MOMS Open Letter: Important questions re service plans for children with autism and other disabilities in BC

October 7, 2010

MOMS has recently been asked to circulate notices from provincial gov't officials and a private consulting firm about consultations (focus groups, advisory bodies and an online survey) to guide the development of the Pacific Autism Family Centre (PAFC), described by its proponents as a "community-driven" initiative to establish a "knowledge centre assessible to all British Columbians affected by Autism Spectrum Disorder and other developmental disabilities."

Having confirmed that these consultations are not being conducted under the auspices of MCFD or the provincial government, MOMS has advised MCFD that we would only support and participate in official Ministry consultations governed by provincial requirements for accountability, due process and transparency.

The purpose of PACF and how the Province plans to utilize it to change the way children with special needs and their families are served in BC are questions whose answers continue to be vague, contradictory and ever-shifting. MOMS now has important new details, based on internal government discussions which highlight disturbing contradictions. Below, we've attempted to sum up key issues in the hope of persuading the Provincial government to establish a more transparent context for evaluating and offering advice on this plan than has been the case to date.

Background: In the 2008 Throne Speech, Premier Campbell committed at least $20 million in provincial dollars to build a "centre for autism education and research" that will "provide a residential environment for children with autism." He asked his friends, Sergio and Wendy Cocchia, to flesh out a proposal which they had been trying to pitch to various Ministries for years, which involved their taking over the Sunny Hill Hospital property to build an autism centre as a public/private initiative. After a rocky public unveiling of their plans that summer, further planning continued underground, with strict confidentiality rules for participants. In April 2009, the Premier reiterated his intentions, stating: "We are developing a new Centre for Autism Education and Research that will provide a residential environment for children with autism and create a national hub for research and a centre for parental supports." Nothing further was made public until the proponent's recently-announced provincial consultations.

Contradiction #1: Recent public statements from Ministry staff and proponents suggest planning is still in the very early stages & nothing yet approved. But individuals invited to participate in planning groups were assured since 2008 that the proposed centre was a "done deal." MOMS has received internal documents confirming that Minister Polak formally committed almost a year ago to advancing a joint proposal with the Ministry of Housing to secure project funding for PAFC. The Premier tagged BC Housing to provide the $20 million or more in promised capital funding and that agency has already paid out over $500,000 to cover the proponents' project development costs. Senior government staff from several ministries have also been assigned to help the proponents develop a business plan. Government has also granted approval in principle to lease the Sunny Hill Hospital site for the proposed centre and expects construction to start in 2012/13.

Contradiction #2: Earlier announcements indicated the province's contribution was limited to capital funding and that the centre would be self-sustaining, with private fundraising significantly leveraging the benefits of the initial public investment.  But internal documents show that top provincial officials have been seriously discussing diverting funding from existing autism programs (BCAAN - diagnosis & assessment, POPARD - education support and ACT - family support) to subsidize PAFC's expected operating costs. Despite being warned by staff that this would reduce capacity to deliver critical front-line services and increase waitlists, and that the proposed centre did not fit the existing programs' delivery models, official documents reflect Ministers Polak and Coleman's intentions to proceed this fall by submitting a joint proposal to Treasury Board to formally secure the capital and operating funding for PAFC.

Contradiction #3: The premier's official statements have consistently reflected his intention to build a *residential* facility. Although a residential school was the initial premise for PAFC, its proponents have repeatedly assured concerned families and community leaders that's no longer the plan. BC Housing's mandate is "to assist British Columbians in greatest need of affordable housing," so it is not clear how allocating $20 million to build a non-residential "knowledge centre," as the proponents now describe PACF in their consultation literature, would be consistent with that mandate. It is also not clear how the premier's single-sourced PAFC initiative would be consistent with principles of sound financial management and planning.  Minister Coleman has suggested the centre could include respite facilities and the proponents propose including housing for families visiting the centre from out of town, though it's not clear how either could be considered BC Housing priorities.

Contradiction #4: The PAFC concept has been revised numerous times. Earlier versions included plans for a provincial model school, a residential school and a centre where children with autism could access therapy, learning and recreational activities, safe from the outside world, complete with swimming pool, baseball diamond, bowling alley, spa and cafeteria. The concept was refined by a planning group in fall 2008, resulting in a Strategic Plan that was never made public, but that was the basis for the province subsequently agreeing to move forward with funding for project development.

