It could have been funny, if it weren't such a serious issue.
B.C.'s police complaints process is broken. Four years after the police complaints commissioner started changes were badly needed to make the system work better, and 18 months after a review recommended 91 changes, the government hasn't acted to fix it.
So the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and other groups that help people who feel they have been wronged by police announced a boycott.
From now on, they will encourage people with complaints to sue the officers or force involved.
Police don't like the idea. Tom Stamatakis, head of the Vancouver police union, warned the court process would be costly and time-consuming. It would take too long to get decisions, he added. "By the time you get to an outcome, you lose the opportunity to learn from it."
Stamatakis should spend some time with Thomas McKay and his family.
On April 23, 2004, McKay was celebrating the end of the college year. He was arrested for causing a disturbance and being intoxicated in public. At the police cells, in handcuffs, he was pushed or tripped to the floor. He suffered a serious head injury.
McKay's father believed unnecessary force had been used. Within four days, he filed a complaint with the Victoria Police Department. That's the start of the current process.
But there are no timelines in the legislation. Victoria police didn't complete their internal investigation for 19 months - an inexplicable delay. The officer had done nothing wrong, the force found.
Police complaints commissioner Dirk Ryneveld examined the internal review and concluded further investigation was required. That's part of the process too.
He took only three weeks to ask for the review. But it took Victoria police 10 months to review their own investigation - and come back with the same conclusion.
That's 2 1⁄2 years, with little to show.
The police complaints commissioner still wasn't satisfied with internal review and ordered a public hearing on the complaint.
That began last month, more than four years after McKay's father went to police with a complaint his son had mistreated and injured. (The hearing was adjourned until fall because of McKay's continuing problems from his head injury.)
It's not likely the McKays would be buy Stamatakis' argument that the current system delivers results in a timely way.
The case is not an aberration. Delays are the norm.
Those aren't the only problems.
In February 2007, former appeal court justice Josiah Wood delivered a review of the complaints process the province had commissioned.
On a key point, his report pleased police. He didn't feel that B.C., like four other provinces, should create a separate investigative unit to deal with complaints.
Police could continue to investigate themselves, with officers from another department doing the review in some cases.
But he also recommended 91 changes.
Woods also audited 294 complaints against the 11 municipal police departments covered by the provincial policy as part of his review. (RCMP detachments, even those providing municipal policing, do not accept the province's complaint process.)
He found 19 per cent of the complaints had not been properly investigated. In some cases, complaints that clearly should have been upheld were dismissed.
The more serious the complaint, the greater chance of a flawed or incomplete internal review by police.
Wood's audit found, for example, that 38 per cent - more than one-third - of complaints that police used excessive force weren't properly investigated.
The finding makes it hard to accept the recommendation that police should continue to investigate themselves.
What's even harder to accept is the government's inaction on Wood's recommendations and the changes sought by Ryneveld.
With a fall legislative session unlikely, change could be put off until next year, 2010 or indefinitely.
We ask police to do a tough, sometimes dangerous job and give them considerable powers. It's necessary that their be a process to guard against abuse of those powers.
And in B.C., that process isn't working.
Footnote: The RCMP won't accept the B.C. complaints process and its own is hopelessly inadequate. Those who feel they have been wronged can complain to the RCMP Commission for Public Complaints. But the commission relies on the RCMP's own investigation and the top Mountie routinely rewrite its reports to eliminate criticism of officers' actions.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Friday, August 01, 2008
Kindergarten for three-year-olds a great idea
I've been doing newspapering work for quite a few years, in quite a few places. It's like building sand castles below the tide line in some ways. The best column is forgotten in a few days.
But ask me what I'm proudest of, and I can answer in a flash. It started with a column and ended with a letter from a premier.
Columns can come easily. This one did. I was standing outside a school portable on a freezing day in a suburb of Saint John. (The one in New Brunswick.)
I'd lined up to register our ferociously bright daughter for a great kindergarten.
New Brunswick was and is a have-not province. Kindergarten wasn't part of the school system. If you wanted your child to go, you had to pay.
And I looked at the line of parents, and thought this was crazy. We were affluent and had been able to give our kids a lot already. Now, we were setting them up for success when they started Grade 1.
But in Saint John's scruffier neighbourhoods, or in rural communities, the children who really could benefit from kindergarten didn't get the chance.
Imagine how awful it would be to show up for the first day of Grade 1 and find out a bunch of the other kids - the ones who had been to kindergarten - knew what to do, and you didn't. You're six. You figure you're just not as smart.
That was the column, and it was good. I was in charge and our papers kept on writing about public kindergarten.
I left Saint John for a job in another province. But a few months after I'd headed down the road, New Brunswick introduced public kindergarten for all five-year-olds. And Frank McKenna, the premier of the day, sent a kind note saying that when he had wavered on the change - an expensive hit for a poor province - he had reread some of the pieces from our newspaper.
Which leads, in a twisty way, back to B.C. In the throne speech in February, Gordon Campbell committed the government to "assess the feasibility and costs of full school day kindergarten for five-year- olds."
Campbell also promised a look at much more aggressive agenda - optional day-long kindergarten for four-year-olds by 2010, and for three-year-olds by 2012.
It was a bold commitment. But the government appears to be taking a serious look at a great new approach to early childhood education.
Research from the jurisdictions around the world that have tried such early schooling has been overwhelmingly positive. Children benefit academically and socially and the results are long-lasting. Almost all children make gains, but the help is greatest for those kids who start with disadvantages.
Which shouldn't be surprising. A child who grows up in an affluent home, perhaps with a stay-at-home mom, with parents who have experienced academic success, has a lot of advantages heading into school. Those children have likely done art classes and reading groups and already made a lot of progress.
A kid from a poor home, perhaps with parents who don't read all that well themselves, is likely to have much tougher time in those first critical years in school.
The Education Ministry is seeking public comments on the idea. (You can participate; the website is www.bced.gov.bc.ca/ecla/.) There's been big interest and the deadline has been extended to Aug. 15.
It's a big project and there are lots of questions, like who would teach and what it cost to provide places for 80,000 thee and four-year-olds.
Perhaps the program could start in a targeted away - offered wherever schools consistently perform poorly on FSA tests, for example.
But this is an opportunity to build a brighter future for the province and give a lot of children a better chance to the most of their abilities.
Footnote: Her's one sign the government is serious. The Education Ministry, which had effectively encouraged school closures through its funding program and by requiring districts to come up with large chunks of cash for capital projects, has now told school districts to hang on to underused properties in case space is needed for new kindergartens.
But ask me what I'm proudest of, and I can answer in a flash. It started with a column and ended with a letter from a premier.
Columns can come easily. This one did. I was standing outside a school portable on a freezing day in a suburb of Saint John. (The one in New Brunswick.)
I'd lined up to register our ferociously bright daughter for a great kindergarten.
New Brunswick was and is a have-not province. Kindergarten wasn't part of the school system. If you wanted your child to go, you had to pay.
And I looked at the line of parents, and thought this was crazy. We were affluent and had been able to give our kids a lot already. Now, we were setting them up for success when they started Grade 1.
But in Saint John's scruffier neighbourhoods, or in rural communities, the children who really could benefit from kindergarten didn't get the chance.
Imagine how awful it would be to show up for the first day of Grade 1 and find out a bunch of the other kids - the ones who had been to kindergarten - knew what to do, and you didn't. You're six. You figure you're just not as smart.
That was the column, and it was good. I was in charge and our papers kept on writing about public kindergarten.
I left Saint John for a job in another province. But a few months after I'd headed down the road, New Brunswick introduced public kindergarten for all five-year-olds. And Frank McKenna, the premier of the day, sent a kind note saying that when he had wavered on the change - an expensive hit for a poor province - he had reread some of the pieces from our newspaper.
Which leads, in a twisty way, back to B.C. In the throne speech in February, Gordon Campbell committed the government to "assess the feasibility and costs of full school day kindergarten for five-year- olds."
Campbell also promised a look at much more aggressive agenda - optional day-long kindergarten for four-year-olds by 2010, and for three-year-olds by 2012.
It was a bold commitment. But the government appears to be taking a serious look at a great new approach to early childhood education.
Research from the jurisdictions around the world that have tried such early schooling has been overwhelmingly positive. Children benefit academically and socially and the results are long-lasting. Almost all children make gains, but the help is greatest for those kids who start with disadvantages.
Which shouldn't be surprising. A child who grows up in an affluent home, perhaps with a stay-at-home mom, with parents who have experienced academic success, has a lot of advantages heading into school. Those children have likely done art classes and reading groups and already made a lot of progress.
A kid from a poor home, perhaps with parents who don't read all that well themselves, is likely to have much tougher time in those first critical years in school.
The Education Ministry is seeking public comments on the idea. (You can participate; the website is www.bced.gov.bc.ca/ecla/.) There's been big interest and the deadline has been extended to Aug. 15.
It's a big project and there are lots of questions, like who would teach and what it cost to provide places for 80,000 thee and four-year-olds.
Perhaps the program could start in a targeted away - offered wherever schools consistently perform poorly on FSA tests, for example.
But this is an opportunity to build a brighter future for the province and give a lot of children a better chance to the most of their abilities.
Footnote: Her's one sign the government is serious. The Education Ministry, which had effectively encouraged school closures through its funding program and by requiring districts to come up with large chunks of cash for capital projects, has now told school districts to hang on to underused properties in case space is needed for new kindergartens.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Innovation in severance, anyway
Les Leyne continues to mine the salary disclosure forms for public sector agencies and discovers that the B.C. InnovationCouncil devoted almosthalf its salary budget to severance payments to executives, including a CEO who only lasted seven months and manager who resigned voluntarily but got severance anyway.
Read it here.
Read it here.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Government’s attack on mentally disabled a moral failure
There's room for disagreement on lots of policy issues.
But when government passes a cabinet order so it can abandon people with developmental disabilities to the streets - or worse - that's just callous, and irresponsible.
We're not talking about borderline cases.
These are people who, by the government's own assessment, need support in making their way in life and face face terrible risks without it. Two court decisions have found the government has a legal duty to them.
But, on the recommendation of Premier Gordon Campbell and Children's Minister Tom Christensen, cabinet issued an edict this month that freed it from obeying the court rulings.
The issue is straightforward. The government has passed laws setting out its responsibility to help people who are genuinely unable to make their way in this world.
But the cabinet didn't really want to provide the support.
So an arbitrary rule was created. No matter how badly a developmentally disabled adult might need assistance, no matter how severe the problems or clear the looming disaster, if he scored 70 on an IQ test, he was cut off services.
Parents could spend years fighting for help for a young person with mental handicaps and serious problems - autism, FASD, emotional trauma. The support - social workers' time, housing, work programs - could be working, giving hope to all involved.
Everyone - doctors, counselors, family, social workers - might agree the young person couldn't make it on his own. They might even agree that without support he would be a danger to others, destined for the streets or jail.
But despite all that, the government said the magic IQ score of 70 absolved it of all responsibility. The same rule denied help for older people with disabilities when their parents, some in their 70s or 80s, could no longer provide the needed support.
A IQ of 70 to 80 puts a person in the bottom 10 per cent of the population in mental functioning. In a competitive society like ours, that's a big disadvantage. Add other problems and the situation is dire.
That's what the courts found when a Victoria mother challenged the policy. Her adoptive son, whose IQ was just over 70, had been receiving intensive daily support. Without it, the agency's own psychologist warned, the young man's disability, FASD, autism and other problems would make him a threat to himself and others in the community.
But Community Living B.C., the agency delivering services to the developmentally disabled on behalf of he government, said it would him he turned 19.
The B.C. Supreme Court ruled the arbitrary IQ cutoff violates the law setting up Community Living B.C., which said it was to provide needed services to help people independently. It didn't say needed services, unless the person scored over a certain level on an IQ test. The government challenged the decision in the B.C. Court of Appeal and lost.
The courts noted the government could pass a cabinet order exempting itself from the requirement.
But Christens said that would be wrong. A solution would be found.
But the cabinet shuffle took responsibility for services to adults with disabilities away from Christensen and handed them to the new Housing and Social Services Minister Rich Coleman.
Wrong became right and Christensen and Campbell signed the edict giving the government the right to deny help based on an IQ test.
Coleman says it's a temporary measure. Another pending lawsuit meant the government had to do something.
Which is rubbish. The lawsuit could have been delayed with an interim promise of continued services. The government consulted no one before making the change, which it didn't announce publicly.
And it has had two years since the court ruling - and five years since cabinet minister Linda Reid acknowledged the arbitrary IQ standard was wrong and should be changed - to deal with the issue.
Now people with serious disabilities, who could live successful lives, are being punished terribly for the government's.
It's one thing to disagree with government policies - that kind of debate is normal and healthy.
But this is a question of morality. The government, for no good reason, has placed itself above the law and chosen to make people whose lives are already difficult suffer
Footnote: Coleman and Campbell didn't consult the B.C. Association for Community Living, the Children and Youth Representative or anyone else on the change. Coleman's bleak record as a cabinet minister has been attributed in part to a failure to consult with those directly affected by government decisions. This decision has added to fears about his new role of minister for gambling, alcohol sales, welfare, the disabled and housing.
But when government passes a cabinet order so it can abandon people with developmental disabilities to the streets - or worse - that's just callous, and irresponsible.
We're not talking about borderline cases.
These are people who, by the government's own assessment, need support in making their way in life and face face terrible risks without it. Two court decisions have found the government has a legal duty to them.
But, on the recommendation of Premier Gordon Campbell and Children's Minister Tom Christensen, cabinet issued an edict this month that freed it from obeying the court rulings.
The issue is straightforward. The government has passed laws setting out its responsibility to help people who are genuinely unable to make their way in this world.
But the cabinet didn't really want to provide the support.
So an arbitrary rule was created. No matter how badly a developmentally disabled adult might need assistance, no matter how severe the problems or clear the looming disaster, if he scored 70 on an IQ test, he was cut off services.
Parents could spend years fighting for help for a young person with mental handicaps and serious problems - autism, FASD, emotional trauma. The support - social workers' time, housing, work programs - could be working, giving hope to all involved.
Everyone - doctors, counselors, family, social workers - might agree the young person couldn't make it on his own. They might even agree that without support he would be a danger to others, destined for the streets or jail.
But despite all that, the government said the magic IQ score of 70 absolved it of all responsibility. The same rule denied help for older people with disabilities when their parents, some in their 70s or 80s, could no longer provide the needed support.
A IQ of 70 to 80 puts a person in the bottom 10 per cent of the population in mental functioning. In a competitive society like ours, that's a big disadvantage. Add other problems and the situation is dire.
That's what the courts found when a Victoria mother challenged the policy. Her adoptive son, whose IQ was just over 70, had been receiving intensive daily support. Without it, the agency's own psychologist warned, the young man's disability, FASD, autism and other problems would make him a threat to himself and others in the community.
But Community Living B.C., the agency delivering services to the developmentally disabled on behalf of he government, said it would him he turned 19.
The B.C. Supreme Court ruled the arbitrary IQ cutoff violates the law setting up Community Living B.C., which said it was to provide needed services to help people independently. It didn't say needed services, unless the person scored over a certain level on an IQ test. The government challenged the decision in the B.C. Court of Appeal and lost.
The courts noted the government could pass a cabinet order exempting itself from the requirement.
But Christens said that would be wrong. A solution would be found.
But the cabinet shuffle took responsibility for services to adults with disabilities away from Christensen and handed them to the new Housing and Social Services Minister Rich Coleman.
Wrong became right and Christensen and Campbell signed the edict giving the government the right to deny help based on an IQ test.
Coleman says it's a temporary measure. Another pending lawsuit meant the government had to do something.
Which is rubbish. The lawsuit could have been delayed with an interim promise of continued services. The government consulted no one before making the change, which it didn't announce publicly.
And it has had two years since the court ruling - and five years since cabinet minister Linda Reid acknowledged the arbitrary IQ standard was wrong and should be changed - to deal with the issue.
Now people with serious disabilities, who could live successful lives, are being punished terribly for the government's.
It's one thing to disagree with government policies - that kind of debate is normal and healthy.
But this is a question of morality. The government, for no good reason, has placed itself above the law and chosen to make people whose lives are already difficult suffer
Footnote: Coleman and Campbell didn't consult the B.C. Association for Community Living, the Children and Youth Representative or anyone else on the change. Coleman's bleak record as a cabinet minister has been attributed in part to a failure to consult with those directly affected by government decisions. This decision has added to fears about his new role of minister for gambling, alcohol sales, welfare, the disabled and housing.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Poor people and lottery tickets
A comment on the gambling post - see below - included a link to this interesting study that looked at why the biggest buyers of lottery tickets are the people who can least afford to waste the money.
B.C.'s online gambling plan means more problems
The nice people at B.C. Lotteries have just offered me $5 to try online gambling.
"Pay for Play Promo Cash," they called it in the e-mail. If I go online to gamble, the corporation will match the money I spend up to $5.
The Crown corporation's marketing people are just doing their job. It has a goal of recruiting more gamblers every year and increasing the average amount each one loses. That's how the business grows.
But it seems risky - or perhaps just destructive - to try and lure people into online gambling, with its great risks of addiction or problem gambling.
Especially for this government. In opposition Gordon Campbell opposed gambling because it destroyed lives and families and created a province of "losers." The party promised to halt gambling expansion.
And then did the opposite, including the introduction of Internet gambling in 2005.
It's a risky kind of kind of gambling to be promoting through e-mails sent to thousands of people like me.
A study released last week found online gamblers "play" more frequently and bet more aggressively than those who go to casinos. The study, by professors from the University of Western Ontario and the University of Nevada, found Internet gambling participants gambled much more frequently and risked more than people who went to casinos or bought lottery tickets.
Their gambling was easier to hide from family and friends and more likely to become part of their daily routine.
All in all, a higher risk activity with a greater likelihood of problems for the gamblers and their families.
The study concluded that governments should consider getting into the business, perhaps in partnership with casino companies, to protect gamblers from the risks of semi-legal Internet betting sites.
That might justify B.C. Lotteries early ventures into Internet gambling.
But the study raises some questions at the same time, starting with the wisdom of trying to offer cash to people to come online and bet.
B.C. Lotteries sets targets for the number of new gamblers - people who bet in some way each month - that it wants to recruit. Those have been public, part of the corporation's service plan, until this year.
Last year, for example, the corporation planned to use ad campaigns and promotions to recruit 240,000 new regular gamblers in B.C. (In fact, the number of gamblers dropped as a result of the scandals that hit the corporation.)
The government sets out to lure people who had stayed away from gambling and into buying lottery tickets or putting money into slot machines down at the local bingo hall.
Or into gambling online, a kind of betting that attracts younger participants.
B.C. Lotteries has set some significant limits to reduce the potential damage from its Internet gambling. Participants can't transfer more than $120 a week into their gambling accounts, so an individual's losses are limited to $6,240 a year, assuming he hasn't managed to set up one or two accounts in other peoples' names.
The corporation has controls to ensure gamblers are 19 and bar themselves from future betting on the site.
But the study suggested greater safeguards: Cross-checking new users with a list of pathological gamblers; having the site send messages when people have lost a lot of money or are playing long hours; and clear and large numbers on screen to tell the gambler how much he had lost during a betting session.
More fundamentally, it recommended government-controlled Internet gambling as a necessary evil. If people wanted to bet online, better it was regulated.
That's different than setting out to persuade people who otherwise wouldn't gamble that they should start betting.
Online gambling hasn't worked that well for B.C. Lotteries. The goal was to hit $18 million in revenue last year, but it fell short at $14 million. But the corporation still hopes people will be betting $48 million a year by 2010.
And some of that money is going to come from individuals and families who really can't afford to join Campbell's club of "losers."
Footnote: B.C. Lotteries online offerings include Keno and round-the-clock sports betting as well as "interactive games." These involve bettors, by letting them do things like click on balls to try and keep them aloft. But the clicking is actually meaningless in terms of the outcome, which is determined by a computer as soon as the bet is placed. Like the whirring and spinning of slot machines, it's just a way of keeping people involved so they lose more money.
"Pay for Play Promo Cash," they called it in the e-mail. If I go online to gamble, the corporation will match the money I spend up to $5.
The Crown corporation's marketing people are just doing their job. It has a goal of recruiting more gamblers every year and increasing the average amount each one loses. That's how the business grows.
But it seems risky - or perhaps just destructive - to try and lure people into online gambling, with its great risks of addiction or problem gambling.
Especially for this government. In opposition Gordon Campbell opposed gambling because it destroyed lives and families and created a province of "losers." The party promised to halt gambling expansion.
And then did the opposite, including the introduction of Internet gambling in 2005.
It's a risky kind of kind of gambling to be promoting through e-mails sent to thousands of people like me.
A study released last week found online gamblers "play" more frequently and bet more aggressively than those who go to casinos. The study, by professors from the University of Western Ontario and the University of Nevada, found Internet gambling participants gambled much more frequently and risked more than people who went to casinos or bought lottery tickets.
Their gambling was easier to hide from family and friends and more likely to become part of their daily routine.
All in all, a higher risk activity with a greater likelihood of problems for the gamblers and their families.
The study concluded that governments should consider getting into the business, perhaps in partnership with casino companies, to protect gamblers from the risks of semi-legal Internet betting sites.
That might justify B.C. Lotteries early ventures into Internet gambling.
But the study raises some questions at the same time, starting with the wisdom of trying to offer cash to people to come online and bet.
B.C. Lotteries sets targets for the number of new gamblers - people who bet in some way each month - that it wants to recruit. Those have been public, part of the corporation's service plan, until this year.
Last year, for example, the corporation planned to use ad campaigns and promotions to recruit 240,000 new regular gamblers in B.C. (In fact, the number of gamblers dropped as a result of the scandals that hit the corporation.)
The government sets out to lure people who had stayed away from gambling and into buying lottery tickets or putting money into slot machines down at the local bingo hall.
Or into gambling online, a kind of betting that attracts younger participants.
B.C. Lotteries has set some significant limits to reduce the potential damage from its Internet gambling. Participants can't transfer more than $120 a week into their gambling accounts, so an individual's losses are limited to $6,240 a year, assuming he hasn't managed to set up one or two accounts in other peoples' names.
The corporation has controls to ensure gamblers are 19 and bar themselves from future betting on the site.
But the study suggested greater safeguards: Cross-checking new users with a list of pathological gamblers; having the site send messages when people have lost a lot of money or are playing long hours; and clear and large numbers on screen to tell the gambler how much he had lost during a betting session.
More fundamentally, it recommended government-controlled Internet gambling as a necessary evil. If people wanted to bet online, better it was regulated.
That's different than setting out to persuade people who otherwise wouldn't gamble that they should start betting.
Online gambling hasn't worked that well for B.C. Lotteries. The goal was to hit $18 million in revenue last year, but it fell short at $14 million. But the corporation still hopes people will be betting $48 million a year by 2010.
And some of that money is going to come from individuals and families who really can't afford to join Campbell's club of "losers."
Footnote: B.C. Lotteries online offerings include Keno and round-the-clock sports betting as well as "interactive games." These involve bettors, by letting them do things like click on balls to try and keep them aloft. But the clicking is actually meaningless in terms of the outcome, which is determined by a computer as soon as the bet is placed. Like the whirring and spinning of slot machines, it's just a way of keeping people involved so they lose more money.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Cabinet betrays young disabled adults who badly need help
I'll deal with the issue in a column, but here's the first response from the B.C. Association of Community Living to cabinet order signed by the premier that's disastrous for disabled people in the province who badly need support.
Two court rulings have rejected a government edict denied support to people with IQs of 70 or above, even if they were assessed as needing help.
So cabinet, instead of its obligations, simply passed an order exempting the government from its own rules.
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS: GOVERNMENT QUIETLY TURNS ITS BACK ON VULNERABLE YOUTH
New Westminster, B.C., July 23, 2008 - The BC Association for Community Living (BCACL) is deeply concerned by recent changes made by the provincial government to the regulations of the Community Living Authority Act, in regards to I.Q. eligibility requirements. This is the Act and regulations that guide the work of Community Living BC (CLBC), the crown corporation that is responsible for supports and services to people with developmental disabilities in BC.
Faced with a second court case filed by the Community Legal Assistance Society (CLAS) on behalf of a youth who did not meet CLBC's eligibility criteria based on I.Q., the provincial government has changed the regulation to enshrine an I.Q. of 70 or below as a criterion for receiving services. The change was made without any community consultation or notice.
This effectively means that those youth with significant social or behavioural issues - in particular young adults with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) or autism who have an I.Q. over 70 and who require individualized support - are left to fend for themselves. Too often this is resulting in youth being forced to leave a safe home and at worst, the criminal justice system becomes the default support system.
Community advocates have been unanimously urging government, across all ministries, to move away from traditional psychological assessment tools that focus on I.Q. and to develop mechanisms that effectively and equitably assess individual needs. Instead of resolving the issue, the government, with the stroke of a pen, has removed any hope of recourse for families who are desperate for services for their young adult children. This is devastating for many families.
"This regressive step by the government is only a further example of the sweeping changes that happen behind closed doors, without any community consultation and at the expense of those most vulnerable," says Laney Bryenton, BCACL Executive Director. "It is completely unacceptable that vulnerable youth will be denied the services they so desperately need to achieve independence."
Two court rulings have rejected a government edict denied support to people with IQs of 70 or above, even if they were assessed as needing help.
So cabinet, instead of its obligations, simply passed an order exempting the government from its own rules.
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS: GOVERNMENT QUIETLY TURNS ITS BACK ON VULNERABLE YOUTH
New Westminster, B.C., July 23, 2008 - The BC Association for Community Living (BCACL) is deeply concerned by recent changes made by the provincial government to the regulations of the Community Living Authority Act, in regards to I.Q. eligibility requirements. This is the Act and regulations that guide the work of Community Living BC (CLBC), the crown corporation that is responsible for supports and services to people with developmental disabilities in BC.
Faced with a second court case filed by the Community Legal Assistance Society (CLAS) on behalf of a youth who did not meet CLBC's eligibility criteria based on I.Q., the provincial government has changed the regulation to enshrine an I.Q. of 70 or below as a criterion for receiving services. The change was made without any community consultation or notice.
This effectively means that those youth with significant social or behavioural issues - in particular young adults with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) or autism who have an I.Q. over 70 and who require individualized support - are left to fend for themselves. Too often this is resulting in youth being forced to leave a safe home and at worst, the criminal justice system becomes the default support system.
Community advocates have been unanimously urging government, across all ministries, to move away from traditional psychological assessment tools that focus on I.Q. and to develop mechanisms that effectively and equitably assess individual needs. Instead of resolving the issue, the government, with the stroke of a pen, has removed any hope of recourse for families who are desperate for services for their young adult children. This is devastating for many families.
"This regressive step by the government is only a further example of the sweeping changes that happen behind closed doors, without any community consultation and at the expense of those most vulnerable," says Laney Bryenton, BCACL Executive Director. "It is completely unacceptable that vulnerable youth will be denied the services they so desperately need to achieve independence."
Big pay for small executive jobs at B.C. Rail
Among the surprises in last week's release of figures on management pay in the B.C. public sector was news that the B.C. Rail CEO Kevin Mahoney received $570,000 in total compensation to run a business with $18 million in revenues, fewer than 30 employees and not much to do.
Sean Holman has been on the story over the last week and Les Leyne weighs in with a column in today's Times Colonist.
Sean Holman has been on the story over the last week and Les Leyne weighs in with a column in today's Times Colonist.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The unofficial official 2010 theme song
I caught Geoff Berner up at the Vancouver Island Music Fest a couple of years ago and was impressed with his quirky, biting songs and sharp wit.
He's written a theme song for the 2010 Games, with one of those infectious choruses that will be sure to get you singing along. Check it out at his website..
He's written a theme song for the 2010 Games, with one of those infectious choruses that will be sure to get you singing along. Check it out at his website..
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Watchdog finds bungling, negligence in forest deal that enriched company
After the auditor general's devastating report on the government's incompetence and negligence in removing vast tracts of prime Vancouver Island land from a tree farm licence, things shouldn't have got much worse.
Within hours, they did.
Current Forests Minister Pat Bell responded to the report as if he hadn't read a single word.
Instead of accepting the recommendations, or offering a fact-based rebuttal, he attacked Auditor General John Doyle, an Australian chosen for the independent post by a unanimous vote of the legislature. "If Mr. Doyle thinks this is the way we do business in Canada, he's dead wrong," Bell blustered.
It was a lame attempt to divert attention from the most damning auditor general's report since the fast ferry scandal.
And a written response from the ministry, while it raised some sound points, did nothing to refute the auditor general's main findings.
Last year, then forests minister Rich Coleman handed Western Forest Products a big gift. The international corporation wanted the government to release 70,000 acres, including prime real estate along the coast of Victoria, from tree farm licences.
The land had been protected as working forest and managed under the same rules as Crown land. In return, the government had provided extra harvesting rights on Crown land.
Getting the land out of the tree farm licence meant up to $200 million in windfall gains for WFP, which could sell it for real estate development, export more raw logs and work to lower environmental standards.
But for communities, the change meant loss of wildlife habitat, green space and other economic opportunities.
All development planning became irrelevant when Coleman signed the deal and what had been 280 square kilometres of protected green space was opened for subdivisions.
The auditor general found Coleman made the decision without knowing how much the deal was worth to the corporation. He didn't seek compensation - normal in such deals - because he wanted to company to get all the benefits.
Coleman thought Western Forest Product needed the money to strengthen its balance sheet.
But he didn't how much it needed, or whether other sources besides the taxpayers were available or what Western Forest Products would do with the windfall.
And he made the decision without any consultation with affected communities or other stakeholders and without information on the costs to the public.
Coleman got a five-page briefing note from the ministry and said OK. He's never offered any explanation beyond saying the company needed the money and supporting it was good for the coastal forest industry. But Coleman could never produce an analysis or cost-benefit study to justify the decision.
In fact, the auditor general asked Coleman for a meeting as part of his reviews so he could understand the minister's thinking. Coleman refused. (Which makes Bell's bluster more ridiculous.)
The auditor general found the removal was made "without sufficient regard for the public interest."
The government failed to do the most basic due diligence to see if the company really did need assistance.
And the watchdog found the government failed to make any effort to assess whether the gift to the corporation would be of any public benefit, whether in protecting forest jobs or in some other area.
Coleman had made the decision based on a five-page briefing note, which Doyle found was "incomplete" and "did not make a persuasive case for allowing the land removal."
The option of compensation wasn't even considered in the material.
"There was no explanation of how allowing the land removal was in the public interest," the report found.
And Coleman was ultimately responsible.
"The minister was the final check in the process and the statutory decision-maker but, given the importance of the decision, he did not do enough to ensure that due regard was given to the public interest," the auditor general concluded.
It's a devastating report, one that finds both incompetence and negligence.
Footnote: Bell's bizarre reaction included a complaint that there were no recommendations in the report, as if a call for basic competence and diligence was not enough.
Coleman's place in cabinet should be in count as a result of the report, particularly given the sensitivity of his new role responsible for welfare and services for the disabled.
Premier Gordon Campbell also faces some tough questions about his role.
Within hours, they did.
Current Forests Minister Pat Bell responded to the report as if he hadn't read a single word.
Instead of accepting the recommendations, or offering a fact-based rebuttal, he attacked Auditor General John Doyle, an Australian chosen for the independent post by a unanimous vote of the legislature. "If Mr. Doyle thinks this is the way we do business in Canada, he's dead wrong," Bell blustered.
It was a lame attempt to divert attention from the most damning auditor general's report since the fast ferry scandal.
And a written response from the ministry, while it raised some sound points, did nothing to refute the auditor general's main findings.
Last year, then forests minister Rich Coleman handed Western Forest Products a big gift. The international corporation wanted the government to release 70,000 acres, including prime real estate along the coast of Victoria, from tree farm licences.
The land had been protected as working forest and managed under the same rules as Crown land. In return, the government had provided extra harvesting rights on Crown land.
Getting the land out of the tree farm licence meant up to $200 million in windfall gains for WFP, which could sell it for real estate development, export more raw logs and work to lower environmental standards.
But for communities, the change meant loss of wildlife habitat, green space and other economic opportunities.
All development planning became irrelevant when Coleman signed the deal and what had been 280 square kilometres of protected green space was opened for subdivisions.
The auditor general found Coleman made the decision without knowing how much the deal was worth to the corporation. He didn't seek compensation - normal in such deals - because he wanted to company to get all the benefits.
Coleman thought Western Forest Product needed the money to strengthen its balance sheet.
But he didn't how much it needed, or whether other sources besides the taxpayers were available or what Western Forest Products would do with the windfall.
And he made the decision without any consultation with affected communities or other stakeholders and without information on the costs to the public.
Coleman got a five-page briefing note from the ministry and said OK. He's never offered any explanation beyond saying the company needed the money and supporting it was good for the coastal forest industry. But Coleman could never produce an analysis or cost-benefit study to justify the decision.
In fact, the auditor general asked Coleman for a meeting as part of his reviews so he could understand the minister's thinking. Coleman refused. (Which makes Bell's bluster more ridiculous.)
The auditor general found the removal was made "without sufficient regard for the public interest."
The government failed to do the most basic due diligence to see if the company really did need assistance.
And the watchdog found the government failed to make any effort to assess whether the gift to the corporation would be of any public benefit, whether in protecting forest jobs or in some other area.
Coleman had made the decision based on a five-page briefing note, which Doyle found was "incomplete" and "did not make a persuasive case for allowing the land removal."
The option of compensation wasn't even considered in the material.
"There was no explanation of how allowing the land removal was in the public interest," the report found.
And Coleman was ultimately responsible.
"The minister was the final check in the process and the statutory decision-maker but, given the importance of the decision, he did not do enough to ensure that due regard was given to the public interest," the auditor general concluded.
It's a devastating report, one that finds both incompetence and negligence.
Footnote: Bell's bizarre reaction included a complaint that there were no recommendations in the report, as if a call for basic competence and diligence was not enough.
Coleman's place in cabinet should be in count as a result of the report, particularly given the sensitivity of his new role responsible for welfare and services for the disabled.
Premier Gordon Campbell also faces some tough questions about his role.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
AG finds Coleman, government failed to protect public interest while enriching forest company
The auditor general's report on the government's decision to remove 70,000 acres of private land from tree farm licences on southern Vancouver Island to clear the way for real estate development offers a brutal critique of an incompentent process. Former forest minister Rich Coleman failed in his duty to protect the public interest, the auditor general found.
I'll have something up this evening, but in the interim there's a Times Colonist editorial here and a Les Leyne column here.
Both are well-worth reading.
I'll have something up this evening, but in the interim there's a Times Colonist editorial here and a Les Leyne column here.
Both are well-worth reading.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Khadr video confirms Canada’s disgrace
Most of us haven't paid much attention to the case of Omar Khadr, the Canadian captured by U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan in 2002.
Khadr, then 16, was shot twice in the back during the fight; the Americans believe he threw a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier.
Since then, he's been a prisoner, mostly at Guantanamo Bay, the detention centre the U.S. set up in Cuba to escape its own and international laws on the treatment of prisoners.
Other western countries, including Britain and Australia, have repatriated their nationals from Guantanamo because of concerns about prisoner abuse and the lack of rights.
Canada, even though Khadr was a boy when he was captured, hasn't made any effort to bring him here to be dealt with in our courts.
And the Canadian government has insisted that it was monitoring the situation and Khadr was being treated humanely.
That probably reassured a lot of people, who then felt they didn't need to think much about the case.
Khadr said he was tortured, but both the Liberal and Conservative governments said everything was fine.
Except the Canadian government lied to us.
CSIS and Canadian Foreign Affairs officials questioned Khadr in 2003 and 2004, when he was still not old enough to vote here.
The government knew then that the Guantanamo interrogation experts had decided to soften up Khadr before the Canadian officials arrived.
For three weeks, the teen was moved to a different cell of holding area every three hours night and day. That's three weeks with no real sleep or human contact.
I'm no expert in international law. But I'm a parent, and if a child of mine were treated that way, I'd call it torture.
And I'd certainly call any government that said the treatment was "humane" both dishonest and morally bankrupt.
The U.S. interest in Khadr is understandable. His parents were Islamic extremists who lived in Toronto and Pakistan. His father was killed in an anti-terrorist raid in 2003. Omar played with Osama bin Laden's children.
When he was captured, less than a year after the attack on the World Trade Centre, the U.S. was desperate for any information on bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
So interrogators started questioning the 15-year-old as soon as he regained consciousness in a U.S. military hospital at Bagram in Afghanistan.
The first U.S. interrogator told Michelle Shephard of the Toronto Star that it was "neat" to watch Khadr's vital signs change on the life support machines as he answered questions.
Humane treatment, says the Canadian government.
Khadr's interrogators at Bagram included U.S. Sgt. Joshua Claus, later convicted of maltreatment and assault in the killing of another prisoner - an innocent Afghan taxi driver - during questioning. Claus says he didn't torture Khadr; censored statements by Khadr suggest he did.
Given that governments lied about humane treatment, it is hard to accept claims that Khadr was not tortured.
This week, the videos of the Canadian officials questioning of Khadr were released by court order.
They show no torture.
But they do show what you would expect: A scared 16-year-old, trapped indefinitely in a detention centre, threatened and sleep-deprived, who thinks the Canadian officials are there to rescue him.
He soon learns that's not true. The hidden camera captures him pleading with them to "Help me" or "Kill me." The words aren't clear.
The bare facts should shame Canadians. A child soldier brainwashed by his parents - anyone who knows 15-year-olds knows they are mostly big kids - is captured.
The evidence on whether he threw the grenade is uncertain.
He's abused and says whatever his captors want to hear.
While Guantanamo Bay prisoners from every other western nation are repatriated, Canada won't ask for Khadr's return and questions him - after three weeks of abuse - and turns the results over to the U.S.
And the federal government - under both the Liberals and the Conservatives - lies to Canadians about Khadr's treatment and won't make the simple effort to have him returned here to face a legitimate court.
Footnote: The video released this week made headlines around the world. Most of the coverage focused on the abominable treatment Khadr had received, the pathetic state he was in and the Canadian government's inexplicable failure to do the right thing.
Khadr, then 16, was shot twice in the back during the fight; the Americans believe he threw a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier.
Since then, he's been a prisoner, mostly at Guantanamo Bay, the detention centre the U.S. set up in Cuba to escape its own and international laws on the treatment of prisoners.
Other western countries, including Britain and Australia, have repatriated their nationals from Guantanamo because of concerns about prisoner abuse and the lack of rights.
Canada, even though Khadr was a boy when he was captured, hasn't made any effort to bring him here to be dealt with in our courts.
And the Canadian government has insisted that it was monitoring the situation and Khadr was being treated humanely.
