfare
30%
25%
20%
15%
Recession, Rae
Days, Common
Sense Revolution
10%
5%
19
94
/9
19 5
95
/0
19 6
96
/9
19 7
97
/9
19 8
98
/9
19 9
99
/0
20 0
00
/0
20 1
01
/0
20 2
02
/0
20 3
03
/0
20 4
04
/0
20 5
05
/0
20 6
06
/0
20 7
07
/0
20 8
08
/0
20 9
09
/1
0
0%
-5%
Multiple Policy Reviews
Multiple Policy changes
• Child Mortality Task Force • 2000 CFSA Changes: neglect and
(1997)
exposure to domestic violence added as
• Expert panel on child
grounds for protection; legal duty to
protection (1998)
report
• Eight inquests into deaths • 2003 Child Welfare Reform
of children known to CASs • 200? Introduction of ORAM (new risk
assessment tool)
Source: Confirm with Ross.
Implementation of the
“Transformation Agenda”
6
A Four-Tier Strategy for Sustainable Child Welfare
7
Tier 1:
Reconfiguration
The Change we advocate .. And Progress Made
Realize more comparable and
sustainable scale and capacity
for CASs through:

Amalgamations

Shared services

Cross-sector
reconfiguration
opportunities

13 CASs have amalgamated to create
6 new CAS

Have gone from 24 CASs with budgets
below $17.9 m to 13

Comprehensive shared services
strategy developed:
– OACAS prepared to play a role as
coordinating body
– OntarioBuys engaged in exploring
procurement options
8
Tier 1:
Reconfiguration
Challenges

10 non-Aboriginal CASs still at or below the 25,000 population threshold …
but most lack a “logical local partner” … Shared services and cross-sector
amalgamation will be key.

Still issues to address with configuration of Aboriginal CASs… multiple options
… must be addressed as part of broader Aboriginal child welfare strategy

Multiple shared service opportunities to realize but will require leadership and
political will.
9
Tier 2:
Funding
The Change we advocate .. and Progress Made
Current funding approach
impedes sustainability. New
approach must:
 Ensure funding
allocation is childfocused, not agencyfocused
 Be more equitable
 Shift risk from payer
(gov’t) to provider (CAS)
 Enable local flexibility
 Promote CAS
resiliency

Local Needs-Based Funding model
recommended

Recommendations tabled for other
changes to approach to promote
resiliency:
–
–
–
–
–
Earlier communication of fiscal year
funding targets
Shifting to multi-year funding and
planning
Revising rules to allow CASs to retain a
portion of in-year surpluses
Separate approach for capital budget,
planning and approvals
Transferring admin responsibility for
permanency subsidies to MCYS
10
Child Population Growth versus CAS Expenditure Change, 2003-2009
(Excluding Aboriginal CASs)
140%
120%
Expenditure Change
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Child Population
Decreasing
Increasing
11
Limitations of the Current Funding Model
A Funding Comparison of Two Southern Ontario CASs
2003/04 - 2011/12
% Change in
% Change in
child population
funding
Prince Edward
Halton
-32%
17%
% Change in
funding in last 3
years (2008/09
to 2011/12)
35%
37%
9%
-3%
Per Capita Comparisons
Per Capita
Funding
(2011/12)
$1,697
$165
Per Capita
Children in Care
(2009/10)
34.2
3.2
 Not child-focused
 Cost and activity-based – shifting risk to the government
 Not adaptive
 Has inherent disincentives – rewards gaming
 Creates a reactive, near-term management dynamic that results in
instability and lack of resilience in individual CASs
 Contributes to administrative burden
 Not aligned with any mechanism for accountability (clarifying expectations
and outcomes)
12
Tier 2:
Funding
Challenges

Commitment to new funding approach has been made …. But no approach
agreed upon as yet.

Continued reliance on existing funding approach is rewarding old behaviours
(e.g. volume emphasis)

Strong attachment to volume connection to funding is creating an impasse?

Funding advice for Aboriginal agencies has been provided. Decision / plan
required.

2013/14 is coming fast
13
Tier 3:
Accountability
The Change we advocate .. And Progress made
Move from current state of multiple
incoherent, disconnected mechanisms
to a new framework for accountability
providing clearer

First phase of performance
indicators developed and
rolled-out.

