Results of the community consultation process: Children ... · CFD Vancouver Coastal Region – Community Consultation_ _ Prepared by Zena Simces & Associates - Final Report,

Results of the Community Consultation Process

Children and Family DevelopmentVancouver Coastal Region

Prepared for

The Integrated Planning CommitteeChildren and Family DevelopmentVancouver Coastal Region

Prepared by

Zena SimcesPrincipal Consultant of Zena Simces & Associates

Final ReportFebruary, 2003

CFD Vancouver Coastal Region – Community Consultation____________________

__________________________________________________________________Prepared by Zena Simces & Associates - Final Report, February, 2003

2

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 4 1.1 Purpose of this Report 4 1.2 Background 4 1.3 Purpose of the Community Consultation 5

2 Community Consultation Process 62.1 About the Consultation Process 62.2 Participant Evaluation of the Consultation Sessions 7

3 Results of the Community Consultation 83.1 What Participants Value 83.2 What is Working Well 93.3 Service Delivery Issues/Gaps 103.4 Service Delivery Strategies 14 3.4.1 Previous Consultations 14

3.4.2 Where Service Should be Located 15 3.4.3 How Services Should be Organized 17 3.4.4 What Services Should be Provided 20

3.4.5 Who Should Deliver Services 21 3.4.6 Role of the Community 23 3.4.7 Supports Communities Require 24 3.4.8 Potential Partnerships 26

3.5 Governance Structure 27 3.5.1 Board Composition and Representation 27 3.5.2 Community Input 29 3.5.3 Accountability 30

4 Key Themes by Geographic Area 314.1 Bella Bella 324.2 Bella Coola 334.3 North Shore 344.4 Powell River 354.5 Richmond 374.6 Sea to Sky 384.7 Sunshine Coast 394.8 Vancouver 41

5 Key Themes by Interest Group 425.1 Parents 42

5.1.1 Overview 42 5.1.2 Protection Families 44 5.1.3 Fathers 45 5.1.4 Foster Parents 45



3

5.1.5 Adoptive Parents 465.2 Residential Services 485.3 Early Childhood Development 495.4 Special Needs Children and Youth 50

5.4.1 Overview 50 5.4.2 Infant Development Program 53 5.4.3 Supported Child Care 53

5.5 Youth 55 5.5.1 Overview 55 5.5.2 Youth Justice 58

5.6 Ethno-Cultural Communities 61 5.6.1 Overview 61 5.6.2 Parents from Ethno-Cultural Communities 63

6 Summary of Key Strategies 65 6.1 Key Elements of a Service Delivery Framework 65

6.2 Key Elements of a Governance Structure 69

Appendices 71

I Community Consultation – Background Material for Participants 72

II List of Community Consultation Sessions 84

III Service Delivery Models Identified in the Consultation Process 94



4

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of this Report

The purpose of this report is to document the views and suggestions made byindividuals who participated in a community consultation process undertaken by theIntegrated Planning Committee of the Ministry of Children and Family Development(MCFD), Vancouver Coastal Region.

Every attempt has been made to reflect in an accurate and comprehensive manner thecomplex issues involved in strengthening children, youth and families across theregion. This report is being provided to community contacts identified during theconsultation process for their verification and feedback. The report will then berevised, as required, and submitted to the Integrated Planning Committee forconsideration in their work to develop recommendations for the Interim RegionalAuthority. It is hoped that this report will provide a useful basis for continued effortsby the new Regional Authority, government, communities, and families themselvesas they to work toward developing the best possible service delivery model andgovernance structure.

1.2 Background

The MCFD is moving to regional governance. By the spring of 2004, themanagement and delivery of most of its programs and services will be theresponsibility of community-based authorities.

The Community Services Interim Authorities Act was approved by the legislature onOctober 29, 2002. Under it, the Minister will create a number of interim communitygovernance authorities:• a province-wide Authority for Community Living Services for adults with

developmental disabilities, and services to special needs children and childrenwith autism

• five Regional Child and Family Service Authorities• five Regional Aboriginal Authorities.

At the provincial level, there will also be a Joint Policy Management Committee forChildren with Special Needs, which will address policies across authorities.

These interim authorities will be involved in community consultations and detailedplanning and development for the permanent authorities that will be operational by2004.

The MCFD, Vancouver Coastal Region established the Integrated PlanningCommittee which is made up of members of the community from diverse sectors andbackgrounds.



5

The Integrated Planning Committee will make recommendations to the newlyappointed Interim Board for Child and Family Development, Vancouver CoastalRegion, which is to be established by March, 2003. These recommendations are toaddress two main areas: 1) the development of a new community-based servicedelivery system that promotes the capacity of families and communities to care forand protect vulnerable children and youth, and 2) the establishment of a regionalgovernance structure for the Vancouver Coastal Region.

To help accomplish this, the Integrated Planning Committee undertook a communityconsultation process to hear the views of a broad sector of the community.

Although the Integrated Planning Committee includes members of the AboriginalCommunity, this Committee’s mandate is to make recommendations on a structure ofservices and governance for the non-Aboriginal community. A separate consultationprocess was established for the Aboriginal community and the Aboriginal communitywill be managing and implementing this process. Separate consultation processeshave also been established for Community Living Services and Mental HealthServices for Children and Youth.

1.3 Purpose of the Community Consultation

The purpose of the consultation undertaken by the Integrated Planning Committee isto hear the views and suggestions from the community on:• what a child, youth, family-friendly community-based service delivery system

would look like, and• what type of governance structure would be most effective.

The consultation process focused on key questions: what is working well, what is notworking well, what is the role of the community, what supports do communities need,what strategies or models of service delivery are most effective, and how can thevoice of the community be heard in the new governance structure on an ongoingbasis? The Integrated Planning Committee recognizes that this consultation processis the beginning of community involvement and is seeking input on how best toengage the community on an ongoing basis.

The input from the community consultation will be one of the key sources ofinformation reviewed by the Integrated Planning Committee in their development ofrecommendations on a new service delivery system and a governance plan for theVancouver Coastal Region. These recommendations will be presented in the form ofa Business Plan to the Interim Regional Authority which is to be in place beforeMarch 31, 2003. The Interim Regional Authority will use these recommendations toplan for implementation and transition to permanent authorities by March, 2004.

“Community” for the purposes of this consultation, was defined in the broadest senseto include geographic communities and communities of interest such as ethno-culturalcommunity, adoptive parents, special needs parent, youth, etc.



6

2 Community Consultation Process

2.1 About the Consultation Process1

A total of 43 sessions were held from November 15, 2002 to January 14, 2003 withover 850 people attending.

Consultations were held across all geographical areas in the region. The followinglocations were included: Bella Bella, Bella Coola, North Shore, Powell River, Sea toSky (Squamish, Whistler, Pemberton), Sunshine Coast (Sechelt, Gibsons), Richmond,and Vancouver.

Sessions were also held involving various interest groups, representing provincial,regional or local interests. Areas of interest covered were: youth involved withMCFD services, ethno-cultural communities, parents, early childhood development,parents with special needs children, adoptive parents, and foster parents.

The Integrated Planning Committee attempted to involve as many individuals andgroups as possible in a short time frame. These included: MCFD clients, parents,youth, a wide range of community agencies and organizations, neighbourhoodassociations, diverse cultural groups, service providers, MCFD staff, programfunders, professionals and service providers in other sectors such as health, education,alcohol and drug programs, child care, etc.

Wherever possible, existing inter-agency groups, networks of service providers, andprograms with consumers involved were used as forums to conduct the consultationsessions. For example, existing inter-agency committees on the North Shore, inPowell River, Sunshine Coast, Sea to Sky, and Richmond held consultation sessions.In Vancouver, the six area service provider networks were used to invite participantsto sessions in their geographical area. In addition, a wide range of parenting groups,including ethno-cultural parent groups, special needs parent groups and a number ofyouth programs were invited to participate. In most cases, the number of participantsranged from 10-30. A trained facilitator guided the discussion in each of the sessionsand input was recorded.

In addition to the face-to-face sessions, individuals and groups could choose tosubmit a written response instead of, or in addition to, attending community sessions.The consultation questions were widely distributed throughout the region and werealso posted on the MCFD web site. Written responses were sent directly to theCommunity Development Co-ordinator, Zena Simces.

See Appendix II for a list of the consultation sessions held.

1 For more information about the community consultation process see Appendix 1Community Consultation – Background Material for Participants



7

The results from all the sessions have been compiled and summarized in this report.The term “participant” is used in this report to refer to the individuals attending theconsultation sessions, and includes both service providers and consumers.Throughout this document direct quotes from participants (appearing in italics withquotation marks) are used to illustrate commonly held views.

2.2 Participant Evaluation of the Consultation Sessions

“Let’s hope this time around, consultation means change for the better.”

Participants were asked to complete a short evaluation questionnaire at the conclusionof the session they attended. They were asked to rate their level of satisfaction withthe session on a scale of one to four with one being not satisfied, two being somewhatsatisfied, three being satisfied and four being very satisfied. Most of the participantswho completed the evaluations indicated that there were either satisfied or verysatisfied with their opportunity to provide input during the session. However theywere sceptical about whether the consultation input would be used. (See commentsbelow.) Fewer participants indicated that they were somewhat satisfied and only ahandful of people indicated that they were not satisfied.

What participants found most useful about the sessions was listening to and learningfrom what others had to say, and the opportunity to be heard:• “hearing the opinions of others”• “hearing diverse perspectives”• “the openness, the willingness to listen”• “the opportunity to provide input.”

Participants were sceptical about what was going to happen with their input. Theywondered whether their input would be heard and acted upon. They revealed theirconcerns as follows:• “We need to have other opportunities to provide input on an ongoing basis.”• “There is too little time. It makes me wonder if the consultation will be

considered in decisions and changes to come.”• “I am concerned that this consultation is meaningless and all decisions have

already been made.”• “I feel as though things are already decided.”

Participants indicated that they are tired of changes and that the system needsstability.• “Stop reorganizing all the time. It screws everybody up.”

Participants pointed to the importance of taking time and not rushing into makingchanges. Most significantly, many stressed the need to listen:• “Listen to the community. Listening is often risky because you don’t always hear

what you want to hear.”• “Listen to what you hear in consultation and act on it.”



8

3 Results of the Community Consultation

“We need prevention. We need to support families where they live and build on supports and services already in place.”

This section summarizes the common views and suggestions presented across allgroups. It highlights the comments of participants on: what they value, what isworking well in the service delivery system, service delivery gaps and issues, servicedelivery strategies, and governance structure. Where there are divergent views, theseare identified.

Section 4 below summarizes specific issues and suggestions that are unique toparticular geographical-based groups and Section 5 highlights issues and suggestionspresented that are unique to the specific interest groups that participated in theconsultation process. Where studies or reports were identified by participants asrelevant to the discussion, these have been reviewed and key points included in thisreport.

3.1 What Participants Value

“Respect for family, children and youth.”

Although the consultation questions did not specifically ask participants what theyvalued in relation to service delivery and governance, a number of consistent valuesemerged:

• respect for family, children and youth• honesty• a community that cares and looks after its children• a voice and involvement in making decisions that impact their community,

families, and their own lives• a focus on working with the family as a whole, including extended family• a focus on prevention• identification and intervention to address problems early in the process• having choices available in addressing their concerns• being culturally sensitive• understanding Aboriginal traditions and culture• services that are co-located, integrated, multi-disciplinary and community-based• open access and universal services 2 which are not stigmatizing• equity of opportunity, access and outcome (regardless of income or culture)• flexibility to shift available resources to where they are most needed• accountability and feedback to know that desired outcomes are being achieved. 2 Open access means access to service that is not controlled by MCFD, where individuals can self-referor be referred by another agency. Universal means services that are available to everyone regardless ofincome.



9

3.2 What is Working Well

“The service delivery system needs to build on what is working well, be responsive tocommunity needs, and be adequately funded and accountable.”

Participants identified a wide range of programs and service delivery strategies thatthey perceive work well when available. Most significantly, participants indicatedthat things work well when there is trust, when relationships are developed andconsistent, and when people are willing to work together to support families.Participants expressed a willingness and commitment to make things work. Theysaid the service delivery system requires the appropriate infrastructure, adequateresources, supportive processes and policies, and community, family and youthinvolvement in decision-making.

Participants identified the following service and program features that, whenavailable, work well:• food, transportation, safe affordable child care options, and respite for parents• affordable• universal• friendly and approachable• home-based and outreach strategies e.g., Building Blocks• school-based• training, leadership, skill-building and client self-development• prevention offered to families before they are in a crisis situation• early intervention• peer support groups for parents and youth• “doula” homemaker services for high risk mothers with newborns• early childhood development services that are integrated and linked to child care

and family resource programs• integrated services to children with special needs – most often mentioned as

working well are Infant Development Program and Supported Child Care• integrated and coordinated services among agencies, different sectors and levels

of government• co-located -“one stop” access• hubs of services provided in neighbourhood houses, community centres, or family

places• collocated and integrated services to youth – youth resource centre• funders who collaborate (e.g., Youth Funders Table - “Concept of the youth

funders table is good, but it needs to be strengthened.”)• multi-disciplinary team and integrated case management• multi-lingual service providers• continuity of service providers and ones who know the system and are adept at

connecting children, youth, and families with the services they need• clients and communities/neighbourhoods having a voice in shaping the types of

services they receive.



10

3.3 Service Delivery Issues/Gaps

“There is discontinuity of services as theyappear and disappear with funding changes.”

This section highlights the recurrent service issues and gaps identified by participantsacross all sectors. Participants were not always aware of what services, programs orpolicies were currently available in the Region, or what was within the mandate of theMCFD. However since the areas identified below were perceived as gaps, thisreflects what participants consider important issues to be addressed.

Adequacy and allocation of funding• The issue of budget cuts was an overriding concern raised in most of the sessions.

Many of the participants expressed their frustration with the budget cuts and theresulting inability to sustain programs and services. Participants viewed this as amajor factor contributing to the lack of service continuity for children, youth andfamilies which they saw as resulting in the instability of the system.

• “Service providers are struggling to obtain sufficient funding and this detractsfrom the ability to provide services.”

• “Don’t make any more cuts.”• “The budget cuts have huge and devastating implications for families.”• Participants identified dissatisfaction with the manner in which funding was

allocated. They indicated that funding being provided does not adequatelyrecognize the needs of communities and neighbourhoods and does not allow forany flexibility to create unique solutions.

Coordination and integration of services• Participants continually highlighted the lack of coordination of MCFD with other

ministries and sectors, such as health, mental health, education, incomeassistance, justice, child care, alcohol and drug, housing and immigrant services.

• The importance of a sound working relationship between MCFD and the schoolsystem was raised numerous times. Participants pointed to effective programsthat have been established with school boards in certain communities andneighbourhoods including: the Inner City Schools Program at both elementaryand secondary levels, designation of Community Schools, Community SchoolCoordinators, Hot Lunch Programs, and Multi-cultural Liaison Workers.However, participants indicated that there is no consistent policy for jointprogramming and a number of critical concerns remain:

• Funding of current school-based programs appears to be in jeopardy.• It is unclear who has funding responsibility for school-based programs.• School space is not being fully utilized after school hours, on week-ends,

and there is no consistent policy for use of school space and facilities.• The schools operate on a different funding cycles which complicates

collaborative programming efforts.• Transitions into and out of school are often not coordinated with other

services.



11

Open access and universal services• A major concern was raised regarding access to services that is controlled by the

MCFD and requires the opening of a “protection case file” to enable services tobe provided. Participants called this “gated services”. Participants viewed thispractice as limiting access to services and increasing the stigma of being labelleda family in crisis or need of protection.

• While participants recognized the need for targeted services with eligibilitycriteria, they wanted to see more universal services that can benefit all familiesregardless of income such as universal screening programs, universal child careand universal family resource programs.

Rural/urban differences• Participants in rural communities highlighted the general lack of specialized

services in rural areas. Specialized treatment and therapy services were mostoften mentioned such as drug and alcohol treatment for youth.

• They recognized the difficulty of justifying the need for full time positionsbecause of their smaller population base, but argued that communities needflexibility to address their human resource challenges.

• Participants expressed the fear that with limited resources and smallerpopulations, support to rural communities will diminish even further.

• They also worried that that the voice of rural communities will be lost among thelarger centres.

Continuity of service providers• Participants repeatedly mentioned the lack of continuity of workers, including

social workers, youth workers, counsellors, etc., both front line and supervisorystaff. This was most often mentioned in relation to child protection and youthjustice services.

Information and communication• There was a strong agreement among service providers and consumers regarding

the lack of information available on what is provided by the MCFD and what isnot, where services are located, how to access them, and who to contact. Theseuncertainties are compounded by the constant restructuring and consultationstaking place but not being acted upon. Also, changes in policy occur that are notclearly communicated to service providers and clients.

• Both service providers and clients also complained about the duplication ofinformation. They noted that clients must divulge the same informationrepeatedly to different service providers. Information is not consistentlytransferred between specialist and generalist services.

• MCFD staff identified deficiencies in the forms used to collect clientinformation.3

3 Suggestion made to review the Looking After Children (LAC) form and determine if it could becombined with the Condensed Comprehensive Plan of Care.



12

• Service providers highlighted the lack of reliable, collective information aboutclients. They indicated that what is available is not being communicated to front-line staff and service providers to enable them to plan and deliver services moreeffectively. “It is incumbent upon us to gather all relevant information aboutchildren, youth and families that receive our services, but we need acomprehensive analysis of this information in order for us to provide appropriateand targeted services that efficiently utilize our limited resources.”

Regional/provincial responsibilities• Participants expressed concern that lack of provincial policies in such areas as

early childhood development services, adoption services, supported child care,and protection services will lead to greater inconsistencies among and withinregions.

