The Welfare of Canadian Children: It's Our Business

The Welfare of Canadian Children: It's Our Business

http://www.cwlc.ca/ Child Welfare League of Canada



A Collection of Resource Papers for a Healthy Future for Canadian Children and Families.



In 2002, the CWLC Board of Directors
began a review of key child welfare issues in Canada in order to
identify concerns and priorities that will inform actions required to
ensure a healthy future for generations to come. The result is a
collection of resource papers titled The Welfare of Canadian Children: It's Our Business.

It is anticipated that this document
will be of interest to governments – Ministries of Children’s Services,
Health, Justice and Education, Child and Family Authorities and
Children’s Aid Societies across the country; child and family serving
organizations in all provinces and territories; educational facilities;
and Faculties/Schools/Departments of Social Work, Psychology, Nursing,
Child and Youth Care, research organizations and practitioners.

The document begins with a short
history of child welfare in Canada. A lexicon of key definitions is
then offered in chapter 2. It is important to define these terms as
they are often used in multiple and complicated ways to describe child
welfare and thus can easily lead to misunderstandings. Chapter 3
summarizes the key international instruments and key legislations that
impacts on child welfare programming and service provision. In chapter
4, services and programs for each jurisdiction in Canada are outlined.
The history of the Child Welfare League of Canada, and its connection
to child welfare in Canada, is condensed into chapter 5. An overview of
child welfare in Canada and a framework for action encompasses chapter
6. In chapter 7 the reader will find 12 papers which address some of
the principal issues and concerns that impact child welfare in Canada.

It is the hope of CWLC that for
interested readers, the papers will provoke discussion, ideas and
questions about the welfare of Canadian children and their families.
The recommendations are comprehensive and offer ideas for action and
suggestions for change to existing processes, procedures, programs and
policies.

The care and well-being of children
is the business of all Canadians. CWLC invites you to share this
responsibility for the health of our nation’s future.

Some of the topics covered in this edition:


*



Child protection in Canada
* Aboriginal children and families
* Child and youth mental health
* Educational challenges for youth in care
* Youth exiting care
* Working conditions for social workers



Download The Welfare of Canadian Children: It's Our Business free of charge.
Please note this document is a PDF with an interactive table of contents.

Children in care in Canada: A summary of current issues
and trends with recommendations for future research

Cheryl Farris-Manning, BMT, MSW and Marietta Zandstra, BSW

Executive summary

Although the number of “children in care” in Canada is increasing every year, legislation, policies,
and standards of care vary between provinces, territories, and First Nations. Aboriginal children are
overrepresented as a population within children in care, and many children in care have special needs
requiring specific attention. Canada does not yet have a national strategy to address issues of permanency,
leaving many children in care in a state of “limbo.”

Overview of children in care in Canada

Approximately 76 000 children in Canada are under the protection of child and family services across the
country, and are referred to as children in care (based on numbers as reported in Child Welfare in Canada
2000, as well as available provincial/territorial Ministry of Child and Family Services Annual Reports,
2000–2002). All provinces and territories in Canada have legislative responsibility for child and family
services. One exception is the federal responsibility for Aboriginal peoples with status under the Indian
Act of Canada. Each province and territory has legislation that defines how children will be protected
from abuse and neglect. Each jurisdiction’s legislation has its own definitions, policies, and structure of
services, and may include clauses that refer to the provision of services to First Nations peoples.
Due to the inherent problems of comparing individual provincial/territorial and First Nations
responsibility for service provision in child welfare, there is no body of research that considers children
in care nationally, either through statistical data or comparative program analyses. The very definition of
“child” varies interprovincially/territorially, creating a challenging stage on which to develop a framework
for discussion of children in care in Canada.

