ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF RESIDENCES TREATING YOUTH
SAULT STE MARIE INDIAN FRIENDSHIP CENTRE NEECH KE WEHN HOMES
CONTENTS
Tuesday 11 June 1996
Children's services
Ontario Association of Residences Treating Youth
Alan Hayes, board member
Larry Sanders, president
Sault Ste Marie Indian Friendship Centre; Neech Ke Wehn Homes
Carolyn Harrington, economic development worker
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Président: Patten, Richard (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Gerretsen, John (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)
*Ecker, Janet (Durham West / -Ouest PC)
Gerretsen, John (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)
Gravelle, Michael (Port Arthur L)
Johns, Helen (Huron PC)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
*Kennedy, Gerard (York South / -Sud L)
*Laughren, Floyd (Nickel Belt ND)
*Munro, Julia (Durham-York PC)
*Newman, Dan (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
*Patten, Richard (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Pettit, Trevor (Hamilton Mountain PC)
*Preston, Peter L. (Brant-Haldimand PC)
*Smith, Bruce (Middlesex PC)
Wildman, Bud (Algoma ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Bartolucci, Rick (Sudbury L) for Mr Gerretsen
Cooke, David S. (Windsor-Riverside ND) for Mr Wildman
Froese, Tom (St Catharines-Brock PC) for Mr Pettit
Pupatello, Sandra (Windsor-Sandwich L) for Mr Gravelle
Ross, Lillian (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC) for Mrs Johns
Wettlaufer, Wayne (Kitchener PC) for Mr Jordan
Clerk / Greffière: Lynn Mellor
Staff / Personnel: Ted Glenn, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1605 in room 151.
CHILDREN'S SERVICES
Consideration of the designated matter pursuant to standing order 125 relating to the impact of the Conservative government funding cuts on children and children's services in the province of Ontario.
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF RESIDENCES TREATING YOUTH
The Chair (Mr Richard Patten): We can convene our meeting this afternoon, resumption of the standing committee on social development.
Gentlemen, the standing order matter is the impact of Conservative government funding cuts on children and on children's services in the province of Ontario, and we welcome you today. You have half an hour. You may use that time as you wish. Normally witnesses make a presentation and allow some time for questions, but whatever proportion is up to you, and whatever combination you see fit. We welcome you, and we will begin the questioning subsequently with the government side.
Mrs Janet Ecker (Durham West): We're pleased that the Liberals have joined us for the committee hearing this afternoon. Welcome, Mr Bartolucci.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Obviously, Ms Ecker, it's so nice to be here. I see we have a full complement, but you're short one. Isn't that something. Oh, well, we'll go on anyway.
Mrs Ecker: We waited patiently for you.
The Chair: All right, let's begin to hear our first witnesses today. Welcome, gentlemen.
Mr Alan Hayes: I appreciate the opportunity of presenting to you today.
The Chair: I'm sorry. Could you identify yourselves, please.
Mr Hayes: My name is Alan Hayes. I'm the executive director of Haydon Youth Services and a board member of the Ontario Association of Residences Treating Youth.
Mr Larry Sanders: My name is Larry Sanders. I'm the chairman and chief executive officer of Bayfield Homes and the president of the Ontario Association of Residences Treating Youth.
Mr Hayes: The Ontario Association of Residences Treating Youth is a provincial network of 43 private sector agencies providing residential services on a per diem basis to children from infants to young adults. OARTY agencies provide over 800 residential beds for children across the province in settings including group homes, specialized foster care and treatment facilities.
OARTY agencies have historically been the major source of residential care for Ontario's neediest youngsters, that is, those whom due to the severity of their disturbance and lack of supportive, healthy family systems have been made wards of the crown. This means simply that the province has accepted responsibility for the care and the upbringing of these children. It is imperative that the province and we as society recognize the tremendous long-term impact decisions we make now involving these children will have on the future prospects of their being healthy, responsible parents as well as contributors to society.
In a 1993 study of OARTY agencies called Partners in Care, Robert Fulton found that in the fiscal year 1991-92, 25% of all OARTY programs operated at a loss. Since 1992, OARTY agencies have experienced substantially reduced revenues due to government financial constraints, while operating costs have continued to increase. While many of our transfer payment partners have been able to deal with these constraints by operating at reduced occupancy rates or in fact eliminating essential residential beds from the system, per diem funded facilities only receive funding for actual services rendered. Simply, that means if you have five children in a residence, you get paid for five; if you have eight, you get paid for eight.
Unfortunately, the result of this imbalance of revenue versus expense has been the closure through bankruptcy or financial crisis of several established and quality programs. Unless immediate attention is paid to this issue, I believe this trend will continue.
If the private sector is allowed to be eliminated from the spectrum of services available to the province in caring for our neediest youngsters, the unfortunate result will be fewer services for children servicing fewer children at substantially more cost.
An April 1996 Ministry of Community and Social Services area office study of residential care in the Toronto area clearly shows that transfer payment facilities are consistently operated at lower occupancy and at greater cost than those in the private per diem sector. As an example, adolescent coed transfer payment facilities operated at 80.4% occupancy, at an average cost of $249.70 per child per day. Per diem residences treating the same group operated at 101.8% occupancy, at an average of $184 per day per child.
I would like to leave you with one person's evaluation of the importance of the private sector and leave it to you to assess the devastating impact in the reduction or elimination of this sector. At our 1993 annual conference, Mr Bruce Rivers, executive director of the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, in his keynote address had the following things to say to us:
"The broad perception among those that work with you directly...is that more than any other sector, you have continued to develop programs that respond to changing client needs. Your screening process is flexible, responsive, timely and not rooted in a bureaucratic process of screening out but rather screening in. As a sector you are seen as accommodating a wider variety of very troubled children and youth; you're flexible on an individual case-by-case basis and are inclined to try harder and longer with high-risk kids. Each of you has tended towards developing specialties and expertise with particular client groups. Together, as a sector, you have created a comprehensive array of residential services and as evidenced by your research, entitled Partners in Care, you have done an outstanding job of rising to a most significant challenge."
Clearly this valuable resource to our vulnerable and neediest children cannot be allowed to disappear.
Larry will now present to you a proposal that would both address the needs of our current fiscal situation and allow for a comprehensive and cohesive delivery of services to our children in need.
Mr Sanders: I'd like to present to you a summary of the highlights from the Integrated Residential Services of Ontario, A Private Sector Solution, developed by the Ontario Association of Residences Treating Youth. This proposal has been circulated and/or presented to the MCSS minister, David Tsubouchi, and his staff, including an assistant deputy minister, the director of children's services and policy analysts. We were fortunate to be included in the current consultation process conducted by MCSS.
We've consulted with CAS's across the province, ranging from Ottawa to Metro to London to Sudbury, and we've included many of their suggestions in the proposal. We've also circulated and/or discussed the proposal with other children's service providers. As well, many MPPs have been briefed with respect to this proposal.
Residential services today: A wide range of children benefit from residential services in the province of Ontario. These children are helped by a diverse group of service providers who utilize different approaches, expect different outcomes, within different service sectors and are funded by different models. The current system is fragmented and unnecessarily duplicated due to a lack of coordination and inequity in funding arrangements.
Hard-to-serve children and youth have been bounced from placement to placement, abused by the current system. In order to gain access to residential services, many children have to become wards of the state, resulting in a very expensive, painful and often unnecessary step.
There have been ongoing projects, usually driven by the government of the day, to make the system more efficient, effective and accountable. Seen in the short run, residential services are the most intrusive and expensive interventions. Done effectively, residential services can be the best possible intervention, with long-term savings to society.
Numerous task forces, working groups, policy framework groups and committees have completed research and reported their findings. Some excellent ideas have been generated; however, the government of the day has failed to implement many of the recommendations. It is incumbent upon the Progressive Conservative government to take a commonsense, cost-saving approach to providing responsible residential services to our children and youth.
The solution: The same method of funding must be used for all residential service providers, based on a per diem model, administered by one integrated service delivery system. This will ensure a maximum utilization of existing resources, guarantee financial accountability and create significant cost savings for the government. This centralized mechanism will yield reliable data, as one tracking system will be responsible and will provide equal and coordinated access for children and youth regardless of where they live in Ontario. It will be efficient and effective from the consumers' perspective and serve those with the greatest need. A single-point access system will be an investment in our families and will prevent our children from being drawn into a variety of systems.
The fundamental principles provide the framework for this proposal:
(1) The funding shall follow the child through the system.
(2) Where possible, children shall stay in their own communities.
(3) All avenues for non-residential services shall be explored prior to a request for residential care.
(4) Mandatory services require priority access for emergency and receiving beds and appropriate structures shall be put in place to meet these needs.
(5) Where necessary, the mandatory services shall automatically become the case managers for protection in court-related and court-ordered cases.
(6) A levels-of-care model shall provide the basis for the new system.
(7) A single-point access structure existing in our system today shall become the local access to residential services -- the acronym LABS. All communities shall develop a LABS.
(8) A comprehensive information system shall be developed to ensure appropriate residential placements, track and project transient services, follow the child through the system and track the patterns of utilization.
(9) All residential services shall be funded on a per diem basis.
(10) The total number of residential beds shall be provincially capped to ensure fiscal control.
With the proposal there are definitions with respect to the models that we are presenting. I won't go into these in terms of briefing you, but they are contained in there and you may read them to flesh our the entire proposal. I would like to draw your attention to some statistical and financial information that you may find of interest.
Approximately 30,000 children receive residential care each year. Under child and family intervention, child treatment, young offenders, child development and outside placement institution line items account for approximately 1,570,000 days of care. The total money spent for those days of care is $337 million. Assuming an average per diem of $200, the government would recognize an immediate saving of $23,550,000. A further $10 million to $12 million would be saved through centralizing placement case and resource management of the many CAS systems.
All children of the province would have equal access to all services in the province, regardless of their actual geographic location. Through centralized data collection, the ministry would have more reliable information regarding the system to make future decisions involving the care of children in the province.
