daycare 2005

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

1/92

Appendix A

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WINDSOR

SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT

MUNICIPALLY FUNDEDCHILDRENS SERVICES SYSTEM REVIEW

September 2005

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

2/92

City of Windsor Childrens Services System Review 2

TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ 4Report Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 61. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 101.1 Background ....................................................................................................................101.2 Purpose, Goals & Objectives ......................................................................................101.3 Manager Interviews .....................................................................................................111.4 Site Visits ....................................................................................................................121.5 Best Start Impacts.......................................................................................................122. THE MUNICIPALLY FUND ED CHILDRENS SERVIC ES SYSTEM . 142.1 A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS ...........................................................142.1.1 Municipally Operated Centres .................................................................................142.1.2 Child Care Fee Subsidy ...........................................................................................172.1.3 Special Needs Resourcing Program ........................................................................172.1.4 Ontario Early Years Centres (OEYC) ......................................................................192.1.5 Wage Subsidy .........................................................................................................192.1.7 National Child Benefits Savings ...............................................................................20

3. DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................ 213.1 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS ...................................................................................213.2 FOCUS GROUPS ..........................................................................................................243.2.1 Parents and Caregivers ...........................................................................................243.2.2 Special Needs .........................................................................................................253.2.3 Child Care Operators & Agencies ............................................................................263.2.4 City Childrens Services Staff ..................................................................................273.3 CONSOLIDATED MUNICIPAL SERVICE MANAGER INTERVIEWS .............................274. DATA ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 314.1 CHILDREN SERVICES DIVISION MANAGEMENT .......................................................314.1.1 Community Leadership ............................................................................................314.1.2 Division Leadership .................................................................................................324.2 DIRECTLY OPERATED CHILD CARE CENTRES & SERVICES ...................................344.3 CHILDREN SERVICE SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ...........................................................384.3.1 Special Needs Resourcing Program ........................................................................384.3.2 Child Care Fee Subsidy Program ............................................................................44Figure 4: Child Care Fee Subsidy Select Budgetary Item Policy Comparison ...........................464.4 ONTARIO EARLY YEARS .............................................................................................514.5 NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT ..........................................................................................525. BEST START ................................................................................... 545.1 CONFIGURATION OF THE BEST START NETWORK ..................................................545.1.1 Best Start Steering Committee ................................................................................545.1.2 Best Start Implementation Committee .....................................................................555.1.3 Working Groups ......................................................................................................566. APPENDICES .................................................................................. 59

Appendix 1: Steering Committee Membership ..........................................................................60 Appendix 2: Key Informant Summary ........................................................................................61 Appendix 3: Parent Focus Group Summary ..............................................................................69 Appendix 4: Special Needs Providers Focus Group Summary ..................................................73 Appendix 5: Parents of Children with Special Needs Focus Group Results ...............................79 Appendix 6: Agency and Licensed Child Care Provider Focus Group Summary .......................82 Appendix 7: Staff Focus Group Summary .................................................................................89

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

3/92


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the City of Windsor for funding this project. Specialthanks to Teresa Piruzza, the Project Coordinator who was an invaluable resource in trackingdown requested items and planning the very successful focus groups and Susan Oates-Telfer the note taker at all of the focus groups. Thanks also to the members of the Childrens Services

System Review Stee ring Committee. This review required participation from childrens servicesstakeholders and it should be acknowledged that the child care centre operators in the City of Windsor and County of Essex, Ontario Early Years Centre program operators and deliverers of special needs services provided valuable insights and guidance to the content of this report.Many parents also took time from their summer activities to attend evening focus groups toprovide their input. A significant amount of data was collected as a result of everyonescombined effort, thereby supporting the development of this summary report.

Finally, thanks to other municipalities children services staff that participated in interviews anddiscussions conducted throughout the course of this review.

Protected Under Joint Copyright

City of Windsor, ADW Consulting and Pauline Lewis & Associates Inc. 2005 No part of this document may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means graphic, electronic or mechanical, includingphotocopying, electronic transmittal systems, or information retrieval systems without the prior written permission of all parties. ADWConsulting and Pauline Lewis & Associates Inc. give permission to the City of Windsor, Social Services Department to reproducethe material in whole or excerpts of the material for their own purposes, to amend the material or excerpts at their own discretion,and to provide a copy to MCSS, but neither may distribute it to other municipalities.

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

4/92


Executive Summary

The City of Windsor has managed childrens services within the boundaries of the City of Windsor and the County of Essex since the devolution of the management of Children Servicesto Consolidated Municipal Service Managers (CMSM) from the Ministry of Community andSocial Services. Since devolution in 2000 there has been a restructuring of the ChildrenServices Division senior level of management accompanied by a vacant General Manager position of the Social Service Department. The vacant General Manager position has now beenfilled permanently.

In 2004 the Social Services Department planned and completed a review of the Ontario WorksDivision. It has subsequently embarked on this strategic review of its role in the managementand delivery of Childrens Services.

The goals and objectives of the review were defined as:

Establishing the role of the municipality in the direct delivery of child care centresEstablishing the role of the municipality in the direct delivery of Ontario Early Years CentresEstablish a service system management role in the development of community partnershipsEstablishing a recommended model for the delivery of special needs resourcing within theconfines of available fundingEstablishing a recommended framework for a local Best Start NetworkEstablishing a recommended Childrens Service Division organization structure to supportimplementation of program recommendations (to be a companion document to this report)

The review consisted of interviews with key Childr ens Services Division personnel, communityleaders, focus groups with parents who use childrens services and focus groups with city staff and community providers of childrens services. Other Consolidated Municipal ServiceManagers were interviewed to collect information on common issues, identify best practices andreview different approaches on common service delivery issues. Further, key internaldocuments and relevant research reports were used to inform the review. The information issummarized in the report and the recorder notes from the focus groups are included in the

Appendices.

The collection of information about the overall management of the Division and the position of the Division within the greater Childrens Services System in Windsor an d the County of Essexled to the identification of four general themes.

A lack of consistent strategic leadership within the DivisionThe City of Windsor is perceived to be in a conflict of interest as the system manager and adirect operator of servicesThe culture of the Department has previously been autocratic and controlling, which createdsignificant animosity between the City and numerous community providersThe program skill and expertise within the Division is significant resulting in the developmentand maintenance of some extremely high quality and innovative programs

The report also found that the previous restructuring of the Division had intensified theappearance of a conflict of interest. This restructuring created manager portfolios that consisted

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

5/92


of program delivery and system management responsibilities related to the operation of theOntario Early Years Centres and the administration of child care fee subsidies.

It was also found that the City operated child care centres are programs that are very importantto maintaining the quality child care in the County of Essex and City of Windsor. However, theCity operated child care centres are not recovering operating costs from the revenue obtained

by these centres. This is similar to municipally operated child care centres throughout Ontarioand locally similar to the St. Clair College Child Care and the Canadian Auto Workers UnionChild Care Centre. All of these child care centres are subsidized by their operators withadditional funds. The child care community stated in the information collected that the Cityshould continue to deliver licensed child care programs. The report concurs with this statementand provides further details substantiating this recommendation. Recommendations are alsomade to improve business operations, reduce costs and increase revenues.

There are 3 methods of delivering services used by 10 providers across the City and County toinclude children with special needs in licensed child care programs. These are tra vellingresource teachers provided by Childrens First, 9 individual child care centres have on -siteresource teachers on staff and the Childrens Rehabilitation Centre operates an inclusive pre -school program. This program approach has evolved locally and is neither necessarily reflectivenor consistent with the delivery approaches in other jurisdictions in Ontario.

