|
|
     |
||
 |
     |
 |
|
According to the logic of the transition design, there are five major transition components10:
Each of these component areas is broad, encompassing a variety of activities. Progress within each component area is seen as key to a successful transition from SNDC to SCC. This section examines progress in relation to each of the key transition components. Because the transition process is in its early stages, the focus is on progress to date. The information in this section is presented in a consistent format. First, each transition component is described in terms of its purpose and intended progress. This is followed by what actually happened during the first fiscal year in relation to the component. Third, provincial respondent perspective on the role, intent, and/or progress of the transition component is presented. Fourth, the regional respondent perspective of the role, intent, and/or progress of the transition component is presented. Due to the differing roles played by the provincial and regional respondents in the transition process, the perspective of these parties is not consistently available. COMPONENT 1 - INTER-MINISTERIAL COORDINATION Primary responsibility for inter-ministerial co-ordination rests with the SCC sub-committee, a working group under the direction of the Child Care Policy Team (CCPT). It was assembled to co-ordinate the transition from SNDC to SCC. Transition activities first identified in the Terms of Reference include11:
Membership was chosen to reflect the knowledge, roles, and expertise of the five different ministries playing a role in the transition process. Flexibility was allowed to recruit other members or guests as needed. The membership as it currently exists includes two representatives from MSTL13,two representatives from MOH, one from MSS, one from MWE, and one from MOE. In addition, the committee has grown to include the provincial transition co-ordinator (PTC) as a member and an evaluation representative from Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, MSS, as a regular guest. The representative from MSS was selected to chair the sub-committee. Communication and reporting to the CCPT have been achieved mainly by the chair of the sub-committee, who reports to the Assistant Director of Community Support Services, MSS (a member of the CCPT) and by an overlap in representation by the MWE. The work of the SCC sub-committee commenced prior to the funding of the Strategic Initiative. Their initial activities included the development and discussion of a provincial transition work plan and budget for the period starting April 1995 and ending March 1999.14 The work plan outlines the main components of the transition, tasks associated with them, and tentative start and end dates. The budget estimates and outlines the dollars necessary for each component and task according to the ministry responsible for these funds.15 The members of the sub-committee convene once a month.16 Prior to each meeting, an agenda and the minutes are sent to the members. The meetings run about two and a half hours in length and follow a regular schedule:
Provincial respondents perceive the sub-committee as an effective and efficient vehicle for inter-ministerial co-ordination. They claimed that "the sub-committee has been valuable" and "has worked very well", explaining that the meetings usually involve a "robust discussion, making it a good forum for problem solving" and addressing inter-ministerial issues. In addition, they commended the action, commitment, management, co-operation, and co-ordination of the members of the SCC sub-committee. Provincial respondents feel that it is a "coherent group" and each member is seen to play a vital role in the transition process. There has been some question by MOE representatives regarding their usefulness on the sub-committee. They feel as though the "machinery of the initiative is external to [them]" and that perhaps they should be used on an "as needed" basis or in an advisory capacity.17 In the interviews, the remaining sub-committee members sympathized with the MOE and their position because the MOE is the only Ministry that is not directly funded for SCC activities and that does not have a clearly identified role. Nevertheless, members agree and stress that MOE's participation in the committee is critical. In fact, one member suggested that MOE representation may help to bridge the "biggest gap in the continuum of service" - long-term co-ordination. The contracting of the PTC and this individual's membership on the committee has been described as a "great strength to the project". Also, the guest attendance of a representative from MSS research was viewed as necessary to "be aware of what is happening" as the transition progresses. One hurdle, identified in the earlier progress of the committee, was that "staff turn-over at MWE has been high" resulting in "members from MWE chang[ing] frequently". Currently, however, the climate has settled and the representation from MWE "seems to be working better now". Respondents who were sub-committee members agree that the SCC sub-committee is an efficient vehicle for managing activities at the provincial level. Specifically, they are pleased with the productivity and clarity of the meetings. For instance, the minutes taken have been described as clear and easy to follow, the "agenda is always there, and there are regular meetings with concrete issues to address". Much ground is covered in the two and a half hour time frame and members feel that "a lot of credit should be given to the chair for keeping the momentum going". The chair of the committee has been praised as "organized and committed to the cause". Some people feel that an example has been set for others to follow: "Our inter-ministerial co-operation is now affecting co-operation in other agencies." One provincial respondent viewed this partnership between the ministries as no less than a landmark: "I have never seen such co-ordination between the ministries since 1968." COMPONENT 2 - TRAINING One of the components around which ministries have had to co-ordinate their efforts is training. Different aspects of training are best served by the appropriate knowledge and expertise of a particular ministry. Thus, training has become a cross-ministry responsibility involving MSTL, MWE, MOH, and MSS. Training of child care providers, early intervention specialists, SCC consultants, and other key individuals/agencies involved with SNDC/SCC will be an important determinant of the success of SCC. The need to educate and improve access to training has resulted in the development of a number of different training strategies. To date, strategies have included work on the following:
Each will be addressed in turn. COMMUNITY COLLEGE-BASED COURSES One essential component of SCC is accessible training for child care providers which centres on introductory "special needs" education. Around the time of the release of Supported Child Care, the availability of such training in local BC colleges was found to be lacking. As a result, it became the responsibility of MSTL to fund BC Colleges, which provided Early Childhood Education (ECE) and Care, to provide additional Basic Introductory and Post-Basic courses that focus on children who require extra supports.19 The course material was intended to target students studying child care as it relates to family and/or group settings. Accessibility to the courses was enhanced by the requirement that they include long distance options and that students be subsidized to participate. On April 5, 1995, the representative from MSTL reported to the SCC sub-committee that letters had been sent to program directors of universities and colleges that provide ECE training. The letters requested the submission of proposals for the development of introductory ECE and Care courses that focused on children with "special needs". A list of expectations regarding course delivery, entrance criteria, and course credits was provided.20 Some of these included:
Most of the 16 institutions to which letters were sent expressed an interest, however, many were delayed in submitting a proposal due to the time of year and need for local consultation. The deadline for submission was thus extended. Eventually, many creative proposals, such as modularized workshop-type courses and interactive video, were submitted. With such avid interest it became a challenge to choose which proposals would be funded for the first year. Therefore, the representative for MSTL consulted with the PTC who was in the best position to discuss where individual communities were at in terms of SCC. Together they were able to ensure that before an institution received funding, the communities they served were ready for such courses. This process assisted the MSTL in deciding what colleges would be funded in the first year of the SCC transition. By July 1995, the funds21 were sent to eight institutions: Capilano College, Douglas College, Malaspina College, North Island College, Northern Lights College, Northwest Community College, Selkirk College, and the University College of the Fraser Valley. Each received less than they had requested, however, there was no apparent dispute with the allocations. Since that time, two additional institutions have been funded to provide courses; Okanagan Community College and Kwantlen College - and the University of Victoria has been funded to provide distance education. Two others, New Caledonia and Vancouver Community College, were within weeks of receiving funding. The remaining colleges have not yet offered a proposal. Additional feedback is to be provided to the MSTL when they receive year-end reports from funded colleges. Reports will include information on the planning process undertaken, the course statistics, 22 student participation/outcomes, student subsidy expenditures, overall 1995/96 expenditures, and 1996/97 SCC course proposal. These year-end reports from the colleges are due May 31, 1996. Results are to be compiled and forwarded to the SCC sub-committee. Provincial respondents were pleased with the enthusiasm and creativity with which community colleges responded to the request for proposals (RFP). They had received a "positive reaction from the colleges, even after having to deal with rather stringent criteria for program development". Whether the expectations were considered "stringent" or not, it was apparent that provincial respondents believed these expectations necessary and beneficial. For example, one provincial respondent explained that "colleges are required to utilize the community institutions...and have them assist in teaching", thus, gaining from their expertise. Provincial respondents also considered some of the expectations for course development "innovative", for example, students may take a course "as non-credit now, then apply it as credit in the future if desired". The only concern raised by one provincial respondent, was that there is "no formal college network to brainstorm around course content and issues". Regional respondents reported a lack of communication and involvement of college staff regarding local SCC transition activities and college course development. They were "not impressed with the information flow" and found the lack of involvement "disappointing". One regional respondent explained: "I only found out about the course offerings at the community college by accident." This suggests that the expectation, outlined in the original RFP, regarding community consultation on course offerings was not consistently met. Similarly, regional respondents noted that college attendance at local steering committee meetings was either "weak" or non-existent, yet it is an expectation of the colleges to liaise with the local SCC transition process. Also, some regional respondents offered suggestions, concerning the development of college-based courses, that virtually mirrored the aforementioned expectations: "It would have been valuable for the college to have consulted with the MSS office prior to development and implementation of the courses." These examples lend support to the possibility that not only had colleges not consistently met each expectation, but regional respondents were oft times unaware of the content or existence of the letter which requested proposals from the colleges. In addition to the lack of communication from the involved community colleges, regional respondents stated that communication between MSTL headquarters and regional staff "is not evident". During the interviews with regional respondents it was pointed out that some college day cares had not yet developed inclusive child care settings, but were funded to educate students in SCC. With no apparent provincial influence in this area, it appears that this recommendation of the SNDC Reference Committee23 has not yet been attended to. Regional participants suggested that the practice of SCC and adoption of SCC principles could be a new and distinct expectation for the colleges. STUDENT SUBSIDIES As well as the provision of funds to colleges for course development, it is also the responsibility of the MSTL to subsidize students to attend these courses; thus, allowing the training to be more accessible. In the letter which the MSTL sent requesting proposals for the development of college courses, the provision of student subsidies was addressed: "Students experiencing financial difficulty...may be able to apply for special financial assistance..." Details were to be provided upon project approval for they had not yet been formalized. In a meeting in August 1995, after the initial decisions regarding the allocation of course development funds, the SCC sub-committee discussed the manner in which student subsidies could be implemented. Once informed of the roles of colleges and student financial aid personnel in distributing funds, the members agreed on guidelines24 for the distribution of the student subsidy:
Colleges approved for first-year course funding received a letter that presented these guidelines and the SCC sub-committee's position regarding the student subsidy. Colleges were to work out the best method for the distribution of student subsidy funds, within the parameters of the guidelines, then present their ideas for approval. Some examples of the distribution ideas which were presented by colleges and approved include: providing funds for distance students to stay in residence for intensive course offerings, subsidizing parents' caregiver/baby-sitting costs to enable both parents to attend, and assisting caregivers by providing pay for substitute caregivers. Student subsidies were calculated according to 10% of funds originally awarded to colleges. The colleges, training funds awarded, and student subsidy amounts follow:
The proposals on the delivery of subsidies to students were considered "innovative" by provincial respondents. Respondents who were sub-committee members were supportive of the plans developed at the local level, as long as they were within the guidelines. On the whole, provincial respondents recognized that "this is already a low paid industry" and their main concern was that there be no further barriers to education in this area. Because there has been "little communication" from colleges and MSTL headquarters to the communities they serve, regional respondents knew little, if any, information about the availability of student subsidies. In fact, when discussing college courses, one of the complaints was that "staff can't afford to take the training". This comment supports the suggestion that regional respondents were largely unaware of the student subsidy. SCC CONSULTANT QUALIFICATIONS In the report, Supported Child Care, the SNDC Reference Committee presented 24 recommendations. One of these recommendations, presented as the responsibility of MSTL, suggested the development of a new qualification [which] would build on the existing child care training programs and other competencies, and qualify someone to provide the consultative services envisioned for the Supported Child Care program.25 In response to this, MSTL suggested that additional research pertaining to consultative services was necessary. Specifically, MSTL proposed a project that would:
The fall of 1995 saw the development of an RFP, incorporating revisions suggested by the inter-ministerial sub-committee members. By December, the MSTL had distributed a call for proposals titled, Needs Analysis: Provision of Consultative Services in Supported Child Care26. An advisory committee was to be set up to provide direction to the contracted institution or organization. The membership, to be selected by MSTL and the SCC sub-committee, would consist of SCC consultants, early childhood educators, Early Intervention specialists, Infant Development Program staff, involved ministries, and other key organizations. The final objectives of the project, outlined in the RFP, included:
In February 1996, the Centre for Curriculum and Professional Development let a contract to Camosun College to undertake the project. Responsibility for overseeing the content and product of the contract will be maintained by an advisory committee, which includes members from the SCC sub-committee. It is estimated that the needs analysis will be completed in August 1996, taking 2-3 months longer than originally planned. PARTNERSHIP TRAINING PROGRAM The MOH is responsible for the development and delivery of the Partnership Training Program (PTP). The purpose of the PTP is to create on-going partnerships within the community and to present a variety of skills and techniques that can be utilized to enhance the developmental environments for children who require extra support. The PTP includes a series of training packages, each targeting a specific area of support. One of the training packages, Speech and Language, was completed and successfully implemented in 1991, prior to the Strategic Initiative Agreement. This package was to be revised to include the principles of SCC and then be used as a model for the other four. These packages were to be based on four, identified, essential topics concerning children who require extra support:
As with the delivery of the Speech and Language package, the intended sequence of events to be followed when a community is ready for partnership training will begin with the teams who developed the training packages. The teams will go into a community and train a group of facilitators27 in the background material and use of the package. The facilitators will then present a course to child care providers and parents in the community who choose to attend. It is hoped that ...in this way, parents and early childhood educators are matched with therapists to create ongoing partnerships within the community.28 An attempt will be made to offer the sessions in the evenings or on weekends, when it is easier for parents or working people to attend. Contracts to develop training packages reflecting the four topics were to be undertaken during the 1995/96 year with two month pilot testing and revisions planned for the beginning of the 1996/97 year. During the pilot testing, each package will be delivered by the facilitators who will provide feedback and conduct student evaluations. Once the pilot projects are complete, a presentation will be held, for an advisory group, on how the packages worked in their pilot. The advisors will then have an opportunity to comment. MOH contracted with the Vancouver Neurological Centre for the production of materials necessary for the training packages: Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Family-Centred Care and Family Support, and Special Health Care Supports. Teams, consisting of MOH staff and a project co-ordinator, were established around each topic to develop the corresponding training package. In addition, a group of advisors was set up to offer comments on the development of these packages. The first meetings of the teams to begin the development of the PTP were held in May 1995. The process undertaken for the development of the Behaviour Management package was different. Unlike the other packages, there was no established approach with which to begin development. MOH contracted with the BC Council of the Family because of this agency's expertise in the development of materials relating to child development and management. As with the other packages, a project co-ordinator was hired and a training team was established. However, the project co-ordinator also established a separate advisory committee to comment solely on the development of the Behaviour Management package. In September 1995, a "training link day" brought together all the teams to discuss progress and ensure co-ordination of content and plans. At this point, draft outlines for each package had been produced and the teams had begun to develop course materials. Each outline proposed anywhere from five to eight sessions (also called modules or topics) that were approximately two to three hours in length. Throughout the year 1995/96, work on the PTP progressed substantially and an additional package, Partnerships in Supporting Children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, was beginning development. The Speech and Language package was updated to reflect the principles of SCC and continues to be used throughout the Province. Packages for Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Family-Centred Care and Family Support, and Special Health Care Supports, were in draft form before the end of March 1996 and ready for distribution to pilot communities within a couple of months. Work on the Behaviour Management package (now renamed Challenging Behaviours) continues and will not be piloted until about September 1996. Speech and Language has been described by provincial respondents as "a great success". Thus, in their opinion, this package turned out to be