Finally, the next steps, of which there are four: The first one would be commitment from the province; the second would be a provincial mechanism for hiring or tendering the PIRSE, which is the provincial integration for residential services enterprise; the third would be a strategy and time frame to change residential funding to per diem; and finally, a database design and hardware requirements for an interactive system.
The Chair: Are you ready for questions at this point?
Mr Sanders: Yes.
The Chair: All right. Thank you for the presentation. We have 18 minutes, so that would be six minutes for each side. We'll begin with the government side, Mr Preston.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): This is a great proposal. There are some points in it that I'd like to talk to you about, but all in all it's a great proposal. I'm going to put forward a few points here and then ask you a question when I'm finished.
A transfer payment facility, budgets not spent. "Better get it spent." Four canoes sit on a roof in a secure custody; four canoes that have been there for seven years, haven't been used. The next time they were underbudget, four mountain bikes, $50,000 to $60,000 worth of sports equipment in a cupboard, and these people say: "Well, the sentence ends when they get to the door. From now on it's going to be a nurturing atmosphere."
That's a transfer payment facility that gets about $350 a day. Whether they're full or not, their budget stands. If it's not spent, they get rid of it at the end of the year.
1620
At another facility -- now, this is not transfer -- the swimming pool that's an indoor pool is full of household waste. The section 27 teacher goes in, goes downstairs and locks the door because he can't stand the kids. There are no doors on any rooms including the bathroom. Get ready for this one: An HIV-positive boy bites the nipple off a girl. They had to sell all their horses because of the cruel treatment. They were using chickens for golf. The school board coordinator takes a boy and his father in there and says, "This is where we're going to send you." The father says: "If you do, I'll sue you. Keep my kid out of there."
Those are two basic ways of funding: one transfer, one a per diem. The second one is $300 a day. Do you believe, sir, that there should be a complete review of both ways of funding, and if people are not up to scratch they should be closed down or brought up to scratch?
Mr Hayes: I would find it hard to believe that those people can pass their licence.
Mr Preston: It went on for two years.
Mr Hayes: There are licensing requirements, and I would say it has to go back to the licensing people. Obviously they weren't following CFSA standards.
Mr Preston: That's obvious. These are documented situations by the OPP. So you're saying that even with our CAS standards and with the government standards, they still should be reviewed with a view to either closing them down or bringing them up to scratch?
Mr Hayes: With your second situation, I would say definitely.
Mr Preston: The only comment I have about your proposal is that I don't agree with keeping children in their own community. That's where they got in trouble. You keep them in their own community, that's where they continue to be in trouble. They should be outside their community.
Mr Sanders: Definitely not all communities can have all services, so it's inevitable that children will be placed outside of their own communities. However, given that attempting to repatriate these children and/or reintegrate them back into their family situation is the ultimate objective, by placing them in their home community there's a better chance of that reintegration. That's why that component is in the proposal.
Mr Preston: That's a point I've always disagreed with.
Mrs Ecker: Thank you very much for coming today and bringing forward a very detailed and I think worthwhile proposal. I wondered if you would elaborate a little on one of the concepts. You talked about the fundamental principles, that "The funding shall follow the child through the system." How do you see that working? Do you think, given the rules and the regulations and the structures that government is faced with all the time, it's possible to reform the system to do something like that?
Mr Sanders: The short answer is yes, it is possible. In terms of the funding following the child, essentially what is happening today is that children are bounced from pillar to post, system to system. We need one consistent system, we need one consistent evaluation process, and if the dollars are attached to that specific child, we are stating that it would be a cost-saving measure. Instead of going through intake after intake after intake, from program to program, from administration to administration and requirement to requirement, consistently the child would be tracked and we'd be able to plan for that child more effectively and more efficiently. From the time the child enters the system, a plan, a life plan, if you will, could be put into place with the view of discharging that child and making them a functional member of society.
Mr Hayes: One of the things we built into the proposal was that each community -- now, that's a leap, deciding what "community" is -- would be enveloped: X amount of dollars based on historical patterns for residential care. When the child in Kapuskasing, say, needs residential treatment that's not available up north, the money for his care would come out of the pool of the envelope from the Kapuskasing community, would follow the child to whatever facility in the province is available and is best suited for that child's needs. It would guarantee equal access, and that's not happening at this point.
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Thanks for your presentation today. Just for clarification, you're a for-profit agency whose service is purchased?
Mr Hayes: Some of our agencies are for-profit, some are non-profit, but they're all private, per-diem funded.
Mrs Pupatello: Of the 43, how many are profit and non-profit?
Mr Hayes: I believe it's about half and half. About half are supposedly for-profit and the other half are non-profit.
Mrs Pupatello: I'm curious about the comments made by our government member. I'm curious to know the dates of those events, because I think it would illustrate that the ministry is not following through on confirming that agencies are conforming to regulation. I wouldn't mind if the member tabled the date of the incidents.
Mr Preston: I can get those for you. I've already asked for them. I'll get them very easily.
Mrs Pupatello: I think the minister should know, if he doesn't already, and then we can see exactly what kind of follow-up is required. I think that's essential.