Increasing numbers– fewer resources

• There are many children receiving protective services in Canada
• Provinces and Territories follow different legislation as guidelines
• National comparative studies of children in care have not been done
• National standards of care do not exist
• 30%–40% of children in care are Aboriginal
• Family-based care is widely used: Adoption, Non-relative Foster,
Kinship Foster, Guardianship Foster
• Children experience significant placement disruption

Over the last decade, studies have shown that in Canada, the vulnerable population
of children in need of protection is increasing significantly (OACAS 2002; CWLC 2001).
Human Resources Development Canada reported that there were 36 080 children in
care in Canada, excluding Quebec, in 1997 (HRDC, 1997). The Child Welfare League of
Canada (CWLC) statistics for 1998/1999 indicate a total number of 46 397 children in care, excluding Quebec (CWLC, 2001). Despite the increase in children requiring placement in out-of-home care, proportionately fewer family-based care homes are available, due in part to problems with the recruitment and retention of foster families (OACAS, 2002; Barbell & Freundlich, 2001). According to the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies (OACAS), although 21% more foster homes were used in 2001/2002 than in 1998/1999, the rate of placements increased by 38% (OACAS, 2002). Compounding the issue of insufficient supply to meet the
demand is the issue of increased length of stay upon placement. An American study showed that the length of
stay of children in foster care increased during the 1990s and is remaining at high levels, from 21–35 months
in foster care (Barbell & Freundlich, 2001). One outcome of great concern is the growing number of children
being served through group care and institutional/residential treatment…. a 58% increase has occurred since
1990 (Barbell & Freundlich, 2001). This increase implies that there is a shortage of family-based resources, and
thus many vulnerable children are inappropriately placed in group-care settings.

Family-based care as preferred option

Research demonstrates that family-based care is the preferred placement option when compared to group
residential options (Kluger et al., 2000). Canadian research completed by Kimberley Thomas for her MSW
thesis (University of Manitoba) found “…children in therapeutic foster care have significantly less restrictive
placement outcomes at the time of discharge than do children in residential care. [She also found that]
…children placed in therapeutic foster care experienced an increase in selfconcept
over a six-month period while the residential care sample displayed no change…” (Thomas, 1993, Abstract). “Youth who are in less
restrictive placements such as foster homes fare best academically, while those in more restrictive placements
such as group homes are less likely to succeed” (NYICN, (2001)). Cost effectiveness is also a determinant
in preference of family-based care. Kluger et al. report that treatment foster care is significantly less costly
than group care (Kluger et al., 2001), with estimates showing treatment foster care to be 20% to 33% less
costly than residential group home care (Kluger et al., 2001). In several studies, youth in treatment foster
care have shown better adjustment at follow-up in terms of post-discharge stability of living situation, and
restrictiveness of placement setting, than youth served in congregate care settings (Kluger et al., 2001). “60%–
89% of youth in treatment foster care are discharged to less restrictive living settings following treatment
foster care placement” (Kluger et al., 2001). Youth in treatment foster care had significantly greater drop in
criminal activity (50%) than youth in residential group care, and more youth in treatment foster care were
discharged to live with their families (Kluger et al., 2001).

One form of family-based care is kinship foster care, where children are placed in foster homes with
relatives. Kluger et al. (2001) indicated that more children are living in kinship care settings as a response
to rising child welfare caseloads. Kinship care in the United States has increased from 18% (1986) to 25%
(2000) (Barbell & Freundlich, 2001). However there are problems associated with kinship care. Both the
children in care, and relatives are reluctant to enter into an adoptive relationship for fear of undermining
existing familial relationships, and due to strong cultural resistance to the termination of parents’ rights
(Barbell & Freundlich, 2001). As a result, another emerging option of family-based care is evolving,
namely “guardianship” care. Guardianship care is a status between that of foster care and adoption;
guardianship care status is granted to a known family or specified friend, to indicate permanency of care.
The province would retain legal guardian status until child reaches adulthood (Aitken, 2002). Preliminary research demonstrates outcomes for children in guardian relationships are similar to the outcomes of
children in adoption relationships, using measures of stability of relationship, and permanency (Barbell
& Freundlich, 2001).

