Three particularly disturbing aspects have emerged: 1) There appears to be great urgency on CLBC's part to accomplish as many moves and closures as possible over the summer months before families and the public even realize what's going on; 2) CLBC is ordering service reductions with far-reaching implications based on a draft policy that has not even been  formally approved or announced, raising questions about potential legal challenges; and 3) MCFD has a similar cost-cutting process underway to close children's group homes and relocate youths with very complex needs to foster care.

See a report revealing the children's closures from the Victoria Times Colonist: Ministry closing children in care homes

In the past week MOMS has met or talked with representatives of all stakeholder groups, including CLBC staff. Key points include the following:

Background: CLBC has been working for many years on developing a new process to objectively evaluate individual support needs to ensure that available funding is fairly allocated. While few would object to fair and objective allocation of resources, the Guide to Support Allocation (GSA) and Catalogue of Services intitiatives (both policies, the GSA assessment tool and the catalogue are all still in draft form) appear to have been hijacked and are being prematurely utilized to enforce some $22 million in budget cuts for the current fiscal year, despite growing costs and demands. 

Process: CLBC's "service quality analysts" with no training in diagnostic assessment or social work (they require at most a business-related diploma) administer the GSA assessment by visiting the group home or agency and conducting a brief interview with staff (one participant said an interview took approx 10 minutes). The analyst tallies the assessment score and then informs the agency in a follow-up interview that funding for the client has been reduced. The agency is then forced to move the individual to a cheaper residential option like home sharing.

Family members are not being informed or involved in this assessment process. Residents who have no family or friends to advocate on their behalf are not provided with independent advice or advocacy support. 

As group homes are closed, union contracts result in a chain of "bumping" based on staff seniority, breaking up many long-standing relationships and disrupting many more homes. In some cases, laid-off employees are rehired as home-share contractors and simply take their clients to live at home with them.

Where group home placements are maintained, funding cuts are eroding quality of care and quality of life.

Oversight: Home sharing is not subject to the strict licencing, standards and independent inspections required of professionally-staffed group homes. CLBC's policies delegate esponsibility for oversight and monitoring of home share settings to the same community agencies that run them (i.e. self- policing).  Strict confidentiality rules mean that agency staff and providers are not allowed to publicly disclose concerns.    

Issues raised:

• Who authorized the use of the DRAFT GSA and Servicce Catalogue policies and processes, which have yet to be finalized, approved or announced, to effectively reduce individual support allocations with far-reaching consequences?
  • CLBC has a policy on how it develops and implements new policies and these actions appear to conflict with that. Read CLBC's Policy Development and Implementation Policy
  • Neither the GSA or the Catalogue of Services have yet been published in CLBC's list of policies, leaving residents, families and the public in the dark about the parameters for the far-reaching process underway. Read CLBC's list of policies 
• CLBC analysts and the group home staff they interview to complete the GSA both lack the required training to undertake a formal diagnostic assessment of individuals with very complex special needs, particularly one with far-reaching consequences and no established system of checks and balances or appeal process. 
• The utilization of the draft GSA tool is resulting in decisions that conflict with very specific commitments that both CLBC and the Minister responsible have made:
  • Provincial authorities have repeatedly stressed that a pivotal principle in establishing CLBC and reforming service delivery was to offer more choices: the forced relocation of group home residents based on a GSA assessment, and denial of group home placements as an option for incoming adults, both conflict fundamentally with the principle of choice.
  • CLBC and the Minister have repeatedly promised that families would be fully engaged in all decisions: The public and families have been kept in the dark about the implementation of a re-assessment process that several participants have described as clandestine, vicious and extremely rushed; family members not been informed or invited to participate in individual assessments. 
  • Minister Coleman committed that no one would be moved from a group home against their will: the GSA assessments have already resulted in forced relocations and these continue to occur at a rapid pace. The Minister has declined to respond or intervene, except in the Powell River case, despite repeated complaints from families, community groups and others.

Sign the petition urging the province to halt the group home cuts and forced relocations!

Background

There has been ongoing and often intense pressure to close professionally-staffed group homes for adults with developmental disabilities in the province since 2001, when the BC Liberals took office. 

While MOMS strongly supports personalized choices and efficient spending, the government's current actions are clearly not driven by the best interests of adults with developmental disabilities. BC's latest push to reduce quality, close group homes and forcibly relocate residents against their wishes poses grave risks to their safety and wellbeing, prompting growing alarm among families and community living advocates.