In site visits, focus groups and parent meetings the information collected indicates that all threeare valued programs. However, the report has found that 10 different providers of this serviceoperate in silos, without common levels of service and a common assessment intake processand the entire program is under funded. Due to this lack of integration parents have found thatlicensed child care centres cherry pick amongst children with special needs and often onlygood luck insures they find appropriate service. The report also discovered that the City inmanaging the program has not required the providers to operate in an integrated fashion.

The report recommends the full integration of special needs resources to improve the inclusionof child with special needs throughout early childhood education program sin the City of Windsor and County of Essex. The report recommends that special needs resources shouldbe delivered through a centralized delivery agent, Children First and that the inclusive pre-school program delivered by the Childrens Rehabilitation Centre should continue to be funded.Further, standards for program delivery are recommended based on current successful itinerantresource teacher programs.

Information collected indicates that program providers and parents view the Citys delivery of child care fee subsidies as inconsistent, outdated and overly bureaucratic. Information collectedillustrates that the Citys application of discretionary has become outdated, unfair and arbitrarywhen compared to other Consolidated Municipal Service Managers. Recommendations aremade to improve levels of customer services, reduce paperwork and create fair levels of discretionary budget limits.

Collected information about the Ontario Early Years Centres indicates that these are valuableprograms that should continue and expand under the new childrens services initiatives. Thecombination of City and Community delivery of these programs is viewed as positive strength.

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

6/92


Report Recommendations

The following are the recommendations presented by this report.

Recommendation 1: That the Division establish annual goals and objectives thatguide work plan development.

Recommendation 2: That the Manager portfolios be realigned to clearly separatesystem management responsibilities from program delivery responsibilities.

Recommendation 3: That all Divisional job descriptions be updated and thatmanagement positions by clearly accountable for the financial management of their portfolio of program responsibilities.

Recommendation 4: That all Divisional management staff receive financialmanagement training.

Recommendation 5: That the Division enhance its policy and planning capacity tosupport program delivery and system management.

Recommendation 6: That the City continue to directly operate municipal child carecentres, provided each operation is determined to be viable according to newlyestablished occupancy rates.

Recommendation 7: That the Division establish an occupancy rate policy and further that a transition period be defined to enable centres to reach established rates.

Recommendation 8: That the Division conduct a comprehensive business reviewand financial audit of each municipally operated child care centre including anexamination of but not limited to the following:

the ability of the operational capacity to support the centre operations based onthe present fee structure the use of local fee structures where this makes sensethe use of temporary and permanent staff the tendering of general and capital maintenance the feasibility of the location in light of revenue, costs and the Best Startguidelines business ractices related to fees billin s and collection

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

7/92


Recommendation 9: That the business reviews culminate in the development of business plans for each centre, that Centre Supervisors execute and update on anannual basis to eliminate the $469,053 deficit between now and 2008.

Recommendation 10: That the Division establish a goal of holding the municipalchild care centre operations to the benchmarks established in the 2005 municipal

budget, while it concurrently conducts a more complete financial audit of individualmunici al child care centre o erations.

Recommendation 11: That management staff be required to develop a plan thatdetails how salary and wage increases as required by the new Collective Agreementwill be managed over the term of the Agreement.

Recommendation 12: That the operational costs of the Work and Learn Program bequantified and paid to each participating Centre through National Child Benefit

Savings. Further that the savings in Ontario Works financial expenditures producedby Work and Learn should be quantified and reported semi-annually.

Recommendation 13: That a management function be designated to manage childcare centre program costs on a macro level.

Recommendation 14: That the Division support the development and delivery of atraining strategy to increase inclusivity and operators skills in working with childrenwith special needs.

Recommendation 15: That the Division co-ordinate a staff exchange programbetween Childrens First, the Childrens Rehabilitation Program and licensed childcare providers to provide workplace based experiences related to working withchildren with special needs.

Recommendation 16: That funding for the delivery of special needs resourcingservices be consolidated and that Children First continue as the delivery agent of anitinerant resource teacher delivery model. Further, that the Childrens Rehabilitation

Centre continue to receive funding to deliver the pre-school program.

Recommendation 17: That special needs resource services and associated trainingshould be made available to improve the levels of inclusion in Ontario Early YearsCentres, Family Resources Centres and other early childhood education programsthat are not operated by a school board.

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

8/92


Recommendation 18: That Early Learning and Child Care/Best Start funds be used toestablish a fund to support a Staff Ratio Enhancement Program to assist licensedchild care operators to more effectively meet the needs of children with specialneeds. Further that this fund be managed by Children First.

Recommendation 19: That the Division create and Chair an Inclusion Task Force,with representation from appropriate stakeholders to guide the implementation of the special needs recommendations contained in this report.

Recommendation 20: That the delivery and management of the Fee SubsidyProgram be considered a program delivery function, while the management of Purchase of Service Agreements with Child Care Providers continue to be treated asa system management function.

Recommendation 21: That the Division review the monthly budget items ceilings andestablish revised ceilings that are a fair reflection of the present cost of these itemsin Windsor and Essex.

Recommendation 22: That the Division simplify the Child Care Fee Subsidyapplication and eligibility determination process by delegating file approval to the

caseworker level.

Recommendation 23: That upon receipt of the new income testing guidelines, theDivision amend its approach to the delivery of the fee subsidy program, further developing service standards and delivery policies consistent with OW division

Recommendation 24: That the responsibility and management of the delivery of informal Ontario Works child care return to the Ontario Works Division upon thecompletion of administrative changes.

Recommendation 25: That the Division develop a plan that details how salary andwage increases as required by the new Collective Agreement will be managed over the term of the Agreement without negatively impacting funds currently available tocommunity providers.

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

9/92


Recommendation 26: That the Division establish common units of service, commonprogram goals and operating policies to guide equitable funding and consistentmonitoring of all funded Early Years Centre Services.

Recommendation 27: That the management, supervision and operation of earlyyears centre hubs and City operated satellites should occur locally through the childcare centre supervisors to improve the effectiveness and flexibility of bothprograms use of existing ECE staff and the seamless delivery of services asrequired through Best Start.

Recommendation 28: That the Division develop a central policy process to informthe childrens service system management of systemic issues identified throughcommunity input that could be addressed through the use of all program funding

envelopes.

Recommendation 29: That the delivery and management of NCB funds should beconsidered a system management function.

Recommendation 30: That the Division adopt the proposed Best Start Networkstructure to guide local Best Start decision-making and implementation planning.

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

10/92


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The City of Windsor has managed childrens services within the bound aries of the City of Windsor and the County of Essex since the devolution of the management of Children Servicesto Consolidated Municipal Service Managers (CMSM) from the Ministry of Community andSocial Services. Since devolution in 2000 there has been a restructuring of the ChildrenServices Division senior level of management accompanied by a vacant General Manager position of the Social Service Department. An acting incumbent filled the vacant GeneralManager position in August 2004.

In 2004 the Social Services Department planned and completed a review of the Ontario WorksDivision. It has subsequently embarked on this strategic review of its role in the managementand delivery of Childrens Services. This review of Childrens Services arrives at a ti me of opportunity for change. The recently announced enhancement of licensed child care and earlychild development programs by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services through Best Start

and the filling of the General Manager position on a permanent basis provide new opportunitiesfor evolution and transformation within the Childrens Services Division.

The review was managed by a Steering Committee comprised of City staff and staff fromagencies providing services to families and children (Appendix 1).

1.2 Purpose, Goals & Objectives The purpose of the study was to conduct a review of the municipally funded childrens servicescurrent operations. The municipally funded and managed childrens services system iscomprised of:

Purchase of Service Agreements with Licensed Child Care Operators to accept children of parents who receive a fee subsidyOntario Early Years Centres (OEYC)Purchase of Service Agreements with community agencies that provide OEYC servicesChild Care Fee SubsidiesProvision of funding to support the delivery of special needs resources to accommodatechildren with special needs in licensed child care

A Wage Subsidy Program for staff working in licensed child care programsEarly Learning and Child Care Funding; a licensed child care stabilization and enhancementprogram, that will now be replaced by the Best Start ProgramThe National Child Benefit Savings and Windsor Community Childrens Fund.