I have some questions. Today you took the time to present something you have been lobbying for in terms of funding. We've advocated for a long time about the funding methods for children's service in terms of the various styles that currently exist in funding. In one of your documents, the executive summary of the Partners in Care document, you illustrate how wide the funding sources are, all the various sources. We've advocated for some time to streamline that, that if well-run agencies didn't have the parameters set by the various funding sources, you would streamline administration in terms of access to funds, using staff for actual service delivery instead of accessing funding, because you're going to health, education, a variety of them, to meet all the needs of the children.
I'd like your comment on the change in funding, whether there is anything other than moving to the per diem that at least in the interim you could move quickly on in streamlining the funding.
I'd like you to comment as well on the numbers of your clients who would be considered youth as opposed to children, and in terms of the age groups, what are the age groups? What percentage would be, say, 16 to 18? And what effect if any does the youth unemployment rate have on the clients? For example, are they youth who could have been served by programs dedicated to having these young people enter the workforce where the programs simply aren't there? Do you see a need for the government to be moving in the direction of targeting young people for employment programs?
Mr Sanders: Gosh, that's about eight questions, but I'm going to attempt to answer at least four of those.
The first notion you're referring to is called integration, which is a policy framework initiative put forth I believe by the previous government. That notion of integration is an age-old goal for many organizations, and that is to take similar services and put them under the auspices of one administration, thereby saving funds at that administrative level. They've been doing it since the early 1960s in the USA and they've been doing it in the 1980s here in Ontario, and we're attempting to do it, and you can see it across the different service levels in Ontario today. It's in vogue today; however, I don't know that the notion of integration does save any money. The research will tell you that it doesn't.
Your second question about age groups: The Ontario Association of Residences Treating Youth has a very wide range of age groups in that we have agencies that service developmentally handicapped, we have agencies that service the medically fragile, we have agencies that service young offenders, we have agencies that service conduct disorder children, we have agencies that service psychiatric kids. The range, approximately, would be from as young as six or seven through to about 20.
Just to complete that answer, we also have a situation where we have services being provided to the DH sector where these children have grown up in these residences and now have become adults. That is an issue that adults are occupying children's beds. It's an imperative issue in the sense that these adults, certainly in OARTY's view, should continue to stay there until such time that appropriate placement can be found for them, and that is additional services for that population.
The third component of your question was regarding youth employment. In terms of youth employment, there are many services that belong to the OARTY organization that are working with children to facilitate or develop a work ethic, and thereby one of the goals is to create taxpaying citizens. We are working with these kids in terms of teaching them skills that would provide them with the basis of becoming a member of the workforce.
1630
Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): A couple of questions to follow up on previous questions. Half of your members being for-profit centres, can you give me an idea, when you say "for-profit," of what that means in terms of percentage return or how much of the money that government or individuals are paying is going to profit? A comparison of wage rates with the government sector.
Mr Hayes: Our wage rates a few years ago actually were brought up to a comparable level with transfer payment organizations. We've probably slipped back a little since then, due to budget cuts mostly, the social contract as well as other constraints that have come up since then. As I indicated, back in 1991-92, about 25% of the agencies were actually losing money, and since that time, that problem's increased tremendously. When social contract cuts were made to children's aid and transfer payments, when other constraints were made, they were passed on to our per diems.
Mr Cooke: About 25% -- some are making money. I just want to get an idea of what kinds of dollars are made, who owns these.
Mr Sanders: The properties or the facilities are owned by private individuals.
Mr Cooke: Any chain operations or any foreign ownership or anything like that?
Mr Sanders: No, sir, not that I'm aware of.
Mr Cooke: These are all mom-and-pop operations or locally owned operations.
Mr Sanders: These are ma-and-pa operations, some of which have grown into fair-sized organizations. In terms of residential treatment, perhaps the largest I know of would maybe be 50 beds at the outside. But the majority of them are operations that are 10- or 12-bed facilities.
Mr Cooke: There's one paragraph in the proposal document right at the beginning that I want you to explain for me. The third paragraph down says, "Done effectively, residential services can be the best possible intervention with long-term savings to society." I want to know what you meant by that. Certainly my experience, although it's many years ago when I practised social work, was that residential treatment we avoided as best we could because once in the system, it's expensive and the success rate is not terribly high.
Mr Hayes: That continues to be the situation today. Residential care is looked at as the final solution after everything else has been attempted. In recent times, we've seen even more of a push towards non-residential care. What we're meaning in that paragraph is that there are times, for the safety of the child, the safety of society and to consolidate issues with the kid and the growth of the kid, that you need a 24-hour-a-day program.
We're certainly not advocating that you move a child off and leave them there for eight years in a residence or bounce them around from residence to residence. One of the things you will see from our proposal is that when a child enters our system, there has to be a case manager, there have to be some time frames, there have to be direct goals and there has to be a follow-up plan. That child is going back to the community, and that's got to be the goal going in.
As far as long-term benefits to the child, too often we've seen kids who have been bounced from pillar to post who, upon entering adult years or later teen years, are going off to being incarcerated, where if there had been some more stringent intervention earlier -- we found a lot of successful cases where kids were definitely heading off to jail, heading off in that route where we've been able to curtail that, turn it around, get them back into school, get them working and many times get them reinvolved with the family.
