Ministry of Community and
Social Services
Aboriginal Child Welfare Review
Comprehensive Report
Distribution Version
May, 2000
Andrew J. Koster, M.S.W., C.S.W.
Vern Morrisette, M.S.W.
Ruth Roulette, B.S.W.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary and Recommendations p. 6
Part I - Introduction to the Review
1.Backgroundp. 15
2.Considerations
2.1Philosophical and Historical Issuesp. 16
2.2Legislative Contextp. 18
2.3Provincial and Ministry Policies and Initiatives p. 23
2.4Aboriginal Communities in Ontario: An Overviewp. 26
2.5The Larger Contextp. 29
3.Methodology
3.1Program Review Schedulep. 30
3.2Individual Agency Reviewsp. 31
Part II - Agency Structures
1.Agency Histories and Catchment Areas
1.1Tikinagan Family and Children’s Servicesp. 34
1.2Payukotayno: James and Hudson Bay Family Servicesp. 36
1.3Weechi-it-te-win Family Servicesp. 38
1.4Dilicop. 40
1.5Wabaseemoong Family Servicesp. 43
1.6Other Aboriginal Child and Family Service Agenciesp. 46
2.Organizational Structure
2.1Modelsp. 47
2.2Staffingp. 51
2.3Turnover, Morale and Environmentp. 60
Part III - Service Delivery
1.Protection and Safety of Children
1.1Caseload Sizep. 66
1.2Community Environmentp. 68
1.3Service Philosophyp. 73
1.4Traditional/Culturally Appropriate Servicesp. 82
1.5Referrals and Investigationsp. 84
1.6Child Protection Policies in High Suicide Regionsp. 88
1.7Single Point Access for Child Protection and Other
Related Community Programsp. 90
1.8The Family Conferencep. 95
2.Numbers of Children in Care
2.1Reasons for Servicep. 97
2.2Adoptionp.103
2.3Information Systemsp.104
2.4Safehousesp.105
2.5Proposed Changes to the Child and Family
Services Act, 1984p.107
2.6Lack of Other Resourcesp.108
3.Customary Care and Foster Care
3.1Foster Carep.110
3.2Customary Carep.116
3.3Supports to Children in Carep.121
4.Costs to Operate the Services
4.1Travel and Administrationp.123
4.2Outside Paid Institutionsp.130
4.3Cost Efficiencies/Sharing Resourcesp.132
4.4Association of Native Child and Family
Service Agencies in Ontariop.139
4.5Child in Care Costsp.142
5.Accountability and Governance
5.1Policy Development and Board Governancep.149
5.2Community Involvementp.154
5.3Family Services Committeesp.156
5.4Decentralized Modelsp.160
5.5Band Family Services Workersp.164
5.6Trainingp.167
5.7The Role of the Ministry of Community and Social Servicesp.168
5.8Outcomesp.171
6.Future Designations of Aboriginal Child Welfare Agencies p.173
7.Intergovernmental Initiativesp.177
8.Implementation of Reportp.177
Appendices
AThe Terms of Reference for the Aboriginal Child Welfare Review p.179
BConcurrent government initiatives and Provincial
Child Welfare Reform Initiativesp.187
CMethodology for agency reviewsp.195
DBarriers within traditional child welfare practice p.200
ECultural competence p.203
FMCSS requirements for the Aboriginal CAS designation p.204
GAboriginal child welfare workers training needs p.210
Hexpenditures by Aboriginal and non-aboriginal agencies p.213
ISummary of Recommendations p.216
JBibliography p.242
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Ruth Roulette
A Nishbawbe, an executive director, a child welfare professional, a person fluent in many Nishbawbe dialects, a grandmother, a team member committed to the betterment of Aboriginal children, and a person whose personal contacts and established credibility allowed us to enter various regions which otherwise would have been closed to a government review team.
Vern Morrissette
A Nishawbe, a university instructor, a former executive director, a child welfare professional now a private consultant, a team member, and another person who was prepared to confront the status quo in order to help Aboriginal children and families. A person who made personal sacrifices away from his family in order to fulfil his commitment. He provided tremendous support to the other two full time members.