an excellent prototype for the training packages that followed. In fact, provincial respondents were "amazed at how smooth the implementation of these partnerships has gone" and felt "lucky to have [had] the prototype in place". Provincial respondents did, however, comment on a few difficulties regarding the Challenging Behaviours package. The process was slightly more complex for it involved trying to establish consensus among key players concerning the approach to be taken and content to be included. The advisory group for this package was commended for their "valuable input" in this regard. Although the Challenging Behaviours package seems to have been more difficult to plan for, the comments of the outcomes so far are positive. Provincial respondents feel "fortunate to have the contractor that [they] do - a professional in the mental handicap and early childhood system". OTHER TRAINING EVENTS The transition process to SCC allowed for outside training events, such as orientation and in-service training, to be delivered by the involved Ministries. In the first year of the transition two main events emerged as part of this effort. First, development began on a SCC Early Intervention stream to be delivered at the annual Early Childhood Educators of BC (ECE BC) Conference in May 1996. Second, the Supported Child Care Joint Training Session was held in March 1996. The joint training event emerged from a perceived need to focus on collaboration and joint training opportunities between Child Care Support Program (CCSP) staff and SCC consultants. When first discussing the use of training dollars, the members of the sub-committee agreed that the dollars would be well spent on enhancing the link between these two groups. The groups were important support systems that had several qualities uniting them, including their common goal to support "collaborative and inclusive child care".29 Registration packages for the training were developed and distributed by the beginning of February 1996. One staff member from each CCSP and each SCC program in the province were funded to attend, however, some unfunded seats remained for additional staff who wished to participate. Registration was cut off at 130. As the communities became aware of the joint training, many expressed reservations concerning its target group. Much of the feedback received by the sub-committee suggested that communities believed the event "preempted local decisions about who will provide SCC services".30 Communities felt that the training should more appropriately target local/regional steering committee members. Alternatively, the sub-committee members felt that confusion existed as to the nature of the training and were clear amongst themselves that the training was to be practice-oriented, rather than planning-oriented. They decided to proceed with the joint training and agreed that any further in-service events would involve consultation with field staff and local/regional steering committees. Also, the sub-committee acknowledged that it may be necessary to look into other ways of delivering planning-oriented training. The training took place over three days and was broken down into three sessions:
Each session was conducted by different key-note speakers from Ohio, Ontario, and BC. Feedback31 regarding sessions 1 and 2 was mixed. Generally the respondents of the training thought "the presenters were excellent", however, the content of the sessions was no more than a review: "I didn't come away with anything that I either haven't heard or done before." While some felt that "it is always good to have a refresher course", others "found it very basic" and would have enjoyed a component of "where do we go from here". People suggested that the material may be more useful to other groups - such as service providers to help "better their programs" or first year students studying early childhood or "special needs". Nevertheless, a number of respondents in the joint training found the presentations very informative: "I am new to SCC having spent nine years in a preschool classroom. The session helped me to understand the focus of SCC better and how I can operate more effectively." Generally, respondents of the joint training were most impressed with the working session which "directly related to [their] issues, needs, concerns, and future". This session allowed them to ask questions of the speakers and discuss common issues and solutions. They were excited about the networking and planning opportunities of the session and remarked that it gave "a sense of direction". Respondents in the joint training were aware of "a wealth of information in the room that [they] only started to share". They were, therefore, frustrated that more time was not allowed for the working session: "I wished we could have done this the first morning we were together...this should have been the main focus for the two and a half days." Respondents were so impressed with the working session that they felt it would be useful to apply "this format to look at more issues regarding SCC" and suggested that perhaps "planning sessions should be on-going in the community". COMPONENT 3 - COST-SHARING While the SNDC program is generally provided at no cost to families, the new framework expects parents and government to share the expense of child care. Under this new framework, the government will be responsible for funding the extra supports (such as consultation, staffing, and structural changes) that a child care setting will need to include a child. Parents of children who require extra support will be expected to pay the basic fee for child care, however, they may apply for assistance under the Provincial Day Care Subsidy program. In addition, a Special Needs Subsidy will be available, regardless of their income. The Special Needs Subsidy was not among the recommendations presented in the Supported Child Care report. In fact, it is here that the government's response made a significant departure from the suggestions of the SNDC Reference Committee: "In recognition of the vital importance of early intervention and education in the years before school and the costs of raising a child with special needs, all parents of children who meet the Supported Child Care Program criteria for extra support will be eligible for a special needs subsidy...32" Both income-testing and the Special Needs Subsidy were to be implemented in the Fall of 1995. Discussions held in the spring, 1995, led to a sub-committee decision to request from the CCPT a delay in the implementation of income-testing and the Special Needs Subsidy. Members of the sub-committee were aware of the sensitivity of this area and the disparities that existed in the province concerning the delivery of assistance. They wished to carry out further research regarding the impact of this change and to create some ideas on how best to implement cost-sharing. Consequently, April 1996 became the new goal for this implementation. MSS set to work on estimating cost impact/budget needs, developing a work plan to review with the field, and establishing new expenditure lines for SCC. By July 1995, a MSS Special Needs Subsidy Policy draft paper was distributed to the sub-committee members for feedback. In November 1995, MSS reported that research, as discussed previously, had been initiated. A contract had been let for a financial impact analysis of options for implementing income-testing and the Special Needs Subsidy. The resulting paper was completed in January 1996 and titled Report on the Income Testing and Sharing-Costs Provisions of Supported Child Care33. The report provided
