EARLY YEARS SERVICES
INTERIOR REGION
2014 Report
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ 0
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2
Terms of Community Development ................................................................................... 2
Building Blocks ................................................................................................................ 2
Human Early Learning ..................................................................................................... 3
Children First ................................................................................................................... 4
Success by 6 .................................................................................................................... 4
Rural/Urban ECD Coordination ........................................................................................... 5
Diverse Funding Mechanisms and Models ..................................................................... 5
Funding Mechanisms Drive Frameworks for Representation and Partnering ............... 6
Funders of Short-Term Initiatives Drive Early Years Strategic Planning ......................... 7
Community ECD Teams....................................................................................................... 9
Where does Early Years community money come from? .............................................. 9
Local Government Structure and Tax Base..................................................................... 9
Local Community Granting Organizations .................................................................... 10
Community Investment: Fundraising and Donations ................................................... 10
The Importance of Early Years through Marketing and Promotions ........................... 11
Fracturing .......................................................................................................................... 12
Fracturing: Social Environment ........................................................................................ 12
Fracturing: Geographic ................................................................................................. 12
Fracturing: Distribution of Resources ........................................................................... 12
Fracturing: Outreach ..................................................................................................... 13
Barriers .............................................................................................................................. 16
Barriers: Social Environment ............................................................................................ 16
Barriers and Fractures................................................................................................... 17
Addressing Fractures and Barriers ................................................................................ 18
Local Early Years Planning and Implementation........................................................... 19
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 20
Acknowledgements....................................................................................................... 21
Arcana Solutions Inc.
July 2014
1
Introduction
The Early Years field has been developing its community based models through cross
sectorial tables for over two decades in British Columbia. The Vancouver Foundation
has generously provided funding for this report with the focus on examining the various
community based models; at the community level (micro) and government levels
(macro). This report will examine their roles in the continuing development of the Early
Years field. It will also provide the reader an introduction into the challenges that the
Early Years community development tables are grappling with in order to increase
healthy child outcomes in BC.
The overarching goals for this report are:



To strengthen the ability for Early Years community tables to meet the needs of
their community
To assess the local and regional models of Early Years coordination in rural and
urban settings
To address the impacts of fractures and barriers both at the macro and micro
levels of Early Years community development.
Terms of Community Development
Community development in the Early Years field has gained momentum since first
introduced in 1993 by the federal Public Health Agency of Canada; “Community
Action Program for Children” (CAPC). The first provincial initiative was “Building
Blocks” then “Children First” (formerly “Make Children First”) in 2003 and Success by 6
in 2003. These initiatives allowed communities to form regional coalitions and Early
Childhood Development committees, now referred to as Early Years Tables.
These funds and provincial offices gave communities the ability to bring together groups
of people in community consultations and learn about services existing and non-existing
or under serving. The funding was gradually spread out throughout the Interior and in
most cases, provided funding for an Early Years Coordinator who was responsible for
engaging the community and the Early Years Table in joint strategic planning, funding
decisions, capacity building, service provision and evaluation.
Arcana Solutions Inc.
July 2014
2
Building Blocks
The Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) funds Building Blocks which
is an umbrella term for a number of family support programs, which aim at increasing
the ability of parents or other caregivers to support the healthy development of children
from conception to age six.
“Building Blocks programs serve children and families in communities
province-wide, with communities determining the programs and
supports that best meet their needs.”1
The programs provide a range of supports such as:






Home Visiting Programs,
Prenatal Support,
Pregnancy Outreach,
Parent-Child Drop Ins,
Parent-Child Mother Goose
Nobody's Perfect Parenting Program.
Human Early Learning
The Human Early Learning partnership is a consortium of Universities which study
children’s readiness for school. Important research on children’s readiness to learn
when they enter kindergarten has informed communities about their children’s needs
for early childhood supports and services. This research is called Early Development
Indicators (EDI). Early Years teams have used EDI data to support their strategic
planning.
Other provincial initiatives have developed over the past few
years: for example the Strong Start Centres and Ready Set
Learn. There has also been cancellation of initiatives as well:
capital funds for new Child Care spaces through Gaming and
Books for Babies. This highlights the fluctuations in the Early
Years field of spur of the moment or undependable long term
sustainability.
1
http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/early_childhood/building_blocks.htm?WT.svl=Body
Arcana Solutions Inc.
July 2014
3
Children First
Children First is a member of the Early Years Community Development Institute a network of organizations and initiatives that support the practice of Early Years
community development professionals.
At this time, Children First no longer has a provincial office and is managed and funded
out of regional Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) offices.
“Children First regional initiatives support and promote the healthy
growth and development of young children from birth to six years.
Using a community development approach, local groups work
together to assess, identify and plan for the unique needs of young
children in their community.”
To strengthen Early Years services in communities across BC, Children First initiatives
collaborate with other Early Years community partners such as:



