Social Policy in Ontario

46 CAS agencies, 46 standards of care for vulnerable children

Posted on April 24, 2015 in Child & Family Delivery System

—

TheStar.com – News/Canada – Star analysis reveals that youth in care in Ontario are treated differently depending on where they happen to live and which children’s aid society is responsible for them.
Apr 24 2015.   By: Jim Rankin Feature reporter, Sandro Contenta News, Laurie Monsebraaten Social justice reporter, Andrew Bailey Hidy Ng Data Analysts

An unprecedented analysis of data from Ontario’s children’s aid societies has revealed “striking” differences in the way vulnerable youth are treated across the province.

Whether children are placed with relatives or in group homes, how likely they are to rejoin their families after being placed in care, and even whether they receive regular dental checkups are all influenced by where they happen to live and which of the province’s 46 children’s aid societies takes them into care.

The stark differences are revealed in a Toronto Star analysis that for the first time compares the performance of these privately run, non-profit agencies. Drawn from budget reports and case audits, the numbers raise the veil on a secretive and unaccountable system that struggles to keep tabs on how well its youth are faring.

A child removed from a family in Toronto, for example, is more likely to end up in a group home than one from Brantford, where a much higher percentage of children are placed with kin. And a Crown ward in an aboriginal community in northern Ontario will change foster homes or group homes far more often than one in Peel region.

The differences are wide-ranging — from the way societies draft mandatory “plans of care,” to the number of times children are returned to their parents only to bounce back into care, raising questions about whether some are being returned to unsafe environments.

For the five years ending in 2012-13, the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto opened 17,373 new cases but reopened 18,805. During that same period, the Jewish Family & Child service of Toronto opened 2,523 cases and reopened only 158.

Even annual medical and dental checkups — mandated by the provincial government — depend on which society cares for a child. While all Crown wards in Muskoka received dental checkups in 2013, for example, almost a third did not get such care in the area served by the Bruce Grey children’s aid society, near Georgian Bay.

Raymond Lemay, who spent three decades as the highly respected executive director of the Prescott-Russell society east of Ottawa, describes the differences revealed by the Star as “quite striking.”

“Why do we have to wait for the Toronto Star to produce such comparative data?” Lemay asks, adding that the child protection system is notorious for disregarding available data on how children in its care are doing.

Lemay, who retired last summer, cautions against using the findings to set up a standardized, one-size-fits-all system. They should instead spark research on why the differences between regions exist and which practices lead to the best results for children, youth and families, he said.

“Why are we not now actively looking at such data?” he asks in an email to the Star. “Why are senior executives not brought together in the same room to discuss what these numbers mean? Right now, we don’t have a firm grasp on what works, or even have agreement on desired outcomes. We can not even begin to have such discussions unless and until we start comparing data.”

Factors that can affect how a society functions and how children are treated include geography — vast and remote catchment areas can impede access to services — as well as staffing levels, budget cutbacks, availability of foster homes and demographic differences, such as the level of poverty in a society’s district, which can result in more families under stress and more investigations.

The data comes from budget reports sent to the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, detailing how each society spends government funds, and from ministry case audits of children who have been in the care of foster parents or group homes for two or more years. Reports and audits dating back five years were obtained by the Star through freedom of information requests.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparing the performance of Ontario’s 46 agencies

In Ontario, children’s aid societies (CAS) are private, non-profit corporations regulated by the government. A Toronto Star data analysis revealed the differences in how the 46 societies care for children.

Explore the maps along the tabs on the top, to see an atlas of differences in how children’s aid societies do their job. Click on each CAS to reveal a pop up window with statistics on the performance indicator.

Link to online map: < http://arcg.is/1HZLgaZ >

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The provincial government, which spends $1.5 billion annually funding children’s aid societies, has collected the information for decades but doesn’t use it to compare performance.

The Star sent a 34-page analysis of the findings to the ministry March 25, and asked for an interview with minister Tracy MacCharles. It was not granted. The ministry instead issued a one paragraph statement Thursday defending the system as giving children “every opportunity to reach their full potential regardless of where they live or come into care.”

In 2012, a government-appointed commission concluded the child protection system does not provide value for money, and described services as “fragmented, confused and siloed.” Its recommendations triggered important reforms, including a centralized computer system that standardizes the inconsistent data agencies now collect. The Liberal government promises to eventually compare each agency’s performance to benchmarks. But the slow-moving reforms are many years from being complete.