Public consultation documents now describe the facility as a "knowledge centre" focussed on training and research and operating a hub-and-spoke service model so that families across the province can fully benefit. The latter attempts to respond to widespread concerns that a Vancouver-based centre would offer little to the vast majority of families outside Vancouver. However, the Strategic Plan and other confidential documents reflect plans for an extensive multi-purpose campus with facilities to accommodate no less than 43 different functions and activities, ranging from games and fitness rooms to classrooms, computer labs, medical centre, treatment centre, music/art therapy rooms, aquatic therapy/pool, offices, cafeteria, 2 and 3 bedroom residences, auditorium, gymnasium, etc. Most of the proposed facilities that the province would actually be financing through its $20 million capital contribution (recreational, therapy, classrooms, respite/daycare, vocational training, library, family space, playgrounds, calm-down rooms) would be similar to those available at a local school and would not be available to families outside Vancouver.

The documents also indicate that PAFC hopes to be doing far more than sharing knowledge. At the centre of the campus is the knowledge centre, from where, according to PAFC's Strategic Plan, "we will coordinate Autism services for families throughout BC." As noted above, Ministry documents indicate this would include diagnosis and assessment, treatment (ABA, OT, music/art therapy), special education, and family support. PAFC's plans additionally list responsibilities as including professional development, day care, research, vocational and post-secondary education.  This would represent another radical shift, after the Province has barely finished transfering responsibility for all services for children & youth with special needs back from CLBC to MCFD, and creating new Regional MCFD teams of staff assigned to work with families locally to provide supports and coordinate access to various programs, including autism services.

Contradiction #5: The Premier's announcement and subsequent plans described this as an autism initiative. But that may have changed after the project hit some road blocks in the past year. After Ministry staff and clinicians warned that programs like BCAAN (diagnosis) were best left integrated with parallel services for other developmental disabilities, the PAFC concept was revised again to include those responsibilities as well, along with some adult  services.

Such cross-disability integration could fit with a key Provincial commitment under the "Strong, Safe & Supported" action plan guiding broader changes already underway at MCFD. Pillar #3 of that plan calls for expanding access to early intervention to children with other disabilities, by developing new eligibility criteria based on a functional assessment of individual need (i.e. instead of automatic access to a fixed therapy allowance just for those with an ASD diagnosis). Most agree that it is unfair to deny access based on diagnosis alone. But if existing ASD programs are simply extended to serve a wider population in the current budget-neutral context (i.e. without injecting significant new funding), it raises the alarming prospect of significantly-reduced eligibility and access for children with ASD.

A recently-leaked ministry briefing note indicated that provincial officials were developing exactly such a plan, complete with plans to find extensive savings by reassessing all children who currently receive autism services and utilizing waitlists to manage future demand. Ministry staff immediately refuted the document as phony, but neither staff or the Minister have offered any public assurances denying that children with autism would experience a significant reduction in current funding levels for treatment and support as these plans move forward.

Exactly such a process is already underway under Coleman's direction at CLBC, with clients being reassessed and current adult budgets being reallocated to meet new demands, leading to growing alarm over forced relocations and individual service reductions (a direct betrayal of Coleman's promises made just months ago). And if current autism program budgets are to be spread even further to cover PAFC's operating expenses and new mandates, it would further reduce access to core services for assessment, early intervention and support.

Contradiction #6: It is widely agreed that community-based family supports and services, organized and delivered via local programs, are more effective and more adaptable to unique local needs. Provincial offices can provide training, support and coordination. Such "hub and spoke" models were used to successfully operate the Province's IDP, AIDP and SCD programs for many years. In 2009, Minister Polak eliminated the provincial offices for all three programs, arguing that they were not needed and that this would direct more dollars to front-line services. It's not clear, therefore, why she has taken the exact opposite approach with autism services, by closing community-based autism treatment programs and supporting the investment of tens of millions instead in a new provincial centre to provide training, support and coordination - the very role she said was wasteful for other early intervention programs.

