The other story is of an eleven-year-old boy who was a sleepwalker. Working nights, I was expected to sleep in the staff bedroom with an open door. On this particular night, I awoke to a feeling of water splashing down my body. When I came to, I saw the eleven-year-old boy standing over my bed urinating. As the bathroom was adjacent to the staff bedroom, I can only assume that he had travelled one door too many.
Richard Phillips, who is the agency’s longest-serving staff member, joined the staff of Moberly House in 1957 as a live-in houseparent. He recalls working seven-hour shifts during the day, as well as five night shifts a week, “at the grand starting salary of $1,800 per year, less board, which was deducted at source.”
“The fox finally escaped out of an open door but not before several of the boys and myself had had contact with it. Of course, it happened to be one of the years that there was a serious outbreak of rabies in the province. That resulted in a steady parade of reluctant boys and staff attending the medical clinic for a series of very unpleasant injections, which, at that time, were given in the belly.”
— Richard Phillips
After about four years of operation, Moberly House was redesignated as a residence for teenage girls who had difficulty adjusting to foster homes. The neighbourhood, however, was in transition, and by the early 1960s many staff were concerned about “the deterioration of the [area] which is making it morally unsafe for the girls.” The agency made the decision, therefore, to transfer most of the residents to the society’s new group home program.
Another reason for this development was a steady increase in number of admissions to the Receiving Centre. It was operating well over capacity, despite the creation of three admission group homes to manage the overflow. If it were no longer a residence for adolescent girls, Moberly House could be incorporated into the Receiving Centre program to relieve the stress it was experiencing. Conveniently, both programs shared the same site at the corner of Huntley and Isabella Streets.
Thus, in 1963, Moberly House became one of the four living units into which the Receiving Centre program was organized, increasing the number of beds at the Centre from twenty-four to thirty-six. This growth was to presage the exponential expansion of the society’s programs for children and their families that began in the late 1960s and continued throughout the 1970s.
The society’s busiest year
Nineteen sixty-four was the busiest year to date in the society’s long history. Protection workers were involved with almost 4,000 active cases involving more than 10,000 children. Unmarried parent workers worked with 2,040 unwed mothers and 956 unwed fathers. Almost 2,000 children were admitted to care, while 863 were placed in adoption homes. The provision of these services cost the agency almost $4,400,000, of which Metro contributed 45 percent, the Department of Public Welfare 35 percent and the United Community Fund 8 percent. The balance came from the federal government, other municipalities and sundry fees.
Most of the money was designated for the maintenance and provision of services to children in care. Expenditures on protection and other services to children in their own homes amounted to only $634,000, which was clearly an inadequate amount to fund the agency’s growing work in this area. As Edmund Meredith, the society’s president that year, noted:
By arriving early, we can often straighten out a troubled family. The human savings are great. The financial savings are substantial and demonstrable. The cost of maintaining a family intact is only a fraction of the cost of financing children apart from their families. You may ask why, if the road to success is clear, progress is slow. The strange answer is that the community will provide money for the child once neglected but little to prevent neglect.
“By arriving early, we can often straighten out a troubled family. The human savings are great. The financial savings are substantial and demonstrable. The cost of maintaining a family intact is only a fraction of the cost of financing children apart from their families. You may ask why, if the road to success is clear, progress is slow. The strange answer is that the community will provide money for the child once neglected but little to prevent neglect.”
— Edmund Meredith
There were, however, encouraging signs of change in the community’s conscience, particularly in the press. Revisions to the Child Welfare Act in 1965 would reflect this change by providing for better protection services for children.
CHAPTER 6
The Golden Years,
1965–1977
Toronto in the 1960s and 1970s
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the Anglo-Celtic, Protestant nature of Toronto increasingly gave way to vibrant communities of many races, faiths and cultures. Most immigrants were now of non-European ancestry, arriving mainly from countries in the Caribbean, South Asia and East Asia.
Meanwhile, the children of the families who immigrated after the Second World War had become middle class and politically active, developing a vibrant press and diverse cultures. Their demands for an end to discriminatory laws and behaviours in accommodation, education, employment and immigration resulted in federal and provincial human rights legislation and an emphasis on multiculturalism — the recognition of all Canadians as full and equal partners in society. These changes in attitudes were also mirrored by a greater tolerance toward First Nations peoples and a growing sensitivity toward, and appreciation of, aboriginal culture.
The Metro population now exceeded two million people and its growth was accompanied by rapid suburban development. For those who could not readily find affordable accommodation, the Ontario Housing Corporation and other public agencies, along with some private developers, built significant numbers of units of high-density, lower-cost housing, much of it in the suburbs. Increasingly, however, concerns were raised over the concentration of low-income families in these large-scale projects, as well as the fact that their construction often required the destruction of existing neighbourhoods. In response, nonprofit and cooperative approaches to social housing — emphasizing respect for neighbourhoods, low-rise architecture and a variety of income groups as tenants — developed.
