Break Up Families for Profit

March 14, 2013 permalink

Why does CAS keep your kid? To keep the money coming in. So says an internal memo by the Peel Children's Aid Society as reported in the Toronto Star. They will be keeping cases open until the end of March for fiscal reasons. The Star does not print the actual memo, but describes it in two paragraphs:

March is the end of the fiscal year for the agency and in the memo staff are instructed to complete as many investigations as possible (no fewer than 1,000), transfer as many cases as possible to “ongoing services,” and not close any ongoing cases during March.

The memo notes that “our volumes continue to be lower than our projections and this will result in less funding for our organization which directly impacts our current deficit and could impact our funding in future years. Therefore the month of March is very important and we need to make a collective effort to meet our newly discussed targets.”

Later the Star goes on:

One strategy noted in the memo asks workers to ensure that parents who live in separate households are covered by two separate case files.

A successful shotgun divorce doubles their case file and steps up funding accordingly.

expand

collapse

In leaked memo, Peel CAS staff asked to keep cases open to retain funding

An internal memo asks Peel Children’s Aid Society staff to complete as many investigations as possible and not close cases in March.

By: Katie Daubs GTA, Published on Thu Mar 14 2013

An internal memo from Peel Children’s Aid Society management asks staff not to close any ongoing cases during March, as part of a strategy to secure government funding.

According to the memo, when service volume is lower than projected, there is less money for the CAS.

An anonymous employee is troubled by the memo as it raises concerns about quotas and the impact on Peel families.

“Wrongly opening or leaving these files open can have a damaging impact on these clients’ lives. For example, some parents are separated from their kids, some parents have to take time off work to meet with us when their files should have been closed, and some parents are unable to return home because of a false abuse claim — and all of these cases leave these families in emotional limbo,” wrote the employee who would not reveal their identity for fear of retribution.

The employee said many workers are outraged over the memo, “because it is immoral and wrong to keep client cases open just to meet a quota. . . . There are far-reaching implications when you have a CAS record.”

Peel CAS executive director Rav Bains called the internal communication an “unfortunate use of language.” A statement from the agency noted that decisions are made “based on the needs of children and families.”

“Peel Children’s Aid’s year-end strategies are focused on the administrative side of the work done by staff that would enable the agency to complete case files and paperwork before the end of the fiscal year, March 31, 2013. These strategies do not comprise the services we provide,” the statement read in part.

Bains said the agency does not “keep cases open unnecessarily.”

“We always strive for the best service to children and families. It’s an unfortunate use of language, (an) unfortunate statement, because it doesn’t have a context around it. It’s just the way it’s come out in the email. That is not our practice at all.”

The memo was signed by seven senior managers, using their first names only. One had her full name listed. She is away for the week and could not be reached for comment.

March is the end of the fiscal year for the agency and in the memo staff are instructed to complete as many investigations as possible (no fewer than 1,000), transfer as many cases as possible to “ongoing services,” and not close any ongoing cases during March.

According to the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, CAS only receives funding for actual services rendered, not projections.

The memo notes that “our volumes continue to be lower than our projections and this will result in less funding for our organization which directly impacts our current deficit and could impact our funding in future years. Therefore the month of March is very important and we need to make a collective effort to meet our newly discussed targets.”

When someone has a concern about a child, a child protection worker will take the call and an investigation launched depending on the nature and severity of the concern.

After an investigation, the matter will be closed or transferred to an “ongoing case,” where a child protection worker is assigned to a family. In the memo, there is an emphasis on completing investigations within 30 days or transferring the case.

Bains said there is a funding differential between investigations and ongoing cases, but it is slight, and “all of our decisions are made in the best interest of children and families.”

Bains noted that funding is a “very complex formula” and investigations are carried out to ministry standards.

One strategy noted in the memo asks workers to ensure that parents who live in separate households are covered by two separate case files. While this could be perceived as an inflation tactic, Bains said this is done because children are sometimes split between households and “if we only open one case under one name we can lose sight of the other children and the needs of the family.”

Bains, who used the word unfortunate in nearly every sentence, said the “spin that’s been put on” the memo was unfortunate, as is the use of “targets”

But how can anyone not conclude that these strategies are related to funding?

