Diane, a seventeen-year-old Crown ward, described her all-too-common experience:
I wrote this poem to my best friend at school, which was my way of letting her know that I loved her. My teacher found it and told my worker. The staff at the group home told me that I mustn’t talk about these things, even though the other girls talked about boys all the time. I was told my issues were unimportant and were not to be discussed. I really think that by silencing me they thought it would go away. I got really angry when my worker kept asking me if I was sure I was a lesbian, like I had to justify who I am.
Lesbian and gay youth tended to leave home and school prematurely and were up to five times more likely than their peers to attempt suicide.
In the early 1990s, the society acknowledged that it needed to do a better job of meeting the needs of young people like Diane. With the help of a grant from the CAS Foundation and a steering committee led by John McCullagh and comprising staff, foster parents, community organizations and youth, the agency established the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Youth Project. It worked to identify systemic barriers within the agency that prevented it from meeting the needs of these youth and to recommend practice, policy and administrative changes.
The agency established the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Youth Project. It worked to identify systemic barriers within the agency that prevented it from meeting the needs of these youth and to recommend practice, policy and administrative changes.
In 1995, the society’s board approved more than thirty recommendations made in the committee’s groundbreaking report, We Are Your Children Too, and Metro CAS was recognized as the North American leader in the provision of accessible child welfare services to lesbian, gay and bisexual youth. Among other things, it led to the development of best-practice standards and specialized training for staff, foster parents and volunteers, the opening of a dedicated LIFE house for lesbian, gay and bisexual youth, and a greater sense of inclusion in the agency’s programs and services for these youth.
As one youth commented, the agency’s new openness made him feel safe to come out as a gay person: “You need to feel that someone still cares for you, that your life [as a gay person] can be normal and that it’s okay to be afraid that it may not be.”
In 1998, three years after the board adopted the recommendations contained in We Are Your Children Too, it passed a sexuality policy that promoted healthy sexuality and sexual expression among the agency’s children and youth. The policy was launched at a forum where Sue Johansen, a popular television and radio host of programs for young adults on issues related to sexuality, spoke to about 150 youth, staff and foster parents about the kind of sex education young people wanted. An early outcome of the policy was a youth relationships project that educated young people about violence toward women and helped them to develop beneficial relationship skills. It was featured in a television documentary broadcast by the Life Network.
Child welfare practice in a diverse community
As illustrated by Metro CAS’s commitment to inclusiveness in its services to lesbian, gay and bisexual clients, the agency in this era strove constantly to meet the challenge that diversity posed in serving to the many different communities in Metro Toronto. Executive director Bruce Rivers defined this challenge in terms of equity and access:
As an organization, we are committed to the proactive development of programs designed to address racism, immigration, connection to family and adjustment to Canada.
As the earlier chapters of this book illustrate, the agency did not arrive at this position overnight. It started in the 1970s with an in-depth internal assessment by the society’s board and staff, after which the agency reached out to various communities with in hopes of convincing them that their input would be valuable and acted upon.
According to Angela King, the supervisor of a community-based service team in Toronto West Branch and an expert in the provision of culturally sensitive child welfare services:
The outcome was a policy and an action plan that covered every aspect of service. This has grown and developed over the years so that now we have a code of ethics that values the inherent worth of each individual and which includes a commitment to the removal of all barriers to equal opportunity. We also have a policy that ensures that all who receive or provide agency services are free from discrimination and harassment. All staff, foster parents and volunteers are offered the opportunity to learn about and to understand other cultures and issues associated with racism. The objective is to ensure that culturally competent practices are integrated into our work.
“The objective is to ensure that culturally competent practices are integrated into our work.”
— Angela King
This attempt to be more representative of the communities the society served was reflected in the composition of the board of directors, staff, foster parents and volunteers. The agency’s services became more accessible to minority communities and went beyond serving clients in their own languages to establishing links with those communities. The society to built bridges by cooperating closely with such groups such as the Vietnamese Association, the Afgan Women’s Organization, Chinese Family Life Services and many others. According to King, “The key to success is learning to share power with communities by involving them in our work and by getting their input into policy development.”
The agency’s services became more accessible to minority communities and went beyond serving clients in their own languages to establishing links with those communities.
One example of this approach was the agency’s effort to build partnerships with the Muslim community. A Muslim outreach group, consisting of community representatives, CAS staff and foster parents, was established in 1993, when the society’s statistics indicated it was working with almost 300 Muslim families. Many were new immigrants or refugees struggling to adapt to a new country and culture. The children of these families often wanted to participate in activities and coeducational programs that stood in sharp contrast to what traditionally would have been acceptable in Muslim communities. Family conflict often arose as a result, and CAS workers sometimes had to get involved.
