G. REGIONAL FORUMS RESULTS

G.1. Preamble

1. Overall policy direction
2. Funding mechanisms
3. Service coordination and management
4. Evaluation and public accountability
5. Community capacity

A policy framework is much broader than a single program. The principles that could be a starting point, and that were presented for discussion at the Forums, included:

Accessibility	Canadian children, youth and their families should have access to programs and services of comparable quality
Portability	There should be no residency-based barriers.
Congruency	The range of services and programs should be comprehensive and coordinated.
Respect for Diversity	The diverse needs of communities and sub-populations need to be accommodated.
Public, Community-based Administration	The decision-making about the delivery of services and programs needs to be within the public domain and include citizen participation at the community level.
Evidence-based Monitoring	The research and monitoring of program outcomes need to be included to stimulate learning, innovation, and investment.

A National Children's Agenda must have sound content for successful implementation. The National Children's Alliance, in its submission to the Finance Committee last year, recommended four key content components:

1. Income Security Measures
2. Social and Community Support Services and Programs
3. Research and Monitoring
4. Capacity-building

G.2. Responses to Principles of Community Service Delivery

G.2.a. General Comments

• Generally speaking, participants were in agreement with the principles suggested by the National Children's Alliance regarding the National Children's Agenda, but offered additional comments.

• A National Children's Agenda should have four pillars. The group agreed that this was their most important contribution. These were:
  1. Healthy child development
  2. Support for parental employment
  3. Support for healthy family development (family and parent resourcing)
  4. Social cohesion (universal access)

• The discussions around the principles prompted questions about meaning, intent, and wording. While most participants believe that defining a statement of guiding principles is critical to the success of any major initiative, there were those left struggling to really understand what was intended by some of the existing statements. In some instances it was the wording and language used to describe the various principles that was unclear and/or ambiguous.

• How would quality (best practices) be ensured within these principles? Would there be a set of national guidelines around practice to ensure quality?

• There needs to be a federal/national family policy as the center point for the Social Union contract, and to be a reference point for all subsequent decisions.

• There were points of principle that were not reflected in the list that participants felt should be considered. These are listed below, with comments.

Family Orientation:

• We recognize that the children's agenda came from the throne speech, but we want to go broader to include families in the agenda. The problem of the last ten years has been a focus on child poverty, without considering the family.

• A preamble needs to be added that describes the need for a children/youth/family focus, and points out that when we talk about all children, we include those who need special services. Programs and services are "child centered"; the child's needs and rights are paramount. Ensure that the child's needs and rights are protected; any programs and services developed will be "child centered".

• Participants observed that all families and children require services - but in different ways and with differing levels of urgency. Some programs and services need to be universal in nature while others are best delivered in a targeted manner. Number of services should match the needs.

• Add the term "families" throughout the principles.

• A core of childcare and good health begins in pre-natal from conception on. It seems that we have become an anti natal society. Where do children fit? Childcare is a part of the system. But not children as a part of society.

• Children need to be considered citizens, and actions/policies must be for all children and families. "At risk" will not be addressed adequately until it is a matter of rights for all children.

• Call it "Child Care", call it "Employment-Sensitive Early Childhood Services", call it "Early Childhood Care and Education", but be sure that it - and its four pillars of healthy early childhood development, support for parental employment, support for the parental/family role, and social cohesion - are taken as basic principles.

• Healthy people/citizens must be the heart of all programs and services; children and families are the heart of the vision. There must be support for healthy family development (family and parent resourcing)

• Do we believe our parents are the fundamental resources for our children?? If so, how does this get reflected in both principle and practice ? We need supports for parents: at home (financial) and accessibility of early childhood development services, parenting services for respite, socialization, and information. Because children live in families, we need to support the families and define families broadly.

• We need service integration.

• We need to create supportive, safe and violence-free communities.

• How do we ensure that any new program initiative for children/youth does not "stigmatize" children and their families? A child/family should have access no matter what the need or circumstances - children/families should not be labeled just to get access to services.

• How is the importance of the first 3 years ( including prenatal ) reflected in the existing principles?

• It is wise to invest in services, programs, and resources for pre school children in order to insure a good start to life. Attention should be given as well to the prenatal development of the child and the preparation of the parents to child rearing.

• Family Friendly Criteria and Planning:
  • All Federal, Provincial/territorial, and Territorial laws, procedures, and policies should be carefully assessed as meeting specific "family friendly criteria" before being enacted. All work places in Canada should have human resource policies, which are family friendly and flexible.