There were extraordinary changes in family life in this era. Young people gained much greater freedom to do as they chose. Instead of living with their families, many left home to live alone or with peers. Premarital sex and common law relationships were increasingly accepted, leading to a sharp drop in the rates of marriage. In 1969, same-sex relationships were decriminalized, and the years that followed would see organized gay liberation campaigns that helped to increase tolerance toward lesbian and gay people.
There were extraordinary changes in family life in this era. Young people gained much greater freedom to do as they chose.
As a consequence of the popularity of the birth control pill and the liberalization of abortion laws, families continued to get smaller, although the number of children born to unwed mothers increased. Most unmarried women, however, continued to relinquish their babies for adoption until the late 1960s. The rate of divorce climbed spectacularly after 1968, when marriage breakdown was added to the legal grounds on which divorces could be granted.
As a consequence of the popularity of the birth control pill and the liberalization of abortion laws, families continued to get smaller, although the number of children born to unwed mothers increased.
The lives of women, in particular, were changed irrevocably by these developments. They often postponed marriage and entered the full-time work force in increasing numbers, as did women with children. Feminist organizations pressed for changes to laws that discriminated against women and they were influential in lobbying for social change.
Throughout the 1960s, major reforms in human services affected the population’s material well-being, among them the introduction of universal medicare and the Canada Assistance Plan, a federal-provincial cost-sharing plan for social assistance and other social services.
The decade was also one in which governments came to be preoccupied with modernization. These devel
opments led the Department of Public Welfare to change its name in 1967 to the Department of Social and Family Services, reflecting the wider range of programs it was now supporting and funding. In 1972, to reflect the government’s increasing support of community endeavours in the provision of social services, the department’s name was changed yet again, to the Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS).
In this era, social agencies mushroomed and training programs in the human services greatly expanded. (And organizations such as Metro CAS were the ultimate beneficiaries.) For this reason, these years have been described as “the golden years” for child welfare. They lasted until a downturn in the economy ushered in a period of retrenchment in the mid- to late 1970s.
Despite increased funding, a major problem facing children’s aid societies, and the families with whom they worked, was the constant lack of resources for children with disabilities and those with mental health needs. During this time, the government embarked on a course of closing institutions without providing alternate community supports, a program that gathered steam over the succeeding two decades. This process was motivated partly by concerns about the inadequacies of institutional care, but it was also due to the introduction of psychotropic drugs to treat mental illness.
The role of children’s aid societies
Immigration and the baby boom had combined to cause a significant increase in Ontario’s child population. By the early 1960s, three million of the province’s seven million people were younger than nineteen years of age. How these young people were to be cared for and educated became a topic of intense public debate that included discussions about the role of children’s aid societies and how they should be governed.
According to Williams, one of the concerns was a belief that “[c]hildren’s aid societies were too addicted to removing children from parental care and too reluctant to return their wards to the family or to offer them for adoption. The consequence was a large use of foster homes, which [many thought] was itself proving injurious to the children.”
As James Band, the deputy minister of the Department of Public Welfare, observed in his annual report for 1961:
It is frightful to consider that when a child is taken into permanent care by a [children’s aid] society he may face, if not placed on adoption, the deteriorating experience of being moved time and again from one set of foster parents to another . . . Perhaps we should be giving recognition to the development of group care facilities on a smaller scale than in the [large orphanages of the past] for certain children who find it difficult to adjust to a normal family life.
These were sentiments with which child welfare leaders such as Metro CAS executive director Lloyd Richardson did not disagree, and they were to have a potent effect over the coming years, as children’s aid societies and other providers established expensive group care and other residential programs for “hard-to-serve” children.
Controversy over the societies’ autonomy was intense, due in part to revelations about inadequate resources and questions about the quality of the services provided by children’s aid societies. Many commentators, including The Globe and Mail, thought that the province should take over the societies’ operation.
Meanwhile, controversy over the societies’ autonomy was intense, due in part to revelations about inadequate resources and questions about the quality of the services provided by children’s aid societies. Many commentators, including The Globe and Mail, thought that the province should take over the societies’ operation.
A charitable society is ultimately successful when it has done itself to death, and when it has yielded its duties to a department of government which comes under the control of elected representatives of the people.
Others, however (notably the Roman Catholic Church), were vehemently opposed to the government having control over the lives of children.