“I absolutely agree with you. . . . If you really look at the email and the content and if you look at who it was for, it was for an internal audience, front-line colleagues and team leaders with whom the conversation had already been had. This is to make sure we’re efficient and effective and we’re doing the right thing. . . . I really personally do regret any misunderstanding that’s occurred either externally or internally.”

An email sent to union members on Tuesday from CUPE Local 4914 president Sonia Yung noted: “Many of you have expressed anxiety about some of the components of the strategy and its implications with respect to your job responsibilities, workload, the integrity of your practice and even job security.”

Kevin Wilson, a spokesman for CUPE’s national office, said a grievance was recently filed in regard to who is carrying out the work. He said that Peel CAS, like other CAS providers in Ontario, is chronically underfunded from the province.

“The problem that we’re seeing in this, is that the solution is not to, at the last minute, ask the union to violate its collective agreement. The solution as we see it, is for Peel CAS to work with the local on putting more pressure on the provincial government to properly resource and fund that sector.”

In 2011-12, Peel CAS received $60 million from the province.

In an emailed statement, Teresa Piruzza, minister of children and youth services wrote: “We expect all Children’s Aid Societies to be accountable and centrally focused on providing the best possible outcomes for children in their care. My ministry has been in contact with Peel Children’s Aid Society’s Board of Directors to discuss the concerns identified today.”

Mary Ballyntyne, executive director of the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies, said she has absolute confidence that more context is going into decisions than “meets the eye.”

“If I truly believed that casework is being done to get your quotas up, not based on the merits of the case, that would be very concerning,” she said.

Gene Colman, a Toronto family lawyer who handles cases involving CAS, said his office has been puzzled by the substantial increase in people calling because of CAS intervention in their families.

“I thought, ‘What’s going on, why are we getting so many calls?’ I wonder if it’s related. I don’t know,” he said.

Colman said while some allegations made to CAS are very serious, others can be anonymous calls like “Mr. and Mrs. Smith have a dirty home,” or “Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s children aren’t properly dressed.”

“I think you have to investigate that . . . (but) if you are spending time, chasing files like the second example I gave you, the ones that are really urgent aren’t going to be attended to in a timely basis.”

Bains said the work referenced in the memo “is already in the system.”

“It’s not that we’re suddenly opening new work,” he said.

Source: Toronto Star

Pat Niagara captured Jerry Agar of CFRB 1010 commenting on the story, YouTube and a local copy (mp4).

Michael Coren discussed children's aid with Vern Beck on YouTube and a local copy (mp4).

In a letter to the Star Doug Evans, who was then a supervisor of ongoing family services for one of the larger Toronto CAS’s, explains the effects of the funding formula change fifteen years ago. The change to a per-case funding model caused CAS to pursue the most trivial cases, while reducing resources allocated to the more serious cases to below the funding cap.

expand

collapse

Opinion / Readers' Letters

CAS funding formula changed in ’90s

Published on Sat Mar 16 2013

Re: CAS staff asked to keep cased open to retain funding, March 14

CAS staff asked to keep cased open to retain funding, March 14

The Star missed this story by almost 15 years. In the late ’90s the current funding formula for child protection agencies, which based the entire annual funding of every Children’s Aid Society on case numbers and activities from the previous year, was instituted. At the time, I was a supervisor of ongoing family services for one of the larger Toronto CAS’s, and there was an immediate sea change in the focus of our operations. All of the supervisors and directors were brought to the head office for instructions as to how we were to respond to the funding formula. The summary statement to the gathering was: “From now on it’s all about the numbers.”

These changes were fundamental and far more insidious than simply stretching out the life of a few cases for an extra month. They included opening even the most dubious reports for quick (but nonetheless intrusive) investigations, where previously less intrusive community-based monitoring had been informally arranged. Because all intake investigations were funded equally, the formula also restricted labour-intensive, time-consuming but essential investigations where evidence was not immediately clear but risk was clearly high, as these investigations were not remotely remunerated through the formula. For similar reasons, court cases frequently were folded in agreements that left children at risk, but avoided costly court procedures. In the foster department, children were hastily removed from the intensive placements they had earlier been determined to need, but whose costs exceeded the maximum, and transferred to placements that did not meet their requirements but did not exceed the formula's remuneration cap.

Children and families in Ontario have suffered the costs of these changes for well over a decade. The problem outcomes for clients outlined in the article doesn’t begin to address the full extent of the damages to which “numbers based” decision-making has led.

Doug Evans, Toronto

Source: Toronto Star