Larry Morrissette
A Nishawbe, a university instructor, a private consultant, a file auditor in all five agencies, and a team member at Dilico. He provided emotional insight into the various community and staff issues that the team was trying to analyse.
Elizabeth Shaw,
MCSS, a policy analyst, and team member who visited various communities at Tikinagan and Weechi-it-te-win and provided an invaluable reference point between what government sponsored programs were designed to accomplish and what they were actually providing in operation. She demonstrated strong commitment to better the lives of Aboriginal children. She provided significant input into the report writing.
Others of Note
Provincial File auditors who helped to conduct the Aboriginal portion of the provincial file review.
MCSS staff from the Northern district who provided input on governance, financial, foster care, and customary care.
Finally, many of the staff in the Children’s Division of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, based at Queens Park in Toronto who provided input and support.
ABORIGINAL CHILD WELFARE REVIEW - COMPREHENSIVE REPORTPAGE 1
Executive Summary and Recommendations
Beginning in October 1997 and ending in June 1998, a team of reviewers visited five designated Aboriginal Agencies in Northern Ontario. Comprising of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal child welfare professionals, the team looked at many facets of the operations. The main purpose was to determine whether Aboriginal children were safe and whether the agencies were complying with the standards of good practice, an Aboriginal perspective, and the expectations that these services would be provided in the most proficient manner.
The project was managed by the Ontario Government, MCSS, and was co-sponsored by the Federal Government who in their financial support for the project was committed to applying the Ontario experience in First Nations ownership with child welfare services to a Canadian perspective.
There were negotiations with First Nations Organizations who represented communities within the catchment areas of each agency. This occurred prior to most of the on-site agency reviews and the results of the individual reviews were shared with the Aboriginal leadership and documented in five individual agency reports submitted to the respective boards of directors.
This Comprehensive Report accumulates the experiences and makes recommendations designed to enhance future Aboriginal Child Welfare Services in Ontario. Many of the recommendations in this final report come from numerous consultations with members of various Aboriginal groups, MCSS employees and representatives of the Federal Government. Much progress and growth has already occurred, but further work and co-ordination is required to enhance the safety of many Aboriginal children in Ontario. Five areas for evaluating the existing child welfare operation were emphasized by the Terms of Reference for the individual reviews and these areas have subsequently been highlighted in the comprehensive review. These include the following:
the protection and safety of the children;
the number of children in care;
the use of customary care;
the costs to operate the services; and,
accountability and governance.(Terms of Reference)
The ministry had identified a number of specific questions for the reviews that relate to the five areas. These are set out in Appendix A of this Report. Additionally, the review was mandated to develop other questions as it saw fit. Once such area proved to be the evaluation of the importance of the child welfare agency’s relationship with the communities that it serves. For this reason it was provided with a separate section in each individual report.
The Purpose of the Comprehensive Report
The terms of reference outlined a number of purposes for both the individual and comprehensive review processes. For the comprehensive report the review outlined the following areas.
help to identify what should be done differently in the future to better protect the children and improve their outcomes;
inform ministry policy development regarding customary care;
identify other areas that need policy development;
explore strategies for making better use of existing resources;
explore alternatives to reduce the dependency on contingency funding;
help to consolidate the lessons learned from the experience; and,
provide input for revisions to the ministry's designation criteria, for future designations. (Terms of Reference)
This Comprehensive Report is intended to provide ideas to contemplate in subsequent discussions with various levels of governments and with other stakeholders. Many of the recommendations enclosed would not only provide better service to Aboriginal children and their families, but would also prove to be cost effective. Many of the current costs such as for children in care, and for transportation, would be reduced if appropriate service models were introduced in some geographical areas.
Every agency in Ontario, Aboriginal or not, has areas that could be improved upon and the process of analysing services, while stressful at times will indeed provide better services to children and families. Some Aboriginal child welfare agencies, will not have to change policies and procedures in many of the areas outlined in this report. However the ideas are presented here in a general manner so that each will at least examine their systems and measure them in regards to these recommendations.