Mr Cooke: Unless things have changed a lot in terms of tracking, it's very difficult to say what is successful and what isn't successful, because we don't do a lot of tracking in this province of what happens to young people where we've intervened past the time that there's direct involvement of the state, either through children's aid societies or others.
Mr Sanders: It's very important for an organization to go the distance with a child. I think your point is well taken in the sense that it is unsuccessful when it's done ineffectively; that is, when the child begins to act out, then the child is moved on to the next facility. That's the point we're making.
In essence, children have been underserviced. We're here to talk about cutbacks, and those cutbacks have affected the decisions of social workers such as yourself, sir, who have attempted to place a child within a confinement that has been defined by dollars.
If the child is placed appropriately, then that facility would be able to provide an adequate service for that child, therefore the child would receive the best possible treatment for the presenting situation and therefore be in that facility a shorter period of time.
The Chair: Gentlemen, our time is up. I thank you for taking the time and sharing your views and your presentation with us. It was very interesting.
Ladies and gentlemen, prior to hearing from the next witness, you know that the witness who was to address us at 3:30 this afternoon was unavoidably detained and that we have unanimous consent to reschedule that party from the NDP alternate list; is that correct? Okay, good. Thank you. Could we have our next witness, please.
SAULT STE MARIE INDIAN FRIENDSHIP CENTRE NEECH KE WEHN HOMES
The Chair: Mrs Harrington, welcome. You have one half-hour. You may choose to speak for the full time or allow some time for questions. Whatever time you have left following your presentation will be divided up equally between the three parties to ask questions of you. We will begin the questions from the official opposition this round. Welcome to our committee hearing today.
Ms Carolyn Harrington: I thank you very much. My name is Carolyn Harrington. I'm from Sault Ste Marie, Ontario. I'm here to talk for the Sault Ste Marie Indian Friendship Centre and also for urban native housing, Neech Ke Wehn Homes.
I'm very sorry I haven't brought a written presentation. I just found out Friday I was coming and I wanted to spend my time talking to people in the community so that I was able to bring you up-to-date information. I could say that the native tradition is oral, but that certainly would be a copout. My reason is that I wanted to spend my time talking to people.
When I was leaving the Sault early this morning I saw a friendly face in the airport. It was Bud Wildman, and I said, "Oh, thank heavens you're going." He said: "Oh, no, I'm going in the opposite direction. I'm going out west." I was feeling a little down and I walked in the building today, and there were two school groups from the Sault having their photos taken on the steps, and Tony Martin, so thank you. Even my cousin is here, so I've probably got more friends in the building than you have. After having such a relaxed introduction, you're not going to believe this, but I'm incredibly nervous. If my mind goes blank, please ask me a question and get me going again.
I'll describe the organization I represent. It is urban native, and we are in downtown Sault Ste Marie, an urban inner-city situation. However, I represent also a housing organization. We have units throughout the city, social assistance housing, so the boundaries are a bit broader. I understand that this is the first time an urban native representative has come to this body, so I believe I'm also speaking for groups across the province that have lost their children's programs at the Indian friendship centres.
1640
We have had programming for children for up to 20 years in our centres. The very first programs that came to the Indian friendship centres were child-based. They were the Little Beavers programs from ages five to 13, because it was believed that this was really where change could begin within the native communities.
I don't believe it's only native children who are at risk and vulnerable at this time. However, the statistics are much higher for children in children's aid who are native. Among children entering the social justice system the rates are higher for native children. I want to stress that we include in our programs all children in our downtown area, so I hope what I have to say is a little broader than for native children.
We have had some very successful programs for children based on native models. Rather than really dwell on the negative and on what we've lost in the last year, I'd like to talk about what we've learned and how we'd like to come back at it if we're given the chance. Tony asked me last year if I'd be interested in coming, when the programs were cancelled in October, if I'd like to come down and talk. That was October or November and I said, "Yes, I'll come," and then I didn't hear until Friday afternoon that I was to be asked. However, I think this is fortunate, because if you'd listened to me last October or November, I was a very angry person. After six months of reflection I think you'll have a much more positive talk from me today. We've all had a lot of time to look at our programs in the Sault and maybe come back a little bit stronger and a little bit better. My talk will be about the impacts I've discovered in the last few days and about our recommendations if we're given a chance to have another go.
We have one program that continues in the Sault: our breakfast program. I'd like to come back to it maybe in the question and answer period because it's a very strong program, not just for us but across the province. It's very cost-effective and wonderful in many ways, so I'd like to talk about that. Much of what I have to say today is based on seeing the kids still in that program. We like to go over and drop in and just keep in touch with them.
That's the only place we have a program today, so I've had to go to the schools and to the crisis centres just to follow up on our kids and see how they're doing. I'm glad I had that opportunity because when I asked, "Just what impact has this had on these kids in the last six months?" the people, the teachers, the principals said, "No one has asked us that question."