The goals and objectives of the review were defined as:

Establishing the role of the municipality in the direct delivery of child care centresEstablishing the role of the municipality in the direct delivery of Ontario Early Years CentresEstablish a service system management role in the development of community partnershipsEstablishing a recommended model for the delivery of special needs resourcing within theconfines of available fundingEstablishing a recommended framework for a local Best Start Network

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

11/92


Establishing a recommended Childrens Service Division organization structur e to supportimplementation of program recommendations (to be a companion document to this report)

Figure 1: Municipally Funded Children Services System Summary

Program Description Annual

BudgetSpecial NeedsResources

3 Program Deliverers:Childrens Rehabilitation Centre Pre-SchoolProgramChildren First Agency Based ResourceTeacher Program9 Resource Teachers (employees of individualchild care centres)

$ 2,801,276

Licensed Child CarePurchase of ServiceProviders(this information was

accurate as of May 2005 when provided and may have changed since then)

112 Licensed child care centres60% - non profit33% - for profit7% - municipally operated

1 licensed in-home child care program with 33licensed homes6,473 full time equivalent spacesPurchase of service agreements with 45licensed child care providers (includes in-homeprovider)

$ 4,888,650

Ontario Early YearsCentre Programs

Four directly operated Hub programs with:8 directly delivered satellite programs7 community operated satellite programs

$2,104,337

Wage Subsidy Subsidies distributed to operators to paydirectly to staff

$ 4,221,439

Child Care Fee

SubsidiesOntario Works ChildCare Subsidies

Child Care Fee Subsidies - 240,000 full days of

child care subsidizedOW Child Care Subsidies 44,000 full days of child care subsidized for eligible OWparticipants

$7,859,640

$1,570,576

National Child BenefitSavings and Windsor Community ChildrensFund

2004 NCB Savings2004 WCCF

$1,659,725$ 381,964

The recommendations contained in this report have been informed by the data collected bothlocally and from best practices described in reports and active in other jurisdictions in Ontario.Local conditions were investigated through input from staff, managers, community agencies and

parents of children pre-natal to age 6.1.3 Manager Interviews

The 2003 restructuring of the Social Services Department senior management level resulted inthe elimination of a dedicated Executive Director position to lead the Children Services Division.This responsibility was placed within a combined Ontario Works Children Services ExecutiveDirector position. In a recent (spring 2005) Departmental review of the Ontario Works Divisionand program, Children Services responsibilities were combined with Housing under an

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

12/92


Executive Director. Effective August 2005, the 3 Childrens Services Managers report to theExecutive Director of Housing and Childrens Services. The Managers of Family Strengtheningand NCB, Municipal Child Care Centres and Services, a nd the Childrens Services System areresponsible for the day-to-day management and operation of the division. Each manager wasinterviewed to develop insights into the scope of programming, staffing and issues related andimpacting on the strategic current review. The information gathered in the interviews was also

used to begin to analyze the interrelationships of these three key leadership positions within theDivision.

1.4 Site Visits

Site visits were conducted over a three-day period to gain additional insight into the issues,realities and perspectives that would have to be explored through a document review, focusgroups and interviews. Municipally operated and community agency operated services werevisited. Included in these visits were non-profit, for profit and municipally operated child carecentres, municipally operated and agency operated Ontario Early Years Centres and theChildrens Rehabilitation Centre (a special needs resource provider).

Many other programs were visited as the result of the focus groups and interviews that wereconducted later.

1.5 Best Start Impacts

Prior to the beginning of this review, the Ministry of Children and Youth Services announced theBest Start Initiative. This is the program that the Ministry will use to implement programs for children in response to the recent agreement with the Government of Canada, which isproviding approximately $700 million to Ontario over the next five years to enhance earlylearning and child care opportunities for families with children 0 6 years. Best Start fundingreplaces the temporary Early Learning and Child Care Funding program. The program isexpected to address capacity and program issues within the childrens services system thathave evolved over the past 15 years.

Best Start is a comprehensive, evidence-based early learning and care strategy designed tohelp give Ontarios children the best possible start in life and help them achieve success inschool. This will involve the creation of a 10-year developmental plan. Best Start is distinct fromother initiatives in that it:

Will help parents and families regardless of individual economic or social circumstancesResponds to the clear message from communities that Ontario needs more integratedaccessible services for young children and familiesFocuses primarily on meeting childrens and familys needs by strengthening, enhancing,building on and integrating existing programs and services rather than creating newstructures or organizations

Asks all existing organizations that provide services for children from the prenatal stagethrough to Grade 1 regardless of which ministry funds them -- to share their expertise, andplan together Is community driven: the provincial government will set out the types of evidence-basedservices that should be available to children and families across Ontario andtargets/outcomes for those services, but the planning for how those services will bedelivered and integrated will be done by the communities based on each communitys needsand strengths.

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

13/92


This report presents a recommended planning framework to guide the creation of a Best StartNetwork and local planning. Further, recommendations take into account the Best StartGuidelines and opportunities that this new initiative creates to enhance and develop the presentsystem of services.

Concurrent with Best Start planning, Consolidated Municipal Service Managers are required toupdate their Child Care Service Plans for 2005/06 to reflect the gaps and service overlapsaccording to the major components of the child care system; Child Care Fee Subsidies, WageSubsidies, Special Needs Resourcing, Resource Centres, and Early Learning and Child Care.

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

14/92


2. THE MUNICIPALLY FUNDED CHILDRENS SERVICES SYSTEM

Meetings with the Steering Com mittee, the Project Manager and Childrens Services Managersassisted in the development of this summary of the present municipally funded childrens

services system. Documents were provided by staff based on their opinions as to whatinformation was requi red to be well informed about the Childrens Services programs,management and delivery system before embarking upon the review. Steering Committeemembers also provided a series of key documents that provided critical background informationnecessary to develop focus group discussion guides and interview guides. This section providesa summary of current programs and services.

2.1 A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS

The City of Windsor Childrens Services Division is the service manager for municipally f undedchildrens services in the City of Windsor and the County of Essex. Therefore, it is subject to twolocal approval mechanisms in the absence of a regional level of government. The goal is to

provide a continuum of quality services and supports to children and families that are familycentred, co-ordinated, accessible, flexible and publicly accountable. Division planning reportsoften state that the continuum of services and supports should be flexible, inclusive andresponsive to needs, choices and preferences of families.

A comprehensive child care system has been developed across the City of Windsor and EssexCounty. A mixture of non-profit, for-profit and directly operated programs comprises 113licensed child care centres, excluding the Children s Rehabilitation Centre, a segregatedprogram. The licensed child care capacity in Windsor/Essex County provides 6,473 full timeequivalent (FTE) spaces for various age groups (i.e. infants, toddlers, pre-schoolers and schoolage). Of these spaces, approximately 1,090 are subsidized (750 purchased and 340 directlydelivered). Great Beginnings is a non-profit provider that operates a licensed home child care

program in addition to licensed centre-based child care. This home child care agency has a totalof 33 approved homes, with all but a few of the homes being located within the city limits.

2.1.1 Municipally Operated Centres

The City of Windsor operates 8 municipal child care centres with 2 satellite locations and 2alternate satellite locations. A primary goal of this review is to provide recommendations as tothe role of the municipality in directly operating child care centres. Child care centres deliver early childhood education programs and the operations are generally expected to be dependenton revenues from fees paid by parents. The successful operation of a child care centre inOntario requires a balanced business plan that addresses both program needs and revenueneeds. Information was collected on the financial structure of the Municipal Child Care Centres.