That probably reassured a lot of people, who then felt they didn't need to think much about the case.
Khadr said he was tortured, but both the Liberal and Conservative governments said everything was fine.
Except the Canadian government lied to us.
CSIS and Canadian Foreign Affairs officials questioned Khadr in 2003 and 2004, when he was still not old enough to vote here.
The government knew then that the Guantanamo interrogation experts had decided to soften up Khadr before the Canadian officials arrived.
For three weeks, the teen was moved to a different cell of holding area every three hours night and day. That's three weeks with no real sleep or human contact.
I'm no expert in international law. But I'm a parent, and if a child of mine were treated that way, I'd call it torture.
And I'd certainly call any government that said the treatment was "humane" both dishonest and morally bankrupt.
The U.S. interest in Khadr is understandable. His parents were Islamic extremists who lived in Toronto and Pakistan. His father was killed in an anti-terrorist raid in 2003. Omar played with Osama bin Laden's children.
When he was captured, less than a year after the attack on the World Trade Centre, the U.S. was desperate for any information on bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
So interrogators started questioning the 15-year-old as soon as he regained consciousness in a U.S. military hospital at Bagram in Afghanistan.
The first U.S. interrogator told Michelle Shephard of the Toronto Star that it was "neat" to watch Khadr's vital signs change on the life support machines as he answered questions.
Humane treatment, says the Canadian government.
Khadr's interrogators at Bagram included U.S. Sgt. Joshua Claus, later convicted of maltreatment and assault in the killing of another prisoner - an innocent Afghan taxi driver - during questioning. Claus says he didn't torture Khadr; censored statements by Khadr suggest he did.
Given that governments lied about humane treatment, it is hard to accept claims that Khadr was not tortured.
This week, the videos of the Canadian officials questioning of Khadr were released by court order.
They show no torture.
But they do show what you would expect: A scared 16-year-old, trapped indefinitely in a detention centre, threatened and sleep-deprived, who thinks the Canadian officials are there to rescue him.
He soon learns that's not true. The hidden camera captures him pleading with them to "Help me" or "Kill me." The words aren't clear.
The bare facts should shame Canadians. A child soldier brainwashed by his parents - anyone who knows 15-year-olds knows they are mostly big kids - is captured.
The evidence on whether he threw the grenade is uncertain.
He's abused and says whatever his captors want to hear.
While Guantanamo Bay prisoners from every other western nation are repatriated, Canada won't ask for Khadr's return and questions him - after three weeks of abuse - and turns the results over to the U.S.
And the federal government - under both the Liberals and the Conservatives - lies to Canadians about Khadr's treatment and won't make the simple effort to have him returned here to face a legitimate court.
Footnote: The video released this week made headlines around the world. Most of the coverage focused on the abominable treatment Khadr had received, the pathetic state he was in and the Canadian government's inexplicable failure to do the right thing.
Are we selling off gas resources too cheaply?
Six months into the year, and the B.C. government has sold almost $1 billion worth of gas leases.
That’s just short of the record total for all of 2007. Which on one level is good news. The $970 million collected so far will pay for services or be put toward the province’s debt. On the other hand, we’re making a lot of money selling off non-renewable assets. It’s a bit like like a farm family who decide to sell more and more of the property to cover today’s bills, until there is nothing left for the next generation.
The companies will pay royalties to the province on the gas they pump out of the ground, if their search is successful.
But those too are finite - the money will only flow into the provincial coffers as long as the gas flows from the wells. Then what happens? And the topic of royalties raises a whole other issue. One reason the companies are buying leases and licences in B.C. is because we’re selling off the gas more cheaply than Alberta, our main competitor. We’re charging about seven per cent less than our neighbour, according to one industry expert.
And that’s because last year Alberta decided the public should get a larger share of the record profits energy companies are making. After independent reviews found the province was not getting a fair price for the oil and gas under the ground, Alberta’s Conservative government raised its royalty rates.
B.C. had a similar royalty plan, perhaps a little more generous to the companies to encourage development. But the government hasn’t raised rates here to get a better deal for the public.
Last month, B.C.’s deputy minister for oil and gas told an industry conference in Calgary that the only changes B.C. is considering are incentives - royalty cuts - to encourage companies to invest in infrastructure and deeper wells. The comments won a round of applause.
One problem in all this is that governments face a conflict of interest. Natural gas royalties are forecast at $1.2 billion this year, on their way to topping corporate taxes as a revenue source. The industry provides a lot of good jobs. All governments are always looking ahead to the next election. That means there is an incentive to sell off resources now, at the expense of the future. The lease sales are done by auction, so the companies are paying the going rate. But setting royalty rates - the cut the government takes when gas is taken from the ground - is just as subjective as setting a price for a used car you want to sell.
Make them low, and you can encourage more development now. But if they’re too low, the resource is sold too cheaply and the public loses out. (There’s no need for haste. The gas is likely to get more valuable with each passing year.) That’s why Alberta raised its rates. The government received two public reports - one from an independent panel of experts and another from the province’s auditor general - that found it was selling off energy resources too cheaply, shortchanging the public by up to $2 billion a year. The B.C. government hasn’t done that kind of review.
As you read this, some communications staffer is probably writing a letter Energy Minister Richard Neufeld will sign that points out - rightly - that royalty cuts have resulted in much greater gas development. The letter will also likely say that the Energy Ministry regularly reviews royalty levels to make sure they’re appropriate. But if you ask to see those reviews, you won’t get them. And there simply has not been an independent, open review like those the Alberta government conducted. An independent royalty review would make good sense. So would a heritage fund - a place to set some of these revenues aside for the future.
Partly, that’s simply prudent. These are non-renewable resources. It’s risky to build government spending on revenue that might not be there for our children. And a heritage fund would reduce the temptation for governments to grab the cash and jobs now, even if it means selling resources too cheaply. Footnote: A coalition of environmental groups called for the establishment of a heritage fund in 2004. And the B.C. Progress Board, a business-oriented body set up by Premier Gordon Campbell to provide advice, called for the province to look at setting up a heritage fund for a share of oil and gas revenues in 2005.
That’s just short of the record total for all of 2007. Which on one level is good news. The $970 million collected so far will pay for services or be put toward the province’s debt. On the other hand, we’re making a lot of money selling off non-renewable assets. It’s a bit like like a farm family who decide to sell more and more of the property to cover today’s bills, until there is nothing left for the next generation.
The companies will pay royalties to the province on the gas they pump out of the ground, if their search is successful.
But those too are finite - the money will only flow into the provincial coffers as long as the gas flows from the wells. Then what happens? And the topic of royalties raises a whole other issue. One reason the companies are buying leases and licences in B.C. is because we’re selling off the gas more cheaply than Alberta, our main competitor. We’re charging about seven per cent less than our neighbour, according to one industry expert.
And that’s because last year Alberta decided the public should get a larger share of the record profits energy companies are making. After independent reviews found the province was not getting a fair price for the oil and gas under the ground, Alberta’s Conservative government raised its royalty rates.
B.C. had a similar royalty plan, perhaps a little more generous to the companies to encourage development. But the government hasn’t raised rates here to get a better deal for the public.
Last month, B.C.’s deputy minister for oil and gas told an industry conference in Calgary that the only changes B.C. is considering are incentives - royalty cuts - to encourage companies to invest in infrastructure and deeper wells. The comments won a round of applause.
One problem in all this is that governments face a conflict of interest. Natural gas royalties are forecast at $1.2 billion this year, on their way to topping corporate taxes as a revenue source. The industry provides a lot of good jobs. All governments are always looking ahead to the next election. That means there is an incentive to sell off resources now, at the expense of the future. The lease sales are done by auction, so the companies are paying the going rate. But setting royalty rates - the cut the government takes when gas is taken from the ground - is just as subjective as setting a price for a used car you want to sell.
Make them low, and you can encourage more development now. But if they’re too low, the resource is sold too cheaply and the public loses out. (There’s no need for haste. The gas is likely to get more valuable with each passing year.) That’s why Alberta raised its rates. The government received two public reports - one from an independent panel of experts and another from the province’s auditor general - that found it was selling off energy resources too cheaply, shortchanging the public by up to $2 billion a year. The B.C. government hasn’t done that kind of review.
As you read this, some communications staffer is probably writing a letter Energy Minister Richard Neufeld will sign that points out - rightly - that royalty cuts have resulted in much greater gas development. The letter will also likely say that the Energy Ministry regularly reviews royalty levels to make sure they’re appropriate. But if you ask to see those reviews, you won’t get them. And there simply has not been an independent, open review like those the Alberta government conducted. An independent royalty review would make good sense. So would a heritage fund - a place to set some of these revenues aside for the future.
Partly, that’s simply prudent. These are non-renewable resources. It’s risky to build government spending on revenue that might not be there for our children. And a heritage fund would reduce the temptation for governments to grab the cash and jobs now, even if it means selling resources too cheaply. Footnote: A coalition of environmental groups called for the establishment of a heritage fund in 2004. And the B.C. Progress Board, a business-oriented body set up by Premier Gordon Campbell to provide advice, called for the province to look at setting up a heritage fund for a share of oil and gas revenues in 2005.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
For kids in care, a court date is more likely than a grad dance
Bob Ritchie is one of the interesting people I only know because I write a column. We've never met, but he's a prolific writer of letters to the editor and e-mails to politicians and journalists.
Ritchie lives in Qualicum; he's 78 and worked for B.C. Hydro, in an office job.
And he cares passionately about a lot of issues, from the need for a tougher stance on crime to what he sees as a crisis in the state of children and families in B.C. He looks at life in the province, and the future, and doesn't like what he sees.
I don't always agree with Ritchie, but I admire his commitment and bold approach to solving problems, and always read his e-mails with interest.
So do a lot of other people. A quick bit of research found he had raised issues publicly some 60 times in the last 12 months, with letters to the editor in papers around the province or mentions in columns or news stories. (And that is in what has been a very tough year for him personally.)
And I respect him. He gave me a shot this week, an e-mail with this subject line: "Paul please show me that you really care. I would sure like to get more out of reading your articles. You have seemed to have lost interest. Bob."
Ouch.
I haven't lost interest. It does get exhausting being fierce all the time, as Ritchie expects. It takes a lot of research to build an airtight argument. And I don't want to seem like a crabby nag.
But Ritchie is right. It is important to keep raising the issues that really matter.
Which leads, in a roundabout way, to a speech by Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond last month.
The province's Representative for Children and Youth offered a preview of a massive research project that tracked the lives of 50,000 children born in B.C. since 1986.
The first results confirmed Ritchie's point that we need to do so much better. The data showed, Turpel-Lafond said, that children taken into the government's care were more likely to end up charged with a crime than to graduate from high school.
Think about the teens you know. How many end up facing in trouble with the law?
For adolescents receiving services from the Ministry of Children and Families, 44 per cent end up facing criminal charges.
More than one-third of children in care tracked by the study ended up serving time in jail. That shows major problems, given how hard the courts work to keep young people out of prison.
Of course, children in care very often start off with some big handicaps. Fetal alcohol effect (a big concern of Ritchie's), learning disabilities, emotional problems from neglect or abuse, or health problems from a rough infancy - these are going to take their toll.
Still, are their years in care improving their chances of success - of graduating from high school, instead of into the criminal justice system, for example?
For some youths, certainly. But the statistics suggest not for most of the children in care.
There are lots of areas for improvement. But there's a basic principle behind the failures.
Lots of kids only graduate from high school because their parents encourage, push and grind them. If they skip school or bring home a dismal report card, their parents lean on them any way they can. And the kids make it.
And lots of teens get in the same kind of scrapes with the law that kids in care do. But their parents sweep in and pull them back from the brink. They provide the support the courts are looking for when deciding whether to divert the case to some resolution outside the criminal justice system.
Not kids in the government's care. We've decided not to care enough about them.
OK, Bob?
Footonote: Practically, children in care as young as 13 end up with little support if things go sideways.
Foster parents can't track them and the ministry doesn't know what's going in their lives.
Turpel-Lafond notes almost 600 teens in care, as young as 16, are on "independent living" agreements, living in rooms or cheap apartments on their own. It is a formula for bad choices and worse outcomes.
The full report is to be released this fall.
Ritchie lives in Qualicum; he's 78 and worked for B.C. Hydro, in an office job.
And he cares passionately about a lot of issues, from the need for a tougher stance on crime to what he sees as a crisis in the state of children and families in B.C. He looks at life in the province, and the future, and doesn't like what he sees.
I don't always agree with Ritchie, but I admire his commitment and bold approach to solving problems, and always read his e-mails with interest.
So do a lot of other people. A quick bit of research found he had raised issues publicly some 60 times in the last 12 months, with letters to the editor in papers around the province or mentions in columns or news stories. (And that is in what has been a very tough year for him personally.)
And I respect him. He gave me a shot this week, an e-mail with this subject line: "Paul please show me that you really care. I would sure like to get more out of reading your articles. You have seemed to have lost interest. Bob."
Ouch.
I haven't lost interest. It does get exhausting being fierce all the time, as Ritchie expects. It takes a lot of research to build an airtight argument. And I don't want to seem like a crabby nag.
But Ritchie is right. It is important to keep raising the issues that really matter.
Which leads, in a roundabout way, to a speech by Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond last month.
The province's Representative for Children and Youth offered a preview of a massive research project that tracked the lives of 50,000 children born in B.C. since 1986.
The first results confirmed Ritchie's point that we need to do so much better. The data showed, Turpel-Lafond said, that children taken into the government's care were more likely to end up charged with a crime than to graduate from high school.
Think about the teens you know. How many end up facing in trouble with the law?
For adolescents receiving services from the Ministry of Children and Families, 44 per cent end up facing criminal charges.
More than one-third of children in care tracked by the study ended up serving time in jail. That shows major problems, given how hard the courts work to keep young people out of prison.
Of course, children in care very often start off with some big handicaps. Fetal alcohol effect (a big concern of Ritchie's), learning disabilities, emotional problems from neglect or abuse, or health problems from a rough infancy - these are going to take their toll.
Still, are their years in care improving their chances of success - of graduating from high school, instead of into the criminal justice system, for example?
For some youths, certainly. But the statistics suggest not for most of the children in care.
There are lots of areas for improvement. But there's a basic principle behind the failures.
Lots of kids only graduate from high school because their parents encourage, push and grind them. If they skip school or bring home a dismal report card, their parents lean on them any way they can. And the kids make it.
And lots of teens get in the same kind of scrapes with the law that kids in care do. But their parents sweep in and pull them back from the brink. They provide the support the courts are looking for when deciding whether to divert the case to some resolution outside the criminal justice system.
Not kids in the government's care. We've decided not to care enough about them.
OK, Bob?
Footonote: Practically, children in care as young as 13 end up with little support if things go sideways.
Foster parents can't track them and the ministry doesn't know what's going in their lives.
Turpel-Lafond notes almost 600 teens in care, as young as 16, are on "independent living" agreements, living in rooms or cheap apartments on their own. It is a formula for bad choices and worse outcomes.
The full report is to be released this fall.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Hospital food, blogging and politics
My column today in the Times Colonist takes a look at an online campaign for better hospital food and the effective use of the web by a Langley township councillor, as well as musing a bit about the ways the Internet and free software like blogger have opened doors for people concerned with politics and policy.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
A great weakness in the carbon tax sales job
I filled up the Neon on the way home Monday, saving about 70 cents by avoiding the carbon tax that kicked in Canada Day. The service station was doing a booming business.
Which suggests that the Liberals' carbon tax works. If people are topping up the tank on a sunny afternoon to avoid paying the 2.3-cents-a-litre tax, then maybe we'll make other changes. We'll bike to work or share a ride one day a week, or cut down on the number trips to the stores on a weekend.
The carbon tax is one of the most interesting public policy issues in a long time, exposing a lot of contradictions.
Premier Gordon Campbell has been cast as the green defender, the champion of social engineering and government's wisdom.
And NDP leader Carole James has aligned with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation in opposing the Liberals' carbon tax.
The NDP stance looks mostly like political opportunism. The NDP favours a carbon tax levied at the wholesale level, not retail. Instead of 2.3 cents at the pump, the tax would be hidden in the cost of gas. Not much of a difference.
The New Democrats are on stronger ground when they note that big industries that release greenhouse gases without burning fossil fuels are exempt from any taxes on their emissions. (Like energy companies that flare off gas from wells.)
That regulation is to come - sometime - under a new cap and trade system. It will set emission limits for industries and companies. If a company can't make its limit, it will have to buy credits on the market to offset its excess emissions.
Mostly though, it looks like the New Democrats have decided to ride the wave of public anger without worrying too much about policy distinctions.
It's a bigger wave than I expected. One of the arguments made by critics is that the tax is irrelevant. Gas prices have risen 45 cents a litre in seven months - what's an extra 2.3 cents?
But that's not the way a lot of people see it. They see the government piling on when they're already having a tough time.
You reap what you sow, St. Paul wrote. And the Liberals spent a lot of their first term sowing the idea that government was a bad thing. Campbell liked to tell audiences that one new deputy minister told him she could cut her staff by one-third - and do a better job.
The message was that government was self-serving or incompetent, certainly untrustworthy.
But the sales pitch for the carbon tax relies heavily on trust in government. And the Liberals are struggling in their efforts to win people over.
Ipsos-Reid surveyed British Columbians on the carbon tax in the week before it was introduced. A narrow majority - 53 per cent - agreed that putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions is a good idea.
It was an almost even split when people were asked if they would be willing to pay higher fuel taxes if they were offset by an income-tax cut.
And 61 per cent doubted the B.C. carbon tax would change peoples' behaviour.
The poll also found 82 per cent thought the government should be targeting major industrial emitters instead of bringing in the carbon tax.
And the poll found the public isn't buying the Liberals' claim that the tax is revenue neutral - that the $631 million to be collected next year in taxes on gas, heating oil and other fuels will be offset by other tax cuts.
Only 19 per cent of those surveyed said they believed that would happen. The sentiment that it's a straight tax increase was shared by 57 per cent of British Columbians.
That's a problem for Gordon Campbell. Right now, he needs people to trust in government.
Footnote: Support for the carbon tax is strongest on Vancouver Island, where 23 per cent of those surveyed agreed it was the best way to curb climate change. The north, where only 12 per cent agreed, and the Lower Mainland, at 15 per cent, were the least supportive.
The Liberals will be helped a lot if gas prices stabilize (and if heating fuel costs don't rise higher by fall). But if they keep rising, the public will likely be slow to let go of their resentment.
Which suggests that the Liberals' carbon tax works. If people are topping up the tank on a sunny afternoon to avoid paying the 2.3-cents-a-litre tax, then maybe we'll make other changes. We'll bike to work or share a ride one day a week, or cut down on the number trips to the stores on a weekend.
The carbon tax is one of the most interesting public policy issues in a long time, exposing a lot of contradictions.
Premier Gordon Campbell has been cast as the green defender, the champion of social engineering and government's wisdom.
And NDP leader Carole James has aligned with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation in opposing the Liberals' carbon tax.
The NDP stance looks mostly like political opportunism. The NDP favours a carbon tax levied at the wholesale level, not retail. Instead of 2.3 cents at the pump, the tax would be hidden in the cost of gas. Not much of a difference.
The New Democrats are on stronger ground when they note that big industries that release greenhouse gases without burning fossil fuels are exempt from any taxes on their emissions. (Like energy companies that flare off gas from wells.)
That regulation is to come - sometime - under a new cap and trade system. It will set emission limits for industries and companies. If a company can't make its limit, it will have to buy credits on the market to offset its excess emissions.
