Child Welfare Measurements

November 10, 2003

[Note: Do not confuse this article concerning all children under age 18 with the Health Officer's report on infant mortality - children under age 1.]

Death Rate for Children in Care

The new Ministry of Children and Family Development webpage on children's deaths begins with the claim that:

Deaths of children in care have declined significantly in recent years, according to studies by the Provincial Health Officer. "For children and youth in care, as for other B.C. children, the risk of death is much lower today than in the past."

The Provincial Health Officer's report was completed May 2001. Since then the Campbell government has dramatically cut welfare rates and has significantly cut child protection services. Data in downloadable Excel spreadsheets on another page of the Ministry's website show 7 children in care died in both 2001 and 2002; in the first 9 months of 2003, 9 children in care have died. The Ministry emphasizes that the rate per 1,000 children in care is more significant than the absolute number of deaths. Since the number of children in care has been decreasing the death rate is increasing faster than the absolute number and will reach double digits for the first time since 1999.

The Ministry's website appears to be downplaying its responsibility for the deaths of children in care when it quotes the Provincial Health Officer as saying "Higher rates are not unexpected, given that many children and youth in care are medically fragile or have other special needs." No one should confuse "medically fragile" or "natural causes" with not preventable. Detailed data on the Ministry's website groups deaths of children by the International Classification of Diseases and puts suicides and homicides in a separate category. The largest group is natural causes which may include preventable deaths.

Not one word can be found in the service plan for the Ministry for Children and Family development regarding better outcomes for children in care, including preventing deaths. In 2004 tough new welfare policy will apply to families with children. In 2004 a further $70 million in cuts will be made to the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Gordon Hogg has repeatedly said that a 25% failure rate in his Ministry is to be expected. When failure means an increased death rate for children, it is unacceptable. It may be expected as the result of cutbacks, but it doesn't make it right.

Compare the trend line in the graph below with the trend line in the graph on the Ministry's website. The Ministry has drawn one simple line pointing down. The line in red on the graph below is a fifth order polynomial fitted by Excel to the actual data. It shows that the rate of decline accelerated in the late 90s, and it has been reversed in the New Era - pointing upward for 2004.

October 22, 2003

Child Welfare Measurements

According to a one year old government news release "The Office for Children and Youth integrates the key functions of the former Children's Commission and the former Office of the Child, Youth and Family Advocate." Of course "integrate" doesn't mean "include all the former functions". According to the website for the Office for Children and Youth one of the Office's functions is to "inform the public about the state of services for children and youth in B.C. and provide children, youth and their families with information and guidance on becoming effective self-advocates in light of the rights of children and youth in care under the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA)". In view of dramatic cuts in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, it is particularly important that the public be informed about the state of services for children, but informing the public about services need not include providing information about outcomes.

The former Children's Commission was required by law to collect information on all child and youth deaths. Unexpected deaths and deaths of children who received services from the Ministry of Children and Family Development were further reviewed by the Commission. When that position was abolished by the Campbell government, the public was told that it would be adequate to rely on coroners for that responsibility. The public will no longer have the services of the former Commission which completed 637 fatality reports on deaths that occurred after October 1996, but the Ministry of Children and Family Development does record why a child leaves care, including if the reason is death.

The following request has been submitted to the Ministry. The information should be available on the Ministry's website but it isn't. It shouldn't take more than a few minutes to either produce the information from the Ministry's information system, or to pull it from a report that is already on the shelf. Keep your eye on StrategicThoughts.com to see what response is received from our open government.

Manager of Information and Privacy
Ministry of Children and Family Development
PO Box 9702 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria, British Columbia V8W 9S1

I make this request pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

In May 2001 the Provincial Health Officer in cooperation with the Ministry of Children and Families and others published a report titled "Health Status of Children and Youth in Care in British Columbia What do the mortality data show?" The report is available at http://www.healthplanning.gov.bc.ca/pho/pdf/cyicreportfinal.pdf

Data for children and youth in care were measured as "Number of children and youth whose reason for discharge from care was recorded as being deceased. Ministry for Children and Families Management Information System - Social Work System (MIS SWS)." The MIS SWS data source is also listed in Appendix D of "Measuring Our Success" (http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/publications/measure_success/msappendix_d.htm) as providing the indicator for the "Rate of domestic child abuse/neglect".