The Findings
Many of the recommendations made in the consolidated report relate directly to those found in the individual reports. Although several agencies were doing well and provided services on a par with non-Aboriginal agencies, in a number of troublesome issues exist in the system as a whole.
The Safety of Children
The results are inconsistent. Three agencies are providing competent services. Two other agencies in the more remote areas of the north were found not providing child safety to a satisfactory degree. Hundreds of children in those areas were found to be at risk as a result. Many child abuse and neglect investigations in both agencies were not completed and minimal casework was provided in hundreds of others. There was little partnership with other service providers and in fact, there was a reluctance to co-operate with the child protection agencies in some communities based upon a fear of what the agency may do. For example, not servicing the child at all, making the situation worse for the child or conversely, or by removing the child through apprehension without full appraisal of the home situation. The preliminary outcomes of the review required extensive intervention by the boards of directors, Aboriginal leadership, and the local offices of MCSS in order to resolve the risk to children and families.
In those two agencies, the centralized model of child welfare impedes the immediacy of the required response to allegations of abuse and neglect. The result is that the time frames for effective intervention will not be met due to the travel restrictions and the diverse geographical areas to be covered which amounts to over one third of Ontario’s land surface.
The review determined that although these two agencies had improved over the first few years of operation there was a gradual decline in the management environment within the organizations that remained undetected by the boards of directors or the government. This lack of awareness was due in part to isolation, management control of agency information and insufficient mechanisms in place to detect service and staff morale problems. At that time the Ministry was intent on providing a consultative role rather than one which exercised constant intervention in the daily operations of the agencies.
The front line and supervisory staff in all five agencies generally presented as committed caring staff. They are the backbone of the organizations yet in the two most northern, isolated agencies, they lacked guidance, support, and insufficient child welfare training.
Aboriginal child welfare agencies require a strong relationship with their communities in order to enhance the safety of children and to help families. Although this is described in detail in other sections, it is a necessity given the community values/ culture and the geographic isolation.
Social conditions existing in particular communities are key factors in the degree of child safety that may be attained regardless of the competence of the child welfare agency. As a result of some community conditions such as violence, solvent abuse, lack of nutrition, and housing shortages necessitating up to 30 people in a two room dwelling, many Aboriginal children are not safe. It was evident that many Aboriginal families in spite of the adverse conditions that many have had to endure in the more Northern, more isolated communities, are providing good parenting.
Accountability and Governance
Leadership style is a crucial indicator of success or failure and it can also impede progress. Those agencies where there was more of a power and control senior administration had more severe morale problems with their staffs, had more concerns raised by individual communities, and lacked the flexibility to respond to client needs. In two of the reviewed agencies, steps were taken to provide enough information for the Boards of Directors and local offices of MCSS to resolve leadership and senior management difficulties which had surfaced through staff interviews and contact with community members.
It is evident that to prevent future difficulties, the boards of Directors require extensive training in order to have the ability to provide appropriate governance of the agencies. The issue is more crucial in the isolated communities since there are no other sources of information besides the senior administration of the agency. For example, less than adequate service can be tolerated when the board erroneously believes that the limitations are the result of government policy.
There should be a renewal of the philosophical base for Aboriginal child welfare since several of the agencies have evolved through management practices into duplicating the former children’s aid societies rather than providing the culturally competent alternatives for which they were formed.
The offices of the grand chiefs are useful resources that have not been utilized enough by the aboriginal child welfare agencies. On one hand they have been used by the agency to limit the intrusion by government but that aside, they can on occasion discourage their intention into the daily practice. The Grand Chiefs in the North now take a more active stance in terms of overseeing competent service now that problems in some have come to light. They are a source of providing future governance for these agencies if an infrastructure can be developed.
There should be more intervention by MCSS into case audits and accountability until such time as there are demonstrated First Nations alternatives to providing quality assurance.
