Findings Package For CAS
Findings Package For CAS
Findings Package For CAS
TORONTO
STAR ANALYSIS:
4/23/2015
Page 1 of 31
SUMMARY
The data used in this Toronto Star analysis comes from budget reports sent to the Ministry of Children
and Youth Services detailing how each society spends the governments money and from
government case audits of children who have been in the care of foster parents or group homes for two
or more years. Reports and audits dating back five years (2008/9 to 2012/13) were obtained by the Star
through freedom of information requests.
In order to make comparisons between individual societies, Star journalists consulted with experts on
which data points might speak to differences in philosophy and other factors such as geographic
setting and demographics of catchment areas that would impact how children in care are treated.
Such comparisons have never been done before. The Ontario Association of Childrens Aid Societies says
the data was never collected with making comparisons in mind, but there is agreement that this is the
best and only available data to make such comparisons.
The Star shared its preliminary analysis and sought input from the ministry and the OACAS, which in turn
shared it with its member societies.
After receiving feedback from the OACAS, a final findings package was prepared and is available at
thestar.com.
Another caveat: Due to privacy concerns of the ministry, counts of children that were between 0 and 5
were redacted. This has an impact on some calculations. Also, because some of the calculations are over
a time period when some societies amalgamated, the total number of societies varies.
The Stars analysis shows significant discrepancies, indicating that Ontarios most vulnerable children are
treated differently depending on the children's aid society (CAS) that takes them into care. At the
Algoma society, based in Sault Ste. Marie, 30 per cent of children, on average, were placed with kin
during a five-year period ending in 2013. Next door at the Sudbury and Manitoulin society, however, the
number drops to 18 per cent. Its even lower at the Childrens Aid Society of Toronto 11 per cent
and less than 7 per cent at Dufferin Child and Family Services, just northwest of the city.
Page 2 of 31
Likewise, some agencies carefully consider mandatory questionnaires detailing a childs history when
deciding on his or her plan of care; others dont. Some put a significant number of children in group
homes, while others almost completely avoid doing so.
From Quarterly Reports, similar discrepancies can be found when examining the amount spent for group
home care the Jewish CAS in Toronto spends 33 per cent of its total paid days of care on group
homes; at Prescott-Russell, its less than 2 per cent.
Significant differences were also found in other important areas, including the number of investigations
conducted by societies, compared to the number transferred to ongoing. It suggests that some CASs
are far more intrusive than others when it comes to investigating families. Questions are also raised
when the number of reopened cases is considered.
In the Crown Ward Reviews, significant differences were found among CASs in the number of times
wards were moved since their most recent admission (more than 8 times at James/Hudson Bay; less
than 3 times at Peel Region), and the number of case workers they encountered (13 at Tikinagan; 3.6 in
Sarnia). Big differences are also evident in other areas, including annual medicals in some CASs 100 per
cent of Crown Wards get them; in BruceGreyCounty, only 65 per cent. Similar gaps are found for annual
dental checkups.
Societies can avoid costly and bitter court battles by using an alternative dispute mechanism (ADR) that
gets parents and relatives to agree on a plan that changes behaviour and protects children. Yet few CASs
use this method. Thunder Bay scores highest by using it the most, while Toronto CAS made little use of
it. Six societies did not use it at all.
What follows is a detailed breakdown of findings for the categories we examined. You will find in most
cases a top 5/bottom 5 CAS ranking, based on percentages and ratios, along with the Ontario average.
You will also find a detailed bar chart for the categories we compared.
The Toronto Star analysis was conducted by reporters Sandro Contenta, Laurie Monsebraaten and Jim
Rankin and data analysts Andrew Bailey and Hidy Ng. If you have any questions regarding the analysis or
methodology, please feel free to contact Jim Rankin at 416-869-4431, or by email at [email protected].
Page 3 of 31
CAS
Weechi-it-te-win Family Services Inc.
Tikinagan Child and Family Services Inc.
Anishinaabe Abinoojii Family Services
Dilico Anishinabek Family Care
Chatham-Kent Integrated Children's Service
Ontario Average
Native Child and Family Services of Toronto
Family, Youth and Child Services of Muskoka
Highland Shores Childrens Aid Society
Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto
Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto
Children's Aid Society of Toronto
County of Prince Edward Children's Aid Society
Dufferin Child and Family Services
Percent Rank
68.1%
1
64.6%
2
54.8%
3
35.0%
4
31.3%
5
22.9%
15.6%
39
15.2%
40
15.1%
41
13.8%
42
12.0%
43
11.6%
44
9.4%
45
6.5%
46
Page 4 of 31
Page 5 of 31
CAS
Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto
Payukotayno: James and Hudson Bay Family Services
Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto
CAS of the RegionalMunicipality of Waterloo
Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society
Children's Aid Society of the City of Sarnia and the County of Lambton Inc.
Ontario Average
CAS of the City of Guelph& the County of Wellington
Children's Aid Society of Brant
Dilico Anishinabek Family Care
The Children's Aid Society of Haldimand-Norfolk
Weechi-it-te-win Family Services Inc.
Services aux enfants et adultes de P-R Services to Children and Adults
Percent Rank
33.2%
1
27.2%
2
21.9%
3
21.1%
4
20.5%
5
20.4%
6
12.4%
5.4%
41
5.4%
42
4.6%
43
4.6%
44
4.5%
45
1.9%
46
Page 6 of 31
Page 7 of 31
CAS
The Children's Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay
County of Prince Edward Children's Aid Society
Family & Children's Services of Renfrew County
Children's Aid Society of Brant
Kawartha - Haliburton Children's Aid Society
Children's Aid Society of Algoma
Ontario Average
55-Family and Children's of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville
09-The Children's Aid Society of the Durham Region
14-Halton Children's Aid Society
52-Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society
01-Anishinaabe Abinoojii Family Services
08-Dufferin Child and Family Services
33-Payukotayno: James and Hudson Bay Family Services
44-Tikinagan Child and Family Services Inc.
50-Weechi-it-te-win Family Services Inc.
51-CAS of the City of Guelph & the County of Wellington
Cases
Served
to ADR
Ratio
11:1
15:1
18:1
20:1
22:1
22:1
53:1
205:1
220:1
404:1
792:1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
37
38
39
40
Page 8 of 31
Page 9 of 31
CAS
Family & Children's Services of Renfrew County
The Children's Aid Society of the Districts of Nipissing and Parry Sound
Family and Childrens Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington
CAS of London and Middlesex
CAS of the City of St. Thomas and the County of Elgin
Children's Aid Society of Ottawa
Ontario Average
Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel
Dilico Anishinabek Family Care
Halton Children's Aid Society
Anishinaabe Abinoojii Family Services
Tikinagan Child and Family Services Inc.
Weechi-it-te-win Family Services Inc.
Percent Rank
55.2%
1
41.3%
2
34.7%
3
27.0%
4
26.5%
5
25.8%
6
14.9%
7.0%
41
5.9%
42
5.5%
43
5.4%
44
0.1%
45
0.0%
46
Page 10 of 31
Page 11 of 31
5) INVESTIGATIONS
The Star examined CAS investigations. Included in this look is a breakdown of the referral of cases for
investigation, and the re-opening of cases.
CAS
Children and Family Services for York Region
Halton Children's Aid Society
Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto
The Children's Aid Society of the Durham Region
Dufferin Child and Family Services
Ontario Average
North Eastern Ontario Family and Childrens Services
The Children's Aid Society of Haldimand-Norfolk
Anishinaabe Abinoojii Family Services
Prescott-Russell Services to Children and Adults
Tikinagan Child and Family Services Inc.
Weechi-it-te-win Family Services Inc.
CompletedToOngoing Ratio
7.2:1
6.5:1
6:1
6:1
5.8:1
4.3:1
3:1
2.9:1
2.9:1
2.8:1
2.2:1
2.2:1
Page 12 of 31
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
41
42
43
44
45
46
Page 13 of 31
CAS
Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto
Tikinagan Child and Family Services Inc.
Anishinaabe Abinoojii Family Services
Kenora-Rainy River Districts Child and Family Services
Weechi-it-te-win Family Services Inc.
Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel
Ontario Average
Children's Aid Society of Toronto
Highland Shores Childrens Aid Society
Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto
Kawartha - Haliburton Children's Aid Society
Children's Aid Society of Algoma
Children's Aid Society of Ottawa
The Children's Aid Society of the Durham Region
CAS of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
The Children's Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay
The Children's Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin
OpenedToReopened
16:1
7:1
6.9:1
5.4:1
5.3:1
5.2:1
1.5:1
0.9:1
0.9:1
0.9:1
0.9:1
0.8:1
0.8:1
0.7:1
0.6:1
0.6:1
0.5:1
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Page 14 of 31
Page 15 of 31
CAS
Weechi-it-te-win Family Services Inc.
Tikinagan Child and Family Services Inc.