While these CAS workers had to fulfil their legislated responsibilities to protect children from abuse and neglect, providing service that was both helpful and respectful of Muslim beliefs was equally as important. The outreach group developed training workshops — which included presentations on Islam and Muslim culture as well as panel discussions on working with Muslim families — for agency staff and foster parents. Community members, in turn, participated in workshops on child welfare issues from a cultural perspective.
The process of building partnerships with Metro Toronto’s many racial, ethnic and cultural communities led eventually to the launch in 1998 of the Bridging Diversity Project. With the help of the CAS Foundation, the project was intended to help the society engage various ethnic, racial and cultural groups in a two-way learning process about child protection. It was hoped that, in addition to increasing knowledge of the values, customs, religion and culture of Metro’s many and diverse communities, the project would generate a broader base from which to recruit staff, foster parents and volunteers.
Growing up in care
Looking after Crown wards, children and youth who are in the permanent care of the agency represents a significant responsibility for Metro CAS. In the 1990s, their numbers represented about 40 percent of the approximately 2,500 young people in the society’s care.
The agency believed that it was important to recognize these young people’s achievements, which were often made in the face of significant challenges. That is why in 1996 the society held, at a downtown hotel, its first annual recognition night for those who were turning twenty-one years of age and had been in the agency’s long-term care. Some travelled long distances to attend, and many brought guests who included birth parents, foster parents, siblings, partners and co-workers.
The atmosphere was that of a family gathering fo
r a special event. There were greetings from board president Marjorie Perkins, a buffet dinner, recognition of youth by Margaret Leitenberger, the director of long-term care, and a special acknowledgment by executive director Bruce Rivers of those youth who were pursuing postsecondary education.
The growth and progress the young people had made despite the challenges of being in care was a common theme throughout the speeches. Each youth received a certificate of recognition. Those in attendance were moved as they watched the youths walk up to the stage with their heads held high to receive their certificates.
One of the youth being recognized commented:
This evening made me feel good about being part of the CAS organization and I would like to thank all staff for their continuous efforts to help the youth of Toronto. The recognition that I received tonight has given me motivation to move on to many more great achievements. Thanks to all the staff for providing me with the necessary support and services when I needed them.
In 1996 the society held its first annual recognition night for those who were turning twenty-one years of age and had been in the agency’s long-term care.
“Thanks to all the staff for providing me with the necessary support and services when I needed them.”
— Youth graduate
Increasingly, many of these young people began to speak publicly about their experiences in care. One example is the 1993 broadcast on TV Ontario of a video adaptation of Speak Out, a 120-page anthology of stories written by thirty youth from PARC, the agency program that helps its adolescent wards make a successful transition to independence.
The anthology had been published with the help of the CAS Foundation four years earlier. It was full of compelling stories by young people in the agency’s care about such issues that had affected them as child abuse, poverty, neglect and family misfortune. Mark’s story was not untypical:
The time it happened was mid-’85 and I was 15. My mother was put in the hospital and I was left with the apartment. At the same time, I felt mixed up, like if I was part of a juggling act. What am I going to do with my life at 15? What’s going to happen? Is my mother going to make it? What am I going to do with the apartment?
My mother had bought a few things even though she didn’t have enough money in the bank to pay for them. So I looked at them . . . and I looked at the apartment and something came over me about destroying the things that she’d bought. I was [upset] about what was going on and I took my anger and frustration out on the apartment and on what my mother had bought.
And then, somehow, I brought myself to a standstill, went into my bedroom to calm down, relax, cry a little and get myself together, take myself out of the apartment and leave. Four months later, my mother died.
On another occasion, a group of PARC youth met with Premier Rae to discuss the needs of youth who had experienced the child welfare system. They told him of their concerns that children in care were often passed from one worker to another, and from one foster home to another, without involving them in the decision-making process. Rae supported their concerns, which were among those the society addressed in a new model of service, known as Continuity of Care and Relationships and Integration.
Continuity of Care
The Continuity of Care service model was introduced across the society in 1994. It owed much to the insight, leadership and vision of Carolyn Buck, then the agency’s director of services. In a powerful speech to staff, Buck explained the thinking that led to the change:
Our service delivery system was designed at a time when foster homes were plentiful, community programs were fewer, staffing was hierarchal and stable, clients were less diverse and powerless to speak for themselves and the authority wielded by the agency was virtually unchallenged.