• Participants representing provincial agencies that provide adoption services wouldlike to see provincial agencies dealt with at a provincial level. They indicated thathaving a single organization contract with five authorities would create anadditional administrative and financial burden. Moreover, replicating the servicesin each geographical location also would lead to greater expense.4

Outcome and performance measures• Participants indicated that it is important to come to an agreement on the kinds of

results that are expected of programs and services and to be able to measure theseresults in a meaningful way. Currently there is a lack of standard indicators thatcan measure outcomes. Participants said that it is imperative that communitiescontribute their input in identifying realistic outcome indicators to measure thesuccess of services and programs.

• In addition, many service providers indicated that there is a lack of expertiseavailable to conduct effective program evaluations.

System of Care - Draft framework for contracted services• A proposal for a System of Care has been presented to contracted agencies in

Vancouver.5 Some participants familiar with System of Care proposal wanted tosee action taken on it. Others expressed concern that this initiative was “a donedeal” and questioned the value of the current consultation process. Participantsalso indicated that the System of Care proposal has not been vetted bycommunities. It is seen as a means to reduce the number of contracted agencies.Moreover, it is perceived as limiting the flexibility and creativity of communitiesand neighbourhoods to be involved in the decision-making process and worktogether to reach collaborative solutions.

4 These concerns were identified by such organizations as the Special Needs Adoptive Parents and the Adoptive Families Association.5 See Appendix III-A for further information on the principles, themes, and service and program areasidentified in the Vancouver System of Care Program Areas – Draft Framework for ContractedServices, November 2002.



13

Child protection issues (See also Section 5)Participants raised a number of concerns relating to the delivery of child protectionservices:• Child protection social workers are often seen by clients and community as more

like “police” than support workers.• Many social workers providing protection services are seen as inexperienced.• There are negative perceptions in the community attached to the MCFD social

workers. Some participants indicated that they would not like to have MCFDstaff co-located with other agency service providers. Others indicated that itwould be less of a stigma to have protection workers located with other services.

• Participants continually raised the concern that access to services is limited byMCFD because of the practice of opening a protection case file in order toprovide families with support services.

• There is a push for file closure creating a “revolving door” syndrome where thesame clients keep coming back into the system as protection cases.

• An adversarial system is seen by many as existing which pits parents against theMCFD. This can create a power struggle between worker and family resulting insafety concern for the child.

• There is a perception of gender bias against fathers in the child protection system.“The system sets up incentives for mothers to make false allegations againstfathers.”

• There is a lack of recognition of the role of extended families in providing supportto at-risk children and families.

• A recent change in policy has narrowed the focus of protection cases and iscreating a great deal of concern. The responsibility of MCFD is to address abusethat occurs in the family by a family member. Abuse resulting from someoneoutside the family is regarded as a police matter.

• The foster care system is seen as having become complex and impersonal.Moreover, it is difficult to access appropriate homes and there is a lack of ongoingmonitoring to ensure quality care. Children with behavioural and emotionalproblems are being placed with inexperienced families and the families are notprovided with adequate supports.

Gaps in specific service areasMost frequently mentioned service gaps by participants across all groups are:• bridging services during transition stages for children and youth with special

needs or high risk (transitions from 5 years old to school, from elementary tosecondary, and from secondary to out-of-school)

• support to special needs children of school-age• support services for children with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (F.A.S.) or Fetal

Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (F.A.S.D.)• support services for youth 16-19• post majority services -“Youth 19+ fall into a big black hole.”• ethno-specific services for parents and youth• services for sexually exploited youth.



14

3.4 Service Delivery Strategies

“Each community should be supported to come up with its own plan.” “There is not one solution for everyone.”

“No one size fits all solutions.”

This section provides a summary of the input from all the consultation sessions andincludes comments and suggestions made on service delivery strategies that arecommon or shared across all sectors. Any divergent viewpoints are identified.Where participants mentioned service delivery strategies proposed in previousconsultations that should be examined, these are included in this report.

Participants identified strategies relating to: where services should be located, howservices should be organized, what services should be provided, who should provideservices, the role of the community, the supports communities require, and potentialpartnerships.

It should be noted that participants expressed strong viewpoints about the difficulty ofdiscussing new and innovative service delivery strategies in a time of fiscal restraintand major cutbacks in funding for services.

“Restructuring in a context of fiscal restraint is highly risky. It is notresponsible governance.”

3.4.1 Previous Consultations

Participants pointed to a number of consultations proposing service delivery strategiesthat should be considered. Participants most often mentioned the Contract andProgram Restructuring Review that took place in 19986. They indicated that manyissues outlined in the Contract and Program Restructuring Review remainoutstanding:• an overall vision of service delivery• an inventory of services that clearly identify gaps in each community• information and transparency• consultation with stakeholders including families and clients• re-establishment of respect, trust, accountability and responsibility• recognition of expertise in communities• solutions by the community for the community• respect for diversity• portability of services between regions• integrated youth services• dedicated resources to support volunteer input• fundraising opportunities 6 Contract and Program Restructuring Review, Report to the Honourable Lois Boone, Minister forChildren and Families, April, 1998.



15

• support for ethno-cultural organizations• support for Supported Child Care• integration with alcohol and drug services• resources for accreditation• inter-ministerial linkages of services and programs.

Participants in Vancouver most often mentioned the Windows of Opportunity, 7 acommunity-based initiative, which undertook an extensive consultation process tounite communities in Vancouver to invest in the well-being of children and youth andtheir families. Nine priority areas for city-wide action were identified as a result ofthis process that participants indicated are still relevant:• prenatal and early childhood outreach home visitors service• a broad array of child care services for children 0-12• early identification of special needs and early intervention• family resource programs to strengthen parenting that are prevention-focussed,

multi-service, universally accessible, community-based, and intergenerational• supports to children, youth, and families for key school and life transitions• universal access to culture, leisure, and recreation activities• community use of schools “Bridging the community - school divide.”• youth participation.

3.4.2 Where Services Should be Located

“Services need to be provided in places where peoplecan feel part of the community. ”

“Go where the clients are. Reach out to them.”

Participants widely supported the creation of hubs of services (“one-stop shopping”)in their neighbourhoods and local communities. Hubs of services should be locatedin places where people feel comfortable and where a variety of services are offeredfor every member of the family.

“We support locating services in non-threatening open places where people can feelpart of the community.”

Participants favoured the use of services being offered in local settings such asneighbourhood houses, community centres and schools. The notion is not just co-locating but integrating the services provided in these hubs. Staff from differentagencies could be deployed to a particular location or program and integrate theirservice delivery with other service providers.

There was strong support for offering school-based programs to benefit the entirefamily. Caution was advised since school is not neutral territory for everyone and

7 Windows of Opportunity for Vancouver’s Children and Youth – Phase 1 –Preparing for Action,Summary Report, Prepared by Susan Ross and Zena Simces, April, 2001.



16

therefore other service hubs in the community should be available (e.g., inneighbourhood houses and community centres).

Participants made a number of suggestions to enhance the school-based model as akey service delivery strategy:• Maintain and strengthen the current successful school-based community programs

such as the Inner City Schools Program at both elementary and secondary levels,Community School Coordinators, the Hot Lunch Program, and Multi-culturalLiaison Workers.

• Use existing models as examples, e.g., the Windemere Family of Schools or theSunshine Coast Community School. (For a discussion of the Sunshine CoastCommunity School Model, see Section 4.7)

• Examine models in other jurisdictions. A notable example mentioned byparticipants is the Schools Uniting Neighbourhoods (SUN) Initiative in Portlandestablished in 1999.8

Participants would like to see partnerships developed with the school through clear,formal agreements with Ministry of Education and the school boards.

In terms of where services are provided, participants also emphasized the importanceof outreach services to where people live, in private homes and housing units.Home-based services are seen as crucial for reaching out to families who requireintensive services or are not ready to participate in group settings. Models identifiedmost often were Building Blocks and Infant Development Program. These programsbegin with home visits and support in the home with the intention of breaking theisolation and encouraging involvement in activities outside of the home.

Participants suggested that services for youth should be co-located, integrated andoffered through youth drop-in or youth resource centres. This is seen as important foryouth in urban and rural areas. The Broadway Youth Resource Centre was given asone example. Another suggested model submitted to the community consultationprocess also supports the notion of integrated Youth Resource Centres.9 In thisproposal, integration of services also includes health and education. The centrewould be administered by one agency, but all service providers (from differentagencies and ministries) would be members of a management and local planningcommittee. Youth protection workers would be part of these resource centres.

8See Appendix III-B for more details on Schools Uniting Neighborhoods Initiative, Portland Oregon,www.sunschools.org9 This type of model is identified in “Towards a Vision of a Provincial Youth Strategy. A new modelfor the Governance and Delivery of Youth Services”, Youth Services Submission to the MCFD CoreServices Review by Nisha Family and Children’s Services Society, currently called Pacific ResourcesServices Society. This submission further calls for the establishment of Regional Youth DevelopmentAuthorities that would have a planning, funding and accountability responsibility and would namedesignated youth service agencies to provide services at local and regional levels.



17

3.4.3 How Services Should be Organized

“Services should be integrated and provided by multi-disciplinary teams workingcollaboratively across diverse sectors.”

Participants strongly agreed that there is a need for collaboration and integration ofplanning and service delivery. The underlying assumption is that no one agency canprovide all the required services. Therefore, it is critical to ensure ease of access,create the necessary linkages, and ensure collaboration and integration occurs at alllevels such as provincial, regional, community/neighbourhood, and family/individual.

Participants provided the following comment regarding integration and coordination:

• “Service integration means moving beyond establishing protocols to actualsharing of resources and joint management and delivery of services.”

• At the provincial level, there is an urgent need for all the ministries10 to establishformal linkages and joint agreements.“Stove pipe planning and service delivery must stop.”

• At the Regional Board level, important linkages are required. The new Childrenand Family Development (CFD) Regional Authority needs to establish formallinkages with key sectors such as the health authority, school boards, housingauthorities; income assistance, and child care programs.

• The CFD Regional Authority needs to formalize linkages with the CommunityLiving Services Authority, and Mental Health.

• The CFD Regional Authority needs to ensure coordination and service linkageswith Regional Aboriginal Authority.

• At community or neighbourhood levels, a number of inter-agency groups arealready established and these need to be enhanced and strengthened to ensure theyrepresent the diverse sectors. For example, inter-agency committees exist inPowell River, Richmond, Sunshine Coast, and Sea to Sky. In Vancouver, the sixarea service networks are seen as vehicles for collaboration and integration ofplanning and service delivery. Participants in these networks would like to seethe networks officially recognized, enhanced, and supported. These inter-agencygroups would like to have a formal link with the new Regional Board. (SeeSection 3.5 on Governance Structure.)

10 There are a number of Provincial Ministries involved with children and youth issues including:Ministry of Children and Family Development, Minister of State for Early Childhood Development,Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women’s Services, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education,Ministry of Human Resources, Ministry of the Attorney General, and Ministry of Advanced Education.



18

• While there is strong agreement among the participants that services should beprovided at the neighbourhood/community level, there is also a recognition thatclients move throughout the region and among regions. Participants called forcontinuity of service delivery, not only within the region but among the newlyestablished regional authorities.

“The challenge is create a model of services that is unique to each community, yetproviding enough common services that families can live anywhere in the regionand be assured of access to a whole range of required services.”

• At the service delivery level, multi-disciplinary teams are favoured that integrateservices. Working together in multi-disciplinary teams needs to become part ofthe job description of service providers.

• Some participants are proponents of a centralized intake at the local level toinitiate service delivery. Others believe there should be multiple entry points butthe ability to provide an integrated response regardless of where individuals enter.

• Participants emphasized the importance of ensuring services are culturallysensitive, delivered by multi-lingual service providers, and coordinated withservices provided by multi-cultural communities and organizations.

• Participants indicated the importance of establishing clear guidelines for bridgingservices during transitions, from early childhood development to kindergarten,from kindergarten to elementary school age, from elementary to secondary, andfrom secondary to out-of-school options.

• The practice of access to services that does not require the involvement of thechild protection system was raised numerous times. Participants are proponentsof “non-gated”, universal services.

• Different views were expressed in terms of how MCFD protection services shouldbe linked with other services. Some participants hold the view that because of thestigma, protection services workers should not be located or integrated with othersupport services. Others suggested that they should be “mixed-up” to helpminimize the stigma.

• Participants indicated that residential services should be integrated and be part ofa continuum of care that supports families. Also, children and youth should beable to access the appropriate level of support regardless of the environment inwhich they live.

• Many participants favoured the integration of youth services in one locationresulting in the establishment of youth resource centres. Some participantsexpressed the view that youth justice services should be delivered separately.(See Section 5.5.2 on Youth Justice.)



19

• Participants would like to see a service delivery model that allows for immediateresponse for emergency situations. This necessitates emergency services that areavailable 24 hours a day.

• At the family and individual level, the focus should be on integrated casemanagement with integrated case conferencing. A term also being used is wraparound services, where services are developed and matched to meet needs ofchildren, youth, and families rather than linking clients to existing services.“Services fit family rather than family fitting into a service.”

• Participants familiar with wrap around services indicated that they need to begrounded in a client-directed, asset-based approach. A report 11 submitted to theconsultation process describes wrap around as community-based, individualized,strength-based, culturally competent, family-driven, and team-based. Theyrequire flexible funding and access to funding mechanism. They includeconventional and natural supports and require unconditional commitment. Theynecessitate interagency plans based on a collaborative approach. Furthermore,they require the documentation of outcomes to ensure quality services.

• While the emphasis is on family-centred services and family-group decision-making, a number of participants indicated that consideration should be given towho is defined to be part of the family. For example, many thought it wasimportant to include extended family in this definition. Others noted that not allfamilies are able to participate in decision-making, so alternatives need to besought.

• In summary, there was wide-spread support for community-based, familysupport models that focus on prevention and involve the families,neighbourhoods, and communities in the decision-making process.

• An example of a community-based model of service delivery submitted to theconsultation process is one based on the Dorchester CARES project in Boston.This is a community-based, prevention-focused, and family support model(sharing attributes of the model John McKnight presents in his work the CarelessSociety). Many projects in Britain and the United States have been based on thismodel.12

11 Alternatives to Apprehension; Education, Action and Advocacy, Rita Buchwitz, Oct. 2001 preparedfor the Inner-City Women’s Initiatives Society.12 See Appendix III-D for an elaboration of this model taken from Communities, Children and FamilySupport, John Lippitt, Heller School for Advanced Studies in Social Welfare, Brandies University,1996.



20

3.4.4 What Services Should be Provided

“We need to focus on prevention. We need to get to childrenand families before they reach a crisis situation.”

Participants indicated that neighbourhoods and communities should be involved indeciding the array of services most appropriate for them. They emphasized the needfor culturally relevant services (See also Section 5.6), for a range of services ofdifferent intensities regardless of where the child is located, and for longer terminterventions not just short-term ones to meet the different needs of children, youthand families. While not all services identified may be within the mandate of theMCFD, the types of services most frequently mentioned by participants include thefollowing:

Public information and educationParticipants identified a need for information about programs and services that ismulti-lingual. They indicated that different methods of communicating with thepublic and clients are required that are readily accessible and easy to understand. Anumber of consumers indicated that there should be greater clarity in how programsor services are named and described to enhance understanding of what is available.Suggested methods of communicating are as follows:• updated, accessible directories of services• information in the language of the client• information in local newspapers and ethnic press, radio and television• information kiosks available at accessible locations such as super markets, malls,

clinics, doctors’ offices, community centres, libraries, etc.• age-related education programs in the school system that deal with child, youth

and family issues (e.g., child and parental responsibilities; youth and the law, etc.)• use of drama, art and technology to deliver key messages.

PreventionParticipants placed a great deal of emphasis on prevention services that are universal.In particular, they emphasized programs that include information, universal screeningprograms, universal child care services and universal family resource programs.

Early identificationParticipants indicated that it is important to ensure that programs are in place that willassist in the early identification of special needs children and high risk families.

Early childhood developmentParticipants saw early childhood development services as including affordable,accessible, and universal day care and family resource programs. Participants alsomentioned programs like Building Blocks and other home visiting programs thatpromote effective parenting and improve developmental outcomes for children.



21

Family supportParticipants most often mentioned the need to offer supports to families before acrisis occurs including parenting programs for mothers and fathers, peer support,mutual aid, mentoring, and home-based services. Safe affordable respite and childcare options were identified as critical supports to parents. A suggestion was made toestablish an “Institute for Parenting” where parents could choose from a variety ofparenting programs of different intensity, depending on their needs. Participantsemphasized that in situations of child protection, there is a need for more intensivefamily supports with the goal of family reunification. Also, support in familyviolence situations was identified as critical.

Services for special needs children and their familiesParents of children with special needs called for integrated services beginning withassessments and early diagnosis, and ensuring the availability of therapy services forchildren and youth. A great need was identified for respite services for families withspecial needs children. There was strong support for Supported Child Care and InfantDevelopment Programs for children with special needs.

Specialized servicesParticipants most frequently mentioned the need for alcohol and drug treatmentprograms, counselling services for youth and families, and improved access tospecialized therapy services in rural areas.

Services for youthService providers and youth indicated that youth require services that are co-located,integrated, and based in community-centres, schools, neighbourhood houses, or youthresource centres. They saw the need for alcohol and drug programs, angermanagement, skill development, counselling, recreational services, and safe housing.They emphasized the need for youth to be involved in the planning and delivery ofservices.

Alternative careParticipants indicated that a range of alternative care arrangements are required thatoffer a family environment and choices to encourage stability for children and youth.

3.4.5 Who Should Delivers Services

Participants stressed the importance of clarifying roles and responsibilities of theprovincial government, the regional authority, and communities. They called forprovincial consistency in policies and core services and a balance between provincialconsistency and regional autonomy. They also emphasized the need for a balancebetween regional consistency and local community/neighbourhood autonomy andflexibility.

“The key challenge of local governance is to recognize that each community isunique, with its own needs and priorities but also to ensure consistency.”



22

A number of key suggestions emerged regarding who should deliver services:

• Participants indicated that the role of the new Regional Authority is to set policiesand standards, ensure training and professional consultation, provide key servicesregion-wide, coordinate service planning throughout the region to ensurecomparable services are available in each community, provide funding forcommunity-based services, and monitor and evaluate.

