CAS/VAW Regional Working Group

Central West Region *

Summary of Recommendations to MCSS & MCYS

Revisions to CAS/VAW Collaboration Agreements

November 1, 2010

BACKGROUND

The Central West Region CAS/VAW regional working group has been meeting periodically since 2009 to discuss issues of mutual concern, share effective practices, and explore ways in which the current collaboration agreements and existing practices can be improved in order to make the service system more responsive. These activities derive from recommendations from a regional VAW service system strategic planning process led by the Central West Region VAW Forum.

The working group met on October 14, 2010 to consider the questions developed for the provincial consultation processtobe held in late November. The intent was to build upon suggestions and promising practices that have been discussed by this group for a number of months. Several representatives from this working group will be attending the provincial consultations. In addition, the group members felt that it would be beneficial to document the position of the working group and share it in advance of the upcoming provincial meetings with those responsible for the consultation process.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Central West Region CAS/VAW regional working group believes that existing collaboration agreements require a major overhaul in order to become more effective. The current agreements and their focus on separate intersection points reflect the fragmentation experienced within the current system.

It is proposed that we start from the beginning and develop a framework that reflects current practices and policy directions, addresses and provides direction with regard to current issues that impactboth sectors, and ultimately leads to positive outcomes for families. Rather than looking at separate intersection points, it is important to articulate the overarching framework and basic expectations that can lead to more effective collaboration and more responsive practices.

The following are some of the general recommendations in the design of a new collaboration agreement framework that will be more useful and more responsive to the needs of the system, front-line staff, and ultimately and most importantly clients.

  1. There are four basic levels of ‘intersection’ which need to be expanded upon to articulate the roles of all involved and describe all the necessary supportive interventions provided to families by both the CAS and the VAW sectors. At every step, it should be noted that interactions and interventions must take place with both parents/caregivers, as it is no longer acceptable to just work with the non-abusive parent, typically the mother because she is the only one we may have control over:

1)Identification

2)Assessment

3)Service/treatment

4)Resolution/long-term

Further comment on the levels:

Identification and Assessment(Levels 1 and 2), VAW and CAS sectors need to use consistent and effective methods of determining that a child or parent/caregiver is at risk of harm, and whether or not there are any warning signs that indicate the potential for lethality (against a parent/caregiver or child). Recognition that family members are not safe is crucial and doing what is possible to ensure everyone’s safety is paramount.

The tendency of CAS staff (and other community agencies) to refer to, and to work with, the shelter system first and foremost helps to work against the inclusion of Dads in the service plans for families, as the mandate of most shelters does not extend to providing service to men. Some VAW services serve only women and children. It is important for CAS and VAW agencies to have ongoing working relationships with services/agencies that could work with Dads and/or with families.

Service/treatment (Level 3) responds to the violence and the family’s need for help. There is an understanding in VAW and CAS sectors that everyone in the family who is affected by the harm being done (i.e. mom, dad, children) needs support and possibly treatment. Sometimes it is helpful to have the ability to mandate someone into programming, although this is not a guarantee of change. Response to the presence and impact of violence will often include referrals to issue-specific supports, such as trauma-informed counsellors, Partner Abuse Response programs, addiction counselling, mental health support, and various types of support groups.

Resolution/long-term (Level 4) explores future planning for a family, so that ideally, children will (at some point) have safe access to both their parents (if that is possible) and a chance to learn that healing and change are possible, and that violence has no place in a family and is not a way to solve problems.

  1. Services and systems remain compartmentalized based on the perspective of agencies which is often illogical for clients. It is important to begin to move from often a single focus on compliance and expectations of agencies to outcomes for families. Agreements should articulate a balanced perspective and expectations.
  1. A common screening process needs to be in place that is helpful and workable – it might be a combination of tools incorporating the power and control wheel and danger assessment and other relevant components. Tools should always be used as a way to begin to ask questions and not exclude the clinical judgement of those involved.
  1. Membership of high-risk teams should be examined and consideration should be made to involve all key sectors in an appropriate manner. At present, VAW is excluded and CAS only participates in a few jurisdictions. If a woman is deemed to be high-risk, how does that impact child welfare and VAW if the sectors are not part of the high-risk committee? In the interim, agreements should be clear with regard to this matter and clarify the required steps to manage in those situations.

Another option is to tighten the connections between CAS & Probation (as it has been suggested by Dr. Jeffrey Edleson). If CAS, Probation, Crowns are all on the same page when dealing with the offender and are working together, comparing strategies, collectively they are stronger and able to mandate offenders to participate in service.

