The ministry of children and families is a competency test for government. The Liberals, like the NDP before them, are failing.
They bungled the ministry in their first four years. As the scandals mounted, the government asked Ted Hughes to review the problems.
He blamed botched restructuring and budget cuts, in part. And he made 62 recommendations, including restoration of the independent oversight the Liberals had eliminated.
Premier Gordon Campbell promised to adopt them all. He appointed Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond as Representative for Children and Youth. Oversight and advocacy and complaint resolution were important for children in trouble, the government conceded.
But four years after the Hughes report, the ministry is ignoring the office. And Children's Minister Mary Polak looks badly out of touch.
Turpel-Lafond reports to a legislature committee, which met this month for an update. She told the MLAs most ministries had responded to her recommendations in two reports from last year.
But not the children's ministry, which had by far the largest role. Polak told reporters she was "perplexed." Not once, but 11 times in a 16-minute scrum. (Publiceyeonline.com has video.)
"We have been regularly meeting with her," Polak said. "She's aware of how we intended to be responding. Some of the reports, of course, have yet to be responded to. Some we have responded to."
The representative was clearer.
She told the committee about Kids, Crime and Care: Health and Well-Being of Children in Care, released last February. It found children in the government's care - some 9,000 this year - were more likely to be involved with the criminal justice system than to graduate from high school.
We claim responsibility for these children and then fail them. The report, delivered to the government a year ago, remember, had sensible recommendations.
Take one. After studying the factors that snared children in crime, the representative recommended that each time a child was involved with the justice system, the plan of care would be reviewed within 30 days to include steps to deal with the criminal behaviour.
If your son or daughter got in trouble, Turpel-Lafond told the committee, that's what you would do. You would look at their stresses, their friends, whether drugs are a problem. You would do everything to get them back on track.
And children in care need the same help.
The recommendation called for the ministry to have the first step - a plan to report quarterly on children in care involved with the justice system - by last November.
But a year after the report, the ministry hasn't responded to the recommendation.
It doesn't have to adopt the measure. The ministry could judge the recommendation not needed or impractical. "It's perfectly fine," Turpel-Lafond said, "to say we reject your recommendation."
But some response is required.
"In order for oversight to work and for change to happen when we do major pieces of work like this, there has to be engagement," she said.
And in her view - not really refuted by Polak - there has not been.
The second report, completed last July, dealt with the terrible story of a baby taken from his parents because they couldn't afford housing. He was injured and permanently disabled while in care. Now he is back with his parents.
The representative's first recommendation said that by Jan. 1 the ministry should have a policy for front-line staff that every effort should be made to avoid taking children from their parents because of poor housing. (Children need their parents and it's cheaper to help with housing than to pay for foster care.)
The ministry, Turpel-Lafond said, has not responded.
Something has gone wrong. If the process were working, Polak wouldn't have been perplexed.
Even days later, when the Public Affairs Bureau released its written statement on the problems, there was nothing about the ministry's actual response to the recommendations.
Polak is to present at the committee's next meeting on March 3. She needs to have real answers.
Footnote: It's unclear why the process has broken down so badly. But Polak or the committee is going to have to find a way to get it back on track.
Posts
9 comments:
I hope you publish this in your column to get the most readership. Minister Polak seems to be able to huff and puff without having to be accountable. I want her to have to answer questions about this and having more public see your reasoned column will put it in her face again/still.
Campbell most certainly DID NOT appoint METL to the Representative's Office.
It's a shame that Campbell's cabinet ministers are chosen for their steel rather than either for dedication or ability to actually achieve their mandate. Semantics and bluster is one thing, Mary Polak, but what about fullfilling Campbell's promise to tow the Ted Hughes' line and improve the lives of the children in your care? Simply sharing information on where things "sit" (at a standstill)after four long "Golden" years of opportunities, isn't much of a boast.
Raymond
It's a shame that Campbell's cabinet ministers are chosen for their steel rather than either for dedication or ability to actually achieve their mandate. Semantics and bluster is one thing, Mary Polak, but what about fullfilling Campbell's promise to tow the Ted Hughes' line and improve the lives of the children in your care? Simply sharing information on where things "sit" (at a standstill)after four long "Golden" years of opportunities, isn't much of a boast.
Raymond
Campbell can't do anything right now he's too busy playing Zeus on Mt. Owelympics. Zipping up and down on the Zip lines. B.C. be damned .
At some point, the question has to be asked: what if Hughes got some parts of his review wrong? Isn't naive to think that MLAs could work in a "non-partisan" manner to review anything, let alone an issue that both Liberals and NDP have used to make policical hay? What other ministry has to justify its actions (before and after) to an outside, unelected, and largely unaccountable office? Isn't this why we elect MLAs?
The Rep has a vested interest in maintaining the illusion that every word written by Hughes is gospel. Of course, questioning how the government implemented the recommendations and suggesting changes would violate Hughes recommendation to stop the endless fiddling of the child welfare system...hence, the perpertual cycle of pointing fingers and laying blame will continue.
OK, if some of Hughes' recommendations are wrong, what are they? Most people seemed to think they were pretty reasonable, and in many cases glaringly obvious - which ones don't you like?
Why do we always assume that Turpel-Lafond is correct and the Ministry is wrong? There is lots of experience and expertise in the Ministry while Turpel-Lafond is basically a six figure a year judge who likely has never worked the front lines of family tragedy in her life.
"OK, if some of Hughes' recommendations are wrong, what are they?"
Hughes recommendations were excellent with respect to organization and operations of MCFD. However, as I indicated above, his understanding of BC's political system was poor. In attempting to depoliticize the system, his recommendations pertaining to reporting and advocacy have made the issues MORE polarized. In particular:
2. Recommendation: That the Legislature strike a new Standing Committee on Children and Youth,
and that the Representative and Deputy Representatives report to this committee at least annually.
Reason: This all-party committee will contribute to a greater understanding among legislators and the
public, of the province’s child welfare system and will encourage government and the opposition to
work together to address the challenges facing the system.
You don't take politics out of an issue by creating a forum for politicans to take stands. There was and still is little evidence that the committees in BC are little more than window dressing.
There was no need to provide MLAs yet another way to attack each other for political points. Indeed, the Representative indicated that she doesn't consider the committee compotent, and that the Committee does not have the legitimacy to consider her work.
3. Recommendation: That the Representative for Children and Youth be mandated to support and
advise children, youth and families who need help in dealing with the child welfare system, and to advocate for change to the system itself.
This duty should not have been provided to the representative's office. By advocating for children and families in need, the Representative' staff is in daily conflict with the MCFD. You simply can't criticize the ministry at a high level through reports, criticize the work of front line staff by "advocating" for individual children, then expect to have a good, long term relationship with the Minister, deputy, or staff.
It is the ministry's responsibility to inform its clients of its services, and tailor said services to the needs of its clients. If outside support is required, we already had an advocate in the province in the Ombudsman. If required, that office could have set up a special unit to handle specific child and family cases.
Post a Comment