• Participants also felt that the new Regional Authority should assume a greater rolefor providing information and education to the community on relevant programsand on children and families issues.

• They emphasized that if the vision of the new Regional Authority is to increasecommunity and family participation, then a specific community developmentfunction must be identified and properly funded.

• Further, they specified that the new Regional Authority should take a leadershiprole to forge partnerships with other funders including different levels ofgovernment and the private sector.

• Some participants cautioned against leaving staff of the new Regional Authoritywith only the responsibility for providing protection services. They indicated thatstaff of the new Regional should also be involved in prevention and communitydevelopment.

• Both service providers and clients indicated that protection services workers inthe new Regional Authority should be provided with appropriate supports andencouraged to take a more active part in the communities and neighbourhoodsthey serve. A strategy for staff retention should be initiated that includes flex-time, four-day week, team work, professional development, concrete staffrecognition (including pay incentives), reduced case loads, appropriate supportservices for social workers to ease their workload, and a range of supportsservices they can readily access to assist families.

• A diverse range of community agencies should be responsible for direct servicedelivery. Non-profit agencies are seen by many of the consumers consulted asnon-threatening and community-based. Participants indicated that diversity ofagencies enriches the system and generates a larger volunteer contribution.“The non-profit sector generates additional funding for every dollar thatgovernment provides through fundraising and other sources of funding.”

• Suggestions were made to eliminate the RFP process (competitive bid to provideservices) with a process that is less competitive and where groups are encouragedto work together to identify what services are required to establish a system ofshared delivery. The emphasis was on staff of the new Regional Authority



23

working in collaboration with groups and agencies in communities andneighbourhoods to find collective solutions.

• Services should be delivered by multi-disciplinary teams with professionals andtrained lay people working together. “More emphasis on professional interventionwhen and where this is needed.”

• Multi-cultural service teams need to be established that can speak differentlanguages and are sensitive to cultural diversity. “The service delivery modelshould embrace a vision of multi-cultural services and should have staff ofdifferent cultures throughout the structure.”

• Informal networks and volunteers are seen to be effective in providing mutualsupport and peer delivered programs. Volunteers can play a role on boards andcommittees, provide mentoring programs and support the delivery of services.However, participants emphasized the need for training and resources to developand maintain volunteer and peer support programs.

3.4.6 Role of the Community

“Funding should be given to the community andhave us make decisions about how to allocate it.”

“Done with us – not to us.”

There was a widely-held view that consumers, service providers, and members of thecommunity should be involved on a regular and ongoing basis in making decisionsthat impact their local neighbourhoods and communities. Participants indicated thatthis means involvement in planning, making decisions about funding, and indelivering a flexible range of services and programs that meet the specific needs oftheir neighbourhoods and communities.

Participants called for community/neighbourhood autonomy and funding flexibility.

Community autonomyIn terms of community autonomy, participants expressed a strong desire forcommunities and neighbourhoods to be able to mange their own affairs. Participantswere advocating for a collaborative approach where community agencies, serviceproviders, and consumers from diverse sectors work together to come up withsolutions that are best for their unique situation.

• “Allow communities to come up with their own unique solution to problems aslong as they can show results.”

• “We don’t want a cookie-cutting process.”



24

Flexible funding“Communities need flexible funding. This does not mean downloading to the

community the responsibility to fulfill the government’s fiscal agenda, but workingtogether to figure out what is best for each community.”

Participants identified a number of consistent common messages regarding funding:

• There was an overwhelming plea for long-term, stable funding that would providesome security to children and families in need. Three to five year fundingcontracts were cited as an example.“We are drowning. There is a lot of instability, and consequently inefficiency isbeing created by the constant quest and competition among agencies forfunding.”

• There was a consistent message from neighbourhoods in Vancouver andgeographical communities outside of Vancouver for flexible funding to enablecommunities and neighbourhoods to determine what children, youth, and familiesneed. Participants called for a needs-based funding approach.

• “There is a need for flexibility in funding allocation to communities andneighbourhoods and the ability to move funds around as service needs change.”

• “We want open, flexible funding.”• “What we need is non-designated funding allowing for creativity and that

eliminates thinking in boxes.”

Participants presented further suggestions to enhance flexible funding tocommunities:• Establish a process where various funding bodies join together. The Youth

Funders Table was given as an example of a potential model that could beexpanded. It brings funders together to share information to avoid duplication.Funding tables could be established to set priorities for funding in specific areasand to develop joint funding strategies.

• Establish a trust fund for innovative programs and pilot initiatives that wouldenhance creativity and testing of new strategies.

3.4.7 Supports Communities Require

“Community building is time-consuming and a lengthy process.”“If you want communities to take responsibilities, you must trust them and provide

them with the tools, resources and real responsibilities and authority.”

Participants indicated that many communities and neighbourhoods need to developtheir capacity before they can assist and become organized to effectively plan,deliver, and manage programs and services. Community capacity building takes timeand dedicated resources. It needs to be based on an assets model that focuses onstrengths.



25

Community capacity building means building the capacity at the individual, family,neighbourhood, group, community levels. Time and resources are required to:

Meet basic needs• Support individuals and families with some very basic services to enable them to

get together. This might entail transportation, child care, and family support.

Provide information• Develop a public information and education strategy to educate the public on

child and family issues. A more informed public will increase involvement.• Provide simple information to service providers who can assist in informing

families.• Identify a community liaison spokesperson with the responsibility for public

information and education.

Map community assets• Assist communities to understand and document their assets and strengths.• Ensure that available information is made more easily accessible to service

providers and consumers.

Establish a dedicated community development function• Identify community developers to work within neighbourhoods and communities.• Dedicate resources to community development.• Seek out leaders in neighbourhoods and communities that can assist.• Support staff of the new Regional Authority to become more involved in the

communities they serve and to build relationships.• Work with traditional Aboriginal leaders and family structures.

Establish processes and structures to link people together• Develop mechanism to link families together and link generations together.• Support the development of processes and structures to link the community

together, e.g., support the development of Social Planning Councils that can assistwith building community capacity. Examine more closely the “Communities ThatCare” model in Squamish.

• Recognize the importance of informal networks that evolve among parents oryouth and provide support to enhance their development, including peer supportand mutual aid.

• “Make sure it is worth my time to participate.” This was voiced most loudly byparents with special needs or in high risk situations who do not have time toparticipate.

Provide training/education• Provide training/education to parents and youth to establish peer support

programs and peer-driven initiatives.



26

• Train parents to provide certain services such as lunch programs in the schools,outreach to isolated parents, and parenting support services.

• Establish mentoring programs for all ages.

Support the enhancement of a volunteer infrastructure• Facilitate the availability of paid coordinators of volunteers.• Define a volunteer program with training and incentives. “Volunteerism does not

happen without the infrastructure support.”• Address issues of liability.• Initiate or expand on student and youth volunteer programs.

3.4.8 Potential Partnerships

Participants indicated that many effective relationships already exist among groupsand agencies. However, there is still a need for more formal arrangements to beestablished. This implies developing clear inter-sectoral protocols and agreements forjoint planning, funding and service delivery.

The key partnerships that were most often mentioned by participants includepartnering with:• all the key sectors involved with children, youth, and families, e.g., education,

health, mental health, income assistance, child care, justice, housing, employment,and training services, etc.

• the Aboriginal Authority• businesses• media to raise awareness and educate the public on key issues.

Participants indicated that the business community is willing to assist, but it will benecessary to clearly identify roles for them that address their needs and those of thenew Regional Authority.

Partnering to provide child protection services means that parents, other members ofthe family and community, and public and private agencies assume a greater role inthe design and implementation of services that protects children. Participantsindicated that this will take time, resources, and community capacity building and canonly be done in consultation with communities.



27

3.5 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

“The board cannot be run like a business.Kids and families are not like trees and highways.”

3.5.1 Board Composition and Representation

Many participants identified the need to have the community board elected ratherthan appointed by government.

Participants expressed their concern that the appointment process would not betransparent and accountable. They would like to have information on the nominationprocess. They indicated that the nomination process should be advertised widely toand through organizations and to the general public. A strategy should be developedto disseminate information to the ethnic media.

Participants clearly identified that the Child and Family Development Regional Boardshould not be a “business” Board.

Participants indicated that the size of the Board should be at the maximum allowable.The composition of the Board should achieve the following objectives:

• Reflect the diversity of the members living in the region in terms of age, sex,and in particular, ethno-cultural representation and youth representation.

• Reflect the geographical nature of the region ensuring that communities outsideof Vancouver including Bella Bella, Bella Coola, North Shore, Powell River, Seato Sky, Sunshine Coast, and Richmond, and neighbourhoods within Vancouverare represented on the Board.

• Reflect a range of special interest areas ensuring users of the services(consumers) such as parents, parents of children with special needs, adoptiveparents, foster parents, and youth are represented on the Board. Parents mustinclude a representative from fathers’ organizations.

• Have individuals who are knowledgeable and have an understanding andexperience in providing services to children and families. The knowledge baseparticularly mentioned includes early childhood development, preventionservices, special needs children, and youth issues.

• Have individuals who appreciate and understand community-based servicedelivery for families and children and community development issues.

• Have individuals who understand related areas such as health and education.

• Have a representative with financial management expertise.



28

• Have a representative from the health board, the school board, and themunicipal government.

• Representatives should not have political affiliations or be members ofagencies funded by the Board.

• Ensure a balance of perspectives.

• Ensure objectivity.

Participants made a number of additional suggestions regarding direct communitylinkage or representation on the Regional Board:

• Utilize existing community interagency collaborative structures, whereverpossible, to link with the Board and senior management of the new RegionalAuthority.

• Enhance or support the establishment of community/neighbourhoodadvisory bodies or councils based on geography that would have a link to theRegional Board. Each of the communities outside of Vancouver suggested this.For Vancouver, the suggestion was to utilize the six service area networks. Thesenetworks would need to be revitalized and provided with the appropriate supportsto function as formal linkages to the Board. The link could be through adedicated representative on the Board, either a representative from theirgeographical location (preferred option) or a Board member with an assignedportfolio.

Participants visualized these community/neighbourhood councils as havingconsumer representation, reflecting the diversity of their communities, includingall relevant sectors involved in child, youth, and family issues, and involving arange of subcommittees that cover special interests.

In addition, many participants see the role of these community councils as takingon greater responsibility for the planning, administration, and accountability forprograms and services in their communities and neighbourhoods, with servicedelivery provided by community-based agencies. They see these councils ashaving agreements with the Regional Authority to ensure delivery of specifiedservices within agreed to parameters, policies and standards.

• Enhance or support the establishment of advisory committees based onspecial interest areas such as early childhood development, special needschildren and families, ethno-cultural communities, youth, etc. These advisorycommittees could be represented on the Board, either by a member of theircommittee or a Board member with an assigned portfolio. Moreover, participantsvisualized these special interest committees as having a tiered system. Forexample, an ethno-cultural advisory committee to the Board could have



29

representatives from diverse cultural groups and organizations sitting on itscommittee and have direct links to a range of ethno-cultural communities.

Many participants favoured representation drawn from their geographical area, butalso wanted to ensure that input to the Board from special interest areas was providedin an organized and formal manner.

Terms of referenceTerms of Reference of the Board should include the following:• Establish a six month probation period to review if Board members are suitable

for continuing service on the Board.• Ensure length of stay on the Board provides for continuity of knowledge as well

as new members.• Institute an appeal process that would enable the community to object to a person

nominated to the Board.

TrainingParticipants indicated that training for Board members is critical, including culturalsensitivity training.

3.5.2 Community Input

“Board needs to serve the Community.”“Local voice needs to be brought back to regional decision-makers.”

Participants expressed a strong desire for continued input to the Regional Board andfor the establishment of an ongoing consultation process. However, they also stressedthe importance of ensuring that consultation is meaningful.

• “No token consultation. Ask for input only when you want to hear and use theinformation that is provided.”

• “Communities will respond if they know their input will be listened to and takeninto account.”

• “The words community and collaboration don’t go with authority andgovernance.”

Once the Board is established, who is on the Board needs to be widelycommunicated. The Board should develop a clear ongoing communication strategy.

A major concern of communities outside of Vancouver was to ensure that their voiceis heard. “Afraid we will be swallowed up by the larger population in Vancouver.”

Participants identified many different ways to ensure the community has input to theRegional Board:



30

• Designate each board member with a particular portfolio that would link theBoard to the community. This could be done on a geographic basis or area ofinterest or both.

• Hold Board meetings open to the public.• Publish Board agenda to enable people to choose when they would like to attend a

Board meeting.• Publish Board minutes.• Televise meetings on local cable channel.• Hold meetings in various parts of the region “travelling road show.”• Go where people already meet and attend their meetings. Be included on the

agenda of various organizations, committees, agencies and interagency meetings.• Have Board members visit programs and agencies and talk to consumers.• Hold open houses.• Hold community forums and focus groups on specific topics.• Enable regular presentations to the Board, e.g., once a month at minimum.• Establish processes to hear from consumers.• Ensure that mechanisms are in place to hear from people with disabilities,

including those who are hearing or visually impaired.• Consider literacy issues. Ensure all information is provided in plain language.

Recognize the importance of oral history as a way certain groups communicate.• Use the open-space forum approach to identify issues and discuss solutions. This

method enables people at the forum to set the agenda, determine what they wantto discuss and then seek solutions.

• Second service providers from community agencies for a specified period of timeto gain knowledge, understanding, and experience of the work of the RegionalAuthority. In turn, they would provide advice and assistance to the Board onparticular issues for a specified period of time (similar to the United Way model).

• Establish links with experts in specific areas to solicit advice, as required.• Develop a mechanism to enable the staff of the Regional Authority to provide

input to the Board.

3.5.3 Accountability

Many participants expressed the importance of the new Regional Board beingaccountable to the provincial government and to communities. Specific suggestionsmade relating to accountability include:

Communication and reportingParticipants identified a need for clear communication strategies such as regularbulletins or newsletters, available in print and on-line, and accessible in multiplelanguages and locations throughout the region. They would like to see an annualreport produced in plain language with information published in papers throughoutthe region. This could help ensure annual reporting on how funds have been used andwhat results have been achieved.



31

Outcome measures and evaluation rooted in community involvementParticipants emphasized the importance of community involvement in definingresults or outcomes. To be able to measure outcomes, there needs to be reliable,consistent, and regular data collection at the regional level. This information needs tobe shared with the community. Sharing success stories is also part of communicatingresults.

Participants mentioned the value of having programs evaluated. Services providerswanted the opportunity to learn how to carry out program evaluations. Concern wasraised on how best to secure feedback from consumers of the service. Serviceproviders and consumers both want to be involved in determining the best ways toevaluate programs and services.

An independent appeal processParticipants identified a need for an open, unbiased, and inclusive review and appealprocess. They indicated that an independent process is required which provides foran external review of Regional Authority’s decisions. An ombudsman-like positionwas recommended. The relationship of this function to the Board needs to be clearlydefined and communicated.

TransparencyAll activities of the Board need to be transparent. Participants emphasized the needfor the Board to articulate how it relates to the provincial government and to thecommunities it serves.

AdvocacyThere is a lack of advocacy in the current system. Participants would like to see anadvocacy function built into the system at various levels. This could includeindividuals advocating for other individuals and organizations advocating forchanges. The Board could also play a part in advocating for greater integration withother systems such as health and education.

4 Key Themes by Geographic Area

This section reports on the distinctive issues and suggestions arising fromconsultation sessions in geographical communities. It is intended to be a summary ofkey themes arising in each geographical location and to reflect the main messagespresented. In most locations, separate sessions were held with service providers andconsumers, although a number of sessions included both.

The geographical areas where consultations were held include: Bella Bella, BellaCoola, Powell River, North Shore, Richmond, Sea to Sky, Sunshine Coast, andVancouver. In Vancouver, several sessions were held in North and South Vancouver,grouped on the basis of the existing six area service provider networks.



32

4.1 Bella Bella

“What is needed is empowerment, reaching out to the community, family leadership, and building capacity.”

What is working wellParticipants indicated that having a resident protection worker in Bella Bella workswell. They also indicated that the system works well when there is respect fortraditional approaches and the contribution of traditional Aboriginal culture is beingrecognized. What works well is the Heiltsuk traditional capacity to help children andsupport families.

Issues/gaps A number of key issues specific to Bella Bella were identified:• Ministry response time is too slow.• Professional MCFD services are not linked very effectively to the traditional ways

of the Heiltsuk people.• There is a need for greater understanding of traditional ways, values and laws.

Suggested service delivery strategiesParticipants indicated that Bella Bella needs to be able to develop its own localservices system design. They would like to see local community control.“Let Bella Bella do things uniquely.”

Participants recognized that it will take time to reach out and involve families and“hear the true voice of the community.” They identified the need for enough time andthe support to build local community capacity.

What is required is as follows:• Build upon and support traditional values enabling family group decision-making.• Organize services around family strengths and work together holistically.• Strengthen and support elders, information carriers or family spokespersons.• Ensure greater integration among different service providers in diverse sectors

such as school, health, and MCFD.• Educate non-aboriginal workers in traditional ways so that they can become more

responsive and learn from elders.• Work more closely with the Chief, the Council, and the Band.• Provide support on a 24 hour, seven day a week basis.• Connect to the Heitsuk children in care who live away.

Governance (Bella Bella) Participants want to ensure that the Aboriginal voice is heard in deciding what is bestfor their community.



33

4.2 Bella Coola

“Develop a funding and accountability structure that supportslocal decision-making and organizational flexibility.”

What is working wellThe community works well together with scarce resources to cope with socio-economic challenges, isolation, and instability in the health and social service sectors.