Many reports on child care reflect on the low levels of pay associated with working in a childcare centre. In Ontario, parents fees finance child care; therefore operators are caught betweenthe parents ability to pay and the need to prov ide quality education and child developmentprograms. Municipal operators have traditionally offered programs that addressed childrensdevelopmental needs by insuring that certified Early Childhood Educators (ECE) are used todeliver the programs. Further, municipal operators have also paid a salary equivalent to theimportance of the job in order to retain experienced well-trained staff. Municipally operatedcentres could maintain this approach through direct operating grants within the former provincial

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

15/92

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

16/92


Figure 2: 2004 Municipal Child Care Centres Information

M u n

i c i p a l

C e n

t r e

L i c e n s e

d

C a p a c

i t y

i n

s p a c e s

O p e r a

t i n g

C a p a c

i t y

i n

F D E

O c c u p a n c y

R a t e

A n n u a

l F D E

% o

f A n n u a

l

F D E

F D E p e r

L i c e n s e

d

S p a c e

R a t

i o

R e v e n u e

% o

f R e v .

R e v e n u e

p e r

L i c e n s e

d

S p a c e

R e v e n u e

p e r

F D E

O p e r a

t i n g

C o s

t s

C o s t p e r

F D E

L o s s p e r

F D E

O p e r a

t i n g

L o s s

% o

f L o s s

Lauzon /Lassaline

*101 57 76.0% 11,704 13% 116 $624,798 13% $6,186 $53.38 $745,152 $63.66 -$10.28 $120,354 21%

Wyandotte 58 44 73.5% 8,445 10% 146 $478,476 10% $8,250 $56.66 $656,954 $77.79 -$21.13 $178,478 31%College *46 41 69.1% 6,424 7% 140 $385,672 8% $8,384 $60.03 $426,814 $66.44 -$6.40 $41,142 7%Glengarry 60 48 87.4% 10,904 12% 182 $687,007 14% $11,450 $63.00 $703,622 $64.53 -$1.52 $16,615 3%Jefferson /Roseville

*152 104 93.0% 25,584 29% 168 $1,382,996 28% $9,099 $54.06 $1,494,807 $58.43 -$4.37 $111,811 19%

Amherstburg *56 36 81.0% 7,557 9% 135 $356,598 7% $6,368 $47.19 $479,296 $63.43 -$16.24 $122,698 21%Leamington *39 39 63.0% 6,390 7% 164 $327,760 7% $8,404 $51.29 $331,884 $51.94 -$0.65 $4,124 1%Tecumseh 59 49 89.0% 11,598 13% 197 $645,342 13% $10,938 $55.64 $630,524 $54.36 $1.28 -$14,818 -3%Total 571 418 88,607 100% $4,888,650 100% $5,469,053 $580,403 100%

LEGEND * Indicates that an Ontario Early Years Centre Hub or Satellite program operates with the licensed capacityLicensedCapacity

The capacity in spaces that are l icensed for each physicalsite by the licensing authority, the Ministry of Children andYouth Services

% of revenue The percentage of total annual revenue earned by eachcentre

FDE full day equivalent, the standard measure used torepresent a full day of child provided to one child

Revenue per licensed space

Centre revenue divided by licensed capacity

OperatingCapacity in FDE

The capacity of the centre according to programs offered Revenue per FDE Centre Revenue divided by annual FDE provided

Occupancy Rate The rate to which the programs offered where full Operating Costs The annual cost for operating each centre

Annual FDE The total number of FDE provided in each centre throughthe programs offered

Cost per FDE The cost of providing one FDE according to each centre

% of annual FDE Each centres proportion of the total annual FDEs providedby the City of Windsor Child Care Centres

Loss per FDE The cost of one FDE minus the revenue earned for providing one FDE, a negative amount indicates morerevenue than costs in providing the FDE

FDE per Licensed Spaceratio

The ability of each Centre to use its space according to itslicense

Operating Loss The annual operating loss of each centre A negative amount indicates a centre that produces asurplus

Revenue Revenue from all sources for each centre % of Loss The percentage of the annual operating loss produced byeach centre

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

17/92


2.1.2 Child Care Fee Subsidy

Child Care Fee Subsidies are provided to parents in need as determined by regulations set byprovincial legislation. The mandate for the program is set by the Day Nurseries Act andRegulation to provide fee subsidies to low income parents that require child care in order to find,accept and maintain employment and attend school or training programs. Local discretion is

provided by the regulations for CMSMs to deliver the program respecting local conditions. Theprocess of application and case management is provided by a Child Care Fee Subsidy CaseManager. Each case manager carries a caseload of approximately 250 cases. The average waittime for an initial application appointment is 2 weeks.

The Childrens Services System Manager manages the delivery of this program. City staff determines eligibility for fee subsidies and the City maintains legal agreements with licensedproviders to which the subsidy is paid directly. Parents pay a portion of the child care space feedirectly to the licensed child provider.

An annual budget surplus has existed since 2000. Surplus funds in this budget area can andhave been previously directed to licensed child care providers to apply to health and safetyneeds. Health and safety funds have been used for minor capital improvements andreplacement and to increase staff ratios. The surplus has also been used to subsidize theoperating deficits of the municipally operated child care centres. In 2004, surplus funds for health and safety needs were not available to community operators due to the operating deficitsof the municipal child care centres.

Child Care Fee subsidies are also funded through the Ontario Works programs. Ontario Worksparticipants that have dependent school aged children can receive assistance with the cost of child care provided they are participating in approved activities. Subsidy funds can be used tooffset the costs of licensed or informal child care as selected by the parent. The ChildrensServices Division manages this program as part of the Child Care Fee Subsidy program.

The combined annual budget for both programs is $9,560,765.

2.1.3 Special Needs Resourcing Program

The mandate set by the Day Nurseries Act (D.N.A.) for the special needs resources program isto provide the funds necessary to enable children with developmental delays to attend child careprograms. Special needs resources are delivered by the Childrens Rehabilitation Centre,Children First and individual child care centres that hire on-site resource teachers using fundsprovided through this funding envelope. In addition, child care operators can apply for additionalfunding through this budget envelope for support staff to serve children with special needs. Thisprogram remains in transition with a recent (2003) amalgamation of services, which createdChildren First. Further, the Childrens Rehabilitation Centre, which has historical origins as asegregated pre-school program, has integrated this program as a workplace based child careusing centre based resource services. The Centre itself has been designated as a Centre of Excellence by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services and has been awarded capitalexpansion dollars.

Historically, special needs resourcing has been under funded in relation to the demands.Program funds have not been increased for 10 years. Present annualized funding is $2,801,276. As an interim method to address the funding shortfalls of this program, funding wasincreased under the Early Learning Child Care program.

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

18/92


While a valuable and important funding envelope, provincial requirements on the use of thesef unding dollars have limited flexibility. Ontario Early Years Centres childrens programs are notcurrently eligible to access these program dollars. The program is funded in isolation of other service components such as speech and language services, occupational therapy etc. thatprovide important components to the ability of the early child development service network to

provide inclusive licensed child care as a realistic development option for children with specialneeds. Funding shortfalls in speech pathology services for example limit the effectiveness of thespecial resource dollars paid for resource teacher services.

Research

Research in the early childhood education field has now begun to focus on success factors for the inclusion of children with special needs. It is important to note that the term inclusion is usedto define the accessibility of the child care program and the special needs services required bythe specific child.

Accessibility of the child care program relates to the physical site, the classrooms and theattitudes of the administration and staff towards accepting children with special needs. The twospecial needs service delivery models in existence are typically defined as that of either anitinerant resource teacher or that of an on-site resource teacher. In addition, research showsthat on-site resource teachers are often used interchangeably with program assistants to simplyincrease the staff ratio in the classroom.

