MINISTRY OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT …€¦ · Group Infant / Toddler 13 Group Age 3-5 16...

MINISTRY OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT REPORT

Volume 6 March 2015

Reporting Period April 2014 – March 2015

MCFD Performance Management Dashboard March 31, 2015

Service Line Performance Indicator Direction Page

1.01 Spare Capacity in Licensed Child Care Spaces

Group Infant / Toddler • 13

Group Age 3-5 • 16

Group School Age • 16

Total Group • 16

Family • 16

Group and Family • 16

Services for Children and

Youth with Special Needs

(CYSN)2.01 Median Annual Cost per CYSN Residential Placement • 25

Child and Youth Mental

Health3.01 Child and Youth Mental Health Services Client Service Satisfaction • 31

Permanency

4.01 Families with a FDR with a Subsequent Investigation and Protection Finding • 38

4.02 Ratio of FDR to INV • 36

4.06 Children Admitted into Care That Previously had a Recent Out-of-Care Placement • 45

4.11 Investigations with Prot. Finding with a Subsequent Investigation with Prot. Finding • 40

4.16a OCO Admissions per 1,000 CIC Admissions • 48

4.16b Admissions into Care per 1,000 Protection reports • 48

5.01 CYIC who Exited to Permanency • 53

5.06 Recurrence of Maltreatment • 51

5.76 Children and Youth Placed in Adoption Homes • 104

5.77 Time from permanent ward to adoption placement • 109

5.61 Aboriginal Children Cared for by Aboriginal Communities and Service Providers • 64

5.81 Aboriginal Children and Youth Adopted to Aboriginal Families • 107

Stability

5.11a In First Year of Current Episode of Care - CYIC That Did Not Move in the Last 6 Months • 57

5.11b In First Year of Current Episode of Care - CYIC That Did Not Move • 57

Cost Effectiveness

5.66 Average Annual Cost per Child and Youth in Care (Non-CYSN) • 72

5.71 Funded Bed Utilization Rate (MCFD only) • 74

Wellbeing

5.16 Grade Progression (CYIC) • 80

5.21 Age Appropriate Grade (CYIC) • 77

5.31a Foundation Skills Assessment, Reading • 86,89

5.31b Foundation Skills Assessment, Writing • 87,90

5.31c Foundation Skills Assessment, Numeracy • 85,88

5.41 Age Appropriate Grade (YAG) • 97

5.46 Grade Progression (YAG) • 99

5.51 High School Completion Rate (YAG) • 101

5.36 Claiming Income Assistance Within Six Months of Ageing-Out (CYIC) • 66

5.56 Claiming Income Assistance Within Six Months of Ageing-Out (YAG) • 91

6.01 Clients Receiving Formal Diversion Services That Did Not Commit a New Offence • 113

6.06 Clients Receiving First Community Sentence Services That Did Not Commit a new offence • 114

6.11 Clients Receiving a First Custody Sentence Services That did Not Commit a New Offence • 114

6.16 Youth Court Cases per 10,000 Youth Population • 115

6.21 Youth in Custody per 10,000 Youth Population • 115

Early Years Services: Early

Childhood Development and

Child Care

CFS & Adoption Services

Youth Justice

Key: Green - Performance Improving, Black - Status Quo Yellow - Performance challenges, Red - Performance Deteriorating

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT ..................................................................................................................1

SDA DEMOGRAPHIC DATA .................................................................................................................4

PROVINCIAL LEVEL SERVICE, HUMAN RESOURCE AND EXPENDITURE DATA .........................................6

PROVINCIAL EXPENDITURE .................................................................................................................8

SERVICE LINE OPERATIONAL DATA ................................................................................................... 10

EARLY YEARS SERVICES: EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD CARE .................................. 10 Summary: ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Case Data and Trends: ........................................................................................................................ 10 Performance Indicators: ..................................................................................................................... 13 Expenditure Data: ............................................................................................................................... 23

SERVICE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH WITH SPECIAL NEEDS (CYSN) .................................................... 25 Summary: ............................................................................................................................................ 25 Case Data and Trends: ........................................................................................................................ 25 Performance Indicators: ..................................................................................................................... 26 Expenditure Data: ............................................................................................................................... 30

CHILD AND YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH (CYMH) .................................................................................... 31 Summary: ............................................................................................................................................ 31 Case Data and Trends: ........................................................................................................................ 31 Performance Indicators: ..................................................................................................................... 32 Expenditure Data: ............................................................................................................................... 34

CHILD SAFETY, FAMILY, YOUTH AND CHILDREN IN CARE SERVICES .................................................... 35 Child Safety Services: Investigations and Family Development Response ............................................ 35

Summary: ............................................................................................................................................ 35 Case Data and Trends: ........................................................................................................................ 36 Performance Indicators: ..................................................................................................................... 37

Family, Child and Youth Support and Care Services ............................................................................... 44 Summary: ............................................................................................................................................ 44 Case Data and Trends: ........................................................................................................................ 45 Performance Indicators: ..................................................................................................................... 46

Expenditure Data: ................................................................................................................................. 104

ADOPTION SERVICES ...................................................................................................................... 105 Summary: .......................................................................................................................................... 105 Performance Indicators: ................................................................................................................... 105 Expenditure Data: ............................................................................................................................. 112

YOUTH JUSTICE .............................................................................................................................. 114 Summary: .......................................................................................................................................... 114 Case Data and Trends: ...................................................................................................................... 114 Performance Indicators: ................................................................................................................... 114 Expenditure Data: ............................................................................................................................. 117

Subject Index

Caseload

Average Monthly Child Care Space Utilization Rates ... 16 Average Monthly Child Care Space Utilization Rates, by

Community Size....................................................... 18 Average Monthly Proportion of Facilities with Child

Care Space Utilization of 60% or Higher, BC ........... 20 Child Care Major Capital Funding (Facilities Supported)

................................................................................ 10 Child Care Minor Capital Funding (Facilities Supported)

................................................................................ 10 Child Care Operating Funding Program (Facilities

Supported) .............................................................. 10 Child Care Resource & Referral (Number of Referrals) 10 Children and Youth in Care .......................................... 45 Children and Youth in Care and Out-of-Care ............... 44 Children and Youth in Care by Aboriginal Status ......... 44 Children Whose Child Care is Subsidized, Monthly

Average ................................................................... 11 Communities with Highest Overall Utilization Rates ... 18 Communities with Lowest Overall Utilization Rates .... 19 Community Youth Justice Caseload ........................... 113 Contracted Group & Family Child Care Spaces, Monthly

Average ................................................................... 12 Early Childhood Educator Registry (Registered

Individuals and Organizations) ................................ 10 Incarceration (Remand/PreTrial Detention Only) ...... 113 Incarceration Caseload (Remand and Sentenced) ..... 113 Incarceration Caseload ISSP ....................................... 113 MCFD Specialized CYSN Provincial Services – Number of

Clients Served .......................................................... 28 Median Monthly Parent Fees by Care Type – Child Care

Operating Funding Program Family Facilities .......... 21 Median Monthly Parent Fees by Care Type – Child Care

Operating Funding Program Group Facilities .......... 21 Open CYSN Files ........................................................... 24 Utilization Rates for Group Facilities by Size, ............... 20 Youth Court Cases ...................................................... 115 Youth Court Cases per 10,000 Youth Population ....... 115 Youth in Custody ........................................................ 115 Youth in Custody per 10,000 Youth ........................... 115

Demographics

Child & Youth Population ............................................... 4 Financial

Expenditure by Account Classifications (STOB) .............. 8 Expenditure by Service Line ........................................... 8 Expenditure Data Adoption Services.......................... 112 Expenditure Data Child & Youth Mental Health Services

................................................................................ 33 Expenditure Data Child Care Services .......................... 23 Expenditure Data Child Safety, Family Support &

Children in Care Services ....................................... 103 Expenditure Data Early Childhood Development ......... 22 Expenditure Data Services for Children &Youth with

Special Needs .......................................................... 29

Expenditure Data Youth Justice Services ................... 116 Performance Indicator

Children Admitted into Care with a Recent Out-of-Care Placement ............................................................... 46

Discharges to Permanency .......................................... 54 Performance Indicators

Aboriginal CYIC Cared for By Aboriginal Communities and Service Providers ............................................. 64

Age-Appropriate Grade for Youth on Youth Agreements ................................................................................ 97

Age-Appropriate Grade of Children and Youth in Care (CYIC) ...................................................................... 77

Child and Youth Mental Health Services Client Service31 Children and Youth Admitted into Care That Previously

Had a Recent Out-of-Care Placement ..................... 45 Children and Youth in Care Funded Bed Utilization Rate

................................................................................ 74 Children and Youth in Care Who Exited to Permanency

................................................................................ 53 Children and Youth in Care Who Finish School with a

High School Credential ........................................... 82 CYSN Cost per Case...................................................... 25 CYSN Cost per Case Excluding CYIC ............................. 72 Five Year Recidivism of First Community Sentence ... 114 Five Year Recidivism of First Custody Sentence ........ 114 Five Year Recidivism of Formal Diversion Clients ...... 113 Foundation Skills Assessment for Reading, Writing and

Numeracy, Grade 4 and Grade 7 ............................ 84 Grade Progression of Children and Youth in Care ....... 80 Grade Progression of Youth under a Youth Agreement

................................................................................ 99 Per Cent of Children Eligible for Adoption Placed in

Adoption Homes ................................................... 104 Placement Stability ...................................................... 57 Proportion of Aboriginal Children and Youth Adopted to

Aboriginal Families ............................................... 107 Proportion of Families Investigated with a Protection

Finding with a Subsequent Investigation and Protection Finding in the Next 12 Months.............. 40

Proportion of Families with a Closed Family Development Response with a Subsequent Investigation and Protection Finding in the Next 12 Months ................................................................... 38

Ratio of Family Development Response to Investigations.......................................................... 36

Recurrence of Maltreatment of Former Children and Youth in Care .......................................................... 51

Relative Use of Admissions into Care and Admissions to Out-of-Care Controlling for Protection Reports ..... 48

Spare Capacity in Licensed Child Care Spaces ............. 13 Time Taken for CYIC to Go from Permanent Status to

Adoption Placement ............................................. 109 Youth Discharged from Care and Subsequently Claiming

Income Assistance (IA) Expected to Work within Six Months of Aging Out 66

Youth on a Youth Agreement Who Finish School with a High School Credential .......................................... 101

Youth Who Claim Income Assistance (IA)

Expected to Work within Six Months of Aging Out of Youth Agreements ............................................. 91

Service Line Index

Early Years Services: Early Childhood Development and Child Care Average Monthly Child Care Space Utilization Rates ........ 16

Average Monthly Child Care Space Utilization Rates, by

Community Size ........................................................... 18

Average Monthly Proportion of Facilities with Child Care

Space Utilization of 60% or Higher, BC ........................ 20

Child Care M Major Capital Funding (Facilities Supported)

..................................................................................... 10

Child Care Minor Capital Funding (Facilities Supported) .. 10

Child Care Operating Funding Program (Facilities

Supported) ................................................................... 10

Child Care Resource & Referral (Number of Referrals) ..... 10

Children Whose Child Care is Subsidized, Monthly Average

..................................................................................... 11

Communities with Highest Overall Utilization Rates ........ 18

Communities with Lowest Overall Utilization Rates ........ 19

Contracted Group & Family Child Care Spaces, Monthly

Average ....................................................................... 12

Early Childhood Educator Registry (Registered Individuals

and Organizations) ...................................................... 10

Expenditure Data Child Care Services .............................. 23

Expenditure Data Early Childhood Development ............. 22

Median Monthly Parent Fees by Care Type – Child Care

Operating Funding Program Family Facilities .............. 21

Median Monthly Parent Fees by Care Type – Child Care

Operating Funding Program Group Facilities .............. 21

Spare Capacity in Licensed Child Care Spaces .................. 13

Utilization Rates for Group Facilities by Size .................... 20

Children and Youth with Special Needs (CYSN) CYSN Cost per Case ........................................................... 25

Expenditure Data Services for Children &Youth with

Special Needs ............................................................... 29

MCFD Specialized CYSN Provincial Services – Number of

Clients Served .............................................................. 28

Open CYSN Files ............................................................... 24

Child and Youth Mental Health (CYMH) Child and Youth Mental Health Services Client Service .... 31 Expenditure Data Child & Youth Mental Health Services . 33

Child Safety, Family, Youth and Children in Care Services Aboriginal CYIC Cared for By Aboriginal Communities and

Service Providers .......................................................... 64

Age-Appropriate Grade for Youth on Youth Agreements . 97

Age-Appropriate Grade of Children and Youth in Care

(CYIC) ............................................................................ 77

Children Admitted into Care with a Recent Out-of-Care

Placement .................................................................... 46

Children and Youth Admitted into Care That Previously

Had a Recent Out-of-Care Placement .......................... 45

Children and Youth in Care Funded Bed Utilization Rate . 74

Children and Youth in Care Who Exited to Permanency... 53

Children and Youth in Care Who Finish School with a High

School Credential ......................................................... 82

CYSN Cost per Case Excluding CYIC ................................... 72

Discharges to Permanency................................................ 54

Foundation Skills Assessment for Reading, Writing and

Numeracy, Grade 4 and Grade 7 .................................. 84

Grade Progression of Children and Youth in Care ............ 80

Grade Progression of Youth under a Youth Agreement ... 99

Placement Stability ........................................................... 57

Proportion of Families Investigated with a Protection

Finding with a Subsequent Investigation and Protection

Finding in the Next 12 Months .................................... 40

Proportion of Families with a Closed Family Development

Response with a Subsequent Investigation and

Protection Finding in the Next 12 Months .................. 38

Ratio of Family Development Response to Investigations 36

Recurrence of Maltreatment of Former Children and Youth

in Care ......................................................................... 51

Relative Use of Admissions into Care and Admissions to

Out-of-Care Controlling for Protection Reports .......... 48

Youth Discharged from Care and Subsequently Claiming

Income Assistance (IA)

Expected to Work within Six Months of Aging Out ..... 66

Youth on a Youth Agreement Who Finish School with a

High School Credential ............................................... 101

Youth Who Claim Income Assistance (IA)

Expected to Work within Six Months of Aging Out of Youth Agreements .................................................. 91

Adoption Services Expenditure Data Adoption Services .............................. 112

Expenditure Data Child Safety, Family Support & Children

in Care Services .......................................................... 103

Per Cent of Children Eligible for Adoption Placed in

Adoption Homes ........................................................ 104

Proportion of Aboriginal Children and Youth Adopted to

Aboriginal Families .................................................... 107

Time Taken for CYIC to Go from Permanent Status to

Adoption Placement .................................................. 109

Youth Justice Community Youth Justice Caseload ................................ 113

Expenditure Data Youth Justice Services ........................ 116

Five Year Recidivism of First Community Sentence ........ 114

Five Year Recidivism of First Custody Sentence .............. 114

Five Year Recidivism of Formal Diversion Clients............ 113

Incarceration Caseload (Remand and Sentenced) .......... 113

Incarceration Caseload (Remand/PreTrial Detention Only)

................................................................................... 113

Incarceration Caseload ISSP ........................................... 113

Youth Court Cases .......................................................... 115

Youth Court Cases per 10,000 Youth Population ........... 115

Youth in Custody ............................................................ 115

Youth in Custody per 10,000 Youth ................................ 115

Other Child & Youth Population .................................................... 4

Expenditure by Account Classifications (STOB) .................. 8

Expenditure by Service Line ............................................... 8

NOTE: Data Changes At the end of July 2015 MCFD completed a project to improve the quality of electronically held

Children and Youth in Care data. Because of a time lag between the closure of some files and the

electronic data entry of closure, the true number of Children and Youth in Care is lower than

previously reported. Volume 4 of this report gave the number of Children and Youth in Care at

March 31, 2014 as 8,169; this has been revised to 7,934. After completing the file clean-up, the

number for July 31, 2015 is 7,210.

1

The Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) supports healthy child development

through its commitment to collaborative professional practice delivered across a range of services.

These services strive to maximize the potential of children and youth and achieve meaningful

outcomes for children, youth and families. MCFD’s approach to service delivery is focused on

service excellence, operational excellence and continuous learning and growth.

MCFD is committed to improving outcomes for children, youth and families by implementing

effective performance management. Performance management supports the ministry in measuring

progress with its strategic and operational agenda.

This Performance Management report is designed to support improvements in service delivery,

outcomes, human resource and financial and costs management performance by providing

information to support effective decision making at all levels. This semi-annual public report

highlights the importance of increasing the overall scope, quality and usability of operational

data to improve practice effectiveness and operational efficiency.

For more information or to provide feedback, please contact:

https://extranet.gov.bc.ca/forms/gov/contact/index.html

Key Elements This report includes the following key elements:

Service Lines and Service Delivery Structure – an outline of ministry service lines and

structure.

Service Delivery Area (SDA) Demographic Data – a snapshot of the relative potential

demand for services across each SDA to help inform service delivery, human resource and

budget planning.

Provincial Level Service, Human Resource and Expenditure Data – basic provincial level

data on MCFD operations.

Service Line Operational Data – operational case, expenditure, and outcome data for

each of the service lines. As this section is further developed in future reports, it will

provide basic analysis of trends and variation in demand/accessibility, workload, and

costs.

https://extranet.gov.bc.ca/forms/gov/contact/index.html

2

Service Lines and Service Delivery Structure MCFD delivers or funds services across six service lines to approximately 156,000 children, youth

and families every year:

Early Years Services (Early Childhood Development/Child Care) (ECD/CC)

Services for Children and Youth with Special Needs (CYSN)

Child and Youth Mental Health Services (CYMH)

Child Safety, Family, Youth and Children in Care Services (CS/CYIC)

Adoption Services (AS)

Youth Justice Services (YJ)

With the exception of Early Years Services, some Services for Children and Youth with Special

Needs, and Youth Justice Services that are administered centrally, services are delivered across

the province in 13 Service Delivery Areas (SDA). Each SDA is divided into Local Services Areas

(LSA). There are 47 LSAs:

3

SDA services are delivered through:

MCFD teams (each led by a Team Leader):

Children and Youth with Special Needs Service Teams

Child and Youth Mental Health Service Teams

Child Safety Service Teams

Children in Care Guardianship Service Teams

Adoption Service Teams

Youth Justice Probationary Service Teams

Youth Service Teams

Delegated Aboriginal Agencies (providing a range of services):

Voluntary Family, Youth and Kinship Care Support Services

Child Safety Services

Children in Care Guardianship Services

Adoption Services

Contracted Community Social Services Agencies (including Aboriginal community social service agencies, providing a range of services):

Early Childhood Development

Children and Youth with Special Needs

Child and Youth Mental Health Services

Child Safety Voluntary Family, Youth and Kinship Care Support Services

Children in Care Guardianship Support Services (includes foster care)

Adoption Services

Youth Justice Services

In addition to SDA services, a number of services are coordinated and delivered provincially

including: Child Care Subsidy and Child Care Operating Funding; Autism, Services for the Deaf

and Hard of Hearing; campus based Mental Health Services; and Youth Justice Institutions and

Forensic Services.

Service delivery is linked to a provincial office located in Victoria with sub-offices in Vancouver,

Kelowna and Prince George that provide:

Service Delivery Oversight

Legislation and Policy

Offices of the Provincial Director of Child Welfare

Justice

Adoptions

Aboriginal Service Improvement

Quality Assurance

Corporate Services (Finance, Contract Management, Strategic Human Resource Management, and Modelling, Analysis & Information Management)

4

Population and Population Proportion by Age Cohort, by SDA 2015

Service Delivery Area Population 0 to 18

yrs. 0 to 2 yrs.

3 to 5 yrs.

6 to 12 yrs.

13 to18 yrs.

BC 4,681,748 885,189 132,679 134,367 320,974 297,169

Kootenays 154,957 28,529 3,851 4,374 10,699 9,605 Okanagan 355,781 62,103 8,622 9,076 22,717 21,688 Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 221,678 41,170 5,679 6,211 15,166 14,114 East Fraser 293,482 66,317 10,041 10,405 24,433 21,438 North Fraser 653,857 123,612 19,314 18,894 44,247 41,157 South Fraser 788,499 172,264 25,277 26,090 62,887 58,010 Vancouver/Richmond 871,079 138,576 23,517 20,935 48,359 45,765 Coast/North Shore 283,481 54,315 7,096 7,786 20,129 19,304 South Vancouver Island 449,643 75,621 11,223 11,490 27,494 25,414 North Vancouver Island 318,488 55,425 7,760 8,395 20,243 19,027 Northwest 74,228 17,373 2,556 2,546 6,435 5,836 North Central 144,128 31,494 4,581 4,935 11,582 10,396 Northeast 72,447 18,390 3,162 3,230 6,583 5,415

Service Delivery Area Population Proportions

0 to 18 yrs.