Issues/gapsA number of key issues were raised specific to Bella Coola:• Current practices and policies do not recognize the limited resources available.• Funds are being spent on “gatekeeper assessment functions” rather than services.• If the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal planning processes, service delivery, and

governance are not linked, this will further fragment and erode resources.• If system redesign decisions are made outside of the community then local ideas

and solutions will not be implemented. The community has participated in manyplanning processes in the past yet has never seen results. Participants arepessimistic that positive changes will occur from the current process.

Suggested service delivery strategies• First Nations people of Bella Coola need to be involved and included in the

change process. It is imperative to develop partnerships and coordinate planningand service delivery with Bella Coola First Nations.

• Authority should be delegated to the community or district level to accommodatethe unique needs of Bella Coola. This would enable the community to act on andimplement local solutions. The community needs to identify its own needs.“Enable the local community to run its own show. Use the Carver approachsimilar to the style of the local hospital board.” A community developmentapproach is needed to achieve this.

• A funding model is required that is based on needs and will meet the core servicerequirements of the community. Funding flexibility is also required that willenable innovative solutions for hiring of specialized service providers.

• The Central Coast should be considered as a sub-region or district. This entitycould be multi-jurisdictional and include health, education, MCFD, and FirstNations. This would enable services and structures to be integrated across thejurisdictions. “In this way the community can progress beyond crisismanagement to real solutions.”

• There is a great need for transportation and recreation services for Bella Coolayouth.

Governance (Bella Coola)Participants called for direct representation from Bella Coola on the Regional Board,so the community does not feel isolated and cut off from the Region. They also sawthe necessity of establishing linkages with the emerging Aboriginal Authority.



34

4.3 North Shore

“Ensure that there is a degree of local autonomy in decisions about budgetsand programs. Ensure there is a collaborative community planning process

and meaningful consultation with community members.”

What is working wellService providers from many different sectors collaborate well on the North Shoreand have established both formal and informal working relationships.The Infant Development Program and Supported Child Care were cited as specificexamples of what works well. Parents are happy with these programs.“There is collaboration and good communication.”“They are inclusive and integrate children and parents.”

Issues/gapsParticipants had the following major concerns:• The image of the North Shore as being more affluent obscures the fact that there

are very considerable service needs.• Taking a regional approach in such a vastly diverse and geographically spread out

region will lead to a service delivery system that does not respond adequately tolocal needs. The specific needs of the North Shore could be lost in thereorganization of services.

• A further withdrawing from an already modest level of support for children andyouth will negatively impact services on the North Shore.

• There is limited ability to respond to parents from diverse ethnic groups that aresmall and do not have a support network.

• There is a lack of prevention services.• There is a need to enhance school-based programs.• There are a number of gaps in services to youth including a youth safe house (one

is being set up, but not supported by the Ministry), and treatment beds for youthwith addictions or eating disorders. Participants recognized a need to work moreclosely with the municipality to address youth issues.

Suggested service delivery strategiesParticipants were emphatic about the need to involve the North Shore community inplanning and delivery of services for children, youth, and families. There was alsoclear agreement that what is working well should be left alone. They stressed theimportance of community development and strengthening the capacity of thecommunity to work together.

Governance (North Shore)Participants expressed a strong desire to ensure the voice of the North Shore isrepresented on the new Regional Authority. They would like to see an open andparticipatory planning process. They called for establishing an effective monitoringand evaluation process.



35

4.4 Powell River

“This is a small community and we know one another well.This helps to work together effectively.”

“We have strong interagency partnerships.”“Our system in Powell River is not broken, so please don’t fix it.”

What is working wellPowell River has an extensive community process with a number of establishedinteragency committees and an integrated community case management model that isworking well.

The service delivery structure has two main hubs. One provides a range of services tofamilies and children with special needs and the other provides services in the area ofchild and family development. The emphasis is on “family-centred’ service delivery.The school district is actively involved in partnership with local agencies in providingsupport to children. There is a strong partnership and collaboration betweenAboriginal and non-Aboriginal service providers. There is also an exceptionalvolunteer component. “This community really gets behind things.”

Powell River is active in building the capacity of the community. It has developed asocial planning council with participation from all sectors of the community.“Community building is a time-consuming and lengthy process.”“Support is needed to allow the time and resources for this to happen.”

Issue/gapsParticipants indicated that decisions made outside of the community were notresponsive to the community’s unique situation.“Centralized decision-making does not work for our community.”

One of the main concerns identified is the fact that Powell River is a remotecommunity with a lack of specialized services.“It is very difficult and expensive for families to travel out of the community to receiveservice. It is a ten- hour return trip to the Mainland.”There are no speech therapy services, no in-patient alcohol and drug programs, fewoptions available for young offenders, and few free or low cost programs for familieswith young children.

There is a lack of support for young people.“All I know is that I am afraid. I don’t’ feel safe. I am afraid for myself and myfriends. There is so much violence and so many drugs in our schools.”

There is a stigma attached to accessing services in a small community. “Everyone knows you are seeking help for a problem – there is no privacy.”



36

Suggested service delivery strategiesPowell River participants emphasized the importance of maintaining the hubs forservice delivery, strong collaboration among agencies, and the need for a centralizedintake system.

Powell River has established a strong service delivery model for children with specialneeds and participants indicated that they do not want to see this combined with thechild protection system.

In addition, they highlighted the critical importance of being able to make their owndecision to meet their needs.“We need a model that localizes decision making.”“We need flexibility of funding allocation and ability to move funds around as serviceneeds change.”

Governance (Powell River)“We know what works for our community, please hear us.”

The following are specific suggestions about governance relating to Powell River:

• Ensure there is a designated Powell River member on the Regional Board.Participants indicated they would like to see an elected representative fromPowell River.

• Establish a subcommittee of the Board that focuses on rural issues.• Ensure Board meetings are held around the region, with minutes posted on the

web and annual report published in the local newspapers.• Consider designating the current “Powell River Interagency Management

Committee to act as a link to the Board and senior management of the newRegional Authority.

• Consider Powell River as part of the Vancouver Island Region. It should be notedthat participants were unanimous that they would like their community to be partof the Vancouver Island Region.

• Include a section in the Regional Authority’s Business Plan that addressesservices in the Powell River area.



37

4.5 Richmond

“Don’t fix what is not broken.”

Many of the issues and strategies common to all groups identified in Section 3 abovewere raised by participants in the Richmond sessions. Outlined below are a numberof distinctive features not already mentioned elsewhere.

What is working wellA key message from groups consulted in Richmond is that they have healthy inter-agency and inter-sectoral working relationships. They indicated that services arebeing coordinated in Richmond and the new Regional Authority should build on thesestrengths and not change things that are working well.

Issues/gapsParticipants expressed difficulty in accessing locally certain regional services such asyouth detoxification services. They highlighted the following gaps: lack of sufficientgroup homes and safe houses for youth, no eating disorder programs, lack of respiteservices, and lengthy waitlists for assessments of special needs children.

Suggested service delivery strategiesParticipants emphasized the following:• There is a need to strengthen services to ensure they are locally accessible and

integrated.• More culturally sensitive services are required for the large ethnic population in

Richmond.• Long-term funding should be made available to enhance continuity of services.• A community development approach is required to links families and

communities, and to build community capacity.• “There is a need to shift from a problem-based to strength-based support model.”

Governance (Richmond)Participants would like to have a representative on the new Regional Board from theRichmond area. Further, they expressed a strong desire to utilize and expand existingstructures to provide input to the new Regional Board, such as the RichmondCommunity Services Advisory Council.



38

4.6 Sea to Sky

“There is a benefit in smaller rural areas that is different to larger centres in that wehave been able to localize our services and integrate them.”

What is working wellAs a key example of what is working well, participants highlighted the childdevelopment team, which is an interdisciplinary team with a focus on earlyintervention.“Due to co-location we do work well together and to a large extent understand eachother’s jobs and therefore can assist and help each other out for the benefit of thefamilies and children we serve.”

Participants also pointed to the Infant Development and Supported Child careprograms which they see as working well.

Participants indicated that the “Communities That Care” in Squamish is a goodexample of diverse groups working together. This is a consortium of agencies,including business that are collectively seeking solutions to identified issues in theircommunities and are willing to share resources.

Issue/gapsParticipants identified gaps in the following areas:• services for children with special needs when they reach age four and are no

longer eligible for the Infant Development Program• in-school support for children with special needs• youth services• lengthy waiting times for specialized services.

Suggested service delivery strategiesThe following suggestions were made:• There is a need for greater community control.

“Funding is required at the community level. The community should be involvedin determining needs. Rural needs are different than in the urban centres.”

• Support is required to build the capacity of families and communities. Staffingand resources are required for community development.

• “A care coordinator is required to work with families.”• Specific strategies need to be put in place to integrate services.

“Get rid of stove pipes so that there is an integrated model.”• Portability of services is required.

“If families have to move, ensure that the services they access are portable.”

Governance (Sea to Sky)“We need a community advisory committee that can provide input to the Board.”“The whole community needs to assist in carrying out the plan of care for kids andfamilies in need.”



39

4.7 Sunshine Coast

“Funding should be given to the community and have usmake decisions about how to allocate it.”

What is working wellStrong formal and informal partnerships among service providers have beenestablished. A hub model of service delivery by a multi-service agency exists, withthe use of integrated case management techniques. Five community schoolsthroughout the Sunshine Coast each provide a focal point for neighbourhood services.MCFD has offices in both communities (Gibsons and Sechelt), which facilitatesaccess. A number of parent and early childhood development programs work well.

The Sunshine Coast is in the process of developing a social planning councilinvolving service providers and interested community members.

There is strong community support, with businesses supporting programs for specialneeds children and meal programs in the schools.“We have tremendous support from local businesses but there is a limit, businessesare maxed out.”

While there is a strong volunteer component, concern was expressed about the recentloss of the Volunteer and Information Centre. Participants emphasized theimportance of supporting volunteers, need for a paid co-ordinator and dedicatedstable resources to strengthen volunteerism and community involvement.

The five Sunshine Coast Community Schools work in partnership with communitygroups to develop healthy schools and communities. They have developed an arrayof programs to support children and families.13

Issues/gapsParticipants indicated that the Sunshine Coast is geographically isolated and it lacksspecialized services such as speech and language therapy. The Sunshine Coast ismade up of a number of distinct communities (e.g., Gibsons, Sechelt, and PenderHarbour) and services are needed in each of these communities. There is lack ofaffordable housing and shortage of child care spaces for children under three years ofage. There is limited focus on prevention. In particular, participants raised a numberof issues regarding services for youth:• There is a lack of addiction services for youth.

“There is a major drug problem in this community and very little treatmentavailable.”

• There are limited supports for at risk youth.“More and more youth are disconnected from school and families.”

13 See Appendix III-C for more details on the Sunshine Coast’s Community Schools Model.



40

• “Cutting youth off from support services after 16 years of age is a majorconcern.”

• “Placing children with unskilled caregivers in order to save money causeschildren to move more often and creates a dangerous situation.”

• There is a need for more recreational services.“There is nothing for youth to do in the community.”

Suggested service delivery strategiesParticipants emphasized the importance of building on strengths that already exist.They were very supportive of the community schools model and using schools as afocal point for MCFD programs, as well as linking with health, RCMP, etc.

Participants identified that that dedicated resources are required for preventionservices and universal parenting support programs.

Governance (Sunshine Coast)Participants would like to see an elected board or they would like to have a Boardmember appointed by the community and not the government.Participants were concerned that the needs of the Sunshine Coast would be lost inrelation to the needs of larger areas.“We are a little fish in a big pond.”

The following are specific suggestions regarding governance made by participants onthe Sunshine Coast:• Ensure a designated member of the Sunshine Coast on the Board.• Make use of existing structures to take on the advisory role to the Board. For

example, the new Social Planning Council could be a good vehicle to representthe Sunshine Coast.

• Decentralize service delivery decision-making to the community.“Funding should be given to the community and have us make decision abouthow to allocate it.”



41

4.8 Vancouver

Participants in the six area service networks in Vancouver shared many of the sameissues and suggested many similar service delivery strategies that have identified upto this point in the report.

Below are several messages that consistently arose in the six area service networkconsultation sessions:• Service delivery should occur through service hubs at neighbourhood houses,

community centre, and schools.• Schools-based programs should be strengthened and expanded.• Integration, coordination, and better communication are critical factors at all

levels of the system.• Flexible funding and greater autonomy should be provided to local

neighbourhoods to determine the best array of services for their local area.• The six area service networks form a good base for working at a local or

neighbourhood level. Participants suggested that these networks could beexpanded and strengthened to act in an advisory capacity to the Board. Ongoinginput to the Board is desired and seen as essential.

A further consideration in Vancouver is the Network of East Vancouver CommunityOrganizations (NEVCO). NEVCO is a community/public/private partnership madeup of representatives from neighbourhood-based resident groups, communityorganizations, and service agencies in Networks Two, Three, Five and Six inVancouver. NEVCO’s purpose is: “to transform the passive funder/recipientrelationship into a system in which East Vancouver residents and organizationsassume full responsibility for the delivery, through non-profit mechanisms, of allcommunity-based, non-institutional programs and services.” 14 Documentationprovided to the consultation process on NEVCO indicates that it is seeking funding toestablish a single umbrella mechanism to plan, manage, deliver and evaluatecommunity-based services to “ensure equity of outcome” for all community residentswithin its geographical boundaries. It emphasizes the need for flexibility andadvocates for maximum choice to adapt to changing goals and needs. Further, it iscommitted to service coordination, community capacity-building, and accountability.

Network Two submitted to the consultation process the work they prepared as part ofthe Contract and Program Restructuring Review (Jan, 1998). Network Two’s visionincludes four main service delivery elements that they indicated still need to beaddressed:15

• an integrated case management approach, with parent and child involved incollaborative decision-making with community-based professional staff

14 Network of East Vancouver Community Organizations (NEVCO) Philosophy and Principles, 2002(Draft 4)15 Consultation Process Summary, Network Two, Ministry of Children and Families, Contract andProgram Restructuring Review, January 30, 1998.



42

• services provided in the community using existing community structures andresources such as community centres and schools delivered through storefronttype services

• selection of service providers to be done in a collaborative way using alternativeways of contract selection (Current approach is seen as competitive and dividescommunities.)

• innovation in programs and services that enhance the natural family supportstructure and are built along a continuum.

5. Key Themes by Interest Group

This section summarizes the key themes identified by specific interest groupsconsulted as part of the consultation process:• parents including protection families, fathers, foster parents, and adoptive parents• residential services• early childhood development• special needs children and youth, including Infant Development Program, and

Supported Child Care• youth including youth in care and youth justice• ethno-cultural communities including service providers and parents.

Other groups consulted such as with staff of MCFD provided comments andsuggestions that are consistent with the overall themes identified in this report.

5.1 Parents

“Give parents tools and information so we can make the right and best decisions for our families.”

5.1.1 Overview

A diverse group of parents provided input to this process. Some of the parentsattended sessions with service providers, a number of sessions were held with parentswho are participants in various parent support programs, and several sessions wereheld inviting parents with special interests. For example, the following groups ofparents were involved in the consultation process: MCFD protection families, singleparents, adolescent parents, ethno-cultural parents, fathers, foster parents, adoptiveparents, and parents and adoptive parents of special needs children. Some parentspointed to the importance of recognizing the role of extended families, particularlygrandparents, in ensuring the well-being of children. The voice of grandparentsshould be heard and addressed to ensure that the needs of children are being met.

This section provides an overview of the common themes identified by parents. Thisis followed by separate sections summarizing the views of specific groups of parents.



43

Basic needs• Parents indicated that the first critical issue is to be able to meet basic needs of

providing food and shelter for themselves and their families. MCFD needs towork closely with other sectors responsible for income assistance and housing tohelp ensure that this base exists.

• A major concern for parents is transportation and child care to enable them toaccess services.

Open access and universal services• Parents would like to see open access to services, that is, access to services that is

not controlled by MCFD.• They also pointed to the importance of universal services that are available to

everyone regardless of income.• They indicated services need to be affordable to facilitate access.• Overall, they envisioned a system that is flexible and non-judgemental, and where

there is no stigma attached to accessing services needed.

Prevention and early intervention• Parents indicated that there is very little focus on prevention.• Services need to be proactive rather than responding to crisis. They indicated that

the situation has to be abusive and in crisis before they can receive help.“Everything focuses on crisis. Instead of putting a fence at the top of the cliff,they put an ambulance at the bottom.”

Relationships with MCFD social workers• While some parents identified good relationships with social workers from the

MCFD, others cited a lack of confidence and general distrust of the system.Negative experiences were particularly evident among parents who have had theirchildren apprehended.

• Parents often expressed the view that there are many inexperienced social workersand that they lack sensitivity to how others may live their lives.“Just because I don’t live like them, it doesn’t mean I don’t take care of mychildren.”

Information needs• Access to information is seen as critical. Parents indicated that they have

difficulty in obtaining information on what services are available. Access meansinformation that is simple for parents to understand, in their own language andavailable at convenient locations.

Access to services• “We need one point of entry and not duplicating that intake piece over and over

again.”



44

Integrated case management• “If someone takes responsibility to coordinate things and get people together and

advocates for you, then it really works.”

Service improvementsImprovement of services in the following areas were mentioned most often:• family support services from low intensity services such as “a place to go and talk

to other parents to get support for your problems” to high intensity, one-on-onesupport in your home

• programs that include child care, socializing, food, and educational content• parent crisis line (Some parents indicated that this is important, while others did

not trust such a line. However they felt that some kind of immediate stress release,or advice service is required.)

• prevention programs including affordable recreational and leisure services• parent networks and peer support groups as a way to “help families get on their

feet sooner”• school-based programs• multi-lingual information and services. (See Section 5.6 on Ethno-Cultural

Communities.)

5.1.2 Protection Families

“Many problems could be resolved in the home if they would give you some support, but they just want to take your kids.”

The overwhelming recommendation from parents is to ensure that programs andservices are available to assist families before a crisis occurs. Parents indicated thatthis may decrease the need for removing children and help to ensure that removal ofchildren is used as a very last resort.