These debates came together in an Advisory Committee on Child Welfare, which the province established to address “issues relating to the organization, structure, financing and administrative policies and practices of the children’s aid societies.” During its deliberations, the committee expressed an interest in developing standards by which child welfare services could be judged. Its report, published in 1964, concluded that “The provincial government is ultimately responsible for laying down basic standards, founded in the public interest and sound professional principles, as well as stating the requirements to meet these standards.”
Despite the committee’s belief in the importance of client rights, and its recommendations to that effect, the government developed no specific mechanisms to address them. One might only conclude that the ministry continued to have faith in the professional judgment of those operating the system.
Child Welfare Act, 1965
In response to the advisory committee’s report, the Robarts government passed the Child Welfare Act, 1965, in which the legislature, avoiding political conflict, backed away from any reorganization of child welfare services that would result in direct administration by either the province or the municipalities. The act did, however, give the province greater control over many of the operations of children’s aid societies, removing any pretence that they were organizations with the freedom to act independently of government.
The new Child Welfare Act gave the province greater control over many of the operations of children’s aid societies, removing any pretence that they were organizations with the freedom to act independently of government.
Qualifications for CAS staff and rules for the composition of boards of directors were established. Municipalities, which had traditionally provided most of the funding for child welfare services, were mandated to have four representatives on a nine-member executive committee of CAS boards of directors, a move with the potential to give them a powerful voice in the societies’ governance.
The societies’ authority over children in care was reduced, with the guardianship of young people in permanent care — now to be known as Crown wards — exercised by the Department of Public Welfare. A limit of two years was placed on children in the temporary care of a children’s aid society, who from now on were to be known as “society wards.” For educational and humanitarian reasons, children’s aid societies were allowed to extend their “care and maintenance” of wards until age twenty-one.
Under the new act, those who suspected that a child was being abused were, for the first time, required by law to report that suspicion to a children’s aid society. Perhaps the most important aspect of the legislation, however, was the new direction it gave to children’s aid societies to intervene early to prevent the development of circumstances that might lead to a child being abused, rather than getting involved only when that child was in imminent danger. This new provision gave societies the responsibility to “provide guidance, counselling and other services to families for protecting children or for the prevention of circumstances requiring the protection of children.”
Under the new act, those who suspected that a child was being abused were, for the first time, required by law to report that suspicion to a children’s aid society. Perhaps the most important aspect of the legislation, however, was the new direction it gave to children’s aid societies to intervene early to prevent the development of circumstances that might lead to a child being abused, rather than getting involved only when that child was in imminent danger. This new provision gave societies the responsibility to “provide guidance, counselling and other services to families for protecting children or for the prevention of circumstances requiring the protection of children.”
This preventive approach was supported by a new funding mechanism that paid societies for comprehensive services to children and families. The existing system of grants for various aspects of CAS work was abandoned. Governments now accepted full responsibility for funding approved child welfare services, with the province contributing 60 percent (raised in 1975 to 80 percent) and the municipalities the balance.
&nb
sp; Despite the legislative changes, the new act did not always result in the hoped-for harmony and trust between Metro CAS and the provincial government. This was in part because Queen’s Park vacillated over the extent of its role and focused on only a limited range of child welfare services, including a declaration that the prevention component of CAS work was to be permissive rather than mandatory. The overall result was that there was little new money for the society.
Executive director Lloyd Richardson was nonetheless optimistic. He thought the agency was coping well with the rapid changes in society and was able to meet the challenges of implementing the legislation. This optimism, combined with the promise of stable and full government funding for child welfare services, allowed the agency to withdraw from a four-decade-long membership in the Community Chest and its predecessor, the Federation for Community Service.
The agency reorganizes
In 1965, the new Child Welfare Act spurred the society to flatten and decentralize its organizational structure. The new arrangements, which were to remain the agency’s organizing principle for almost three decades, were designed to bring Metro CAS services closer to the people who needed them. The emphasis was also on increased integration with the community, so that workers got to understand what was going on in their neighbourhoods and became better known to local residents as sources of both advice and practical help.
The emphasis of the agency reorganization of the late 1960s was on increased integration with the community, so that workers got to understand what was going on in their neighbourhoods and became better known to local residents as sources of both advice and practical help.
This approach to service delivery led to the long-delayed establishment of a West Branch to serve Etobicoke and other western municipalities. It opened in 1965 in a house the society had purchased at 5162 Dundas Street West. The Central Branch on Charles Street expanded into four large district offices and, in 1975, was itself subdivided into two branches, Toronto East and Toronto West. The North and East branches (respectively renamed North York and Scarborough) developed sub-offices, while several of Metro’s largest housing projects had service units employing CAS and other community workers.
A Legacy of Caring Page 17