  • It is critical to involve local citizens in the design and implementation of services and programs in their communities. While a program may be designed nationally, it requires a certain level of customization for specific communities.

• Develop policies and supports which will enable parents of special needs youngsters to parent and care for their children in their own homes.

Quality

Affordability:

• How do we ensure that the elements required to allow access at the program level are in place ? This is an unmet need.

• Removing barriers is important. Funding must break down service barriers as apposed to creating barriers ( e.g. funding by need vs. funding by jurisdiction). Costs should not be a barrier; Does accessibility also include affordability? There should be fewer steps to access services. This should take into account the barriers that are identified by the community. They should include geography, community mix, and sensitivity to diversity. Consider that affordability dictates accessibility. There should not be service or funding boundaries. Families should be able to shoulder costs within their economic means through a sliding scale. There must be regional and community availability and sensitivity.

Accountability

• How we work together to tell the story to government is an issue. How do we work with governments around accountability? Accountability is critical but who gets to decide what accountability is? Accountability needs to be community-based. There must be responsible management of funds, delivery, and accountability to clients, not just funders. .

Community-Capacity Building

• The community has a wide range of resources that could become allies in creating a more supportive environment for children and families; there is a need to place some focus on the principles and practice of community capacity building. If we want parents to be empowered and resourceful to their children, we must find ways to build their capacity to do so. The problem with the process is not the inability of the participant, but the inability of the "professionals" to let go of the process.

• Build on the strengths of individuals, families and community (an asset-based model)".

• Any National Children's Agenda must take into account the differing capacities of provinces to help fund services. Otherwise "portability" between provinces will not exist.

• This should have a statement about building healthy communities and the need for support in coordinating that work.

Entitlement

• Entitlement needs to be addressed.

• We need to better understand children's rights, as should children.

• Equity: Needs to be addressed. There should be an "equity" piece - "that we work towards increasing economic equality in Canada". The notion of equity needs to be explicit in the principles. Add equity defined as what every child needs. The notion of equity needs to be explicit in the principles. Add equity defined as what every child needs.

• When did universality become a dirty word? We shouldn't be afraid to use it; any National Children's Agenda program must be a universal in its scope and implementation. Universal programs and services are essential in meeting the needs of children and youth in Canada today. Everyone should entitled to an Stage One assessment.

• All Children in Canada: Change "Canadian" children to "all" children. Include all children in Canada not Canadian children. We need to include new Canadians (pg. 8 of 1999 NCA Report does not include this). Language should clearly state "children in Canada" rather than "Canadian children" so that children without legal status are not left out.

• Targeting programs to specific populations erodes principle of universality.

• Care needs to be taken in the language we use from the community perspective, and how language is used by others (e.g. politicians, legislators, funders, program designers) to describe children's issues and needs.

• We feel this could start by saying "Canadian children, youth and their families are entitled to have these (TBD) services to meet their needs".

• Consider changing the term "National Children's Agenda" to "Children's Entitlements in Canada". OR "All Canadian children are entitled to an environment that promotes their health and development, " or "Children, youth and families are entitled to programs and services that support and optimize the growth and development of each child'.

• When children are considered as citizens, with rights as a citizen and only focus on at risk we have our own focus we will continue to bicker over what group is most deserving of economic and social support.

• The mandatory reporting of child abuse and serious child neglect must be made a federal requirement. The rights of children, under the UN Charter on the Rights of the Child must be applied to all Canadian children and youth.

• There is a gender issue: We are dealing with the most powerless groups in society.

Funding and Sustainability

• Every child should be a funded child including those at risk. Continuity of services among communities is needed, e.g.: childcare with opportunities for local decision-making.

• Any national system of programs and services would need to be sustainable. A policy initiative without the committed resources (funding, human resources, etc ) to achieve the desired results is not going to be sustainable over the long term. Adequate funding is critical.

• When programs and services have shown their worth, the funding of these programs should be made for medium term periods, such as three to five years. Year to year funding does not allow for proper planning and investment in programs.

• Adequate sustainable public funding is needed for services and infrastructure and monitoring to PCBA. Participants noted that research abounds which tells us what works in program and service development and delivery. What is needed, they said, is the commitment to provide ongoing funding for program and service delivery and research.