Participants expressed concern that with decentralization, there is an even greaterneed to ensure there are provincial standards for child protection. Clear consistentprovincial policies are seen as essential, as well as a central number to call.

Parents who have had children removed expressed a lack of confidence in the system.The following quotes exemplify their views:

• “I asked the Ministry for help. They said the situation wasn’t severe enough, andthen they removed my child.”

• “They remove children too quickly.”• “When children are returned, it is a very stressful time. You need extra support to

help your children to adjust, but it is hard to trust that the Ministry wants to helpyou.”

• “It seems like they are waiting for you to fail.”



45

A recent report completed by a community group in Vancouver and submitted as partof the consultation process identifies a number of specific strategies as alternatives toapprehension:16

• ensuring proper assessment of risk• holding family group conferences• researching and implementation successful prevention models• supporting parents who have substance abuse issues• increasing understanding of how to address domestic violence and its relation to

child protection• recognizing a role for community-based advice or advocacy services to assist

parents• encouraging relatives and kin to participate in care giving responsibilities.

5.1.3 Fathers

“Services must at all times be based on the assumption of and activeacknowledgement of the crucial importance of fathers to their children.”

“Fathers need to be part of the family.”

Fathers made the following recommendations:• “Include fathers in policies, training and programs and services thereby

acknowledge their existence and importance to their children.”• Provide supports that include procedures to deal with poor or immigrant fathers,

provision of fathering courses, support groups for dads in recovery, and servicesto help fathers who are victims of domestic violence.

• Improve management of families that are going through separation and divorce.• Partner with community groups interested in a comprehensive approach to family

preservation.

5.1.4 Foster Parents

“Without the required supports, breakdown of the placement is inevitable.”

The key message from foster parents is that there is an increasing lack of support forfostering. These issues were discussed:• Information about fostering is difficult to access. Even though there is a foster

parent newsletter, this is not sufficient.• It is difficult to access Ministry social worker in a timely fashion.• There is a high turnover of Ministry social workers.• There is a long wait for special assessments at the Children’s Hospital. 16 “Alternatives to Apprehension: Education and Advocacy”, Rita Buchwitz, Oct. 2001 prepared forthe Inner –City Women’s Initiatives Society, Vancouver;



46

• There is a lack of suitable supportive programs in the school system.• Foster parents do not have a voice in the schools for the children in their care.• “We need to pay for many activities out of our pockets because recreational and

other activities are so expensive.”• Foster parents are receiving children with behavioural and special needs without

the required supports.• Children are being placed inappropriately. Those with high needs are being

placed in less highly qualified homes in what is perceived as a cost-savingmeasure on the part of MCFD.

Foster parents would like to see a number of changes:• more consistent contact with social workers so that plan of care can be developed

and implemented with appropriate follow-up• specialized training for social workers working with foster parents• more involvement of social workers in foster parent meetings and clubs to help

build trust and a better working relationship• a range of support services depending on the needs of the children, with specific

attention to provision of adequate respite services• foster parent training delivered by experienced foster parents• the voice of foster parents be heard by having a foster parent represented on the

Board and/or having a foster parent advisory group to the Board.

5.1.5 Adoptive Parents

Adoptive parents and service providers identified a number of issues and suggestedchanges:

Provincial versus regional responsibilities“The partnership between MCFD and community adoption groups is working well.”

• Currently MCFD has partnerships with two provincial voluntary sectororganizations, the Society of Special Needs Adoptive Parents (SNAP) and theAdoptive Families Association of BC (AFA). These organizations providesupport services to adoptive parents offering information, peer support on anindividual level, and support groups such as coffee groups, therapeutic groups,single parents groups, same-sex parents groups, etc. Adoptive parents find thesupport from these organizations as non-threatening, supportive and a way toconnect to others who share their concerns.“The support works because these are people who have walked in our shoes.”

• The view held is that it would not be efficient or effective to replicate this type ofresource on a regional basis or for each region to establish separate contracts withthese provincial organizations. It is being suggested that adoption remain aprovincial service and that SNAP and AFA be funded provincially.



47

• In addition, adoptive parents believe that there should be provincial standards toensure consistency in adoption services across the regions. While priority shouldbe given to adoption within the child’s birth region, time-limited criteria need tobe established after which the child should be moved to a provincial registry andan adoptive family sought more broadly throughout the province.

Community capacity“Adoptive parents are a community.”

“Peer support is the most meaningful way to connect.”

• Adoptive parents see themselves as a community. Many of the volunteers areadoptive parents themselves and they provide support to other adoptive parents.However, the volunteer capacity in the adoptive community is stretched and manyparents with adoptive special needs children are under a great deal of stress. Theyrequire an infrastructure that will support volunteer efforts. This could includeprovision of information, office and meeting space, ability to organize meetingsand training sessions, and ability to organize support groups.

Changing the image of adoption“Adoption is becoming more recognized and respected

but a paradigm shift needs to occur.”“It is difficult to move from guardianship to adoption.

There are still a lot of barriers.’

• There is a need for greater understanding and acceptance of adoption throughoutthe society. This should begin with education in the school system for studentsand teachers as well as general public information. It is also critical for socialworkers to receive more training in this area.

Post-adoption assistance“Adoption is a life-long Journey.”

“The best recruitment tool is good post adoptive services.”

• Criteria need to be developed to ensure more consistent and timely provision ofpost-adoption assistance. “If MCFD wishes to decrease the number of children incare, adoption is a viable option, but parents need ongoing support.”

• What are needed are respite opportunities, peer support, and a range of services tomeet special needs of their children. Post-adoptive services end at age 18 butmany special needs children continue to need support since adult services do notcommence until age 19.

Complexity of adoption services‘Adoption is a complex, multifaceted area….. it is unique and dynamic”

• Since the Adoption Act enables adoptive children to know about their birthfamilies, adoptive parents indicated that they not only have to deal with foster



48

parents, but with birth parents and sibling. This makes their task morecomplicated.

Policy requirements• Adoptive parents indicated that there are many inconsistent practices and that

“the system is full of biases.” They identified the need to clarify policies in anumber of areas: permanent placements for children in care, teen adoption,information to adoptive parents if a sibling is born to their adoptive child, thenumber of children a family can adopt, funding to cover special needs of adoptivechildren, and support for internationally adopted children. Currently there is nosupport for international adoptions. “Situation blows up, children are taken intocare, get adopted again (provincial adoption) and then can get support.”

Delivery strategiesA number of suggestions were given:• Ensure flexible services are readily accessible that meet the needs of adoptive

parents, particularly those with special needs children.• Seek more Aboriginal adoptive homes.• Increase adoptive parent support groups in the Aboriginal community.• Provide peer support and respite services.• Ensure qualified social workers are available to work with adoptive families.

5.2 Residential Services 17 (See also Section 5.5 on Youth)

Participants indicated that they believe the number of children in care is growing andthat emphasis needs to be placed on ways to ensure more prevention services andsupport to families and children before they are in a crisis situation.

A residential services submission,18 made as part of the MCFD Core Services Reviewby Nisha Family and Children’s Services Society, (currently Pacific ResourcesServices Society) was submitted as part of this consultation process. This reportproposes that rebuilding of residential services includes a number of key elements:

• Ensure safe and nurturing living arrangements for children and youth. Thisimplies the availability of a continuum of care offering a range of options fromstrengthening families to supporting arrangements with kith and kin and varioustypes of residential resources. There is a need to provide flexible support, wherethe best interests of the child are considered no matter where the child resides.“We should be willing to support out of care arrangements for at risk children upto the same level that we would if we had to take the children into care.”

17 Residential services refers to all forms of alternative care for children and youth including foster careand group homes, etc.18 Caring for Children and Youth, Residential Services Submission, MCFD Core Services Review,Submitted by Nisha Family and Children’s Services Society, November, 2001



49

• Choose a resource at the level of intensity that meets the child’s needs.Inappropriate levels result in a revolving door syndrome with the child moving inand out of care.

• Ensure the appropriate timeframe for the intervention plan. Short-terminterventions do not always meet needs. Many children and families requirelonger term support.

• Provide a range of non-residential services and supports, not only at the individualcase plan level, but at the systems level.“We need to resource and integrate the larger service system or our familysupport/residential services continuum will fail.” What this implies isstrengthening communities, developing more prevention programs, and linkingwith other systems such as schools, community centres, neighbourhood houses,health board, and mental health services.

5.3 Early Childhood Development Services (ECD)

“Funding of jam when there is no bread.In terms of early childhood development, there is a lot of rhetoric.

Many useful programs are being funded but it is fragmented,not building on existing strengths, no overall plan.

Core services are being dismantled while some special programs are being funded.”

Participants identified a number of common themes.

Integration“The child care system is the cornerstone of early childhood development.

This is a place where parents meet and service providers can meet and remove isolation.

MCFD needs to be connected to this system and other support programs for parents and children need to be connected to this system.”

• There was a commonly held view among participants that funding and policiesare not connected among the eight provincial government ministries that haveresponsibility for young children, nor are they connected among the differentlevels of government (federal, provincial, municipal). These, in turn, are notconnected with the non-profit sector and the community.

• Participants agreed that integration is a key requirement for ensuring effectiveearly childhood development services. The new Regional Authority will need toensure that integration among all the key groups involved is implemented at theregional and community/neighbourhood levels. Integrating with health,education, child care, and mental health services is seen as critical to the successof early childhood development.

• Many participants saw the delivery of early childhood development servicesintegrated with the delivery of child care services and/or family resource/ familysupport programs.



50

Funding“Evidence points to the fact that funding targeted programs is not the way to go;

all children need certain supports, though some children may require more.”“A proper child care system would help keep children out of expensive foster homes.”

• There is a major concern that reduction in subsidies for child care and SupportedChild Care and the overall budget cuts will impact early childhood developmentservices and cause more children to require protection services.

Provincial framework• Participants called for a Provincial Policy Framework for Early Childhood

Development that Regional Authorities can implement. This Policy Frameworkshould outline a vision, principles, core services and ensure accompanyingfunding to the Regional Authorities. At the regional level, there is also a need toarticulate a vision, principles and core services and provide funding to guidedelivery of services at neighbourhood and community levels.

• A great deal of work has already been done to establish a policy framework.“What is needed is leadership to make this a reality.”

• Participants indicated that a Framework for Early Childhood Development in BChas been set out in a number of studies. This framework provides a lens againstwhich all decision affecting early childhood development services should beassessed. The framework developed by the Early Childhood DevelopmentCommittee of First Call was submitted as part of the consultation. It outlinesseven essential elements of an early childhood development system for children0-6 years of age.19

Action plan• Participants suggested that the new Regional Authority bring together the key

individuals from all sectors that can impact policy and funding in order to developa long-term plan for early childhood development based a Provincial Framework.

5.4 Special Needs Children and Youth

“With some exceptions, services and programs are mostly a hodge-podge of half-hearted band-aids and crisis interventions. The main problems are under-resourcing,

fragmentation of services, poor case management, system inflexibility, andinadequate planning and evaluation.” (Parent of a child with special needs)

5.4.1 Overview

Parents and service providers consistently raised the following themes regardingservices to special needs children and youth: 19 See Appendix III-E for a brief description of the elements presented in A Framework for EarlyChildhood Development, developed by The Early Childhood Development Committee of First Call,Oct. 22, 2002



51

Clarification of roles and responsibilities• Many parents and service providers expressed concern about services to special

needs children being divided among a number of authorities. Also, they wereunclear as to the responsibilities of the Children and Family DevelopmentRegional Authority and the Community Living Services Authority. Manyparticipants were not aware of the Joint Policy Directorate or its role. Theyindicated that this situation was further compounded by the fact that manyservices are provided by the health and education sectors. “This reorganization ishighly problematic for services for children with special needs and their families.It causes further splintering of services and will make it impossible to take anefficient, effective and integrated approach to achieving the stated goals ofchildren with special needs.”

Coordination and integration of services• Parents of special needs children were confused about how to access services

which are fragmented. “Learning to navigate the system is difficult for parentsand particularly so for those who do not speak English.”

• Participants recommended a single entry point with integrated case-management.“Need for one- stop place for parents of children with special needs to be able toaccess services and obtain the referrals they require.”

• Participants called for establishment of a structure and process to bring togetherrepresentatives from all key sectors health, mental health, education, child care,and housing to work collaboratively to meet the needs of children and youth withspecial needs.

Early identification• “More children are entering the school system without their special needs being

detected early and increasing the school burden.”• Participants identified a need for more universal screening programs, dental,

visual, and hearing testing. A specific concern was raised for earlier detection ofhearing problems and more formal linkages with agencies providing support tochildren with hearing loss.

Individualized funding• Opinions on individualized funding varied. It is not considered a solution for

everyone. Participants felt that families should have a choice about individualizedfunding.

Critical services• Participants strongly felt that a major setback for families is the reduction of

and/or elimination of child care subsides for both special need and able–bodiedchildren.

• Parents of special needs children pointed to the critical need for information aboutwhat is available, from whom, and how to access services.



52

• Parents highlighted the need for intervention services and strategies and forshortening of waiting times for assessments. They indicated that where there isno specific diagnosis, services become even more fragmented.

• Three key services were cited most frequently as critical: the Infant DevelopmentProgram, Supported Child Care, and School-Aged Therapies. Service providersand parents expressed the fear that the Supported Child Care programs that areworking well will be dismantled. (The Infant Development Program andSupported Child Care are discussed in separate sections below.) In terms ofsupport to special needs children of school age, many services have beeneliminated. The School-Aged Therapy program remains the last programavailable to a majority of school aged special needs children. However, servicesare limited and there are lengthy waiting lists for assessments.

• Respite services, home support services, and parent support programs were alsocited as important.

• Parents called for a better method of assessing whether or not families can maketheir own arrangements for caregivers. Time is being spent on screeningcaregivers when families already have someone they know and trust.

• Participants identified a critical need for coordination of services to children andyouth with mental health issues. Many of these children fall between the cracksand are not supported by any system. Participants cited the need to open aprotection file on children and youth with mental health issues in order to provideservices, e.g., residential services.

• The needs of children with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (F.A.S.) or Fetal AlcoholSpectrum Disorder (F.A.S.D.) are not being sufficiently addressed. Serviceproviders and clients agreed that social workers lack sufficient training in thisarea.

Policy framework for children and youth with special needs• Participants pointed to work already done on developing a policy framework for

children and youth with special needs. In April, 2002, the Ministry of Childrenand Families worked with families, service providers and community partners todevelop a framework. Expert consultation was provided by Dr. MichaelGuralnick, Director of the University of Washington’s Centre for HumanDevelopment and Disability. This framework identifies the essential elements of aservice delivery model for special needs children to include: early identification,assessment and a comprehensive system of supports and services. 20

20 See Appendix III-F for more details on the Policy Framework for Children and Youth with SpecialNeeds, Draft April 2, 2001 available through The Child and Youth with Special Needs Branch, MCFD.Michael J. Guralnick, PH.D, Director, Centre on Human Development and Disability, University ofWashington, Seattle, WA, “Contemporary Issues in Early Intervention”, paper revised February 15,2001.



53

5.4.2 Infant Development Program

The Infant Development Program and the Aboriginal Infant Development programprovide supports to families with children from birth to three years of age who havedevelopmental delays or are at risk of delay. These programs integrate services forfamilies, provide or connect children and families to key supports in the community,and include home visits, assessments, playgroup, information, and a variety ofspecialized therapies depending on what is available.

The Infant Development Program is working well and parents and service providerswho participated in the consultation process expressed strong support for thisprogram.

A number of issues were identified:• In some locations, the program is not available when needed and there are waiting

lists.• In some locations, Aboriginal families cannot easily access the program.• There are limited services for ethno-cultural families.• There is a lack of support services for families such as respite, daycare, or

supported child care.• Specialized services in rural communities and isolated communities are lacking.• There is inadequate funding for professional development, particularly for staff in

rural and isolated communities.

If funds are not protected for this program, “there is a danger that the program willbe watered down and it will lose its professional expertise.” Participants fear that ifthe program is “watered down”, it will begin to unravel and will ultimately fail.

5.4.3 Supported Child Care

“Supported child care is on the road to building the capacity of child care centres to support special needs children.”

“Don’t mess with it.”

Participants identified a number of themes:

Effectiveness of Supported Child Care• Throughout the consultations, a key theme emerged that Supported Child Care is

working well. Concern was expressed that budget reductions in Supported ChildCare will negatively impact quality and access.

• Participants indicated that Supported Child Care in Vancouver is a result of acollaborative process that took place over a two-year period. It has been workingwell in terms of collaboration, networking, ensuring an integrated approach toplanning to minimize duplication of services, and providing choices for parents.An interagency resource team is available to provide advice to child care centres.



54

Good working relationships have been established with MCFD staff and linkswith the health and education systems have been strengthened. The programsupports over 50 inclusion contracts with child care centres (includes up to 25%special needs children), another 50 contracts with child care centres for childspecific services, and over 100 centres receiving advice. It also provides bridgingsupport for up to three months until more permanent services can be offered to afamily.

• Participants reported that supported Child Care in Richmond has developed awell-coordinated service delivery system with good working relationships withMCFD and other agencies. Child Care providers are well supported.

• Participants agreed that Supported Child Care on the North Shore is working well.There is good collaboration and communication. Parents participating in theconsultation session indicated that they are happy with the program. They see itas inclusive and supportive of children and parents. It enables them to choosechild care and preschool programs in their neighbourhood. The North Shore hasexperienced an increase in the number of child care centres that are willing to takeon special needs children because of the Supported Child Care Program. Workersin child care settings and preschools are receiving valuable on the job training andare better able to handle special needs children. Participants on the North Shoreindicated that the Supported Child Care model they have implemented could beused as an example for others. “It integrates child and parent.”

Funding• Participants expressed concern that financial cuts to Supported Child Care will

have a detrimental effect on the program. “Supported Child care has establishedgood links, but resources to make sure that the links are effective are lacking.”

• The number of hours of support provided to families is limited due to budgetrestraints. Many children are not getting sufficient time to make an impact ontheir language or socialization skills. “They cannot be integrated as easily or asquickly.”