The following success factors in integrating children with special needs into licensed child caresettings are drawn from a reports entitled : Inclusion: The Next Generation of Child Care inCanada and Creating Inclusive Communities.

There is a strong relationship between inclusion quality and overall program quality Inclusion quality is strongly related to centre, director and staff characteristics Quality of human resources within centres is critically important for inclusion quality On-site resource teachers do not necessarily support system inclusion quality (i.e., those

centres without on-site resource teachers will refuse to accept children with special needs) Addressing staff ratio in the classroom is a very important factor in creating an inclusive

program Child care centres require strong partnerships with resource support professionals Inclusion is promoted in centres when there are trained staff, time for planning and

consultation and support from resource specialists

Other Important Data:

Estimated average annual out-of-pocket expenses for a child with special needs $1,569 50% of low-income families of children with special needs had out-of-pocket expenses of

$150 /month In 64% of two-parent families, 1 parent lost or gave up a paid job to provide care to a child

with a disability There are inadequate transportation supports to child care, to school and to institutions Each special needs child will have a unique developmental path ECEs receive inadequate preparation to work with children with a broader range of

developmental needs

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

19/92


2.1.4 Ontario Early Years Centres (OEYC)

The Ontario Early Years Program receives $2,104,337 of provincial funding annually and hasnot had a program fund increase since the development of the centres. This program iscomprised of four hub centres that are directly operated by the City of Windsor. Hubs are co-located in the following locations:

Amerhertsburg Child Care CentreJefferson Child Care CentreCollege Child Care CentreLeamington Child Care Centre

Directly operated satellite programs are located at:

General Brock School New Canadians Centre of Excellence Inc. St John the Baptist Catholic School-Belle River Holy Name Catholic School Essex

Harrow Senior Public School Harrow Kingsville Public School- Kingsville Benson Public School Windsor Lassaline Public School - Windsor

Other satellite programs are provided by:

Drouillard Place Ontario Early Years SatelliteFranco-Sol Ontario Early Years SatelliteGrandview Ontario Early Years SatelliteGreat Beginnings Ontario Early Years SatelliteSt. Clair College Ontario Early Years Satellite

St. Marys Family Learning Centre Ontario Early Years Satellite Bloomfield Ontario Early Years Satellite

Direct delivery provides the City with the ability to directly influence the program goals and tomake sure that these are co- ordinated with the other component parts of the childrens servicessystem. However, this also presents a conflict of interest and has been one source of ongoingtension between the community provider sector and the City.

Site visits indicate that the City has made good use of existing facilities by operating the hubprograms from municipal child care centres. Organizationally, municipal OEYC locations aremanaged as separate entities from the municipal child centres with which they are co-located.While City staff work in the centres, child care ECEs report to the Child Care Supervisor, while

OEY ECEs report to a Family Strengthening Supervisor.

2.1.5 Wage Subsidy

The Wage Subsidy Program was created to provide the ability to child care operators toenhance the salaries they pay to their staff. Historically, the program has been under fundedwithin the context of providing the ability to providers to pay salaries equal to the importance of early childhood education. Many reports have underscored the importance of addressing thesystemic low wages paid to staff that work in licensed child care programs as necessary to raise

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

20/92


the ability of centres to hire and retain qualified staff. The Early Years Report findings reflect thatthe importance of the early childhood educator is equivalent to a primary school teacher. Theonly licensed child care programs in Windsor and Essex County that pay early childhoodeducators salaries that approach the levels of pay in the primary school system are themunicipally operated centres, St. Clair College Child Care Centre and the Canadian AutoWorkers Child Care Centre.

The current annual wage subsidy budget of $4,221,439 was recently enhanced through theEarly Learning and Child Care Funding initiative. The Ministry of Children and Youth Servicesthrough the Best Start initiative has proposed to address the systemic issues related toremuneration through the creation of a College of Early Childhood Educators.

2.1.6 Work and Learn

The municipally operated child care centres operate an employment development programcalled Work and Learn. This program provides mentoring, work site training and life skillsdevelopment to disadvantaged sole support parents in receipt of Ontario Works. Since October 1997 the program has served 188 participants; 157 found employment and 13 returned toschool. Out of these 170 successful participants, 126 left Ontario Works and a further 44reduced their Ontario Works payments through finding other income. While providingconsiderable savings and financial benefits to the Ontario Works program through targetachievement and reductions in financial assistance payments the full costs of providing thisprogram have not been quantified, nor is a payment provided by Ontario Works for the benefitsaccrued. Perhaps more importantly, the savings to the Province of Ontario, City of Windsor andCounty of Essex through reduced financial assistance payments are not quantified on an annualbasis. If those participants that left Ontario Works stayed off of social assistance for two years itis estimated that a minimum of 2 million dollars has been saved since 1997. Accurate casetracking and data investigation could reveal that the savings are considerable more than thisminimum.

2.1.7 National Child Benefits Savings

All Consolidated Service Managers are responsible for the reinvestment of savings from theclaw-back of National Child Benefit payments from eligible Ontario Works financial assistancerecipients. In the City of Windsor the City NCB savings management is combined with themanagement of the Mayors Windsor Childrens Community Fund. NCB Savings from OntarioWorks expenditures in the County of Essex are returned to that municipally for its use.

The program goals for the reinvestment of these savings are to:

1. Meet the basic needs of children and their families having to live with low incomes.2. Remove barriers for low-income families that prevent them from achieving social and

economic independence.

In the spring of 2005, the City released a call for proposals to distribute these funds. Theevaluation of proposals is nearing completion.

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

21/92


3. DATA COLLECTION

As noted in the introduction, the review was designed to examine a range of issues and thus acombination of methodologies were applied to collect the data required to support thedevelopment of recommendations. Seven methods of data collection were incorporated into theproject design to ensure that the widest possible range of perspectives was considered. Dataused to inform the recommendations was collected from the following sources:

A review of current services and delivery model approaches A review of documents provided by the Steering Committee deemed necessary to informthe reviewInterviews with selected Conso lidated Municipal Service Managers (CMSMs) Focus Group discussions with staff, agencies, child care operators and parentsKey Informant Interviews with City Childrens Services staff and community organizationstaff Site visits of child care and OEYC operationsMeetings with various agencies and providers of special needs resourcing services

A summary of the findings and common themes from each are described in this section.

3.1 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS

A format for semi-structured key informant interviews was developed and interviews of approximately 1.5 to 2 hours in duration were conducted with 10 individuals. Key informantswere selected by the Steering Committee and provided the interview questions in advance of anin-person interview. Five of the individuals interviewed were from external organizations offeringservices in both the City and the County and five individuals were municipal staff working in theChildrens Services Division. A complete list of individuals interviewed is reflected in Ap pendix 2.

Specifically, key informant interviews were designed to expand the amount of value of information related to a series of issues including: the management and administration of municipally funded Childrens Services programs, the delivery of lic ensed child care, feesubsidy, the delivery of OEYC services and Special Needs Resourcing.

The following represents a summary of the information collected from key informants in theareas probed. A more detailed summary of the key informants interviewed and their contributions is contained in Appendix 2.

3.1.1 Management and Administration of Programs

The majority of individuals reported that until recently, the culture of the Department hadbeen autocratic, controlling and often confrontational in nature

Previous administration characterized by centralized decision making 9 of 10 individuals reported that there was a recognizable shift to a more collaborative

approach to working with the community Staff reflected that internally, the culture has shifted away from micro-management to a

more inclusive and empowering environment, where program decisions have beendelegated to appropriate decision-making level

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

22/92


New relationships emerging both internally and externally City appears to be making much more of an effort to encourage open dialogue and growth

of community programs Staff reflected that more frequent and inclusive management meetings will lead to improved

planning efforts and have a positive impact on their ability to provide appropriate supports tocommunity partners

Individuals noted that the Childrens Services Division is extremely active in providing arange of supports to agencies serving families and children including but not limited to:information, training, leadership, advocacy, flexible hour child care, student placements, etc.