High needs

One further component, that deserves mentioning, is the changing face of children coming into care.
Children currently in care may have more problems than foster children a generation ago. Many of these
children have “special needs.” See section titled “Special Needs – Identifiable Populations” for more details.
Canadian research cites prevalence estimates of emotional and behavioural problems of children in foster
care rising from 30%–40% in the 1970–80s, to 47%–80% in the mid-1990s (Stein et al., 1996).
What is known is that all Canadian children who receive child protection services have been deemed
at significant risk of, or actual victims of child abuse, neglect and maltreatment. The Canadian Incidence
Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS) (2002), by Nico Trocmé et al., is the first national study that
tackles a specific child welfare issue in Canada with national scope. Sandra Scarth, author of the Foreword
for this study, notes that … there is no source of comprehensive, reliable national statistics on the nature and extent of child
abuse and neglect across Canada. Without this information it has been difficult for policy makers and
program developers to know whether the interventions and services currently provided to children and
families prevent further abuse and reduce the burden of suffering on those affected…. The Canadian
Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS) is the first Canada-wide effort to begin to fill
the gap using a common set of definitions (Scarth, 2002).
The CIS offers a comprehensive look at incidence rates of reported child maltreatment; categories,
characteristics and duration of maltreatment; intervention information; child characteristics; household
characteristics; and child welfare referral and agency characteristics (Trocmé et al., 2001).

Recent statistics

The Child Welfare in Canada 2000 report prepared by the Secretariat to the Federal/Provincial
and Territorial Working Group on Child and Family Services Information “outlines the roles and
responsibilities of provincial and territorial child welfare authorities in the provision of child protection
and preventive/support services” (Fed/Prov/Territorial Working Group, 2000, i). It provides detailed
information regarding the provisions, policies and programs within each jurisdiction in Canada
as of September 2000. The report makes specific reference to the difficulties inherent in comparing
jurisdictional data, recognizing that each jurisdiction follows different foundational legislation with
regards to child protection issues, and hence terms of reference and statistical data are not comparable.
To date, there is no research that accurately compares provincial and territorial data regarding children
in care in Canada, due to the limitations as described in detail in the report Child Welfare in Canada
2000. The following table is based on a subjective assessment of data as reported by jurisdictions in the
Child Welfare in Canada 2000 report, as well as information gleaned from provincial/territorial annual
reports from 2000/2001 or 2001/2002, and provincial children’s advocate offices. It is not intended that
this data be used for statistical analyses, but rather as information to facilitate further discussion.

Table 1.
Numbers of Children in Care in Canada, with Approximate % of Children in Care Who are Aboriginal and
Approximate % of Children in Care Placed in Family-Based Settings (data collected from Provincial/
Territorial Annual Reports of 2001 or 2002, unless otherwise noted – reports fully cited in References) 1

Province/Territory Children in Care - Children in Care - who are Aboriginal - Children in Care in Family-Based Care

Newfoundland/Labrador (1999) 7031 Unknown 93%
Prince Edward Island
(Mar 1999)
329 Unknown 70%
New Brunswick (Mar 1999) 1,193 Unknown 81%
Nova Scotia (Mar 1999) 1,906 Unknown 58%
Manitoba (Mar 1999) 5,358 68% 72%
Saskatchewan (Mar 1999) 2,710 67% 75%
Alberta (Mar 2001) 15,032 38% 77%
British Columbia (Mar 2002) 10,450 40% 59%
Yukon (1999) 182 Unknown Unknown
Northwest Territories
(Mar 2001)
825 Unknown 77%
Nunavut NA. Unknown Unknown
Total 76,183

1 (using 1999 numbers as reported in Child Welfare In Canada 2000 Report)
2 (using 1999 numbers as reported in “Children and Youth in Care Review: Listen to their Voices”2000, Saskatchewan Children’s Advocate Office)
3 www.oacas.org/resources/casstats.htm (Ontario Children’s Aid Society website)
4 (using 1998 numbers as reported in Child Welfare in Canada 2000 Report)
5 (reflecting children being served in own community, not specifically what type of care – assumption that most service is family-based, from NT MCFS Annual Report 2000/2001)
6 Winnipeg CFS reports 81% in 2001/2002 Annual Report
7 Not including Contracted Child Care Resources which may include group and family-based care placement settings
8 Numbers for Nunavut are represented with Northwest Territories numbers in Child Welfare in Canada 2000 Report, which reported 418 children in care for 1999 for Northwest Territories
9 Alberta Child and Youth Initiative, 2001
10 Fed/Prov/Terr Working Group, 2001
11 Winnipeg CFS, 2001 – states 32% non-Aboriginal, leaving 68% Aboriginal (status, non-status, Metis…)