Contradiction #7: Proponents also tout PAFC as a vehicle for better integrating services, leveraging external funds, and giving families more control, thereby improving outcomes and quality of life. These exact same claims fuelled the creation of CLBC to manage services for adults with disabilities. But most would agree that CLBC's creation has only intensified the crisis in adult services, increasing stresses and bureaucratic costs, reducing accountability and giving families less say, not more.  The external funding that was to be leveraged to support CLBC's operations and expand access never materialized, with budget pressures greater than ever. And there's no reason to doubt that raising the millions required annually to make any difference in the level of services available for children with autism will be even more challenging in the foreseeable future. Like CLBC, the minister and bureaucrats who control the budget will therefore control all decision-making, regardless of what governance structure is chosen and who nominally manages to assume control of PAFC.

MOMS position: When MCFD staff asked us to support PAFC's consultations in June, we advised the Ministry that earlier feedback from families in our provincial network indicated very little support for a $20 million Vancouver-based facility when front-line autism services were being cut or underfunded. Further, we noted that families overwhelmingly expressed preference for local, community-based models for delivering autism services and supports over centralized mega-projects.

We would support provincially-funded programs to support training and research, but we don't believe that requires taking over Sunny Hill and constructing a new $30 - 35 million facility. Such programs are also best designed, planned and managed by those with the appropriate expertise in training, education and research, with appropriate guidance from government and the broader community. Shortages of trained providers won't be resolved by investing in training alone as there are other, often complex, structural obstacles (e.g. low pay rates and/or high caseloads leading to high staff turnover, provincial contracts or regulations and economies of scale in small rural communities).

We believe any provincial funds available to support children with autism and their families would be most effective if invested in expanding access to existing programs, not capital facilities. The primary challenges facing families of children with autism don't stem from a lack of knowledge or autism research, but rather from insuffient investment in applying that knowledge via effective treatment and support programs, organized in ways that support retention of qualified staff, community/family-centred delivery and in sufficient intensity to produce the desired results.

We believe diagnosis and assessment is best delivered locally, via professionals with the appropriate expertise, under the decentralized health care model. Likewise a provincial family support/ treatment centre is not the right vehicle to manage or deliver K-12 staff training and support, which needs to be able to work through the local public school bureaucracies if it is to effectively change classroom practices.

MOMS also supports the province's intention of improving cross-ministry integration to facilitate more seamless service delivery, though delegating responsibility for serving or for coordinating services for children with autism and other developmental disabilities to a Vancouver-based public-private partnership without clear lines of public accountability is not an effective way to achieve that, in our view.

We don't profess to have all the right answers or to speak for everyone. So in June, we stressed to MCFD staff that the Ministry itself has the responsibility to conduct consultations on community priorities to guide provincial autism policy and decisions about how to spend any public funds available through MCFD. It is not consistent with principles of responsible governance for the Minister to delegate that responsibility to a private consulting firm or group that is seeking to rally public support for a private proposal. That presents a major conflict of interest & precludes public confidence that the resulting advice is objective and truly reflective of community priorities.  We offered to test these questions with the Office of the provincial Auditor General if Ministry staff were uncertain.

We were therefore pleased to learn recently that MCFD is now working to establish a multi-stakeholder advisory group to advise government directly on autism policy development. We look forward to the establishment of a group or process that respects key principles of responsible governance, that includes relevant expertise and that has the broad confidence of the relevant community, to advise MCFD and the province on community priorities and how best to allocate public funding to meet the needs of all individuals with ASD and other disabilities across the province and their families.

We are calling on Premier Campbell and Ministers Polak and Coleman to:

1) Immediately address the contradictions noted above and to clarify the status of the Province's planning and intentions around this project.

2) Cancel any further provincial funding and technical support for PAFC until the Ministry's own consultations demonstrate whether this project is consistent with province-wide community priorities for improving services and supports, as demonstrated through open, objective and transparent Ministry consultations.

3) Commit to families that there will be no reduction of current eligibility or access to autism services for children, youth or adults with ASD and their families.

4) Before allocating any further provincial capital or operating funding to PAFC, commit the new Provincial dollars required to expand eligibility and access to early intervention and family support services for children and youths with other developmental disabilities based on individual need, as specified under Pillar #3 of the 'Strong, Safe and Supported' Ministry Action Plan, and without any forced reduction in current access or eligibility for individuals with autism.