Mostly though, it looks like the New Democrats have decided to ride the wave of public anger without worrying too much about policy distinctions.
It's a bigger wave than I expected. One of the arguments made by critics is that the tax is irrelevant. Gas prices have risen 45 cents a litre in seven months - what's an extra 2.3 cents?
But that's not the way a lot of people see it. They see the government piling on when they're already having a tough time.
You reap what you sow, St. Paul wrote. And the Liberals spent a lot of their first term sowing the idea that government was a bad thing. Campbell liked to tell audiences that one new deputy minister told him she could cut her staff by one-third - and do a better job.
The message was that government was self-serving or incompetent, certainly untrustworthy.
But the sales pitch for the carbon tax relies heavily on trust in government. And the Liberals are struggling in their efforts to win people over.
Ipsos-Reid surveyed British Columbians on the carbon tax in the week before it was introduced. A narrow majority - 53 per cent - agreed that putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions is a good idea.
It was an almost even split when people were asked if they would be willing to pay higher fuel taxes if they were offset by an income-tax cut.
And 61 per cent doubted the B.C. carbon tax would change peoples' behaviour.
The poll also found 82 per cent thought the government should be targeting major industrial emitters instead of bringing in the carbon tax.
And the poll found the public isn't buying the Liberals' claim that the tax is revenue neutral - that the $631 million to be collected next year in taxes on gas, heating oil and other fuels will be offset by other tax cuts.
Only 19 per cent of those surveyed said they believed that would happen. The sentiment that it's a straight tax increase was shared by 57 per cent of British Columbians.
That's a problem for Gordon Campbell. Right now, he needs people to trust in government.
Footnote: Support for the carbon tax is strongest on Vancouver Island, where 23 per cent of those surveyed agreed it was the best way to curb climate change. The north, where only 12 per cent agreed, and the Lower Mainland, at 15 per cent, were the least supportive.
The Liberals will be helped a lot if gas prices stabilize (and if heating fuel costs don't rise higher by fall). But if they keep rising, the public will likely be slow to let go of their resentment.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Campaigning for healthy, tasty hospital food
Is hospital food crappy? Does it have to be? Bernard von Schulmann, fresh from his son's recent birth, says it is and it shouldn't be. He's started a blog betterhospitalfood.com to press for better tasting, healthier food and more choice in B.C. hospitals.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Worries about shuffle's effects on disabled
Mostly, everyone involved seems confused by the shuffle of services for mentally disabled adults out of the children's ministry and a new ministry for poor people, the addicted and mentally ill, housing, gambling, alcohol sales and people with developmental disabilities.
The only sure thing is that there was no consultation. This was planned a by a few people who figured they didn't need to listen to anyone else (notably the people who needed the help, and their families, and those who worked with them).
Here's a positive reaction from one group, and concern from the BC Association of Social Workers, which consistently offers quite useful observations from those who work on the frontlines. (And which is, despite its mandate to represent the issues of members, not obviously self-serving in its analysis.)
Also, for general edification, a note from children and families deputy minister Lesley du Toit on the shuffle.
For the change.
Picking up the pieces: Positive changes for children with special needs
Port Moody, B.C. June 26, 2008
The B.C. Association for Child Development and Intervention (BCACDI), which represents and advocates for agencies providing services to children and youth with special needs and their families in B.C., is encouraged by the move of services for children with special needs back to the Ministry for Children and Family Development (MCFD) from Community Living B.C. (CLBC). “This is a change that will see children's services re-integrated into the Ministry that is responsible for all children”, says Bruce Sandy, Provincial Advocate. “A host of government and other reports have pointed out the damage that service fragmentation was causing families and children due to long delays in accessing supports, the absence of appropriate supports, and constant confusion regarding who should be providing services. Many of these barriers will now be eliminated”.
“The operative word in “special needs child” is “child”, says Alanna Hendren, Vice-President of the BCACDI Board. “We have worked for many years to have people in the community recognize children with special needs as children first, so they are not defined by their disability but by their potential. A move back to MCFD shows that the government now supports this view and intends to re-integrate services for children with special needs”.
The Ministry for Children and Family Development has been working with the community, including BCACDI to develop a strategic plan and framework for action for services for children and youth with special needs that works across the Ministries of Children and Family Development, Education and Health to ensure that all services are integrated, coordinated and focused on the best outcomes for each child. This plan has been endorsed by each of the Ministers involved in addition to the Minister of State for Child Care and the Premier.
BCACDI will continue to monitor and work on behalf of service agencies and stakeholders as the children's services are transferred back to MCFD over a transition period. This will be on the agenda for our upcoming meeting with Minister Christensen.
Concerned.
Confusion and Chaos: What else will the new "Super Ministry" of Housing and Social Development offer our most vulnerable citizens?
The BC Association of Social Workers questions how the provincial government's continuing organizational change will contribute to better services to the public, and in particularly to its most vulnerable citizens. The newly created Ministry of Housing and Social Development will now assume gargantuan responsibilities for income assistance, mental health services, housing, services to adults with developmental disabilities, landlord-tenant disputes, transition houses and licensing and monitoring of gambling in BC.
Just what - and who - will be served by collapsing services and programs to vulnerable populations into a "super Ministry"? The Hughes Report was clear that the child welfare and social service system cannot withstand any more organizational change. The Representative for Children and Youth, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, has been equally clear that organizational change and service gaps are creating huge and long-lasting real life and systemic impacts for vulnerable and at-risk populations of individuals, families and communities.
Child poverty and homelessness are on the rise. Individuals and families are already struggling to access income assistance, mental health services and community support services. Their difficulties in doing have been exacerbated by the staggering and chronic systemic changes and shuffling of responsibilities along with the instability of leadership and oversight of these public services. We are deeply concerned that in the creation of this "super Ministry"? it will be that much easier for individuals to fall through the gaping holes that already exist for marginalized citizens.
We share in the BC government's five great goals with particular attention to number 3: Building the best system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities, those with special needs, children at risk and seniors.
We believe this goal and these interests are best served by continuing to provide continuity of service for income and employment assistance through a stand alone Ministry, such as the current Ministry of Employment & Income Assistance (MEIA), maintaining strategic operational planning within one organization and utilizing the strength of senior leadership available within MEIA.
We further encourage the BC government to leave responsibility for Community Living Services to adults with developmental disabilities within the mandate of the Ministry of Children & Family Development to allow further time for Community Living BC to solidify and stabilize itself as the Crown agency responsible for provision of services to adults with developmental disabilities and their families. With the move of adult services from MCFD to MHSD there will be a further disconnect between the continuity of services and supports, which will have lasting impacts on generations to come.
We also renew our commitment to working collaboratively with the BC government, its leaders and other important stakeholders and leaders to strategically stabilize, innovate and renew the social service, mental health, housing and child welfare systems so that BC can truly offer all children, youth, and families the best future possible as BC prepares to enter the light at centre stage of the international and global media and community.
And the deputy minister's comments.
From: Erickson, Jennifer MCF:EX
Sent: Tue 6/24/2008 4:56 PM
To: MCF All Exchange mailboxes
Cc: Burns, Heather PAB:EX; Greschner, John RCY:EX Subject: Message from the Deputy Minister
Dear colleagues:
As you may be aware, the Premier shuffled his Cabinet yesterday. The shuffle did not impact either of our ministers; Minister Tom Christensen and Minister Linda Reid will continue in their current roles as Minister of Children and Family Development and Minister of State for Child Care respectively.
However, responsibility for Community Living British Columbia (CLBC) was moved to the newly created Ministry of Housing and Social Development. MCFD will assume responsibility for children's services currently delivered by CLBC. This change will not take effect immediately and we have already started working with CLBC to ensure that the best interests of children are protected through the transition phase.
Some of the communication that was released yesterday with details about the shuffle was unclear about the location of current ministry programs. I just wanted to be clear that Early Childhood Development, Youth Services and Child and Youth Mental Health all remain responsibilities of this ministry and will not be moving. Other than the move of CLBC, there were no other changes to the current ministry responsibilities.
Kind regards,
Lesley du Toit
The only sure thing is that there was no consultation. This was planned a by a few people who figured they didn't need to listen to anyone else (notably the people who needed the help, and their families, and those who worked with them).
Here's a positive reaction from one group, and concern from the BC Association of Social Workers, which consistently offers quite useful observations from those who work on the frontlines. (And which is, despite its mandate to represent the issues of members, not obviously self-serving in its analysis.)
Also, for general edification, a note from children and families deputy minister Lesley du Toit on the shuffle.
For the change.
Picking up the pieces: Positive changes for children with special needs
Port Moody, B.C. June 26, 2008
The B.C. Association for Child Development and Intervention (BCACDI), which represents and advocates for agencies providing services to children and youth with special needs and their families in B.C., is encouraged by the move of services for children with special needs back to the Ministry for Children and Family Development (MCFD) from Community Living B.C. (CLBC). “This is a change that will see children's services re-integrated into the Ministry that is responsible for all children”, says Bruce Sandy, Provincial Advocate. “A host of government and other reports have pointed out the damage that service fragmentation was causing families and children due to long delays in accessing supports, the absence of appropriate supports, and constant confusion regarding who should be providing services. Many of these barriers will now be eliminated”.
“The operative word in “special needs child” is “child”, says Alanna Hendren, Vice-President of the BCACDI Board. “We have worked for many years to have people in the community recognize children with special needs as children first, so they are not defined by their disability but by their potential. A move back to MCFD shows that the government now supports this view and intends to re-integrate services for children with special needs”.
The Ministry for Children and Family Development has been working with the community, including BCACDI to develop a strategic plan and framework for action for services for children and youth with special needs that works across the Ministries of Children and Family Development, Education and Health to ensure that all services are integrated, coordinated and focused on the best outcomes for each child. This plan has been endorsed by each of the Ministers involved in addition to the Minister of State for Child Care and the Premier.