The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), in its Basic Departmental Data 2001
report, shows statistical data indicating a steady increase of Aboriginal children in care, with a 6% national
prevalence rate for 2000. The difficulty with this information is that it only refers to children in care who were
living “on reserve” prior to coming into care, and it does not include any data from the Northwest Territories
and Nunavut, any self-government First Nations, or First Nations which were not administered under a
Child and Family Services Agreement (INAC, 2002). According to Marlyn Bennett and Cindy Blackstock of
the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, “there are approximately 22,500 First Nations children
in the care of Canadian child welfare authorities” today (Bennett & Blackstock, 2002). “From best guesses
based on provincial statistics about 40% of the children in the care of the provinces/territories are Aboriginal
children with the majority of them being First Nations (Status and Non-Status)…. Although data on cultural
match in placements is not consistently collected we know from the Children’s Commission report 1998 that
in BC only 2.5% of Aboriginal children in the care of the province were placed in Aboriginal homes despite
a statutory requirement to give Aboriginal homes preference”(Blackstock, 2003). The ability to accurately
reflect the reality of the percentage of children in care who are Aboriginal is limited by the differing definitions
and methods of calculating total numbers of “children in care,” and “Aboriginal children.” Available data
suggest a range of 30%–40% of children in care are Aboriginal across Canada.
Attempts to tabulate the total numbers of children who have achieved “permanent” care in the
provinces/territories are significantly thwarted by the various definitions and categories being used
in each jurisdiction. The Adoption Council of Canada generated an estimate of 20,000 children in
permanent care, based on figures from the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Working Group and statistics
received from provinces (Fenton & Grove, 2002). However, more accurate numbers will become possible
when national definitions, and standards for collecting and tabulating data are in place.

Key issues
• There are not enough places for children in care to live
• Children in care across Canada receive different services
• Child protection workers are overloaded
• Approaches must consider children’s rights and family preservation
• Foster/Adoptive families must be seen as part of a professional team
• Adoption needs to be broadened to include creative permanency plans which would improve adoption rates for older children

Child welfare practice has changed, and is changing in Canada.
Consider the current context for practice, as outlined by the Centre for Excellence in Child Welfare (CECW, 2003):

• the number of child welfare investigations and placements has increased dramatically across Canada in recent years;
• these increases are driven largely by reports of neglect and exposure to domestic violence as well as by a shift to a more
interventionist approach to practice;
• there has been an overall reduction in the social, health and educational services available to families;
• stream-lined investigation and risk assessment procedures have resulted in a larger proportion of caseloads being labeled “high-risk”;
• over two-thirds of current investigations involve families with previous child welfare contact.

Within this context, practitioners, administrators, and researchers alike struggle to provide and
improve services to children in care. A number of key issues affecting the practice of child welfare, not in
order of priority, are highlighted below.

Shortage of placement resources

All regions of the country bemoan the general shortage of placement resources and options, with some
provinces recognizing a need for more mental health services and secure treatment facilities (Alberta
Children’s Advocate, 2000) (British Columbia Child, Youth and Family Advocate, 1999). “Lack of a
sufficient number of foster homes and/or other resources for residential care were the main reasons
given…for breaching the policy on the maximum number of children in a home. Meeting the need
to match children and homes is not possible when there are too few foster homes…. When homes are
overloaded, [or] children and foster homes [are] mismatched, …safety concerns arise” (Saskatchewan
Children’s Advocate, 2000). The impact for children in care is significant: placements are made in less
than ideally-matched settings; children with long-term needs may be temporarily placed in short-term
resources while awaiting a vacancy in the long-term resource; increased breakdowns of placements lead
to an increased need for replacements; children’s placement needs may increase as treatment is delayed;
attachment disorders develop with increased disruptions in care (Aitken, 2002).

Lack of national standards

Across Canada there are differing approaches to determining whether a child is in need of protection,
with eight provinces having adopted specific risk assessment tools (Fed/Prov/Terr Working Group,
2002). The use of these models promotes an interventionist approach; “focusing resources on children
who are most at risk, and directing interventions to reduce risk factors…[which] generally create[s]
stronger links between the intent of the legislation and child maltreatment intervention….” (Fed/Prov/
Terr Working Group, 2002). The potential therefore exists for children in Canada to receive protective
services differentially, according to when they are deemed to be in need of support. Once children are
in public care, the National Youth in Care Network, amongst others, has identified and prioritized the
need for national basic standards of care (NYICN, 2000). The PRIDE program (Parenting Resources
and Information Development and Education) and the Canadian Looking After Children program
(CanLAC) are two responses to this concern, and are described in a later section titled National Trends.

