A new funding formula for the 46 children’s aid societies in
Ontario is raising fears that children who need protection won’t
get it.
“There is a risk of the model having some unintended
consequences,” says Mary Ballantyne, executive director of the
Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies.
Some smaller societies with large geographic catchment areas are
facing crunches. Others serving diverse populations may not see
the increases they need to properly serve their communities.
Ballantyne says she is constantly reminding the Ontario
government not to push too hard or too fast during this
transition period. To do otherwise might destabilize some
societies “such that kids may be at risk.”
Ontario’s child protection budget for the societies is capped at
$1.46 billion, and a new formula disburses that money based on
the volume of cases and demographics, including the number of
children, low-income families, single-parent families and
aboriginal residents in their catchment area.
Half the funding is based on volume and half on demographics.
The societies must sign “accountability agreements” promising to
stay within budget. Ten societies with operating deficits have
broken those agreements.
The Ontario Ministry of Children and Youth Services, which
oversees the societies, has the power to step in but senior
bureaucrats say that option has not been used in the case of the
10.
Budget increases and decreases under the new formula are capped
at 2 per cent a year. In areas like Peel Region, which scores
high on the socio-economic side of the equation, it will take
more than two decades of 2-per-cent increases before funding
meets its socio-economic needs.
“We were delighted by the funding formula,” says Rav Bains,
chief executive officer of Peel Children’s Aid Society. “We
thought, wow, someone is listening to us; it’s about the
community, it’s not volume driven.
“We thought Peel was going to get its fair share now. And then,
bam, a 2-per-cent cap.”
The Toronto CAS will lose about $1 million in funding due to a
statistical decrease in the number of single parents in its
catchment area.
Ontario was forced to rein in spending on child protection after
funding and budgets ballooned following high-profile cases in
the late ’90s of child deaths in care. It resulted in a
philosophy heavy on taking children from families.
Reforms in the mid-2000s tried to strike a better balance
between protecting children and keeping families together. But
children’s aid societies complain the ministry lectures them
about “mandate drift” when they try to emphasize keeping
families together, which often requires support to battle
poverty, mental health and substance abuse.
Brant Family and Children’s Services, faced with a budget
shortfall of $250,000 under the new funding formula, opted to
shut down for three to five days instead of laying off staff.
Although no figures are available, there have been layoffs
elsewhere.
In a “technical briefing” with top ministry bureaucrats, the
Star was assured that the ministry had the means to step in and
act if the funding issues placed any child at risk.
“If those issues were to be brought forward in some way, we
would respond in kind,” said a senior ministry official.
The budgetary constraints are making less expensive options more
attractive, and that may be better for children in the long run.
Placing more children with family, for example, is less costly
than foster care or group homes, which are also the least
beneficial setting for a child.
The reporter on this story can be reached at
children@thestar.ca .