There are good reasons to offer alternatives, as group homes are not right for everyone. But despite government's protestations to the contrary, it has always been clear that the desire to reduce costs supercedes concerns about the risks of abuse, safety and individual wellbeing, and that both Community Living BC and the Province have repeatedly failed to be forthright about a series of initiatives aimed at reducing group home capacity.

A major shift from group homes towards more informal and affordable adult care was a key component of the restructuring proposal that led to the creation of Community Living BC. At the outset, BC Liberal insider/CLBC architect Doug Walls promised that closing group homes and shifting to new support models would reduce community living costs by 20%. 

But the promised savings from restructuring were never been achieved and CLBC therefore faces mounting fiscal  challenges, with an aging population, a growing client base and budgets that have failed to keep pace with inflation and government-set wages for unionized sector workers. Overwhelming opposition from residents, families, operators and staff has repeatedly thwarted efforts to close group homes, and this on-and-off fight is now heating up again.

In June, the Victoria Times Colonist revealed that the Province had quietly cut CLBC's budget by $22 million to help offset the provincial deficit, despite promises from  Minister Rich Coleman that cuts were being made elsewhere in order to protect services for people with disabilities.  

Overhwelming support

In 2006, when CLBC was under the Ministry for Children and Families, the Minister ordered a $2 million survey called the Residential Options project, which required CLBC staff to interview every one of its almost 3,000 group home residents to try to persuade them to move to a less formal setting. Despite government assurances that this was about offering more choices, not about saving money, residents responded with an overwhelming No!

The review generated much anxiety (see Public Eye reports here and here, and here)  but the exercise fizzled after the final report in June 07 confirmed that group home residents would not voluntarily give up their homes. In a letter to families, Minister Christensen promised "that CLBC and this government remain committed to meaningful choice, person-centred services and the continued operation of licensed group homes." Further, the Minister promised that the review's second phase would "include a review of family care homes [i.e. home sharing] to ensure that individuals in all residential services are living in their choice of residence." That was never done.

In 2008, the Provincial government commissioned an external review of CLBC. The resulting Queenswood report frankly discussed the Province's desire to close goup homes and relocate residents to less formal settings in order to cut costs and the barriers to doing so. The report concluded that since CLBC could not force people to move, the crown agency was instead directing all incoming clients to less-costly "home sharing" and basically waiting to close group homes one by one as their residents died off. (See Pg. 95 of the report - PDF Pg. 109).

No evidence of savings

The Queenswood report assumed - with no evidence - that home sharing is intrinsically more affordable than group homes, while offering care that is equally safe and appropriate for any adult with developmental disabilities. This contradicts studies from other jurisdictions which, as Public Eye's Sean Holman reported in 2007, have found no evidence of savings, if the comparisons of different options involve people with similar needs and abilities. 

Home sharing is only intrinsically more affordable if support and oversight levels are reduced, which is neither safe nor appropriate for high-needs individuals who require intensive support, along with careful oversight to prevent abuses.

Most of the resistance to giving up group homes stems from the failure to demonstrate that the Province and/or CLBC have adequate quality control, oversight and independent evaluation to assure the safety of the new informal care models that they are promoting.

These models can work very well for more independent residents if care providers are committed and altruistic. But what prevents disreputable contractors from collecting their payments while keeping residents under abusive conditions? Such arrangements are also inherently less stable and therefore unsuitable for individuals (e.g. many people with autism) who cannot cope with stress and change. Yet another concern is that aging residents will need more supportive models, but those who give up their group homes know they will never get back in.

The latest push began this year, when media reports revealed that provincial budget cuts were fuelling a new CLBC initiative to "rank" client needs and adjust funding levels. The resulting cuts to community agency contracts have made it impossible for them to maintain group homes, so residents are being forcibly relocated to less costly settings like home sharing.   

The relocation push is not the only impact of budget pressures. Anecdotal reports suggest quality and standards of care are eroding within group homes. For example, staffing cuts have led to residents being "locked down" for the evening once day-shift staff leave, eliminating any opportunity for getting out in the community or socializing.

CLBC is also again promoting "cluster care," a backwards shift to institutionalization that community living advocates overwhelmingly rejected when the BC Liberals first proposed it in 2002, and which then-Minister Gordon Hogg promised would not be part of CLBC's delivery model.

