Archive for category Kathleen Wynne
(Autism Parents Say MCYS is still cutting therapy from kids 5 and up)
In an open letter to the Ontario Minister of Children and Youth Services, several parents of autistic kids say they’ve been duped by the province into thinking that funding was restored for intensive therapy for kids over 5.
Last year Ontario Premiere Kathleen Wynne decided to cut funding for intensive behavioral intervention therapy for kids over the age of 5, which sparked heated protests from parents, and support for parents concerns from both opposition parties, experts and the public. After months of tremendous public pressure, the Wynne Government “backtracked” and “restored” funding stated that all kids would get the therapy they need regardless of age. Parents are now refuting that, and almost a year later, evidence is starting to emerge that only a some kids have received funding from the government with many over the age of 5 still being denied.
What’s also in question is the transparency around a committee set up by the Wynne government to look at implementation of the Government’s new autism program set to start in June of this year, leaving many questions parents have with respect to this new program and what is currently taking place with therapy for kids over 5 unanswered.
A full copy of the open letter can be found here, and displayed below:
Hello Mr. Coteau,
Surely you are aware that the autism (ASD) community has been closely following the progress the Ministry of Children and Youth Services (MCYS) has made in regards to the implementation of the new Ontario Autism Program (OAP), since you, Mr. Coteau, were named the Minister of Children and Youth Services this past June.
Your initial commitment to improving the roll out of the new OAP and including the ASD community in the process, feels like nothing more than an exaggerated attempt at manipulating parents into believing we have a reason to celebrate, a reason to be hopeful. Many children are simply being forgotten, the public is still left without crucial information, non-disclosure agreements remain in effect on both the Advisory and Expert Committees, and many families are feeling as though their child’s services are about to be taken away. We are not hopeful, we are terrified.
In June of 2016, you had committed to removing the 5 year age cap and ensuring that all children with autism, regardless of age, receive the clinically recommended, individualized services that they need, including those currently receiving services and those removed from the Intensive Behavioral Intervention (IBI) wait list. You did not announce this as a short-term offering, but a long-term solution. As we approach spring of 2017 and are just a few months away from the anticipated start of the new Ontario Autism Program, things clearly aren’t going as planned.
Some things have remained consistent, in contradiction with your commitments. Regional providers are still suggesting and moving forward with plans to reduce services for those over 5; many families were delayed in receiving or simply not told that they qualify for the one-time funding payments, others face great difficulty reconciling funds though spent appropriately; wait lists continue to grow as services are not being offered to families any faster than before; Children 3-5 years old receiving new diagnoses’ are not only continuing to age out of IBI eligibility, they do not qualify for any interim funding or continuous ABA; and parents continue to be left in the dark about how the new OAP will affect their children’s lives.
Though you assured parents that all children would receive individualized therapy at the level of intensity that they need, every contract, letter, and even the Ministry web page make it very clear – when the new OAP begins in June, as spots become available, children 5 and older can not continue their DSO/DFO IBI, those removed from the wait list can not continue their currently funded private therapy or continuous ABA treatment from their regional provider. The age cap for intensive therapy? It will very much still exist as IBI will remain in place for those under the age of 5. How can we rely on the notion that the new OAP will offer children the same intensive services, when it belongs to a separate stream that they do not qualify for?
With no insight into what the new OAP will offer, committee meeting updates lacking great detail and nobody answering questions, all we are left to know is that in a few short months, regardless of whether or not our children are currently receiving exactly what they need, it will all be replaced with something different, and it appears, something less. If children were going to receive exactly what they need, many of these children would not be ripped away from their current services, or continue to be denied access to services they have long awaited – due to their age.
You should understand that after the Government’s misinterpretation of the expert committee’s recommendations last year, there is very little trust left within the ASD community. Any apparent attempt to refuse the release of essential information is seen as an attempt to prevent parents from opposing it before it is implemented. What issues do you anticipate will arise if you inform parents in a direct, transparent manner on decisions regarding the development of the OAP?