We urge BC families and community groups to consider these questions and to share their own views with the Premier, Ministers Polak and Coleman, Opposition Critics, the Representative for Children and Youth and local MLAs, contacts for whom can be found on our website here: http://momsnetwork.ca/resources-and-links/

Dawn & Cyndi, MOMS

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

The Association calls for significant increases to the current autism funding levels for preschoolers, for funding to be tied to individual need, and for restoration of the direct funding option for families. It also strongly condemned the lack of consultation over the controversial changes announced by Children's Minister Mary Polak last fall.

"Many people in the Autism community were shocked and disturbed by the closure of all of the EIBI programs and the funding structure changes," the BC ABA statement reads. "...Furthermore, discussions with stakeholders might have resulted in a more sound decision on how to achieve province-wide, equitable access to services for individuals with ASD."

The BC ABA joins parents, advocacy groups and other professionals who have universally panned the province's abrupt autism policy changes, stating that the new provincial funding formula for preschoolers with autism "is not sufficient to purchase intensive behavioural therapy at the level (25-40 hours per week) which research has shown to be effective."  The Association cites the example of other Canadian provinces that fully fund the costs of early intervention, noting that "given the discrepancy between provincial funding and the actual costs of implementing an intensive ABA program, few children in British Columbia will likely receive the intensity of treatment that has been empirically shown to improve the core characteristics of Autism." (Emphasis added)

The statement also criticizes the elimination of the direct funding option for families, which means that all families must now submit invoices for often lengthy government approval and payment instead of being able to directly pay the private therapists who provide early intervention services for their children.  The BC ABA warns that a critical obstacle for many families is being able to find and retain qualified therapists and that delaying payment in this mannner will only exacerbate this problem.

The statement urges the provincial government to increase funding per child to between $40,000 and $70,000 [i.e. approximately what government was formerly paying for the now cancelled EIBI programs which the Minister portrayed as wasteful] and to fund each child based on individual need.

The BC ABA recommendations support those that have been presented by parents, advocacy groups and international autism experts in numerous meetings and communications with Children's Minister Mary Polak and Premier Gordon Campbell, all of which have been ignored to date. Polak and Campbell now stand entirely alone, with no one left who has not denounced their unilateral actions that deny hope to BC's children with autism and their families.

UPDATE: Times Colonist reports on Victoria parents' Feb 1 protest plans

Children's Minister Mary Polak stopped funding the province's EIBI programs last fall to save $1.5 million annually, despite the desperate pleas of families and many studies confirming that these programs are hugely effective, saving on average $3 - 5 million PER CHILD in net lifetime costs to society (for more details and sources, see our EIBI Facts).

As a result, at least 70 BC children per year will be denied the intensive early behaviour intervention that provided the only hope for these children and their families of a near-normal life, unless they can afford to privately pay tens of thousands annually to top up inadequate subsidies and susbstitute programs to replicate the benefits that only a full EIBI program can offer.

These children join thousands more in BC who are already being denied access to the early intervention supports and programs that they need, due to foolish and short-sighted policies that place enormous and unnecessary strains on other provincial services, such as education, health care, welfare, community living, social housing, justice, etc etc....

Minister Polak and her colleagues also ordered the closure of a series of other cirtical children's programs (which collectively don't put the tiniest dent in the current provincial deficit). These include the provincial Infant Development, Supported Child Care and Aboriginal Supported Child Care program, the Roots of Empathy program, FASD prevention, child and youth mental health and more - all of which will directly impact children and create significantly higher long-term costs than the meagre short-term budgetary savings.

These actions cruelly target the province's most vulnerable children and directly violate Premier Campbell's 2005 promise to build "the best system of supports in Canada for children with special needs."

Your support

We invite families outside of Victoria who can't make it to the vigil to show their support by signing and circulating our petition calling on Premier Campbell to honour his promises to BC's children with special needs and/or by writing their MLAs to remind them that BC families will not rest until these and other programs are restored, and that all children with special needs are able to get the basic help and support they need - in a timely manner and in a form that respects their individual needs and those of their families.

The petition can be accessed online here.

Find out more and support the ongoing FAIR campaign to restore EIBI programs on Facebook

Below are two of the news reports (Note: some, such as the CNN report, had major errors!):

• Time Magazine: New evidence that early therapy helps autistic kids
• CBC: Early intervention helps autistic toddlers

Some key points:

• Participants: The study focussed on toddlers - all children started treatment before they were 2.5 years old, some as young as 18 months old. (With recommendations to screen for autism at 18 months now, the authors wanted to demonstrate the efficacy of starting intensive intervention immediately upon diagnosis.)
• Randomized, controlled study: 48 children were randomly assigned to either the Early Start Denver Model or to regular services available in the community, such as preschools, private ABA providers, infant & child development programs ,etc.
• Study period: Gains for both groups were compared after 2 years of intervention.
• Results: After 2 years, the ESDM group had significant improvements in IQ, adaptive behaviour, and autism diagnosis, compared to the other group. The ESDM group developed at the same rate as typical children during the two years, while the control group fell further behind.
• 7 children in the ESDM group (30%) had their diagnosis downgraded from Autism to PDD-NOS after the 2 years, compared to one child in the control group.

Conclusion: The study results "compare favourably" with other controlled studies of intensive early intervention approaches. The gains seen were also larger than those seen in studies that used developmental behavioural approaches over shorter periods or with fewer hours of therapy delivered per week.

Early Start Denver Model

ESDM is a comprehensive early behavioural intervention for infants to preschool-aged children with ASD that integrates ABA with developmental and relationship-based approaches. Intervention is provided in the home by trained therapists and parents, and embedded in fun, interactive play activities.

For the study, ESDM children were provided 2-hour sessions, twice per day, 5 days/week by trained therapists. There was a detailed manual and curriculum, extensive parent training, ongoing supervision and consultation from a full multi-disciplinary team. Due to illness, vacations etc, the ESDM children ended up actually receiving an average of 15 hours/week from trained therapists and 16 hrs/week from parents during the 2 years.

Families in the control group received comprehensive advice on intervention, including resource manuals and reading materials. This group reported receiving an average of 9 hours of individual therapy and 9.3 hours/week of group therapy from regular community resources in the greater Seattle area, such as developmental preschools, local infant and child development programs and/or private ABA providers).

Sustainability

Intensive early intervention programs for autism cost ~ $50 - 70,000 per year but a major recent US study found that effective intervention can reduce the estimated lifetime costs of $3.2 million per child with autism by 65% on average. Source: US National Standards Report, 2009

BC Children's Minister Mary Polak has defended her decision to cut BC's early intervention programs and instead give families $6,000 - $22,000 each to spend on family-directed programs and community services, a move that will produce direct savings of $1.5 million per year, but which is expected to cost far more in the long run. After being forced to retract the rationale that BC's autism early intervention programs are not effective, Polak argued that the move is necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of BC's autism program.

Here is the link to the only Canadian study that I've been able to find on cost benefits of autism early intervention. It found that expanding intensive early intervention to all children with autism in Ontario would save government an estimated $45 million annually in 2003 dollars, while providing improved quality of life for individuals with autism and their families.  Those savings disappeared if intervention programs were less effective than assumed under best practice models.

MOMs marks Children’s Day, 20^th year of UN Convention, with petition urging BC Premier to honour promises to kids

NOV. 19, 2009:—This Friday, Nov. 20 marks the 20^th anniversary of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child – a date that is also celebrated annually in Canada and elsewhere as universal Children’s Day.

The MOMs provincial family support network, which has staged a series of actions in recent weeks to draw attention to BC families’ concerns about new cuts and ongoing gaps in critical services for children at risk, is marking the occasion by officially launching an online petition urging BC’s Premier to start living up to commitments made to BC’s vulnerable children.

The UN Convention, a legally binding instrument, states that “in all actions concerning children …the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” Article 23 notes the obligation of signatory states to provide special supports for children with mental and physical disabilities “in a manner conducive to the child's achieving the fullest possible social integration and individual development.” Article 29, which deals with the right to a free public education, re-emphasizes the right to “development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential.” Elsewhere, the Convention addresses the obligation of signatory states to support parents in meeting the needs of their children where families are unable to do so themselves.

While the Convention acknowledges that state support will be shaped by available resources, nowhere does it suggest these supports should be way down on the list of national priorities, after political leaders and senior bureaucrats have enjoyed exorbitant pay and benefit increases and spent billions on hosting lavish events and costly physical infrastructure projects.

Under Great Goal #3 of his Strategic Plan for BC, Premier Campbell implicitly acknowledged these commitments when he promised to “build the best system of support in Canada” for children with special needs and those at risk. It was a truly laudable goal – but one that was never honoured and that has now been forgotten.

While BC enjoyed record budget surpluses, waitlists for crucial supports grew longer, both in and out of school. Now Children’s Minister Mary Polak has cut millions, eliminating key programs for autism, FASD, infant and child development and Aboriginal children at risk. Other cuts include youth programs (mental health, addiction treatment), Special Olympics and funding for community-based children’s services. Polak also cut critical monitoring and oversight roles that assure children’s welfare and safety, and cut out important delivery options like direct funding. There was no risk assessment of impacts and these cuts accompany yet another major ministry re-structuring that will further strain capacity to support children at risk.

Just this week, a leaked Ministry memo revealed that the Ministry is already planning even deeper cuts targeting early intervention and community-based intervention for vulnerable children and youth in BC for 2010-11, in order to meet budget reduction targets.

Professionals, disability groups, families, community organizations, staff and ordinary citizens have pleaded with Premier Campbell, Minister Polak and their colleagues to reconsider the damage they are causing. Decades of research affirm the cost benefits of intensive early intervention and support for at-risk children – this offers real hope to struggling children and saves us all far more than it costs. For example, if families cannot cope with severely challenging children as a result of the cuts limiting access to therapy, the Ministry will be forced to assume professional 24/7 care for them, at a cost of $150,000 per child per year or more, possibly for the rest of their lives.

These cuts are not necessary – they’re about priorities that dishonour both the UN Convention and the Premier’s commitment under Goal #3. The revised BC budget commits $14 billion in new capital spending. Alberta spends twice as much on autism for fewer kids – and hasn’t cut this despite a far higher deficit. BC’s cuts will impose far higher costs on other ministries (education, housing, justice & social services). But Polak says this is the best we can do to help BC’s vulnerable children.

We disagree. These cuts are foolish, short-sighted, dishonourable and heartless. MOMs does not believe that denying supports to children in need and children at risk is consistent with the values that we hold as British Columbians. Since BC’s vulnerable children can’t speak up against these cuts, it is our job as parents and citizens to stand up for them. If enough British Columbians choose to speak up, government will have to respond. Remaining silent means turning our backs on each child in need.

We are therefore appealing to all British Columbians to join us by signing and circulating our petition urging Premier Campbell to honour the promises made to BC’s children by acting immediately to restore, protect and strengthen vital supports for all children in need and at risk.

Details of cuts, affected programs and our ongoing campaign at MOMs: http://MomsNetwork.ca

MOMs media contacts: Cyndi Gerlach: 604 987-6608 h./ 604 831-6608 c. or [email protected]

Dawn Steele: 604 874-1416 h. /778 235-4998 c. or [email protected]

The "North Region STOB 80 Reduction Planning Process and Principals" (sic) document refers to a process for "cost recovery" for the current year and outlines planning, roles, principles and provincial direction guiding a second process that is also now underway to determine further reductions for 2010-11 in order to meet Ministry budget targets.

While the document specifically refers to the process underway in BC North Region, Children's Minister Mary Polak has confirmed that this is a Ministry-wide initiative that affects all regions.

The leaked document refers to management teams being informed of budget targets at the outset of this process but does not stipulate what the funding reduction targets are for 2009-10 and for 2010-11. Minister Polak told Public Eye Online today that there were no targets and that this was just a discussion document, which is not consistent with what the Ministry document itself states (the Minister has also repeatedly claimed that there are no cuts, which is not consistent with any grasp of reality)

This process appears to be the same one cited in an earlier memo leaked via Public Eye in August, which cited a provincial budget reduction target of $3.6 million for 2009-10 for the contracted agencies under one provincial grouping.  

The STOB 80 Reduction document states that contract funding reduction plans for 2010-11 must be submitted by December 15 and approved by December 18, so that the Ministry can give notice to impacted contractors by January 31, 2010.