Meanwhile, children and families — many losing their kids because of neglect caused by poverty, mental health struggles or addiction — are paying the price.

For example, both the province and children’s aid societies favour placement with kin — relatives or community members who have ties to the child — as a way to reduce the stress of being taken from parents, while increasing the chance of eventually reuniting families. For aboriginal children, it’s called customary care.

At the Algoma society, based in Sault Ste. Marie, 30 per cent of children, on average, were placed with kin during a five-year period ending in 2013. Next door at the Sudbury and Manitoulin society, however, the number drops to 18 per cent. It’s even lower at the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto — 11 per cent — and less than 7 per cent at Dufferin Child and Family Services, just northwest of the city.

Likewise, some agencies carefully consider mandatory questionnaires detailing a child’s history when deciding on his or her plan of care; others don’t. Some put a significant number of children in group homes, while others almost completely avoid doing so.

Some agencies also investigate families far more than others. York, Halton and Durham regions investigate six or seven families for every one they end up serving on an ongoing basis. Others, such as the society that includes Timmins, have a two-to-one ratio. Ontario’s black communities, which see a disproportionate number of their children taken into care, have long complained that cultural biases have made black families needless targets of investigations.

The Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies, the lobby group representing the agencies, argues the budget numbers do not capture all the elements needed to judge performance. Still, “we think there are crucial issues raised by the data that should be addressed,” said Caroline Newton, the group’s spokesperson.

The group’s executive director, Mary Ballantyne, said agencies and the ministry should work to figure out the story behind the numbers, such as why so many protection cases are being closed and later reopened.
Once benchmarks for children in care are set by the ministry, whether local agencies use different practices to achieve those standards will not matter, she added.

Agencies have finally recognized they need to be “much more transparent,” Ballantyne said, crediting the Star’s ongoing investigation with helping make that happen.

__________________________________

THE SYSTEM AT A GLANCE
BY THE NUMBERS

In Ontario, 46 children’s aid societies are private, non-profit corporations regulated by the government. In a province where even inmates are in publicly run institutions, placing vulnerable children in the care of private corporations is an anomaly rooted in the 1800s, when charities provided services the government did not.

23,300 – Number of children and youth in care in Ontario. Most children removed from their parents are returned within a year, while children in continued need of protection are made Crown wards.

7,000 – Children and youth who were wards of the province, living in foster care or group homes, in 2013-14

1,000 – Children who were on the path to becoming Crown wards in 2013-14

18 – Age at which children leave care if they are not adopted

Source: Ministry of Children and Youth Services/OACAS

The story behind the numbers
Sandro Contenta, Laurie Monsebraaten and Jim Rankin – Staff Reporters

The data used in this Toronto Star analysis comes from budget reports sent to Ontario’s Ministry of Children and Youth Services — detailing how each children’s aid society spends the government’s money — and from government case audits of children who have been in the care of foster parents or group homes for two or more years. Reports and audits dating back five years were obtained by the Star through freedom of information requests. < http://misc.thestar.com/pdfs/2015-04-24-Findings-Package-for-CAS.pdf >

To make comparisons between the 46 individual children’s aid societies, Star journalists consulted with experts on which data points might speak to differences in philosophy and other factors — such as geographic setting and demographics of catchment areas — that would affect how children in care are treated.

Such comparisons have never been made before. The Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies (OACAS) says the data was never collected with such analysis in mind, but there is agreement that this is the best available data to make such comparisons.

The Star shared its preliminary analysis and sought input from the ministry and the OACAS, which in turn shared it with its member societies.

After receiving feedback from the OACAS, a final findings package was prepared and is available at thestar.com.

Due to privacy concerns of the ministry, counts of children who were between 0 and 5 years old were redacted. This has an impact on some calculations. Also, because some of the calculations cover a time period when some societies amalgamated, the total number of societies varies.

< http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/04/24/46-cas-agencies-46-standards-of-care-for-vulnerable-children.html >

Tags: budget, child care, crime prevention, featured, Indigenous, jurisdiction, multiculturalism, poverty, rights, standard of living, youth

This entry was posted on Friday, April 24th, 2015 at 11:41 am and is filed under Child & Family Delivery System. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.