In total, those interviewed listed 17 different types of activities that the Division currentlyengages in to support agencies

The majority of those interviewed desired enhancements to the level of transparency in thesystem by sharing more information regarding the distribution of funding to support thelicensed child care system

Most desired the City to continue to provide the necessary leadership to expand the system Most reflected the need for the Division to continue to improve its working relationships with

the child care community through open dialogue and developing more intense one on onerelationships with agencies based on trust

Other suggestions for change included: simplify process for submitting budgets, continueaccess to subsidized training opportunities, accommodate special requests from agencies(where possible), provide additional hands-on support to new operators establishing newcentres (i.e. board training, how to establish a per diem), etc.

Internally, staff unanimously reported a lack of cohesive goals, standardized processes andorganizational practices, compounded by intermittent communication and the need for moreactive leadership in the Division

Staff reflected that mechanisms to ensure more dialogue and collaborative planning acrossthe three management areas should be a priority

3.1.2 Delivery of Licensed Child Care

7 of 10 informants strongly believe that the City should continue to directly operate childcare centres

1 informant reflected they did not know enough about directly operated centres to comment 2 informants believe the City has a role to manage the system but no need to directly deliver

The following issues were raised as the rationale for a continued role in direct delivery:

The City is recognized as a community leader and has been a strong role model for qualitychild care for the community (i.e. municipal standards of delivery exceed requirements of Day Nurseries Act)

The majority felt that management fulfils a key role in maintaining and enhancing stronglinks in the early childhood field and politically necessary for system growth

5 of 10 noted that the City should continue to access funds available to ensure directlyoperated centres have the necessary funds to sustain a healthy quality child care system

Directly operated centres offer stability to the child care system and provide appropriate andfair wages for ECE professionals in the community

Other reasons for a continued role include the Divisions access to planning anddemographic data to support planning to meet local needs and access to leading edgeresearch and best practices in the profession, which are subsequently shared withcommunity of providers

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

23/92


In total, 15 different reasons to substantiate a continued role in the directly delivery of licensed child care were put forward

2 0f 10 providers did not perceive any negative impacts if the municipality were todiscontinue the directly delivery of licensed child care, further suggesting that a reduction of municipal services would increase the funding available to purchase of service operators todevelop additional spaces

Alternatively, 8 of 10 respondents perceive a considerable negative impact ranging fromlack of parental choice, the potential for a reduction of licensed spaces if other providerschoose not to operate in some locations, the potential for diminished quality, diminishedwages, less mentoring of field placements, less opportunities for integration of children withspecial needs, less extended hour and flexible care options, etc.

3.1.3 Fee Subsidy

The majority of respondents believe there are opportunities to improve the current deliveryof fee subsidy

Most describe the system as complex and workload associated with ongoing casemanagement is increasing due to applicants with multiple and frequent changes tocircumstances

50% suggested the fee subsidy application process be decentralized to better supportfamilies

Some noted inequities in eligibility for fee subsidy for families of children with special needs some parents are needs tested, others are not

Those interviewed reported that families describe long wait times for subsidy applicationappointments

Respondents noted that many families report that the process is intrusive, cumbersome andtime consuming

Most believe there is a need to streamline the application process to support quick access tosubsidy for those entering or re-entering the work force

Many suggested that fee subsidy policies should be developed and consistently applied toeliminate perceived subjectivity of decision-making

3.1.4 Delivery of Ontario Early Years Programs

Eight of 10 informants reported that they believe the City should continue as the leadagency delivering OEYC services and perceived only negative impacts if they discontinueddelivery

The remaining 2 informants believe that OEYC programs and services should be deliveredby community based agencies and that the OEYC budget could stretch further (additionallocations, services, families served) as community agencies overhead costs are lower thanCity costs

City has a long history of demonstrating leadership and investing in early years startingwith development and implementation of ELF centres, which morphed into OEYC

Many of the reasons for continuing to deliver OEYC services echo those for continuing todirectly operate child care centres (leadership, advocacy, accountability, infrastructuresupports stability, etc.)

4 of 10 saw opportunities for additional agencies to participate/partner in the delivery of OEYC services depending on site specific circumstances thereby creating more of abalance between community and municipal delivery

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

24/92


Suggestions for enhancements in OEYC services included: expand hours of operation,expand programming choices, introduce services in other needy areas, provide equal fundsfor all programs based on a per diem or unit costs for various services, etc.


Those interviewed reflected a range of challenges to integrating more children with specialneeds into licensed care including but not limited to: insufficient funding for support staff,more children with pervasive developmental disorders (i.e. autism), more children withcommunication disorders that are accompanied by disruptive behaviours, parents requiringmore information and support, insufficient support to providers of school based before andafter school programs

5 of 10 did not believe the City was getting best value for its special needs resourcing funds 4 of 10 did not know enough about the program, funding and delivery approaches to

comment The majority felt that the funds directed to the current travelling resource model were

insufficient to provide the level and frequency of support needed by centre staff Most reported that the on-site resource teacher model has caseload equity flaws and is an

expensive model in a community where demand is greater than supply 5 respondents supported the expansion of the travelling resource model suggesting that it

has the ability to service more children than alternative models 7 respondents noted the need for additional funding for support staff 2 respondents felt strongly that block funding should continue to be directed to Childrens

Rehabilitation Centre as it was believed that this agency provides a level of support todisadvantaged and developmentally delayed children that other centres cannot

3.2 FOCUS GROUPS

Focus groups were arranged with the following key stakeholders: parents, licensed child careproviders, agencies serving children, special needs resource providers and parents of children

with special needs. In addition to these focus groups, Childrens Services Division staff werealso invited to participate in a focus group. The City of Windsor arranged each session andinvited participants. Each focus group included a discussion guide that was given out toparticipants and was facilitated by a member of the consulting team. Discussion guides weredeveloped to ensure that data was collected to inform each area under review. The City of Windsor provided support staff to take notes during each session.

3.2.1 Parents and Caregivers

Two focus groups were held to collect input from parents and caregivers regarding their experiences with licensed child care and recommendations for improvements. Dinner and freechild care were provided in order to encourage attendance. Despite the focus groups being heldin the summer, which is normally a difficult season to obtain parent participation, a total of 47parents participated in the focus groups. Appendix 3 contains a full record of the discussions.

The following are the common themes drawn from parent feedback:

The child care fee subsidy system is inconsistent in its application of policies The child care fee subsidy system has unfair ceilings Waiting lists and lack of available spaces have restricted use of licensed child care spaces

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

25/92


Parents look to safety, quality of the program, staff credentials and the reputation of thecentre when they choose a child care provider

Whether the centre is municipally operated, a non profit provider or a for-profit provider does not readily influence the majority of parents choice of provider

All parents expressed displeasure with having to pay for a child care space when the child issick, and/or on vacation in order to maintain the space

All parents like the programs and services offered through Ontario Early Years Centres andsatellites The most important factor influencing participation at the OEYC is quality programming Who operates the OEYC (municipality or community agency) is not a determining factor for

participation to parents

3.2.2 Special Needs

Agency Provided Services and Centre-based Resource Teachers

Special needs resources are specialized services provided to children with special needs sothat they can attend licensed child care programs that are not segregated from other children.

In the City of Windsor and County of Essex these are provided through two distinct methods of delivery, agency based resource teachers and 9 resource teachers that are the employees of individual child care centres and/or providers. The agency based resource teachers areemployees of the Children First agency and comprise a component of their family centred, earlyintervention programs for children in Windsor and Essex County.