The document also outlines the provincial direction guiding the funding reduction planning process now underway:

• These reductions are consistent with the $32 million in cuts or "streamlining" being implemented internally by the Ministry.
• Consultation and collaboration with partners such as the Federation of Community Social Services of BC (Federation) and the BC Association of Child Development and Intervention (BCACDI) in exchange for the Ministry agreeing not to meet its reduction targets via across-the-board funding cuts.
• Non-discretionary services that already face significant cost pressures to be exempted: Children in Care (permanency planning), Delegated Aboriginal services, Child Care, Autism, Medical Benefits and Nursing Support
• Budget cuts will primarily affect community-based intervention and early intervention services and non-residential services, whether the contracts are managed by the MCFD Regions, provincially or under CLBC
• Cuts "required for 10/11 fiscal year may involve some service reductions after all other opportunities for savings have been exhausted."

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REDUCTIONS

1. Funding services outside the Ministry Mandate (NOTE: MCFD's legislated mandate cover a very narrow range of child protection services, so this is a very broad range)
2. Uncommitted Funding Review
3. Discretionary funding
4. Contracts  that have Repetitive  Surpluses
5. Resolve any commitments that are greater than allocated budget
6. Reorganising contracts to provide efficiencies
7. Programs not Providing any Direct service

 GUIDANCE

1. A communities vulnerability must be considered when planning reductions
2. Non Aboriginal Agencies First
3. Reductions to Agencies must not affect their financial Viability
4. Large contractors have the potential to manage some reductions through efficiencies

Moms shared this information earlier today with community groups, agencies, Ministry staff, media and the Opposition critic, calling for a transparent public process to review where BC is going with regard to services for vulnerable children in this province.  Other concerns raised:

• That Minister Polak and her senior staff have consistently and repeatedly denied to family stakeholders, the public, the Legislature and the media that budget cuts are in store or occurring within our sector, while discussing budget cuts for the current year and further cuts in the year ahead with staff and contracted agencies. 
• The extent to which some or all contracted community agencies have helped government to keep families and the public in the dark about budget cuts expected to negatively impact vital early intervention services for thousands of at-risk children in this province.

This Friday, we mark the 20th anniversary of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which committed us all to putting the interests of children first.

MOMS calls on all those who still believe in that commitment to join us in making it clear that budget cuts to ANY services, programs or sectors that serve vulnerable children in BC are not acceptable - NOT when existing budgets already deny vital services and supports to so many children with special needs and children at risk in our province and NOT when this province can simultaneously afford to spend BILLIONS on other "priorities".

(r. to l.): Stella Hui from the Autism Society of BC, Dawn Steele from MOMs and Lori Doucette from FAIR - photo courtesy of FEAT's Tandy Tam.

The rally sought to draw attention to the fragile nature of provincial autism services, which Children's Minister Mary Polak was able to wipe out on a mere whim. In addition to cancelling EIBI programs, Polak eliminated the direct funding option under the provincial autism program, to the deep frustration of many families who used that funding to support their own home-based ABA programs. As with EIBI cuts, there was no consultation over this change. 

Despite icy winds, the Nov 13 FEAT rally attracted a solid gathering of families and family groups. MOMS supported the rally and brought along our trusty campaign signs (which are standing up remarkably well to the rigours of street protests!)  Other groups represented included the Autism Society of BC and FAIR, the family group fighting Polak's plans to eliminate the EIBI autism programs. East Vancouver MLA Shane Simpson (NDP) attended to show support.

"M. Karagianis: When we look at things like the EIBI program…. Let's talk about that very specifically — the financial implications, which the minister has said is really the sole issue here around why this program was cut. Why did the government not make an attempt to sit down with program providers and families and try and find a way to provide what is very admittedly an exceptional program with exceptional outcomes to more families, rather than saying, "Because we can only reach 70 families at a time, we're cutting the whole program," and rather than actually finding a way to make that very effective program available to, perhaps, more people?

I've talked to program providers, and at no time did the government sit down with any of the program providers and say that "$70,000 per child" — if that is, in fact, the real number — "is not acceptable, and can we find a way to provide this program more cost-effectively?" No program provider was ever approached.

In fact, the government, by their own documentation, has said that because only 70 families at a time were able to take advantage of that program, we're doing away with it completely. The substitute for that, for all families now, is perhaps another hour a week in the kinds of therapies that $20,000 and $22,000 will buy. I'm sure that the minister and the government generally are getting the kind of enormous pressure from families that is very evident to members of the opposition.