• A commitment on the part of the federal and provincial/territorial governments to properly fund the programs and compensate the people who are delivering the programs is needed, and their acknowledgement of the need for financial, long term support. Working with children/youth has to become a well paid profession.

• Sustain investment in this issue as a system not a program.

• Community development initiatives need to be strengthened and sustained through long term funding vs. short term project based funding.

• Dollars must be earmarked for children and families, and programs.

• Professionals working with children should receive adequate training, supervision, and support for their important work. They should be compensated on the basis that their work is of critical importance to the development of the nation's most important resource.

• There is a systemic issue, as the competitive nature of grants results in a lack of will to work together.

• The principles are useful in that they help describe what the desired outcomes should look like; however, how do you ensure that adequate funding "principles" are in place to ensure that there is fairness, equity, access, etc?

• Any National Children's Agenda must take into account the differing capacities of provinces to help fund services. Otherwise "portability" between provinces will not exist.

• There is simply not enough funding. Rural areas need more money than urban areas, because of access problems (in the main geography) and high costs of living. The capital funding is not available to allow for adequate childcare services. As well, the infrastructure is not available to facilitate a lot of the required services.

• There is need for more collaboration, coordination & partnering: It takes a whole community to raise a child; everyone and every sector has a role in ensuring that there are services that contribute to, and support, the well being of a child and his/her family. Specifically, there is a growing need to bring together all the key sectors, the government, the community, and business to identify how collectively they can work together to "re-start" the discussion toward a National Children's Agenda. Duplication of services means more expenses and less effectiveness. There is not enough coordination among like groups, which means children and their families lose access to important programs and services.

• Where are the youth?

• The principles need something about the participation of youth and others. "Children, youth and families should be recognized for playing a primary role in services affecting their lives."

• Children remain the focus of the National Children's Agenda and that the voice of children and youth forms a central part of the discussions. While it was noted that many adult representatives understand the needs of children and youth and do a good job of speaking for their client groups, the Alliance needs to ensure that children and youth play a direct role in helping to shape the Agenda.

• There is no content talk about youth development, and this is a gregarious error. This is partly why this process is happening.

• If we focus on 0-5, we fear that we will overlook needs of other populations of youth.

G.2.b. Feedback on Specific Principles

• What does the phrase comparable quality mean? Comparable to what?
• How do you ensure that the necessary supports are in place to allow all children/youth to access/participate in services and programs (e.g. transportation) Accessibility has to include supports to help people.
• It was agreed in our group that accessibility means that individuals can access services regionally and they should be community based, and the service must be available without delay. The programs that are available should also be of comparable quality. This principle will continue to be a challenge.
• Does this principle include the principle/issue of universality? Any child/youth related service should be publicly funded. The provision of essential services to children and families is a social responsibility, not a private sector responsibility.
• Accessibility must take into consideration:
  • Communication: Do community members know it is there to access?
  • Are programs and services available at the appropriate hours to meet community needs?
  • Access (distance to) is different from community to community.
  • Both rural and urban needs must be addressed.
• The community itself should decide what their needs are, and they should decide what comparable quality is.
• Accessibility and portability should be combined. Portability is a subset of accessibility. Portability is an awkward word, consider using "equal access/opportunity".
• One must know it exists in order to access it. There should be national access to information about all programs, services, and organizations. For example, families have to try twelve different phone numbers to find help.
• There should be needs-based allocation so that services go where they are needed.
• There were concerns about the term accessibility. This means non-fragmented, available, continuity of, and integration of services.
• They must be culturally accessible.
• This is an opportunity for public participation, i.e. community driven, self reliance, universal comfort level.
• Add: "availability".
• Programs and services need to be appropriate to the community; "quality" needs to be defined.
• Special needs have to be articulated and recognized. Those that are 'specific labeled, and others who are not labeled fall through the cracks.
• All services and programs must be sensitive to cultural traditions and language. There must be much stronger family life preparation by schools, churches, and other community organizations for children and teens.
• Accessibility: Use the term "universal access".
• We need inclusive integration: rural/urban economics and community resources.
• We need consistency within and between provinces and territories.
• We need minimum standards for services.
• We need to evaluate services. This could be a 'watch-dog' role for the NCA.
• We need to look at every aspect of a child's basic needs.