Human Early Learning Partnership
Success by 6®
Community Action Program for Children
Success by 6
Currently, Success by 6 has a provincial office with two managers for Success by 6 and
Aboriginal Success by 6.
Their website2 describes Success by 6 community
development activities as:
“Using research, each community develops a strategic plan and
identifies priority areas of focus to work on collaboratively.
In
addition to approving funds for local Early Years programs and
projects, the local Early Years teams (councils) carry out a wide range
of activities. Each community is unique and so are the activities and
priorities they work on.”
2
http://www.successby6bc.ca/what-we-do
Arcana Solutions Inc.
July 2014
4
They go on to include examples of such activities:







Gathering local research
Developing public awareness campaigns
Holding local health fairs
Developing Aboriginal language and culture resources
Creating a resource directory of Early Years services
Planning Aboriginal cultural events
Developing new playgrounds or community Early Years service hubs
Rural/Urban ECD Coordination
The Interior has 42 community Early Years Tables. The larger cities are Kamloops and
Kelowna while the minor centers include Vernon, Salmon Arm, Cranbrook, Williams
Lake and Nelson with the remainder being small rural communities. Coordinating the
Interior Region of MCFD is assigned to an Early Childhood Development/Children and
Youth with Special Needs Community Developer (ECD/CYSN).
Diverse Funding Mechanisms and Models
Within the Interior Region of BC, there are various models that have sprung from
Success by 6 and Children First initiatives. Originally, Kamloops received a large amount
of funding from Children First and therefore had the advantage of taking a lead position
on Early Years related community development projects and programs.
The Children First funding was redistributed across the region and more communities
had the opportunity to access these funds. Many of the Children First funds came into
communities after they were already receiving Success by 6 funds from the tri-party
agreement with Credit Unions, United Ways and MCFD.
The introduction of these funds came with distinct and non compatible boundaries:



Strong Start Centers - Via the Ministry of Education and based on school districts
Success by 6 - Based on the United Way catchment areas.
Children First and Building Blocks - Based on the sub-regional MCFD boundaries.
Using a similar model, CAPC Coalitions formed across BC. Within BC, there are 22 CAPC
Coalitions that consist of one host agency and a minimum of three coalition partners.
In the Interior Region there are 6 CAPC coalitions.
Diverse funding mechanisms and models have resulted in the development of Early
Years teams throughout the Interior Region. Sub-regional Early Years coordinators can
be found in North Okanagan Columbia Shuswap, Thompson/Cariboo, West Kootenay,
East Kootenay, Central Okanagan, and South Okanagan. There are also regional
Aboriginal coordinators in the Okanagan/Splatsin Territory, the First Nations Friendship
Arcana Solutions Inc.
July 2014
5
Centre in Vernon and the CATCH in Kelowna. Each regional coordinator is hired through
an Early Years Table and either contracts or is employed by one of the Early Years nonprofit partners. They are typically funded by Success by 6, Children First and/or Building
Blocks.
Funding Mechanisms Drive Frameworks for
Representation and Partnering
One framework adopted by the larger centers was to gather representation from the
outlying rural communities to join in as regional partners to support decision making
about Early Years funding and to provide a more shared regional direction.
Other models allow for money allocation to rural communities to be completely
autonomous in nature. In one model, the larger center held all of the funds and
initiated educational training for smaller rural communities on building capacity so they
could achieve their own goals from within the communities’ strengths and abilities.
Under a federal funder, the CAPC Coalition model is more formal, where one agency
agrees to be the host of the contribution agreement and enters third party agreements
with other non-profit agencies to deliver specific programming. In our region, the CAPC
model sustained 20 years of community and group decision making, evaluation and
program design. The CAPC contracts have recently been renewed until March 31, 2017.
Issues are so diverse when looking at community to community and model to model,
the question rises about what is equity funding and what is equal funding. Equal
funding formulas divide the sum of money equally between each community and do not
consider population, location, current assets or local issues. Equity funding allows for
considerations; rural/urban, capacities to coordinate and expand services, and barriers
to service are just a few examples. Historically, communities have been able to decide
on this question although it’s quite often the biggest challenge when it comes to
decisions and directions for strategic planning.
Arcana Solutions Inc.
July 2014
6
Funders of Short-Term Initiatives Drive Early Years
Strategic Planning
Success by 6 and Children First have asked for Early Years Tables to create strategic
plans that include multiple partners. Of the 42 communities in the Interior Region, all
Early Years Tables have created an Early Years community strategic plan. In many
cases, they are working on annual strategic plan reviews. This gives the tables the
opportunity to include newer EDI results, consider any change in local economic factors,
respond to their evaluations, and to invite new members to the table. For example, in
the East Kootenay region, all 7 communities have their own plan that reflects their local
goals and objectives. In the West Kootenay region there are 8 Early Years Tables. Early
Years community strategic plans are the foundation for moving communities forward to
meet the needs of families and young children.
Children First has more of a capacity and community development lens in their
approach to funding. Although not all communities had Children First funding when it
was first distributed through the regional MCFD offices; it was meant to raise the
awareness of Early Childhood Development using a population and public health
approach and not to be used for direct services, unless the capacity was limited.
Success by 6 followed Children First funding and was parceled into strategic funds,
Implementation funds and marketing funds. Over time, every community in the
Interior Region had money directed to capacity, coordination and community
development.
Some communities receive both Success by 6 and Children First funding. Others receive
only one or the other. For example: North/South Shuswap only receives Success by 6,
Sicamous only receives Children First, where Revelstoke and Salmon Arm receive both.
Many Aboriginal communities receive only Aboriginal Success by 6 funds.
Some programs are driven by Provincial and Federal government ministry mandates.
CAPC (Public Health Agency of Canada) and Strong Start (Provincial Ministry of
Education) have program-specific service mandates. Building Blocks has its own
parameters defined by regional MCFD offices. Ministry mandates are often developed
without reference to local or regional priorities, needs or plans.
Should Federal and Provincial funding decisions be based on capacity, population,
strategic direction, the neediest or the universal, the geographical location, the EDI or
the socio-economic factors? The Interior Region communities were not asked this
question. Funders of Early Years programs and services tend to direct funding in ways
that meet the government’s mandates, policies and boundaries and not necessarily the
community strategic plan.
Arcana Solutions Inc.
July 2014
7
Looking at BC on the map, it’s easy to determine the large Interior Region’s population
centers and the health region that they fall within Interior Health borders. Now
consider the school district boundaries and where communities lie within these borders.
Then let’s overlay this with the MCFD service area regions and the Aboriginal MCFD
regions. Considering Health, Education and Child and Family Development are key
Provincial ministries that serve families, it’s very confusing for folks such as Early Years
teams at the Grass Roots level.
When Early Years teams are developing plans with their community, particularly in rural
or isolated communities, the challenges are enormous. For the Early Years team to
create an asset map for Early Year’s services when there are multiple boundaries,
ministry structures, diverse policy, procedure and decision making protocols, and
Aboriginal culture and knowledge, and sustainability at stake; the difficult questions
arise about how to support rural communities in their Early Years goals.
During the past five years, funders have developed online data sets and maps that
describe their service locations and populations in relation to some of their mandates.
For example:








BC Stats - Health
CAPC
Success by 6 – Your Community
Family Resource Planning
Early Learning
EYCDI
BC Stats – Socio-Economic Profile
Strong Start BC
Arcana Solutions Inc.
July 2014
8
Community ECD Teams
Where does Early Years community money come
from?
In this example there is funding for the North Okanagan Columbia Shuswap Early Years
Coordinator and then each of the 11 communities within this region also receives some
money and coordination at the local level.
Early Years teams are funded to hire a coordinator who helps organize and implement
the work to achieve objectives of the strategic plans. Funding for coordinators and
some Early Years Team initiatives is derived from the following sources:




Children First Funding – Golden, Revelstoke, Sicamous, Salmon Arm, Enderby,
Vernon and Lumby.
Success by 6 Funding - Golden, Revelstoke, Salmon Arm, North South Shuswap,
Enderby, Armstrong, Vernon, Lumby, Cherryville, and Falkland.
Aboriginal Success by 6 funding - Friendship Centre, the Splatsin Teaching Centre
and the Okanagan Daycare.
Building Blocks Funding - Enderby, Salmon Arm, Sicamous, North/South
Shuswap, and in Vernon to the North Okanagan Early Years Table for distribution
(Vernon, Armstrong, Falkland, Lumby and Cherryville).
The North Okanagan Columbia Shuswap funding:



Children First: $206,800.00
Success by 6 : 124,248.00
Building Blocks: 170,256.00
Grand total for 11 communities: $ 501,304.00
Local Government Structure and Tax Base
Overall, the involvement of local governments has been generous through the
movements of the community development phases of Success by 6 and Children First.
Communities have co-created Children’s Charters, Children’s Champions and Family
Friendly Business Awards as well as many other community event partnerships and
supports.
Looking through a funding lens, the smaller municipalities and regional districts have
limited availability of tax based funds to cover initiatives beyond infrastructure,
economic development and neighbourhood planning for bylaws and policy. This
Arcana Solutions Inc.
July 2014
9
prohibits the rural communities from the support of funding from local governments.
For example; a tax increase of 1% in Enderby equates to $10,000.00 annually.
The larger centers have much more access to municipal discretionary funds through
taxes. For Aboriginal communities, the discretionary funds are even tighter with some
Aboriginal reserves only having a population of 300 or less.
Local Community Granting Organizations
Each local granting and charity organizations has played a part in the success of Early
Years projects. For example, there are the United Ways, Salvation Army, Rotary, Lions,
Shriners, Thrift Shops, IODE, Army and Navy, Women’s’ Institute and many more.
These organizations have contributed to local Early Years efforts for many years. They
have the ability to use discretionary funds to support local causes. They can also apply
to gaming funds to indirectly benefit local social agencies. The rural communities have
a definite advantage to these funds since there is less competition.
Community Investment: Fundraising and Donations
All fundraising or/and friend-raising takes time. It takes time to build the concept,
develop the partnerships, implement the strategy and acknowledge the persons
involved. That being said, community fundraising has a higher impact than just bringing
in new-found funds and resources. Community development work includes raising
awareness of the issues and engaging people in the community in a less typical manner.
Often, this type of work introduces the importance of the Early Years issues to people
who wouldn’t have considered this as part of their responsibility. If Early Years imply
only families raising preschool aged children, then a large percentage of the population
would not be included. When a community fundraiser or event is hosted, then it invites
everyone to be responsible for their youngest citizens.
Fundraisers can partner with diverse representatives in the community, such as schools,
government, interior health, and businesses. These partnerships can be nurtured
during the event leading to long term relationships which can lead to access of new
resources and informational/educational avenues that are an asset to Early Years
community tables.
Early Years teams do not have a legal structure (Society or Charitable status) which is
often a barrier to be able to garner donations and corporate support.
Fundraising and obtaining donations are a necessary part of the work of Early Years
teams. Priority setting on an annual basis determines the amount of time, money and
energy to be spent on fundraising.
The success of this approach depends on the
capacity of the team and the interest of the community.
Arcana Solutions Inc.
July 2014
10
The Importance of Early Years through Marketing
and Promotions
The key to marketing and promotion is to keep on telling the stories, and relaying the
importance of the work.
Rural newspapers are an excellent source of marketing as well as local Chamber of
Commerce. Find a champion, who can lead the cause and look for advice from others
in the industry. Early Years coordinators can also piggy back onto other events by
showcasing their work at informational booths and family friendly areas.
The Interior Regional ECD/CYSN has been working with community and the Health
Authority, School Districts and local MCFD Community Service Managers to connect
local issues with government bodies.
The Early Years Community Development
Institute provides supports, networks, education and a voice for Early Years
Coordinators.
The current communication structure allows for MLA’s to represent the community or
local mayor and council at UBCM conferences. The other ways to advocate are through
the provincial office of Success by 6 or by writing letters or making appointments with
the Ministers.
The difficulty with this model is the vastness of the region and the time needed for Early
Years importance through marketing and promotion.
Arcana Solutions Inc.
July 2014
11
Fracturing
Despite the significant collaborative and innovative work of
the Early Years teams there are challenges created by
Fractured Systemic problems. The following section will
address the fractures that Early Years teams work within but
have very little power to change (Macro level).
Fracturing: Social Environment
Fracturing is caused by multiple funders in several jurisdictions attempting to address
part of a social problem or concern. The social environment is the basis of community
development where people are caring about people. Fracturing causes social
environments that can hinder rather than improve outcomes. When funders are
fracturing the social environment it becomes very difficult for families to access services
in a planned way.
The following examples illustrate the effects fracturing on social environments are: long
wait lists for speech and language pathologists, extensive (and expensive) out of town
travel for specialists, and immense challenges to navigating the systems; i.e. where to
go, who to call and what steps need to be taken. Early Years Teams are trying to ensure
that local families have local access to services/programs.
Fracturing: Geographic
This project has found that the geography defined as the jurisdiction of each funder also
causes fractures in the services because these boundaries impede understanding of
where services are available. For example, in the Shuswap; South Shuswap is
considered a service area covered by Salmon Arm, but the North Shuswap (from Squilax
Bridge onwards) is part of Kamloops service area. Interior Health’s boundary runs right
down the middle of the lake as does the MCFD boundary, but the North Shuswap is still
part of School District #83.
Fracturing: Distribution of Resources
Systems for directing funding into communities can also cause fracturing. Grants or
“one time only” funding diverts the Early Years team’s attention from their strategic
community plan to an opportunity to benefit their community in ways that meet the
mandate of the funder. In some communities, this approach is referred to as “The
Carrot” approach. When this becomes a trend in funding, it is referred to as “A field of
Carrots” or “a bird-feeder”.
Arcana Solutions Inc.
July 2014
12
Fracturing from funding policies is also accomplished by providing yearly rather than
long-term or ongoing funding. This hampers long-term planning by Early Years teams
because there is reduced hope of achieving long-term goals. In addition, for families, it
causes uncertainty in the stability of programs and services in their community. For
example: popular programs such as Roots of Empathy, Mother Goose and Nobody’s
Perfect often rely on one time funding grants as they are not thought of as “essential”
services. These valuable, evidence based programs would be important to stabilize in
community settings.
Competition for budgets is not uncommon in the Early Years world. When money is the
subject on the table’s agenda, even with our collaborative “hats” each person at the
table will have a bias on how the funds could be spent. This can cause fracturing at the
table if there are no clear ways to determine the priorities. Even when using the
strategic plans, EDI, evaluation, and other reliable processes, there is clearly a lack of
funding and competition arises. If working together was possible at every level of
government and other philanthropists of Early Years and not left to the local levels to
decide, the system of Early Years funding distribution would be more effective.
Fracturing: Outreach
The “Injected Service Delivery Fracture” is caused by large organizations that have
successfully provided a service in an urban setting, imposing that service to a rural
community/region and calling it “outreach”. Injected service delivery is a model. It