I have attended numerous rallies. I have got truckloads of e-mail, as I'm sure has the minister. I have been cc'd on all of the correspondence that has gone to the government on this.

In the case where the outcome for children is so markedly improved and the support systems going forward for children into the future are so much more cost-effective by providing this kind of early and intensive behavioural intervention, why has the government not chosen a path of trying to reach the best possible outcomes, best practice — if we can use those terms?

I know the ministry talks about best practice in everything they do. Yet when I look at this, and many other cuts, it would seem to me that we've gone from best practice to lowest common denominator. Perhaps the minister could just say whether, in the business sense of taking the outcome for these children forward for the rest of their lives where they're not dependent on government funding or support or teaching assistance or anything else as an outcome of this….

It would seem to me that the savings are millions of dollars in the lifetime of a child versus a fairly modest investment at the front end. Why has that not been the criteria? Or would the government consider making that the next step — to try and find a way to work with families and service providers to take advantage of what is a very effective program? To see this thing disappear altogether — except for the wealthy, who might be able to afford it — seems a tragic decision to make and certainly not a good business decision for the ministry to make.

Hon. M. Polak: In fact, that is exactly what we are doing. It is incorrect to say that we are eliminating the EIBI program. We are eliminating the $70,000-per-child support..."

View the rest of the debate here and here and here.

Family photo: Nov 6 rally at Mary Polak's Langley office

Thanks to all the families who came out to Langley Friday for the rally co-hosted Friday by MOMS and FAIR (Families Fighting Against Autism Intervention Reductions) to highlight autism cuts. (Especially the heroic Victoria folks who got up at 5 am to pack up kids & minivans to make it!!).

A great family turn-out, strong local media interest & fantastic public support more than made up for the horrible weather.  Mary Polak decided to close her office for the day, but no one seemed too offended. later, parents distributed hundreds of flyers (attached) explaining the impact of cuts & why they are so foolish, inhumane and short-sighted.  

Check out a mini U-tube clip  or photos of the energetic FAIR families on their Facebook page (pls join to show support while you're at it!) 

Langley rally: One Mom tells it like it is

Next rally:

• Friday, November 13 at 12 noon
• Premier Gordon Campbell's MLA office, 3615 West 4th Ave in Point Grey, Vancouver. 

This rally is organized by FEAT BC (Families for Early Autism Treatment) to highlight concerns over Minister Polak's cancellation of the direct funding option in the autism program. FEAT families supported the EIBI rally in Langley and we encourage other families to show support for their concerns. We're all in this together! ...and hopefully the BC government will start to see that we're not going away and we're not shutting up!

2. Next Steps: Broader  MOMs campaign

Despite rallies, meeting, letters, calls & emails, government is still not listening. In addition to recent cuts to vital children's services (e.g. IDP, SCD and EIBI), Premier Campbell has failed to honour his promise to children with special needs and children at risk by fixing existing problems: waitlists, underfunding of Special Education, denial of early intervention services to many children, repeal of the IQ 70 limits to access services. 

So MOMS is planning an extended next phase of action that takes our message directly to British Columbians, who have demonstrated strong support wherever we've created awareness of these concerns.

HOW YOU CAN HELP:

We need financial support for this next phase to develop and run targeted ads and public service announcements in local community media, explaining why the cuts and the failure to fix other gaps for special needs and kids at risk is foolish, short-sighted and inhumane. We'll be urging British Columbians to take a simple step to indicate their support & join us in telling their MLAs, Premier Campbell and Minister Polak that BC's vulnerable kids deserve better and that cutting now means paying more later.

Please contact us if you can provide financial support or if you have potential leads or connections to other organizations in your community who can support this campaign. MOMs has already received our first grant (a big thank you to BC FamilyNet Society for helping to cover recent rally costs!!). Since having $$ is a first for MOMS, we are making arrangements with a "blue chip" registered organization to receive and manage further donations on our behalf.
 
Thanks for all those supporting us by participating or behind the scenes! With your support, we can do it! And when we actually get out and hear the fantastic public support out there, it makes all the effort worthwhile!!