Visit our Group Home Cuts Web page for more information

Agencies and group home residents are complaining about strong-arm bully tactics by CLBC, as developmentally disabled adults are forced out of their homes, and with officials then lying to the public to cover up what's happening.

Here is a link to a U-Tube video: Save Our Group Homes

And some recent news coverage:

Victoria Times Colonist:  BC government agency accused of duping public about group homes

By Lindsay Kines, Times Colonist

June 25, 2010

The Tyee Online

Poll shows support for increasing early childhood spending

Tom Sandborn

April 28, 2010

More than 70 per cent of B.C. residents underestimate how many of the province's children enter school developmentally vulnerable, an Angus Reid poll released today shows.

And most of those polled expressed strong support for increased public spending once they learned how many B.C. children are at risk and how low Canadian investment in early childhood education and daycare is in contrast to other wealthy countries. Read more

(Please distribute widely, with apologies for cross-postings!)

Vancouver, October 13, 2009

Premier Campbell's  forgotten promise:

BC government's 2006 - 2009 Strategic Plan: 5 Great Goals for the Golden Decade:

Goal #3: 'Build the best system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities, those with special needs, children at risk, and seniors.'

Three years later, the BC government has forgotten all about about Great Goal #3. We've seen no improvements in supports for children and youth with special needs. Existing systems are being dismantled and services cut, with no effort to resolve long-standing service gaps:

• Intensive intervention programs for autism axed, despite overwhelming need & evidence these programs work well & expert advice that direct funding is not an effective alternative for many.
• Parents who effectively manage autism funding forced to switch to Ministry-administered payments. This will create new problems, including delays and higher costs
• Provincial offices that provide direct services including oversight, coordination, training and standards for community Infant Development Programs and Aboriginal IDPs to be axed.
• Axing of the provincial Supported Child Care office, which was recently created to resolve problems from the lack of oversight, coordination, training & consistency in local SCC programs.
  • URGENT NOTE: A month's notice won't allow SCC staff to properly transfer roles. Pls. urge govt to at least extend these roles to March 2010 to permit an orderly transition.
• Healthy Choices in Pregnancy program, which focussed on reducing FASD - axed
• Budget for children in care - reduced
• Youth mental health programs cut, along with programs for youth fighting addiction
• Capital grants and funded spaces for childcare programs - reduced
• $32 million in cuts to Ministry staff who manage & deliver programs and supports.
• Front-line agencies that deliver programs ordered to make further cuts totalling $3.6 million.
• Roots of Empathy program cut
• NO risk assessment or consultation with families & agencies about impacts of cuts!

Savings from these cuts are NOT being used to expand services to children currently waitlisted or denied access to services & family supports (e.g. children with Down Syndrome). 

• Young adults still denied services on the basis of IQ, contrary to promised policy change.
• Thousands of children still denied urgently-needed services or waitlisted. Govt has failed to document waitlists and service gaps or to demonstrate any progress in resolving these despite years of promises.
• MCFD has spent over a year restructuring services for children with special needs - again! - with no effort to consult families who are the primary partners in delivering most children's supports.

We can afford to do better

The BC government argues this "belt tightening" is needed because of tough economic times. Yet:

• Premier Campbell failed to strengthen front-line services and supports for children and youth with special needs and their families despite record budget surpluses in recent years.
• His government continues to waste millions on endless restructuring of children's services 
• The Premier has committed $14 billion to new capital spending in his 2010 budget at the same time that vital children's programs are being cut.
• Premier Campbell remains committed to spending $20 million on bricks and mortar to help construct a new autism building in Vancouver, after BC families overwhelming stressed in a MOMS survey last year that maintaining and enhancing services was by far the top priority.

MOMS get Militant again

Concerned BC parents formed Moms on the Move (MOMS) in 2001 to fight drastic cuts to children's services and we've become the largest family network supporting children with special needs in BC. Parents have urged MOMS to speak up again, and an expanded MOMS advocacy committee met October 10 and agreed that:

• MOMS will re-organize and work with other groups to lead a broad-based campaign to alert families, the public and MLAs about growing gaps and new cuts affecting children & youth with special needs, contrary to govt claims that it's protecting/enhancing services.
• MOMS will put the 'Militant' back in our name to convey families' frustration over the province's failure to address serious gaps and further erosion of support. BC's moms and dads are determined to hold Premier Campbell accountable to his promises to BC's children.