Costs and Potential Savings
Although individual agency issues that related to the appropriateness of certain expenditures have been reported in their reports, there are a number of issues that are contributing to unnecessary costs (let alone poor service to children) that have been
addressed through a variety of recommendations in this comprehensive report. These include the following;
- If the child welfare services to children and families was more proactive and less crisis oriented in all agencies, but especially Tikinagan and Payukotayno, many children could be kept in their own communities rather than come into child welfare care with annualized total savings in the millions of dollars. An Aboriginal child in Ontario is ten times more likely to come into care and part of this reason is due to the centralized model of intervention and the lack of family support when the first risk factors become evident.
- If children already in care had more timely permanency planning, significantly less children would be in care unnecessarily. Not only would this be better for the children and families but it would allow significant portions of the boarding care budget to be reinvested in the system. Many children in both Tikinagan and Payukotayno are perhaps in care where they may ultimately be better off if they were home in their own communities. Only one hundred out of the three hundred in care at Tikinagan remain in their own communities and many have had numerous moves. This may be more detrimental from a human service as well as cost perspective, when the children develop addictions and mental health problems while they are in care and then have great impacts on social service systems after they leave.
- If customary care was removed from the ‘in care’ category, there would be significant savings in worker time to comply with recording and regulations. The time savings could translate into an increased ability to concentrate on child welfare investigations and case management without having to budget for as many additional staff under the funding formula for those agencies which presently employ ‘customary care’ as an ‘in care’ placement option.
- Community-based child welfare services including investigation, case management, and foster care recruitment would save hundreds of thousands of travel expenses incurred by both Tikinagan and Payukotayno in their staff and client budget lines. On-line computer links to the central office would save additional telephone and mail delivery costs as well as providing staff with the ability to do recording and record checks in a timely manner without returning to the central office as is now practised. The cost savings for keeping one child out of care could pay for one community worker for a year. During that period of time, this worker could potentially prevent the admission of dozens of other children into care or find more appropriate local placements. The savings accrued over a five year period would be huge.
- Hundreds of thousands of dollars could be saved in travel and per diem costs and then reinvested in more culturally beneficial local placements if the excessive and often ill-advised use of outside paid institutions in other provinces and in southern Ontario was curtailed.
- There is significant duplication in the development of individual management information systems that should be co-ordinated between all the agencies. There would be savings if all recording and data collection was made consistent and the technological developments shared.
- Four of the five agencies have used the same computer company to install their systems but they do not share the technology or their service adaptation which could lead to the rationalization of certain shared functions such as payroll, statistical collection or a client data base. This becomes more financially prudent as other jurisdictions apply for designation as agencies and more administrative costs need to be taken into consideration.
- If meetings for the Native Association of Child and Family Service Agencies and conferences for staff representatives were held in Thunder Bay instead of Toronto there would be significant cost savings in both travel and accommodations. It would be more efficient use of time since all present Aboriginal child welfare agencies are able to reach Thunder Bay by road or a single plane flight. In addition, all agency retreats and workshops should occur in the local catchment area in order to decrease travel and accommodation costs. On occasion, some agencies with significant numbers of staff have travelled to the United States or to Manitoba for retreats.
- The duplication of consultant’s fees in different agencies to reinvent policy, procedures or program development that is currently in existence elsewhere, is staggering. There would be significant savings to the system in general if all completed reports and policies were shared without cost between present or soon to be designated agencies, upon request, without cost.
- Private consultant/trainers charge a per diem rate that is often significantly higher than trainers paid for under the OACAS training program. Per diems should be renegotiated.
- Aboriginal Justice alternatives were appropriate, would generate significant cost savings in court, legal, and incarceration costs as well as produce long lasting positive effects to the communities in general.
Children in Care
Aboriginal children come into care ten times at ten times the rate than children do in non-Aboriginal CAS agencies based on population served. Payukotayno and Tikinagan now have substantially more children in care than was established prior to the transfer of services from the former Children’s Aid Societies. It is probable that more is known about the risk factors of some children today than was known ten years ago but part of this increase is due to the crisis-orientation approach to the apprehension of children, without appropriate service prior to that situation.