This is taken from the Transformation Action Plan. It belongs to the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The final draft was entitled 'The MCFD Good Practice Action Plan' and was dated July 3, 2007. Former Minister Tom Christensen's name is affixed to it and Deputy Minister Leslie DuToit was the author. I have no idea to what degree during these past three years this plan has been implemented. I have no knowledge whether it has been scrapped or redrafted. When you have read the goals that the plan was designed to effect, what I would like to know is whether you believe the plan has succeeded. They are remarkably envisioned goals, some of which address precisely those areas about which many of you have been commenting. I anticipate that those of you who are already stated critics of MCFD will have something dismissive to say because your sentiments have been so strong. I would be very interested to know whether any MCFD staff and social workers would submit a personal assessment of the effectiveness of this plan. “Transformation Goals:
There has been some confusion about what it is we are trying to achieve through transformation and so we have formulated goals which we hope will give people clarity. These goals are based on directions from the Premier, the governments 5 great goals, the New Relationship, the comments made in planning workshops, and the various external Reviews. The goals are not in any order of importance.”
1. To establish a value/principle-centred ministry that is respected and trusted by the public, service providers, and those whom the ministry serves.
2. To ensure a confident, professional, empowered staff of MCFD
3. To ensure a system which is responsive to the needs of children, youth, families and communities, not driven by compliance to rules;
4. To prevent the use of unnecessary red-tape, processes, procedures and rules which slow down transferral of resource and effective service delivery;
5. To devolve service delivery to regions and communities together with the required resources
6. To ensure that Aboriginal services are governed by and delivered to Aboriginal people by Aboriginal people;
7. To have greater focus on prevention and early intervention services.
8. To ensure that importance is given to the full array of multi-disciplinary services to children youth and families;
9. To ensure effective, innovative, and integrated service delivery to children, youth, families and communities;
10. To ensure sufficient human and financial resources for all services
11. To sustain partnerships of trust and respect.
12. To provide effective management and resourcing of day-to-day service delivery during transformation, ensuring the continued protection and well-being of children and youth;
13. To meet the basic needs of families and communities as a priority.
14. To ensure community engagement and the shifting/sharing of power with communities and families with regard to decision-making and service delivery."
The entire 35 page document is available here. 'The MCFD Good Practice Action Plan'
Ron:
ReplyDelete"For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened."
Thank you for your effort in exploring MCFD mysteries. There are only 10 pages (not 35 pages) in the document linked. Am I missing anything?
Item 10: "To ensure sufficient human and financial resources for all services" has been very well implemented.
MCFD's budget has been steadily increasing, resulting in a steady increase in special interests in the "child protection" industry.
As for the rest, I will let other parents and special interests tell you.
Anon 12:40 AM
ReplyDeleteI don't know whether the document might download differently to different software but my document is numbered pages 1-35. In later pages you should have a series of pages with charts for Priorities and Deliverables. If you are missing pages merely google 'The MCFD Good Practice Action Plan'.
Here is an excerpt from an article in the Vancouver Sun, June 20, 2010, which might shed some light on what is happening here:
ReplyDelete"The number of B.C. public servants earning more than $100,000 a year jumped 22 per cent in just two years, according to an exclusive database of government pay compiled by The Vancouver Sun.
In all, among those agencies analyzed, more than 2,000 public-sector employees joined the six-figure-salary club between 2007 and 2009.
This at a time when the province was suffering through a recession and many companies in the private sector were freezing salaries and laying off staff.
In fact, statistics suggest that at the same time that six-figure salaries were on the rise in the public sector, they were going down among B.C. residents as a whole.
NDP finance critic Bruce Ralston said the sharp rise in highly-paid public servants appears inconsistent with the B.C. Liberal government’s message of fiscal restraint.
“People are gearing up to pay more because of the HST. People have lost their jobs and haven’t got them back,” said Ralston.""
-------------
The report makers such as Leslie du Toit and others who work in government know they have to do something to make themselves look sincere, in order to somewhat justify their position / salary.
Leslie du Toit is no different. She is one of the highest paid government employees.
Remuneration $241,178
Expenses $30,753
Year 2008/09 Fiscal Year
(From the Vancouver Sun database)
The NDP criticizes the current government, but the real problem is not the Liberals, it is the size of government. Whenever anything gets so massive, it also gets powerful, and unaccountable. The people have no real power or control anymore, because the politicians don't listen to them unless they rise up en masse. Even getting the salaries / expenses out of our own government is a mighty struggle - and we are the ones who pay them!
We have to stop being so naive and thinking that everyone is as nice as they act. These people in power do a very good job of acting. It gives them power, and it gives them money. Meanwhile, children and families are going through hell.
If any of these politicians really wanted to do something, they could start by revealing the truth. Most know, or should know, the truth by now. But they are trained for the most part (often as lawyers) to put on a show of being ethical and honest, while at the same time getting what they want out of life, which is money and power, and the prestige of a position. If they have to make a choice between integrity and power, they will - almost every single time - chose power. Yet we continue to be shocked and amazed when another scandal explodes revealing people to be exactly the opposite of what they pretend to be.
The media does an extremely poor job of getting the truth out, so the public is kept misinformed.