0 to 2 yrs.

3 to 5 yrs.

6 to 12 yrs.

13to 18 yrs.

BC 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Kootenays 3.3% 3.2% 2.9% 3.3% 3.3% 3.2% Okanagan 7.6% 7.0% 6.5% 6.8% 7.1% 7.3% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 4.7% 4.7% 4.3% 4.6% 4.7% 4.7% East Fraser 6.3% 7.5% 7.6% 7.7% 7.6% 7.2% North Fraser 14.0% 14.0% 14.6% 14.1% 13.8% 13.8% South Fraser 16.8% 19.5% 19.1% 19.4% 19.6% 19.5% Vancouver/Richmond 18.6% 15.7% 17.7% 15.6% 15.1% 15.4% Coast/North Shore 6.1% 6.1% 5.3% 5.8% 6.3% 6.5% South Vancouver Island 9.6% 8.5% 8.5% 8.6% 8.6% 8.6% North Vancouver Island 6.8% 6.3% 5.8% 6.2% 6.3% 6.4% Northwest 1.6% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 2.0% 2.0% North Central 3.1% 3.6% 3.5% 3.7% 3.6% 3.5% Northeast 1.5% 2.1% 2.4% 2.4% 2.1% 1.8%

5

Child Population (Ages 0 to18) Years 2009 to 2015 and Forecast to 2020

Aboriginal Child Population by Age Cohort and SDA, 2011 National Household Survey

Service Delivery Area

Aboriginal Population

(2011) 0 to18

yrs. 0 to 2 yrs.

3 to 5 yrs.

6 to 12 yrs.

13 to 18 yrs.

BC 232,290 79,455 11,835 12,030 27,835 27,755

Kootenay 8,465 3,075 390 440 1,150 1,095 Okanagan 19,200 7,095 930 1,000 2,705 2,460 Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 26,530 8,880 1,230 1,425 3,060 3,165 East Fraser 18,405 7,295 1,030 1,010 2,590 2,665 North Fraser 14,545 4,425 675 645 1,485 1,620 South Fraser 18,870 6,875 1,090 840 2,625 2,320 Vancouver Richmond 14,780 3,600 570 535 1,285 1,210 Coast / North Shore 12,425 3,690 520 485 1,270 1,415 South Vancouver Island 22,050 7,435 1,250 1,180 2,500 2,505 North Vancouver Island 25,395 8,825 1,445 1,445 2,975 2,960 Northwest 22,080 7,275 1,100 1,325 2,535 2,315 North Central 20,360 7,600 1,090 1,155 2,590 2,765 Northeast 9,180 3,370 520 525 1,110 1,215

840,000

850,000

860,000

870,000

880,000

890,000

900,000

910,000

920,000

930,000

940,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

6

Children Served:

Over a one year period MCFD serves approximately 156,000 distinct children and their families,

18% of the 0 to18 population.

Human Resource Management:

MCFD Workforce Composition – Regular Employees by Service Delivery Area, March 31, 2015 (Employee Count Regular and Auxiliary Employees by SDA, March 31, 2014 and March 31, 2015)

Service Delivery Area Employee Count1 March 31, 2014

Employee Count March 31, 2015

BC2 4,464 4,4763

Kootenays 134 133 Okanagan 261 242 Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 231 237 East Fraser 209 203 North Fraser 311 306 South Fraser 411 416 Vancouver/Richmond 254 240 Coast/North Shore 155 163 South Vancouver Island 305 315 North Vancouver Island 289 293 Northwest 128 134 North Central 181 186 Northeast 72 77 ADM Service Delivery 4 2 Service Delivery Operations 4 9 Youth Custody 298 2594 Youth Forensic 121 118 Maples 128 120 Complex Needs Dedicated Facility 0 21 Facilities Administration 23 23 After Hours 109 105 Learning & Development 11 12 Operations & Management Performance 7 8 Provincial Office 570 623 Provincial Services 248 231

1 Data includes both regular and auxiliary employees, including those currently on leave. 2 Source: CHIPS as of April 14, 2015. 3 As of March 31, 2015, the total employee count of 4,476 was comprised of 4,091 regular and 385 are auxiliary employees. 4 The decrease in the number of staff in Youth Custody was due in part to the closure of the Victoria Youth Custody Centre.

7

MCFD Workforce Composition – Regular Employees on March 31, 20151,2

Overall, MCFD’s workforce is comprised of 91% regular and 9% auxiliary employees. Provincial

Services, After Hours, Youth Custody, Maples, and Facilities Administration (which include food

service workers) have a larger percentage of auxiliary employees due to the need to cover

facilities that operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.

1 The bar chart presents regular employees as a proportion of the total workforce within a given service delivery area, whereas

auxiliary employees account for the remaining proportion of the workforce. Data includes both active employees and those currently on leave.

2 Source: CHIPS as of April 14, 2015.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

8

Provincial Expenditure

Expenditure by Service Line, April 2014 to March 2015 ($ Millions)

Child Safety, Family Support and Children in Care services make up 39% of overall ministry

expenditures.

Expenditure by Account Classifications (STOB), April 2014 to March 2015 ($ Millions)

Early Years Services249.281

17%

Services for Children & Youth

with Special Needs311.055

22%

Child & Youth Mental Health

Services80.426

6%

Child Safety, Family Support & Children In Care

Services566.724

39%

Adoption Services29.136

2%

Youth Justice Services63.770

4% Service Delivery Support122.716

9%

Executive & Support Services

14.102 1%

Gross Expenditures by Lines of ServiceTotal $1,437.209M

321.801

63.752

1,048.961

2.695

(2.432)

(78.900)

Salaries& Benefits

OperatingCosts

GovernmentTransfers

Other Expenses

Recoveries- Internal to Gov't

Recoveries- External to Gov't

Net Expenditures by Major STOB GroupingTotal $1,355.877M

9

Over 77% of ministry gross expenditures before recoveries from other ministries, governments

and/or agencies are Government Transfers. Government Transfers are payments to other

individuals or organizations for goods and services received by clients.

MCFD has three primary service delivery methods:

1. MCFD Delivered; a. MCFD directly delivered services b. Clients access funding for specific support or services such as autism c. MCFD subsidizes services such as Child Care

2. Delegated Aboriginal Agency Delivered; and

3. Foster Homes and Community Social Service Agency Delivered

Over $725 million was paid through STOB 80 agreements and contracts to over 6,100 Foster

Homes and Community Social Service Agencies for services between April 1, 2014 and March 31,

2015.

Contract/Vendor Counts and Expenditures April 1, 2014 to March 31, 20151,2,3

Program/Service Type Vendors Contracts Expenditure ($ Millions)

Adoption Services 1,463 2,405 22.79 Adoption Supports 1,462 2,402 22.55 Planning for Permanency 1 3 0.24 Child & Youth Mental Health Services 176 375 38.34 Community Based Programs - CYMH 166 365 38.14 Program Delivery- CYMH 0 0 0.01 Specialized Provincial Programs - CYMH 10 10 0.19 Child Safety, Family Support & Children In Care Services 3,823 6,324 383.51 Alternates to Care 941 1,377 10.16 Children & Youth In Care 2,616 4,296 254.44 Family Support Programs - CS, FS & CIC 230 573 95.14 Program Delivery - Child Welfare 4 7 0.78 Youth Support Programs 32 71 22.99 Early Years Services 142 304 39.88 Child Care Programs 15 44 9.82 ECD Programs 127 260 30.07 Services for Children & Youth with Special Needs 384 1,008 213.75 Family Support Programs - CYSN 182 413 38.68 Foundational Programs 60 269 111.40 Special Needs Children in Care 112 279 30.54 Specialized Provincial Services - CYSN 30 47 33.13 Youth Justice Services 133 220 23.88 Community Based Programs - YJ 57 131 19.22 Specialized Provincial Programs - YJ 76 89 4.66 Total 6,121 10,636 722.15

1 Source: CDW GL report for STOB 80 FY2014/2015 Expenditures (April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015). 2 Table does not include Executive Support Services – Service Delivery Support (15 contracts, $3,529,915). 3 Each contract and vendor is counted only once, even if represented in multiple program/service types.

10

This report contains case, expenditure and, where available, outcome data.

Early Years Services: Early Childhood Development and Child Care

Summary:

This section provides data on Child Care Subsidy, child care spaces, utilization, Early Childhood

Development and child care expenditures, and average child care costs.

Case Data and Trends:

Child Care Programs and Services 2014/2015

Program April 2014 to March 2015

Child Care Operation Funding Program (Facilities Supported)

3,940 Organizations (5,060 Facilities)

Minor Capital Funding (Facilities Supported)

231 Facilities

Major Capital Funding (Facilities Supported)

33 Facilities

Early Childhood Educator Registry (Registered individuals and organizations)

2,234 New ECE Certifications 1,789 ECE Assistant Certifications 15,402 Total Active ECE Certifications 6,029 Total Active ECE Assistant Certifications 34 Approved Educational Institutions

Child Care Resource & Referral (Number of referrals)

57,807 individuals1

1 As at March 31, 2015, 57,807 families received referrals to local child care services. Child Care Resource & Referral programs

also assisted 15,538 parents with completing the Child Care Subsidy application forms; registered 585 licence-not-required child care providers; assisted 36 licence-not-required child care providers became licensed; provided 5,359 drop-in community development activities; the BC Aboriginal Child Care Society provided 3,858 consultations and 48 culturally specific training courses and workshops.

11

Children Whose Child Care is Subsidized, 2014/2015 and 2013/2014, Monthly Average

Service Delivery Area1 2014/2015 2013/2014 Change

BC 21,172 24,397 -13.2%

Kootenay 616 799 -22.9% Okanagan 1,661 1,998 -16.8% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 1,300 1,500 -13.4% East Fraser 2,000 2,258 -11.5% North Fraser 2,487 2,833 -12.2% South Fraser 3,828 4,293 -10.8% Vancouver Richmond 2,519 2,996 -15.9% Coast / North Shore 671 762 -12.0% South Vancouver Island 2,034 2,346 -13.3% North Vancouver Island 2,220 2,552 -13.0% Northwest 520 610 -14.7% North Central 1,020 1,175 -13.2% Northeast 134 152 -12.4%

Distinct Children and Families Receiving Monthly Child Care Subsidy April 2005 to March 2015

The subsidy caseload has decreased since 2011/2012 because of the implementation of full-day

kindergarten, and amendments to the Child Care Subsidy Regulation to reduce subsidy rates and

income thresholds for kindergarten aged children, to align with the rates and thresholds for older

children who attend all-day classes.

The number of children and families receiving subsidies experienced a further decrease in

2014/2015. Approximately half of the caseload decrease came from the loss of preschool age

children accessing subsidy, and another 25% came from the loss of Infant/Toddler accessing

subsidy. The beginning of the decrease in 2014/2015 coincided with the teacher strike, when

parents may have made other care arrangements that did not require subsidy.

1 SDA boundaries are determined using child care facility postal codes. In a small number of cases there are facilities where the

SDA cannot be determined; these facilities’ child care spaces are presented in the BC average count, but not the SDA average counts. Because of this, SDA average counts may not sum to the BC average count.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

Apr-05 Apr-06 Apr-07 Apr-08 Apr-09 Apr-10 Apr-11 Apr-12 Apr-13 Apr-14 Apr-15

Families

Children

12

In total close to 42,000 children in more than 29,000 families received child care subsidy in

2014/2015.

Contracted Group & Family Child Care Spaces, 2014/2015 and 2013/2014, Monthly Average

In total over 5,000 licensed group and family child care facilities in BC received operation funding throughout the year, representing a total number of approximately 111,200 licensed child care spaces in 2014/2015.

The monthly average number of child care spaces receiving funding from the Child Care Operating Funding Program increased by 1.6% in 2014/2015:

Service Delivery Area1 2014/2015 2013/2014 Change

BC 100,004 98,432 1.6%

Kootenay 2,436 2,450 -0.6% Okanagan 7,164 7,176 -0.2% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 5,086 5,160 -1.4% East Fraser 5,609 5,619 -0.2% North Fraser 15,341 15,103 1.6% South Fraser 15,305 14,143 8.2% Vancouver Richmond 16,298 16,026 1.7% Coast / North Shore 6,720 6,814 -1.4% South Vancouver Island 11,318 11,232 0.8% North Vancouver Island 8,329 8,146 2.2% Northwest 1,782 1,741 2.4% North Central 3,464 3,576 -3.1% Northeast 943 941 0.2%

The largest increase, 8%, occurred in the South Fraser SDA. Conversely contracted spaces

declined in the North Central by 3%.

As shown in the following graph, the monthly average CCOF contracted child care spaces has

been steadily increasing since 2005, driven by the increase of group spaces.

1 SDA boundaries are determined using child care facility postal codes. In a small number of cases there are facilities where the

SDA cannot be determined; these facilities’ child care spaces are presented in the BC average count, but not the SDA average counts. Because of this, SDA average counts may not sum to the BC average count.

13

Monthly Child Care Operating Funding Program (CCOF) Contracted Child Care Spaces, April 2005 to March 2015

Performance Indicators:

Performance Indicator 1.01 Spare Capacity in Licensed Child Care Spaces1,2

Rationale: A child care facility’s Utilization Rate is determined by dividing its total enrollments for the month

by the number of times a child care space can be used in a month. Two part-time enrollments are

assumed to be equivalent to one full-time enrollment; 100% utilization of one child care space is

assumed to be 22 full-time equivalent enrollments in a month.

For example, a child care facility with one child enrolled full-time in each child care space, for 22

days in a month will have a utilization rate of 100% (as will a facility with two children enrolled

part-time in each child care space, for 22 days in a month).

For the calculations of utilization rates by group age cohorts, facilities with ‘Group Multi-Age’

spaces have been excluded as it cannot be determined which spaces a facility’s reported

enrollments are utilized.

Child care space utilization rates offer a proxy for the appropriateness of the amount and

combination of types of child care spaces available in the province. Efficient use of child care

spaces will be reflected in high utilization rates. However, at very high utilization rates, in excess

of 80 to 85%, finding child care becomes progressively more challenging, potentially impacting

the time taken to find a space and fees.

Trend in Child Care Space Utilization Rates by Space, Monthly Average, 2003/2004 to 2014/2015

1 Licensed child care spaces are spaces from Child Care Operating Funding Program (CCOF) contracted facilities and include both

group and family facilities. 2 Licensed ‘preschool’ child care spaces have been excluded from these calculations as preschool facilities may be open on a part-

time basis both with morning and/or afternoon sessions, and from one to five days per week.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Apr-05 Apr-06 Apr-07 Apr-08 Apr-09 Apr-10 Apr-11 Apr-12 Apr-13 Apr-14

Total Spaces

Group Spaces

Family Spaces

14

Trend in Child Care Space Utilization Rates by Type of Providers, Monthly Average, 2003/2004 to

2014/2015

Analysis:

Even though the number of group spaces for Infant/Toddler is more than double from 10 years

ago, the utilization rate for group Infant/Toddler has been in an upward trend since 2003/2004,

which shows the capacity pressure that this cohort faces. The growth from group Infant/Toddler

enrollments picked up speed in 2013/2014 (9%), and slowed down in 2014/2015 (6%).

The graph below further demonstrates the capacity pressure that the group Infant/Toddler cohort

faces by showing the gaps between child care spaces available and spaces utilized. The number

of child care spaces utilized is estimated by dividing the total full-time equivalent enrollments by

22 (100% utilization of one child care space is assumed to be 22 full-time equivalent enrollments

in a month). This allows comparison between spaces available and enrollments in the same scale.

The gaps between spaces available and spaces utilized for Infant/Toddler have always been

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

Group Infant/Toddler Group Age 3 to 5 Group School Age

62%

63%

64%

65%

66%

67%

68%

69%

70%

71%

Total Group Family Group and Family

15

small, which means even though spaces have been growing, so are enrollments. Because the

growth of enrollments outpaces the creation of spaces, the utilization rate for group

Infant/Toddler spaces continues to increase. On the other hand, the gap between spaces

available and spaces utilized for children Age 3 to 5 has become much larger in the last five

years.

Group Infant/Toddler Spaces Available vs. Spaces Utilized

Group Age 3 to 5 Spaces Available vs. Spaces Utilized

The number of Group Age 3 to 5 spaces has been increasing steadily at an annual rate of 6%,

yet the growth in spaces have always surpassed the growth in enrollments for this cohort since

2007/2008, except 2013/2014. Therefore, the utilization rate for Group Age 3 to 5 has been

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Group Infant/Toddler Spaces Available Group Infant/Toddler Spaces Utilized

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

24,000

26,000

28,000

Group Age 3 to 5 Spaces Available Group Age 3 to 5 Spaces Utilized

16

decreasing since 2007/2008. The decline in utilization rate suggests that the growth in Group

Age 3 to 5 spaces has helped relieve some of the capacity pressure.

Utilization rate for group school age has remained relatively stable in the past 10 years. Group

school age spaces are only being utilized outside of regular school hours.

Average Monthly Child Care Space Utilization Rates, 2014/2015


Group Infant / Toddler1

Group Age 3 to 51

Group School Age1

Total Group1 Family

Group and

Family

BC 82.5% 70.6% 45.5% 67.0% 69.1% 68.2%

Kootenays 77.7% 57.0% 31.3% 50.0% 61.5% 55.3% Okanagan 79.5% 72.7% 39.5% 57.3% 69.3% 63.7% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 79.9% 65.8% 41.1% 59.6% 65.0% 62.8% East Fraser 67.2% 68.6% 40.6% 54.7% 67.9% 62.3% North Fraser 90.4% 79.2% 58.4% 75.0% 70.9% 74.1% South Fraser 76.3% 69.9% 52.3% 68.0% 69.7% 70.3% Vancouver/Richmond 88.2% 77.0% 47.0% 76.8% 72.8% 75.5% Coast/North Shore 80.8% 66.5% 43.1% 68.6% 67.4% 68.9% South Vancouver Island 82.9% 65.7% 41.2% 62.2% 68.2% 65.5% North Vancouver Island 82.9% 61.5% 36.5% 59.6% 66.3% 61.3% Northwest 84.1% 64.1% 40.6% 62.9% 72.8% 66.5% North Central 68.8% 64.1% 37.1% 51.6% 68.6% 63.1% Northeast 72.3% 67.4% 29.6% 48.2% 70.6% 59.8%

A symptom of higher rates of utilization, above approximately 80%, is progressive difficulty in

finding a child care space to suit individual needs.

Group Infant/Toddler spaces have the highest utilization rates, with Group 3 to 5 child care

spaces close behind (although, there are three times more CCOF contracted Group 3 to 5 child

care spaces in the province than Infant/Toddler spaces). Infant/Toddler utilization rates of

approximately 90% in North Fraser and Vancouver/Richmond indicate significant unmet demand

for Infant/Toddler child care.

1 For utilization rates by individual Group age cohorts, facilities with 'Group Multi-Age' child care spaces are excluded.

17

Difference in Average Monthly Child Care Space Utilization Rates, 2014/2015 from 2013/2014

Service Deliver Area


Group Age 3 to 51

Group School Age1

Total Group1 Family

Group and

Family

BC -0.8% -0.6% 0.0% -0.2% 1.5% 0.6%

Kootenay -3.1% -0.4% 2.4% -0.7% 1.6% 0.5% Okanagan -4.0% -0.5% 2.4% -0.3% 2.1% 0.8% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap -0.1% 1.5% 2.3% 1.3% 0.1% 0.4% East Fraser -0.9% 0.1% 1.5% 0.0% 1.1% 0.1% North Fraser 0.1% -0.7% -0.4% -0.8% 3.2% 1.8% South Fraser -6.3% -2.2% 0.1% -1.2% 1.2% 0.0% Vancouver/Richmond 0.2% -1.4% -1.8% -0.8% 1.0% -0.1% Coast / North Shore 0.4% 2.1% 0.2% 2.9% 1.2% 2.5% South Vancouver Island 0.5% -2.9% -3.6% -1.9% 1.2% -0.3% North Vancouver Island 0.4% -0.4% 0.2% -0.1% 1.2% 0.2% Northwest 13.8% -1.8% -12.5% -6.8% -2.3% -3.1% North Central -9.5% 2.7% 0.5% 0.7% 1.0% 0.7% Northeast 1.1% 2.4% -3.3% -2.8% 6.0% 2.1%

Northwest and North Central show noticeable changes in Infant/Toddler utilization. With few

facilities (approximately 106 and 135 Infant/Toddler spaces on average every month) providing

the base for these two SDAs respectively, the utilization rates are sensitive to facilities being

included or excluded from the indicator. While the facilities in Northwest that are included in the

utilization rate calculation this year have seen higher enrollments since last year, the swing in

utilization rates is exaggerated by the result of low utilization rate facilities dropping out of the

measure. On the other hand, the facilities in North Central have seen lower enrollments since last

year.

Even though its average monthly enrollments have increased by 19%, South Fraser still shows a

decrease of 6% in Infant/Toddler utilization in 2014/2015. This is the second year in a row that

this SDA has experienced a decrease in Infant/Toddler utilization, because the growth of its

average monthly enrollments was surpassed by the growth of its average monthly number of

spaces. On average, every month there were 1,261 Infant/Toddler spaces in South Fraser in

2014/2015, which was a 34% increase from 2013/2014.

18

Per Cent of Infant/Toddler Facilities by Average Monthly Child Care Space Utilization, 2014/2015

While Infant/Toddler average facility utilization rates were 83% in 2014/2015, there was a

wide range of utilization rates. Of all Infant/Toddler facilities, 65% of them had utilization rates

of 80% or more, representing 62% of Infant/Toddler child care spaces. Burnaby, for example, a

community with a relatively large number of group Infant/Toddler spaces (527), showed an

average monthly utilization rate of over 90%.

There is clustering of high utilization rates in Infant/Toddler care and a wider range of utilization

rates in each of the other care types, resulting in average utilization rates of less than 100% for

the province. The wide range in utilization is also noticeable across types of communities.

Average Monthly Child Care Space Utilization Rates, by Community Size, 2014/2015


Group Age 3 to 51

Group School Age1

Total Group1 Family

Group and

Family

Communities of 10,000+ Population

84.0% 72.5% 47.2% 68.9% 69.9% 69.9%

Communities of Less Than 10,000 Population

71.9% 58.5% 34.1% 51.2% 63.7% 56.4%

Difference 12.1% 14.0% 13.1% 17.7% 6.1% 13.5%

There is a significant difference in the average facility utilization rates of facilities in communities

of more than 10,000 population compared to communities of less than 10,000 population where

there is from ten to 20 percentage point differences in the utilization rates of group child care.

This may be an indication that the mix in the types of child care in less populated areas is not

optimal, rather than that there is an excess supply of child care.

The tables below show a selection of large communities with the highest utilization and small

communities with highest utilization. While the utilization rates at the top end are higher for the

smaller communities, the child care space counts are quite small. Utilization rates for smaller

communities also tend to be clustered around 25 to 70%.

1 For utilization rates by individual Group age cohorts, facilities with 'Group Multi-Age' child care spaces are excluded.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

19

Tables of the lowest utilization communities are also presented for both large and small

communities. The range in utilization rates for larger communities starts above 36% utilization,

while smaller communities reach as low as single digits.

Large Communities with Highest Overall Utilization Rates, 2014/2015

10,000+ Population Group and Family

Community Service Delivery Area Utilization Rate

Average Monthly CCOF Child Care

Spaces

Burnaby North Fraser 78.9% 3,611 Vancouver Vancouver/Richmond 76.8% 8,255 Port Coquitlam North Fraser 74.4% 1,651 North Vancouver Coast/North Shore 73.1% 3,026 Coquitlam North Fraser 73.0% 3,093

Small Communities with Highest Overall Utilization Rates, 2014/2015

<10,000 Population Group and Family



Spaces

Vedder Crossing East Fraser 93.9% 28 Gitanyow Northwest 90.5% 26 Lumby Okanagan 88.1% 32 Keremeos Okanagan 87.2% 20 Kitimat Northwest 86.4% 56

Large Communities with Lowest Overall Utilization Rates, 2014/2015

10,000+ Population Group and Family



Spaces

Nelson Kootenays 58.9% 295 Cranbrook Kootenays 56.0% 395 Saanich South Vancouver Island 55.7% 153 Comox North Vancouver Island 52.4% 353 Summerland Okanagan 39.8% 152

Small Communities with Lowest Overall Utilization Rates, 2014/2015

<10,000 Population Group and Family



Spaces

Bella Bella Coast/North Shore 13.7% 20 Fraser Lake North Central 13.5% 36 Sorrento Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 8.7% 20 Nitinaht Lake North Vancouver Island 8.4% 41 Wells North Central 6.1% 20

20

Average Monthly CCOF Contracted Child Care Spaces to Child Population (Ages 0 to 12), 2014/2015

Service Delivery Area Average Monthly CCOF

Contracted Child Care Spaces

0 to 12 Population

(2014)

CCOF Spaces per 0 to 12 Population

BC 100,004 583,890 17.1%

Kootenay 2,436 19,076 12.8% Okanagan 7,164 40,126 17.9% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 5,086 27,049 18.8% East Fraser 5,609 44,497 12.6% North Fraser 15,341 81,339 18.9% South Fraser 15,305 113,812 13.4% Vancouver/ Richmond 16,298 91,488 17.8% Coast / North Shore 6,720 35,375 19.0% South Vancouver Island 11,318 49,638 22.8% North Vancouver Island 8,329 36,218 23.0% Northwest 1,782 11,550 15.4% North Central 3,464 21,036 16.5% Northeast 943 12,686 7.4%

The above table compares the average monthly CCOF contracted child care spaces with the child

population. While there are CCOF contracted child care spaces for 17% of the 0 to 12

population, not all children may need a child care space. Some families may choose to use

unlicensed child care or family options to provide care for their children. A child care space may

also be utilized by more than one child (at different times of the day).

When comparing the available spaces to the child population, it is not clear that areas with a low

CCOF space to child ratio are associated with high utilization rates. While South Fraser does

reflect this pattern, Coast/North Shore shows a similar overall utilization rate, but much higher

CCOF space to child ratio.

Utilization Rates for Group Facilities by Size, 2003/2004 to 2014/2015

A child care facility’s utilization rate is determined by dividing its total enrollments for the month

by the number of times a child care space can be used a month. In general, smaller Group

facilities tend to have higher utilization rates as there would be fewer spaces to enrol, as shown in

the graph above. The number of Group spaces used in this calculation is the sum of Group spaces

for all care types, excluding preschool spaces, (preschool facilities may be open on a part-time

62%

64%

66%

68%

70%

72%

74%

76%

78%

80%

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

Group facilities with more than 40 spaces Group facilities with 11 to 39 spaces Group facilities with 10 or less spaces

21

basis both with morning and/or afternoon sessions, and from one to five days per week). In

2014/2015, 728 Group facilities had more than 40 spaces, 1,030 Group facilities had between

11 and 39 spaces, and 334 Group facilities had 10 or less spaces.

Average Monthly Proportion of Facilities with Child Care Space Utilization of 60% or Higher, BC, 2003/2004 to 2014/2015

At a provincial level, the proportion of facilities in a fiscal year with a utilization of 60% or higher

has increased annually in the six years to 2008/2009 before flattening out and averaging 61%

since then.

52%

54%

56%

58%

60%

62%

64%

66%

22

Median Monthly Parent Fees by Care Type and Age Cohort – Child Care Operating Funding Program Group Facilities – 2014/2015


Infant 0 to 18

Months

Toddler 19 to 35 Months

30 Months

to 5 Years

Licensed Preschool School Age

Care Kindergarten (Full-day K1)

School Age Care (Grade 1+)2

3 Days/ Week

5 Days/Week

BC $995 $925 $750 $175 $310 $400 $304

Kootenay $964 $940 $740 $165 $291 $440 $310 Okanagan $950 $930 $735 $165 $300 $350 $272 Thompson Cariboo Shuswap $898 $827 $675 $175 $293 $400 $305 East Fraser $825 $730 $650 $143 $245 $380 $270 North Fraser $1,075 $1,000 $750 $183 $320 $420 $370 South Fraser $950 $880 $700 $175 $292 $430 $350 Vancouver/Richmond $1,215 $1,150 $850 $209 $395 $375 $335 Coast / North Shore $1,220 $1,150 $877 $270 $500 $500 $350 South Vancouver Island $1,000 $950 $790 $180 $310 $375 $270 North Vancouver Island $863 $750 $650 $170 $275 $333 $255 Northwest $768 $780 $700 $168 $280 $400 $300 North Central $800 $800 $663 $150 $228 $350 $300 Northeast $1,200 $1,200 $800 $160 $380 $372 $345

Median Monthly Parent Fees by Care Type and Age Cohort – Child Care Operating Funding Program Family Facilities – 2014/2015


Infant 0 to 18

Months

Toddler 19 to 35 Months

3 to 5 Years Old

School Age Care

Kindergarten (Before &

After) – Full-Day K1

School Age Care (Grade 1+)

Before After Before & After

BC $800 $800 $750 $400 $250 $300 $400

Kootenay $800 $760 $760 $330 $200 $225 $300 Okanagan $745 $738 $700 $390 $200 $300 $370 Thompson Cariboo Shuswap $740 $735 $700 $400 $280 $300 $400 East Fraser $728 $700 $700 $420 $300 $300 $400 North Fraser $850 $800 $750 $400 $250 $285 $400 South Fraser $800 $800 $720 $432 $250 $300 $420 Vancouver Richmond $1,000 $1,000 $900 $500 $300 $390 $450 Coast / North Shore $1,000 $975 $900 $510 $200 $300 $500 South Vancouver Island $800 $800 $750 $400 $200 $238 $350 North Vancouver Island $750 $750 $700 $350 $225 $290 $350 Northwest $750 $760 $745 $400 $275 $263 $400 North Central $700 $700 $700 $400 $200 $300 $350 Northeast $800 $800 $800 $200 $200 $300 $400

1 School Age Care Kindergarten (Full-day K) – for children in full-day kindergarten, reflects the parent fees for child care

surrounding a full-day of kindergarten. 2 School Age Care (Grade 1+) reflects fees for out of school care including before school, after school and before &after school

child care.

23

Expenditure Data:

Early Childhood Development (ECD)

Service Delivery Area Expenditures1,2 ($ Millions)

As at March 31, 2015

BC $29.334

Kootenays 0.755 Okanagan 1.243 Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 1.842 East Fraser 0.363 North Fraser 1.307 South Fraser 1.818 Vancouver/Richmond 1.392 Coast/North Shore 0.741 South Vancouver Island 1.439 North Vancouver Island 2.184 Northwest 1.934 North Central 1.515 Northeast 1.283 Early Years & Aboriginal Early Years Provincial Office3 11.512 Other 0.007

The budget for this line of service is $31.679 million.

1 Expenditures include costs for staffing, contracts and other operational expenditures. 2 ECD Programs are aimed at helping parents, families and service providers provide the best possible start for BC’s children

(aged 0 to 6) and support their healthy development. Examples of ECD programs and initiatives include: Success by Six funding, the Roots and Seeds of Empathy Programs, Children’s First Initiatives, Building Blocks, Family Resource Programs & Aboriginal Early Childhood Development. These services are provided at the SDA and Provincial Office level.

24

Child Care Services


Expenditures1,2 As at March 31, 2015

Child Care Subsidy

Child Care Operating

Fund (CCOF) Child Care

Other3

Total Expenditures ($ Millions)

BC $115.862 $79.438 $24.646 $219.947

Kootenays 0.808 0.808

Okanagan 0.528 0.528 Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 0.736 0.736 East Fraser 0.775 0.775 North Fraser 0.906 0.906 South Fraser 1.154 1.154 Vancouver/Richmond 0.827 0.827 Coast/North Shore 0.807 0.807 South Vancouver Island 0.770 0.770 North Vancouver Island 0.668 0.668 Northwest 0.629 0.629 North Central 0.438 0.438 Northeast 0.232 0.232 Service Delivery Operations4 0.115 0.115 Early Childhood Development Policy & Support 0.123 0.123 Child Care Operations 115.862 79.438 15.131 210.431


1 Expenditures include costs for staffing, contracts and other operational expenditures. 2 Services provided include child care subsidies to parents and organizations that provide, or support, child care services and Child

Care Resource and Referral centres. It provides for administration of the Child Care BC Act and the Child Care Subsidy Act. It also includes staffing costs for direct service delivery for these programs.

3 'Child Care Other' includes Referral Supports in SDA’s, child care administration and Child Care Capital Fund in Child Care Operations.

25

Service for Children and Youth with Special Needs (CYSN)

Summary:

This report provides data linked to family support files for children and youth with special needs.


Open CYSN Family Service Cases, March 2015

Service Delivery Area Open CYSN Family Service Cases,

March 2015

BC 15,210

Kootenays 568 Okanagan 1,318 Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 936 East Fraser 1,085 North Fraser 2,156 South Fraser 2,545 Vancouver/Richmond 2,109 Coast/North Shore 755 South Vancouver Island 1,520 North Vancouver Island 1,265 Northwest 241 North Central 480 Northeast 232

Trend in Monthly Number of CYSN Family Service Cases, September 2012 to March 2015

12,700

13,200

13,700

14,200

14,700

15,200

15,700

Sep-12 Nov-12 Jan-13 Mar-13 May-13 Jul-13 Sep-13 Nov-13 Jan-14 Mar-14 May-14 Jul-14 Sep-14 Nov-14 Jan-15 Mar-15

26


Performance Indicator 2.01 Median Cost per Child and Youth in Care with Special Needs

Rationale: The median cost per case gives the median cost of each year spent in a residential placement by

a child or youth in Care with special needs. Cost pressures often stem from a shortage of skilled

foster parents, which translates into a higher usage of more expensive contracted resources.

Other factors that can impact costs per case include the use of exceptional payments to service

providers and the level of care required by the current caseload composition.

Annual Cost, Children and Youth in Care with Special Needs, 12 Month Period Ending March 31, 2015

Service Delivery Area Total Number of Placement Days

Median Annual Cost per Placement

All Aboriginal Non-

Aboriginal

BC 196,623 $50,998 $33,423 $59,417

Kootenays 7,387 53,367 54,343 53,367 Okanagan 23,799 32,921 29,347 33,804 Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 13,394 34,479 30,517 44,934 East Fraser 13,484 68,314 196,848 64,654 North Fraser 18,708 59,417 62,497 59,417 South Fraser 29,067 76,264 31,815 92,389 Vancouver/Richmond 14,750 85,940 42,229 92,193 Coast/North Shore 6,429 47,054 58,267 44,482 South Vancouver Island 26,712 35,902 45,796 35,758 North Vancouver Island 28,295 35,427 30,125 45,660 Northwest 3,176 35,982 33,486 50,347 North Central 7,474 94,141 33,098 131,500 Northeast 3,948 81,327 80,212 86,136

Analysis: Over the period of April 2014 to March 2015 (12 months), 693 children identified as having

special needs were cared for in an MCFD paid residential resource. This compares to 828 at the

September 2012 reporting period. The median cost to provide residential services this period

was $51K, an increase of almost 33% since the baseline.

27

Trend in Annual Cost per Placement, Children and Youth in Care with Special Needs, September 2012 to March 2015

Costs have been increasing steadily since the February 2014 reporting period. All of the increase

since the baseline came from the contracted, staffed resources. The values of this indicator in the

current volume of this report are slightly lower than in previous volumes. This reflects the capture

of more CYSN clients now, by using the Integrated Case Management System for an improved,

comprehensive indicator of costs for CYSN clients.

Age of Children and Youth in Care with Special Needs, April 2014 to March 2015

Age Group Total Days Total Costs Median

Cost/Day Median

Cost/Case/Year

0 to 5 12,772 $1,893,780 $74.96 $27,379 6 to 11 45,599 $8,416,020 $92.13 $33,649 12 to 15 54,373 $13,923,088 $165.80 $60,560 16 to 18 82,649 $23,224,098 $181.94 $66,453 Over 18 1,230 $420,817 $200.74 $73,318 All CYIC w SN 196,623 $47,883,040 $139.63 $50,998

More than 60% of the CYIC with special needs in residential care were in Care for the entire

year indicating that they tend to remain in Care longer than non-CYSN CYIC (40%). This, in turn,

is reflected in their age: almost three quarters of the residential care provided went to CYIC

aged 12 or more. For non-CYSN children, this proportion was less than half.

The median cost of residential resources for CYIC with special needs is positively correlated to the

age of the children. This is possibly related to the child’s age. As children age, their needs

increase, and they are more likely to be cared for through a contracted, staffed resource: while

only 21% of the bed days used for the children under the age of 12 were in contracted

resources, almost half of the bed days for their older counterparts were in these more expensive

contracted residential placements.

$35K

$37K

$39K

$41K

$43K

$45K

$47K

$49K

$51K

$53K


28

And while the overall use of residential care dropped by 17% since the baseline (Sept. 2012),

the use of the staffed resources increased by 10%. This paired with a cost increase of more than

25% for contracted resources, largely accounts for the recent cost increases.

Cumulative Percentage of Children and Youth in Care with Special Needs, by Residential Cost/Day

Most of the cost increases occurred in the mid range CYIC. The table above shows how the lower

and higher cost children remained unchanged; the mid range cost children saw most of the

increase.

Median Annual Residential Cost of Children and Youth in Care with Special Needs by Child’s Aboriginal Status

The median cost increase impacted only Non-Aboriginal CYIC. This is becuase Aboriginal CYIC

account for 20% of the bed days used in contracted resources, and only 20% of the time in Care

for these Aboriginal CYIC was spent in contracted resources (compared to 35% for Non-

Aboriginal youth). The relatively greater use of foster care versus contracted resources for

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%50

10

0

15

0

20

0

25

0

30

0

35

0

40

0

45

0

50

0

55

0

60

0

65

0

70

0

75

0

80

0

85

0

90

0

95

0

10

00

10

50

11

00

11

50

12

00

12

50

13

00

% o

f C

YIC

with S

peci

al N

eed

s

Cost/Day

Baseline - Sep-12 Mar-15

Baseline Median: $110/dayCurrent Median: $139.96/day

$33,423

$59,417

$50,998

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

Aboriginal Non-Aboriginal Total

Sep-12

Mar-15

29

Aboriginal CYIC reflects slight differences in appropriate types of placement for the care

required.

MCFD Specialized Provincial Services – Number of Clients Served March 2014 and March 2015

Program1 March 2014 March 2015

Autism Funding Unit 9,809 10,823 Under Six 1,507 1,637 Six and Over 8,302 9,186 Provincial Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services (PDHHS) Victory Hill Residential Program 21 25 Family and Community Services2,3 196 120 Through PDHHS Contracts Early Intervention (Deaf) 254 345 Early Intervention (Deaf/Blind) 26 28 Early Intervention (Blind) 137 145 Parent Support and Education (Blind)4 151 167

Mental Health and Addictions5 436 306 Deaf/Blind Intervener Services 63 48 Deaf Youth Development6 181 215

Medical Benefits7 3,053 3,237

At Home Respite Cases As of March 31, 2015

Service Delivery Area Open Respite Cases, March 2015

BC 1,682

Kootenays 58 Okanagan 124 Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 56 East Fraser 178 North Fraser 321 South Fraser 298 Vancouver/Richmond 177 Coast/North Shore 94 South Vancouver Island 162 North Vancouver Island 145 Northwest 41 North Central 64 Northeast 32

1 Nursing Support Services was moved to the Ministry of Health 2 Family and Community Services statistics reflect all clients receiving services – children, youth and family. 3 In 2013, Family and Community Services merged to include the Youth Transition Program. 4 Parent Support and Education (Blind) statistics reflect number of children attending camps and family seminars. Some children

may be double counted as their families attended multiple camps and seminars through the year. 5 Mental Health and Addictions statistics reflect unique client numbers – some clients receive multiple services. Clients can be

children, youth, adults and family members. 6 Deaf Youth Development statistics reflect total number of children/youth attending camps during 2013 and 2014 summer

programming. Some children/youth may be double counted as they attended multiple camps. 7 Estimate does not include children in Care because all children in Care are eligible for dental and optical at any time during the

year.

30

Expenditure Data:

Services for Children &Youth with Special Needs (CYSN)



BC $307.301

Kootenays 7.204 Okanagan 15.714 Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 11.542 East Fraser 14.052 North Fraser 26.707 South Fraser 28.230 Vancouver/Richmond 26.729 Coast/North Shore 12.463 South Vancouver Island 17.953 North Vancouver Island 19.695 Northwest 6.174 North Central 10.378 Northeast 4.559 Provincial Deaf & Hard of Hearing Services - Provincial Services 5.930 Autism - Provincial Services 63.229 Medical Benefits - Provincial Services 22.949 Nursing Support - Provincial Services 17.153 Aboriginal Infant Development Program3 0.350 Other 0.043 Recoveries3 (3.754)


1 Expenditures include costs for staffing, contracts and other operational expenditures. 2 CYSN services include: foundational programs (e.g., Early Intervention Therapy, Infant Development, and Supported Child

Development), Family Support programs (e.g., respite services) and services for Special Needs Children in Care. These programs and interventions are intended to support children's healthy development, maximize quality of life and assist families in their role as primary care givers.

31

Child and Youth Mental Health (CYMH)

Summary:

This section provides data on case levels and expenditures and client satisfaction levels. More

data sets will be added as MCFD progresses with the key action on strengthening child and youth

mental health services.


CYMH Referrals in 2014/2015, with At Least One Presenting Issue, by Proportion of Types of Presenting Issue

CYMH Referrals in 2014/2015, with At Least One Presenting Issue, by Number of Presenting Issues

8.6%

20.0%

26.8%

39.3%

51.0%

82.8%

Other

Physical Function Issues

School Functioning

Social Relationship Issues

Behaviour Concerns

Mental Health Concerns

22%

20%

17%

12%

8%

5%4%

3%2% 2%

5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11+

32

CYMH Referrals in 2014/2015, with At Least One Presenting Issue, Ten Most Frequent Presenting Issues

Presenting Issue Proportion of Clients with

Presenting Issue

Fears or Anxieties 56.9% Depressed Mood 40.8% Relations with Family 22.1% Relations with Peers 18.6% Suicidal Thoughts 17.4% Attentional Problems 15.6% Sleeping Problems 14.8% Oppositional 11.7% Excessive Anger 11.5% School Avoidance 10.9%


Performance Indicator 3.01 Child and Youth Mental Health Services Client Service Satisfaction

Client satisfaction with services is an important indicator of quality. Quality of CYMH services is

measured using the CYMH Service Survey. The CYMH Service Survey includes nine service

satisfaction questions. Clients are able to score CYMH services on a five point scale from poor to

excellent based on the following categories:

The convenience of the location where they received service

How long they were on the waiting list for service

The time of day when services were scheduled

The courtesy and respectfulness of staff

Information they were given to help them understand their child

Ways they learned to help their child

Opportunities to help make decisions about services

The helpfulness of the service they received

Overall, how would they rate the quality of the service they received

Similar to the baseline data, Fiscal Year 2014/2015 data shows the greatest satisfaction scores

are for “Overall Quality of Service”, as well as “Courtesy and Respectfulness of Staff” (97%

rated these items as good, very good or excellent). The area of least satisfaction continues to be

“Wait Time” (16% rated this as poor or fair, an improvement of 5% from Fiscal Year

2013/2014), as well as “Convenience of Location” (16% rated this as poor or fair).

33

Child and Youth Mental Health Service Satisfaction for Fiscal Year 2014/2015

FY 2014/2015 data is based on 115 surveys collected between April 1, 2014 and March 31, 2015.

Child and Youth Mental Health Service Satisfaction Fiscal Year 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 (Baseline)

Convenience of Location

Wait Times

Time of Day of Service

Courtesy/Respect

Information Provided

Coping Skills

Learned

Inclusive Decision Making

Helpfulness of Service

Overall Quality

of Service

1) Poor 3% 5% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2) Fair 7% 16% 5% 1% 3% 5% 4% 2% 2% 3) Good 38% 26% 30% 16% 28% 31% 34% 26% 21% 4) Very good 21% 21% 28% 22% 22% 23% 28% 27% 23% 5) Excellent 31% 31% 36% 61% 46% 39% 33% 44% 53%

The baseline is based on 232 Surveys collected between April 1, 2011 and March 31, 2013.

Convenienceof Location

Wait TimesTime of Dayof Service

Courtesy /Respect

InformationProvided

Coping SkillsLearned

InclusiveDecisionMaking

Helpfulness ofService

OverallQuality of

Service

1) Poor 3% 7% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1%

2) Fair 12% 9% 4% 3% 4% 7% 10% 5% 2%

3) Good 36% 32% 39% 19% 31% 29% 29% 27% 24%

4) Very good 15% 20% 23% 18% 24% 22% 23% 21% 20%

5) Excellent 34% 33% 32% 60% 42% 43% 37% 47% 53%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

34

Expenditure Data:

Child & Youth Mental Health (CYMH) Services


Expenditures1,2 As at March 31, 2015

Maples Other Services3

Total Expenditures ($

Millions)

BC $9.330 $68.178 $77.508

Kootenays 2.762 2.762 Okanagan 5.378 5.378 Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 4.636 4.636 East Fraser 4.210 4.210 North Fraser 6.338 6.338 South Fraser 8.496 8.496 Vancouver/Richmond 9.122 9.122 Coast/North Shore 4.112 4.112 South Vancouver Island 7.394 7.394 North Vancouver Island 6.190 6.190 Northwest 2.411 2.411 North Central 4.472 4.472 Northeast 1.845 1.845 Service Delivery Operations4 0.571 0.571 Maples 10.154 10.154 Other Centralized Payments 2.334 2.334 Recoveries5 (0.824) (2.094) (2.918)


1 Expenditures include costs for staffing, contracts and other operational expenditures. This figure does not include costs for mental

health services for young offenders in the community or in custody and substance abuse treatment in the youth justice system, which if included would bring Mental Health spending to approximately $93 Million annually.

2 Provide services to children and youth who are experiencing mental, emotional and behavioral disorders. Also includes staffing costs for direct service delivery for these programs.

3 'Other Services' includes Sessional Services, Support Services, Specialized Services, and Program Delivery.

35

Child Safety, Family, Youth and Children in Care Services

Child Safety Services: Investigations and Family Development Response

Summary:

A response to a Child Protection report may include a Family Development Response (FDR), an

investigation, a Youth Service Response, or a non-protective response such as offer of support

services or referral to community agency. Over the past several years MCFD has increasingly

focused on using the Family Development Response by working in collaboration with families to

address child protection concerns and using investigations for situations when evidence is required

to determine if a child needs protection. This report presents data and outcome indicators that

support the appropriate use of FDR as an alternative to investigation.

MCFD receives approximately 37,000 protection reports annually. All protection reports are

assessed and the outcome of which is one of:

A Family Development Response (FDR);

A Child Protection investigation;

Provision of or referral to support services; or

No intervention required by the ministry.

For many families, providing appropriate access to community-based support services as needs

arise has been necessary to reduce the risk of harm to children and youth. FDR is the preferred

approach to working with families where a time-consuming and intrusive investigation is

unnecessary. It is designed to keep children safe within their families through a collaborative and

supportive process. FDR is intended to serve low-risk families who need community-based services

quickly without the need for an investigation (the majority of families working with the ministry).

Better prevention through the use of safe alternatives to being brought into Care has helped to

lower the children and youth in Care (CYIC) caseload. Compared with September 2007 there are

over 1,700 (19%) fewer children and youth in Care.

36


Families, Children and Adults Receiving Child Protection Services, March 2015


Open Family Service and Child Service Cases March 20151

Total Children2 Total Adults Total Open

Files

BC3 24,025 27,966 18,535

Kootenays 852 1,041 686 Okanagan 1,616 1,768 1,341 Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 2,794 3,670 2,240 East Fraser 2,078 2,188 1,641 North Fraser 1,516 1,806 1,164 South Fraser 2,969 3,494 2,298 Vancouver/Richmond 2,601 3,183 1,916 Coast/North Shore 904 1,022 695 South Vancouver Island 2,280 2,466 1,856 North Vancouver Island 2,665 2,914 2,073 Northwest 2,347 2,894 795 North Central 1,362 1,552 1,557 Northeast 418 416 271

Response to Protection Reports, FDR and Investigation, April 2007 to November 20144

1 A child service case is opened when a child or youth is in care or the subject of a Youth Agreement or some other child specific

service. 2 The count of total children is the unique count of children appearing on Child Service cases and/or Family Service cases. There

are some children that appear on both case types. 3 The total number of open cases and adults on open cases do not match the provincial totals because there were some cases that

could not be associated to an SDA and some adults have open cases in more than one SDA. 4 Data for March 2012 to May 2012 are unavailable due to the transition from MIS to ICM information systems.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Apr-07 Apr-08 Apr-09 Apr-10 Apr-11 Apr-12 Apr-13 Apr-14

% of protection reports responded through Family Development Response

% of protection reports responded throughinvestigation

37


Performance Indicator 4.02 Ratio of Family Development Response to Investigations

Rationale: A number of families need extra support to provide safe and nurturing care for their children.

Under the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA), child welfare workers assess every

report about a child’s need for protection and respond through the Child Protection Response

Model with a variety of approaches including: Family Development Response (FDR), Child

Protection Investigation Response and Youth Services Response. Family Development Response is

the preferred response when the circumstances do not involve severe abuse or neglect and

families are able and willing to participate in collaborative assessment and planning. FDR,

through building on the family’s strengths, focuses on how to keep children safe while the family

stays together and works through challenges.

By building upon their inherent strengths, families can increase their capacity to safely care for

their children. FDR is used as an alternative to investigation. FDR is an approach that focuses on

keeping a child safe while living in the family home and, through the provision of services, works

to address safety issues by building on the family’s strengths and support system. This response

does not include determining findings of abuse or neglect but does involve an assessment of

safety.

This performance indicator compares the use of FDR to the use of investigations. The ratio rises as

the use of FDR increases and the use of investigations decreases. For example, a ratio of 0.5

means that the number of completed FDRs was half the number of completed investigations. A

ratio of 2.0 means that as twice as many FDRs were completed relative to the number of

completed investigations.

38

Ratio of FDR to Investigations, October 2014 to March 2015 by SDA


Completed Family Development

Responses (FDR), October 2014 to

March 2015

Completed Investigations, October 2014 to March 2015

Ratio of FDR to Investigation, October 2014 to March 2015

All Aboriginal Non-

Aboriginal

BC1 7,936 1,934 4.1 3.1 4.9

Kootenays 292 69 4.2 4.8 4.0 Okanagan 394 128 3.1 2.6 3.4 Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 908 214 4.2 3.4 5.4 East Fraser 505 199 2.5 2.2 2.7 North Fraser 629 153 4.1 3.3 4.4 South Fraser 1,096 341 3.2 2.1 3.9 Vancouver/Richmond 850 135 6.3 2.7 11.4 Coast/North Shore 375 60 6.3 5.8 6.5 South Vancouver Island 775 175 4.4 1.8 7.3 North Vancouver Island 889 175 5.1 4.0 6.4 Northwest 302 54 5.6 5.4 6.2 North Central 722 197 3.7 3.1 4.4 Northeast 198 32 6.2 5.6 6.8

Analysis:

Trend in Ratio of FDR to Investigations, September 2012 to March 2015

1 The counts for BC might exceed the total counts as some cases are not associated to an SDA but included with the provincial

figure.

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5


39

Trend in Ratio of FDR to Investigations, by Aboriginal Identity, September 2012 to March 2015

The strong upward trend, the result of the introduction of the new Child Protection Response

Model in April 2012, continues. Under the new response model, FDR is the primary pathway that

the ministry uses to address child protection concerns. All SDAs have experienced a significant

increase in the use of FDR over time. North Vancouver Island and Northwest have increased their

FDRs by three per investigation; Vancouver/Richmond has led the way with an increase of almost

five FDRs per investigation and also had the highest per cent change since the September 2012

baseline.

The ratio of FDR to Investigation is lower for Aboriginal families at the provincial level but has

almost doubled within one year to slightly reduce the gap with Non-Aboriginal families.

Performance Indicator 4.01 Proportion of Families with a Closed Family Development Response with a Subsequent Investigation and Protection Finding in the Next 12 Months

Rationale: Family Development Response (FDR) is an approach to responding to Child Protection reports

where an investigation is not required. Based on strong evidence, FDR is a shift from an over-

reliance on investigation and removing children from their families to a range of responses and

community based options intended to keep children safe within their families and communities. This

is an indicator of safety for children and youth involved in FDR.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0


Aboriginal Non-Aboriginal

40

Families with Closed Family Development Response between April 2013 and March 2014 That had an Investigation Resulting in a Protection Finding within the Next 12 Months, by SDA


Families with Closed Family Development Response between

April 2013 and March 2014

Families Subsequently Investigated with a Protection Finding within Next 12

Months (%)

All Aboriginal Non-

Aboriginal

BC 13,834 4.6% 9.2% 3.1%

Kootenays 534 4.1% 4.5% 4.0% Okanagan 791 4.4% 12.8% 2.2% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 967 5.6% 8.7% 3.6% East Fraser 829 4.8% 7.0% 4.4% North Fraser 1,304 4.5% 11.6% 3.4% South Fraser 2,330 4.7% 9.1% 3.9% Vancouver/Richmond 1,579 3.7% 10.3% 1.9% Coast/North Shore 664 3.6% 8.1% 2.6% South Vancouver Island 1,320 4.8% 14.8% 3.0% North Vancouver Island 1,276 5.6% 10.6% 3.6% Northwest 688 4.7% 6.8% 0.4% North Central 1,145 4.8% 8.4% 2.6% Northeast 407 3.2% 5.2% 2.4%

Analysis:

Trend in Families with Closed Family Development Response That had an Investigation Resulting in a Protection Finding within the Next 12 Months, September 2012 to March 2015

The overall trend continues to be gradually downwards. This is the case for both Aboriginal and

Non-Aboriginal families (see below) but the trend is stronger for Aboriginal families. This is a

positive sign indicating the strong and improving effectiveness of FDR in these situations for

keeping children safe while keeping families together.

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%


41

Trend in Families with Closed Family Development Response That had an Investigation Resulting in a Protection Finding within the Next 12 Months, by Aboriginal/Non-Aboriginal, September 2012 to March 2015

Overall, the number of Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal families with a closed FDR 12 to 24

months ago has more than tripled between September 2012 and March 2015. Interestingly it is

Aboriginal families that now have the stronger trend (between 2010 and 2013 Non-Aboriginal

families had a much stronger trend). Greater use of FDR relative to investigation combined with

lower rates of former FDR families that later receive a Child Protection investigation is an

encouraging sign that more Aboriginal children are prevented from coming into Care and can live

at home safely.

Performance Indicator 4.11 Proportion of Families Investigated with a Protection Finding with a Subsequent Investigation and Protection Finding in the Next 12 Months

A key outcome indicator for any Child Protection system is recidivism: further maltreatment in a

family subsequent to MCFD intervention.

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

15%

16%

17%



42

Rationale:

A Child Protection investigation is opened when a social worker has established a child’s safety or

health may be in immediate danger or may be vulnerable to serious harm. When it has been

established that a child is at risk, the ministry works with the family to ensure child safety and

reduce the risk of future harm by providing services that will address the needs of the child and

their family. One of the ministry’s core objectives is to protect children who have been victims of

abuse or neglect from further maltreatment. This is an indicator of keeping children safe with

families whose children have been found by an investigation as in need of protection through

quantifying how many of these families have subsequently been reinvestigated.

Proportion of Families Investigated with a Protection Finding between April 2013 to March 2014 with a Subsequent Investigation and Protection Finding in the Next 12 Months, by SDA


Families Investigated with a Protection

Finding in between April 2013 and

March 2014

Families Subsequently Investigated with a Protection Finding within Next 12

Months (%)

All Aboriginal Non-

Aboriginal1

BC 1,958 13.3% 15.6% 11.2%

Kootenays 81 17.3% 13.3% 18.2% Okanagan 138 5.8% 5.1% 6.3% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 139 10.1% 9.6% 10.7% East Fraser 217 17.5% 18.0% 16.9% North Fraser 146 19.9% 27.5% 17.0% South Fraser 364 15.1% 23.5% 10.3% Vancouver/Richmond 151 9.3% 12.0% 6.6% Coast/North Shore 75 21.3% 25.0% 18.6% South Vancouver Island 232 10.8% 17.2% 6.0% North Vancouver Island 194 8.8% 9.6% 7.5% Northwest 66 16.7% 16.9% * North Central 135 14.1% 14.1% 14.0% Northeast 20 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1 SDA data suppressed where family counts are less than 10

43

Trend in Proportion of Families Investigated with a Protection Finding with a Subsequent Investigation and Protection Finding in the Next 12 Months, September 2012 to March 2015

Analysis:

The positive, strong downward trend continues; the likelihood of a family being reinvestigated by

these criteria is now one third less than in September 2012. Over the report period, the number

of distinct families investigated with a protection finding decreased by 47%, while the number of

families with a subsequent investigation and protection finding decreased by 64%.

The range across SDAs is between 0% in the Northeast to 21% in the Coast/North Shore.

Provincially and for most of the SDAs this indicator is relatively high for Aboriginal families.

Trends were similar for both Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal families (see below). Similar to

experiences of families with a recent closed FDR (indicator 4.01 above), this trend is stronger for

Aboriginal families, reducing the gap with Non-Aboriginal families from over 10 percentage

points in September 2012 to four percentage points.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%


44

Trend in Proportion of Families Investigated with a Protection Finding with a Subsequent Investigation

and Protection Finding in the Next 12 Months, by Aboriginal/Non-Aboriginal, September 2012 to

March 2015

Family, Child and Youth Support and Care Services

Summary:

This report provides case data and a set of outcome indicators that focus on a number of the key

areas identified in the MCFD/Federation Review on Family Support/Extended Family

Care/Children in Care/Youth Services:

1. The use of Out-of-Care placements such as through the Extended Family Program Agreements as an alternative to coming into Care.

2. The issues of permanency and placement stability for children and youth in Care. 3. Cultural connection for Aboriginal children and youth in Care. 4. Educational attainment for children and youth in Care and in receipt of youth services. 5. Transitioning to post majority independence.

6. Per Diem costs and placement utilization.

Over time, this outcome indicator data set will be expanded and refined to measure progress on

the strategic key action to significantly improve services and outcomes in this area. In the first

section on case data and trends, two areas are highlighted. For higher-risk families, one outcome

to an investigation is the use of an ‘Out-of-Care option’ (either the use of extended family

agreements as a safe family based alternative to bringing children into Care or a court order

allowing children to be placed with extended family members). Evidence shows that ‘Out-of-Care’

type arrangements with extended family can be a much better alternative than coming into Care

in providing for the long-term well-being of children who cannot live with their parents.

Youth between 16 and 18 whose safety is at risk if they live at home and who do not have a

caregiver willing and able to provide care are eligible for a Youth Agreement. Such agreements

allow youth to receive financial assistance and support without being brought into Care. As noted

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%



45

above, youth support and improved support for young adults who have been on agreements or in

Care is a key action focus for MCFD in 2013/2014.


Children and Youth in Care (CYIC), Out-of-Care Caseloads, April 2007 to July 20151

Children and Youth in Care (CYIC) by Aboriginal Status, BC, April 2007 to July 20151 (CYIC)

1 Please refer to the note at the end of the Service Line Index for explanation of the drop in caseload in July 2015.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

7,200

7,700

8,200

8,700

9,200

9,700

Apr-07 Oct-07 Apr-08 Oct-08 Apr-09 Oct-09 Apr-10 Oct-10 Apr-11 Oct-11 Apr-12 Oct-12 Apr-13 Oct-13 Apr-14 Oct-14 Apr-15

CYIC Caseload

Out of Care Caseload

2,500

3,500

4,500

5,500

6,500

7,500

8,500

9,500

10,500


Total

Aboriginal

Non-Aboriginal

46

Children and Youth in Care, BC, July 31, 2015 by SDA (CYIC)

Service Delivery Area Children and Youth in Care

July 31, 2015 % of Aboriginal Children and Youth in Care July 31, 2015

BC 7,210 60.6%

Kootenays 197 51.3% Okanagan 536 51.7% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 728 62.9% East Fraser 745 56.0% North Fraser 416 36.8% South Fraser 960 55.1% Vancouver/Richmond 707 66.8% Coast/North Shore 285 70.9% South Vancouver Island 827 52.2% North Vancouver Island 902 65.2% Northwest 276 93.5% North Central 524 78.4% Northeast 107 68.2%

Youth on Youth Agreements, BC, April 2007 to July 2015


Extended Family

Performance Indicator 4.06 Children and Youth Admitted into Care That Previously Had a Recent Out-of-Care Placement

Rationale:

Permanent, stable relationships are a major determinant of whether children feel safe and secure

and therefore, of well-being overall. If a child or youth has to leave their parental home, the

ministry or delegated Aboriginal agency strives to place the child or youth with people who know

the child or youth and will maintain a positive, lifelong relationship with them, their families and

communities, thereby minimizing disruptions to children, youth and their families.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000


Total

Aboriginal

Non-Aboriginal

47

When a child or youth needs to leave their parental home because they are at risk of abuse or

neglect or are temporarily unable to live with their parents, the ministry or delegated Aboriginal

agency can, if appropriate, arrange for an Out-of-Care placement with extended family or close

friends, which is an alternate care arrangement to foster care. This indicates how effective Out-

of-Care placements are at keeping children and youth from further involvement in the child

welfare system by examining the proportion of children and youth who come into Care after

leaving an Out-of-Care placement.

Children Admitted into Care with a Recent Out-of-Care Placement, March 2015


Children and Youth Coming

into Care within 6 Months of

Exiting an Out-of-Care

Placement (Up to March 2015)

Children and Youth Exiting From Out-of-

Care Placements,

October 2013 to September

2014

Children and Youth Coming into Care within 6 Months of Exiting an Out-of-Care

Option (%)

All Aboriginal1 Non-

Aboriginal1

BC 247 1,348 18.3% 19.3% 17.6%

Kootenays 9 41 22.0% * 23.7% Okanagan 13 83 15.7% 12.1% 18.0% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 17 99 17.2% 27.3% 4.5% East Fraser 22 121 18.2% 14.6% 20.0% North Fraser 24 124 19.4% 24.6% 14.9% South Fraser 58 265 21.9% 20.0% 22.9% Vancouver/Richmond 15 83 18.1% 26.2% 9.8% Coast/North Shore 11 57 19.3% 21.1% 15.8% South Vancouver Island 16 86 18.6% 6.7% 21.1% North Vancouver Island 31 143 21.7% 25.7% 17.8% Northwest 11 95 11.6% 11.1% 13.0% North Central 17 138 12.3% 16.4% 7.7% Northeast 3 13 23.1% * *

1 SDA data suppressed where the CYIC exiting Care is less than 10.

48

Analysis:

Trend in Children Admitted into Care with a Recent Out-of-Care Placement, September 2012 to March 2015

The rate shows no change between the baseline month, September 2012, and March 2015,

although it has fluctuated within a five percentage point range, within this period.

Discharges from Out-of-Care have increased by 44% since September 2012, while the numbers

of in Care admissions after these discharges have increased by 40%.

Trend in Children Admitted into Care with a Recent Out-of-Care Placement, September 2012 to March 2015, by Aboriginal/Non-Aboriginal

12%

13%

14%

15%

16%

17%

18%

19%

20%


12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

22%

24%



49

At 26% of the province’s increase in admissions into Care after Out-of-Care discharges (since the

September 2012 baseline), North Vancouver Island showed the largest increase in admissions into

Care.

Performance Indicator 4.16 Relative Use of Admissions into Care and Admissions to Out-of-Care Controlling for Protection Reports

Rationale: When appropriate, Out-of-Care options (OCO) are a best practice. The well-being of children

and youth is, overall, better when children and youth can continue to live with their extended

families. Sometimes children and youth can be placed in Out-of-Care options as a substitute for

admission into Care.

Out-of-Care includes the following agreements and court orders: Extended Family Program

Agreements; Interim Custody with Other under Director’s Supervision – s. 35(2)(d); Interim Custody

with Other under Director’s Supervision – s. 35(2)(d) - Consent; Temporary Custody with Other

under Director’s Supervision – s. 41(1)(b), 42.2(4)(c), 49(7)(b), 54.01(9)(b); Temporary Custody

with Other under Director’s Supervision – s. 41(1)(b), 42.2(4)(c), 49(7)(b), 54.01(9)(b) - Consent;

Extension to Temporary Custody with Other under Director’s Supervision – s. 44(3)(b); and

Extension to Temporary Custody with Other under Director’s Supervision – s. 44(3)(b) - Consent.

Relative Use of Admissions into Care and Admissions to Out-of-Care Controlling for Protection Reports, March 2015


Admissions into Out-of-Care

Placements per 1,000 Closed

Protection Reports, October 2014 to March

2015

Admissions into In Care

Placements per 1,000 Closed

Protection Reports,

October 2014 to March 2015

Admissions into Out-of-Care Placements per 1,000 Admissions into In Care Placements, October

2014 to March 2015

All Aboriginal Non -

Aboriginal

BC 61.0 119.8 508.6 652.6 414.2

Kootenays 88.8 145.9 608.7 500.0 674.4 Okanagan 63.4 146.9 431.3 492.3 389.5 Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 81.8 167.8 487.6 693.2 327.4 East Fraser 86.1 125.2 687.9 779.7 622.0 North Fraser 50.3 61.5 818.2 800.0 828.6 South Fraser 57.1 112.7 506.8 672.1 443.0 Vancouver/Richmond 37.0 93.5 395.5 520.0 321.4 Coast/North Shore 26.7 66.7 400.0 476.2 352.9 South Vancouver Island 32.6 164.0 198.8 255.8 178.0 North Vancouver Island 61.9 202.2 305.9 448.3 212.1 Northwest 81.6 90.6 900.0 937.5 750.0 North Central 99.1 96.2 1,030.6 1,294.1 744.7 Northeast 48.8 140.9 346.2 461.5 230.8

The slightly upward, positive trend in this indicator continues and applies to both Aboriginal and

Non-Aboriginal children and youth. Since September 2014, this performance indicator increased

significantly from 361 in September 2014 to 509 in March 2015.

50

Trend in Admissions into Out-of-Care Placements per 1,000 Admissions into In Care Placements, September 2012 to March 2015

Trend in Admissions into Out-of-Care Placements per 1,000 Admissions into In Care Placements, by Aboriginal Identity, September 2012 to March 2015

Over that period, both admissions into Care and Out-of-Care options per 1,000 protection

reports (based on a rolling six month period) have increased. The positive change in this measure

is due to the fact that fewer children and youth are coming into the care of the Ministry compared

to alternative care options.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800



51

For the province and all SDAs (except Kootenays and North Fraser), there was relatively greater

use of Out-of-Care options for Aboriginal children than for Non-Aboriginal children in March

2015.

The chart below shows the relationship between Out-of-Care admissions and in Care admissions

per 1,000 protection reports in March 2015. The chart is centered on the values for the province.

In March 2015, there were 61 Out-of-Care admissions per 1,000 closed protection reports

(vertical axis) and 120 in Care admissions per 1,000 closed protection reports (horizontal axis).

Relative Use of Admission into Care and Admission to Out-of-Care Controlling for Protection Report, October 2013 to March 2015

The chart is divided into four quadrants (defined by the province at the centre, e.g., horizontal

and vertical dividing lines pass through the provincial data point):

1. High use of Out-of-Care, low use of in Care (compared with the province) 2. Low use of Out-of-Care and in Care (compared with the province) 3. High use of Out-of-Care and in Care (compared with the province)

4. Low use of Out-of-Care and high use of in Care (compared with the province)

Over time it is anticipated that SDAs will shift to the left of the province baseline. This is

happening for the province overall, which, on the graph, the current provincial value is to the left

of the provincial baseline (September 2012).

Currently a protection report is least likely to become an admission into Care in North Fraser

(probability 6%), and most likely in North Vancouver Island (20%). North Central SDA (10%) is

the most likely to utilize admissions into OCO as a response to a protection report, while

Coast/North Shore

East Fraser

Vanc./Richmond

S. Fraser

N. FraserNortheast

Northwest

N Central

Kootenays

Okanagan

Thmpsn Car Shuswap

N. Van. Island

S. Van. Island

Province

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 50 100 150 200 250

Adm

issi

on

s in

to O

ut of

Care

per

1,0

00 C

lose

d Inci

dents

Admissions into Care per 1,000 Closed Incidents

3. High use of out of care, high use of in care

1. High use of out-of-care, low use of in care

2. Low use of out-of-care, low use of in-care

4. Low use of out-of-care, high use of in-care

Province Baseline

Greater probability of incident becoming admission into Care

52

Coast/North Shore SDA (3%) is the least likely to utilize an OCO admission as a response to a

protection report.

Children and Youth in Care

Performance Indicator 5.06 Recurrence of Maltreatment of Former Children and Youth in Care1

Rationale: One of the ministry’s core objectives is to protect children that have been victims of abuse or

neglect from further maltreatment. The maltreatment recurrence rate measures how often children

that had to leave their homes because of abuse or neglect fell victim to further suspected abuse

or neglect after reunification with their family. A lower maltreatment recurrence rate means that,

of the children that returned home, more did so safely.

Recurrence of Maltreatment, March 2015


Children and Youth

Living Away From Home

Due to Abuse or Neglect

That Returned

Home between

April 2013 and March

2014

Children and Youth

That Returned

Home and Were the Subject of

an FDR within 12 Months (Up to March

2015)(%)

Children and Youth

That Returned

Home and Were the Subject of

an Investigation

within 12 Months (Up to March 2015)(%)

Children and Youth That Returned Home and were the Subject of Either a

FDR or an Investigation within 12 Months (Up to March 2015)(%)

All Aboriginal Non-

Aboriginal

BC 1,687 10.7% 5.5% 15.0% 16.7% 13.7%

Kootenays 61 11.5% 6.6% 13.1% 13.3% 13.0% Okanagan 171 8.8% 3.5% 12.3% 15.0% 10.8% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 134 12.7% 10.4% 18.7% 20.8% 16.1% East Fraser 164 9.8% 5.5% 14.0% 19.7% 10.2% North Fraser 123 8.1% 4.1% 11.4% 12.8% 10.5% South Fraser 285 8.8% 4.6% 13.0% 11.9% 13.6% Vancouver/Richmond 156 9.6% 2.6% 10.3% 16.0% 4.0% Coast/North Shore 73 12.3% 2.7% 15.1% 14.8% 15.2% South Vancouver Island 108 9.3% 2.8% 12.0% 4.0% 14.5% North Vancouver Island 178 19.1% 8.4% 26.4% 28.6% 24.5% Northwest 90 6.7% 10.0% 16.7% 17.1% 15.0% North Central 111 9.9% 4.5% 12.6% 8.1% 18.4% Northeast 33 15.2% 12.1% 27.3% 35.7% 21.1%

Analysis: Overall, since September 2012 there is no discernible trend in the recurrence of maltreatment.

The increase in 2013 is related to more comprehensive identification of recurrence provided by

1 Children 16 years or older are excluded from the base data as they may not be available for the measure’s full cycle.

53

the newly implemented Integrated Case Management (ICM) system, the subsequent decline in

2014 represents the gradual removal of pre-ICM data from the indicator.

The range among SDAs is from 10% in Vancouver/Richmond SDA to 27% in the Northeast SDA.

North Vancouver Island and the Northeast have significantly higher rates of recurrence of

maltreatment than the other SDAs. The percentage also varied widely for Aboriginal and Non-

Aboriginal children and youth.

Trend in Recurrence of Maltreatment of Former Children and Youth in Care, September 2012 to March 2015

There is a change over the period and trend in the type of protection response to the recurrence

of maltreatment. In contrast with September 2012 – July 2013 the response since October 2013

is increasingly more likely to be FDR rather than investigation. The use of a Child Protection

investigation has halved over the period.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Sep-12 Dec-12 Mar-13 Jun-13 Sep-13 Dec-13 Mar-14 Jun-14 Sep-14 Dec-14 Mar-15

Aboriginal CYIC Non-Aboriginal CYIC All CYIC

54

The Trend in the Proportion of Children and Youth That Returned Home and the Subject of a FDR and the Trend in the Proportion of Children and Youth That Returned Home and the Subject of an INV

Performance Indicator 5.01 Children and Youth in Care Who Exited to Permanency

Rationale: Permanent, stable relationships are a major determinant of whether children feel safe and secure

and therefore, of well-being overall. Permanence is achieved by leaving the care of the Director

of Child Welfare through family reunification, adoption or permanent transfer of custody under

the CFCSA.

Since it is possible for a CYIC to re-enter Care after achieving permanency, whether a former

CYIC has achieved permanency can only be measured over a span of time. This indicator is

calculated using CYIC that achieved permanency over the six month period ending March 2015.

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%


Children and Youth that Returned Home and the Subject of an INV within 12 Months (%)

Children and Youth that Returned Home and the Subject of an FDR within 12 Months (%)

55

Discharges from Care to Permanency, March 2015


Children Who

Exited From Care between October

2014 and March

2015 for Reasons

Other Than Aging Out

Children Who Had Been in

Care for More Than

Two Months on September 30, 2014

Children Who Exited to Permanency (%) Median Time to

Permanency (Months)

Median Duration For CYIC That

Remained in Care

(Months) All Aboriginal Non-

Aboriginal

BC 1,096 7,465 14.7% 10.7% 19.1% 15 47

Kootenays 63 252 25.0% 15.6% 30.2% 12.0 38.0 Okanagan 99 618 16.0% 9.4% 20.3% 15.0 51.0 Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 117 797 14.7% 12.6% 17.6% 15.0 40.0 East Fraser 105 760 13.8% 14.3% 13.3% 20.0 52.0 North Fraser 54 396 13.6% 9.5% 15.1% 16.5 39.0 South Fraser 113 915 12.3% 8.2% 16.4% 15.0 49.0 Vancouver/Richmond 73 748 9.8% 6.1% 16.5% 17.0 60.0 Coast/North Shore 58 294 19.7% 9.0% 36.2% 20.0 59.0 South Vancouver Island 95 847 11.2% 6.3% 14.5% 16.0 40.0 North Vancouver Island 175 943 18.6% 16.0% 22.0% 14.0 37.0 Northwest 65 272 23.9% 17.0% 51.9% 10.0 66.0 North Central 53 533 9.9% 6.1% 19.5% 17.5 50.0 Northeast 26 89 29.2% 20.9% 37.0% 8.0 28.0

Analysis: Over the six month period October 2014 to March 2015 1,096 CYIC (15% of all CYIC) found

permanency1. This is a substantial increase over the same six month period one year earlier (839

CYIC, 11% of the total). This continues an upward trend evident since September 2012.

1 For fiscal year 2014/2015 as a whole 2,813 CYIC found permanency, 89% of which were reunifications with family.

56

Trend in Discharges from Care to Permanency, September 2012 to March 2015

Trend in Discharges from Care to Permanency, by Aboriginal Identity, September 2012 to March 2015

A positive implication of higher permanency rates is fewer CYIC becoming continuing wards of the

province; children under Continuing Custody Orders (CCOs). CCOs, as a proportion of all CYIC,

have been declining since 2004. Since September 2012, the per cent of CYIC who have been in

Care for more than 2 months and under a CCO has declined by six percentage points from 61%

to 55% in March 2015.

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%


0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

15%

16%

17%

18%

19%

20%


Non-Aboriginal Aboriginal

57

Per Cent of CYIC Who Have Been in Care for More Than Two Months under a CCO

Per Cent of CYIC Who Have been in Care for More Than Two Months under a CCO, by Aboriginal/Non-Aboriginal, September 2012 to March 2015

As the CYIC caseload is increasingly made up of non-CCO CYIC, and since non-CCO CYIC are

more likely to achieve permanency, the percentage of CYIC achieving permanency is increasing.

Across the province, except in East Fraser SDA, discharges to permanency were lower for

Aboriginal children and youth compared to Non-Aboriginal children and youth. Aboriginal

children and youth are less likely to be discharged from Care to permanency in six months since a

higher proportion of them were under a CCO (66%) compared to Non-Aboriginal children and

youth (42%) in September 2014.

Over time most children admitted into Care do find permanency. By way of illustration, the

following graph looks at the cohort of admissions into Care in 2009 and the percentage of them

that found permanency over time. Of this cohort, 56% had found permanency within two years

and 65% within five years. For the Aboriginal CYIC within this cohort, the proportions are similar

but lower than for their Non-Aboriginal counterparts. Reasons for this include Aboriginal CYIC

slightly more likely to be readmitted into Care (e.g., the permanency arrangement breakdown)

54%

55%

56%

57%

58%

59%

60%

61%

62%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



58

and Aboriginal CCOs are only half as likely to be adopted (more likely to be siblings and need

placing together and the need to ensure cultural appropriateness).

Percentage of CYIC Admitted in 2009 That Attained Permanency Over Time

Performance Indicator 5.11 Placement Stability

Rationale: Placement stability is essential for children and youth to develop secure attachment to a caregiver

(a fundamental determinant of their well-being) and sense of belonging. Some placement

changes are necessary and can be beneficial in terms of ensuring the right fit for the child or

youth, but generally avoiding or minimizing moves while in Care is an important goal. Evidence

shows that attachment to a caregiver for children under six can occur within as little as two to

three months, and takes only slightly longer for older children and youth. Additionally, most moves

occur within the first year of care.

The following set of six tables present the count and percentage of CYIC who move zero times,

one time, and two or more times within the previous six months and within their current episode of

care.

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

June 2010 June 2011 June 2012 June 2013 June 2014

All CYIC

Aboriginal CYIC only

Non-Aboriginal CYIC Only

59

CYIC with Zero Placement Changes during the Previous Six Months, Children and Youth in Care CYIC (1 to 12 Months Duration) by Province and Service Delivery Area, Period Ending March 31, 2015


CYIC in 1 to 12 Months of Their

Current Episode of Care in March 2015

CYIC That Did Not Move in the Previous Six Months (%)


Aboriginal

BC 1,923 77.4% 76.4% 78.3%

Kootenays 72 86.1% 100.0% 75.6% Okanagan 146 84.9% 80.4% 87.0% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 280 80.4% 78.6% 82.5% East Fraser 144 76.4% 79.1% 74.0% North Fraser 132 68.2% 73.1% 65.0% South Fraser 270 75.2% 68.4% 78.9% Vancouver/Richmond 142 76.1% 72.9% 78.3% Coast/North Shore 52 69.2% 80.0% 59.3% South Vancouver Island 209 71.3% 70.2% 72.0% North Vancouver Island 280 84.6% 83.2% 86.1% Northwest 51 72.5% 68.2% 100.0% North Central 101 78.2% 75.0% 84.8% Northeast 44 65.9% 59.1% 72.7%

CYIC (1 to 12 Months Duration) with Zero Placement Changes in Current Episode of Care




CYIC That Did Not Move (%)


Aboriginal

BC 1,923 68.5% 66.7% 70.1%


60

CYIC with One Placement Change during the Previous Six Months




CYIC That Moved Once in the Previous Six Months (%)


Aboriginal

BC 1,923 17.8% 18.8% 16.9%


CYIC with One Placement Changes in Current Episode of Care




CYIC That Moved Once (%)


Aboriginal

BC 1,923 22.5% 23.6% 21.5%


61

CYIC with Two or More Placement Change during the Previous Six Months




CYIC That Moved Two or More Times in the Previous Six Months (%)


Aboriginal

BC 1,923 4.8% 4.8% 4.7%


CYIC with Two or More Placement Change during the Current Episodes of Care




CYIC That Moved Two or More Times (%)


Aboriginal

BC 1,923 9.0% 9.7% 8.4%


62

Analysis:

Trend in CYIC (1 to 12 Months Duration) with Zero Placement Changes during the Previous Six Months, September 2012 to March 2015

Trend in CYIC (1 to 12 Months Duration) with Zero Placement Changes in Current Episode of Care, September 2012 to March 2015

The slight upward trend for both of these stability indicators continues.

Older children are more likely to experience a placement change. In fact, the chances of having a

placement change for both Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal children increases with age.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


63

Aboriginal children are more likely to have a placement change than Non-Aboriginal children

even after accounting for age differences. This is clear from the higher proportion of Aboriginal

children that move and the fact that, on the whole, Aboriginal CYIC are younger (median age for

Aboriginal children was seven compared to eight for Non-Aboriginal children).

Age Distribution of CYIC between September 2012 and March 2015 by Aboriginal and Non-

Aboriginal

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Non-Aboriginal Aboriginal

64

Trend in CYIC (1 to 12 Months Duration) with No Placement Changes during the Previous Six Months, by Aboriginal identity, September 2012 to March 2015

Trend in CYIC (1 to 12 Months Duration) with No Placement Changes in Current Episode of Care, by Aboriginal identity, September 2012 to March 2015

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



65

Performance Indicator 5.61 Aboriginal Children and Youth Cared for By Aboriginal Communities and Service Providers

Rationale: Aboriginal children and youth, who have had to leave their parental home, need cultural safety

through an Aboriginal service system that strongly connects them to their culture and traditions.

This connection is important to identity and belonging and consequently overall well-being.

The Aboriginal Children and Youth Cared for By Aboriginal Communities and Service Providers

performance indicator is calculated as the count of distinct Aboriginal children and youth younger

than 17 years of age who were placed with a Delegated Aboriginal Agency (DAA), or were

placed in an MCFD office and had an Aboriginal caregiver (either a foster parent or an

extended family caregiver).

Per Cent of Aboriginal CYIC between October 2014 and March 2015 Who Receive Services Delivered by Aboriginal Communities and Service Providers


Aboriginal Children Cared for Through

Aboriginal Communities and Service Providers, October 2014 to

March 2015

Aboriginal Children Having to Leave Their Parental Home,

October 2014 to March 2015

Aboriginal Children Cared for Through

Aboriginal Communities and Service Providers, October 2014 to March 2015 (%)

BC 2,659 4,523 58.8%

Kootenays 45 82 54.9% Okanagan 81 284 28.5% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 324 514 63.0% East Fraser 376 421 89.3% North Fraser 45 166 27.1% South Fraser 256 535 47.9% Vancouver/Richmond 397 474 83.8% Coast/North Shore 117 198 59.1% South Vancouver Island 227 402 56.5% North Vancouver Island 341 630 54.1% Northwest 137 262 52.3% North Central 291 469 62.0% Northeast 22 85 25.9%

66

Analysis:

Trend in Aboriginal CYIC Who Receive Services Delivered by Aboriginal Communities and Service Providers, September 2012 to March 2015

As of March 2015, this performance indicator is about the same as in September 2012 due to an

increase in the number of identified Aboriginal children and youth in Care.

The following chart shows how the 4,523 Aboriginal children and youth who had to leave their

parental home between October 2014 and March 2015 were cared for by Aboriginal

communities and service providers.

Aboriginal CYIC by Type of Aboriginal Service Provider, October 2014 to March 2015

The majority (41%) of Aboriginal children and youth who were supported by the Aboriginal

community received services through a DAA.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%


41%

9% 9%

41%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Placed with DAA Placed with MCFD, withAboriginal Foster parents

Placed with MCFD , with Out-of-Care Caregiver

Placed with MCFD, with non-Aboriginal Caregiver

67

The number of children and youth placed with a DAA over time is the main driver behind

improvements in performance for this measure. At the SDA level, performance ranges from a few

SDAs in the 20 percentile (Okanagan, North Fraser and Northeast), to a high of 89% in the East

Fraser. This difference largely results from whether a DAA is located within the SDA. The Fraser

Valley Aboriginal Children and Family Services agency, one of the largest DAAs in the province,

is located in East Fraser while there is no DAA located in the Northeast SDA.

Performance Indicator 5.36 Youth Discharged from Care and Subsequently Claiming Income Assistance (IA): Expected to Work within Six Months of Aging Out

Rationale: The ministry assists and supports the transition to adulthood for any child in Care who turns 19

years old. Among desired transitions is employment, further education or training. Moving to

Income Assistance when “Expected to Work” is not a desired outcome (this differs to receiving

entitled disability benefits ‘PWD’). This is an indicator of how effectively the ministry prepares

youth to transition to adulthood.

Of All Children in Care Who Turned 19 Years Old between April and September 2014, the Proportion That Went on to Claim ‘Income Assistance: Expected to Work’ within Six Months (Up to March 2015)


CYIC That Aged Out between

April 2014 and September 20141

Accessing 'Income Assistance:

Expected to Work' within Six Months

(Up to March 2015)’c Aboriginal1

Non-Aboriginal1

BC 397 14.9% 18.7% 11.4%

Kootenays 13 23.1% * * Okanagan 27 18.5% 16.7% 20.0% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 42 14.3% 23.8% 4.8% East Fraser 40 7.5% 8.3% 6.3% North Fraser 22 22.7% * 23.5% South Fraser 57 12.3% 21.7% 5.9% Vancouver/Richmond 56 16.1% 16.0% 16.1% Coast/North Shore 18 0.0% * 0.0% South Vancouver Island 43 16.3% 31.3% 7.4% North Vancouver Island 41 19.5% 25.0% 14.3% Northwest 10 20.0% * * North Central 19 15.8% 25.0% * Northeast * * * *

1 SDA data suppressed where the number of youth aging out of Youth Agreements is less than 10

68

Analysis:

Trend in Youth Discharged from Care and Subsequently Claiming ‘IA: Expected to Work’ within Six Months, September 2012 to March 2015

The trend appears to be declining but is not statistically significant and so we determine that

there has been no change in performance over this time. Over the 30 months, the range of this

rate is 13% to 19%; the rate at March 2015 of 15%. Across Service Delivery Areas the rates

range from 0% to 23%.

The trends by Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal are provided below. As per the overall rate,

neither group shows a statistically significant change since September 2012.

10%

13%

15%

18%

20%


69

Trend in Youth Discharged from Care and Subsequently Claiming ‘IA: Expected to Work’ within Six Months, by Aboriginal/Non-Aboriginal, September 2012 to March 2015

Of All Children in Care Who Turned 19 Years Old between April and September 2014, the Proportion That Went on to Claim Income Assistance or Persons with Disabilities within Six Months (Up to March 2015)

CYIC That Aged Out between April 2014 and September

2014

BC 397 100.0%

IA: Expected to Work (ETW) 59 14.9% IA: Expected to Work - Medical Condition 9 2.3% IA: Persistent Multiple Barriers (PPMB) 0 0.0% IA: Temporarily Excused from Work 28 7.1% Persons with Disabilities (PWD) 139 35.0%

Did not Access IA or PWD 208 52.4%

While the percentage of youth that age out and access IA: Expected to Work is an indication of

youth that have not effectively transitioned to adulthood, the former youth in Care may also

access other income supports from the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation’s BC

Employment and Assistance programs. Of the 48% youth that accessed any IA or PWD supports

within six months of aging out (they may access more than one type of support in the six months

from aging out) almost 74% of the youth accessed PWD assistance. PWD assistance is an income

and asset tested income support program for adults with severe mental or physical impairment

that is likely to continue for two or more years, which significantly restricts daily living activities

continuously or periodically for extended periods resulting in the need for assistance/supervision.

5%

8%

10%

13%

15%

18%

20%

23%

25%


Aboriginal Non-Aborignal

70

Youth Discharged from Care and Subsequently Claiming IA or PWD within Six Months, by Type, March 2008 to March 2015

While the rate of youth accessing IA: Expected to Work within six months of aging out has

remained fairly constant, the rate of youth accessing PWD assistance has increased by 10% over

the same time frame.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Mar-08 Mar-09 Mar-10 Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-13 Mar-14 Mar-15

ETW Temporarily Excused from Work PWD PPMB ETW - Medical Condition

71

Youth Discharged from Care and Subsequently Claiming ‘IA: Expected to Work’ within Six Months, within 7 to 12 Months, and within 19 to 24 Months

The above graph shows the rates of accessing IA: Expected to Work within six months, 7 to12

months, and 19 to 24 months of aging out. The rates for a specific month display the rates on IA:

Expected to Work at the various time periods for the same group of children in Care age outs.

For example, the rates at March 2011 show for youth that aged Out-of-Care between April and

September 2010 the rate of youth that accessed IA: Expected to Work within the next six months

(up to March 2011); the rate the same group of April to September 2010 age outs accessed IA:

Expected to Work within 7 to 12 months after aging out (up to September 2011); and the rate

the same group of April to September 2010 age outs accessed IA: Expected to Work within 19

to 24 months after aging out (up to September 2012).

While the per cent of youth aging out from Care and accessing IA: Expected to Work within six

months has hovered around 17% in recent years, the rate of youth accessing IA: Expected to

Work from 7 to12 months after aging out falls by approximately six percentage points and the

rate two years later falls by another two percentage points, an indication that the youth are

finding other sources of income.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 Mar-10 Sep-10 Mar-11 Sep-11 Mar-12 Sep-12 Mar-13 Sep-13

On IA: ETW within 6 Months On IA: ETW within 7-12 Months On IA: ETW within 19-24 Months

72

Youth Claiming ‘IA: Expected to Work’ within Six Months, but not within 7 to 12 Months

Youth Claiming ‘IA: Expected to Work’ within Six Months, but not within 19 to 24 Months

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 Mar-10 Sep-10 Mar-11 Sep-11 Mar-12 Sep-12 Mar-13 Sep-13 Mar-14 Sep-14

No IA/PWD Temporarily Excused From Work PWD PPMB ETW: Medical Condition

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



73

Performance Indicator 5.66 Cost per Child and Youth in Care Excluding CYIC with Special Needs

Rationale: The cost per case gives the average cost for CYIC for each year spent by a child in a residential

placement. Cost pressures often stem from a shortage of skilled foster parents, which translates

into a higher usage of more expensive contracted resources. Other factors that can impact costs

per case include the use of exceptional payments to service providers and the level of care

required by the current caseload composition.

Cost per Child and Youth in Care Excluding CYIC with Special Needs, 12 Month Period Ending March 31, 2015

Service Delivery Area Total Number of Placement Days

Average Annual Cost per Placement

All Aboriginal Non-

Aboriginal

BC 1,433,688 33,933 29,961 37,131

Kootenays 41,426 35,704 39,134 34,346 Okanagan 140,026 27,706 27,819 27,598 Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 142,515 31,713 30,854 32,443 East Fraser 97,134 40,258 25,477 42,311 North Fraser 106,576 39,263 40,825 38,277 South Fraser 208,668 38,984 30,722 45,482 Vancouver/Richmond 96,125 40,158 39,181 40,547 Coast/North Shore 60,743 27,525 23,006 35,854 South Vancouver Island 189,365 32,976 26,618 36,588 North Vancouver Island 184,899 24,602 22,527 27,383 Northwest 49,122 23,702 24,000 21,617 North Central 93,514 42,228 38,678 49,034 Northeast 23,575 42,670 46,295 33,735

74

Analysis:

Trend in Cost per Child and Youth in Care Excluding CYIC with Special Needs, September 2012 to March 2015

The average cost per child increased by 8% since the baseline period. At the same time, there

was a drop of 77,000 bed days (the equivalent of 211 full-time CYIC). Some of this drop in bed

days can be expected as Aboriginal CYIC moved to the care of Delegated Aboriginal Agencies,

which are excluded from this measure.

A total of 6,269 distinct children and youth were cared for through paid MCFD residential

resources over the 12 month period ending March 31, 2015. These CYIC stayed in Care an

average of 229 days. During the baseline period, 6,410 came into the care of the ministry, and

remained in Care for an average of 235 days.

At 45%, the proportion of bed days used to provide residential care for Aboriginal children

remained unchanged from the baseline period. Meanwhile, Aboriginal children continued to cost

less to care for than their Non-Aboriginal counterparts, but the cost of caring for them continued

to increase faster than for Non-Aboriginal children (10% vs. 7%), thus slowly narrowing the gap.

$30,600

$30,800

$31,000

$31,200

$31,400

$31,600

$31,800

$32,000

$32,200

$32,400

$32,600

$32,800

$33,000

$33,200

$33,400

$33,600

$33,800

$34,000

$34,200


75

Trend in Average Residential Cost per Child and Youth in Care Excluding CYIC with Special Needs, by Child’s Aboriginal Status

The age distribution of the CYIC was not a driver of the cost increase: the proportion of bed

days used this period to care for children under the age of 12 rose by four percentage points,

while the more expensive youth aged 12 and older saw their bed day usage go down by the

same percentage. And while all age groups saw increases in their residential costs this period, the

older children saw their costs increase three times more than their younger counterparts.

The type of service provider used to care for the CYIC has a direct impact on the overall costs.

Notably, the likelihood of CYIC to be cared for by a contracted, staffed resource has increased

by 13% since the baseline period. These resources are typically used to care for higher needs

children and youth, and can cost more than five times the cost of foster homes. Most of the

residential cost increase since the baseline came from the contracted resources while the cost of

foster homes remained relatively unchanged. Differences in cost per case for Aboriginal and non-

Aboriginal CYIC reflects slight differences in the proportions of placement type (foster care v

contracted resources) used to provide the appropriate care required.

The North Central and Northeast SDAs had the highest cost per case, due to a higher use of

contracted staffed resources, followed by the Greater Vancouver area.

Performance Indicator 5.71 Children and Youth in Care Funded Bed Utilization Rate

Rationale: In order to ensure sufficient quantities of appropriate homes for children and youth that come into

Care the ministry needs to fund some empty beds. Foster parents with specialized skills are

provided with a monthly fixed payment regardless of whether a child is living in the home.

This is an indicator of the ministry’s ability to manage its contracts with foster care providers in

order to optimize resources. Generally, a higher utilization rate (with sufficient capacity) is

associated with more efficient use of foster home capacity.

$25,000

$27,000

$29,000

$31,000

$33,000

$35,000

$37,000


Aboriginal

Non-Aboriginal

76

Funded Bed Utilization Rate, 12 Month Period Ending March 2015

Service Delivery Area1 Funded Bed Days Funded Bed Day Utilization

Rate

BC 1,846,211 91.1%

Kootenay 56,479 85.6% Okanagan 191,339 86.1% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 166,922 92.0% East Fraser 131,319 91.2% North Fraser 134,715 93.1% South Fraser 273,134 94.3% Vancouver/Richmond 136,241 87.6% Coast/North Shore 75,010 93.7% South Vancouver Island 253,587 89.8% North Vancouver Island 226,781 93.2% Northwest 59,694 93.7% North Central 110,376 90.5% Northeast 30,614 89.1%

Analysis:

Trend in Funded Bed Utilization Rate, September 2012 to March 2015

Since the baseline period of September 2012, there has been little change in the performance of

this indicator, with a decline of less than 0.1 percentage points. During the same period the

number of bed days available and the number of bed days used have decreased slightly.

Use of level 2 and level 3 foster homes is increasing, while contracted resources show little signs

of changing. Over time this will have a positive impact on the performance of the indicator as the

combined number of level 2 and level 3 available and used bed days is higher than the number

of available and used bed days for contracted resources.

1 Table excludes Lower Mainland facilities.

90.5%

90.7%

90.9%

91.1%

91.3%

91.5%

91.7%

91.9%

92.1%


77

Per Cent of Capacity and Service Providers by Utilization Levels

64% of service providers were fully utilized at 100%, and account for 49% of the days utilized.

10% of the service providers have 50% or less utilization and account for 10% of the days

utilized.

The makeup of foster homes in an SDA impacts the utilization rate. Level 2 foster homes have a

wider range of utilization rates between the SDA’s than level 3 or contracted resources. All SDAs

have level 3 home utilization rates over 81%, and contracted resource utilization rates by SDA

ranging between 74% and 100% utilization.

Almost half of the SDAs have decreases in their utilization rates since the base period. Over the

past 12 months, the number of SDAs with declining utilization rates has gone up slightly.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0% >0%-25% >25%-50% >50% to 75% >75 to <100% 100%

Per Cent of Service Providers

Per Cent of Days

78

Educational Performance

Performance Indicator 5.21 Age-Appropriate Grade of Children and Youth in Care (CYIC)

Rationale: MCFD and the Ministry of Education work together towards keeping CYIC in school and their

learning progress at school. That CYIC are learning and progressing in school is an important

outcome for the present and future well-being of CYIC. But it is also symptomatic of other aspects

of the well-being and is a useful indicator to the ministry in its planning and service provision for

each CYIC.

Age-Appropriate Grade by SDA, September 30, 2014


CYIC between October

2013 and September

2014

Current or Former CYIC in School

September 2014

Proportion of CYIC in School on

September 30, 2014

(%)

Proportion in Their Age-Appropriate Grade (%)

All Aboriginal Non-

Aboriginal

BC 8,561 6,709 78.4% 85.0% 85.9% 84.2%

Kootenays 318 219 68.9% 85.4% 87.4% 84.1% Okanagan 732 540 73.8% 84.3% 83.3% 84.8% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 912 686 75.2% 85.3% 84.6% 86.0% East Fraser 821 654 79.7% 81.7% 82.0% 81.3% North Fraser 514 399 77.6% 84.0% 85.0% 83.6% South Fraser 1,071 852 79.6% 88.4% 89.1% 87.7% Vancouver/Richmond 846 647 76.5% 80.5% 86.1% 71.2% Coast/North Shore 337 268 79.5% 87.7% 89.5% 85.2% South Vancouver Island 936 765 81.7% 83.9% 83.2% 84.4% North Vancouver Island 1,034 825 79.8% 87.0% 87.2% 86.8% Northwest 310 266 85.8% 89.1% 87.6% 95.9% North Central 590 485 82.2% 87.0% 86.8% 87.5% Northeast 139 102 73.4% 78.4% 81.6% 75.5%

79

Age-Appropriate Grade of CYIC by School Year

Female CYIC are in their age-appropriate grade at higher proportions than their male counterparts.

Analysis:

The 2.1 percentage point increase since September 2012 is a significant improvement. This

improvement applies to both Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal CYIC. In fact, the trend has been

upward since 2000 and has strengthened slightly since 2010.

Aboriginal CYIC are in Their Age-Appropriate Grade at Higher Proportions than Non-Aboriginal CYIC

Typically children are much more likely to repeat a grade from grade 9 onwards so those aged

14 to 17 are far less likely to be in age-appropriate grade. Since 2000, this performance

indicator has improved across all age groups and for both Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal CYIC.

Especially positive is that the greatest improvement is in the most challenging 14 to 17 age

groups for both Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal CYIC.

82.9% 83.4% 85.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Sept-12 Sept-13 Sept-14

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


80

CYIC aged 14 to 17 years old improved the most from 57% in 2000 compared to 80% in 2014.

All other age groups were in their age-appropriate grade 90 to 96% of the time, between 2000

and 2014.

Non-Aboriginal CYIC Aged 5 to 13 Aboriginal CYIC Aged 5 to 13


Since 2000, Aboriginal CYIC has a higher proportion of students at the age-appropriate grade;

86% in the 2014 school year vs. 84% for their Non-Aboriginal counterpart. However, the

performance gap has been shrinking as the proportions of male and female Non-Aboriginal CYIC

in their appropriate grade have improved by 10 percentage points vs. six percentage points for

their Aboriginal counterparts.

Overall, female CYIC students are more likely to be attending school in their age-appropriate

grade than male CYIC students. However, since 2010 there has been a rapid reduction in the gap

between performance of the male and female age-appropriate performance indicator for

Aboriginal CYIC.

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

81

Performance Indicator 5.16 Grade Progression of Children and Youth in Care

Rationale: Although some CYIC are not in an age-appropriate grade they are progressing in their learning

and move up to the next grade level the following September. Grade progression is an indicator

of learning and educational progress.

Grade Progression for CYIC by SDA, 2013/2014


Children and Youth in Care on September 30, 2013 and September

30, 2014 Inclusive and In School

Children and Youth in Care on September 30, 2014 That Showed

Grade Progression (%)

All Aboriginal Non-

Aboriginal

BC 4,724 89.8% 91.7% 87.4%


Grade Progression of CYIC by School Year

Between 2000 and 2014, a greater proportion of Aboriginal CYIC transitioned to a higher

grade than Non-Aboriginal CYIC every year.

88.5% 88.7% 89.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


82

Analysis:

Vancouver/Richmond lags the province due to Non-Aboriginal CYIC not progressing while South

Fraser leads the province due to high progression in both Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal CYIC.

Trend in Grade Progression of CYIC Over Time, Non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal

Since 2000, CYIC increasingly progressed to a higher grade (83% in 2000 compared to 89% in

2014). This performance is due to the consistent improvement in grade progression across

Aboriginal/Non-Aboriginal CYIC and across all age groups (sees charts below).



80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

94%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Non-Aboriginal CYIC Aboriginal CYIC All CYIC

67%

72%

77%

82%

87%

92%

97%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201467%

72%

77%

82%

87%

92%

97%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

67%

72%

77%

82%

87%

92%

97%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201467%

72%

77%

82%

87%

92%

97%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

83

Performance Indicator 5.26 Children and Youth in Care Who Finish School with a High School Credential

Rationale: There is strong evidence that completing high school is conducive to general well-being throughout

life. Furthermore, it is a good barometer of current general well-being for that particular cohort.

MCFD works to maximize the educational attainment of CYIC.