Key service gaps• In a number of locations, five year olds in kindergarten who have not been

detected earlier for special needs cannot be handled by the school system. Thus, agreater demand is being put on Supported Child Care.

• Participants in Vancouver pointed to a “hidden waiting list for Supported ChildCare in Vancouver.” This is made up of eligible children whose parents wouldnot be eligible for the child care subsidy so they cannot afford to sent theirchildren to child care programs.

• There is an overall need for more training and education of child care workers andparents about early detection of special needs.

• There is demand for more multi-lingual services. This does not just imply theneed for more translators, but for multi-lingual service providers.



55

Suggested service delivery strategies• Participants agreed that the collaborative model of Supported Child Care currently

available in communities throughout the region should be maintained.• Participants indicated that the Supported Child Care program could benefit from

improvements in access. In some instances, there may be a need to simplifyadministration of the program.

5.5 Youth

5.5.1 Overview

“More attention should be paid to what youth are saying.”“We need to be in crisis before we are heard.”

A diverse group of youth, all of whom are involved or have been involved in someservices from the MCFD or other Ministries, were consulted as part of theconsultation process. These included: Aboriginal youth, street youth, youth inalternative school programs, youth in conflict with the law, teen moms, and youth incare.

What is fundamental to youth consulted is that they expressed the desires typical ofall youth for family, being happy, success, and having friends. Youth are seekingpractical assistance such as help with school, housing, getting a job. Having a youthsupport network, being treated with respect, “not talked down to”, being listened to,and provided with information to make choices were the common responses.

The perceptions of the youth who participated in the consultation process are outlinedbelow:

Importance of relationships• Youth repeatedly identified the need to have someone they can trust and talk to.

They expressed an overriding desire to be connected with others, whether in thenatural family, in foster care or in relation to service providers. They want to be“listened to” and treated with respect.“What is important is having someone you can trust and can support you.”

“We need someone to talk to.” “We need one-to-one contact.”

“Make sure we have counselling. Someone to talk to really does help.”“People who have time for you and programs that recognize where you are at.”“People who reach you on a personal level and take the time to help you.”“Everybody treated equally.”“Avoid judgement.”

• Notwithstanding that some youth established good relationships with workers inthe system, some shared very serious stories of mistreatment. Youth indicated alack of trust and confidence in the Ministry. They reported that many socialworkers do not understand their feelings and circumstances.



56

“They don’t understand how it feels to have your childhood taken away.”“We are not just a caseload, we are people.”“When you are younger they treat you like you don’t have feelings.”“The community tends to look down and shuns youth.”

• Youth identified the constant change in social workers as a major barrier tobuilding relationships. In addition, youth do not always identify themselves witha neighbourhood. There needs to be an avenue for them to maintain a consistentsupport system across neighbourhood boundaries within a region. They alsorequested continuity of workers if they move outside of the region.“No relationship can form between workers and youth because they change sooften.”“You open up to one worker and then you are switched.”

Elements that contribute to a good serviceYouth identified the following key elements of good service:• is available in one location, in your neighbourhood• is connected and integrated to easily access not only services offered by MCFD,

but other services such as health, education, training, employment, and incomeassistance

• has food and transportation available• has respectful workers• is user friendly with hours of operation that suit the youth’s situation• respects privacy – “Everybody knows our stuff.”• rewards and encourages youth.

“We need a system where youth are rewarded for improvements in behaviour. Igot retrained and found work and had day care funds for my child cut off.However, someone on drugs who is on welfare gets the child care support.”“It’s a struggle to work and go to school at the same time. We need support notpenalty.”“When you start to do well, you need some encouragement, but you get less andless attention and support.”

Concerns about care options (See also Section 5.2 on Residential Services.)Youth consulted who had some experience with being in care underlined a number ofconcerns:• They indicated the importance of ensuring effective screening and monitoring of

foster parents and group homes, listening to what youth are saying, and providingmore consistent supports, regardless of where the youth resides.

• Many youth stressed the importance of keeping the family together instead ofbeing taken into care and also the need to maintain family ties while in care. “Don’t take kids into care so quickly.”“Keep us (families) together.”“It is harsh being separated from my siblings.”

• Many recounted difficulties with foster care and group homes.“I have been to three good foster homes out of 25. It’s supposed to be a havenbut it is not.”



57

“We don’t get treated equally, not the same as the foster parents’ own kids.”“I don’t like all different staff all the time in the group home.”“There is no privacy. At the group home others would be listening around thecorner when you are visiting your parents.”

• Youth has a number of suggestion to improve care in foster and group homes:“Don’t move us through a bunch of social workers.”“No matter what age you are or who, you should have a choice in where youstay.”“It works when social workers are honest, not talking down to me, but on thesame level.”“It works when you get encouragement.”“Evaluate homes and pay more attention to finding foster parents.”“Provide more training to Ministry staff on interpersonal skills and working withyouth.”“Ensure we have more private visits.”“Give us our own account for books, clothing, supplies.”

• There were varied views on the effectiveness of providing financial support foryouth for independent living. Some participants indicated that this type ofsupport deters families from working out their issues. Others felt that keepingyouth in certain family situations intensifies the conflict.

Key gaps in services to youthYouth identified a need for the following:• personal growth programs for youth to balance physical, mental/ emotional

strengths, increase positive self image, and develop social skill that enhancesability to relate to others

• support services for youth, 13 -16 years of age• supports for older youth, 16-19 such as education, employment, life skills,

recreational, and leisure• support for youth 19+• help for youth to get into school (drop outs) or stay in school and more alternative

school options• affordable or free services for youth provided by community centres and in

schools. (Note: Anger management programs offered in the schools and fundedby the Attorney General have been cut. Often schools will make re-entryconditional on the youth taking an anger management course.)

• safe housing for youth• services specific to street youth which are a discreet population• support for teen moms and teen parents including day care subsidy• male counsellors as role models for male youth• peer support programs• information on services and the Youth in Care Network.



58

Youth involvement in making decisions• “Involving youth in a meaningful way takes time and support. It cannot just be

tokenism.”• Youth indicated that they want to be involved in planning and delivery of service.

They want a voice on the Regional Board. This could include a youthrepresentative on the Board, youth invited to Board meetings, Board going whereyouth meet, and regular youth focus groups. They pointed to organizations run byyouth that could play a key role in increasing youth involvement.

5.5.2 Youth Justice

“Don’t look at our past history, look at the improvements we are making.”(Youth in conflict with the law)

Service providers in the community involved in youth justice and youth in conflictwith law were consulted as part of the community consultation process. Serviceproviders expressed an overall concern that since youth justice is a small part of theoverall budget, it will not get the attention it requires in the move to regionalgovernance. Service providers and youth were equally concerned about the need forongoing support and consistency in service provision to young offenders.

Outlined below are key themes that reflect the views of services providers and youththat were consulted:

Funding• Participants indicated that budget cuts and constant change result in a lack of

prevention strategies, a focus on short term solutions, a decrease in the amount ofsupport given to youth, and a trend of moving youth from one location and oneservice to another.

• Participants identified an urgent need for stable, long-term funding to facilitatelonger term solutions and more consistency in the lives of youth.

• Participants also emphasized the importance of flexible funding to be able topersonalize services to meet the diverse needs of youth in conflict with the law.

New Federal Youth Justice Act• Service providers indicated that BC is a good position to implement the new

legislation because of its history of using more alternative approaches to custody.However, there are a number of new measures in the Act that may restrict theability to provide services in certain situations and may render youth at greaterrisk.

• Service providers suggested the need to bring together community agencies, theRegional Authority and the Aboriginal Authority to review and address theimplications of the new Act.



59

Independent living• Both service providers and youth expressed concern about “under-aged income

assistance” being provided to youth 16 years of age with the expectation of themliving on their own. Many youth are not well-equipped for this. They often donot have the necessary life skills, can’t handle money properly, and are comingback into the system because they are getting into trouble with the law.Participants recommended an increase in support from workers for youth who areattempting to live independently and more opportunities for semi- independentliving situations.“You have the money, but you are not ready for it and it is harder because youdon’t have that one-to-one support.”“We get money for food but not much else.”

Service delivery strategies• Clarification of responsibilities of the child protection system and the youth

justice system are required. Participants indicated that there is good coordinationamong the MCFD probation officers, social workers, and community agenciesproviding services to youth in conflict with the law. However, “there is anongoing battle as to whether the child protection system or the youth justicesystem is responsible for certain youth.”

• Developmental approach is seen as the most effective way to address the diverseneeds of youth who have committed crimes. Many services are designed to treateach of the youth’s problems separately with a focus on the pathology. Whatservice providers and youth indicated is that there is a need to place emphasis onthe whole person and the whole situation, and to deal with all aspects of theyouth’s life and environment in an integrated way. This is referred to as adevelopmental approach that takes into account behavioural, social, educational,economic and environmental aspects, and works with the strengths of the youth toseek positive solutions.

• Prevention and early intervention strategies are required. Both serviceproviders and youth indicated that youth “have to commit a crime before you canget services and supports.” They emphasized the need to support families andyouth before a crisis occurs. They called for more prevention programs.Participants pointed to the need to support youth 12-16 who come from high riskfamilies, where siblings or parents are or have been involved in criminalactivities. Support suggested here is one-on-one, with volunteer mentors, similarto a Big Brother’s model.

• Integrated case management is being used in the youth justice system andparticipants strongly supported the enhancement of this approach. They indicatedthat greater integration is required with the education and mental health systems.They also pointed out that for case management to be successful, someone needsto take a leadership role to ensure that all relevant individuals including socialworkers, counsellors, teachers, other service providers, the youth, and theirnatural or foster family participate in the process.

• Assessment of risk of re-offending is a key factor in determining the level andtype of services provided to youth in conflict with the law. Service providers



60

indicated that high and low risk youth, in terms of re-offending, should not bemixed in the same programs.

• Home-based services as well as one-on-one support workers were identified byparticipants as important delivery strategies for youth in conflict with the law.

• School programs should be explored that are receptive and can adapt to theneeds of youth in conflict with the law.“We get kicked out and other schools won’t accept us.”“Need programs where we can work at our own pace.”“We need programs that look at our strengths.”

• Community-based services, regional services and inter regional services areall required. Participants recognized that certain specialized and complex servicesfor young offenders may need to be provided on a regional or inter regional basis.However, they stressed the importance of communities and neighbourhoodsaccepting, and providing supports to integrate youth back into their families,neighbourhoods and communities after they have committed crimes.

• Collaborative models instead of competitive approaches should be promoted.Service providers gave support to a process where a range of agencies worktogether to identify solutions and where the competitive Request for Proposalapproach is eliminated.

Importance of relationships and choice• The most important factor for youth in conflict with the law, as with other youth

consulted, is the need for stable, supportive, and trusting relationships. Youth inconflict with the law expressed the following views:“I should feel lucky, I have had 52 people taking care of me, but I wouldn’t callthis helpful.”“After three months, you start trusting someone, and then they switch.”“Moral support and encouragement is important some of the time.”“Knowing that if you fall down, there is someone there to help you.”

• Youth consistently expressed the desire for more information about the optionsthat are available to them and to have a choice in what happens to them.“No choice where you move.”“Don’t listen to what you might want.”

Range of SupportsBoth service providers and youth identified the need for a diversity of youth justiceprograms. Participants identified the importance of support being accessible 24 hoursa day, seven days a week. They called for real choices, not a “cookie-cutterapproach.” In particular, they identified the following services:

• Stable place to live was seen as one of the most important services.• School programs are need that are more flexible and receptive to unique needs of

youth in conflict with the law• Skills development is required in terms of basis social skills as well as daily

management of finances and preparing meals. Participants indicated thatwilderness programs work well.



61

• “Educating kids on drugs at a young age is needed, like showing everyone thefilm Through the Blue Lens.”

• Drug and alcohol treatment programs to support youth are seen as critical.• Support services for youth with FAS are required.• Job search and job training programs to help youth secure employment are

needed.• Restorative justice programs are not seen as appropriate for everyone and

participant indicated that they should be implemented with care.

5.6 Ethno-Cultural Communities

5.6.1 Overview

“It is currently not a multi-cultural system,but a system with a few multi-cultural workers and programs.”

Consultations sessions were held with representatives from the Vancouver andRichmond MCFD Ethno-cultural Advisory Committees, front line ethno-culturalworkers, ethno-cultural parent groups (Vietnamese, Chinese, Filipino, LatinAmerican), and Multicultural liaison workers in the Vancouver School Board(representing Vietnamese, South Asian, Latin American, Chinese, Filipino, Korean,and Cambodian communities).

A number of key themes emerged from the consultation with ethno-cultural serviceproviders:

Education/information to ethno-cultural communities• There is a lack of understanding among ethno-cultural communities of the role

and policies of the MCFD. There is also fear and a negative image of the role ofsocial workers and of the MCFD.

• Participants suggested offering specific information and education programs todiverse cultural groups in their native tongue aimed at increasing understanding ofthe role and responsibilities of the new Authority and promoting knowledge aboutfamily and protection issues.

• Participants indicated that greater use should be made of the ethnic media such asprint, radio and local television to disseminate information and educate the multi-cultural communities.

Cultural sensitivity (competency) training• Participants identified a need to train MCFD staff at all levels, including Board

members to heighten their sensitivity to diverse cultures. Training for staffrequires a focus on addressing power imbalances and gaining hands-onexperience on how to deal with specific cases. Training is not just a one-timetraining effort, but requires continued enhancement.



62

Ethno-cultural workers• “There are simply not enough service providers in the system with the language,

cultural, and clinical skills required.” Participants said that efforts to recruitmore ethno-cultural workers are essential. “Currently it is tokenism. Fifty percentof the population are from other cultures in Vancouver and the numbers are evenhigher in Richmond. We need to respond to our demographics.”

Interpreters• There is a particular shortage of interpreters and the skills required of interpreters

should be clarified. A wider net of interpreters needs to be established.Participants suggested that partnerships be explored with colleges that havelanguage programs, and that consideration be given to using other ethno-culturalservice workers that the client may be comfortable with, if appropriate, to assistwith interpretation.

Ethno-cultural service delivery team• There is support for the development of an ethno-cultural service delivery team

with workers from a variety of cultures to provide support and expertise to socialworkers.

• The ethno-cultural team working with the family should be involved in thedecision-making process. Decision-making should not delegated to a supervisorylevel that lacks first hand knowledge of the family.

• Many ethno-cultural organizations providing support to families (e.g., immigrant-serving organizations, women in violence situations) are not being recognized byMCFD. More formal working relationships with these programs need to beestablished.

Ethno-specific programs for parents, families and youth• There are few ethno-cultural specific services for older youth 16-19.• There is a need to enhance support programs for parents in their native language.• There is a lack of training on how to deal with intergenerational conflict.• “Need to develop service options through an ethno-cultural lens.”

Ethno-cultural telephone line• A number of ethno-cultural telephone services are available. There is a need to

build on what already exists.• Seek partnerships with community agencies and businesses to support an ethno-

cultural telephone service.

Community developers• “The value of helping and being involved are integral to many cultures. However

so many families are consumed with meeting the basic needs for themselves andtheir children that they have no time or energy to become involved. We need tomeet their basic needs first.”

• Participants indicated a need to have workers who can work with ethno-culturalcommunities to help them identify their assets and determine what role they can



63

play. “Communities need help to find their direction.” This will requireredirection of resources to community development.

Collaboration with other sectors• The new Authority needs to work together with other systems to develop a

seamless system of care to support ethno-cultural families with a focus onprevention rather than intervention.

• Collaboration with the school system is critical. The new Authority shouldestablish more formal linkages with the Multi-Cultural Liaison Workers in theschool system.

• English language training is seen as an important component of a continuum ofservices required to develop the family and avoid crisis.

• Other essential services required include child care subsidies, and training andemployment programs.

5.6.2 Parents from Ethno-Cultural Communities

A number of specific issues and suggestions were raised by parents from a number ofdifferent ethno-cultural communities such as Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese, andLatin American communities:

Multi-lingual information and services• The need identified is not just for translation services but for workers who are

multi-lingual and sensitive to diverse cultures.“When I was visiting my child in a foster home, the social worker would not letme speak to her in Vietnamese because the social worker was not able tounderstand.”“We need positive parenting programs in our native language.”

Understanding of child rearing practices• There is a general lack of familiarity or understanding among many ethno-cultural

parents about Canadian practices of child rearing. In turn, there is a lack ofunderstanding by MCFD about the practices of different cultural groups.“The way Asian people discipline their children is different than in Canadianculture.”

Understanding of the protection system• Parents from different cultures lack an understanding of the protection system.

They identified a great need for more information, education, and counselling tobetter understanding of legislation, policies, procedures, and expectationregarding protection services.

• Parents indicated a reluctance to avail themselves of services offered by theMCFD for fear of being labelled as “bad or incompetent.”



64

The ethnic media• Participant indicated that many cultural groups have their own ethnic media and

greater use of ethnic newspapers, radio, and television, should be made todisseminate information on services or changes in policies, and to educate thecommunity on issues and practices.

Youth Services• Parents suggested a need for attention to services for youth that are appropriate

and sensitive to their cultural needs.



65

6 Summary of Key Strategies This section summarizes the key elements of a service delivery framework andgovernance structure arising from the suggestions made in the communityconsultation process.

6.1 Key Elements of a Service Delivery Framework

Values

Implement a service delivery model based on key values such as:• Self-determination of individuals, families and communities – being heard and

involved in decision-making• Cultural sensitivity and competence• Understanding of Aboriginal culture and traditions• Respect for the uniqueness of the children, youth, families, and communities in

our rural and urban areas• Equity of opportunity, access and outcome• Holistic, integrated and multi-disciplinary approach to addressing the concerns of

children, youth, families, and communities• Recognizing and building on strengths of children, youth, families, and

communities• Having choice• Open and honest communication• Trusting, respectful, and caring relationships• Focus on prevention and early intervention• Supported and valued workers

Community Decision-making Strategies

Community autonomy• Support the development of geographical community/neighbourhood

bodies/councils that are inter-agency and inter-sectoral that will have autonomyand flexibility to identify their own unique service delivery solutions withinagreed to outcomes. This means involvement in planning, in making decisionsabout funding, and in delivering a flexible range of services and programs thatmeet the specific needs of their neighbourhoods and communities.

