Transcript Building a Policy Framework: Why Having Data Matters Lessons Learned from the Canadian Experience Strengthening Child Protection Systems in Their Response to Violence.

Building a Policy Framework:
Why Having Data Matters
Lessons Learned from the Canadian Experience
Strengthening Child Protection Systems in Their Response to Violence Against
Children: Turning Evidence into Policy and Results
Sarajevo, Bosnia & Herzegovina, September 18th, 2012
Background-Child Welfare in Canada
 “Child welfare” and “child protection” often used interchangeably in
Canada to refer to the system of services in place to address issues
related to violence against children.
 Long-standing recognition of abuse and neglect as phenomena requiring
State intervention in Canada—first child protection legislation was passed
in 1893.
 Child welfare is a provincial responsibility:
 Each of Canada’s 13 provinces/territories have their own legislation, policies
and procedures, funding and service delivery structures.
 5 forms of maltreatment considered under most provincial statutes: physical
abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, emotional maltreatment; and exposure to
domestic violence (i.e., adult conflict).
 Ontario’s child welfare program (the largest in Canada) is managed by the
Ministry of Children and Youth Services:
 Allocated annual budget of $1.5 Billion.
 Ministry divisions dedicated to both policy and operations.
The Role of CASs
 The work of “child welfare” carried about by designated Children’s
Aid Societies (CASs).
 Child protection legislation gives CASs their mandate to intervene
even on an involuntary basis:
 Articulates duty to report suspected child abuse and neglect;
 Outlines grounds for finding a child “in need of protection”.
 Mandated services provided by a CAS include:




Receiving reports of suspected abuse/neglect;
Investigating allegations of maltreatment;
Providing ongoing protection services to children and families;
Finding and supervising placements for children in out-of-home care;
and
 Facilitating adoptions.
A Tale of Two Policy Frameworks:
Child Protection vs. Family Support
Child Protection
Family Support

Remedial focus—families eligible for
service only after maltreatment has
occurred/significant risk of maltreatment.

Preventive focus—eligibility for services
based on the notion that a child might
“fare badly”.

Individual focus—maltreatment usually
framed in terms of parental deficits.

Welfare of children is the responsibility of
families, community and society.

Investigative approach gathering evidence
to substantiate maltreatment, identify
perpetrator(s) and take corrective action.

Holistic assessment of family needs
required to promote healthy development
and wellbeing.

Intervention focuses on preventing
recurrence of maltreatment and risk
assessment/risk reduction.

Intervention focuses on supporting
families to care for their children, and
may address structural factors.

Separate system from supportive/voluntary
services; stigma for service users.

No separation between services to
support families and protect children.

Usually embedded within a residual
approach to social policy.

Often part of an institutional approach to
social policy.

Country examples include Canada, the
U.S. and Australia.

Country examples include Sweden, New
Zealand.
Developing a Policy Framework
 The development of a Child Protection vs. Family Support
Framework is influenced by:
 Dominant beliefs about the root causes of child maltreatment;
 Accepted definitions of abuse and neglect (VAC);
 Ideology about the role of the State intervention in the private sphere
of families;
 Importance ascribed to primary prevention/public health;
 Level of integration of protection services into a broader range of
services for children and families (and availability of such services);
 Available resources (human and financial) to support the system.
Why Having Data Matters
 In Canada the system is protection-oriented/residual, influenced
by:
 Dominant cultural values of individualism and self-reliance that have
framed State intervention into family life as “negative”;
 Legacy of the discovery of the “battered child syndrome” (Kempe et
al., 1962).
 Scholarly and practitioner interest in child sexual abuse starting in the
1980s.
 Narrow definitions of abuse/neglect employed in legislation focusing
on parental actions/inactions.
 These influences have supported a belief that reports to child welfare
predominantly involve children at imminent risk of harm at the hands of
their parents.
 Data tell a different story about who needs services and why.
Types of Substantiated Maltreatment in
Canada-Data from the CIS*
1998
2003
Rate per 1,000 children
8
6.38
6
6.17
5.31
3.58
4
3.23
2.56
1.72
2
0.89
0.86
0.62
0
Physical Abuse Sexual Abuse
Neglect
Emotional
Maltx.
From Trocmé, Fallon, MacLaurin, Daciuk, Felstiner, Black et al., 2005
*Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect
Exp. Domestic
Violence
I
Rates of PhysicalI and Emotional Harm
n
v
Harm With Treatment 3%
Signs of Harm 6%
Harm NO treatment 7%
Harm Treatment
14%
No Harm 80%
Emotional Harm
From Trocmé, Fallon, MacLaurin, Daciuk, Felstiner, Black et al., 2005
No Harm
90%
Physical Harm
Poverty
Social
assistance/benefits
24%
Public housing
13%
9%
Unsafe conditions
One move in past
12 months
28%
11%
Two or more moves
0%
10%
From Trocmé, Fallon, MacLaurin, Daciuk, Felstiner, Black et al., 2005
20%
30%
Endangered Development and Well-Being
 Data support the notion that many reported children are at risk of
“endangered development and well-being” (Trocmé and
Chamberland, 2003) as opposed to imminent physical harm.
 This calls into question the appropriateness of a protectionoriented model for the majority of cases.
 CIS data have supported the adoption of a differential response
model in three provinces:
 Alternative to a traditional, forensic investigation where the
focus in on gathering evidence to substantiate maltreatment.
 Use of DR may act to mitigate some of the differences between
a child protection versus family support orientation (Trocmé et
al., in press).
Some Advantages of a Residual Model
 Allows child welfare workers to focus scarce time and
resources on those most in need (i.e., the most serious
cases).
 Limits the number of referrals and thus the costs of
child welfare services.
 Works reasonably well if there is also a well-developed
and adequately funded range of universally available
and targeted services.
Sustainability for the Future

Despite long-term experience and a significant budget, Canada continues to
struggle with many child welfare policy issues:
 Limited outcome data.
 Over-representation of certain marginalized groups, e.g., Aboriginal families, single mother



led households.
The role of structural factors (i.e., poverty) in abuse/neglect.
Sustainability of the system due to rising costs.
Fragmented children’s services system.
Issues of accountability—both to the public in terms of value-for-money and between the
Ministry (funder) and CASs (service providers).

Canada’s system and original legislation came about through the persistent
advocacy efforts of a small group of reformers.

It has subsequently gone through multiple major reforms with more on the
horizon—the system needs to continually adapt to changing population needs and
fiscal realities.

Careful analysis of data rather than anecdote or reaction to high profile events
should guide these changes wherever possible.
Advocating for Change: Lessons Learned
 Crises can act as catalysts for change, BUT:
 Be cautious about basing the substance of reforms on reactions to
rare / unpredictable events; could lead to unsustainable change or
unintended consequences.
 In Ontario, the most effective reforms have been a happy
combination of “natural opportunities” (i.e., high profile inquests,
financial sustainability issues that make decision-makers open to
change) that also involved a planned, thoughtful review of the
options and evidence, by people with the right knowledge and
expertise.
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful,
committed citizens can change the world;
indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
Margaret Mead
Some Helpful Links
To download the full CIS-2008 Major Findings Report:
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/pdfs/nfnts-cis-2008-rprt-eng.pdf
For examples of recent reform efforts in Ontario:
http://www.sustainingchildwelfare.ca/
https://www.cdrcp.com/pdf/CWTransformation-FINAL-rev'd%20July%2011ek.pdf