The agency also had to cope with the fact that newly minted holders of the MSW degree graduated with only a cursory education in child welfare work. Rarely did their training equip them with the knowledge required to work in a children’s aid society. Writing in 1962, Watters, who had succeeded March Dickens as the agency’s casework consultant, estimated that it took a further three to five years of supervised work experience for new graduates to translate theory into skilled practice. Although there have been some improvements over the years, the society confronts the same issue today.
“It seems you have to believe in Freud to get a raise around here.”
— CAS employee, referring to the society’s
new emphasis on professional training
The agency responded by investing heavily in in-service training programs to keep staff up to date with developments in child welfare. Supervisors were also helped to build the skills they would need to teach new workers the specifics of child welfare practice. A system of bursaries was instituted to enable promising unqualified staff to return to school and secure their professional training.
In the years following the merger, employing enough qualified and skilled staff to manage an increasingly complex and difficult caseload was an ongoing concern. There were many reasons why. For instance, CAS work was not considered prestigious. Caseloads were high — it was not unusual for a protection worker to be responsible for fifty families. And there was intense competition among social service agencies for MSW graduates — and the agency often found itself priced out of the market because its salary scales were not always competitive with those of other employers.
CAS work was not considered prestigious. Caseloads were high — it was not unusual for a protection worker to be responsible for fifty families. And there was intense competition among social service agencies for MSW graduates.
An additional challenge was that social work was still a profession taken up mainly by women. Although values were gradually changing, most women still considered marriage and a career mutually incompatible. Many employees remained on staff only until they got married and started families.
A new Child Welfare Centre
Even before amalgamation, the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto had long outgrown its offices in the row of houses between 22 and 34 Isabella Street. By the mid-1940s, pressures for space had reached the breaking point. A solution to this long-felt need seemed to be near in 1946, when 2,500 of the agency’s friends — with support from the City of Toronto — donated $389,000 for the construction of a modern building to house staff, clinics, private interviewing rooms and waiting rooms and to meet other administrative needs.
Supply scarcities, and the subsequent plan to amalgamate with the Infants’ Homes, postponed the building program until a plan could be developed to provide facilities that would be adequate for the enlarged organization. This was doubtless a wise decision but, in the meantime, it meant that staff were still squeezed into every nook and cranny of the existing buildings, where they interviewed about 270 children and families every day. These working conditions were described in a contemporary fundraising brochure:
The CAS of Toronto had long outgrown its offices in the row of houses between 22 and 34 Isabella Street. By the mid-1940s, pressures for space had reached the breaking point.
“Walk upstairs and watch some of the hampered caseworkers, 12 in one room, 17 in another, trying to talk on telephones about the delicate problems of those in their care. See the social worker dictating in what was once a linen closet in this old house.”
— CAS fundraising brochure
Walk through the worn corridors, the drab offices and the bare, lonely waiting room. You will see desperate, unmarried, deserted mothers who are searching for understanding and help, sitting out in the open, under the scrutiny of those present — a mother and a father discussing their most intimate problems before their own children and within earshot of people all around. Walk upstairs and watch some of the hampered caseworkers, 12 in one room, 17 in another, trying to talk on telephones about the delicate problems of those in their care. See the social worker dictating in what was once a linen closet in this old house.
Seventeen workers in one room
Photo reprinted with permission of City of Toronto Archives, SCI, Series B, 1951 Annual Report, Page 7.
In 1952, a new building program, with a budget of nearly $750,000, was launched. It called for the demolition of the old CAS shelter at 33 Charles Street East, which would be replaced by a new, purpose-built children’s residence and a state-of-the-art Child Welfare Centre. The structure would contain 2,700 square metres of office and clinic space spread over three floors. A building campaign, to which each staff member contributed a day’s salary, raised $300,000. This money was added to proceeds from the sale of the Infants’ Homes offices at 34 Grosvenor Street and the $389,000 that had been raised during the 1946 campaign.
In 1952, a new building program, with a budget of nearly $750,000, was launched. It called for the demolition of the old CAS shelter at 33 Charles Street East, which would be replaced by a new, purpose-built children’s residence and a state-of-the-art Child Welfare Centre with 2,700 square metres of office and clinic space spread over three floors.
A year later, the new Child Welfare Centre, for which Mayor Allan Lamport had laid the cornerstone, opened its doors. It housed all of the agency’s professional and administrative staff as well as its medical and dental clinics.
A special effort was made to make the centre open and accessible to the public. Jessie Watters remembers why:
Stewart Sutton knew that the children in the shelter found it hard to go to classes at Jesse Ketchum Public School because the other students referred to them as the “home children.” They did not want to play with them, they said, “because you don’t have a mother or father.” So when plans were made for the new building, Stewart insisted that the grounds should be arranged for the general public to use and that they be made welcome so that CAS children would not feel so isolated. That is the origin of the sunken garden in front of the Charles Street offices. When the new building was opened, Stewart quoted a twelve-year-old boy who said, “Today, I’m proud to belong to the Aid.”
