We know that Canada has one of the highest rates of kids in care in the world. What we don’t know may be worse
NationalPost.com – Full Comment
November 2, 2015. Marni Brownell & Neeta McMurtry
What happens to kids who authorities determine can’t live safely with their own parents or caregivers? Thousands of Canadian children are in this situation right now. Many go into foster homes, while others go into other types of out-of-home care on behalf of child welfare agencies. But we don’t know how many, nor do we know how well they are doing.
Why? Canada does not keep reliable national statistics on kids in care, instead relying on provincial reporting. But each province has its own child welfare policy and its own definition of children in care, which may not include other types of out-of-home care, such as care from family relatives (kinship care) or group homes.
This matters, because it is difficult to know what to do — how to improve outcomes for Canadian kids — if we are not keeping track of what is going on. Some analysts say child welfare systems suffer from underfunding, staffing cuts and not enough foster families or resources to support them. But policy makers have a hard time deciding what to fund without statistics to measure possible outcomes. Also, reliable numbers can help provinces compare best practices for child welfare.
Instead, Canada’s foster children story is a patchwork of data and news headlines reporting foster care crises where some children have died while receiving child services.
Here’s what we do know.
Back in 2011, the National Household Survey counted approximately 30,000 foster kids in Canada. This figure is based on a single-day count that does not include children in other types of out-of-home care, such as group care. Also, statisticians caution that this survey is voluntary, which often results in less accurate data from low-responding groups such as aboriginal peoples, new immigrants and low-income families.
In 2007, the Canadian Child Welfare Research Portal reviewed provincial annual reports and counted over 65,000 Canadian children in care on a single day. More recent provincial data tell us that Canada has one of the highest rates of kids in care in the world.
Let’s take Manitoba, which has reliable statistics on the issue. In 2014, Manitoba Family Services reported more than 10,000 children in care. And here’s a fact that should alarm every Canadian: by the age of seven years, 7.5 per cent of all Manitoba children have been placed in care at some point in their lives.
When compared to other countries, Manitoba’s data become even more startling: Manitoba’s rate of out-of-home care for children under 11 years of age was 10 times higher than that of Western Australia. Our rates of care for children during the first year of their lives are higher than Sweden, Western Australia, England, New Zealand, and the U.S.
Manitoba is not alone. Though we can’t do province-to-province direct comparisons because the data measure different things, the total numbers of children are still alarming. In 2013, Association des Centres Jeunesse de Quebec reported 11,250 children in kinship care, foster care and group care. In 2012, the Saskatchewan government reported 6,738 children in out-of-home care.
We also know that not all Canadian children are equally likely to be placed in care. The First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada estimates that aboriginal children comprise 30-40 per cent of kids in care even though aboriginal population is less than five per cent of the total population of Canada.
So why does Canada have so many kids in care?
The answer largely lies in the approach. Canada (as well as the U.S.) favours a “child safety” approach to children’s welfare. This means that if a welfare agency identifies a child at risk, he or she is removed from the home. Child welfare agencies rely on foster homes and other types of placements to provide temporary, day-to-day care for children until the risks of abuse or neglect are resolved. But with so many kids in care, securing quality out-of-home care is a challenge across Canada.
Australia and several European countries take more of a “family welfare” approach. This means that when a child is at risk, the whole family is given intensive home support to try and remove risks while the child stays with the family. Sweden’s child and family well-being policy has made remarkable progress in reducing child poverty and family violence, which are two major risk factors for child welfare.
It’s time we took a dramatic new approach to kids in care and overhauled our system to focus on preventing rather than reacting to child maltreatment. It’s time we had some federal leadership on a national strategy to make sure some of our most vulnerable citizens are not left by the wayside, but instead treated as valued and respected members of our communities.
There’s no greater folly as a nation than wasting the potential of our children. Or worse, putting them at risk.
National Post
Marni Brownell is an expert advisor with EvidenceNetwork.ca, a senior research scientist with the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy (MCHP) and associate professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences, College of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba. Neeta das McMurtry is a freelance writer. She specializes in making academic and scientific writing accessible to broader audiences.
< http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/marni-brownell-neeta-mcmurtry-we-know-that-canada-has-one-of-the-highest-rates-of-kids-in-care-in-the-world-what-we-dont-know-may-be-worse >
Tags: child care, crime prevention, Health, ideology, mental Health, youth
This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2015 at 11:59 am and is filed under Child & Family Policy Context. 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.
2 Responses to “We know that Canada has one of the highest rates of kids in care in the world. What we don’t know may be worse”
|
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
The points made in this article are very compelling and forces people to really think about the pros and cons within our child welfare system. While Canada does have a dominant ‘child safety’ approach, there are still some places that practice a ‘family welfare’ approach. In Ontario, specifically Sudbury, there is a small team of front line workers devoted to family preservation; they go into the homes of at risk families and work with them to minimize risk. The problem lies with how severely understaffed and overworked this section of the agency is; having to cater to the whole district of Sudbury. Considering how successful taking a “family welfare” approach has been in other countries, would it not be tactful for Canada to follow suit? Not to mention the many issues that arise from a ‘child safety’ approach, such as children acting out, being unable to form nurturing bonds, and having a disregard for authority. I think it is obvious, especially from statistics raised in the article, that this intrusive approach does not benefit, but rather hinders, a majority of children in the child welfare system.
The less intrusive ‘family welfare’ approach has a much more desirable outcome. Providing families with the tools and guidance needed to stabilize their homes could have a ripple effect on how these children act in society for future generations. By taking children out of their homes, we are implicitly saying to the parents ‘you are not good enough’ and to the child ‘your family, and quite possibly you, are not suited for society because of your situation’. Instead of reinforcing generations of people ‘not good enough’ it is time to make generations of families and children who strive to be the best they can be. While this desirable approach is in need of federal leadership, child welfare is mandated by the provincial government and funded federally. Understandably, from a liberalistic perspective, this change would be a lengthy process and would not happen to the entire child welfare system. As a result, it would require making changes within the system such as reallocating funds and making family welfare and preservation a key concept. With new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the idea of a ‘dramatic’ new approach might not be just an idea but become a plan for our youth to have the greatest potential; and this starts with advocacy!
I find it bothersome that the need to remove Canadian children from their homes appears to be of importance but that tracking their progress is not. How are the people and agencies that are removing these children aware that the children are safer or “better off” without their families when so many of them fall through the cracks? I am not able to wrap my head around the logic behind removing a child from their home rather than working with the family unit and helping them to access the programs and services that they may require to better them all. How does removing the child(ren) from their home, if not in a dire, life-threatening situation, help anyone but to perhaps stimulate the economy in a twisted way?
By working with the families to solve issues within the home, it can provide stability for the child, be better for their mental health in the present as well as the future, and it can also provide direction and help to the parents. This is an important aspect as many parents may be struggling with issues that they have not been able to deal with, may not have been aware of services available, or sure how to access such services or resources. Countries such as Australia and Sweden have the right idea of taking a family welfare approach. If Canada would take on a family welfare approach as well, we may be able to foresee a decline in both child poverty and family violence just as in Sweden. In order for this to be achieved, all levels of government need to come together to apply a cross-country standard in which each province and territory is on the same page instead of having different rules and regulations carried out by each individual one.
We need to keep in mind that children live what they learn. How can we teach them to be accountable, compassionate and respectful to themselves and others, to not lay blame and become victims of circumstance, and to work together to find solutions rather than walk away from problems, if we continue to just remove them from their families and homes in hopes that the problems go away and not addressing the real needs?