We can not take a chance on our children’s best interests and sit back until June in hopes of a favorable outcome with the ever-growing list of red flags and uncertainties. It is time that the Ministry explain itself, and provide detailed information in regards to the services & intensity options that children over 5 will receive in the Ontario Autism Program. Will you be keeping your promises, Mr. Coteau? Or are you balancing the budget on our backs once again?
Brenna Bloodworth, Tanya Corey, John McArthur, Angelina Palmisano, Jenn Masonovich, Dennis Madge, Anne Jovanovic, Steve Cannon, Candice Shaver, Kate Dudley Logue, Ashley Sturgess, I Yu, Jenny Sturgeon, Jacques Sturgeon, Robert Shalka, Elena Gudyrenko, Jordyn Lee, Venette Gerden Purcell, Rhonda Allaby-Glass, Etienne Glass, Jason Koblovsky, Nicole Roy, Amy Hackett, Julie Ding, Hubert Wong, Angela Wong, Jenn Lalonde, Ross MacLean, Nisha Kapadia, Robert Orbegoso, Martina Pietracupa, Trish Dennis, Jennifer Stehlik, Omar D’Angelo, Pat McKenna, Julie-Anne Duncan, Stephen Chartrand, Marimuthu Ramakrishnan, Bobbie Arbuckle, Mike Arbuckle, Anne Mason, Rebecca Haight, Gwenny Seymour, Sara Haight, Lily Mondesir, Roberson Mondesir, Veronica Savage, Olen Boynton, Anne Burgess, Jillian Tweedy, Lesley Adams, Lina Khouri, Shannon Charlebois, Sarah Jones
YRDSB Chair Loralea Carruthers (right) Still Dealing with Massive Public Confidence Issues
This past week there was much indecision at the York Region District School Board [YRDSB] on how to fill former Trustee Nancy Elgie’s seat, punting the ball in an unprecedented move to the people of Georgina. Trustee Elgie stepped down last month after being caught making a racial slur to a black parent in a meeting regarding systemic racism at the board. The YRDSB has two options under law. One is to appoint a trustee; another is to hold a by-election. Both options are being put to the people of Georgina in a “community consultation” process.
A report tabled on March 7th to the YRDSB listed the costs for a trustee by-election at a staggering $300,000. That may be an exaggeration Mind Bending Politics has learned. In an e-mail to Mind Bending Politics, Georgina spokesperson John Espinosa stated that the estimate for the $300,000 that was provided to the YRDSB was a “very rough” estimate, and noted that the basis for the high costs was the 2014 municipal election in which was a full election of town council, school trustee, mayor, and not a trustee by-election. The breakdown of the by-election estimate provided to the YRDSB is displayed here.
YRDSB Chair Loralea Carruthers has been largely stating in media (page 7), that the approximate $300,000 is a lot of money to spend, and potential candidates for trustees would also be on the hook for thousands of dollars due to campaigning. Questions have arisen over whether the YRDSB is actively trying to deter the people of Georgina, and potential candidates away from the electoral process due to high costs. In an e-mail to Mind Bending Politics, Carruthers replied:
I’m just speaking the truth – no agenda here.
It is unclear when the YRDSB plans on holding its consultations with the people of Georgina, or what form this consultation will actually take. Several witnesses to last Tuesday’s meeting including some in media got the impression that these consultations will be in a town hall in person format, something Carruthers denied in her response to Mind Bending Politics when asked about the town hall style approach.
Carruthers stated to local media that the people of Georgina would have to fill a room in order to ensure that there is enough interest to justify the expense of a by-election:
With the board currently under investigation by the province as a result of a major loss of public confidence, can it be a realistic goal that the public will actually show up for a meeting like this in droves? Realistically if people have lost confidence in the board itself, how can they not expect a low turnout for a meeting like this? An election is much different since campaigning and a good selection of candidates generates interest, something that is currently happening in Georgina’s Ward 1 by-election.
I’ve asked whether or not the costs of the trustee by-election to the Town of Georgina should be shouldered directly by trustees and staff (rather than taken from kids in the system) as a by-election would be seen as trying to regain public confidence in the board. Carruthers replied:
I’m really not sure what this means.
When asked if appointing a trustee would be largely seen as sending the wrong message to the public regarding public representation, and public confidence at the YRDSB. Carruthers replied:
I think we answered that [on Tuesday] by going to the public to ask them what they would like.
On the outside allowing members of the public to decide whether or not to appoint a trustee or go to a by-election looks to be a good idea. On the other hand what seems to be transpiring is a lot of misdirection and misinformation to protect the board from criticisms over a decision to go to the polls, or to appoint. If the YRDSB goes to the polls, then they are likely to get heat for spending any money on an election as a result of how current trustees have mis-spent tax payers money. On the other hand if they appoint than it’s viewed as a detriment to the electoral process, and the democratic nature of the board. What better way to avoid more controversy, than to punt the ball to someone else, in this case the people of Georgina. That doesn’t really sound like leadership, it sounds rather representative of the protectionist nature of the YRDSB – a nature that has currently landed the board and all its trustees under a provincial investigation.
What’s even more troubling is that I sent Carruthers several e-mails to get her response on questions relating to the $300,000, and the by-election for this blog. When none was offered I took to twitter, in which Carruthers told me she had not received any of my e-mails and asked that I delete any tweets suggesting she didn’t respond:
It seems to be clear to me there is no credible public representation at the YRDSB. Trustees have pretty much decided not to decide on how to handle the most basic of functions of democracy on the board leaving the decision to others to save the institution from more criticism – or worse – they are intentionally misleading the public on costs and manipulating a process to ensure a desired outcome of an appointment.
One thing is for certain though, the YRDSB seems to be in a lot worse situation that I had previously thought with its leadership. Can the board be justified whatever the outcome of this “consultation” is to appoint while in a crisis of leadership and public confidence? Would anyone appointed be legitimate to their constituency under these circumstances? If an election is held, where will the money come from, and how much will it cost?
I have requested an accurate quote from the Town of Georgina regarding the actual costs associated with a trustee by-election, and I’ve asked Carruthers to provide me with an explanation as to why board staff have seemingly left out the fact the $300,000 quote was a very rough estimate, and essentially that the costs reflected in the $300,000 are the costs of the full municipal election in 2014. I will post a follow up blog once I receive that information.
(York School Board Trustee Nancy Elgie Tenders Her Resignation via Youtube)
Yesterday York Region District School Board [YRDSB] Trustee Nancy Elgie told her constituents via a Youtube video that she would be stepping down as a Trustee, months after uttering a racial slur by “mistake”. In the almost 10 minute heavily edited statement on youtube, Elgie stated that the whole situation is a misunderstanding, and she didn’t mean to say those hurtful words to a parent in York Region. Elgie went on to say that there is no “sanction” under employment laws for trustees under which she was investigated and she felt was wrong (Elgie under the employment investigation was ordered to take “equality training” as a sanction). She also stated she didn’t resign immediately because she wanted this to be a teachable moment for the kids and the community. I fully agree with this being a teachable moment for the community in Georgina, and also within York Region.
Over the past several months there has been a lot of questions as to why the York trustees chose to investigate this matter as one that suits “employment law” rather than the appropriate trustee code of conduct. By treating this incident under employment law, the board and its trustees effectively shielded Elgie from accountability measures that were put into place nearly 14 years ago by the Province of Ontario to deal with trustee conduct (who are publicly elected officials). Trustees are NOT employed by the board. They are employed by the tax payers of this province and the YRDSB had no authority to make this matter one of employment law.
YRDSB Chair Loralea Carruthers (who is a defeated Liberal candidate in York-Simcoe and long time YRDSB trustee) posted up a statement after a tremendous amount of public pressure was put on the board to follow through with a code of conduct review on Elgie. Carruthers stated:
The Education Act does provide Trustees with the ability to initiate a Code of Conduct complaint when a colleague commits a breach. The Trustee Code of Conduct process is complex, has limitations, must be conducted in private and its outcome is not always able to be made public. We are unable, under the rules that govern us, to even let the public know if we are proceeding with a Code of Conduct complaint. The process typically takes months, is expensive and, should a breach be confirmed, Trustees are limited in terms of what sanctions can be applied.
If the YRDSB followed through with a code of conduct complaint after Elgie was sanctioned under employment law, the board would have needed to take Elgie to court to argue the board erred in law and sanctions needed to be under the trustee code of conduct. This would have cost the tax payers and the board massive amounts of money had Elgie fought the board legally on this.
Under the trustee code of conduct, not much can be done to sanction a trustee other than short term suspensions. Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne was recently questioned on the lack of “teeth” in the trustee code of conduct, too which her reply was basically – we put that in over 13 years ago, and its better than nothing. Last year the Ontario Auditor General found the Wynne Liberals gave a $22 million blank cheque to the school unions, and just this month gave teachers across the province a 4% raise.
The huge problem not just the YRDSB is having – but boards across the province – is protectionist behavior. Protect their own, rather than be held accountable for their mistakes, which continues to this day even when the YRDSB is under investigation. This should be of great concern to the tax payers of Ontario.
York trustees on February 13th, 2017, one by one urged Elgie to resign, effectively throwing her under the bus to protect the “institution” and once again tried to sweep the misconduct of other trustees who fought to wrongfully protect Elgie from a code of conduct review under the rug. Wynne has stated in a presser earlier last week that the province has sent in investigators to the YRDSB to uncover why the YRDSB did not follow through with a code of conduct complaint, and to determine if other trustees are in violation of that code of conduct as a result. Wynne also stated that the investigators she has sent into the YRDSB may make recommendations to the province in order to tighten up and properly sanction trustees around their code of conduct laws.
Now that Elgie has stepped down, the residents of Georgina need to ask themselves; is this cover-up of misconduct by Elgie at the YRDSB an isolated incident? Over the later part of the week, the Toronto Star was in contact with Elgie, and her family for several days. Several of her constituents came forward to the Star regarding Elgie’s conduct as a trustee. The Toronto Star over these several days questioned the family and Elgie herself on several situations where she was seen to be dismissive and non-responsive to concerns of the community. In one instance the Toronto Star brought up:
“Desiree Makuto, whose son was videotaped being beaten and racially taunted by classmates in a high-profile incident at Sutton District High School in 2014, said she called and emailed Elgie for support, to no avail.
“She never did respond — she was surprisingly silent on the issue,” said Makuto. “… She had an obligation, a role to play.”
Elgie’s son Stewart dismissed the concerns of the community stating to the Star:
“these allegations are a disappointing attempt to re-write history and smear the record of a trustee who has earned consistent praise from her colleagues and constituents over the years.”
There was growing pressure for Elgie to step down over the past few months, and her resignation seems to have come following serious questions from the community she serves on her conduct, and leaves serious questions about the conduct of other trustees and the board in its wake. If we are truly looking to reform the YRDSB, than we must take a good close look at the protectionist behavior these institutions are well known for, and why it’s been allowed to continue in law for so many years while the province has known about the problems of conduct, and developed legislation with nothing meaningful in play to stop it.
As a resident of Georgina in which Elgie has served and parent myself, one can only hope that the members of my community will elect someone who understands that the role of a trustee is to hold the board to account, knows the problems in our local schools, and can properly and effectively advocate for ALL in their constituency. A board meeting will be held on February 21st, 2017 to discuss whether the board will appoint a replacement or rightfully allow the community of Georgina to go to the polls.
(Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne Likely To Read From A Blank Book On School Board Accountability)
Over the past few months, the York Region District School Board (YRDSB) in Ontario has been embroiled in controversy surrounding governance, accountability, and racial tensions. The governing Liberal Party of Ontario promised to get to the bottom of these systemic issues at the YRDSB by appointing two “arm’s length” investigators to the board to look at recommendations on how to solve systemic issues, rather than using the independent Provincial Ombudsman who in 2015 was given the legal authority and jurisdiction to look at the specific issues the YRDSB investigators have been tasked to look at. Unfortunately it doesn’t look like Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals who have a long history of throwing blank cheques at the education unions are all that serious about systemic change at the YRDSB which would require legislation with the ability to hold those in the system to account.
Two weeks into getting the investigation set up, the YRDSB investigators (Patrick Case + Suzanne Herbert), are already hearing from a staggering number of parents. These two investigators appointed by the province seem to be ill-equipped to handle the sheer volume of complaints coming in, to which the province’s ombudsman would have been better equipped to handle. I had a conversation with Patrick Case on twitter yesterday. Here is that conversation:
Both Case and Herbert are widely connected to the education sector in Ontario. Herbert was a deputy minister in Ontario, including deputy of education (way to close to government for my liking), while Case served as former trustee for the Toronto District School Board which has had its fair share of problems. While I don’t question these investigators credibility to pin the vast majority of problems with board governance on YRDSB Director J. Philip Parappally and a few “rouge” trustees implementation of more equality training board wide, and quietly sweep this controversy under the rug to avoid any drafting of accountability legislation to deal with systemic problems province wide; I do not see how this investigation would be beneficial to the kids the public education sector serves. The only beneficiary to this investigation as it stands right now would be the education unions who have deeply embedded themselves in Wynne’s government.
Racial intolerance in any profession or work place is wrong, against our values as Canadians, and most importantly against our civil rights in the charter of rights and freedoms. One of the root causes for racial intolerance at the YRDSB is the lack of accountability on staff, directors, trustees. It’s a symptom of a much larger problem in the province. The lack of accountability in the education sector is province wide, and if we are truly looking to send a message that racial intolerance is not accepted in our public school system, than it is law and legislation with teeth that is needed to hold those in the education system to account, not non-binding “recommendations” from a rushed, arm’s length investigation.
A much better more responsible approach would be to slow down, allow the community to appropriately respond to identify systemic issues, and ensure that the investigation is done in an independent way, rather than recommendations that in the end will duck any real legislative accountability and favor political donors over that of our school children due to the closeness of the investigators to the legislative process. To do otherwise would only serve to pass the buck to the next school board to have issues due to the lack of legislative accountability, and put more of our children across the province at further risk.
As many of you may remember I wrote an open letter to the Ontario Minister of Children and Youth Services Micheal Coteau regarding some concerns I had with the transition process, and with my son’s situation. I was hoping for a direct response from Minister Coteau instead I received this (sorry for the chicken scratch, this is the number of the individual from the ministry that wrote this letter. I was hung up on 3 times by the contact they gave me before I got to the program manager):
For a Minister willing to meet with parents, Coteau seems extremely illusive to direct communication with those who are trying to reach him. Apparently we’re getting busy signals. As for my sons situation, apparently IBI still ends at 5 accounting to Cantkier, and she is unwilling to budge on giving my son the appropriate therapy he has been recommended by specialists and other medical professionals. More soon.
The Toronto Star recently sat down with the Ontario Minister of Children and Youth Services Michael Coteau to discuss changes being made to autism services in Ontario. A common theme is starting to emerge over the past few months since the announcement of the new Ontario Autism Program. The way the process for “change” has presented itself, could see catastrophic consequences going forward as a result of tight budget constraints, lack of transparency and consultation needed to identify problems, analyze the system on whole and come up with sustainable solutions. The end result will be a number of children and families caught in the cross-fire and shoved aside as collateral damage.
In the interview with the Star Coteau stated:
“My job now is to deliver a program that will be considered the best program in this country”
Also from the Toronto Star article:
“It’s going to be tough transforming a system overnight,” Coteau said. “This is what I’ve been mandated to do by the premier. It’s what’s required and we’re going to get it done.”
If the goal is to create a system that is the best in the country, it cannot be done “overnight”.
There are two ways of fixing problems in any system.
1) Crisis Management
2) Structured Problem Solving and Analysis
If you try to solve problems that arise in complex systems on a case by case basis, others arise as a result of trying to solve those problems. You fix those, and more will pop up. It becomes a web of problems in large part because the extent of the problems within the system when you are using a crisis management type of approach is not known. You are not looking at the system as a whole. It’s a “whack-a-mole” type of approach where you only look at the problems you’re facing, you don’t analyze the system to anticipate problems, and develop solutions to lessen the effects of catastrophic damage that will likely occur if you don’t know the extent of the problems within the system as a whole. The end result if Coteau continues with a crisis management case by case strategy are kids falling through the cracks (like mine) and the system will end up in a much worse position than it was prior to the announcement.
Structured problem solving on the other hand, allows a much broader look into the system through analysis. Since the Auditor General’s 2013 report on autism services there hasn’t been any call for a public consultation from the government, just tightly controlled committees looking only at small pockets of the system, and the government hand picking what it wants to sell through those committee reports. The users of that system are way more knowledgeable of the problems within it because they are the ones dealing with it on a day to day basis, and you can’t have an accurate picture of the problems without first broadly consulting the users.
The system as a whole needs to be revamped. The government has stated it’s committed to that, but their actions to date seem to suggest otherwise. The expert committee laid down a path for forward, which the government is still refusing to follow because they don’t seem to want to commit the needed funds. That’s quite clear on the fact that Coteau is still steadfast on only providing expensive intensive behavior intervention therapy to kids under 5, which the expert panel has since refuted as being anything but their recommendation. The experts have also been muzzled by the government in participating in any public conversations on this public policy. That runs counter to the mandate Coteau has been given, when open public participation in the democratic process should be facilitated if the goal is to make the system rise above others nationally.
The path forward should include broad system wide open and public consultation with parents and people within the system who are the users of the system and the most valuable part of the system on whole in order to provide a complete picture of the problems within it, along with complete transparency so that the experts and the implementation committee can publicly contribute to this public conversation and consultation. Simply selecting a few hand picked people will not represent the extent of the problems, nor provide proper analysis. Putting any kind of muzzle on these people strongly suggests the government is anything but committed to doing what’s necessary to make the system the best in the country.
The proper way to deal with this in which the experts alluded too in their letter to the Minister, back a few weeks after the announcement of the new program, is to first start out testing the any new changes to system first as a “pilot project”, or in analytical terms, alpha and beta testing. I would add that alpha and beta testing commence after proper public consultation with users of the system and a proper plan has been developed as a result of those consultations. This gives the government the chance to test changes made to complex systems in a controlled environment to lessen the effects of problems limiting any damage the system might occur as a result. This does NOT happen “overnight”!
If you’ve done open consultations with the users and know the full extent of the problems, you can anticipate those problems moving forward. You need to first analyze the effects on the system in a controlled environment, work through the problems, and slowly expand those changes out, repeating the process. In a complex system like autism supports, it can take upwards of 2 years or more to fully role out. Open consultation with the users again has not happened, and Coteau has no idea of the extent of the problems in the current system because he is focusing on small samples of the user base.
Simply rolling out changes to complex systems “overnight” without knowing the extent of the problems within it it, due to lack of consultation will create a tremendous amount of collateral damage, as the government is only interested in saving face and on a budget, rather than seriously looking at a massive systemic and sustainable change, and realizing this is about children not politics. I’m sorry Mr. Coteau, but it is unacceptable in my books to use autistic children as collateral damage while your government plays politics and tries to cover up the extent of the damage you’ve already created since March by ignoring the advice of your own expert panel, and refusing to broadly consult with parents across this province which continues to this day.
The only good news is that Coteau is now looking at placing accountability mechanisms on regional service providers, and looking at their budgets. Reallocating money within the system is a step forward, but will likely not produce the funds needed to restructure the system on whole, nor cover the costs of collateral damage that has and is about to occur as a result of the lack of consultations and understanding of the problems that will inevitably be serious moving forward.
So my message to my fellow autism parents if the status quo in the current process is allowed to continue:
“Brace yourselves, the new Ontario Autism Program is coming.” Expect massive problems and collateral damage.
We need a commitment to an open and transparent process, and one that has a flexible budget, if Coteau is at all serious in delivering his mandate of creating a system of autism supports that can be looked upon as one of the best in the country. Not one child should fall victim to collateral damage as a result of political games being played by the Wynne Liberals to save face and a few bucks. A lot already have as a result of how Wynne has handled this. The government has a moral and ethical obligation to openly and transparently consult with stakeholders during this “transition” phase to ensure that no child is left behind when the new program is rolled out “overnight”.
I received a letter from the central region of your ministry while I had expected an answer regarding my complaint against Kinark directly from your office. Part of this complaint was to raise policy concerns to your office directly regarding the lack accountability of AIPs while your office further and directly investigated my complaint against Kinark. From the September 22nd Ministry letter underwritten by Ms. Cantkier:
“The Ministry is committed to monitoring the Autism Intervention Program (AIP to ensure that the program achieves its goals and objectives and makes efficient use of public resources).”
Had your office directly followed up on my complaint it would have discovered that the system to apply for AIP’s is deeply flawed. My son Matthew received a diagnosis of Autism in which it was recommended that we as parents contact Kinark directly and verbally to be put on the IBI wait list only to find for years after we did just that, multiple times Kinark refused to do so. I’ve also provided the Ministry with documentation from another family that has gone through a similar situation with Kinark.
In an electronic age, recommendations from family support network professionals to AIP programs should be done by those professionals and submitted to Kinark electronically. I have to question even in 2010 why that wasn’t done in our case. It should be an automatic electronic process. It should NOT be left for families to connect with AIPs verbally to apply. That should be handled on the back end, and allows the possibility of the AIP to manipulate the process, with little to no evidence of a verbal request to be put on wait lists often pitting the care givers word against the AIP. This policy doesn’t have any common sense in this day and age whatsoever.
I don’t understand why under these circumstances the ministry is refusing to find a viable solution for my son who has been waiting 6 ½ years for IBI (while others on the wait list who have been waiting far less than my son are entitled to support now) and why the ministry hasn’t taken the initiative to work with Kinark upon my complaint to find a solution, nor properly and fully investigated which would have revealed the policy flaws outlined above that need to be corrected in order for the Ministry too fulfill the mandate to accurately monitor the AIPs ahead of the new program.
Back to the September 22nd letter, in the same paragraph the Ministry stated:
“In situations where families have concerns with transfer payment agencies, including regional autism providers, the ministry encourages families to raise their concerns directly with these organizations and follow their complaint resolution process. This process may include the senior management, and if necessary, the board of directors to resolve differences.”
Ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with policy and legislation regarding transfer payments falls directly under the Ministers portfolio. There seems to be a lack of enforcement audits by the ministry to ensure AIPs are actually monitored for compliance to ensure AIP goals and objectives are properly met and use of public resources (such as transfer payments and administered programs) are actually reaching eligible families under these circumstances. The fact that this Ministry didn’t do proper follow up on my family’s situation now TWICE is representative of that. Where there is a lack of accountability and compliance audits, one could reasonably without a doubt expect abuse and manipulation of the system as a result.
Instead of this ministry periodically questioning users of this system (parents and caregivers) electronically to ensure legislative and policy enforcement of regional AIPs on a regular basis, it is the Ministry’s position from the statements provided above that compliance with legislation, mandates, and policy, is left to the AIP’s board of directors and complaint resolution officers to self-police. I find that interesting considering it is well within the legislative scope and jurisdiction of this Ministry to ensure compliance with such upon complaint to this office.
I also find it very interesting that parents who are receiving ACSD support are subjected to compliance audits every few years, yet under the nose of this Ministry Kinark’s administration budget has ballooned yet again, while advocates list this agency as being one of the worst in Ontario regarding the treatment of eligible children and families, and providing the proper care, and following ministerial guidelines under their own mandates. The Minister even acknowledged recently to some degree that there are problems being reported to this office regarding the conduct of AIPs, and yet I’m referred back to a complaints procedure at Kinark, when it’s this ministry who has direct oversight of this organizations compliance with ministerial guidelines.
This self-policing approach to AIPs is leaving families such as mine without services (while we qualify) at great expense to the province and tax payer. As a result of the lack of compliance audits and self-policing of AIPs, this Ministry cannot at all guarantee that families in the new Ontario Autism Program (OAP) in June 2017 will meet any sort of mandate, while currently several parents are left battling out who said what because the first point of contact with AIPs is left to one that is verbal rather than professional electronic and traceable referrals to the program!
Politely, it is this ministers legal responsibility to follow up properly with Kinark’s board of directors to get this matter resolved since it is entirely a complaint based on mandates, policy, legislation and this agency’s conduct in which the minister has direct oversight. It should not be the job of the caregiver or parent upon complaint into the ministry to be chasing a moving target, adding to the frustration, stress, mistrust, and anxiety over a transition to the new autism program which should be seamless and transparent if the government at all was listening to parents concerns over the past few months.
Finally from the Ministry’s letter dated September 22nd 2016:
“The ministry funds a range of supports and services that may be of assistance to your family. I suggest that you contact with Kerry’s Place Autism Services who provide ASD consultations and respite and Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) program. I encourage you to re-refer Matthew to the ABA program at which time service length and intensity will be determined”
Also from the September 22nd letter:
“The Ministry of Children and Youth Services is investing in ABA services to increase their capacity, intensity and length. In 2017 the ministry will start implementing the new Ontario Autism Program that will adjust the intensity of services to correspond with the children’s needs and will offer a single access point to autism services in each region”
I’ve been in contact with Children’s Treatment Network (CTN) who diagnosed my son and referred us to Kinark for IBI. There is currently NO community supports that are in place that are even close to the intensity he needs (as a result of the government’s policy decisions since March 2016) in which CTN is in full agreement of, along with descending views of your own expert panel your government is trying to keep quite through non-disclosure agreements.
We’ve placed my son on the ABA wait list in which the ministry acknowledged was a total of 2 – 4 hours/week as a supplementary which was sold to the people of Ontario as a transition program to the new OAP, even though he would not benefit from this program. The current wait list for that in York region is 1 ½ years which extends past the date of the new OAP which is supposed to replace this ABA program. This leaves many in “transition” with NO services while the new program is put into place. It’s been over 6 months since the announcement of this program and investments into ABA “transitional” services seem to be nonexistent. In fact the last time we applied for this useless block of ABA was in 2013, and the wait list back then was 1 year. It’s now grown to 1 ½ years wait with the government investing 6 months ago to “increase” capacity.
In conclusion Minister Coteau, your office has direct responsibility under its mandate to ensure AIPs are being compliant with legislation, transfer payments, and ministry guidelines. As outlined and acknowledged by the Ministry in its September 22nd, 2016 letter, the ministry doesn’t have the proper enforcement regime in place, nor does it investigate compliance issues properly with AIPs, all the while you directly acknowledged to parents recently you are aware of concerns regarding AIPs yet have done nothing to date to resolve those accountability concerns, nor has the ministry added any acknowledgement of that in response to my complaint against Kinark.
This ministry is refusing to work with parents upon complaint, and is refusing get involved in finding a solution for my 11 year old boy who has been eligible for IBI for 6 ½ years.
When is the ministry under your leadership Mr. Coteau, going to start following its mandate to the people of Ontario, and understand that neglect in doing so has severely impacted many families and the futures of our kids. I believe this Ministry’s responses to date regarding my sons issues and unwillingness to get involved to find solutions to those caught up in an imperfect system closely align to that in which was reported by the Ombudsman in August regarding adult services with a different Ministry which launched a multiyear systemic investigation. The culture in your office needs to change Mr. Coteau if you are expected to put forth viable solid solutions to a crisis your ministry is directly responsible for creating due to lack of enforcement and accountability mechanisms on AIPs. Do parents have to go through yet another round of protests, fights, and complaints before your office does the right thing?
We shouldn’t be fighting for services at all Mr. Coteau. I don’t think your government quite understands that point yet. We have enough on our plates, than to be dealing with this mess in which the people of Ontario pay you handsomely for. I would like a resolution to my sons situation please.