If you people don't hear anything I've had to say today, I think I'm still a step ahead because we've promised each other to come together, when I go back, and sit down and share so we have some statistics, and maybe what you can do for me is tell me where to send those statistics so we have a little bit of impact.
Whom have I talked to? I've talked to principals, some teachers, crisis workers and some court workers about what impacts they've seen. The most universal is that the kids are hungry. These are inner-city kids, you must remember. That's the first thing they all mentioned, that the kids are hungry, that they're coming to school without food. As every teacher will say, and then you know, kids who are hungry don't learn as well, so down the road we're going to have trouble. They're coming maybe with just a slice of bread, hoping that there's some peanut butter that they can add to their sandwich. Teachers have asked that whatever dollars are designated down the road, to please direct them at food. They told me to ask you that.
There are a few other things we might not have noticed. I asked secretaries in the offices, "What have you noticed?" They said: "You know, there are a lot of kids moving. There are kids who have moved up to seven times this spring. When people's money runs out, they change apartments." They're moving to live with fathers; they're moving out into the country to live with grandparents; they're moving just within the area to cheaper accommodations, but they're on the move. Another sign is that they said the phones are being cut off. The secretaries said, "Whenever we phone if a child is away, the phones are being cut off."
This is very significant, I believe, because it shows the instability in the life of a child at this time. Maybe with the increasing sense of isolation of living within a small apartment without a telephone, probably without much power, things lock them into the community so they're becoming increasingly isolated and that feeling of stability is really going.
Another thing is -- this comes from teachers, not the principals -- the kids are fighting, not necessarily among themselves but with teachers. They're getting crabby, they're cranky, and this could come from perhaps stress at home or maybe they're hungry.
Fourth, this is coming from the court workers and is the only thing I can give you statistics for; all the other things were the people saying, "Well, no one's asked us and we don't have any statistics, but it's my gut feeling that this is what's happening, and there's been an awful lot of this or that": The court workers can say with statistics that numbers aren't up in new kids coming up as young offenders, but the numbers that are reoffending are rising. I could be wrong, I've just had the day to think about this, but I think perhaps that is because of the long waiting lists for counselling. There might be other reasons you can think of for that one.
Our recommendations are in building community cohesiveness. I think the different things that are lacking in the schools right now, from our perspective, are a sense of belonging and stability, all those things that don't come from individuals and don't necessarily come from government workers, that come from community cohesiveness.
How do we rebuild that? I hope that we might start at places like the Indian friendship centres and community organizations. Our community organizations are places where you can plug in volunteers, where you can start teaching the skills of looking after your own, where you can have people from colleges come and do their placements. You don't find co-op students going to work on the third floor of Comsoc. You find them going to work at the soup kitchens and places where they're going to get hands-on experience -- so co-ops, Sault College Placements, Algoma College Placements, those kinds of people.
What about alternative measures? The CSOs, community service orders -- kids like those aren't going to go and work in Manpower. They're going to come to a community-based organization, so we're hoping that somehow the government will take our suggestion and put funding into community organizations where there can be perhaps a relearning of community skills and volunteer skills, and working as a family. Parents often come and work within community organizations; you bring in your grandparents. It's a more holistic way of looking at it. We call it the medicine wheel, and I'm sure you've all heard about the circle and native ways of approaching problems, but community-based brings us all in to address children's issues, and I think you'd get your best value for your dollar in that area.
1650
From a native perspective, community organizations offer programs that are very appealing to our young. We've found that something like a drum group brings out the best in young kids. For one thing, you have to be drug- and alcohol-free, and it gives a very good sense of peer support to kids. They learn a lot from giving and sharing within a drum group, so it's something within our native culture that is applicable. Other communities probably have other techniques that they use.
We have talking circles. Again, that's a culturally based method of improving communication and a sense of belonging, and it costs absolutely no money; you just need an old hall with a bunch of chairs and kids sitting around.
I believe that community organizations, as I say, are very low-cost. We marvelled at the fact that our program, which cost, I think it was, $57,000 to run the Little Beavers for the year, would be cancelled when it provided opportunities for maybe up to 100 kids, and some other things that I'd hate to suggest were left to go on. I know there have to be restraints and we're all willing to accept that. We're just asking that, next round, maybe a little more input from the organizations would be helpful, and not just a little input; if you could ask us what works and what doesn't, I'm sure we'll be honest.
I have to do a recap and see what I've missed.
I believe there is some thought of developing -- it used to be called a children's secretariat, but that sort of format. Maybe I'm mistaken. Children's rights or something came out last week. This is a very strong approach, because you'd have people from all angles coming in together. Again, we call this the medicine wheel within the native community.
When I went around to talk to people, strangely enough it was the schools that had the most to say about the kids. I suppose that's because they're with the kids day and night, but you never think of the schools as being empathetic towards social problems, but more and more I think they're taking on the responsibilities that perhaps some of the community groups like the friendship centre used to bear, and I'm not sure how much more they can be stretched. I'll come back again to that program we had for $57,000. That funded one person in a basement setting. You can hire space; you can rent a school gym for a very low fee; you can take kids swimming to the neighbourhood pool. You can swell your ranks through the summer with the summer employment students, maybe get five or six of those, and who knows how many students from the schools. We always have maybe five or six student placements helping us out. So for that $57,000 you get very good value for your dollar.