Community capacity-building• Establish a community development responsibility within the region with

dedicated resources and work with communities to assist them in building thecapacity of families, communities, and neighbourhoods to implement solutions toaddress their unique needs and strengths.

Flexible funding• Implement a regional funding formula that will enable provision of regional

services delivered in selected locations, regional services delivered in local



66

communities, and community decision-making and flexible funding to deliverservices unique to each community/neighbourhood.

Rural flexibility• Ensure flexibility in planning and funding to meet the unique service needs and

human resource challenges of rural and isolated communities.

Collaboration Strategies

Integration and partnerships• Establish partnership arrangements with other ministries, levels of government

and sectors to ensure integrated planning and service delivery for children, youth,and families. Sectors should include health, education, mental health, drug andalcohol, income assistance, day care, housing, and justice.

• Establish clear linkages with the newly formed Aboriginal Authority and theCommunity Living Services Authority. Relationships should be formalized bydeveloping inter-sectoral committees, protocols, or contractual agreements.

Provincial/regional/community consistency• Clarify role and responsibilities to ensure a balance between provincial

consistency and regional autonomy and between regional consistency andcommunity/neighbourhood autonomy.

Regional frameworks, policies and standards• Develop regional frameworks, policies, standards to ensure consistency

throughout the region in promoting key services and programs such as: earlychildhood development, services to special needs children, including InfantDevelopment and Supported Child Care, family support services, adoptionservices, youth services, youth justice services, and services for protectionfamilies including alternative care for children and youth.

Communication Strategies

Communication/Public Education• Develop and implement a communication/public education strategy devoted to

ensuring information is available and communicated to all stakeholders and thepublic outlining the work of the Child and Family Development RegionalAuthority and educating stakeholders and the public on critical child and familyissues.

Multi-cultural strategies

Multi-lingual information• Provide multi-lingual information and education and make greater use of the

ethnic media in education and dissemination of information.Cultural sensitivity• Facilitate cultural sensitivity training of service providers, increased availability

of interpreters, and increased availability of ethno-cultural workers with ethno-cultural service teams to support the delivery of services.



67

Collaborations with ethno-cultural communities• Support community development with ethno-cultural communities and increased

collaboration with ethno-cultural organizations.Ethno-cultural programs and services• Build on existing ethno-cultural programs and ensure provision of appropriate

ethno-specific programs for parents, families and youth.

Direct Service Delivery Strategies

Community-based, neighbourhood hubs of service• Co-locate services in hubs in the community, particularly in neighbourhood

houses, community centers, family places and schools.School -based• Enhance existing school-based models and establish formal linkages with school

boards for shared space and joint programs.Community-based, prevention focus and family-support• Focus on families with a goal of changing patterns of interaction among family

members through offering parent education and support groups that focus on childdevelopment and health family relationships. Provide services before a crisisoccurs. This supports a family-centred approach where families are involved indecision-making and supports are centred around families.

Improved Access• Provide a welcoming point of entry for information and referral in each

community to respond to the needs of children, youth and families. (Note: theaccess point is ideally a single location in each community. However incommunities where more than one location is necessary to meet communityneeds, consistent information and referral should be accessible through any ofthese locations.)

• Facilitate open access to services that includes self- referral or referral bycommunity agencies (not controlled by MCFD).

Integrated services• Employ integrated case management and wrap-around approaches• Use multi-disciplinary service delivery teams linking key service providers from

across sectors such as health, mental health, alcohol and drug, justice, housing,income assistance, day care, education, etc.

Home-based and other outreach strategies• Ensure home visitation and other outreach strategies as a key component of the

delivery model.Mutual aid and peer support• Ensure that a structure and resources are in place for mutual aid, peer support and

volunteer involvement in service delivery.Volunteers• Support volunteer coordination and provision of supports to volunteers who assist

with service delivery.



68

Key Service Requirements

The following outlines the key service requirements from which choice can be madeto address the unique needs and strengths of children, youth, families, andcommunities:• information and public education• prevention services in collaboration with other sectors• early identification and intervention services for special needs children and high

risk families• a range of integrated early childhood development services• family supports before crisis occurs as well as more intensive supports to families

for child protection and family violence situations• a range of integrated services for special needs children and their families

including Supported Child Care and Infant Development Program• counselling services for youth and families, and improved access to specialized

therapy services in rural areas• services for youth including a range of co-located and integrated services such as:

alcohol and drug programs, anger management, skill development, counselling,recreational services, and safe housing, with youth involved in decision-making(Note: CFD Regional Authority should collaborate with those responsible foralcohol and drug programs to facilitate the provision of treatment programs in thisarea.)

• alternative care options when children need to be removed from their homes thatoffer a family environment and choices to encourage stability for children andyouth.

• youth justice services that meet the wide range of needs of youth in conflict withthe law.

Training strategies

Cultural sensitivity training• Enhance cultural sensitivity training to support service delivery.Community development training• Facilitate community development training.



69

6.2 Key Elements of a Governance Structure

Board composition and structure

• Ensure composition on the Regional Board includes representatives from each ofthe designated communities and neighbourhoods – Bella Bella/Bella Coola, NorthShore, Powell River, Richmond, Sea to Sky, Sunshine Coast, and the six servicearea networks in Vancouver.

• Ensure composition also reflects a range of interest areas and include parents,youth, special needs, early childhood development, ethno-cultural communities,etc.

• Select representatives to facilitate a balance of perspectives that areknowledgeable about services to children and families, understand community-based service delivery, have expertise in related areas such as health andeducation, and have financial management expertise.

Facilitate community-based decision-making and linkage to the Board

• Support the enhancement or establishment of neighbourhood or communitycouncils made up of service providers, consumers, and residents representingdiverse sectors of the geographical area. These neighbourhood and communitycouncils could have a representative on the CFD Regional Board and provideinput to CFD Board. These community councils could establish agreements withthe Regional Board to be responsible for the planning, administration, andaccountability of programs and services in their communities andneighbourhoods, with service delivery provided by community-based agencies.

• Establish mechanisms to link the Board to community interest groups in suchareas as early childhood development, special needs children and families, ethno-cultural communities, youth, etc. For example, assign Board members withparticular portfolio(s) to be responsible for the interest areas identified, utilizeand/or enhance established committees in these areas, or consider, whereappropriate, establishing advisory committees that can represent the issues ofthese various special interest areas to the Board.

Community input

• Implement a variety of mechanisms to ensure a wide range of community inputon an ongoing basis including holding open meetings, publishing agenda andminutes, enabling presentations from stakeholder and public, holding meeting andforums throughout the region, disseminating information through a variety ofmeans to ensure it reaches diverse audiences, and ensuring communication isclear and available in multiple languages.



70

Accountability

• Develop a process that identifies and measures outcomes. This requires thedevelopment and implementation of an evaluation framework to assess theeffectiveness and efficiency of programs and services being provided. Outcomesand outcome measures that are part of this framework should be determined inconsultation with communities and key stakeholders.

• Implement specific accountability measures such as the publication of a plainlanguage annual report with information published in papers throughout theregion to report on how funds have been used and what results have beenachieved.

• Establish an independent review and appeal process, similar to an ombudsmanfunction.



71

Appendix ICommunity Consultation

Background Material for Participants



72

Ministry of Children and Family DevelopmentVancouver Coastal Region

Integrated Planning Committee

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

Background Material for Participants

November/December 2002



73

INTRODUCTION

Dear Participant

As the Vancouver Coastal Region, Ministry of Children and FamilyDevelopment moves to a new regional governance structure, it isimportant to hear the views of the community. Thank you, in advance,for agreeing to participate in a community consultation process.

Since our intent is to consult with as wide an audience as possible, werecognize that participants will have different knowledge and experiencesas it relates to the work of the Ministry of Children and FamilyDevelopment. We have prepared this material to provide participantswith a common base of information.

The information presented here explains:• The purpose of the consultation;• The consultation process;• The questions to be addressed; and• The context in which the consultation is taking place.

We hope that you will share your views with us and we look forward toyour input.

Marion McAdam and Orene Brown

Co-chairs of theIntegrated Planning CommitteeVancouver Coastal Region

1



74

PURPOSE OF THE CONSULTATION

The Ministry of Children and Family Development is moving to regionalgovernance. By the spring of 2004 most of its programs and services willbe delivered by community-based authorities.

The Community Services Interim Authorities Act was approved by thelegislature on Oct 29, 2002. Under it, the Minister will create a numberof interim community governance authorities:

• A province-wide authority for community living services foradults with developmental disabilities, and services tospecial needs children and children with autism

• Five regional child and family service authorities• Five regional aboriginal authorities• A shared services authority

These interim authorities will be involved in community consultation,detailed planning and development for the permanent authorities that willtake over program delivery.

The Vancouver Coastal Region, Ministry of Children and FamilyDevelopment established the Integrated Planning Committee which ismade up of members of the community from diverse sectors andbackgrounds.

The responsibility of this committee is to make recommendations on thedevelopment of a new community-based service delivery system thatpromotes and enhances the capacity of families and communities to carefor and protect vulnerable children and youth and to move to regionalgovernance.

2



75

While the Integrated Planning Committee includes members of theAboriginal Community, this committee’s mandate is to makerecommendations on a structure of services and governance for the nonaboriginal community. A separate consultation process is beingestablished for the aboriginal community and they will be managing andimplementing this process. See the Appendix to find out more about theAboriginal Transition process.

The Integrated Planning Committee is working within the context of thesix key strategic directions identified by the Ministry of Children andFamily Development to transform the way services are being delivered tochildren and families. These strategic shifts are outlined in Section 5below.

The Integrated Planning Committee wants to hear from the community.We want to hear your innovative and creative views on:

• What a “child, youth, family friendly” community-basedservice delivery system would look like; and

• What type of governance structure would be most effective.

(The specific questions are identified in Section 4 below.)

Your input will be reviewed by the Integrated Planning Committee todevelop recommendations on a new service delivery system andgovernance plan for the Vancouver Coastal Region.

This is the beginning of a community consultation process and we will beseeking input on how to continue to engage the community on anongoing basis.



76

ABOUT THE CONSULTATIONPROCESS

Who is being consulted

The Integrated Planning Committee is reaching out to as manyindividuals and groups as possible, including clients, consumer groups,parents, youth, a wide range of community agencies and organizations,neighborhood associations, diverse cultural groups, service providers,professionals, staff, and program funders, etc.

Separate consultation processes have been established for the Aboriginalcommunity, Community Living Services and Mental Health Services forChildren and Youth. (Adult Mental Health Services are under a separatemandate.) See contact information in the Appendix.

Where the consultations are being held

Over 35 consultation sessions will be held from November 15, 2002 –December 15, 2002.

Consultations are being held across all geographical areas in the regionincluding: Vancouver (in the north and south areas), Richmond, NorthShore, Sea to Sky ( Squamish, Whistler/Pemberton), Sunshine Coast (Sechelt, Gibsons), Powell River, Bella Coola (with valley area) and BellaBella ( with outer coast area).

A number of sessions will be held with provincial or regional groupsrepresenting a particular area of interest, such as youth, ethno- culturalcommunity, parents, early childhood development, etc.

3



77

Methods of consultation

Most of the consultations are taking place in face to face meetings ofsmall groups (e.g., around 20 people). Sessions will be about two hoursin length. Refreshments will be provided.

The questions being addressed are identified in this material. Individualsand groups may choose to submit a written response instead of or inaddition to attending community sessions. Written responses should besent to the Community Development Co-ordinator, Zena Simces by Fax604 739-0840 or by email: [email protected]

A trained facilitator will guide the discussion in each of the sessions andinput will be recorded. Results will be provided to the IntegratedPlanning Committee for their review.

Ground rules for the sessions

To set the tone for a respectful, productive discussion:

• Listen carefully to others. Give everyone a fair hearing. Oneperson speaks at a time.

• Speak for yourself, not for others. Speak your mind freely but donot monopolize the conversation. Silence is okay.

• Allow your views to be questioned for the purpose of greaterunderstanding.

• Do not personalize the views of others. See disagreement as anopportunity to explore deeper understanding.

• Help keep the conversation on track.

• Respect confidentiality. What is said in the group will be recordedand used for analysis but individuals will not be identified.



78

THE QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED

Service Delivery Questions

If applicable, for each of the questions below, provide specificsuggestions on services to:

• youth• child protection• family support• early childhood development• special needs children and youth

1. In terms of delivery of services, what works well and why?

2. What does not work well and why?

3. What can communities do to respond to the needs of children,youth and families? What support do communities need to dothis?

4. How can services best be delivered to ensure a“child/youth/family friendly” community-based servicedelivery system?

a. How can children, youth, and families best accessservices they need?

b. How can services/agencies best be linked and worktogether?

4



79

5. Who do you see delivering the services?

a. What do you see each of the following doing?• staff of the Regional Authority• community agencies• informal networks• volunteers

b. What partnerships could be developed in the community?

6. What other ideas do you have to ensure the bestservices and delivery system for children, youth andfamilies? (Be concrete and creative.)

Governance Questions

7. What kind of structures would ensure that the regional governance authority is accountable to the community?

a. How can the diversity of your community bereflected?

b. What skills and abilities should therepresentatives have?

c. What information do you need to ensure thesystem is accountable and how should thisinformation be shared?

8. How can the voice of the community be heard in thenew governance structure:

a. In the planning phases?

b. On an ongoing long-term basis?



80

CONTEXT

Ministry of Children and Family Development Information(See also Ministry website: http:// www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/change)

Earlier consultation with Ministry clients, stakeholders, staff and others took placeduring the Ministry’s Core Review in the fall of 2001.The driving forces for the changes are outlined in the Ministry’s new vision, missionand principles.

VisionThe Ministry of Children and Family Development envisions a province of healthychildren and responsible families living in safe, caring and inclusive communities.

Mission

Our mission is to promote and develop the capacity of families and communities to:

• care for and protect vulnerable children and youth; and

• support adults with developmental disabilities

Principles

The following principles guide the ministry in its work:

• We believe in the right and primary responsibility of families to protect andsupport the growth and development of children and youth.

• We believe that government must acknowledge and reinforce the capacity ofcommunities to support and enhance the resilience of children and families.

• We believe that this ministry should provide the minimal interventionnecessary to ensure the safety and well being of our most vulnerablecommunity members.

5



81

Ministry of Children and Family Development’s Role and Mandate is to:

• Advance the safety and well being of vulnerable children, youth and adults.

• Advance early childhood development through strategic investments.

• Advance and support a community-based system of family services thatpromotes innovation, equity and accountability.

Strategic ShiftsIn 2001, the Ministry reviewed its mandate, services and programs to ensurethat they were focused to meet government’s economic, fiscal and socialobjectives. The result was the identification of six key strategic shifts thatprovide focus for the process of transforming the Ministry:

1. To open, accountable and transparent relationships.

2. To enabling communities to develop and deliver services within aconsolidated, coherent, community-based service delivery system.

3. To making strategic investments in capacity and resiliency building andproviding funding for programs and services known to work.

• Capacity, in this context, means ability and potential.

• Resiliency is the ability to recover from challenging situations.

• The ministry believes that individuals, families, and communities have thecapacity to successfully face and overcome challenges, provided that theyare given the opportunities and necessary supports to build and integratethis capacity.

4. To promoting family and community capacity to protect children and tosupport child and family development.

5. To a community-based service delivery system that promotes choice,innovation and shared responsibility.

6. To building capacity within Aboriginal communities to deliver a full range ofservices with emphasis on early childhood and family development..



82

Ministry of Children and Family Development

Primary Service Areas

This community consultation process focuses on the followingservice areas:

1. Child Protection and Family Development:

The Child Protection Program carries out the province’s responsibilities underthe Child, Family and Community Service Act, to ensure that children found tobe at risk of harm are protected from further abuse and neglect, and topromote the capacity of families and communities to support children.

• The program administers the children in care residential program,including foster care, contracted facilities, and independent living, andfinds adoptive homes for children permanently in the care of theprovince.

• Family development programs ensure that families whose children areat risk of harm receive the necessary support services.

2. Early Childhood Development and Special Needs Children and Youth:

Early Childhood Development encourages the development of healthychildren, preconception to age six, in order to prevent further problems thatwould subsequently require more intensive interventions.

Special needs services provide child and youth focused, and family supportprograms and interventions that promote healthy development and functioningof children and youth, to optimize lifetime opportunities and assist families intheir role of primary caregivers.

3. Youth Justice and Youth Services:(Child and Youth Mental Health- separate consultation process )

• Youth Justice programs promote rehabilitation by providing services tothose incarcerated in youth custody centres, and funding for a range ofcommunity-based alternatives to custody, including day programs,intensive supervision, alternative measures and community services.

• Youth Services provides programs for at-risk and sexually exploitedyouth, including support workers, prevention and promotion services, andyouth agreements.



83

APPENDIX - Contact Information

For those wishing to provide input on the following areas,please note the contacts below:

Services to the Aboriginal CommunityThe Aboriginal Transition Team (ATT) for the Vancouver Coastal Regionis currently consulting with First Nations Bands at both the governanceand the constituents’ level. In addition, the ATT is currently constructinga series of consultation sessions with Urban, Remote, Rural and MetisAboriginal Communities. Every effort is being made to encourage andsupport all Aboriginal Peoples in this Region to develop their own processto feed into this consultation phase. Further, Aboriginal Constituents havebeen encouraged to actively participate in the non-Aboriginal communityconsultation process as they are currently directly affected by these serviceproviders.