2. PORTABILITY

• Core services should be available across the country regardless of location. One should be able to get all services no matter where you live, what you need, or where you go among or within a community. If a child has services in one province, these should be available if he/she moves, whether it be rural to urban, or community to community.
• There should be reasonable comparability within and between provinces and territories.
• Change this to, or add, "Universality", which includes portability. This is closely related to the universality standards of health and education. This doesn't necessarily mean they are all free.
• Universality; there should be equity in the range of services.
• There are no "cookie cutter" solutions for communities. Basic needs are portable, but diverse.
• We need definitions, (e.g.: residency based equity). Provinces no not have equal access. Have-not provinces require enriched funding if they are to participate equitably in services for families.
• Portability should include not just notions of programs but also recognition that lack of permanent residence cuts people off from programs and services (homelessness, temporary shelters, and transience)
• The "no residency-based" barriers should be more defined. Is it "Canadian children" vs. a child who is a resident in Canada? Does this mean that Canadian children are only those children who are Canadian citizens? What about immigrant children and families?
• Participants agreed with this principle, but many didn't like the word "portability". They also asked whether "portability" should serve as a stand alone principle or whether it would be better placed as a subset of the "accessibility" principle.
• Any National Children's Agenda must take into account the differing capacities of provinces to help fund services, otherwise "portability" between provinces will not exist
• Add geographic equity to portability.
• Portability should include not just notions of programs but also recognition that lack of permanent residence cuts people off from programs and services (homelessness, temporary shelters, and transience)
• Need to define, i.e. residency based equity - 'have not' provinces have equal access. Have-not provinces require enriched funding if they are to participate equitably in services for families.

• Congruency involves ensuring that the service provision is comprehensive, integrated, connected, coordinated and looks at the whole individual, family and community. It is key to ensure that there are no gaps in service. One way to ensure congruency is to have a community development plan.
• Add quality to congruency.
• This word seems awkward, not sure what is intended; would the word "holistic" be more descriptive than the word "comprehensive"?
• Our participants agreed overwhelmingly that most people wouldn't understand what the word "congruency" means. They suggested the National Children's Alliance find a more easily understood word to describe this important principle.
• Change "congruency" to another word, perhaps just "Comprehensive".
• Could congruency be "universality"? Start the sentence with "the range and delivery of services".
• Core services need to be driven by a common value.
• Coordination is extremely important between government and non-profit.
• Services need to be multilingual and culturally sensitive. The range of services and programs should be inclusive, comprehensive and collaborative, building on the existing service system." For example, there are often language barriers in Nunavut. Services need to be multilingual (Inuktitut, French, English, etc.). As well, some of the child development tests are culturally biased.
• Standards of service should be on a continuum regardless of the age of the child.
• We need more communication among sectors to continue services (e.g. childcare support and school support).
• We need planning and delivery. These need to be seamless, coordinated, and monitored for the child, family, and community.
• A system of checks and balances is needed to ensure continuity of service and to monitor levels of service.
• There is a need for continuity of services among communities i.e. childcare with opportunity for local services.
• We need comprehensive, coordinated, and affordable programs.
• voluntary sector.
• Make sure recommendations are doable and that resources are in place for success (i.e., you can't increase employment of young adults without addressing childcare).

4. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY

• Language clarity. We need to recognize the deep political implications of language. Use business language. The language used creates barrier to understanding. Language clarity is important.
• Respect diversity of family life.
• Recognize the specific needs of families.
• It was agreed that this principal is necessary and needed.
• "Accommodate" is too soft a word. We need stronger word/language.
• Diversity needs to articulate culture, language, and disabilities. Diversity needs to be associated with 'culture' rather than 'individuality'. Include "culture" - differences not just "accommodated", but "affirmed".
• There needs to be a celebration for difference while providing equity.
• Services should be available in an individual's primary language wherever possible; programs should be culturally appropriate, reflecting all components of a person and their community; the decision making bodies should reflect the demographics of the group served; and that there should be flexibility in applying the principles of the program in its delivery.
• There must be respect for all children and families. Remove the word 'subpopulation'. Take out "sub" and "accommodated" needs, and ad celebrated and nurtured. We don't like the term "sub-population"! Change it to read 'The diverse needs of communities and the people who live in them need to be accommodated.'The phrase sub-populations needs to be defined, or a better phrase needs to be used - it is unclear about what is meant by sub-populations. The diverse needs of sub-populations to be better defined.
• We need a family centered and asset based approach.
• This needs more on disability. Change the title to "Diversity & Inclusiveness" " to convey the message that NCA is for all children and families (e.g. cultural minorities, children with disabilities, aboriginal children).
• Individuals are key, not just communities, and/or populations.
• Diversity principles should come first, if they are going to be listed by priority.
• Change to reflect community-based decision-making so family users who receive service are involved.
• Education of children and youth must be culturally sensitive and show respect for the specific cultures of all children.
• Consider not using "diversity employers. Use "equity" instead of diversity; celebrate differences. When there is need, fill the need from one's own community.
• "At Risk" - What is really at risk? We need to be careful how to use this term to respect dignity, the nature and source of "at risk".