Children and Youth in Care Who Finish School with a High School Credential, 2013/2014


CYIC Who Turned 19

during Fiscal Year

2013/2013

CYIC Who Turned 19 Matched to BC School Records

Per Cent CYIC Who Turned 19 with a High School Credential (%)

All Aboriginal1 Non-

Aboriginal1

BC 694 688 48.1% 46.8% 49.1%

Kootenays 27 27 40.7% 53.8% 28.6% Okanagan 75 75 65.3% 75.0% 58.1% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 65 64 60.0% 50.0% 69.7% East Fraser 71 71 56.3% 58.8% 54.1% North Fraser 52 51 48.1% 42.9% 50.0% South Fraser 92 92 53.3% 30.0% 64.5% Vancouver/Richmond 78 75 30.8% 35.5% 27.7% Coast/North Shore 19 18 42.1% * 53.3% South Vancouver Island 70 70 37.1% 37.0% 37.2% North Vancouver Island 62 62 50.0% 48.5% 51.7% Northwest 24 24 45.8% 41.2% * North Central 45 45 40.0% 44.4% 33.3% Northeast 14 14 21.4% * *

Analysis: BC offers students several options for students to show that they completed their K to 12

education. This performance measure combines two certificates (Certificate of Graduation –

Dogwood Diploma and Adult Graduation Diploma Program) and one alternative credential

(School Completion certificate).

For 2013/2014, 27% of CYIC turned 19 with a Dogwood Diploma, 16% with a Completion

Certificate, and 5% with an Adult Graduation Diploma2.

Over the past 14 years between fiscal year 2000/2001 and 2013/2014 steadily more CYIC

and CCO turned 19 with a high school credential. In 2000/2001 28% of CYIC turned 19 with a

high school credential whereas the proportion in 2013/2014 was 48%.

This trend in indicator is largely due to the introduction of the Completion Certificate. The Ministry

of Education introduced Completion Certificates for students who successfully completed their

education goals outlined in their Individualized Education Plan. The first CYIC turned 19 with a

completion certificate in 2005/2006 (2.1%). In 2013/2014, 110 (16%) CYIC turned 19 with a

Completion Certificate.

1 SDA data suppressed where the number of CYIC turning 19 is less than 10. 2 Data extracted directly from Ministry of Education webpage http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/reporting/province.php

84

The proportion of CYIC turning 19 with a Dogwood Diploma increased from 22% in 2000/2001

to 27% in 2013/2014. Female CYIC turn 19 with a Dogwood Diploma at higher proportions than

male CYIC regardless of Aboriginal identity. All groupings of male/female and Aboriginal/Non-

Aboriginal CYIC turned 19 with a Dogwood Diploma at a higher proportion in 2013/2014 than

2000/2001. The proportion of male Aboriginal CYIC showed the largest increase since

2000/2001 (11% to 24%).

Young people that were formerly in Care or had a youth agreement are eligible for financial

assistance with education expenses. The Youth Education Assistance Fund provides bursaries for

former youth in permanent care between 19 and 23 years of age who are attending university,

college, a university/college, an institute, or designated private school. Support is also available

through the Agreement with a Young Adult program which may provide assistance for living

expenses as well as tuition costs while participating in educational, vocational or rehabilitation

programs.

Youth Education Assistance Fund, Fiscal Year 2014/2015

Service Delivery Area1

Young Adults Who Received a YEAF

Bursary from April 2014 to March

20152

Expenditures on YEAF

Bursary from April 2014 to March 2015

Per Cent of Young Adult Recipients of a YEAF

Bursary (%)

Aboriginal2,3 Non-

Aboriginal2

BC4 253 $1,386,671 34% 66%

Kootenays * * * * Okanagan 18 99,000 39% 61% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap

26 143,000 50% 50%

East Fraser 11 60,500 55% 45% North Fraser 20 110,000 35% 65% South Fraser 46 248,171 31% 69% Vancouver/Richmond 48 264,000 21% 79% Coast/North Shore * * * * South Vancouver Island 35 192,500 14% 86% North Vancouver Island 13 71,500 54% 46% Northwest * * * * North Central 10 55,000 56% 44% Northeast * * * *

1 The mapping of the Service Delivery Area is based on the office a YEAF recipient aged out 2 SDA data suppressed where the number of Young Adults who receive YEAF is less than 10.

3 18 YEAF recipients were not linked to any Aboriginal information 4 The Provincial total includes 16 cases that were not linked to any SDA

85

Agreements with Young Adults, Fiscal Year 2014/2015


Young Adults Receiving

AYA Support during Fiscal

Year 2014/20151

AYA Expenditures during Fiscal

Year 2014/2015

Per Cent of Young Adults Receiving AYA

Support (%)2

Aboriginal Non-

Aboriginal

BC 582 $3,200,710 29% 71%

Kootenays 16 70,496 50% 50% Okanagan 44 188,686 26% 74% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 40 219,095 43% 58% North Fraser 51 252,119 35% 65% Fraser (East and South)3 116 741,826 25% 75% Vancouver (Vancouver/Richmond and Coast/North Shore)3 131 627,612 20% 80% Vancouver Island (North and South)3 112 643,950 21% 79% Northwest 36 202,233 74% 26% North Central 36 216,296 31% 69% Northeast 5 38,399 60% 40%

Performance Indicator 5.31 Foundation Skills Assessment (FSA) for Reading, Writing and Numeracy, Grade Four and Grade Seven

Rationale:

Gauging the learning of CYIC provides MCFD with insight into their educational progress as well

as some of their broader needs. FSA scores (even as early as Grade Four) have a high predictive

power of high school completion. This is the proportion of CYIC from September to February of

their grade four year and their grade seven year who meet or exceed expectations for reading,

writing and numeracy.

The following set of six tables presents the count and percentage of CYIC meeting or exceeding

expectations in the areas of reading, writing, and numeracy in grades four and seven.

1 The AYA count across SDAs exceeds BC count as some AYA payments overlap 2 The AYA Aboriginal information is estimated based on linking case files to expenditure data 3 A majority (or all) AYA transactions for both SDA's are processed in the same location

86

Grade Four Numeracy: Meeting or Exceeding Expectations by SDA


CYIC between Sept 2013 and February 2014 in Grade 41

Numeracy: Meeting or Exceeding Expectations (%)

All1 Aboriginal1 Non-

Aboriginal1

BC 286 30.8% 30.6% 31.0%

Kootenays * * * * Okanagan 17 41.2% 41.7% * Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 26 30.8% 20.0% 45.5% East Fraser 34 26.5% 31.8% 16.7% North Fraser * * * * South Fraser 37 35.1% 39.1% 28.6% Vancouver/Richmond 40 30.0% 25.8% * Coast/North Shore 10 30.0% 28.6% 33.3% South Vancouver Island 24 33.3% 45.5% 23.1% North Vancouver Island 38 36.8% 30.4% 46.7% Northwest 11 9.1% 10.0% * North Central 28 21.4% 24.0% * Northeast * * * *

FSA Results for Grade Four Numeracy Over Time by Aboriginal / Non-Aboriginal

1 SDA data suppressed where the number of CYIC is less than 10.

39%

32%

36%

30%

35%33%

31%

43%

35%

38% 38%

44%

36%

31%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014


87

Grade Four Reading: Meeting or Exceeding Expectations by SDA


CYIC between Sept 2013 and February 2014 in Grade 41

Reading: Meeting or Exceeding Expectations (%)


Aboriginal1

BC 286 40.2% 39.2% 42.0%


FSA Results for Grade Four Reading Over Time by Aboriginal / Non-Aboriginal

1 SDA data suppressed where the number of CYIC is less than 10

44%

38%

44%

34%

42%

46%

39%

52%

45% 45%

50%

55%

45%42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014


88

Grade Four Writing: Meeting or Exceeding Expectations by SDA


CYIC between September 2013 and February 2014 in

Grade 41

Writing: Per Cent meeting or Exceeding Expectations (%)


Aboriginal1

BC 286 40.6% 41.4% 39.0%


FSA Results for Grade Four Writing Over Time by Aboriginal / Non-Aboriginal

Analysis: Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal CYIC meet or exceed expectations in Grade Four FSA at similar

proportions since 2012/2013. Both Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Female CYIC meet or exceed

expectations in Grade Four Writing at higher proportions than Male CYIC every year MCFD has

FSA results (2007/2008 to 2013/2014). In 2013/2014, Female CYIC met or exceeded

expectations in Writing, almost 20 percentage points higher than Male CYIC (50% to 32%).

1 SDA data suppressed where the number of CYIC is less than 10

48%

35%

50%

40%42%

47%

41%

47%

36%

42%

53% 53%

47%

39%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014


89

Grade Seven Numeracy: Meeting or Exceeding Expectations by SDA


CYIC between September 2013 and

February 2014 in Grade 71

Numeracy: Meeting or Exceeding Expectations (%)


Aboriginal1

BC 303 23.8% 23.0% 25.2%

Kootenays 11 18.2% * * Okanagan 24 37.5% 27.3% 46.2% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 32 46.9% 39.1% * East Fraser 29 13.8% 13.6% * North Fraser 14 14.3% * * South Fraser 41 31.7% 39.3% 15.4% Vancouver/Richmond 35 20.0% 22.2% * Coast/North Shore 11 18.2% * * South Vancouver Island 35 14.3% 8.3% 17.4% North Vancouver Island 40 17.5% 17.2% 18.2% Northwest 11 18.2% 18.2% * North Central 16 12.5% 15.4% * Northeast * * * *

FSA Results for Grade Seven Numeracy Over Time by Aboriginal / Non-Aboriginal


35%

28%

22%

28%

20%

27%

23%

28%

37%

26%

24%23%

28%

25%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014


90

Grade Seven Reading: Meeting or Exceeding Expectations




Reading: Meeting or Exceeding Expectations (%)


Aboriginal1

BC 303 31.4% 28.6% 36.4%


FSA Results for Grade Seven Reading Over Time by Aboriginal / Non-Aboriginal


40%

36% 35%

38%

28%

31%

29%

39%

43%

40%

38% 38%39%

36%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014


91

Grade Seven Writing: Meeting or Exceeding Expectations




Writing: Meeting or Exceeding Expectations (%)


Aboriginal1

BC 303 38.0% 36.2% 41.1%


FSA Results for Grade Seven Writing Over Time by Aboriginal / Non-Aboriginal

Both Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal female CYIC meet or exceed expectations in Grade Seven

Writing at higher proportions than male CYIC for every year that MCFD has FSA results

(2007/2008 to 2013/2014). In 2013/2014, the proportion of female CYIC that met or

exceeded expectations in Writing was approximately 20 percentage points higher than male

CYIC, 52% (Non-Aboriginal female) and 45% (Aboriginal female) compared to 32% (Non-

Aboriginal male) and 28% (Aboriginal male). All groups of Aboriginal/Non-Aboriginal and


45%

31%30%

48%

39%

50%

36%

43%41% 41%

45%

47%

43%41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014


92

male/female CYIC meet or exceed expectations at similar levels and trends over the other

Grade Seven FSA Tests (Numeracy and Reading).

Youth Services

Performance Indicator 5.56 Youth Who Claim Income Assistance (IA): Expected to Work within Six Months of Aging Out of Youth Agreements

Rationale: The ministry assists and supports the transition to adulthood for youth under a youth agreement

that turn 19 years old. Among desired transitions is employment, further education or training. An

undesired outcome is youth who turn 19 years old and claim income assistance benefits with the

expected to work designation. This is an indicator of how effectively the ministry prepares youth

to transition to adulthood.

Youth That Turned 19 While Under a Youth Agreement (between April and September 2014) and Claiming ‘Income Assistance: Expected to Work’ within Six Months by Service Delivery Area, As of March 31, 2015


Youth That Turned 19 While Under a Youth Agreement

between April 2014 and

September 20141

Accessing 'Income Assistance:

Expected to Work within 6 Months (Up to March 2015)1 Aboriginal1

Non-Aboriginal1

BC 224 17.0% 18.6% 16.4%

Kootenays 11 27.3% * 30.0% Okanagan 20 20.0% * 23.1% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 23 13.0% * 5.3% East Fraser 23 13.0% * 5.3% North Fraser 15 33.3% * 30.8% South Fraser 32 9.4% * 8.7% Vancouver/Richmond 36 22.2% 9.1% 28.0% Coast/North Shore 13 0.0% * * South Vancouver Island 22 13.6% * 12.5% North Vancouver Island 11 18.2% * * Northwest * * * * North Central 10 20.0% * * Northeast * * * *

1 SDA data suppressed where the number of youth aging out of Youth Agreements is less than 10

93

Analysis:

Trend in Youth Aging Out of Youth Agreements and Subsequently Claiming ‘IA: Expected to Work’ within Six Months, September 2012 to March 2015

There is no trend in this indicator. Over the 30 months, this rate has ranged from 11% to 22%.

The trends by Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal are provided below. Neither groups show a

statistically significant change since September 2012.

10%

13%

15%

18%

20%

23%


94

Trend in Youth Aging Out of Youth Agreements and Subsequently Claiming ‘IA: Expected to Work’ within Six Months, by Aboriginal/Non-Aboriginal, September 2012 to March 2015

Of All Youth Aging Out of Youth Agreements between April and September 2014, the Proportion That Went on to Claim Income Assistance or Persons with Disabilities within Six Months (Up to March 2015)

YAG That Aged Out between April 2014 and September 2014

BC 224 100.0%

IA: ETW 38 17.0% IA: Expected to Work - Medical Condition 3 1.3% IA: PPMB 1 0.4% IA: Temporarily Excused from Work 24 10.7% PWD 15 6.7%

Did not Access IA or PWD 160 71.4%

While the percentage of YAG that age out and access IA: Expected to Work is an indication of

youth that have not effectively transitioned to adulthood, YAG may also access other income

supports from the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation’s BC Employment and

Assistance programs. Of the 29% youth that accessed any IA or PWD supports within six months

of aging out (they may access more than one type of support in the six months from aging out)

almost 40% accessed IA: Temporarily Excused from Work and almost one quarter of the youth

accessed PWD assistance.

PWD assistance is an income and asset tested income support program for adults with severe

mental or physical impairment that is likely to continue for two or more years, which significantly

5%

8%

10%

13%

15%

18%

20%

23%

25%



95

restricts daily living activities continuously or periodically for extended periods resulting in the

need for assistance/supervision.

Youth Aging Out of Youth Agreements and Subsequently Claiming IA or PWD within Six Months, by Type, March 2008 to March 2015

Since March 2008, the rate of youth aging out of Youth Agreements and claiming IA: Expected

to Work within six months has shown some variation, fluctuating within a 20 percentage point

range. Over the 2014/2015 fiscal year, this indicator reached its lowest point since March 2008

(11%) and averaged 14%.

While the rate of youth claiming PWD assistance has historically been fairly stable, averaging

6% to 7% over the last several fiscal years, the rate averaged just over 9% over the

2014/2015 fiscal year.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Mar-08 Mar-09 Mar-10 Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-13 Mar-14 Mar-15

ETW Temporarily Excused From Work PWD PPMB ETW - Medical Condition

96

Youth Aging Out of Youth Agreements and Subsequently Claiming ‘IA: Expected to Work’ within Six Months, within 7 to 12 Months, and within 19 to 24 Months

The rates on IA: ETW are for the same cohort of former youth with a YAG over different time

periods since aging out. For example, the rates at March 2011 show for youth that aged out of

Youth Agreements between April and September 2010 the rate of youth that accessed IA: ETW

within the next six months (up to March 2011); the rate the same group of April to September

2010 age outs accessed IA: ETW within 7 to 12 months after aging out (up to September 2011);

and the rate the same group of April to September 2010 age outs accessed IA: ETW within 19

to 24 months after aging out (up to September 2012).

From May 2010 to May 2012, the rate of accessing IA: Expected to Work by youth within six

months, 7 to 12 months, and from 19 to 24 months of aging out of Youth Agreements follows a

similar ordering as that of youth discharged from Care. The rate on IA: Expected to Work falls

by approximately three to four percentage points at 7 to12 months, and falls by a further three

percentage points two years later, an indication that the youth are finding other sources of

income.

The graph also shows some periods where the rates do not follow the same ordering (from

approximately March 2008 to October 2009). This is likely related to the 2008 to 2010

economic downturn and the graph shows higher rates of youth accessing IA: Expected to Work as

more time passes from aging out.

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%


On IA: ETW within 6 mths On IA: ETW within 7-12 mths On IA: ETW within 19-24 mths

97

There is also some evidence after May 2012 that youth aging out of Youth Agreements are

accessing IA: Expected to Work a few months longer where the rate of youth accessing IA within

7 to 12 months moves closely with the rate of youth accessing IA within six months.

Youth Aging Out of Youth Agreements Claiming ‘IA: Expected to Work’ within Six Months, but not within 7 to 12 Months

Of the 30 to 40 youth that aged out of youth agreements each reporting period and accessed

IA: Expected to Work within six months, about 10 to 20 did not access the same IA program in

the latter part of their first year after aging out. Approximately 60% of those 10 to 20 youth did

not access any IA or PWD assistance during those months. A higher percentage of the youth that

no longer accessed IA: Expected to Work after another year (19 to 24 months after aging out)

did not access any IA or PWD assistance.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 Mar-10 Sep-10 Mar-11 Sep-11 Mar-12 Sep-12 Mar-13 Sep-13 Mar-14 Sep-14


98

Youth Aging Out of Youth Agreements Claiming ‘IA: Expected to Work’ within Six Months, but not within 19 to 24 Months

Educational Performance

Performance Indicator 5.41 Age-Appropriate Grade for Youth on Youth Agreements

Rationale: Not only is education a determinant of healthy child development, long-term well-being and

social inclusion, it is also a good barometer of a youth’s current well-being. Youth may repeat a

grade or perhaps had delayed starting school for many reasons. However, youth on a YA are

more likely to fall behind in school because of their experiences both before and after they left

their parental home. Combined with grade progression and high school completion this indicator

provides insight into the educational progression of youth on a YA.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



99

Age-Appropriate Grade for Youth on Youth Agreements, October 2013 to September 2014


Youth Under a Youth

Agreement between October

2013 and September

2014

Students on September 30, 2014 on a Youth Agreement1

Proportion of Youth on

Youth Agreements in School on September 30, 2014

(%)

Proportion in Their Age-Appropriate Grade (%)


Aboriginal2

BC 1,205 534 44.3% 39.7% 35.8% 41.4%

Kootenays 76 37 48.7% 51.4% * 58.6% Okanagan 114 48 42.1% 35.4% 9.1% 43.2% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 133 55 41.4% 54.5% 45.8% 61.3% East Fraser 152 64 42.1% 28.1% 38.1% 23.3% North Fraser 89 44 49.4% 36.4% 30.8% 38.7% South Fraser 138 67 48.6% 38.8% 33.3% 40.8% Vancouver/Richmond 125 44 35.2% 29.5% 30.8% 29.0% Coast/North Shore 72 34 47.2% 58.8% * 57.7% South Vancouver Island 112 58 51.8% 31.0% 33.3% 30.0% North Vancouver Island 92 36 39.1% 47.2% * 42.9% Northwest 40 17 42.5% 35.3% * * North Central 51 25 49.0% 40.0% * 43.8% Northeast 11 * 45.5% * * *

Age-Appropriate Grade of Youth under Youth Agreement, by School Year

Analysis: YAGS aged 17 years old in 2005 were in their age-appropriate grade 34% compared to 66%

in 2014. YAGS aged 16 years old in 2005 were in their age-appropriate grade 44% compared

to 85% in 2014.

1 SDA data suppressed where the number of YAGs is less than 10. 2 SDA data suppressed where the number of YAGs in age-appropriate grades is less than 10.

36.6%34.2%

39.7%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

2012 2013 2014

100

YAGs are in their age-appropriate grade if they are, at most, 5 years older than their grade (16

years old in grade 11 and 17 years old in grade 12). This measure includes YAGs aged 18

years old as of September 30, 2014. These 18 year old YAGS make up 49.1% of the “Students

on September 30, 2014 on a Youth Agreement” who are in school but cannot be in their age-

appropriate grade due to their age.

Performance Indicator 5.46 Grade Progression of Youth under a Youth Agreement

Rationale: Although some youth are not in an age-appropriate grade they are progressing in their learning

and move up to the next grade level the following September. Grade progression is an indicator

of learning and educational progress.