“Stewart Sutton knew that the children in the shelter found it hard to go to classes at Jesse Ketchum public school because the other students referred to them as the “home children.” They did not want to play with them, they said, “because you don’t have a mother or father.” So when plans were made for the new building, Stewart insisted that the grounds should be arranged for the general public to use and that they be made welcome so that CAS children would not feel so isolated. That is the origin of the sunken garden in front of the Charles Street offices. When the new building was opened, Stewart quoted a twelve-year-old boy who said, “Today, I’m proud to belong to the Aid.”
— Jessie Watters
On the same occasion, board president A.E. Eastmure declared:
Following many years of careful planning and thanks to the generosity of the citizens of this community, [we have completed and are ready to occupy] our new Child Welfare Centre. Of equal, if not greater, importance, this move into our new quarters has symbolized and cemented the amalgamation of the two former agencies who came together to create the Children’s Aid and Infants’ Homes.
The children’s residence called for in the plans was never built, to a large extent because the agency was about to inherit York Cottage, a residential facility in Willowdale, as the result of yet another merger — this time with part of York County CAS. In the meantime, children who would formerly have been placed in the CAS shelter were now being cared for at the former Infants’ Homes Receiving Centre at 15 Huntley Street.
Expansion to the suburbs
This second amalgamation would extend the jurisdiction of the Children’s Aid and Infants’ Homes of Toronto beyond the city limits and into the suburbs that now formed an integral part of the new municipality of Me
tropolitan Toronto. Until 1953, the territory that made up Metro had been part of York County, and for the first four years of the new district’s existence, York County CAS continued to take responsibility for child welfare services in the parts of Metro outside the City of Toronto. That changed as of January 1, 1957, in accordance with the recommendations of a report commissioned by Metro Council.
Tree house in front of the then North Branch and York Cottage
To reflect these expanded responsibilities, the Children’s Aid and Infants’ Homes adopted a new name: the Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, a mouthful that most people shortened to CASMT, or Metro CAS. It is a sign of the success of the earlier amalgamation with the Infants’ Homes that no objections were raised about the loss of the title “Infants’ Homes,” which it had been so important to retain only six years before.
A gradual shifting of cases from York CAS to Metro CAS began in the fall of 1956, while at the same time some members of the York board joined the board of the Toronto agency. Metro CAS took over York Cottage, the 150-year-old farmhouse at 5412 Yonge Street that had operated as the York CAS shelter (Metro CAS converted it into a group living program for children who were unsuited to foster care), as well as that agency’s offices at 112 St. Clair Avenue West in Toronto. All York CAS staff who transferred to Metro CAS were guaranteed their existing salaries, although they were told that their job descriptions might change.
To reflect its expanded responsibilities, the Children’s Aid and Infants’ Homes adopted a new name: the Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, a mouthful that most people shortened to CASMT, or Metro CAS. It is a sign of the success of the earlier amalgamation with the Infants’ Homes that no objections were raised about the loss of the title “Infants’ Homes,” which it had been so important to retain only six years before.
The merger was followed by a restructuring of the agency which resulted in the development of a decentralized branch system, intended to bring workers in the protection and unmarried parents departments, as well as those who worked with foster and adoptive families, closer to the communities they served.
The decentralized branch system was intended to bring workers in the protection and unmarried parents departments, as well as those who worked with foster and adoptive families, closer to the communities they served.
Two purpose-built Child Welfare Centres were opened in the fall of 1958: North Branch, on the grounds of York Cottage at 5414 Yonge Street, serving the northern townships; and East Branch, at 843 Kennedy Road, serving Scarborough Township and the eastern part of North York Township. Each cost about $100,000 to build, plus the cost of the land at the East Branch location. Financing was obtained through the sale of the St. Clair Avenue offices inherited from York CAS, as well as grants from the province and Metro and from the agency’s depreciation fund.
North Branch, 5414 Yonge Street
In 1962–63, the agency’s operations within the city of Toronto were also decentralized, as units of protection workers were deployed in five districts.
Stewart Sutton resigns
In 1954, after seven years at the agency’s helm, executive director Stewart Sutton resigned to take up a senior position with UNICEF, the United Nations Children’s Fund. He would have a distinguished career on the world stage. He worked first in UNICEF’s operations in southern and eastern Africa, then became the agency’s regional director for the Middle East. In 1963, he left UNICEF and moved to Geneva to become director of International Social Service, an agency that facilitates cooperation between social welfare agencies around the world. He moved back to Canada in 1966 to become the first secretary-general of the newly formed Vanier Institute of the Family. After stepping down from that position in 1971, he continued for several years to work as a consultant. He died in 1988.