The world has changed dramatically . . . and the issues facing Toronto’s children and families are [now] different and more complex than those of the past. While we have grappled with the consequences of these issues and have succeeded in sporadic or local responses to them, with the exception of addressing the issue of sexual abuse most of our new programs are not universal and therefore equal access has become a serious problem.
Our programs vary from branch to branch, often with a differing philosophical basis and differing methods of service delivery. It is not a given, therefore, that a client in one part of the city would receive equivalent service in another part of the city. We have also tended to respond to issues by creating a new rule or set of procedures. The result is the disempowerment of both our professional staff and our clients.
The new service model, which was the result of an extensive and participatory planning process that involved staff, foster parents, volunteers and adult clients and children in care, sought to involve children and families in the service decisions that affected them.
The new model, the result of an extensive and participatory planning process that involved staff, foster parents, volunteers and adult clients and children in care, sought to involve children and families in the service decisions that affected them. Foster parents were to be equal members of the service team, and their role would expand to include significant therapeutic work, not only with the child but also with his or her family.
Under the new model, the society’s programs were to be coordinated internally and complemented by those of external service providers. Given the complexity of the problems faced by the children and families with whom the agency worked, teamwork would be a major component of the new approach to service delivery; an isolated approach was no longer relevant nor cost-effective.
The agency undertook a massive restructuring that involved new job descriptions, new teams and new office locations for most staff; community-based service teams were established, as was a specialized branch for children in the agency’s long-term care. A higher profile was to be given to the agency’s clinical, research and prevention efforts.
The society’s foster care programs were an integral part of this reorganization. A foster care resources branch was established to develop, maintain, train and support foster families in their work. Homefinding and assessment would be delivered by an integrated team of staff, foster parents and volunteers. Foster care support workers would directly support foster homes but would not be responsible for the children in the homes; the children would be served by their own worker, who would follow them if they had to move to another foster home or a residential placement. Foster homes and their support workers would be clustered by region and would meet regularly for training, information sharing and mutual assistance.
A foster care resources branch was established to develop, maintain, train and support foster families in their work.
At the same time as the agency introduced this new service model, the board of directors engaged in an in-depth evaluation of the society’s governance structure, and decided to reduce the number of board members from twenty-six to nineteen and the number of board committees from twelve to five. The Board established a critical success factor reporting system to focus on outcome and achievement related to the Society’s long-range goals.
Fostering for Metro CAS
During the 1990s, the number of families who fostered children in the society’s care fluctuated widely (and in 1991 reached a low of 352), as homes constantly closed and new ones opened in their place. At the same time, there was an increase in the number of children placed in foster homes. In 1988, for example, foster parents looked after 895 children; by 1994, those numbers had increased to 1,097.
Joe and Wilma Wrabko receive the Child Welfare League of Canada’s Foster Parents Leadership Award from Sandra Scarth, then the league’s executive director.
According to Peter Hagerdoorn, for many years the assistant manager of foster care for the society, there were many reasons why foster care recruitment was a challenge in the final years of the twentieth century:
Mainly it was economic. Housing in Toronto was expensive and starter homes were often beyond the reach of those young
families that used to make good beginning foster parents. We also lost many prospective foster parents to day care and privately operated homes because we couldn’t compete with their rates. Compounding these difficulties was the fact that children in foster care needed increasingly specialized services and we required foster parents with increasingly specialized skills to care for them. People who used to open their homes because they had “room for one more” now found that that was not enough.
“People who used to open their homes because they had “room for one more” now found that that was not enough.”
— Peter Hagerdoorn on the challenge
of foster care recruitment
The Continuity of Care restructuring process described above, which led to a greater emphasis on strengthening the level of support provided to foster families, was one way the agency tried to address this problem. Another was an effort between Metro CAS, Catholic CAS, Jewish Family and Child Service and the CASs in the outlying regions of Simcoe, Durham, Halton, York and Peel to work together to redesign the way foster care services were to be provided. The idea was to develop and manage foster care on a regional basis and erase the distinction that traditionally had been made between “our” foster homes and “their” foster homes and “our” children and “their” children.
At the same time, the society participated in a pilot of the Looking After Children system developed in Britain to assess and meet the needs of children in out-of-home care. This program aimed to encourage greater collaboration among child welfare staff, foster parents and other care providers to put the concept of good parenting into practice in areas such as health, education, identity, family and social relationships, emotional and behavioural development and self-care skills.
A Legacy of Caring Page 30