Child and Youth Review

December 17, 2005

Submission to the Child and Youth Review

From: David D. Schreck

The number of child deaths is the crudest indicator of how our society protects children. Public reporting on the protection of children and youth should include a wide variety of measures. Annual reporting of statistical indicators is important but it is not a substitute for reviews of individual cases. The situation now exists where the number of deaths is sufficiently small that arguments over statistical significance break out when experts review the data. Such debates miss the point that any preventable death is one too many. It is necessary not only to look for trends, as the Chief Coroner has said he seeks to do with improved computer programs, but also to examine individual cases.

In 2003 the Ministry of Children and Family Development did not have a report publicly available on the number of deaths of children-in-care. I submitted a freedom of information request for the number of deaths, and followed with a second request for updated information in 2004. On both occasions the Ministry provided me with the data and also published the data to its website. Unfortunately, as shown by the table below, the Ministry has retroactively revised the number of deaths each time it has published them. That creates the impression that the Ministry not only has difficulty investigating the circumstances that surround any particular death, but can't even keep track of the number of children-in-care and whether they are alive or not.

Deaths of Children-in-care as reported on Ministry Website
Year	Original 2003	Revised 2004	As of Dec 2005
1998	14	14	14
1999	16	16	15
2000	8	10	10
2001	7	9	9
2002	7	9	9
2003	(9)	12	12
2004			14
2005			(6)

The numbers shown in parenthesis in the above table are for a partial year, although when the Ministry reported on its website it made no distinction, creating the impression that the most recent (partial) year could be compared to full years. Note that the 2004 revision increased the number of previously reported deaths for 2000, 2001 and 2002, and the 2005 revision decreased the number of deaths for 1999.

In a May 2002 document produced by the Ministry titled "Measuring Success: A Report on Child and Family Outcomes in BC" over 100 outcome measurements were set out. The report provided measurements for all children, not just those in-care. An addendum published in January 2003 added early childhood development indicators. The addendum stated:

"Measuring Success is released annually by the Ministry of Children and Family Development in order to monitor and report the status health and well-being of children, youth and families in BC. Measuring Success is well known for its extensiveness as well as its comprehensiveness in covering child, youth and family outcomes and indicators. The monitoring of the outcomes and indicators allows the Ministry to assess the extent to which its programs, services and strategic approaches are making a difference at the provincial population level."

The 2003 addendum was mistaken when it said that Measuring Success is released annually. The first edition was published in 1997, the second in 1999, and the third in 2002. A fourth edition should be available by now, but like other means of holding the Ministry accountable and measuring progress, Measuring Success appears to have ceased to exist. Appendix D to the 2002 report lists 35 indicators which are available annually. A copy of the appendices is attached to this submission. At a minimum the Ministry of Children and Family Development should report annually in one place on those indicators rather than relying on interested parties searching throughout government for the data.

The absence of an update for Measuring Success is particularly important when its indicators and measurements are compared to those used in the Ministry's Service Plan. Service plans are required by the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act to be produced annually followed by annual reports indicating what performance was achieved. The Ministry may collect statistics in addition to those used in its service plan, but if they aren't part of the plan, they don't drive performance in the Ministry. The performance measures included in the Ministry's 2005/2006 - 2007/2008 Service Plan Update (updated in September as part of the mini-budget) are the following:

1. Number of children placed with extended family or in community as an alternative to coming into care.

2. Number of families referred to family support services.

3. Number of adoptions of children in care of the ministry.

4. Per cent of Aboriginal children in care who are served by delegated Aboriginal agencies.

5. Per cent of Aboriginal children in care of the ministry who are cared for by Aboriginal families.

6. Rate of youth in custody based on a proportion of all 12-17 year olds (per 10,000).

7. Number of children and youth served by Child and Youth Mental Health Services.

8. Number of Aboriginal initiatives that enhance early childhood development services for young Aboriginal children and their families.

9. Per cent of children who enter kindergarten "ready to learn".

10. Number of funded licensed child care spaces available.

11. Number of children whose families receive a child care subsidy.

12. Per cent of children under six with special needs and their families who receive supported child development services within three months of service request.

13. Per cent of children under six with special needs receiving an early intervention therapy within three months of service request.

14. An authority established under legislation assumes responsibility for the delivery of some or all community living services.

15. Number of regional authorities established under legislation that assume responsibility for delivery of child and family services.

While it can be argued that some of the 15 performance measurements used in the Ministry's service plan are at least indirectly related to the government's performance in protecting and providing services for children and youth in British Columbia, they stand in sharp contrast to the indicators and measurements in Measuring Success which, for example, include in addition to various age specific mortality statistics, measurements of the teen pregnancy rate, alcohol-related deaths among children and youth, the suicide rate for children and youth, the rate of children and youth charged with prostitution related offenses, and the percentage of children immunized for various diseases. A comparison of the two sets of measures suggests that the Ministry service plan is focused on managing the budget rather than achieving successful outcomes for children and youth.

Some may argue that the crisis in confidence that led to the appointment of your Child and Youth Review has roots that are decades old; however, progress was being made until December 2001 with respect to improving public reporting, advocacy and investigations in matters related to children and youth. Jane Morley, Q.C., was appointed to write a section of the government's "core review"; she produced her report in December 2001 titled: "Report on the Core Services Review of the Children's Commission and Overlapping Services Provided by the Child, Youth and Family Advocate, the Ombudsman, the Coroner and Ministry of Children and Family Development". The executive summary to the report stated:

"There are four key functions undertaken by the Children's Commission: handling individual complaints about MCFD, monitoring MCFD, reviewing child fatalities and advocating for systemic change. All these functions are undertaken, in some measure, by one or more of the other Agencies. Conceptually, I start from a clean slate and consider what structural model would allow government most effectively and efficiently to fulfill these functions. I conclude that having two specialized children's officers is neither efficient nor effective, but that one children's officer would assist government in effectively carrying out its responsibility to children whose families do not have the capacity, in whole or in part, to look after them without government support or intervention. In general terms, the task of this children's officer will be to provide an informed and independent focus on government's child welfare policy."

The elimination of the Children's Commission and the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate was one part of a core review that was designed to reduce the size of government without due regard for the consequences. Section 15 of the legislation that created the new Office of the Child and Youth Officer also provided for the transfer of files to the coroner. It is not just those files that got lost in the transition. Effective advocacy and public reporting was also lost. Identification of a problem and pressure to fix it came from the Official Opposition, not from the new office that was designed to replace the services that were eliminated. I urge you to recommend the restoration of a Children's Commission with the independent power to handle individual complaints about MCFD, monitor MCFD, review child fatalities and advocate for systemic change. The re-establishment of a Child and Youth Advocate would provide additional advocacy services for individuals who choose to lodge complaints with that office.