AnishinaabeAbinoojii Family Services
The Children's Aid Society of the Durham Region
Halton Children's Aid Society
Family and Children's of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville
Ontario Average
Children's Aid Society of Ottawa
Chatham-Kent Integrated Children's Service
Native Child and Family Services of Toronto
CAS of the City of Guelph & the County of Wellington
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
43
44
45
46
Page 16 of 31
Page 17 of 31
CAS
Average number of
placements per
child/youth since
most recent
admission
Rank
PEEL
2.6
2.8
RENFREW
2.9
NATIVE
3.0
THUNDER BAY
3.0
ONTARIO AVERAGE
4.0
VALORIS PRESCOTT
5.5
41
ELGIN
5.6
42
NORTH EASTERN
5.7
43
TIKINAGAN
6.6
44
8.6
45
Page 18 of 31
Page 19 of 31
CAS
Average number of
caseworkers since
the child's
admission to care
Rank
WEECHI-IT-TE-WIN
2.7
3.2
SARNIA LAMBTON
3.6
WELLINGTON
3.6
DURHAM
3.7
SIMCOE
3.7
ONTARIO AVERAGE
5.1
BRUCE GREY
7.1
41
DUFFERIN
7.3
42
ANISHINAABE ABINOOJII
7.6
43
8.2
44
12.8
45
TIKINAGAN
Page 20 of 31
Page 21 of 31
CAS
AAR/ONLAC
used to
develop plans
of care
Rank
ALGOMA
100.0%
HALTON
100.0%
WEECHI-IT-TE-WIN
100.0%
VALORIS PRESCOTT
95.5%
NIAGARA
91.7%
CHATHAM KENT
91.1%
ONTARIO AVERAGE
64.8%
RENFREW
44.9%
39
MUSKOKA
44.4%
40
WELLINGTON
44.4%
40
ELGIN
40.0%
42
38.2%
43
SIMCOE
36.8%
44
BRUCE GREY
21.8%
45
Page 22 of 31
Page 23 of 31
4) ANNUAL MEDICAL
Only six CASs had 100 per cent of Crown Wards receiving annual medicals within the specified
timeframe. Bruce Grey had the fewest at 65 per cent.
CAS
Annual
medical
Rank
DUFFERIN
100.00%
HALTON
100.00%
100.00%
MUSKOKA
100.00%
VALORIS PRESCOTT
100.00%
WEECHI-IT-TE-WIN
100.00%
ONTARIO AVERAGE
91.87%
86.30%
41
RENFREW
85.70%
42
HIGHLAND SHORES
85.40%
43
ANISHINAABE ABINOOJII
81.60%
44
BRUCE GREY
65.50%
45
Page 24 of 31
Page 25 of 31
5) ANNUAL DENTAL
Only five CASs had 100 per cent of Crown Wards who received annual dental care within the specified
timeframe. Tikinagan scored lowest with 56.6 per cent, followed by Bruce Grey with 69 percent. Seven
CASs scored between 70 and 80 per cent.
TABLE CW5: PERCENTAGE OF CROWN WARDS THAT RECEIVE ANNUAL DENTAL CARE
CAS
Annual dental
Rank
ALGOMA
100.00%
ELGIN
100.00%
JEWISH FAMILY
100.00%
MUSKOKA
100.00%
WEECHI-IT-TE-WIN
100.00%
ONTARIO AVERAGE
86.35%
LONDON
74.10%
41
DILICO ANISHINABEK
73.90%
42
DUFFERIN
72.70%
43
BRUCE GREY
69.10%
44
TIKINAGAN
56.60%
45
Page 26 of 31
Page 27 of 31
CAS
Average number of
face-to-face contacts
in the past 12 months
Rank
ALGOMA
23.5
NORTH EASTERN
19.4
NIAGARA
16.6
15.0
14.7
KAWARTHA HALIBURTON
14.7
ONTARIO AVERAGE
17.3
MUSKOKA
9.9
40
9.8
41
RENFREW
9.5
42
NATIVE
8.8
43
8.3
44
WEECHI-IT-TE-WIN
5.9
45
Page 28 of 31
Page 29 of 31
7) OVERALL COMPLIANCE
The Star found wide variations in overall compliance in Crown Ward Reviews. Some CASs 13 in all
scored 100 per cent when full compliance (what per cent of the standards were complied with 100 per
cent of the time in the cases reviewed) and high compliance (what per cent of the standards were
complied with 75 to 99 per cent of the time in the cases reviewed) are noted together.
CAS
% Full
% High
% of cases
=Full & High
Compliance
Rank
ALGOMA
68.4%
31.6%
100.0%
ELGIN
81.2%
18.8%
100.0%
HALTON
68.4%
31.6%
100.0%
HAMILTON WENTWORTH
45.5%
54.5%
100.0%
HURON PERTH
57.9%
42.1%
100.0%
42.1%
57.9%
100.0%
MUSKOKA
68.8%
31.2%
100.0%
NIAGARA
47.6%
52.4%
100.0%
OTTAWA
33.3%
66.7%
100.0%
33.3%
66.7%
100.0%
TORONTO CAS
36.4%
63.6%
100.0%
WATERLOO
16.7%
83.3%
100.0%
YORK
45.0%
55.0%
100.0%
ONTARIO AVERAGE
38.5%
48.9%
87.4%
30.0%
40.0%
70.0%
40
SARNIA LAMBTON
30.0%
40.0%
70.0%
40
TIKINAGAN
21.1%
47.4%
68.5%
42
SUDBURY MANITOULIN
16.7%
50.0%
66.7%
43
PEEL
22.2%
44.4%
66.6%
44
BRUCE GREY
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
45
Page 30 of 31
Page 31 of 31