A focus group was held for the centre-based resource teachers. In addition a meeting was heldwith the Executive Director and staff from Children First. Appendix 4 contains a full record of theensuing discussions. The following themes were identified through the two meetings:

Wait lists for services are a major challenge Children now have more challenging special needs Not all licensed child care programs are willing to accommodate children with special needs Frequently, licensed child care providers need additional ECE staff to support children with

routines Licensed child centre program staff need professional development to more appropriately

support children with special needs It was believed that the special needs resource teachers/agency should supply this training Centre based special needs resource teachers often perform tasks that could be performed

by an ECE There is a lack of speech pathology services that compromises the effectiveness of special

needs resources A flexible approach where the extent of special needs services are focused on the individual

childs needs rather than the centres needs would be an improvement in the delivery of thisprogram

Common levels of services, individual education plans, wait lists and intake are not in use

Parents of Children with Special Needs

Nineteen parents attended the focus group representing 15 families. Appendix 5 contains a fullrecord of the discussions. The following themes were identified in their feedback:

Licensed child care providers cherry pick children with special needs

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

26/92


Adaptability/flexibility, quality, safety, availability of resource teachers are important factorsin their choice of a child care provider

Waiting lists for resource spots impede their ability to use l icensed child care The cost of child care is significant Centre staff need better training JK/SK program structure is not flexible to children with special needs

Due to scarce resources, luck often determines if you get services Parents will quit jobs in order to get their children the services they need Most have had negative experiences with the child care fee subsidy system Subsidy forms should be simplified, expense ceilings do not take into account the expenses

of special needs Appreciate OEYC but feel the centres could do more to accommodate Other parents at OEYC programs are not accepting of children with special needs, as a

result some do not feel welcome Most would prefer segregated drop-in programs for children with special needs All parents notice a lack of posters, pictures and displays in OEYC and licensed child care

centres that depict children and adults with disabilities To improve access to services the services have to be delivered sooner, without waiting lists Programs should be available year round

3.2.3 Child Care Operators & Agencies

All licensed child care operators were invited to attend a focus group to share insights andopinions on the Citys management of the municipally funded children services system.

Agencies with mandates that included delivering services to children ages 0 to 6 were invited toa focus group to discuss issues related to municipally funded childrens services. The fullrecords of these two meetings are provided in Appendix 6. The following themes were identifiedthrough the meetings:

The Departments efforts to engage and solicit input from agencies serving families andchildren are improving, communication between the City and providers is good

These efforts are compromised by a past when the City gave the appearance of seekinginput from agencies but the decisions had already been made

The new administration has allowed for open dialogue The City could enhance the level of support to agencies by improving trust, reinstate

network meetings, advise agencies of upcoming changes The City should allow agencies to be part of identifying special needs service levels

indicators The City is still compromised by the community perception that there are some preferred

agencies in the know while others are left out, providers feel powerless that changes will bemade regardless of their input

Two examples of when the City said it had consulted but really had not were given as theOntario Early Years selection process and the wage subsidy restructuring

The City has excessive paperwork demands without a reciprocal of sharing the information itcollects in the form of system reports etc.

Perception of the Childrens Services central wait list is that the City creams children fromthis first and then refers left over parents to community providers

The City often struggles with communication relying on an inner circle of providers who areinformed first

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

27/92


The City is in a conflict of interest as a system provider and direct operator and exampleswhere provided were the City has not been transparent in its decision making and/or hasprovided benefits to its programs at the expense of identical community delivered programs

As a deliverer of early child education programs the City can set high standards, open doorsthat would otherwise remain closed, provide leadership and advocate on behalf of the entiresystem

If the City closed municipal child care centres the system as a whole would experience adecline in the ability to attract and retain qualified ECE staff In regards to children with special needs it was felt there needs to be a more co-ordinated

effort on the part of community agencies, a centralized model In addition to the services of a resource teacher there should be a support worker

3.2.4 City Childrens Services Sta ff

Staff of various positions were invited to a focus group to insure that the group wasrepresentative of the positions within the Childrens Services Division. A full record of thediscussions is provided in Appendix 7. The following themes were identified through staff input:

The City is connecting with the community by opening OEY centres in child care centresand schools

Staff could profit from more networking meetings with co-horts in the community City child care centres could be more customer friendly, parents are not given an invoice for

fees owed, just a bill, only hand written receipts are offered, The delivery of Child care Fee Subsidy program is inconsistent It was felt that councillors could visit centres and programs to become more informed The high quality ECE delivered programs in City operated child care centres provides lots of

flexibility to parents and do not refuse children due to special needs Parents are charged according to enrolment to continue to allow for as required schedule,

other providers do not provide this flexibility Top Notch nutrition programs sets a high standard Centres allow for fee subsidy case managers to meet parents outside of the office Work and Learn is a valuable program Allowable ceilings for fee subsidy should be reviewed Consistent policies need to be developed for child care fee subsidies Wait times for child care fee subsidy needs to be shortened Discounts should be provided to staff who use city operated child care centres Discounts should be offered to families with more than one child enrolled at the centre Staff view themselves as being paid less than everyone else in the department performing

similar jobs despite the joint job evaluation process

3.3 CONSOLIDATED MUNICIPAL SERVICE MANAGER INTERVIEWS

A format for semi-structured interviews with Consolidated Municipal Service Managers (CMSM)was developed and interviews of approximately 2 hours in duration were conducted withrepresentatives from 3 other CMSMs. The CMSMs to be interviewed were selected b y theSteering Committee and provided the interview questions in advance of the interview. CMSMswere asked to provide responses to questions with the condition that all responses would bereported anonymously. Interviews with the Regional Municipality of Peel and Halton wereconducted on site. The remaining interview with Chatham Kent was conducted through

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

28/92


teleconference. Other Municipalities were contacted and due to limitations were unable toprovide complete information.

The questionnaires were developed in order to aid in identifying the approaches of each CMSMto delivery issues and experiences by the Childrens Services Division. The goal was to identifydelivery approaches to various program areas, best practises and experience and insights into

problem resolution. Figure 3 provides the information collected in a comparative format.Information from some of the open-ended questions that could not be presented in chart form isprovided below:

3.3.1 Activities that Support Agencies

Leadership through participation and multiple opportunities for input Regular meetings with child care providers Direct community agency involvement in departmental and system planning and delivery of

services One CMSM has 2 consultants available to provide program advice to agencies upon request Cross sectoral participation in planning (i.e. close relationship with public health)

3.3.2 Major Constraints of the Current Delivery Structure

Consensual agreement on limited funding and lack of flexibility in the child care fee andwage subsidy programs restrict ability to meet community needs

Funding base for special needs and resource centres has not changed for 10 years Costs for municipally operated centres is high due to paying fair wages

3.3.3 Municipal Centres Recovering Operating Costs from Fees

Only one of the two municipalities interviewed recovers entire operating costs from fees inits municipally operated, non -unionized centres

This municipality also uses program assistant positions in its staffing ratios One municipality provides a 100% municipal subsidy equal to the difference between

operating costs and fee revenues, while the other funds this difference using surpluses fromother cost shared programs (child care fee subsidy etc.)

The municipalities interviewed indicated that all municipally operated centres have a 100%occupancy standard that supervisors are held accountable to


Special Needs programs have centralized intake with elements of system casemanagement

On-site resource teacher is a level of service provided centrally through service providers Formal service standards, levels of service are used Permanent programs exist to increase classroom staff ratios where required to ensure

classes move through routines and are safe productive learning environments, managed bythe special needs resource providers

In the past 5 years special needs resource programs have moved to centrally managed,services provided by itinerant resource teachers providing training, consultation andprogram assistants supported by the ability to increase classroom staff ratios when justifiedthrough applied criteria

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

29/92


Figure 3: Consolidated Municipal Service Manager Information Comparison

TOPIC WINDSOR CMSM # 2 CMSM # 3 CMSM # 4 CMSM # 5# of MunicipallyOperated Centres 9 3 11 2Municipal centresrecover 100% of costsfrom Fees

No Yes No No

Role municipallyshould havein direct delivery

Community shouldtake the role of offering quality care.Support thedevelopment of qualityindicators in support of improving care andthat municipal centreshave a role in thiscontext.