includes approaches such as: outreach, fast tracked services (such as immunizations),
service “fads” and favorites and crisis interventions.
For example: An agency that is situated in a large center will often write into their
contracts with funders that they will provide “outreach” services to surrounding rural
communities. If the service demand is high in the larger center itself, then the outreach
piece becomes less and less of a priority to the outreach worker. Since the agency
holding the contract is situated in the larger center, the service is more visible to the
community and for referral avenues. If the host agency is providing outreach, it
depends on how many communities it is expecting to reach. If we choose Salmon Arm,
they are often expected to provide services for the entire Shuswap. The Shuswap
encompasses the area around Shuswap Lake, from Falkland north to Seymour Arm, and
from near Chase to east of Sicamous. It’s almost an impossible feat to provide quality
services to such a large region.
It is not unusual, for the outreach provider to expect the rural agency to provide the
referrals and the follow up day to day support of the client without paying any of the
regional contracts funds to the rural agency to pay rent, utilities, insurance, audits and
operational expenses. Therefore the rural agency is accepting the services for its
community members on good will only. This jeopardizes the rural agencies’ capacity to
be accessible for the clients because of overhead costs not included into regional
contracts
Arcana Solutions Inc.
July 2014
13
Injection service delivery is often used to provide programs and services to outlying
rural areas or what is seen as underdeveloped local capacity. For example: Enderby has
a population of approximately 2900 people. Their EDI scores are at 45% (when the
provincial average is 30%). Enderby receives small amounts of money from Success by
6, Children First, CAPC and Building Blocks.
They have 14 diverse members at their ECD table and the coordinator is supported by,
and networks with, the North Okanagan Columbia Shuswap Regional coordinator and
the 8 ECD table coordinators in this region. When Enderby Early Years Committee was
developing their strategic plan, they had to explore the number of injection service
delivery resources that were coming to Enderby from other larger community centers
(Vernon and Salmon Arm).
Services from Salmon Arm provided are: Infant Development Programs, Supported
Childhood Development, Child Care Resource and Referral, and Family Support, Fetal
Alcohol Spectrum Disorder key worker, Mental Health services, Drug and Alcohol
counselors and Child and Youth Mental Health counselors, Youth at risk (including young
expecting women and mothers) and Occupational Therapy, Speech and Language and
Physical Therapy.
Vernon provides the Food Bank, Dental nurses, and the Street nurse. Enderby lies
within School District #83 (Shuswap) but lands with the North Okanagan Regional
District for rural areas outlying from the City of Enderby. All of these services report
back to their local agency or body and do not offer Enderby and District Community
Resource Centre access to the money that could be directed locally through their Early
Years team addressing the local needs.
Unfortunately, injection service delivery can leave small communities scrambling to
apply for small pots of funding through grants and foundations that may or may not be
designed to address the local need, but rather a way for keeping their doors open so
injection service delivery can be located for local families. Another result of this model
is instead of local service delivery, rural agencies accept money for a service that the
government thought they needed but wasn’t a priority from the communities eyes.
Arcana Solutions Inc.
July 2014
14
This project has identified the following fractures:
1. Overlay of multiple boundaries that various funders establish for communities
and regions
2. Funding structures are inconsistent
3. Short- term contracts, grants and time-limited funding opportunities are geared
towards the funder’s long term planning
4. Annual funding of programs and services rather than ongoing/long-term funding
5. Cross cultural understandings and agreements between Aboriginal and nonAboriginal services, programs, projects and resources planning
6. Competition for the budget allowances for programs
7. Sending outreach programs as injection service delivery to communities needing
other types of services
Difficulties also result from geographic, economic and other macro-systemic changes
that are unalterable. For example:




Unique geography situations – Revelstoke and Golden, Valemont, Nelson, Trail
Castlegar, Windermere and Creston Valley , East Kootenays especially the Elk
Valley
Economic downturns and uncertainties
Climate change
Disasters
These in turn can have social implications such as:




Shortage of doctors in rural communities
Higher unemployment rates in rural communities
Increased cost of travel, particularly in the North
Lack of sustainability of communities (eg. Tumbler Ridge)
Fracturing is what happens when the big organizations and government bodies don’t
coordinate their mandates, properly fund their mandates or work jointly together in
ways they have promised towards localized service improvements. Fractures are visible
by local Early Years Tables and other social service organizations who are observers of
social change at the macro level. Fractures in the Early Years field are beyond the work
of the Early Years community, at this time.
Arcana Solutions Inc.
July 2014
15
Barriers
Due to the ability for Early Years teams to be nimble and
flexible, barriers are challenges that can be addressed at the
local level (Micro level).
Barriers: Social Environment
In every community there are barriers to change. These can be local bylaws, social
norms, community awareness, access problems and other impediments to a community
moving forward using a strategic planning approach.
A significant improvement resulting from the work of the Early Years teams are the
reduction of barriers to service for families. By collaborating at tables with multisectorial membership, the teams have put careful plans into place that provide clear
pathways for families to services. They have introduced HUB models of service,
streamlined intakes, filled the gaps in waitlists with stepping stone programs, pieced
together funding avenues to create richer programs and have worked hard on wrap
around service delivery models.
Early Years teams in Kimberley and Creston developed local strategic plans but
encountered barriers to implementing these plans. Both strategic plans identified the
need for a location of a service hub for families with young children. In these
communities, the Early Years teams partnered with their local school district,
government and education services to use closed schools. They overcame the barrier
of lack of suitable space through vision, planning, partnering and fund-raising. As a
result, programs and services for families and children increased in each community.
In most communities, monthly calendars or directories are produced which is the results
of ending overlap and duplication of programs. Early Years Tables have co-hosted
public events, fundraising, and training and co-located services to save money and
reduce barriers.
At the community level, barriers can be addressed. Early Years teams look at days of
the week to offer programs, time of the day, frequency, availability of specialists,
transportation (especially for rural and northern communities), weather and play
opportunities, childcare and employment linkages, and food security.
The Early Years teams also consider cultural programs that suit marginalized families,
families who are at risk and poverty issues that include free specialized programs.
Barriers are movable mountains at the local level.
Arcana Solutions Inc.
July 2014
16
Barriers and Fractures
Fractures cannot be addressed at the Interior Region level. However, they are the
systems, policies and processes that the Early Years Tables must work within.
Fracture Definition:
1. The result of breaking something : a crack or break; especially : a broken bone
2. To cause great disorder in.3
Fracture Synonyms:
Break up, Bust, Distintegrate, Dismember, Disrupt, Break, Fragment, Rive
Barriers Definition:
Something immaterial that impedes or separates: Example: He argues
that regulations should not be viewed as barriers to progress.4
Fracturing is working in silos of support at the Macro level when the Early Years teams
are working towards one focus – the future through prevention, early intervention and
support at the Micro level.
3
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fracturing
4
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barriers
Arcana Solutions Inc.
July 2014
17
Addressing Fractures and Barriers
The challenge is to develop the ability to find funding approach systems that respect the
assistance of Early Years Coordinators when it comes to addressing fracturing and
barriers that impede early childhood development. This project heard a number of
suggestions for improvement of funding distribution to support Interior Region’s
families and young children:
1. A think tank needs to be offered for the Premier, Ministry, local regional
districts, MLA, local government, Chief and Council, and the “experts” of the
Early Years coordinators to discuss a better way of making change.
2. The whole concept of slowing things down to find solutions and then moving
forward is both prudent and realistic. The current ‘Band-Aid’ approach is clearly
not working and is becoming predominant in rural, isolated, and Aboriginal
communities. One-off contracts, injected service delivery, fracturing and barrier
fighting is not making a difference. A Long-term, dependable funding system is
needed.
3. Look at international models, such as Sweden where child development
outcomes are substantially greater than BC.
Consider options to change
overarching decisions that impact families that can be borrowed from Sweden’s
successes.
4. Focus less on economic development until families are stabilized and EDI scores
are lowered. Before we concentrate on larger ice rinks, bigger cultural centers,
more beautification of down town sidewalks, and big cost luxuries, let’s focus on
our next citizens who will need the health, education and security to lead BC.
Currently, Interior Region communities work out formulas that are most likely based on
barrier issues, rather than moving forward to prevention and support. In the Interior
Region, our research clearly shows that the current efforts of our underfunded Early
Years teams are not able to make the changes in our social environments necessary to
ensure that all young children entering kindergarten are developmentally ready to learn.
Our child poverty rate continues to negatively affect child health.








Use development models rather than relief models
Develop an Early Years system
Use an asset based approach
Use a long term vision to change and development
Offer proposals that are only open to communities with populations under 5000
5 year funding awards based on a 5 year work plan
Requests for proposals for communities that do not have access to large local
funders (Columbia Basin Trust, Northern BC Trust, etc.)
Minimum amount of core funding available to Family and Community Resource
Centres (or societies) that service large regional districts with multiple
communities with small population
Arcana Solutions Inc.
July 2014
18



Look at the jurisdictions of the trusts around the province and ensure that each
trust has a mandate of social responsibility to fund social programs – Southern
Interior Development Trust is only economic development
Provide flexibility of some funding, so Early Years teams are not locked into
specific “must do” or prescribed actions
School Districts get $20 per child ; Early Years tables should be given $20 for each
preschool child in their community and surrounding districts
Local Early Years Planning and Implementation
Local Early Years teams are using community research, knowledge of community
membership, meeting regularly to do service plans and participating in evaluations.
They are responsible for the increase of early childhood services in their community.
They are the keepers of local knowledge about the needs of families and children,
especially in rural communities.
Early Years teams identify needs and build grass roots programs. They are flexible in
responding to the recipients of the program. They plan using research and other
important data and they implement accordingly to the community and the recipients of
the program/resource or service.
Community Early Years teams that are planning in a fracturing environment tend to:



Be under-funded and use a lot of volunteer time to accomplish goals
Limit the team by the amount of time the coordinator is paid to do the work
Focus on immediate short term needs, such as small projects rather than
structural and organizational changes that better meet their needs
Community Early Years teams that are planning in a barrier environment tend to:


Attract local champions to draw into the Early Years planning and
implementation of strategies
Draw from local relationships for resources and in kind supports
As an example: The Early Years Team can’t respond to a Requests for Proposals for
Childcare Capital grants if the grant specifies that the facility be located in a school,
when the school: a) doesn’t have the space, b) isn’t willing, c) doesn’t have the capacity
or d) has rented out the unused space in schools threatened to shut down due to low
enrollment.
The Early Years team can provide an updated playground to an existing Childcare by
raising local awareness, finding a champion, soliciting donations of materials and
manpower.
The capacity to solve the underlying problems of limited or no childcare can’t be
attempted in our region, by our Early Years Teams, due to fracturing.
Arcana Solutions Inc.
July 2014
19
Local Early Years teams are somewhat frustrated and disheartened, because they
understand the needs of their communities but lack the capacity to address those
needs.
This project has identified the following themes across our Interior Region that are
impeding the provision of needed ECD services and programs in our communities.
Shared concerns of Early Years planning teams:
1. There are many funded programs: Strong Start, Children First, Success by 6,
Building Blocks, IDP, AIDP, SCD, ASCD, FASD key workers, O/T, P/T, SLP, Public
Health Nurses, CCRR, and many more; Nobody’s Perfect, Mother Goose, CAPC
programs, CPNP , AHS and so on.
2. All funded programs have budget limitations
3. Most people in the Early Years field are working to their maximum – including
social workers, health care professionals, and ECD Coordinators.
4. Our EDI scores provincially are worsening, our young children need more
opportunities for healthy development
5. Mental health of children is a growing concern
6. More children are being diagnosed with developmental problems
7. We continue to be the province in Canada with the highest child poverty rates
8. Lack of child care has been an ongoing family and community issue
9. Parents need more guidance and support in their roles as parents
Conclusion
This project review has identified three important questions whose answers can address
some of the fracturing concerns:
1. Can we revamp the structures of the boundaries and systems of the provincial
frameworks to streamline planning at the community level?
2. Can we actually change the budget allocations that are currently directed
towards regions and communities to increase our collective impact?
3. Is it possible to negotiate 3-5 year contracts to communities engaged in longterm planning?
Currently, the main sustainability pieces of the Early Years community development
field depends on continued funding from Success by 6, Children First, Building Blocks
and other local and provincial grants.
It is essential that Early Years community developers include a major component in their
planning that looks at long term funding sources and sustainability. Important issues
are: partnerships, streamlined service delivery funded through multiple agencies
budgets; ensuring that local strategic planning is in line with provincial Ministrys’ goals
and priorities; ongoing evaluation that reduces gaps and waitlists and prevents overlap
rather than wrap around services; and promotion of the importance of investment of
Arcana Solutions Inc.
July 2014
20
young children.
sustainability.
Strategic planning also needs to include exit strategies failing
Early Years Tables have addressed the following barriers through careful planning,
research and local knowledge:





Access to programs
Partnership development,
Programs/services and sustainability,
Recognition
Evaluation
Fracturing causes impotency for change at the local level by an Early Years system
designed for change at the local level. Along with this lack of ability to address local
needs of children and families comes discouragement and negativity regarding the
ability of the community to provide needed supports and services.
There is much advancement in communication between the Early Years teams and the
Ministries representing children and families in the Interior Region. The Early Years
teams are continually refining the community priorities and addressing local needs. The
Government of BC continues to fund this incredible progressive work through its
initiatives and despite various “fractures” in the system is continuing to advance Early
Childhood Development Outcomes.
Acknowledgements
Thank you to the Vancouver Foundation who had the foresight to fund this important
initiative. The work of the Early Years Tables, the Interior Region has vastly contributed
to the health and welfare of children and families through their careful planning and
implementation of programs, services and resources.
This report is best viewed online as it contains live links to valuable research. The report
is available at www.shuswapchildrens.ca under Community, ECD, Reports and
Information. The report is intended to be used widely through Early Years networks to
aid in reducing barriers and fractures within the systems which are obstacles to moving
forward.
Thank you to the Shuswap
Association for hosting the project.
Arcana Solutions Inc.
July 2014
Children’s
21