In addition, it presented options for implementation, including pros and cons for each, to be considered by MSS and the CCPT. The report also suggested that "it would be very difficult to fully implement income-testing and cost-sharing on April 1, 1996. Communities are at different stages of acceptance of development of Supported Child Care..."34 After reviewing the document, MSS Area Managers and the CCPT expressed a preference for a 'phased-in' approach to both income-testing and the Special Needs Subsidy, thereby "coincid[ing] with the transition to a SCC model on a local community basis". When the sub-committee discussed the practical implications of this approach concerns were expressed about compounding the inequity of delivery within the province and this impact on the anxiety and confusion within the communities. One sub-committee member explained: "It's confusing for parents - they wonder if they'll have to pay. It depends on where they live whether they'll have to pay." Nevertheless, the sub-committee decided that the phased-in approach was the best of the available options in spite of these implications. By April 1996, the Ministers of Women's Equality and Social Services had approved the phasing in of income-testing and the Special Needs Subsidy. Policy development around this was to begin immediately and implementation in the first set of communities was to begin in the fall of 1996. Generally, regional respondents were critical of the Province's approach to implementing cost sharing. They were critical of the length of time it took for the "decision-makers" to make a decision about how to proceed with cost-sharing and of the failure to be more directive in the interim. They criticized the process for being "very slow on clarification and in the writing of procedures". Regional respondents explained that community members do not understand the "mechanics of when, how, and who will income test", resulting in unnecessary anxiety and confusion. It is apparent from the interviews that regional respondents feel clarification of cost-sharing is necessary and "policy direction is needed quickly". Furthermore, in a teleconference, held by the PTC, a number of regional stakeholders were informed of the provincial decision to have cost-sharing implemented as the communities are ready. Some of these respondents seemed uncomfortable with this decision: "[We] need a clear start date and guidelines...there's too much soft pedaling in this area." COMPONENT 4 - TOOLS TO SUPPORT INCLUSION The logic model identifies an up front need for tools to support the transition to an inclusive approach to child care involving children with special needs. At this point, three tools have been identified: 1) Support Guide; 2) Accessibility Grants; and 3) revisions to Child Care Regulations. Each will be addressed in turn. THE SUPPORT GUIDE
It was hoped that by following this route a requirement for a "diagnosis" of the child could be avoided. However, a report examining existing support evaluation instruments, Towards a Checklist for Supported Child Care, noted that none of the instruments fulfilled the functional specifications and philosophical criteria required by the SNDC Reference Committee. As a result, the Government's Response, completed the following year, stated: "While we agree that it is better to look at a child's abilities rather than disabilities, we are not yet sure how we can determine eligibility fairly without a diagnosis - there is no proven model.35" It was decided that eligibility would continue to be determined through documentation of "handicapping conditions" and a Support Guide would be developed to help identify the range of needs required to support a child. This Support Guide became the responsibility of the PTC who was to develop it "in collaboration with the affected stakeholders and ministries."36Consequently, a Support Guide committee of five SCC consultants was established to work with the PTC. Each member of the Support Guide committee represents a different geographic region of the province, has several years experience, and has good relations with his/her community partners. Their duties were to:
Development of the Support Guide began in the summer of 1995. The initial work of the committee was to draw together a list of criteria37 which were considered crucial to the Support Guide. Some of these were identified in Towards a Checklist for Supported Child Care; others, by the members of the Support Guide committee. By the fall, the first draft report of the Support Guide was available for review and comment. Copies were distributed to individuals representing various stakeholders within the community: parents, typical and specialized child care providers, social workers, CDC, CCSP, and IDP staff, licensing officers, the deaf community, and other SCC consultants. In addition, the Support Guide was delivered to the members of the SCC sub-committee for comment. The PTC requested that initial recipients of the guide be generous in its subsequent distribution. Considerable feedback on the Support Guide was received and incorporated into the February 1996 version. The most radical change as a whole was in the clarification, organization, and coherence of the sections - as opposed to the content. Descriptive titles were added or changed where the content may, at points, have been vague. Also, the February version more clearly identifies who is to complete each section. This draft was organized into five sections:
As envisioned, use of the Support Guide is to involve a team consisting of a parent, the child care provider, and a SCC consultant. The consultant will act as co-ordinator and liaison for the team. When complete, the information collected and agreed upon by the team is to be submitted to a Social Worker to approve funding. Three months of field testing the latest version is planned, including a review of the Support Guide by community SCC Steering Committees. Revisions and refinement of the Support Guide are expected to continue over the four year transition to SCC. Provincial respondents admitted that the process involved in the development of the Support Guide has been difficult and they identified two possible reasons:
The latter is exemplified by attempts to include "user-friendly language for the parents, the ECE population, as well as medical assessment language". This is also reflected in the feedback received regarding the representation of the membership on the support guide committee. For instance, some of the feedback suggests that this committee "needs to include non-Supported Child Care people and pull the therapeutic element into the committee." Because the report tries to address so "many users' needs", provincial respondents anticipate that not everyone will be completely satisfied with the Guide. Much of the feedback received by the persons working on the guide seems to have been very useful. They report that "readers have identified gaps, where training is required, and where roles needed defining". The Support Guide is still in the process of its development and, in fact, "will probably take the full term of the SCC project to create a final [copy]". Provincial respondents are optimistic that the Support Guide will eventually be useful in determining the supports required and perhaps, ideally, in determining eligibility for SCC - especially when people are trained in the use of the Guide and it is applied in practical situations. Most of the regional comments concerning the Support Guide were positive. Everyone seemed aware of the Guide and many had seen a copy. Communication was not an apparent issue, in fact, regional respondents were informed enough to be able to comment that they "agree with the process" involved in the creation of the Guide. They were pleased with the input sought from the various stakeholders and liked the idea of using a pilot community. They also commented that the Support Guide committee "worked very quickly at putting it together; it looks good". ACCESSIBILITY GRANTS "design guidelines developed for child care expansion initiatives ensure that new and renovated buildings being used for child care are physically accessible for all children, and provide devices so as to be as accessible as possible.38" As reported under Shared Costs, the government was to cover the expense of extra support (such as structural changes) required by a child care setting. Accessibility grants would be one way for the government to provide this support. Towards Supported Child Care: Transition Guide explains that the grants would be provided through the existing Facilities and Equipment Program until 1998/99 and that they would be used to meet the physical supports outlined by the SNDC Reference Committee. The basic framework for Accessibility Grants was to be established by MWE during the 1995/96 year and in place by April 1, 1996. It was decided early in the development of accessibility grants that they would encompass "mental barriers" as well as physical barriers to inclusion. This concern was also reflected in the recommendations of the SNDC Reference Committee: "One element of quality should be effective inclusion of all children as reflected in areas such as staff attitude...39" Planning for the development of the grants did not begin until fall, 1995, when a working group was formed called the Accessibility Grants Initiative Ad Hoc committee. The purpose of this committee was to define the grants, what they would involve, and how they would fit with SCC and/or existing grant initiatives. Development of the criteria and procedures for the accessibility grants began in November, when the working committee met for the first time.40 The minutes of this and subsequent meetings were circulated to the members of the SCC sub-committee. After receiving the minutes of the first Ad Hoc committee meeting, the members of the SCC sub-committee discussed the grant on an inter-ministerial level and came up with several key points for consideration:
By January 1996, the Ad Hoc committee completed a draft policy and procedures piece, titled Accessibility Grants Initiative. The document highlights how accessibility grants fit in with the objectives of the Federal/Provincial Strategic Initiative to "improve accessibility, affordability, and quality" of services and to ensure a more "inclusive system for child care". The following items that may create a barrier to accessibility and inclusiveness were identified:
Activities which would be considered for funding fell under at least one of these three barriers. The Accessibility Grants Initiative also outlines and details what Accessibility Grants should look like around procedures such as applying for a grant and awarding, reviewing, paying, and monitoring a grant. The draft was circulated among the SCC sub-committee members who decided that a wider distribution of the next draft, to involve SCC planning/steering committees, was necessary. In addition, the sub-committee discussed different options for delivery of accessibility grants. The options included:
An option was not chosen, although, concerns with practicality were expressed in regard to the third suggestion. The sub-committee decided "to delay implementation of these grants until part way through the next fiscal year, in order to ensure adequate consultation"43 regarding the options and, more generally, the development of the grants. Provincial respondents44 seem quite sure that Accessibility Grants will not be in effect by April 1996. As with the Support Guide, this grant is essentially being created from the ground up, therefore, provincial respondents feel that it is vital to include the communities in defining Accessibility Grants. This, however, takes time and the Accessibility Grants Ad Hoc committee recognizes that it "can't proceed any more with eligibility, financial qualifications, etc. until the steering committees provide information regarding what Accessibility Grants should look like". Apparently the MWE has been receiving some feedback from the regions who are concerned that they had not been informed of the Accessibility Grants sooner: "The communities and staff there are anxious for more information...[but] there are no grants yet - we are just collecting feedback about ideas this month." [February 1996]. Provincial respondents emphasize that time is necessary to ensure that "thoughtful plans" are made concerning how the money will be spent in the communities. CHILD CARE REGULATION REVISIONS agrees in principle with the philosophy of inclusion, and the idea of effective inclusion forms an integral part of its recommendations dealing with space, staff qualifications, group size and staff-to-child-ratio. Proposed revisions to the CCR include eliminating the Special Needs Day Care License, revising terminology to reflect children who require supports, reviewing the quality standards to be implemented in all child care settings, establishing quality indicators to determine service settings, establishing guidelines for behavioural management, and requiring licensed child cares to have a behavioural management policy. The CCPT and the Provincial Child Care Council examined the proposed revisions of the CCR Review Committee and decided that it was necessary to proceed with an in-depth analysis of the impact of these recommendations on cost, policy, and legislation. The findings were reported in Analysis of "Child Care Regulation Review Working Document" 47in May of 1996. COMPONENT 5 - SUPPORTS TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT As previously indicated, the Province granted communities the freedom to evolve from an SNDC approach to a SCC approach at their own pace and according to local needs. While each of the preceding transition components is important to community development, the activities covered under "Supports to Community Development" are specifically intended to support locally-based efforts. PROVINCIAL TRANSITION CO-ORDINATOR (PTC)
These activities are addressed later in the report. However, the use of the PTC position as a tool to support community development will be addressed here. This role encompasses the remaining duties listed in Schedule A:
The PTC's role as a tool to support community development has involved providing information, communicating new developments in the process, working with community representatives and provincial organizations to create a better understanding of SCC, communicating examples from region to region, and providing feedback from regions to the province. The PTC has regularly and actively participated in the SCC sub-committee meetings. Individual community's progress and common concerns heard by the PTC are related back to the province through sub-committee discussions. Each month the PTC would distribute statistics for the previous month and a draft itinerary for the following month to each of the members. The monthly statistics recorded communication in terms of the number of phone calls,49faxes, letters, meetings and talks held, travel days, workshop days, and visits to child care settings and homes. A chart of these activities to date over the fiscal year accompanies each monthly sheet. The itinerary outlines the dates of meetings and visits with different stakeholders within various communities in BC. In the first year of the SCC transition project the PTC actively communicated with a variety of stakeholders in over 1300 telephone calls and visited nearly 100 child care settings in approximately 30 communities throughout the province.50 Meetings and visits with the communities have involved either formal presentations or more casual discussions that focused on the principles of SCC and the facilitation of planning for the transition. Often, the floor was left open for individuals to ask questions. The PTC also chairs regular conference calls, each with 40 lines designated to various transition planners throughout the province. People with whom the PTC comes into contact are told of the materials that are currently available to assist them, however the PTC is now looking for ways to better format and widely distribute the information. In addition to these activities the PTC worked on the development of materials such as the Support Guide (as previously discussed), a Transition Handbook, and newsletters. The creation of the PTC position has been described by provincial respondents as one of the highlights of the SCC project. Provincial respondents recognize that the connections made throughout the province and contact with the regions have put the PTC in a unique position from other provincial partners. For example, the PTC is in an excellent position to receive feedback from the communities and relay it back to the SCC sub-committee. One member of the sub-committee reported that it is "invaluable hearing what she hears". Provincial respondents feel the PTC is "competent" and produces "exemplary" work. The PTC's "high caliber, skills, and knowledge of the child care field" have been described as "a great strength" to the SCC transition process. Regional comments echoed this assessment of the PTC's skills. They claimed that the expertise, articulation, and perspective of the PTC "lend credibility to the program". They also found the PTC very helpful and informative, for example, "She helped to kick-start the SCC program here. I was running out of time. [We] put the names together, invited parents...and [the PTC] came and oriented us about SCC." The PTC's attention to smaller communities was also commended. Many regional respondents indicated that the PTC has provided "wonderful support" and it was stressed that the position continue to act as "an interface between the community and the system". A couple of regional respondents showed little interest in the activities of the PTC. These respondents represented communities that claimed to "have a momentum and haven't required assistance from her" and/or have "lots of internal expertise". On the other hand, one regional respondent reported that communities there had not used the PTC because they were "not quite ready for her yet". TRANSITION HANDBOOK
The contents of the handbook evolved over the 1995/96 year. The handbook provides a detailed definition of SCC and the principles upon which it is based. It then discusses the process and steps involved in community planning. Using examples, the handbook shows a few of the steps that some communities in BC have taken to initiate planning. Issues and barriers common to many planning processes are flagged as well as "tips" from individuals who have been involved in SCC.53 The handbook also provides a list of contacts from communities within each region as well as current Area Managers and their numbers. The Transition Handbook was completed and forwarded to communities during the last week of evaluation interviews. Therefore, feedback was not available. NEWSLETTERS The PTC was contracted a few months later and one duty, outlined in Schedule "A": Services, was to: Write and edit at least 2 newsletters, minimum 4 pages each. (approx. June/July and Sept/Oct) Since then, three more editions (6, 7, and 8) of the newsletter were produced by the PTC. The last newsletter to be distributed prior to the formative evaluation was presented with the subtitle A Year in Review.... This edition briefly updated the events of the past year and included a short survey on the last page requesting feedback on both the newsletter and the SCC transition project as a whole. This feedback has not yet been received. Some provincial respondents are concerned with the layout, content, and distribution of the newsletters. They perceive an overall communication gap between the Province and the regions but are unsure whether the newsletter is to blame. For example, they question the appropriateness of the content and the effectiveness of the layout - in which case the newsletter should be altered in some way. However they also concede that some other information source, distributed in addition to the newsletter (such as "one page memos" focusing on individual topics), may enhance communication. Difficulties with distribution have rested in two areas, according to provincial comments:
Despite concerns relating to regional communication, provincial respondents are pleased with the newsletter for their own use. They have commented that the articles are "great", and often use them in progress reports. Regional respondents do not seem as concerned about the breadth of the distribution as they are about the frequency of the distribution of the newsletter. They admit that "quarterly is realistic", however, are frustrated because "it's out of date when [they] finally get it". For the most part, the newsletter was described by regional respondents as accurate and useful in community discussions. They reported that the newsletter is a "useful document clarifying government policy and position on SCC" and that it "re-enforces on paper to the communities what is happening". Furthermore, regional respondents suggested the addition of "a profile of one community's efforts where [SCC] is working" explaining that it would be "helpful to see what's been done elsewhere" and might avoid "recreating the wheel". One respondent explained the advantage: "When [the PTC] was here she provided Terms of Reference from another community and a Schedule A for a facilitator's contract. It was good to have these models to work from." In this way, perhaps planners could see how other communities have dealt with issues such as how "you find service providers who are willing to take in special needs kids" or how "you move the dollars from CDCs [Child Development Centres] to community day cares". CONFERENCE CALLS Forty-four people participated in the first teleconference on February 26, 1996. Due to the number of people, challenges were presented regarding the format of the call, participation, and the agenda. For example, there were difficulties understanding the speakers and at some point the lines were reduced. Consequently, very little information was shared. However, another teleconference was planned for March 14, 1996. It was decided that, rather than follow an agenda of items to discuss, only one issue would be focused on for each conference. A subject for the next call was chosen and, to help avoid some of the problems of the first conference, the respondents were requested to:
The subsequent conference calls were more organized, allowing more discussion and feedback from the respondents. Subjects discussed in conference calls so far have included:
Representatives from the provincial SCC sub-committee attended the April 16, 1996 teleconference that focused on training and Ministry questions. Their knowledge and input was considered vital enough to continue participating in future conference calls. Because the conference calls were, at first, very disorganized, provincial respondents questioned their usefulness. They felt that perhaps there were too many people on the call for worthwhile knowledge to be passed on. While admitting that the calls have become progressively more organized, provincial respondents continue to feel that either some reworking should be done or additional, smaller conference calls are required. On the other hand, people from the regions54 have stated that "teleconferencing is a very important way to make [SCC] a provincial process and pull everyone together". Respondents have found the calls "very helpful", for example, some have used the minutes from the call to "brainstorm in the community". Areas that are a little farther behind in the process explain: "It is inspiring to hear where everyone else is - and we can aspire to that." These respondents have also suggested teleconferences that include only those areas at similar points in the process and/or "regional localized conference calls". This would be in addition to - not instead of - the regular conference calls. They still feel that it is important to "connect with others...to get the warnings to look for" and so that they "won't feel as alone out there". SUMMARY Several centralized activities have been identified as key to a successful transition. These include Inter-ministerial Co-ordination, Training, Cost-Sharing, Tools to Support Inclusion, and Supports to Community Development. This section has reviewed the progress made in each of these component areas, specifically identifying tasks which were to be completed, progress, and the perspective of both provincial and regional players on how things are proceeding. In all of the component areas, progress was made during the year. Generally, however, progress was not as rapid as originally envisioned, nor was it consistent across the component areas. Inter-ministerial co-ordination, the primary responsibility of the sub-committee on SCC, is clearly a strength of the transition process, particularly at the provincial level. The sub-committee is an effective and efficient vehicle, with meetings providing the appropriate forum for information sharing, issue identification, and problem resolution. The sub-committee is seen to have the appropriate membership and to be well-linked to what is happening in the larger child care sector. During the first fiscal year, considerable progress was seen in terms of the varied training activities associated with this component of the Strategic Initiative. College-based ECE courses were revamped to incorporate the principles and practices of SCC. Thirteen colleges were funded to deliver such courses. Each of these colleges accessed student subsidy dollars and utilized innovative approaches to reduce barriers to education depending upon the perceived needs of their respective communities. Five Partnership Training Program Modules were under development during the year. These were modeled after an already existing module on Speech and Language which was seen to provide an excellent prototype. The approach utilized for these modules is viewed as an innovative and effective means of creating on-going partnerships. In addition, progress was made in terms of moving towards the identification of qualifications for SCC consultants with a contract for a needs analysis initiated. The contract was to be completed in August 1996, taking only 2-3 months longer than originally planned. Despite this, considerable confusion exists around the training activities associated with the transition process. Regional staff expressed a desire for clarity in terms of the types of training planned by each Ministry, the audience, and access to funding. Furthermore, a need for greater inter-ministerial communication at the regional level was identified. At the provincial level, considerable effort was directed towards deciding how the cost-sharing provisions of the SCC framework could be implemented. As cost-sharing is a critical component of the SCC framework, regional respondents were critical of the length of time it was taking to achieve policy clarity in this area. By April 1996, a phased-in approach to cost-sharing was adopted. However, the lack of clear direction in this area may continue to be a barrier to progress at the regional and community level. In addition, regional respondents emphasized the need for central direction in terms of the Special Needs Subsidy and expressed a desire for procedures which move away from global contracts. Regional respondents also expressed a desire for profiles of successful SCC services. Considerable progress was made in terms of Tools to Support Inclusion with the Support Guide, Child Care Regulation revisions, and the criteria for accessibility grants drafted. Evaluation of the Support Guide is viewed as a necessary next step. Over the year, an increasing number of vehicles were employed in order to share information with people involved in the transition process at the regional or community level. While the efforts were many and varied, and clearly progress was made, information sharing with the regions remained a weak area at the end of the first fiscal year. This weakness was particularly evident in terms of regional respondent awareness of the components of the initiative and how they fit together. I have no clear picture of how this all fits together. It was also evident in the absence of linkages at the community level. Respondents, however, were particularly positive about the role and work of the Provincial Transition Co-ordinator.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![[To Top]](/web/20060127014939im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/top.gif){kind=small}
![[Previous Page]](/web/20060127014939im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/back.gif){kind=small}
![[Table of Contents]](/web/20060127014939im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/content.gif)
![[Next Page]](/web/20060127014939im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/next.gif){kind=small}