This request is for the statistical extract files from the Ministry for Children and Families Management Information System - Social Work System (MIS SWS) that show the reason for discharge from care for calendar year 2002, or if it is more readily available, for fiscal year 2002-03. Please include the description of any codes used in the reports. This request is also for the rate of domestic child abuse/neglect for calendar years 2000, 2001 and 2002 as reported in indicator 2.1.1 of "Measuring Our Success".

Some British Columbians are fond of making comparisons between BC and Alberta. Witness the recent joint cabinet meeting that played on common interests. Minister of Children and Family Development, Gordon Hogg, participated in that meeting; we can hope he compared notes with his Alberta counterpart, Iris Evans, since Alberta has also changed its approach to child welfare services.

The annual report for Alberta's Children's Services for 2002-03 shows that reports of child abuse or neglect increased from 53,468 in 2001-02 to 55,255 in 2002-03. BC's Ministry has ceased publishing those statistics as part of its annual report but Minister of Children and Family Development, Gordon Hogg, recently suggested on a talk radio show that his layoffs of social workers are justified because the Ministry is receiving 15% fewer complaints to investigate, 85 per day rather than 100. For sake of comparison, Alberta's report of 55,255 complaints is equivalent to 151 complaints per day, 365 days per year. It is curious that Alberta would have far more complaints even though BC has a 15% larger population of children under age 15.

Alberta's annual report also reports that the number of completed investigations into child abuse or neglect decreased from 37,051 in 2001-02 to 35,642 in 2002-03 while the substantiated investigations decreased from 16,522 to 16,350. The slight decrease is attributed to the implementation of Alberta's new response model. In BC the number of investigations has decreased by 20% according to unpublished data obtained from the Ministry but Hogg appears unable to clearly say why that has happened. The fear is that fewer investigations are the consequence of spending cuts within his Ministry, although Hogg contends that it is the opposite way around even though the spending cuts were first announced on "Black Thursday" in January 2002.

Alberta has adopted an approach it calls the "Alberta Response Model" that is described in its ministry's annual report as "a new way for the ministry to work to ensure positive outcomes for the children, youth and families of Alberta." A background document lists specific outcome measurements including "recurrence of child maltreatment (rate and incidence), serious injuries/deaths (rate and incidence), grade level/graduation, positive child behaviours, permanent placements, temporary placements with family known to the child, 'moves in care', and time to achieve permanent placement." The "Business Plan", similar to what is called a "service plan" in BC, for Alberta's Children's Services for 2003-06 includes many of the outcome measurements listed in their response model. Compare that to Hogg's "service plan" where you will see measures that have a lot to do with cuts to spending and little or nothing to do with outcomes for children.

Although it is not part of the Hogg's "service plan", since 1997 BC's Ministry of Children and Family Development has published a report that does a better job than Alberta in measuring outcomes. First titled "Measuring Our Success", the third edition published in May 2002 was titled "Measuring Success - A Report on Child and Family Outcomes in BC" it included 130 indicators or measurements including child death and hospitalization rates for various causes. The Ministry's "service plan" looks at the "rate of children in care (per 1,000 children under 19 years of age)" as a key indicator, but "Measuring Success" looks at "rate of domestic child abuse/neglect per 1,000 ages 0-18 population". It is possible for the rate of children in care to decrease as the result of cuts in the Ministry even though the rate of domestic child abuse or neglect is increasing. Of course, with fewer social workers and fewer investigations, Hogg's Ministry might not know the rate of abuse.

The Ministry has yet to release the 130 measures of performance for the years since 1999. Whatever the objective indicators show for the performance of the Ministry since New Era cuts began, they should be released as soon as possible and no later than May 2005.

Measures of child welfare outcomes are not the only data being withheld from the public. Until 2003 the Ministry conducted practice review audits of child protection offices in a 4 year cycle and posted the reports to the Ministry's website (see http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/audit/child_protection.htm). No practice review audits have been posted since December 2002. It appears that the Ministry is shifting from auditing actual practice to emphasizing accreditation as illustrated by documents at http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/accreditation/index.htm. Accreditation can be useful but it is no substitute for measuring outcomes whether by indicators as found in "Measuring Success" or for audits of social work practice. There is more to child welfare than the financial bottom line but you couldn't tell it from the direction the Ministry has shifted in the New Era.