5. PUBLIC, COMMUNITY-BASED ADMINISTRATION

• Public, Community based administrations - do not use this as a means for government to abdicate responsibility - true community decision making. Want to be clear that government has a major leadership, monitoring, standards-setting role to play.
• What does "public administration" mean? Is it the governance and delivery of programs?
• Public community-based administration needs to be flexible and provide choices.
• Our participants were unanimous in the view that the National Children's Agenda is a matter for public administration, but with continuous grassroots input. The nature of the Agenda development and implementation should be bottom-up, not top-down.
• We need to have input into all areas including funding and creation and evaluation of services/programs in addition to delivery. There is a link between quality program, quality service, and quality pay.
• Add the phrase "and be supported to be community-driven".
• We need flexibility to meet community needs.
• Look at a 'shared responsibility' governance model.
• Because children live in families, we need to support the families and define families broadly.
• We need clarity about what 'the level of public domain' means. Does it mean community based?
• There must be open communication with the provincial/territorial and federal governments.
• We need to find effective ways of sharing decision-making power within groups.
• This issue is of vital importance to northern communities. Community based development is not well understood, and certainly under appreciated in the North. It is very important that all levels of government appreciate how non-profits invest in building public capacity in the community, thereby allowing for a community response to issues that might arise and innovative problem solving in providing solutions. This means that governments do not tender to the private sector for programs and that they realize that publicly appointed boards are not representative
• Change to read: "public administration, local community based delivery prevention and wellness promotion".

6. EVIDENCE-BASED MONITORING

• What do we mean by "evidence-based monitoring"? Whose evidence? What assessment tools? What time period? If community based administration, then community also needs to determine what counts as evidence.
• We worry about what is meant by (evidence-based), that it doesn't exclude qualitative evidence.
• Change "Evidence Based Monitoring" To Public Accountability
• Accountability is critical but who gets to decide what accountability is?
• All aspects of the National Children's Agenda, that is, the principles as well as the resulting programs and services, need to be subject to continuous monitoring and evaluation to ensure the desired results are being achieved. It was also noted that evaluation should not be solely "statistically-driven" or "quantitative" in nature but must also be "qualitative" in nature.
• There is a need for investment (funding) in systems, and on-going funding to monitor the system.
• The discussion should be about essential outcomes, not services. If we go with outcomes, then the essential services fall into the supports that help the outcomes get reached. Outcomes could be: adequate income, healthy children, safe communities, balance between employment and family responsibilities with children winning etc.
• There is a need for investment in research.
• Monitor best practices, build on evidence, disseminate information and develop common language.
• There needs to be concrete support for evaluation. It needs to be resourced, not an after-thought.
• We need common standards for measurement.
• Evaluation is a critical component but we need to consider its use, and how much it will cost. Is the evaluation to be used for monitoring, to determine the skill base required, for capacity building? Is it meaningful?
• Change this principle to state that there needs to be more of a sense of 'reflection and evaluation to support learning, innovation and investment'.
• Monitor the community not the child.
• We agree with the need for evidence-based monitoring but financial support is needed to develop it. It is the responsibility of the funders to provide the dollars and to do the social research.
• Evaluation must include/emphasize qualitative data.
• Evidence based monitoring must have short and long term success indicators, and community participation/involvement must be a key element in the evaluation process.
• It is important that all programs have a feedback loop where evaluation on program provision can be done. In order to provide outcome based monitoring the community must be involved in deciding which outcomes to measure. Also, in the reporting context must be provided for the statistics provided. One of the real values of program evaluation is that it can stimulate learning and understanding, leading to program improvement.
• Evaluation is a critical component but we need to consider its use, how much it will cost, is the evaluation used for monitoring, skill base required, capacity building, is it meaningful?
• Perhaps focus this principle on capacity building rather than monitoring.