Increased workload for child protection workers

Child protection workers’ desire to effectively ensure the protection of Canada’s children is compromised
by the environment in which they are working. Increased responsibilities for workers, without
proportionate staffing support, can be attributed to the dramatic increase in the number of child welfare
investigations (CECW, 2003), the implementation of new assessment and intervention tools, changes
in legislation in many provinces, lack of resources, systemic restructuring of First Nations child welfare
services, and lack of sufficient funding. The Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies (OACAS)
studied the impact of funding formulas. In their final report, OACAS states:
Workload pressures continue to be a major problem for staff at Children’s Aid Societies. Despite
increased government funding to agencies, front line and management staff are increasingly concerned
about the size of caseloads and the reduced amount of time workers are spending with clients. Realistic
benchmarks that reflect the work that front line workers are doing in all areas of child welfare practice
must be developed. Revised benchmarks must take into account the changes that have been introduced
by government as a result of Child Welfare Reform. The workload benchmarks included in the current
Funding Framework do not take into account the Eligibility Spectrum, the revised Child Protection
Standards, and the amended Child and Family Services Act which have all clearly increased the
administrative and court work expected of front line workers. Front line workers have been given the
tools, but not the time to ensure the protection of children in Ontario (OACAS, Workload 2002).
The Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW) undertook a national survey of over a thousand
social workers involved in child protection, in response to the common recognition that social work
practice has become complex and demanding. Common themes of concern include poor morale of
practitioners, overly large caseloads, a shortage of qualified social workers, and a high rate of attrition.
Overwhelmingly, respondents identified caseload size as the single most significant impediment to good
child welfare practice, emphasizing that the impact of this reality is the inability to form meaningful
relationships with clients (Herbert, 2002).

Child welfare legislation – themes and issues

Over the last decade child welfare practice has reflected a diminishing tolerance for the conditions that
contribute to a child becoming “in need of protection” and a greater emphasis upon child safety. With a
simultaneous increased focus on children’s rights, many jurisdictions have made legislative changes to
the definition of a “child in need of protection”; the definitions have been broadened and made more
encompassing, such as the inclusion of emotional abuse as a form of abuse, and the inclusion of “significant
risk of harm” as criteria for intervention. These changes have contributed to the “interventionist” approach
that has been adopted by most child welfare policymakers, and service providers. One focus of child
welfare practice is now on determining the point at which the child protection agency will intervene.
Many provinces have adopted the use of specific Safety and Risk Assessment tools, to determine whether
a child fits the definition of a child in need of protection (Fed/Prov/Terr. Working Group). The use of
risk measurement tools to determine involvement has resulted in significantly less involvement in family
preservation and family crisis prevention work by child welfare practitioners. This reduction in service
to families who are struggling, but whose children do not meet the risk assessment criteria, occurred at a
time when, throughout Canada, the system of social supports, community agencies, and local programs
were also decreasing. This has created a challenging environment through which child protection service
providers must navigate, as they strive to effectively serve the children in their care. At the same time,
birth families are being held more accountable so that children can be offered permanency at as young
an age as possible (Crosson-Tower, 2001).

Impact of funding frameworks

One very important issue is the way in which child welfare services are structured. Current funding
does not encourage reunification with adequate supports, or permanency with adequate supports, or
prevention of child welfare placement in the first place. In fact, current funding frameworks create an
incentive to bring children into care. In an era of reduced community social supports, often services are
inaccessible to children and families until they come into care (Dudding, 2003) (Scarth, 2003). Currently,
funding frameworks reflect a reduced emphasis on family preservation, and a clear devaluation of one
of the traditional roles of child welfare agencies; that of providing services that focus on reduction of
risk indicators, through community-based prevention and support services to families. One particular
example of how funding reflects a value base regarding provision of services is that of services to
Aboriginal children. Scarth (2003) highlights an area of concern regarding funding for services for
Aboriginal children, in that the federal government only funds services for those who are in care.