For more information contact David Pranteau via email at:[email protected]

Community Living ServicesCommunity Living Transition Steering Committee (CLTSC)Contact by phone: Vancouver: 604 660-2421 (ask to be transferred to 387-7027)Elsewhere in BC, dial toll-free: 1-800-663-7867 (ask to be transferred to387-7027)Mailing address:Communications @ CLTSC4920 Fraser StreetVancouver, BCV5W 2Y8Website: http://www.cltsc.bc.ca

Mental Health Child and Youth ServicesThe Vancouver Coastal Child and Youth Mental Health Planning Group isconducting a limited consultation process with selected internal andexternal stakeholders. External stakeholders will be responding via awritten questionnaire. Internal stakeholders will be participating in focusgroups. Information gathered regarding Mental Health Service delivery inthe region will be presented as a written report to the Integrated PlanningCommittee and the Interim Chief Executive Officer to be reviewed andconsidered in the service delivery model planning process.



84

For more information contact Dr. Clement Meunier via email at:[email protected]

Appendix IIList of Community Consultation Sessions



85

Community members, service providers and clientsArea:Bella BellaFocusing on: community members, service providers and otherconsumersDate: Wednesday, Nov. 20 2002Time:2:00 to 4:00 pmLocation: Alexa RestaurantCity: Bella Bella

Community members, service providers and clientsArea:Bella CoolaFocusing on: community members, service providers and otherconsumersDate: Thursday, Nov. 21 2002Time:10:00 to 12:00 pmLocation: Community Support Society Conference Room, ElchoStreet (located across the street from the hospital)City: Bella Coola

Service providersArea:Early Childhood DevelopmentFocusing on: ECD Committee of First CallDate: Thursday, Nov. 21 2002Time:8:30 to 10:00 pmLocation: United Way of the Lower Mainland, 4543 Canada WayCity: Burnaby

Service providersArea:Ethno CulturalFocusing on: MCFD Ethno-cultural Advisory CommitteeDate: Wednesday, Nov. 13 2002Time:1:00 to 3:00 pmLocation: 3284 East Broadway (at Rupert)City: Vancouver



86

Service providersArea:Ethno CulturalFocusing on: Service Providers to ethnocultural communitiesDate: Thursday, Nov. 28 2002Time:1:00 to 3:00 pmLocation: 3284 East Broadway (at Rupert)City: Vancouver

Service providersArea:Ethno CulturalFocusing on: Vancouver School Board Multi-cultural LiaisonWorkersDate: Friday, Dec. 13 2002Time:10:00 to 11:30 amLocation: Waverly Annex 2530 East 43rdCity: Vancouver

Service providersArea:Gibsons/SecheltFocusing on: Service providersDate: Friday, Nov. 29 2002Time:9:00 to 11:00 amLocation: School Board Office, 494 South FletcherCity: Gibsons

Service providersArea:MCFD StaffFocusing on: MCFD StaffDate: Friday, Nov. 15 2002Time:10:00 to 12:00 pmLocation: Leo Marshall Curriculum Centre 810 West 21 St.City: North Vancouver

Service providersArea:MCFD StaffFocusing on: MCFD StaffDate: Wednesday, Dec. 04 2002Time:2:00 to 4:00 pmLocation: Collingwood Neighbourhood House 5288 Joyce St.City: Vancouver



87

Service providersArea:North ShoreFocusing on: Service ProvidersDate: Thursday, Nov. 14 2002Time:12:00 to 1:30 pmLocation: North Shore Neighbourhood House 225 East 2nd StreetCity: North Vancouver

Service providersArea:Powell RiverFocusing on: Service ProvidersDate: Tuesday, Nov. 19 2002Time:10:00 to 12:00 pmLocation: Coast Town CentreCity: Powell River

Service providersArea:RichmondFocusing on: Service ProvidersDate: Wednesday, Nov. 20 2002Time:10:00 to 12:00 pmLocation: Westminster Health Centre - Room 4/57000 Westminster HighwayCity: Richmond

Service providersArea:SquamishFocusing on: Service providers and community groupsDate: Friday, Dec.13 2002Time:10:30 to 12:00 pmLocation: Squamish Public Library, 37907 - 2nd AvenueCity: Squamish

Service providersArea:Vancouver NorthFocusing on: Service providers and community groupsDate: Thursday, Nov. 28 2002Time:10:00 to 12:00 pmLocation: YWCA, 535 Hornby StreetCity: Vancouver



88

Service providersArea:Vancouver NorthFocusing on: Service providers and community groupsDate: Tuesday, Dec. 03 2002Time:2:00 to 4:00 pmLocation: Collingwood Neighbourhood House, 5288 Joyce St.City: Vancouver

Service providersArea:Vancouver NorthFocusing on: Service providers and community groupsDate: Tuesday, Dec. 10 2002Time:2:00 to 4:00 pmLocation: Ray-Cam Community Centre, 920 East Hastings StreetCity: Vancouver

Service providersArea:Vancouver SouthFocusing on: Service providers and community groupsDate: Wednesday, Nov. 20 2002Time:9:00 to 11:00 amLocation: South Vancouver Community Health Centre, 6405Knight StreetCity: Vancouver

Service providersArea:Vancouver SouthFocusing on: Service providers and community groupsDate: Thursday, Nov. 21 2002Time:9:00 to 11:00 amLocation: Raven Song Community Health Centre, 2450 OntarioStreetCity: Vancouver

Service providersArea:Supported Child CareFocusing on: Vancouver Supported Child Care AdvisoryCommitteeDate: Monday, Dec. 9 2002Time:9:30 to 11:00 amLocation: 1177 West BroadwayCity: Vancouver



89

Service providers and ParentsArea:Children with Special NeedsFocusing on: Richmond Parents with Special Needs Children andService providersDate: Tuesday, Dec. 10 2002Time:9:30 to 11:30 amLocation: Caring Place, 7000 Minoru Blvd.City: Richmond

Service providers and ParentsArea:Children with Special NeedsFocusing on: North Shore parents of children with special needsand service providers.Date: Wednesday, Dec. 18 2002Time:7:00 to 9:00 pmLocation: Leo Marshall Curriculum Centre, 810 West 21stCity: North Vancouver

Parent GroupArea:Ethno CulturalFocusing on: Vietnamese Parent GroupDate: Monday, Nov. 25 2002Time:11:00 to 12:00 amLocation: North Community Health Office, 2nd Floor, 1650Commercial DriveCity: Vancouver

Parent GroupArea:Ethno CulturalFocusing on: Chinese parent and teen groupDate: Tuesday, Dec. 03 2002Time:10:30 to 12:00 pmLocation: SUCCESS 28 Pender StreetCity: Vancouver

Parent GroupArea:Gibsons/SecheltFocusing on: parents and other consumersDate: Friday, Nov. 29 2002Time:1:00 to 3:00 pmLocation: Gibsons Family Place, 470 South FletcherCity: Gibsons



90

Parent GroupArea:North ShoreFocusing on: ParentsDate: Wednesday, Dec. 04 2002Time:5:30 to 6:30 or 7:00 pmLocation: Westcoast Energy, Children's Centre, Chesterfield and22nd (annex to Lonsdale Elementary School)City: North Vancouver

Parent GroupArea:ParentsFocusing on: Foster ParentsDate: Monday, Nov. 25 2002Time:10:00 to 12:00 pmLocation: 3284 East Broadway (at Rupert)City: Vancouver

Parent GroupArea:ParentsFocusing on: Society of Special Needs Adoptive Parents andAdoptive Families Association of BCDate: Wednesday, Dec. 04 2002Time:7:00 to 9:00 pmLocation: 409 Granville, 4th floor boardroom, (Granville andHastings)City: Vancouver

Parent GroupArea:Ethno CulturalFocusing on: Fillipino Parent Support GroupDate: Saturday, Nov. 23 2002Time:1:00 to 3:00 p.m.Location: Collingwood Neighbourhood HouseCity: Vancouver

Parent GroupArea:Ethno CulturalFocusing on: Latin American Parent Support GroupDate: Monday, Dec. 2 2002Time:1:00 to 3:00 p.m.Location: South Vancouver Neighbourhood HouseCity: Vancouver



91

Parents and other consumersArea:Powell RiverFocusing on: parents and other consumersDate: Tuesday, Nov. 19 2002Time:1:00 to 3:00 pmLocation: Coast Town CentreCity: Powell River

Parent GroupArea:RichmondFocusing on: ParentsDate: Monday, Dec. 2 2002Time:3:00 to 5:00 p.m.Location: Touchstone Family Place, 120 6411 Buswell Rd.City: Richmond

Parents and other consumersArea:SquamishFocusing on: parents and other consumersDate: Friday, Dec.13 2002Time:1:00 to 2:30 pmLocation: Squamish Public Library, 37907 - 2nd AvenueCity: Squamish

Parents and other consumersArea:Vancouver NorthFocusing on: parents and other consumersDate: Monday, Dec. 09 2002Time:12:30 to 2:00 pmLocation: Kiwassa Neighbourhood House, 2425 Oxford StreetCity: Vancouver

Parent GroupArea:Vancouver SouthFocusing on: Project ParentDate: Tuesday, Dec. 03 2002Time:1:30 to 3:00 pmLocation: 201 West 6th AvenueCity: Vancouver



92

Youth groupArea:Gibsons/SecheltFocusing on: YouthDate: Friday, Nov. 29 2002Time:3:30 to 5:00 pmLocation: Gibsons Family Place, 470 South FletcherCity: Gibsons

Youth groupArea:North ShoreFocusing on: YouthDate: Tuesday, Nov. 19 2002Time:7:00 to 9:00 pmLocation: North Shore Neighbourhood House 225 East 2nd StreetCity: North Vancouver

Youth groupArea:RichmondFocusing on: YouthDate: Tuesday, Nov. 26 2002Time:3:30 to 5:30 pmLocation: #170- 5720 Minoru Blvd.City: Richmond

Youth groupArea:Vancouver SouthFocusing on: YouthDate: Tuesday, Nov. 19 2002Time:5:00 to 6:30 pmLocation: Broadway Youth Resource Centre 691 East BroadwayCity: Vancouver

Youth groupArea:Vancouver SouthFocusing on: Eagle High youthDate: Thursday, Nov. 28 2002Time:9:00 to 10:30 amLocation: #201 - 2830 Grandview HighwayCity: Vancouver



93

Youth groupArea:YouthFocusing on: Youth in Care NetworkDate: Friday Dec. 20 200sTime:5:30 to 7:00 p.m.Location: 326 Pender St.City: Vancouver

Youth groupArea:YouthFocusing on: First Nations YouthDate: Thursday, Dec. 05 2002Time:4:30 to 6:30 pmLocation: Aboriginal Friendship Centre, 1607 East HastingsCity: Vancouver

Youth JusticeArea:Youth JusticeFocusing on: Service ProvidersDate: Tuesday Jan.13 2003Time:10:00 to 12:00 a.m.Location: Vancouver Public Library 350 West GeorgiaCity: Vancouver

Youth groupArea:Youth JusticeFocusing on: YouthDate: Thursday, Dec. 05 2002Time:4:00 to 6:00 pmLocation: Vancouver Public Library 350 West GeorgiaCity: Vancouver



94

Appendix III

Service Delivery Models Identified in the ConsultationProcess



95

Appendix III-A

The Vancouver System of Care Program Areas – Draft Frameworkfor Contracted Services, November 2002.

The “System of Care” report identifies the following key themes and principles:• Build resiliency and strengthen capacity in families and communities• Emphasize early and ongoing assessment and planning• Focus on fitting services rather than fixing families• Emphasize wrap-around services and integrated case management• Provide the most effective services that are evidence and outcome based• Separate services and placement and bring services to placement• Promote attachment and permanency for children and youth in care.

It further proposes that services to have the following features:• be home and community-based where possible• focus on strength• reflect the multi-cultural nature of the client population• ensure early and ongoing assessment• facilitate critical linkages among programs and integrate interventions• collaborate with key partners

The proposed program areas are:• Prevention and Early Support Services• Assessment and Clinical Services• Services to Children and Families• Services to Youth and their Families



96

Appendix III-B

Schools Uniting Neighbourhoods Initiative, Portland Oregon(www.sunschools.org)

This model brings together schools, community leaders, and agency professionals toplan the best ways to support children in education, encourage family and communityinvolvement, provide services, and utilize community buildings.

In this model a non-profit agency acts as the managing partner. The agenciesinvolved jointly hire a SUN site manager to help build and bring networks ofservices, programs, and volunteers together to benefit youth and the community.

The SUN vision is of schools as community centres dedicated to:• increasing student achievement and skills for healthy development• focusing on academics, recreation and enrichment for the whole neighbourhood

and bringing in new services and programs• providing health and social services such as counselling, health clinics and

mediation• creating a safer and more positive environment for students and the community• coordinating services more efficiently to meet the needs of neighbourhoods and

school districts

Events, classes, services, and activities are tailored to what the local communityneeds through the use of an Advisory Committee. Since each school andneighbourhood is different, each SUN school will be different as well.

Further, an evaluation team is used to measure impact and continually makesuggestions for improving the programs and their efficacy in the community.



97

Appendix III-C

The Sunshine Coast Community Schools Model

The five Community Schools on the Sunshine Coast have developed a model that:• ensures those who need services get them• facilitates the effective and efficient use of existing resources• fills the gaps in services and programs• allows schools to address the larger issues that hinder academic success• enables community members to access needed services at one location• provides a safe, caring and respectful school culture and climate• provides a dynamic mechanism for program planning, evaluation, and renewal.

The Sunshine Coast Community Schools model focuses on strengthening school andcommunity relations. It provides for a range of services:

School success - includes nutrition programs, preschool support, and academicsupport programs for both students and parents

Youth at Risk - includes education programs (anti-bullying, drug awareness, etc.),advocacy, community safety, intervention (youth counselling, restorative justice),recreation, and youth voice

Development - includes leadership, communication, and inter-generational programs

Relationships - included parent support programs, onsite day care and preschool,youth support programs, and counselling for parents and youth in crisis

Community participation - includes programs to reduce social and family isolation

Employment Opportunities - includes pre-employment training, skills assessment,job clubs, etc.



98

Appendix III-D

Community-based, Prevention-focus and Family Support ModelTaken from Communities, Children and Family Support, John Lippitt, Heller Schoolfor Advanced Studies in Social Welfare, Brandies University, 1996.

This model is based on the Dorchester CARES Project in Boston.

This service delivery model has the following features:

Focus on prevention and optimal child development using a collaborative teamapproach to integrated service delivery with universal availability and early, lessintrusive intervention

Focus on families with a goal of changing patterns of interaction among familymembers through parent education and support groups that focus on childdevelopment and healthy family relationship, through joint activities for parents andchildren

Neighbourhood or community-based programs that reflect the community, reduceisolation, and build the sense of community, often including drop-in centres,information and referral, and child care

Formal and informal services that are interwoven and focus on strengths not deficits

Home visitation for assessment, screening, service referral, parenting education, andsocial support

Service providers and recipients that function as partners in planning anddelivering an integrated set of services. Steering Committees are developed withrepresentation of service providers and up to 50% recipients. In some situations,these committee evolve into policy-making boards.

Operational characteristics of this model include:co-located services in the community with easy access and one stop shoppingcoordinated service deliverymulti-disciplinary focusfamily-centred and client-centred approachesempowerment of individuals, families and communities.



99

Appendix III-E

Key Elements of an Early Childhood Development FrameworkTaken from “A Framework for Early Childhood Development, developed by theEarly Childhood Development Committee of First Call, Oct. 22, 2002

• Healthy development for allAll children should have access to the conditions for health child development. Acombination of universal and targeted programs is necessary to improve outcomesfor children.

• Interlocking environment and programs approaches“An environmental approach means supporting inter-sectoral efforts to improvethe aspects of stability, stimulation, support, and nurturance in all theenvironments where young children spend their time- home, neighbourhood andcare.A service approach means attending to the adequacy and sustainability offunding, stability, effectiveness, and accessibility of programs and services thatcan and do increase resilience, reduce vulnerability, and reduce in equality inECD.”

• Inter-sectoral collaboration

• Removal of barriersThis includes removal of barriers to access such as “cost, location, transportation,availability, language/cultural issues, parental work-life/home conflicts, parentalrecognition of need, and parental feeling of legitimacy.”

• Neighbourhood-based continuumThis includes hubs of services in neighbourhood providing integrated services.

• Accommodation of mobility“The core should be a series of tools and resources that would follow the childand family wherever they are.”

• Monitoring, accountability, a provincial plan and infrastructure.



100

Appendix III-F

Policy Framework for Children and Youth with Special NeedsDraft 2, 2001, available through the Child and Youth with Special Needs Branch,MCFD.

The goal of the framework “To develop an integrated, effective, and responsive system that optimized thedevelopment of children and youth with special needs.”

Key principles of the frameworkevidence-basedfamily-centredindividualized (right support at the right time based on individual needs)integratedemphasis on promotion, prevention, and early support.

The service delivery model proposed in the framework includes essential features:

Early identification is ensured from the first point of contact to address the needs ofthe child, youth, and family in a holistic manner.

Assessment is based on strengths and needs that families themselves perceive. Whenmore that one service provider is involved, the assessment is multi-disciplinary andintegrated.

Comprehensive, integrated system of supports and services are provided thatinclude three key areas (based on Dr. Michael Guralnick’s work):resource supports that enable parents to take advantage of available information,services and supportssocial supports that include peer support and informal networks of family, friends,and community membersinformation and services that provide publicly funded programs to addresschildren’s special needs.

The framework also points to a select number of issues that need to be addressed toensure a more effective service system. These include service availability, smoothtransitions (i.e., from early childhood to school, from elementary to secondary, etc.),portability, and monitoring and evaluation of individual and system outcomes.

Documents

Results of the community consultation process: Children ... · CFD Vancouver Coastal Region – Community Consultation_____ _____ Prepared by Zena Simces & Associates - Final Report,

Results of the community consultation process: Children ... · CFD Vancouver Coastal Region – Community Consultation_ _ Prepared by Zena Simces & Associates - Final Report,