Grade Progression of Youth under a Youth Agreement, by SDA


Youth under a Youth Agreement on

September 30, 2013 and September 30,

2014 Inclusive1

Youth under a Youth Agreement on September 30, 2014 That Showed

Grade Progression (%)


Aboriginal1

BC 214 52.8% 60.0% 49.7%

Kootenays 13 69.2% * 70.0% Okanagan 19 63.2% * 60.0% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 26 53.8% 70.0% 43.8% East Fraser 24 58.3% * 46.7% North Fraser 19 47.4% * 53.8% South Fraser 24 54.2% * 52.9% Vancouver/Richmond 15 46.7% * 45.5% Coast/North Shore 17 64.7% * 61.5% South Vancouver Island 21 33.3% * 28.6% North Vancouver Island 15 46.7% * 50.0% Northwest * * * * North Central 12 50.0% * * Northeast * * * *

1 SDA data suppressed where the number off youth is less than 10.

101

Analysis:

Trend in Grade Progression of Youth under a Youth Agreement, Over Time

All groupings of male/female and Aboriginal/Non-Aboriginal YAG have very similar trends and

levels of grade progression between 2006 and 2014. In 2014, all groupings of male/female

and Aboriginal/Non-Aboriginal YAGs progressed to a higher grade from 48% (male Non-

Aboriginal) to 63% (female Aboriginal) of the time.

Grade Progression of Youth under a Youth Agreement, by Year, Gender, and Aboriginal/Non-Aboriginal

YAGs aged 17 years old showed grade progression of 81% in 2014, an improvement from 48%

in 2006. YAGs aged 18 years old showed grade progression of 42% in 2014, compared to

42% in 2006.

50.4%47.6%

52.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Non-Aboriginal Female Non-Aboriginal Male

Aboriginal Female Aboriginal Male

102

Performance Indicator 5.51 Youth on a Youth Agreement Who Finish School with a High School Credential

Rationale: There is strong evidence that completing high school is conducive to general well-being throughout

life. Furthermore, it is a good barometer of current general well-being for that particular cohort.

MCFD works to maximize the educational attainment of youth on YA.

Youth on Youth Agreement Who Finished School with a High School Credential, 2013/2014


Youth Under a Youth

Agreement Age Outs

Fiscal Year 2013/20141

Youth Under a Youth

Agreement Age Outs

Matched to BC School

Records1

Youth Under a Youth Agreement Age Outs with a High School Credential (%)


Aboriginal1

BC 379 364 53.0% 45.5% 55.9%

Kootenays 13 13 38.5% * * Okanagan 21 20 30.0% * 23.1% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 38 35 65.7% 69.2% 63.6% East Fraser 51 48 54.2% 54.5% 54.1% North Fraser 30 30 73.3% * 82.6% South Fraser 46 46 56.5% 40.0% 64.5% Vancouver/Richmond 64 57 45.6% * 50.0% Coast/North Shore 21 20 50.0% * 46.2% South Vancouver Island 44 44 54.5% 41.7% 59.4% North Vancouver Island 19 19 52.6% * 43.8% Northwest 11 11 36.4% * * North Central 17 17 52.9% * 64.3% Northeast * * * * *

Youth on Youth Agreement Who Finish School with a High School Credential, by Fiscal Year

1 SDA data suppressed where YAG’s with high school credentials are under 10

52% 53%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2012/2013 2013/2014

103

Analysis: Provincially, just over one half of youth on a Youth Agreement that turned 19 also had a BC high

school credential, which is slightly higher than the proportion of CYIC turning 19 with a BC high

school credential.

During 2013/2014, 57% of Non-Aboriginal female youth under a Youth Agreement (YAGs)

turned 19 with a credential, higher than every other group of YAGs who turned 19 with a

credential (42% for Aboriginal male YAGs, 47% for Aboriginal female YAGs, and 54% for Non-

Aboriginal male YAGs).

Since 2009/2010, the proportion of Non-Aboriginal male youth turning 19 with a credential

more than doubled from 25% to 54%.

104

Expenditure Data:

Child Safety, Family Support & Children in Care Services

Service Delivery Area Non

Residential1

Children & Youth In Care2

Out-of-Care

Options3

Youth Agreeme

nts

Post Majority Supports4

Program Delivery Child

Welfare5

Total Expenditures ($ Millions)

BC $133.172 $215.458 $21.986 $6.919 $5.700 $128.687 $511.922

Kootenays 4.532 8.630 0.630 0.345 0.070 4.446 18.654 Okanagan 7.753 18.374 1.508 0.448 0.189 10.132 38.404 Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 9.336 21.491 1.167 0.572 0.261 8.863 41.690 East Fraser 6.625 31.674 0.976 0.885 6.960 47.120 North Fraser 9.377 14.592 1.161 0.597 0.251 10.618 36.596 South Fraser 13.610 36.531 2.321 0.913 0.742 15.807 69.924 Vancouver/Richmond 21.163 43.275 0.711 0.905 0.625 11.535 78.215 Coast/North Shore 5.007 7.041 0.689 0.538 5.375 18.649 South Vancouver Island 10.845 29.755 1.020 0.685 0.531 12.794 55.629 North Vancouver Island 9.728 20.377 1.202 0.510 0.111 11.764 43.691 Northwest 4.217 7.853 1.133 0.235 0.201 5.527 19.166 North Central 9.643 20.782 1.850 0.231 0.216 9.532 42.254 Northeast 2.773 4.798 0.334 0.055 0.038 3.044 11.042 Service Delivery Operations 2.798 0.841 10.240 13.878 After Hours Program 7.427 0.434 7.861 Aboriginal Services 7.931 2.349 10.281 Children in Home of Relative (CIHR) Program

7.090 0.002 7.092

Complex Needs Facility 1.402 1.402 Other Central Payments 0.409 1.241 0.194 2.465 2.550 6.860 Recoveries (55.984) (0.502) (56.486)


1 Non-Residential expenditures primarily related to ministry family and youth support programs contracts. Includes $7.247M After

Hours Program staffing and operational costs. 2 Children and Youth in Care expenditures primarily related to payments for foster and group care, guardianship, supported

Independent Living and delegated Aboriginal services. Includes $1.402M Complex Need facility staffing and operational costs. 3 Out-of-Care Options expenditures include payments for the Extended Family (EFP) and Child in Home of a Relative (CIHR)

programs. 4 Includes Agreement with Young Adult (AYA) payments as well as funding for the Youth Education Assistance Fund (YEAF), Youth in

Care Education Fund, Learning Fund for Young Adults, Covenant House and YMCA STRIVE program. 5 Expenditures include costs for staffing and operational costs associated with direct service delivery.

105

Adoption Services

Summary:

MCFD’s strategic direction and ministry staff, service providers, and caregivers must organize and

focus the delivery of all forms of care under the CFCSA (kinship, foster, staffed and tertiary care).

An overarching aim is to achieve permanency – safe, stable and enduring family relationships for

children and youth through reunification, adoption, transfer of guardianship or other meaningful

lifelong connections. Planning for permanence is a priority that starts from the point of first

placement, with a focus on family reunification that at the same time includes consideration of

alternate legally permanent options such as adoption and transfer of guardianship. An important

consideration in adoption is to place siblings together. Typically these are more complex adoption

cases than children and youth without siblings in Care and consequently take longer to complete.


Performance Indicator 5.76 Per Cent of Children Eligible for Adoption Placed in Adoption Homes

Rationale: Evidence has shown that children require a stable and continuous relationship with a nurturing

caregiver to maximize physical, social emotional and cognitive development. If this relationship is

not possible with the birth family or other Out-of-Care options, then for children whom the ministry

has legal permanent guardianship, adoption is an alternative.

106

Per Cent of Children Eligible for Adoption Placed in Adoption Homes, 12 Month Period Ending March 20151


Number of Adoption

Placements2

Per Cent of Eligible Children Placed

All2 Aboriginal2 Non -

Aboriginal2

BC 273 19.1% 13.3% 26.2%

Kootenays 15 28.3% 16.7% 31.7% Okanagan 47 27.3% 24.0% 31.9% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 19 18.3% 16.4% 20.4% East Fraser 32 23.7% 28.6% 21.5% North Fraser 18 18.6% 32.1% 13.0% South Fraser 32 16.0% 5.4% 29.6% Vancouver/Richmond 28 27.5% 18.0% 33.3% Coast/North Shore * * * * South Vancouver Island 27 13.3% 0.9% 27.1% North Vancouver Island 20 16.1% 8.5% 26.4% Northwest * * * * North Central 22 14.9% 14.5% 16.7% Northeast * * * *

Analysis: Trend in Children Eligible for Adoption Placed in Adoption Homes, September 2012 to March 2015

This indicator has trended sharply higher since the end of 2013. This is due to a strategic

initiative, with additional investment in April of 2014, to increase the number of CYIC that find

permanency. Trends in adoption rates for both Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal eligible CYIC are

both improving but the adoption rate for Aboriginal children is half that for Non-Aboriginal

1 This measure has been adjusted to remove children in their adoption residency period from the available for adoption count.

Both current and historical data was adjusted. 2 SDA data suppressed where there are less than 10 children available for adoption

14%

15%

16%

17%

18%

19%

20%

201209 201211 201301 201303 201305 201307 201309 201311 201401 201403 201405 201407 201409 201411 201501 201503

107

children. This, in part, is due to Aboriginal children being more likely to have siblings, requiring

common placement, as well as the importance of ensuring their cultural connectedness.

Trend in Children Eligible for Adoption Placed in Adoption Homes by Aboriginal/ Non-Aboriginal,

September 2012 to March 2015

The improvement in performance was driven mainly by an increase in placements as the number

of available children has remained relatively unchanged since September 2012. This was due in

part to an increase in the proportion of adoption eligible CYIC that are under the age of 12

(children who are under the age of 12 are much more likely to be adopted).

The Proportion of Children Eligible for Adoption Aged 12 or Older

6%

11%

16%

21%

26%

201209 201211 201301 201303 201305 201307 201309 201311 201401 201403 201405 201407 201409 201411 201501 201503


22%

27%

32%

37%

42%

47%

108

Per Cent of Eligible Children Placed in Adoption Homes, by Age Group

Percentage of Eligible Children Placed in Adoption Homes

200

3/2

00

4

200

4/2

00

5

200

5/2

00

6

200

6/2

00

7

200

7/2

00

8

200

8/2

00

9

200

9/2

01

0

201

0/2

01

1

201

1/2

01

2

201

2/2

01

3

201

3/2

01

4

201

4/2

01

5

Under 12 Years 22% 24% 22% 20% 24% 23% 23% 24% 21% 22% 22% 27% 12 Years and Older 7% 7% 7% 4% 6% 4% 5% 4% 5% 5% 7% 6% All CYIC 19% 19% 17% 15% 18% 16% 16% 16% 15% 15% 16% 19%

The percentage of children eligible for adoption, under age 12, placed in adoption homes have

increased in 2014/2015 to its highest point in 12 years. The total number of eligible children

placed went up by 61 children between 2012/2013 and 2014/2015. Of the 61 children, only

two were over the age of 11.

Age of Children Placed for Adoption Over Time

The age group 5 to 11 is driving the increase in the number of CYIC placed for adoption, with an

increase of 33 placements since 2012/2013. During the past 12 years the total number of CYIC

placed for adoption was at its lowest point in 2012/2013.

Performance Indicator 5.81 Proportion of Aboriginal Children and Youth Adopted to Aboriginal Families

Rationale: Aboriginal children are more likely to be culturally safe when living in Aboriginal families. The

ministry strives to place Aboriginal children that are eligible for adoption into Aboriginal families

whenever possible.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Under 12 12 and Over

109

Proportion of Aboriginal Children and Youth Adopted to Aboriginal Families, 12 Month Period Ending March 2015


Number of Aboriginal Children

Eligible for Adoption

Number of Aboriginal

Children Placed in Adoption

Homes1

Number of Children

Placed with Aboriginal Families1

Per Cent Placed in Aboriginal

Homes1

BC 774 104 53 51%

Kootenays 12 * * * Okanagan 98 24 14 58% Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 55 * * * East Fraser 37 12 * 33% North Fraser 26 * * * South Fraser 112 * * * Vancouver/Richmond 39 * * * Coast/North Shore 31 * * * South Vancouver Island 107 * * * North Vancouver Island 70 * * * Northwest 61 * * * North Central 124 18 * * Northeast 14 * * 100%

Analysis:

Trend in Percentage of Aboriginal Children and Youth Adopted by Aboriginal families, BC, September 2012 to March 2015

Historically, Aboriginal children take longer to place than Non-Aboriginal children. Since the

number of Aboriginal children placed in Aboriginal homes is small, large swings in the

performance of the indicator are caused by slight shifts in actual placements.

1 SDA data suppressed where there are less than 10 children available for adoption

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

201209 201211 201301 201303 201305 201307 201309 201311 201401 201403 201405 201407 201409 201411 201501 201503

110

Since the baseline period of September 2012, the number of Aboriginal children placed in

adoption homes has experienced a decline, with a small increase since December 2014. Starting

in December of 2013, the number of Aboriginal children placed in adoption homes began to

recover, but the number placed in Aboriginal homes continued to decline. This caused the

significant decline in the performance of this measure, with at 16 percentage point drop since the

baseline.

Since November 2014, the number of Aboriginal children placed in adoption homes has remained

relatively stable, and the number of those placed in Aboriginal adoption homes has increased

slightly. This accounts for all of the increase in performance for this measure since November

2014.

Performance Indicator 5.77 Time Taken for CYIC to Go from Permanent Status to Adoption Placement

Rationale:

For CYIC who are no longer able to return to their family, achieving permanency through

adoption is a desirable option. Research has found that a longer history in out of home care, as

well as a child’s age at time of adoption are risk factors strongly associated with an adoption

placement’s chances for success, meaning that once it is determined that adoption is the best

option for a child, it should take place without unnecessary delays.

Time Taken for CYIC to Go from Permanent Status to Adoption Placement, 12 Month Period Ending March 31, 2015


Number of Adoption

Placements1

Median Time to Placement (Months)

All1 Aboriginal1 Non -

Aboriginal1

BC 273 21 29 17

Kootenays 15 * * * Okanagan 47 36 26 36 Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 19 18 52 * East Fraser 32 32 80 21 North Fraser 18 19 20 18 South Fraser 32 14 26 11 Vancouver/Richmond 28 12 17 * Coast/North Shore * * * * South Vancouver Island 27 18 15 20 North Vancouver Island 20 16 16 21 Northwest * * * * North Central 22 29 39 21 Northeast * * * *

1 SDA data suppressed where there are less than 10 children available for adoption

111

Median Time from Permanent Ward Status to Adoption Placement

Time to Adoption Placement by Age at Placement Time

Analysis:

The median time from permanent ward to adoption placement has gone down by three months

since the baseline period, September 2012. This improvement in performance is partially driven

by a substantial decrease in the time from Permanent Ward status to adoption placement for

Aboriginal children. Non-Aboriginal CYIC still substantially outnumbers the Aboriginal CYIC in

terms of adoption placements, and their wait times continue to be lower.

Historically, it is easier to place younger children in adoption homes, than the older ones. Children

under the age of 12 currently experience a median wait time of 18 months, while children ages

12 and over, experience a median wait time of 32 months. Aboriginal children make up 38% of

the placements for children under age 12 and 38% of those for children ages 12 and over.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6 12 18 24 36 42 48 More

% o

f A

do

ption

Pla

cem

en

ts

Months to Adoption Placement

Median: 21 Months

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Mon

ths

to A

do

ption

Pla

cem

en

t

Age at Start of Adoption Placement

112

Trend in Median Time (Months) from Permanent Ward Status to Adoption Placement, September 2012 to March 2015

The current performance trend for this indicator shows an improving performance since the

baseline period of September 2012.

Trend in Median Time (Months) from Permanent Ward Status to Adoption Placement by Child’s Aboriginal Status, September 2012 to March 2015

On average, Aboriginal children experience longer periods between being eligible for adoption

and being placed in an adoption home, but since the baseline period of September 2012 there

has been a significant decrease of 36% in the number of months waiting.

17

19

21

23

25

27


15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

201209 201211 201301 201303 201305 201307 201309 201311 201401 201403 201405 201407 201409 201411 201501 201503

Aboriginal

Non-Aboriginal

113

Expenditure Data:

Adoption Services



BC $29.136

Kootenays 0.948 Okanagan 2.717 Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 1.762 East Fraser 3.655 North Fraser 1.560 South Fraser 2.785 Vancouver/Richmond 1.771 Coast/North Shore 0.636 South Vancouver Island 3.478 North Vancouver Island 3.533 Northeast 0.871 North Central 1.442 Northwest 0.730 Other Centralized Payments3 3.247


1 Expenditures include costs for staffing, contracts and other operational expenditures. 2 Provides adoption programs including medical assessment and consultation, pre-placement visitation, adoption recruitment and

skills development, and post adoption services. 3 Other centralized payments include funding for Adoption Permanence initiatives.

114

Youth Justice

Summary:

This section establishes an initial set of performance indicators as the basis for future tracking and

analysis.


Community Youth Justice Monthly Average October 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015 (36% Aboriginal)


Monthly Average Oct 1, 2014 to

March 31, 2015

Monthly Average Oct 1, 2013 to

March 31, 2014

Change 2013/2014 to

2014/2015 YTD (%)

BC 1,387 1,600 -13.3%

Kootenays, Okanagan & Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 241 307 -21.5% East Fraser, North Fraser, South Fraser, Vancouver/Richmond, Coast/North Shore 636 724 -12.2% South Vancouver Island and North Vancouver Island 277 314 -11.8% Northwest, North Central and Northeast 234 255 -8.2%

Incarceration (Remand and Sentenced)

Daily Average, October 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015: 65 (49% Aboriginal)


Change 2013/2014 to 2014/2015: -5.8% (-2.1% Aboriginal)

Incarceration (Remand/Pretrial Detention Only)



Change 2013/2014 to 2014/2015: -2.7% (-5.6% Aboriginal)

ISSP: Intensive Support and Supervision (One to One Supervision) (ISSP)



Change 2013/2014 YTD to 2014/2015: -12.8% (-10.5% Aboriginal)


Performance Indicator 6.01 Clients Receiving Formal Diversion Services That Did Not Commit a New Offence

Rationale: Objectives of formal diversion include avoiding official labelling and processing, and providing

services that help prevent a youth from reoffending.

115

Number of Clients Receiving Formal Diversion Services

Year Number of Clients

Did Not Commit A New Offence In The Following 5 Years

Number Per Cent

2005 843 577 68.4% 2006 850 593 69.8% 2007 786 556 70.7% 2008 814 597 73.3% 2009 792 571 72.1%

Performance Indicator 6.06 Clients Receiving First Community Sentence Services That Did Not Commit a New Offence

Rationale:

One objective of a community sentence is to provide services that help prevent a youth from

reoffending.

Number of Clients Receiving First Community Sentence Services


Did Not Commit A New Offence In The Following 5 Years

Number Per Cent

2005 1,255 703 56.0% 2006 1,196 587 49.1% 2007 1,253 618 49.3% 2008 1,290 639 49.5% 2009 1,289 632 49.0%

Performance Indicator 6.11 Clients Receiving First Custody Sentence Services That Did Not Commit a New Offence

Rationale: Recognizing that custody holds the highest risk population, one objective of custody services is to

provide services that help prevent a youth from reoffending.

Number of Clients Receiving First Custody Sentence Services


Did Not Commit A New Offence In the Following 5 Years

Number Per Cent

2005 173 31 17.9% 2006 166 32 19.3% 2007 184 39 21.2% 2008 162 26 16.0% 2009 177 35 19.8%

116

Performance Indicator 6.16 Youth Court Cases per 10,000 Youth Population Youth Court Cases per 10,000 Youth Population, BC and Canada, 1997/1998 to 2011/20121

Performance Indicator 6.21 Youth in Custody per 10,000 Youth Youth in Custody per 10,000 Youth, BC and Canada, 2000/2001 to 2013/2014

1 Over the 14 year period this rate has declined for BC and Canada, but the rate of decline was faster in BC.

194

92

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Canada

BC

2

6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

BC

Canada

117

Expenditure Data:

Youth Justice Services



BC $45.168

Kootenays 0.692 Okanagan 1.963 Thompson Cariboo Shuswap 1.608 East Fraser 1.481 North Fraser 2.264 South Fraser 3.249 Vancouver/Richmond 2.003 Coast/North Shore 0.427 South Vancouver Island 3.450 North Vancouver Island 3.035 Northwest 0.763 North Central 0.935 Northeast 0.472 Service Delivery Operations3 5.407 Youth Custody 24.553 Youth Forensic 11.466 Other 0.002 Recoveries4 (18.602)


1 Expenditures include costs for staffing, contracts and other operational expenditures. 2 Provides operation of youth custody centres and youth forensic services as well as full-time residential programs; youth bail

hostels; day programs; intensive supervision programs; alternative measures; community services orders; and addictions programs in youth custody centres.

Date post:	21-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

MINISTRY OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT …€¦ · Group Infant / Toddler 13 Group Age 3-5 16...

Documents