OACAS and CAS boards
embracing a multi-year process
to strengthen governance.

Sector taking ownership for
their role in leading new
approach to accountability.

Report and recommendations
for implementing accountability
framework submitted to the
Minister.
 Purpose & guiding principles
 Roles & responsibilities
 Key dimensions of child welfare
 Three new mechanisms:
1. Multi-year plans
2. Performance indicators
3. Cyclical agency reviews
 Capacity-building for continuous
learning and system improvement
14
Tier 3:
Accountability
Challenges


New accountability framework represents major changes for MCYS … both
cultural and …technical .. Leadership and commitment will be essential to
introduce:

Clear policy objectives and targets, in context of multi-year strategy and
accountability agreements

Develop and execute agency reviews

Introduce and make use of performance metrics.
Momentum on performance indicators may be at risk of stalling as
Commission hands off.
15
Tier 4:
Direct Service
The Change we advocate .. And Progress made
Complement the influence of the three other
tiers in strengthening direct service delivery by
focusing on:
 Addressing barriers to realizing the policy shift
intended by the Transformation Agenda

Report and recommendations
complete regarding the Scope
of CAS services

Report and recommendations
complete on out-of-home care;
sector in process of structuring
a project for further action.

MYCS has initiated some
changes in administrative
processes that should have a
material impact on the sector in
the coming months.
 Increasing transparency and clarity on the
scope (breadth and depth) of services delivered
by CASs with child welfare funds.
 Be a catalyst for sector-led changes in how outof-home care is delivered by: reducing multiple
moves, promoting “home-like” / “family-.like”
experiences, and enabling youth to grow roots
and life-long connections.
 Reducing the administrative burden,
particularly on front-line staff, to increase
proportion of time in direct service to children
and families.
16
Core Concepts in the Commission’s Work on Scope
The Continuum of Child and Family Needs
All
Children
&
Families
Family situation results in
a “child in need of
protection” as defined by
CFSA and requires …
Vulnerable
Children &
Families
Communitybased child
welfare
services …
Out-ofhome child
welfare
services …
Children &
Families
Exiting
Child
Welfare
Services
Vulnerable
Children &
Families
All
Children
&
Families
… to ensure their safety
and well-being
Children’s Aid Societies
Selective Community Services
Universal Services
CAS Service
Categories
“Must
Provide”
“May
Provide”
“Should Not
Provide”
17
Tier 4:
Direct Services
Challenges

Need to move forward purposefully and dispassionately with the
Commission’s recommendations on Scope – particularly the the
Transformation policy shift and the “service mapping”. Engagement of
community partners and links to accountability (planning) are critical.

Out-of-home care project can and should be sector led but MCYS / gov’t has
important role in pushing for targets and evidence of results.

MCYS will need continued encouragement to stay the course on reducing
admin burden… and communication / engagement of sector required to
ensure benefits realization.
CAUTIONS AND ADVICE:
A narrow interpretation of the Commission’s work on Scope would be
regressive. Gov’t / MCYS should use the Scope work to reaffirm
policy direction and aspiration for shape of child welfare in Ontario and
to inform work to further advance broader cross-sector integration
18
Aboriginal Child Welfare
The Change we advocate .. And Progress

Aboriginal unit established
within MCYS to establish the
“single locus of responsibility
as recommended by the
Commission.

Specific shorter-term activities
underway/being planned

Relationship-building efforts
underway at Ministerial and
senior executive level
Embrace fundamental changes in the
approach to Aboriginal child welfare by
taking a broader approach (beyond
“CAS”) and forging more genuine
partnerships with Aboriginal leaders to:
 Develop an overall strategy for
Aboriginal child welfare
 Take action on near-term priorities to
improve efficiency and service delivery
 Identify and remove barriers to
customary care
 Implement a separate funding
approach for Aboriginal CASs
(reflecting principles common to nonAboriginal CASs).
19
Aboriginal Child Welfare
Remaining Challenges

Progress will always be challenged by tendency to think in government
program lines, multiple Aboriginal governments, and the relationship with the
federal government.

There is, however, both a financial and a moral imperative for Ontario to
support Aboriginal communities in regaining the lead role in ensuring the
safety and well-being of their children.
20
7/26/2016
21
The Commission’s Final Report
 Submitted to the Minister
 Commitment to publish…
22