I think what you need is one person there for those kids, one person who's there in the morning, launching in to Breakfast Buddies, the breakfast program, where you have a person there -- granted, the mother should be there, but the mother isn't always -- in the morning when those kids get up. They roll out of bed and off to a breakfast club. There's someone there to talk to them, see if they got their homework done and find out who might be on the street, or whose family's breaking up, and just keeping a tab on what's going on there for those kids, maybe spending some time talking through, maybe then getting in touch with the school afterwards and saying, "Watch out for so-and-so because they haven't got a lunch today" or, you know, there's trouble in their family and reaching out, maybe making a dentist's appointment for them -- one stable person there for those kids.
Anyway, those are our recommendations. We're very sorry we've lost our jobs. The children are hurting. We are worried. It's one thing to let programming go for kids for six months but quite another thing just to let them go. You see those kids down on the corner and hear that they've gone for parties, they've gone missing for the weekend and your heart goes out to them. I just wish we could be there for them, and I'm hoping when decisions are made where to put those dollars, you'll come back to us and ask for our input. Okay.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Harrington. We begin with the official opposition and we have four minutes per caucus.
Mr Bartolucci: Anie, Carolyn.
Ms Harrington: Anie.
Mr Bartolucci: Certainly I share almost everything with you very, very close to my heart as I was involved in Mr Laughren's community with the Whitefish Lake Indian Reserve and their children at my school, so I can appreciate how hard it is for you to see what happens when funding that serves a purpose is cut for no apparent purpose.
But let's talk about that for a little while because the Sudbury Native Friendship Centre experiences the same type of frustration that you do. They've had to cut excellent programs that actually save children. Could you maybe explain to the committee some of the programs that you've had profound success with but that you can't fund because of reduced funding?
Ms Harrington: Our Little Beavers was cancelled. It wasn't reduced; it was cancelled. It was excellent in that it brought kids together in a safe environment every night of the week, plus Saturdays and Sundays. It was a complete round of activity for them. Most kids, probably in Toronto too, urban kids, inner-city, haven't got the money for healthy recreation.
There's no money for YMCA or hockey or music lessons and so these kids rely on the local community centres for their activity, and because of that, you try to give them a complete round. You try to maybe give them cooking classes, something like baseball, so they learn socialization skills, getting along with each other. Dances of course they love, but the complete -- what we call -- four directions, even a reading circle, so you're looking after perhaps a bit of their education, computers. Our children's programs really involved all those things.
But even more, we also went actively into the schools and did a lot of native awareness in the schools, inviting the teachers over for lunch. We'd go out public speaking and raise money and give scholarships at the end of the year, about $1,000 worth of scholarships. Those are the ones that we've really lost.
Cutbacks have impacted not so much in Sault Ste Marie because what's happened is, as we get less and less money, we don't go out of town. Elliot Lake or Bruce Mines, all the places we used to service we don't go to any more in our court work programs, in our employment programs. Just like everybody else, I guess we try to save our own skin. Anyway, it's unfortunate for the outlying areas.
Mr Bartolucci: Two very, very quick questions because we're almost out of time, I'm sure.
The Chair: One minute.
Mr Bartolucci: One minute, good. Then maybe yes or no to both of these would be sufficient, Carolyn. We suggested that there be a minister responsible for children's affairs. Do you agree with that?
Ms Harrington: Yes.
Mr Bartolucci: Secondly -- and I think it's important to get on the record -- do you believe the Common Sense Revolution, the Agenda for Change for better business practices addresses the needs of the native community in Ontario?
Ms Harrington: No.
Mr Bartolucci: Thank you.
1700
The Chair: We now move to the NDP caucus.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Carolyn, I just want to thank you for taking the time out of what I know is a busy schedule to be with us here today and for sharing with us in your own inimitable way such a compelling story.
I know of your story -- we worked together on a number of initiatives in the Sault -- and of your tremendous commitment and interest in the lives of the people you work with, the families and the children. You raise a whole raft of issues here today and put them on the table.
I wish we had more time to ask questions about them, but picking one out of all of that I guess I want to focus on the comment you made about no one asking the impact question. That seems to be a characteristic of this government over the last year now that we've seen just tremendous change, tremendous cuts in programs and levels of resources to programs, and yet no documentation to show the impact and no one's asking the impact question.
You went out and did that and you told us today that since last year and the disappearance of your program which was a community support program to families, the Little Beavers program in our community, and the reduction of the resource being taken home by the most vulnerable in our community of 21.6% which ultimately affects families and kids has, as you have said, because you've talked to principals and parents and others -- kids are hungry, more kids are moving because their families are moving because they can no longer afford the housing they used to be able to afford because their resources have diminished. There's an increase in the agitation level of kids in school and, I would suggest, probably violence in the school yard and in the community. You said young offenders are reoffending more often.