Municipality hasresponsibility toprovide leadership anddoes through directdelivery of high qualityprograms

The municipallyoperated child carecentres should set astandard that other operators should striveto obtain.

Are you planningchanges in the nextyear?

Yes Based onoutcomes of StrategicReviewBest Start Planning

Consolidation of BestStart guidelines with alocal communityinitiative

Best Start Planning Best Start Planning

# of licensed centres 112 211 Centres 379 Centres 17Total licensed capacity 6,473 11,125 19,501 1,539

Ave. Fee SubsidyCaseload Ratio

250:1 220-250:1 300:1 190:1

Formal Local FeeSubsidy Policies

yes yes yes no

Municipally operatedOEYC Centres

yes no no no

Community operatedOEY Centres

Yes - satellites Yes - all Yes - all Yes - all

# of OperatorsProviding NonTraditional Care

3 operated by the CityCAWSt. Clair College

none 11 Municipal centres1 for-profit provider

1 provides care 5 pmto 10pm

Operate OW JobTraining Program

Yes Work and Learn no yes no

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

30/92


TOPIC WINDSOR CMSM # 2 CMSM # 3 CMSM # 4 CMSM # 5# Special NeedsResource Providers

11 in total -2 agencies,9 individual resourceteachers

1 common intake Municipal Centreshave one on-siteresource teacher each.Community agenciesalso provide services -staff consultation anddirect work with

children (system hascentral intake)

1 amalgamatedagency

Special Needs Levelsof Service?

no yes Yes -classroomassistance providedthrough criteriaadministered byspecial needsresource agency

yes

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

31/92


4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The analysis of the collected information and data is organized according to overallmanagement of the Childrens Services Division and each individual management portfolio.

4.1 CHILDREN SERVICES DIVISION MANAGEMENT

The collection of information about the overall management of the Division and the position of the Division within the greater Childrens Services System in Windsor and the County of Essexled to the identification of four general themes.

A lack of consistent strategic leadership within the DivisionThe City of Windsor is perceived to be in a conflict of interest as the system manager and adirect operator of servicesThe culture of the Department has previously been autocratic and controlling, which createdsignificant animosity between the City and numerous community providersThe program skill and expertise within the Division is significant resulting in the developmentand maintenance of some extremely high quality and innovative programs

4.1.1 Community Leadership

Information collected through the key informant interviews, agency focus groups and site visitschara cterizes the Divisions past activities within the community as lacking in collaborativepractices. Agencies reflected that they felt excluded from the planning process. Agenciesdescribed an environment where the City gave the appearance of seeking input but in fact hadalready made decisions. On a positive note, the overwhelming majority of key informantsreflected that they have recently seen a recognizable and positive shift in the Departmentsefforts to collaborate and communicate with community agencies with new relationshipsemerging. Agencies and service providers confirm that the new administration encourages opendialogue and is making demonstrable effort to repair and develop relationships that aregrounded in trust.

Overall, the data reflects a Department and a Division that is in transition. New leadership hasestablished positive momentum and change within the department and this change is beingrecognized throughout the community. The word transition implies an environment wherechange has been initiated but the new direction is not assured. The challenges will be for theemerging leadership structure to continue to effectively support the Division to maintain its forward motion.

Many service providers perceive the City to be in a conflict of interest as the system manager,controlling and issuing program funding while also directly delivering services. The hard feelingsassociated with the negative past leave the City vulnerable to claims that it favours itself withdelivery funds first and provides remaining funds to the community. This is reinforced by therealities of wage increases determined by the City administration that are applied to City staff wages and not replicated in funds directed to operators or OEYC providers.

While the City has a conflict of interest as a direct deliverer and a system manager, whatcompounds the issue is that it has done very little to manage this conflict. A historic lack of transparency in decision-making has intensified the conflict. The present organizational

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

32/92


structure, which mixes program and policy/system management responsibilities across jobfunctions, also intensifies the conflict. While many aspects of the conflict are unintentional andbeyond the control of the Division and the Department, the present management structure doesnot clearly delineate position responsibility for creating plans to manage cost increase issues asthey arise. Therefore, the Division remains constrained in its abilities to manage the perceptionof favouring its own within the childrens services community.

On a positive note, the community has recognized the clear break with the past by the presentadministration. There is widespread opinion that there would be significant negative effects if theCity withdrew as a direct deliverer of services. At this time, a strategic statement of intent fromthe Department as to how it will insure transparent management of the system while remaininga direct deliverer of service would serve to solidify the direction of change.

4.1.2 Division Leadership

Structural changes to the Department between 2001 and 2003 created a leadership vacuumthat affected the management activities of the Childrens Services Division. The Ontario Worksand Childrens Services program portfolios are significant in scope and had previously beenassigned to the same Executive Director. Changes recommended in a review of the OntarioWorks Division to create a combined Housing and Childrens Services Executive Director portfolio are designed to allow for an increase in the profile of the Childrens Services Divisionwithin the Departments executive leadership. This transfer of responsibilities to the former Executive Director of Housing creates an opportunity to continue to lead the Division throughthe transition with an objective leader, unencumbered with an investment in past decisions.

Although the community described a difficult and often confrontational past, which createdtension and animosity, others were quick to point out that senior management were alsostrongly goal oriented. Respondents indicated that staff worked endlessly towards achievingconcrete well- articulated goals to improve the childrens services system overall. Restructuringcombined with other stresses within the Department has led to a void in the development of Divisional goals and objectives over time. Input reflected there is a strong need to developconsensus on Divisional goals and objectives and that Divisional staff be united in workingcooperatively towards achieving established targets.

Community input and program information has consistently indicated that there is a high degreeof program skill, knowledge and delivery expertise held by the management team. Mostacknowledge that this has resulted in considerable contributions to the community that wouldnot have otherwise existed. The majority of child care operators and agencies applaud the Cityfor the high quality of child care and OEYC programming available in municipally operated sites.This team has also created programs such as Work and Learn, a program that is provinciallyrecognized for its innovative design and for its overwhelming success in assisting low-incomeindividuals to gain work skills and financial independence. Further, this team deserves credit for beginning the shift to a more collaborative, trustworthy approach to working with the community.Internally they have helped to promote a more inclusive and empowering environment wheredecisions are now delegated to more appropriate decision making levels.

When Childrens Services devolved to CMSM administration the Ministry of Community andSocial Services ended the Approved Corporations and direct operating grants. Thecommunity advises that the City administration indicated to other licensed child care providersaffected by this change that they would be required to operate according to their child care feerevenues. The effects of this announcement theoretically would have required the City operated

8/14/2019 Daycare 2005

33/92


child care centres to operate as standalone financial entities as well. As such, business plansfor each Centre that control costs and maximize revenues would be in place. Each managementportfolio would balance program needs and requirements with costs, revenues and/or sustainable funding. None of this has occurred because financial management has not been anintegral expectation of managers and supervisors in municipal or OEYC centres. Evidenceindicates that when approved corporations existed and direct operating were received, budget

development was managed centrally. While this had worked in the past, it will not work in anenvironment of revenue-based programs. During the past five years this has intensified thevisibility of a conflict of interest and created animosity with community agencies that have gonethrough a difficult transition to a revenue based agency, while the Citys operations have notchanged. In summary, despite a high level of program delivery skill, the information collectedreflects that there is an absence of business and financial