January 14, 2002

Tough Questions for Hogg's Plan
Another excuse to limit liability?

A lot of very tough questions await Children and Family Development Minister Gordon Hogg and his colleagues.

The policy issues arising out of the murder-suicide in Kelowna are much tougher than just saying that family should have received help. According to the Vancouver Sun's January 12th story, the government is looking for a means test so to limit which care givers get government help.

The Sun story emphasized Minister Hogg's concern that 26,000 people who currently receive no help from government might ask for help if payments are made directly to families.

Lest anyone think the Vancouver Sun got it wrong, anyone can check the report on the ministry's website and see the concern it expresses over the growing caseload. Better yet, read the comments of Minister Hogg at the November 7th staged cabinet meeting. Two months prior to the Kelowna tragedy, he stressed his concern that the number of "community living clients" had increased by 32.8 percent since 1995 (roughly 6,500 to 8,500).

It is important to understand these situations. The "children" in question are frequently in their 40s or 50s. The parents are frequently retired. New "children" sometimes come into the care of the Ministry of Children and Family Development because aging parents are no longer able to look after severely disabled offspring.

How does the government say yes to one family and no to another? The Vancouver Sun story talks of a means test. That is like applying for welfare where a government worker examines your income and assets. The devilish details then take their toll.

What income and asset level will the government choose so as to say your neighbour can receive assistance but you cannot? Suppose the income level is $25,000, a level similar to that used by Ontario for income testing Pharmacare benefits. Would that mean a family with $2,100 per month could continue to look after their disabled offspring with additional help from the government, but a family with $2,500 per month would be told "sorry, pay yourself or give up"?

How will government separate well meaning parents from gold diggers? Some folks might believe that the world is made up of story book nuclear families that look after each other until death, but experience shows families can be ugly places. How does government separate the two and determine what is in the best interest of the developmentally disabled adult?

The government's discussion paper speaks about 5,000 developmentally disabled adults in residential care at an average cost of $73,000 per year. Should a new policy be aimed at encouraging parents to take those people back into their homes? If so, what should the level of subsidy be and should it be equal for everyone? Should resources be focused on maintaining those families that already look after their disabled offspring? Do we have a value as society saying responsibility for one's children goes on forever? In the case of a family that is not able or willing to accept or continue with the responsibility, what pressures will be brought to bear? Will the new policy be one additional option, or will it be expected to significantly reduce more costly alternatives? When the first case comes to court from a family or disabled person's advocate, how will the government set before the court objective criteria that a judge could use to distinguish between similar but different cases?

The policy questions are extremely difficult. They are made more difficult by the suspicion that cost cutting dominates the policy agenda. Any perceived cutbacks or offloading of responsibility for developmentally disabled adults is likely to be tested in the courts. Government must not use this as yet another excuse for introducing legislation limiting its liability.

---

January 8, 2002

Individualized Funding or Offloading?

The New Years Eve murder-suicide in Kelowna could turn into a greater tragedy if it is used to justify offloading the Ministry of Children and Family Development's responsibilities. The Kelowna family is reported to have been turned down in their request for funding that would have allowed them to look after their own son. In moving to individualized funding, government must not ignore the words of the BC Association for Community Living with respect to "families who want it".

In the words of the Victoria Association for Community Living (pdf 30K), "we hear from many families who have children of all ages that they support individualized funding as an important choice, but they do not want it to be the only choice. Many families are exhausted and do not have the time or energy for individualized funding."

Many parents who are providing care are themselves aging and approaching the time when they will need care. Caregivers in their 70s should not have to suffer the stress of worrying about their developmentally disabled 50 year old son.

The government's "Discussion Paper on Community Living Services" concluded by saying:

The conclusion in government's discussion paper starts with a preface about cutbacks. That is what is wrong! Individualized funding should be provided in those cases where individuals and families are capable of accepting the responsibility. It must not be a way for government to run away from its responsibilities.

When speaking to the November 7th staged cabinet meeting, Minister Hogg said:

The Minister should know the 70 percent of families who have been providing their own support are aging and may need to turn to a government that is focused on cuts. There are some situations where individualized funding will save the government money while improving the quality of someone's life. On balance there are probably more families who need additional help.

(Click here for more on cutbacks in the Ministry of Children and Family Development)