Given that result and some of the very practical issues that we have to deal with here -- you talk about the breakfast program and how important that is, and to give credit where it's due, there was some money put into child nutrition in the budget that was just presented. But when you take away the kinds of programs that support families and children, like Little Beavers and your program, and take 21% out of the take-home pay, I say, of the poorest in our community, if you had a choice to make, which one would you make?
Ms Harrington: Which program would I put back in?
Mr Martin: Yes. Would you put more money into nutrition programs that feed kids in schools and at places like the Indian friendship centre or would you reinstate your program Little Beavers and give back the 21.6% to families so they can feed their kids at home?
Ms Harrington: I think I'd have it go directly to the kids, to the nutrition programs; not just nutrition, that's only one aspect of health. If there were ways to get those kids to camp -- so direct services to children, I think. It would be nice if they came through a central program that focuses on children in each community organization because, as I mentioned, we do like to attract all the volunteers we can get, but I think whatever gives directly to the children is of most impact. So often you find programs that give a good salary to the worker and wonderful benefits and then you say, "And what have you got for your program?" and there's no money left for the clients. I think that's a real fear here, to cut whatever it is to the bone. Kids don't mind eating in a basement. We have a thing against it. We like everything pink and green and everything. They don't care. They would rather have an old place where they can bounce a ball without everybody worrying about what's going to break.
The costs don't have to be high if services go directly to them in food, in transportation, going places, going to Science North, going to Toronto, like the kids out here standing on the steps having their picture taken. So actual things for kids and maybe just one person to oversee and be there and monitor so they have somebody. Hugs are good too, you know.
The Chair: Thank you. We must move on now to the government side.
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I thank you very much and certainly appreciate the concerns that you've raised today. There are a couple of questions, though, that I'd just like to ask you so we have a better picture here. What would have been the original budget of the friendship centre a year ago?
Ms Harrington: There are only a few programs that are children-based. One was $57,000 for Little Beavers; mine was $48,000 for community development.
Mrs Munro: Would you have been the only staff person who would be responsible for children's programs?
Ms Harrington: The two of us, yes.
Mrs Munro: Oh, there are two of you.
Ms Harrington: One person, yes. One person in Little Beavers, and I was in community development. There are two of us.
Mrs Munro: And how many children? You mentioned for the $57,000 that there were 100 children served?
Ms Harrington: I'd say on a daily basis there aren't; there may be 35 or 40. But you put on a dance, you have a baseball tournament or something, and then they all come out. Summer camp brings them all too.
Mrs Munro: Oh, sure. You mentioned when you were describing this program, did you operate it every day? Was that the point you made?
Ms Harrington: Yes.
Mrs Munro: So it was an after-school program for children?
Ms Harrington: Yes. We had the breakfast in the morning. Yes, they come after school and in the evenings as well. That was the children; that's the Little Beavers. I was community development and I did more of the going into the schools and speaking and developing programs -- not just children in community development, I tried to develop other things too.
Mrs Munro: Okay. Now obviously, if you were having 30 or 40 children show up at a time, you'd have to have a volunteer component?
Ms Harrington: Yes, we do.
Mrs Munro: Roughly what would be the volunteer component in comparison to you as the staff person?
Ms Harrington: We usually have a parent and we usually have a couple of placements from the school -- co-op students.
Mrs Munro: You mentioned the breakfast program; are you aware of the commitment that we have made to breakfast programs in the province?
Ms Harrington: Yes. That's why I'm stressing it. I think it's very important, and I commend you and I hope you continue it.
Mrs Munro: Thank you very much. I guess my question to you is the way in which your breakfast program has operated, and perhaps you could give us some indication of the way in which that was funded and how it has operated for you.
Ms Harrington: We've been running for several years. We started with -- what is it? -- council on social justice or something health-related several years ago, anyway, and that's where we started. We started running out and we've gone to the community for funding, and even had little jars sitting around in bars and things to get money. We have done Canadian Living; we got $500 there, and now -- what is that called? -- Ontario --
Mrs Pupatello: Social development.
Ms Harrington: Yes. We have $10,000 for that for the year.
Mrs Munro: Now, that requires then that you have to build a community component to it, doesn't it?
Ms Harrington: Yes, we have.
Mrs Munro: And obviously you've been able to meet that community component?
Ms Harrington: Yes.
Mrs Munro: I was just curious to know how it was working for you seeing you've established obviously some good links within your own community of support.
Ms Harrington: Yes. I think as long as there's a paid staff person there who is accountable, that you can attract volunteers. It's very difficult to attract school placements unless you have a supervisor there. You need a paid staff person, and that's what we've been able to do with the breakfast program. You can use it as an anchor.
Mrs Munro: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Harrington. Thank you for coming all the way here to testify before us. If you would like to share any statistics -- I believe you may have the address of the committee -- you could send it to the clerk of this committee. If you don't have the address, then just talk to anyone of us in a few moments and we'll give you that address. But thank you kindly for coming.
Ms Harrington: Thank you.
The Chair: That was our last witness for today. Is there any other business? If there is none, then this committee will stand adjourned until Monday next, June 17 at 3:30 in this very place. Thank you.
The committee adjourned at 1710.