East Branch, 843 Kennedy Road
Former executive director Stewart Sutton.
Staff and board alike took pride in Sutton’s international work, but they also lauded him for what he had achieved at Metro CAS, notably his outstanding success in merging the society with both the Infants’ Homes and York County CAS.
According to those who knew him best, including Jessie Watters, whom he brought into the agency in 1947 and who became a lifelong friend, Sutton’s most important contribution was his work to update the agency’s attitudes toward children.
Stewart felt there had been too much emphasis on rules and regulations, on what children could and couldn’t do, and not enough on children’s needs. He felt that policies should be guidelines for staff but that children’s needs should come first. He hated that “I know what’s best for the child” attitude. He also made the CAS an exciting place to work. You could try out new ideas, new ways of helping people.
Lloyd Richardson
In 1954, the board of Metro CAS appointed Sutton’s deputy, Lloyd Richardson, as the agency’s new executive director. Richardson had extensive experience working with children and adolescents, including some time in the 1930s as a caseworker at the Protestant Children’s Home. Sutton said that he asked Richardson in 1947 to give up his position as executive director of Lincoln County CAS to come to Toronto as his deputy because:
I liked him, trusted him, and had complete confidence in him. We were enough alike that there could be no real friction between us and yet we were different. I trusted him as a friend and colleague to do his utmost to keep me on track when he and our colleagues felt that I was straying. To my great delight, relief and surprise, Lloyd accepted my offer. We worked happily together and maintained harmonious relationships with the board of directors, the staff and the community at large without any of us having such a thing as a job description.
John Yaremko, Ontario’s minister of community and social services (left), Lloyd Richardson (right) and a young friend cut the ribbon at the new residence.
Largely because of his warmth and interpersonal skills, agency staff held Richardson in the same high esteem as they had Sutton. Mona Robinson, who transferred to Metro CAS from York CAS at the time of the 1957 amalgamation to assume the job of intake supervisor, recalls:
“Among Richardson’s strengths was his ability to inspire loyalty and respect. This was demonstrated by what became known as his Friday afternoon “walkabouts,” when he greeted each staff member by name and asked about their week’s work.”
— Mona Robinson
I had the greatest admiration for Lloyd Richardson. He had a facility for delegating responsibility and giving staff scope to use their potential. Among his strengths was his ability to inspire loyalty and respect. This was demonstrated by what became known as his Friday afternoon “walkabouts,” when he greeted each staff member by name and asked about their week’s work.
This personal, hands-on approach extended to clients, as is evidenced by his involvement with a teenage couple seeking his permission as CAS wards to marry.
Richardson worried about negotiating the agency’s budget with the board of directors, the Department of Public Welfare and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Jessie Watters, however, remembers his competence:
He had the most remarkable combination of shrewd judgment, common sense and a wide vision. He saw CAS as something you had to look after and you had to back up the workers, especially front-line staff.
Child Welfare Act, 1954
Immediately upon assuming the executive directorship, Richardson had to grapple with the implications of new child welfare legislation that had come into effect a month earlier.
The post-war baby boom was in full swing and the child population was soaring. Although the agency’s caseload was not growing at as high a rate, the young people it was serving were older than in the past and, as a result of the changes in family life that were outlined at the beginning of this chapter, their needs were more complex.
Premier Leslie Frost’s government reacted by passing the Child Welfare Act, 1954, which consolidated the Children’s Protection Act of 1893 with two p
ieces of 1921 legislation, the Children of Unmarried Parents Act and the Adoption Act.
The new law reflected the continuing but gradual movement, begun in the 1940s, away from funding child welfare through philanthropic and municipal means and in the direction of entrenching children’s services within the auspices of the expanding welfare state, with its increasing regulatory powers. The act was intended to provide a more stable foundation upon which to finance protection and adoption services. It also, to some extent, clarified the different responsibilities of the provincial Department of Public Welfare, the municipalities and the societies.
The new Child Welfare Act reflected the continuing but gradual movement, begun in the 1940s, away from funding child welfare through philanthropic and municipal means and in the direction of entrenching children’s services within the auspices of the expanding welfare state, with its increasing regulatory powers.
The act continued the 25 percent provincial contribution — extended to 40 percent in 1957 — to maintain children in CAS care. Societies also received a provincial grant to cover 25 percent of their capital costs. This was accompanied by increased government monitoring and supervision of the societies in the form of periodic visits by Department of Public Welfare staff. (The title of these government visitors has varied over the years, from child welfare supervisor, field supervisor and field consultant to the present-day term: program supervisor).
The visitors held discussions with society staff, visited agency programs and reviewed files. There were, however, not yet any provincial standards by which CAS services could be judged. Nor were there any mechanisms that protected the rights of children in foster homes and group homes. The assumption was that those who provided these services did so with altruistic motives, and therefore standards were not necessary.
A Legacy of Caring Page 14