Advocacy campaign: Phase 1:

ACTION 1: Urge the Provincial Budget Committee to reverse these cuts and address serious service gaps for BC's most vulnerable children and youth

Please join those speaking up for BC's vulnerable children. The Finance & Government Services Committee is accepting public input on budget priorities for the 2010 BC Budget. Anyone can email comments or simply complete a quick online survey until the October 23 deadline. 

Answer the quick online survey here:

Or e-mail your comments to: FinanceCommittee@leg.bc.ca (Please include your contact information)

ACTION 2: If you haven't already done so, copy your comments to your local MLA - or to every BC MLA at once, by copying and pasting the email list below. Ask your MLA what he/she will do to respond. Ask to meet in person if you have time. Let them know how many voters in your family and circle of friends agree that BC's vulnerable children deserve better.

MOMS is setting up a new Web site and provincial organizational structure and connecting with provincial and community partners to support families in ongoing advocacy - stay tuned for more. We're also seeking volunteers from across BC, so please let us know if you wish to get more involved in supporting further advocacy initiatives!

Dawn Steele & Cyndi Gerlach, for

Militant Moms on the Move

MLA Email list

BC FamilyNet and the BC Coalition for People with Disabilities have both written to Minister for Children and Family Development Mary Polak regarding cuts to children’s services.  BC FamilyNet’s letter states:

BC FamilyNet Society, a provincial organization which promotes effective and readily accessible supports and services for people with disabilities and their families, is deeply concerned about the short-sighted elimination of programs which provide invaluable long term benefits to children who face extraordinary challenges, their families, and society as a whole.

Cutting funds for the Early Intensive Behaviour Intervention (EIBI) program for autistic children, and the Provincial Advisor Offices for the Infant Development Program (IDP), the Aboriginal Infant Development Program (AIDP), and Supported Child Care (SCC) represents a major policy shift in the use of always scarce dollars, yet your ministry has done this without apparent consultation with affected groups. Further we question whether depriving families of the proven EIBI program, to give them instead an amount of money insufficient to purchase similarly effective programs, while simultaneously spending $20 million on a building with no funded programs, meets the goal of equitable and effective service delivery.

The Provincial Advisor Offices for IDP, AIDP and SSC, rather than representing a needless level of bureaucracy, provide the research, training, mentoring and crucial connection between families, that are integral to the successful development of children across the province. These critical services are presently provided by extremely knowledgeable staff. To lose their expertise, or in anyway dilute the essential roles these advisors play in the lives of children and families, would clearly be false economy.

FamilyNet is greatly concerned about further cuts within MCFD and to CLBC. We remain concerned about the large number of children who receive no funding whatsoever. At a time when $14 billion can be found for capital stimulus projects, surely the amounts needed for long term investment in people can also be found.

BC Coalition for People with Disabilities wrote:

The BC Coalition of People with Disabilities (BCCPD) is extremely concerned about the proposed funding cuts for children with autism that will abolish the Early Intensive Behavioural Intervention (EIBI) program.

We are writing in the hope that you will reconsider this decision which will have tragic consequences for children living with this disability who will be unable to receive this crucial treatment as a result.

We support the Autism Society of BC’s (ASBC) position that the decision to take EIBI treatment away from all children is regressive, fiscally unsound and will result in a great human cost. For children in the program and those on the waiting list, the EIBI program is their best chance for living a productive, meaningful life. Without it, they will start school at a significant developmental disadvantage. Most will be unable to catch up.

As ASBC has noted, failure to treat autism early will ultimately cost the province significantly more than the cost of the EIBI program. According to your own ministry’s data, the cost of EIBI for the 70 children currently in the program is approximately $5 million per year (70 children at $70,000 a year). Research indicates that each $5 million invested will save British Columbians roughly $175 million in future health care and social services costs.

We respectfully urge you to reverse your decision to cut funding to this crucial program for children with autism in BC.

We invite parents to use this form to report service cuts, gaps or waitlists and their impacts. Please use the comments section, copy and paste the following questions and briefly answer them:

Your location (e.g. Vancouver):

Age of child/youth:

Diagnosis (e.g. Down Syndrome):

Date of request:

Service requested (e.g. respite, therapy, special ed):

Ministry or  delegated provider (e.g. school, agency):

Response (e.g denied, waitlist, cuts, offered alternative, etc):

Reasons given: 

Impacts on child/family: 

Other comments: