Community Development and Child Welfare An Unlikely Marriage

1. Community Development and Child WelfareAn Unlikely Marriage The Story of New Beginnings Presented by: Sarah Robertson & Jill Esposto The Children’s Aid Society of Brant

2. New Beginnings Resource Centre • New Beginnings is a unit located in a housing complex in Brantford’s Eastdale area. • This neighborhood is considered a high risk area and has a population of families that have been deeply affected by systemic and structural problems such as poverty, mental health, addictions and domestic violence. • The Children’s Aid Society of Brant is the lease holder in one of the housing units with the Child Development Unit, offering Community Development and prevention programs and the New Beginnings Community Based Protection Team (CBPT) which is partially located upstairs. The remainder of the New Beginnings CBPT located in local schools. • We humbly walk with this community in the hope that we learn together how to improve the overall welfare of children and families.

3. Stepping Stones • Expanded into the community – CAS in multiple sites • Stepping Stones Resource Centre opened its doors in 1991

4. Northland Gardens Programs at Northland Gardens housing complex started out of a unit in the complex, and grew into the Northland Family Centre which opened in 1994

5. New Beginnings We were invited into the Eastdale Gardens housing complex and opened New Beginnings Family Centre in 1996

6. New Beginnings Being a Neighbour within the community

7. Neighbourhood Resource Centers Socio-recreational Programs for children After-School Program Kids Cooking Group

8. Neighbourhood Resource Centers Programs to help families meet basic needs School-Age Children's Breakfast Program

9. Neighbourhood Resource Centers Parent-Child Interaction and Parenting Programs Cooking with Kids Parent-Child Interaction Group

11. Families and Children Served Family Resource Centers 2009 • Adults Served – 666 • Children 0-6 – 817 • Children 6+ - 231 • Visits by Parents – 5,911 • Visits by Children - 18,248 • Community Events Attendance – 2,849

12. Composition of the CDU • Six Child Development Workers • Three Social Workers – Family Support and Community Development, Transitional Children Service Worker • One Manager • One Unit Assistant • University, College and High-School Students throughout the year

13. Philosophy of the CDU • All services within the Child Development Unit are offered with a vision of healthy communities built through supporting families. VISION STATEMENT • Through community development initiatives, that aim to connect people to one another and to their larger society, we will collectively build communities that are places of safety, hope and pride for all children and families. • FOUNDATIONS AND PRINCIPLES • We recognize and work to reduce the systemic marginalization that families face. • We offer strength-based groups that promote healthy parent child interactions. • We bring expertise in the area of Early Childhood Development, Early Learning and Parenting, Family Support and Community Development. • We offer universal and targeted programs for families with children 0-12. • We act as lead agency in neighbourhood centres to help bring meaningful and relevant services where people live.

14. Services & Programs offered by the CDU • Teen Parenting Program • Neighbourhood Resource Centers • Parent-Child Interaction Program • In-home Family Support Program • Patta Cake Program • Best Start Early Learning and Parenting Centers • Eagle Place After School Program – New Sept 09 • Transitional Youth Worker – Preparation for Independence and Individual Support – Crown Wards

15. New Beginnings Community Based Protection Team • Manager, Children Service Worker, Protection Service Worker and Unit Assistant housed at New Beginnings • Intake/Family Service Worker – Major Ballachey • Intake/Family Service Worker – King George • Intake/Family Service Worker – St. Leo’s School – STARS Program • Intake/Family Service Worker – Holy Cross

16. Philosophy of the New Beginnings Protection Team Demonstrated commitment through a community based team approach to provide education and support to families and children in housing and school communities while ensuring that each child develops to his/her potential within the existing child welfare framework. To be guided by child welfare legislation and best practice Social Work principles while advocating for and assisting in the empowerment of our children, families and communities. To identify strengths and develop partnerships to stabilize the family relationship in the least disruptive manner. To use integrity, fairness and an empathic approach in our collaborative work with other service providers, children and families in our efforts to provide early intervention and to achieve positive outcomes within the home. In doing this we will respect diversity, cultural identity and individuality.

17. Services offered by New Beginnings Protection Team • Mandated child protection services • Development of partnerships with the school community, New Beginnings community, service providers using the Resource Centre • Group work within the schools as well as in the community • Individual support to children in the schools

18. Families and Children Served New Beginnings Protection Team • King George – 17 (average monthly) • Holy Cross – 15 • St. Leo’s/STARS – 15 • Major Ballachey – 24 • Children’s Service Worker – 19 • Differential Response – New Beginnings and Stepping Stones: (2009) Community link – 25

19. How the Teams Work Together Each team attends to the tasks that bring their units work to life. The Community Based Protection Team offers child protection services. The Child Development Unit offers family support, community development and early learning and parenting programs. Opportunities present themselves for our teams to work together as families use services. This is the foundation of a shared responsibility to a community with an overlay of services which enhances engagement in the community and to each other Lee's Story

20. What’s Geography got to do with it? • It should be clarified that the geographic moves within our agency are purposeful as we move to better understand those we serve, not simply in the context, of their individual situation but also in the context of the community in which they live. • It is not enough, if we are to ever improve child welfare, to keep our response focused on individual families. We must learn to understand the unique features and personalities of each community site. Are the families poor? Do the neighbours know each other? What are the strengths of this community? • By becoming a “neighbour” in the community, workers have access to an additional layer of understanding which enables them to tailor their responses in a way that is more meaningful and relevant ultimately improving the ability keep children safe and promote family/community wellbeing. • The safety of children now shifts from the responsibilities of a distant and impartial bureaucratic entity, to the work of neighbours with a unique understanding of children who offer some leadership in supporting the community to care for their own. • We become part of the fabric of the community in an effort to add texture and context to our responses to child abuse and neglect that will improve the short and long term outcomes. "Is anybody home?" story

21. Child Welfare in Ontario • Offering child protection in Ontario continues to be a challenging task. The tension between protecting children and preserving families has continued to propel the swing of the pendulum (Dumbrill, 2006) in Child Welfare in Ontario to extremes. In an effort to embrace a kind of child welfare that not only protects children but also offers a building of capacity, Brant CAS continues on a journey that decentralizes our services and moves to services that is interwoven throughout the community. • The responsiveness that is possible in this model is one that balances the needed individuated response with the knowledge that true child welfare cannot be achieved without a community that cares and changes as well. Offering service from some far away place not only removes child welfare services from the community geographically but it also creates a distance from the truth and capacity that each community has to keep children safe. Amanda's story

22. Integrated Community Based Work • An integral aspect of community based child protection is the recognition that child welfare is more than just our role in child protective services. Ultimately to achieve the protection of children there are multiple layers of service delivery that can reach this goal. As part of our practice within the community we consider the community as part of the formula when considering the safety and well-being of children and families. • Integrated services within the community offers a layering affect for families to access support. This helps to develop trust, respect, and a sense of community. Often, Children’s Aid Society’s consider themselves as the expert in child protection. Although our role in this regard is mandated many other services providers share in this process to assist the Society in protecting children. A Shared Responsibility is key in establishing the most effective response when working with families.

23. Core Principles • Child Welfare consists of child protection, prevention and community development; the integration of each of these components is the cornerstone of Community based work. • Families have strengths and they are the experts in their own lives. • Communities are the product of groupings of families. Each community is unique and like individual families have the capacity for growth. • Child wellbeing belongs to the community and child welfare is part of that same community….not above it or beyond it. • Child welfare is an outcome and a agency/system. It must be remembered that the outcome cannot be found outside the community despite the fact that the governmental responsibility rests with the agency. Tragedy at Riverside

24. Traditional The Goal - to protect each child one by one Question is: “what if” Community Based Goal –”make the local area a safer place for children” (Wright, 2004, p. 385) Question is: “why not” Look at root causes of family trauma/upset not just symptom The Paradigm ShiftTraditional vs. Community Based Child Welfare Work

25. Child protection is the agencies business….other professionals business Expert model Risk Management Individualizing the problem “Child friendly communities” (Wright, 2004, p. 385) “child protection is everyone’s business” (Wright 2004, p. 385) Ecological model Consider system oppression and marginalization in communities Underlying Messages/Principles

26. To the Agency To the Ministry To the family To the community To the Agency and Ministry Accountability

27. Child/family focused Incident focused Expert view Holistic Layering –multiple levels of service –differential response (tertiary prevention) and protection Whole community Focus of Intervention

28. Agency Government priorities Top -down Community Bottom-up Tertiary prevention (differential response) and protection Responses Needed

29. Surveillance Outcomes “building social capital” (Wright, 2004, p. 391) Community as a protective factor Process of involvement not simply outcomes Engagement Relationships Work is concerned with…

30. Narrow Risk Specific Protection “safeguarding” (Wright, 2004, p. 391) Broad Ambiguity/complex Depth and breadth Welfare What is Child Abuse? Definitions

31. Managerial Administrative Expert Reactive child Protection Ability to engage with community Proactive Child welfare Comfortable with “grey” Creative responses to needs of children and families (DR) Skills Needed by Manager

32. Impartial distance and surveillance Must be the expert and have the answers Task focused /standard driven Use of microscope Black and white Connected and “in touch” with neighbours Engagement and use of self Has part of the answer and works with others to improve performance Use of telescope and microscope Comfortable in “grey area” Able to collaborate Skills needed by Worker

33. To comply with the demands of CAS – to get rid of the worker CAS is to be avoided Investment in individual health/capacity Survival and Fear Shared goals of keeping families and children safe CAS may be helpful/understands CAS offers support not just surveillance that can be accessed where I live Growth and hope Benefits for Families Goals/Motivations

34. Paycheck Sleep at night- decisions made out of fear- “what if” Sees problems Perceived as threat to community Part of community – knowledge of family context Clinical work Decisions made out of hope Sees possibilities – creative solutions (kinship support) Holistic approach – differential response Opportunities for group work Increased satisfaction and retention in the work Safety plans and risk assessment that involve multiple layers of informal and formal supports Benefit for the Worker

35. Patchwork Services offered side by side Families referred Silo’s and multiple visions Conflictual and adversarial at times Integrated – part of the fabric Shared responsibility Layering of service Families are “rooted in service” Shared vision with community despite different roles/tasks Increased safety Partnerships with Community Welcome Officer Nick

36. Funders Child Development Unit City of Brantford Child Care Services National Child Benefit Funds City of Brantford Housing Ministry Health Promotion Food For Thought Sears Brantford Morrell Tire and Bryant Transport Rotaract Multiple Private Donors Grandvalley Christian Centre Central Baptist Church New Beginnings Protection Team MCYS Partners Parks and Recreation (Brant) Brant Housing Lansdowne Children’s Treatment Centre Separate and Public School Boards St. Leonards Big Brothers and Sisters Brant County Public Health – Health promotion and Child and Family Health Aboriginal Health Centre Sexual Assault Centre Brantford Police Volunteers Grand River Health Center Woodview Nova Vita Central Baptist Church Grandvalley Christian Centre Brantford Library Ontario Works – mainstream and pilot project Community Partners Mental Health Week story

37. Becoming a neighbour • Collaboration is not a luxury but a critical part of the work. • Shared responsibility which reduces anxiety on multiple levels (differential response) • Opportunities to interact and develop relationships outside the potentially conflictual context of child protection intervention. • Domestic violence – active role in safety planning • Capacity building – community as a protective factor • Advocacy for children’s educational needs “It's my birthday” story

38. Challenges and Threats • Funding model that does not acknowledge variety of work – child welfare vs. child protection • Improperly trained and supported workers • Use of model without embracing principles and practice • Insufficient prevention and additional community supports – decreases ability to utilize differential response • Lack of engagement with community • Inappropriate use of power

39. Some points to ponder: There is no change without the dream, as there is no dream without the hope. Paulo Freire What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others. Pericles

40. For more information or to arrange a tour please contact: Sarah Robertson 519-753-8681 ext. 360 sarah.robertson@casbrant.ca Jill Esposto 519-753-8681 ext. 282 jill.esposto@casbrant.ca

41. References • References • Dumbrill, G. C. (2006). Ontario’s child welfare transformation: Another swing of the Pendulum? The Canadian Social Work Review, 23 (1-2), p. 5-19. • Hudson, P. (1999). Community Development and child protection: a case for integration. • Community Development Journal 34(4), 346-355. • Jones, H., Chant, E. & Ward, H. (2003). Integrating children’s services: A perspective from England. In N. Trocme, D. Knoke & C. Roy. (Eds.). Community collaboration and differential response: Canadian and international research and emerging models of practice (pp.119-131). Ottawa: Child Welfare League of Canada. • Macaulay, J. (2002) Searching for Common Ground: Family Resource Programs and Child Welfare. In B. Wharf (Ed.), Community Work Approaches to Child Welfare. (pp.163-180). Peterborough: Broadview Press Ltd. • Parton, N. (1998). Risk, Advanced Liberalism and Child Welfare: The Need to Rediscover Uncertainty and Ambiguity. British Journal of Social Work 28, 5-27. • Trocme, N., Knoke, D. & Roy, C. (Eds.). (2003). Community collaboration and differential response: Canadians and international research and emerging models of practice. Ottawa: Child Welfare League of Canada. • Trocme, N., Knoke,D. &Roy, C.(2003) Introduction. In N. Trocme, D. Knoke & C. Roy. (Eds.). • Community collaboration and differential response: Canadian and international research and emerging models of practice (pp.vii-x). Ottawa: Child Welfare League of Canada. • Trocme, N & Chamberland, C. (2003). Re-involving the community: The need for a differential response to risking child welfare caseloads in Canada. In N. Trocme, D. Knoke & C. Roy. (Eds.). Community collaboration and differential response: Canadian and international research and emerging models of practice (pp.32-48). Ottawa: Child Welfare League of Canada. • Turnell, A & Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of Safety: A Solution and Safety Oriented Approach to Child Protection Casework. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. • Wright, S. (2004). Child Protection in the Community: A Community Development Approach. Child Abuse Review 13, 384-398. Retrieved from www.interscience.wiley.com. DOI:10.1002/car.875