Time after time, for example, you will read about how the cure for child protection problems is more social workers and more money, when in fact that will solve nothing, and only make things worse, because it will increase their power, and increase the number of children wrongfully taken from good parents. But the media plays a huge part in perpetuating child protection lies, and most of us tend to believe what we read. Until we start being more sceptical of the claims made via massive public relations campaigns, nothing will change.
And the politicians can say whatever they want, because they know that by the time people get really fed up, they'll be out of office and into a cushy pension or private sector job.
We have to stop being so naive. Stop being such suckers. We keep getting duped, time after time. How long have they been making reports, saying things will change. The problems with child protection never change, they only get worse. Because we believe the lies.
"The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made."
Jean Giraudoux (1882 - 1944)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhat we are up against is a structural corruption so advanced that there is no head to cut off. There may be some good service providers genuinely working to protect children. However, their presence is insufficient to curb corruption and harm to families. If one betrays the principle of the accrual of money and power (which is required if the good practice mentioned herein is to be implemented), the others betray him.
ReplyDeleteThey deeply entrenched under the pretext of child protection, protected by law and unions and sharply use the naivety of gullible people and the kindness of Canadians in helping vulnerable children to their advantage in expanding the "child protection" industry.
As special interests writers in this blog had proudly asserted that they have the authority to enter residence without warranty if needed, "child protection" has been perverted to a witch hunt that seriously jeopardizes public safety even in one's own home.
If the Bayne's case is in criminal court, their case would have been dismissed by a judge simply because of the unreasonable long delay in giving a fair trial. This is an usual remedy for contravening a constitutional right. This case clearly illustrates that MCFD could circumvent law without any repercussion.
Is such system still salvageable? Absolutely not.
To Anonymous 9:05 AM, with regard to the removal of your blog which I earlier posted, please write to me at ron.unruh@twu.ca. I want to confer with you before it is reposted.
ReplyDeleteTo: Anonymous (June 21, 2010 8:56 AM)
ReplyDeleteGood information. I totally agree that too much money has been put into the wrong hands. Media, hear hear.
What a good survey for parents to fill out:
ReplyDelete1. NO - Respect and trust by the public - omits the word "PARENTS"
2. YES - Workers have too much confidence and power
3. NO - Responsive, 8 months lineup for counselling
3. NO - Compliance to rules, intake reports regularly held open long than 30 days
3. YES - Definitely not "driven by compliance to rules" this is selective.
4. YES - Red tape is invisible only at removal
4. NO - Red tape masks all vision when parents try to get their children back or expand visits.
5. Devolve?. MCFD is definitely devolving.
6. ?? Aboriginals - don't know
7. NO NO NO - Focus on prevention not removal.
8. NO NO NO - Focus on services for families
9. NO - Effective innovative service deliver. (Same as 8)
10. NO - Sufficent manpower - imbalance of money going to lawyers and 3rd parties
11. NO NO NO - With parents: Partnerships of trust and respect.
11. YES - with lawyers and special interest groups, & other ministries
12. NO - Effective day-to-day service delivery (punatively delivered)
13. NO - Meet basic needs of families (see point 3)
14. No - Community engagement (meaning no supervision by freinds & family)
Really, this is all pointless. Unless there are matching data collection, reports and metrics to measure results and the results are published, these statement have little value to me.
This is from Alberta, but it is just the same story here:
ReplyDeleteA 20-year-old woman who was sexually assaulted by convicted killer Thomas Svekla when she was five years old is suing Svekla, her former foster mother and the Province of Alberta for $2.5 million.
"[The plaintiff's] life was destroyed by the abuse that she suffered from Thomas Svekla and [the foster mother]," the woman says in a statement of claim filed June 8. She also alleges the foster mother failed to protect her from Svekla.
Svekla was convicted in March 2009 of sexually assaulting and sexually interfering with the woman, who cannot be named under Alberta's child welfare legislation. Svekla was dating her foster mother at the time of the 1995 assault
When abuse was first reported to the authorities, the former foster child says they did not press criminal or provincial charges against Svekla and the foster mother.
She claims this left her feeling "betrayed by the Crown and felt that the Crown did not believe her and were calling her a liar."
The woman alleges she has suffered "severe emotional and psychological injuries" and "social, behavioural and relationship problems" as a result of the "actions and inactions" of the defendants.
In the statement of claim, the woman alleges the province failed to take proper measures to "ensure her safety and well-being."
It had an "ordinary duty and fiduciary duty" to place her in "safe and well-caring homes" and ensure her caregivers were given proper resources and supports.
Instead, she alleges "the Crown maliciously, carelessly and recklessly failed to perform a reasonable assessment and investigation into the qualifications of the [foster mother] and Thomas Svekla" in a number of areas, including visiting the home on a regular basis, properly investigating them or performing a criminal records check.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2010/06/18/edmonton-svekla-victim-lawsuit.html#ixzz0rX33tkAM
Look forward to more of these lawsuits - which I personally endorse wholeheartedly - and thank our child "protection" agencies and our governments, for completely failing these children. And what we read is only the tip of the iceberg.
Where is the ministry damage control team today? Why are you speechless? Don't be shy. Tell us what other goals, except item # 10, set forth by your top dog have you accomplished.
ReplyDeleteRon, the CAPP program is being introduced this year over the next few. You've written about it on your blog previously.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/about_us/transformation.htm
Anon 2:17 is probably pretty close - which is why CAPP is being implemented, I'd guess.
6-figure salary discussions are great to be had re: public service...no front liners are anywhere near that of course.