A further issue of concern is families who do not come to the attention of police/court. When no criminal charges are laid, there is no access to a Partner Abuse Response program. This fact increases risk for women and children. Questions should be asked with regard to what the various systems can do for these families. CAS/VAW agreements should articulate recommended strategies for child welfare and VAW services.

Partner Abuse Response programs should not be restricted to people involved in criminal justice only. CAS needs to be able to refer without criminal charges being laid. Ideally funding for Partner Abuse Response programs would be increased so that there is no wait for the program. The waiting period varies by community but is a high risk time for women and children.

  1. Agreements should make a strong statement about expectations for training – if there is no shared understanding of roles (particularly at the front-line level), agreements will become obsolete. The Domestic Violence Advisory Council Report - Transforming our Communities–should be used as a key reference to consider strategies to address the specific training needs of both sectors.
  1. As a symbolic gesture, some CASs are changing the files to the offender’s name. This is possible as it is an internal policy decision. This measure is a stepping stone toward a systemic move to ensure service to dads is mandated – agreements should articulate this principle and the intent to work toward this expectation. Some of the suggested services are as follows:

1)Addiction counselling (if required)

2)Partner Abuse Response program and completion of the program; ideally, CAS could refer to Partner Abuse Response programs or at least, check with Probation/Courts/Crowns to see if PAR can be a requirement of the criminal court proceedings

3)Caring Dads program – required for dads with a history of abusive behaviours who have contact with their children (towards partners and/or their children). If PAR and Caring Dads are both required, PAR needs to be completed first. Both PAR & Caring Dads programs need to have two critically important components:

  • Outreach and continued contact with partners/mothers – ask about her safety, her concerns, concerns and safety of children; refer to ongoing services for her and children.
  • Regularly report back to referral source re: the participant’s involvement in the program: is he attending? Is he complying? If not, referral source needs to take some action to “inspire” his cooperation or impose a consequence.

4)Supervised Access and/or Supervised Exchanges for dads with a history of abusive behaviours towards partners and/or their children for as long as needed or at least until he complies with requirements to complete PAR, Caring Dads, addiction services – whatever is expected of him.There should be a stronger working relationship between CAS, VAW services, and Supervised Access services (and Probation) for the system to become more effective and responsive. Supervised Access programs as funded by MAG should exist in every court district in Ontario. They provide places for safe supervised exchanges of children from the custodial parent to the non-custodial parent with no contact between the parents, which is safer for moms.

  1. Eligibility spectrum definition requires change – there is a risk of missing the real issues as a result of over reporting. As articulated in theTransforming Our Communities report, the partner violence definition in the Eligibility Spectrum and Child Protection Standards should be amended so that “bi-directional violence” is removed and replaced with the “woman abuse” definition found in the Child Protection Standards (p.13). The definition of “woman abuse” in the Child Protection Standards (p.13) is the more appropriate working definition as it reflects the situations of highest risk to children has been identified in the literature and by the DVDRC:

“Woman abuse is predominately perpetuated by men and experienced by women. It is motivated by a need to control and is characterized by progressively more frequent and severe physical violence and/or emotional abuse, economic subordination, threats, isolation and other forms of control.”

* Central West Region CAS/VAW Regional Working Group

Co-chairs:

Angela NijharDirector, Peel Committee Against Woman Abuse

Sly CastaldiExecutive Director, Guelph-Wellington Women in Crisis

Alayne LangerakProgram Supervisor, MCYS

Diane BeaulieuExecutive Director, Halton Women’s Place

Dima AmadManager, Muslim Community Services

Erin HarveyService Director, Family & Children’s Svs of Guelph Wellington

Iliana PressmanService Coordinator, Community Justice Initiatives

Ilda GizasProgram Supervisor, MCSS

Jennifer BinningtonService Director, Halton CAS

Kim EvansService Director, Dufferin Child and Family Services

Laurie KentClinical Manager, Halton Women’s Place

Leslie JoslingExecutive Director, K-W Counselling Services

Lyn AllenManager, Family Transition Place

Lynn MueckTransitional & Housing Support Worker, Armagh

Pat Gillies Service Director, Family & Children’s Services Waterloo

Priyanka SethManager, Interim Place

Sue DavidsonExecutive Director, Victim Services of Peel

Susan JewettExecutive Director, Burlington Counselling & Family Services

Vicky LowreyService Director, Peel CAS

November 1, 2010Page 1