BCACDI will continue to monitor and work on behalf of service agencies and stakeholders as the children's services are transferred back to MCFD over a transition period. This will be on the agenda for our upcoming meeting with Minister Christensen.
Concerned.
Confusion and Chaos: What else will the new "Super Ministry" of Housing and Social Development offer our most vulnerable citizens?
The BC Association of Social Workers questions how the provincial government's continuing organizational change will contribute to better services to the public, and in particularly to its most vulnerable citizens. The newly created Ministry of Housing and Social Development will now assume gargantuan responsibilities for income assistance, mental health services, housing, services to adults with developmental disabilities, landlord-tenant disputes, transition houses and licensing and monitoring of gambling in BC.
Just what - and who - will be served by collapsing services and programs to vulnerable populations into a "super Ministry"? The Hughes Report was clear that the child welfare and social service system cannot withstand any more organizational change. The Representative for Children and Youth, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, has been equally clear that organizational change and service gaps are creating huge and long-lasting real life and systemic impacts for vulnerable and at-risk populations of individuals, families and communities.
Child poverty and homelessness are on the rise. Individuals and families are already struggling to access income assistance, mental health services and community support services. Their difficulties in doing have been exacerbated by the staggering and chronic systemic changes and shuffling of responsibilities along with the instability of leadership and oversight of these public services. We are deeply concerned that in the creation of this "super Ministry"? it will be that much easier for individuals to fall through the gaping holes that already exist for marginalized citizens.
We share in the BC government's five great goals with particular attention to number 3: Building the best system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities, those with special needs, children at risk and seniors.
We believe this goal and these interests are best served by continuing to provide continuity of service for income and employment assistance through a stand alone Ministry, such as the current Ministry of Employment & Income Assistance (MEIA), maintaining strategic operational planning within one organization and utilizing the strength of senior leadership available within MEIA.
We further encourage the BC government to leave responsibility for Community Living Services to adults with developmental disabilities within the mandate of the Ministry of Children & Family Development to allow further time for Community Living BC to solidify and stabilize itself as the Crown agency responsible for provision of services to adults with developmental disabilities and their families. With the move of adult services from MCFD to MHSD there will be a further disconnect between the continuity of services and supports, which will have lasting impacts on generations to come.
We also renew our commitment to working collaboratively with the BC government, its leaders and other important stakeholders and leaders to strategically stabilize, innovate and renew the social service, mental health, housing and child welfare systems so that BC can truly offer all children, youth, and families the best future possible as BC prepares to enter the light at centre stage of the international and global media and community.
And the deputy minister's comments.
From: Erickson, Jennifer MCF:EX
Sent: Tue 6/24/2008 4:56 PM
To: MCF All Exchange mailboxes
Cc: Burns, Heather PAB:EX; Greschner, John RCY:EX Subject: Message from the Deputy Minister
Dear colleagues:
As you may be aware, the Premier shuffled his Cabinet yesterday. The shuffle did not impact either of our ministers; Minister Tom Christensen and Minister Linda Reid will continue in their current roles as Minister of Children and Family Development and Minister of State for Child Care respectively.
However, responsibility for Community Living British Columbia (CLBC) was moved to the newly created Ministry of Housing and Social Development. MCFD will assume responsibility for children's services currently delivered by CLBC. This change will not take effect immediately and we have already started working with CLBC to ensure that the best interests of children are protected through the transition phase.
Some of the communication that was released yesterday with details about the shuffle was unclear about the location of current ministry programs. I just wanted to be clear that Early Childhood Development, Youth Services and Child and Youth Mental Health all remain responsibilities of this ministry and will not be moving. Other than the move of CLBC, there were no other changes to the current ministry responsibilities.
Kind regards,
Lesley du Toit
Friday, June 27, 2008
Shuffle angers supporters of disabled adults
It's been a rough and chaotic seven years for people with mental disabilities and their families in B.C.
And once again, they have been plunged into uncertainty. Without warning or consultation, responsibility for the $680 million worth of services was swept out the Ministry of Children and Families and into the newly created Ministry of Housing and Social Development.
The main advocacy group calls the change a shocking betrayal.
The clients and their families had big hopes when the Liberals were elected in 2001. They stayed optimistic despite cuts to services for the developmentally disabled.
Most cheered government plans for Community Living BC, the new Crown corporation created to deliver services, and promises of more choice and control for those with mental disabilities.
And then it fall apart, in a tangle of mismanagement, shoddy planning and ministerial fumbling.
Community Living BC would be delivering services by 2003, said then minister Gordon Hogg. It wasn't. In 2004, a report found there was no real plan for the Crown corporation.
It eventually started operating in 2005 and immediately found it had too little money. Waiting lists climbed into the thousands. Exhausted parents - some in their 70s - were told there was no help available for their mentally disabled children. People were pushed from group homes.
But families held on to the hope that, with some stability, things would improve. The cabinet shuffle changed that.
Community Living BC had been under the Ministry of Children and Families. That was intended to allow a smooth transition. Children with these kinds of disabilities received services from the ministry and Community Living BC until they turned 19, when the Crown corporation took over.
But with no warning or consultation, services for adults with mental disabilities were swept over to Rich Coleman's new ministry last week.
No one saw this coming. And no one outside government - and few inside - know what it means.
It wasn't until almost 5 p.m. on the day after the shuffle that children and families deputy minister Lesley du Toit sent ministry staff an e-mail confirming Community Living B.C. was going. It would now only provide services to adults.
That would mean, du Toit continued, that children and families would have to figure out how to deliver services to the 8,000 children who would be dropped by Community Living B.C. (Du Toit also responded to "unclear" communication on program shifts in the shuffle. If government employees couldn't figure out what was happening, the public didn't stand a chance.)
The B.C. Association for Community Living is the main advocacy group for thee people. It has supported the government's efforts, even when things went wrong.
Until now. The shift to the new ministry "undermines the government's commitment and vision to provide a seamless, life-long system of support for people with developmental disabilities," it said.
The association was "shocked and disappointed at the separation of the service delivery system for children with special needs and adults with developmental disabilities." Families had been betrayed.
It all suggests a decision made without consultation with the most knowledgeable people - the ones who use and deliver the services. Parents, hoping for a good life for their developmentally disabled daughter graduating from a special school program. Or wondering what will become of their son when they aren't around to house and care for him.
No one had proposed this kind of change. It was dropped like a hammer from the blue. And now the community wonders if the government has lost interest in Community Living BC and a family-centered approach to support. (And families wonder about Coleman's interest and expertise in their issues.)
It all suggests arbitrary change made in an autocratic way, and yet another lurch in direction for both the children's ministry and services for disabled adults.
It might make sense. So far, there are more questions than answers.
And once again, they have been plunged into uncertainty. Without warning or consultation, responsibility for the $680 million worth of services was swept out the Ministry of Children and Families and into the newly created Ministry of Housing and Social Development.
The main advocacy group calls the change a shocking betrayal.
The clients and their families had big hopes when the Liberals were elected in 2001. They stayed optimistic despite cuts to services for the developmentally disabled.
Most cheered government plans for Community Living BC, the new Crown corporation created to deliver services, and promises of more choice and control for those with mental disabilities.
And then it fall apart, in a tangle of mismanagement, shoddy planning and ministerial fumbling.
Community Living BC would be delivering services by 2003, said then minister Gordon Hogg. It wasn't. In 2004, a report found there was no real plan for the Crown corporation.
It eventually started operating in 2005 and immediately found it had too little money. Waiting lists climbed into the thousands. Exhausted parents - some in their 70s - were told there was no help available for their mentally disabled children. People were pushed from group homes.
But families held on to the hope that, with some stability, things would improve. The cabinet shuffle changed that.
Community Living BC had been under the Ministry of Children and Families. That was intended to allow a smooth transition. Children with these kinds of disabilities received services from the ministry and Community Living BC until they turned 19, when the Crown corporation took over.
But with no warning or consultation, services for adults with mental disabilities were swept over to Rich Coleman's new ministry last week.
No one saw this coming. And no one outside government - and few inside - know what it means.
It wasn't until almost 5 p.m. on the day after the shuffle that children and families deputy minister Lesley du Toit sent ministry staff an e-mail confirming Community Living B.C. was going. It would now only provide services to adults.
That would mean, du Toit continued, that children and families would have to figure out how to deliver services to the 8,000 children who would be dropped by Community Living B.C. (Du Toit also responded to "unclear" communication on program shifts in the shuffle. If government employees couldn't figure out what was happening, the public didn't stand a chance.)
The B.C. Association for Community Living is the main advocacy group for thee people. It has supported the government's efforts, even when things went wrong.
Until now. The shift to the new ministry "undermines the government's commitment and vision to provide a seamless, life-long system of support for people with developmental disabilities," it said.
The association was "shocked and disappointed at the separation of the service delivery system for children with special needs and adults with developmental disabilities." Families had been betrayed.
It all suggests a decision made without consultation with the most knowledgeable people - the ones who use and deliver the services. Parents, hoping for a good life for their developmentally disabled daughter graduating from a special school program. Or wondering what will become of their son when they aren't around to house and care for him.
No one had proposed this kind of change. It was dropped like a hammer from the blue. And now the community wonders if the government has lost interest in Community Living BC and a family-centered approach to support. (And families wonder about Coleman's interest and expertise in their issues.)
It all suggests arbitrary change made in an autocratic way, and yet another lurch in direction for both the children's ministry and services for disabled adults.
It might make sense. So far, there are more questions than answers.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Shuffle panned by community living group
As people get a chance to look at Rich Coleman's new ministry, concern is mounting about the government's intentions for some disadvanted British Columbians. I'll take a look in a post soon, but here's the response from the BC Association for Community Living. They are not happy that responsibility for adults with mental disabilities is being shuffled out of the Ministry of Children and Families.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
