|
Algoma District
Services Administration Board
CAO Report
January 2004
This report is the third in a series or reports
focusing on the external controls and limitations on the Board’s
activities. The first report in October 2003 focused on
the pieces of legislation which impacted
directly and specifically on the Board’s five major programs or
generally on all Board activities. The second report in
November 2003 summarized the various external
review processes and appeal mechanisms which impact on the
Board’s activities and govern the actions of staff. This report
will focus on the specific program directives, provincial
program policies and Local Services Realignment (LSR) program
transfer orders. These directives, provincial program policies
and LSR program transfer orders go well beyond the legislation.
Once again we will provide information by program area.
Generally the LSR
process was followed by a blizzard of written directives as to
how programs were to be managed. In every case, the performance
and controls were significantly higher than when the Ministry
either managed or directly delivered the same programs. This
raising of the bar on performance and controls has had a direct
impact on costs and has never been recognized in the LSR
financial processes.
Children’s
Services
Program Transfer
Order
This program was
transferred to ADSAB Board management in July 1999. Prior to
downloading, formal child care was a discretionary municipal
service. With downloading, it became a mandatory service. The
actual transfer of management responsibility followed a lengthy
transfer planning process and the formal acceptance by the
Ministry of Community and Social Services of a detailed transfer
plan. The Ministry allocated staff, resources and detailed
expectations related to the transfer process.
The transfer plan
did not include any staff transfer as all child care management
in this DSSABs jurisdiction (unlike most other DSSABs) is by
contracts with non-profit and for profit providers. The Board
hired a Manager, essentially for contract management purposes,
as direct delivery is provided by other bodies. There was also
no transfer of physical assets as once again these continued to
be owned by the external bodies.
The original transfer plan obliged the
Board to continue to provide at least the same level of service
which was in place prior to the transfer. That transfer plan
was followed up by a mandatory three year management plan
written by Board staff (http://www.adsab.on.ca/staff/Child%20Services/CC%20PLAN%202000%20Final.htm
). The three year plan spoke to the Board’s intended
redistribution of the finite child care resources on an
equitable basis while keeping the total program operating at the
pre-transfer level.
Children’s Services Program Directives.
With the
legislation as a base, the Ministry has developed an extensive
operating manual. The Ontario Child Care Service Management
Guidelines cover every aspect of the determination of fee
subsidy eligibility, wage subsidy calculation, required
statistical information, financial reporting, contract
management, special needs child care, handling of serious
occurrences, child care service planning and licensing.
Although labeled as guidelines the Ministry ensures they are
followed with the same rigour as directives. There are
approximately over 200 pages in this manual. This manual is
supplemented by directional letters.
Emergency Medical
Services
Program Transfer
Despite the fact
that this service is a crucial part of the health care delivery
system, the Ministry had no transfer planning process. They
allocated no funds for transfer costs, did not create any
transfer planning guidelines and did not participate in any
formal transfer planning. To date, they have continued to
ignore the huge transfer problems created by their irresponsible
actions.
There was no
transfer of staff. The Ministry supplied funds to the seven
existing providers to layoff their staff on December 31 2000.
ADSAB then hired staff effective January 1, 2001 based on
standard educational requirements. Many, but not all, of the
staff severed by the old employers were hired by ADSAB. This
severing and rehiring of staff created significant human
resource issues.
Selected assets
were transferred to the Board by the Ministry of Health. These
included ambulances and EMS medical equipment. None of the
ambulance bases, which were originally built with Ministry of
Health funding, were transferred. The Board had to enter in to
lease agreements with all seven previous providers with no
direction from the Ministry.
Unlike the other
transferred programs, there was no requirement, following the
transfer, to maintain any specific bases, any particular pattern
of shifts or any set number of hours of service. The only
requirement is that the response time must be kept to within 90%
of that experienced in 1996. There is nothing special about
1996. It was simply the base year selected by the Ministry. The
average response time is calculated looking at the entire
district and not by individual bases.
EMS Program
Directives
The Ministry of
Health is constantly sending out directives on every aspect of
EMS operations. It does not provide consolidated directives but
does require that there be local written policies consistent
with their directives. Presently our EMS written policies
exceed 97 (ranging from one page to 30+). Ongoing certification
requires that local policies reflect the Ministry directives.
North Intake
Screening Unit
Contractual
Agreement
There was no
transfer plan for this service because it was optional for this
Board to either apply or not apply to act as the host for the
service. There was no existing provincial service providing this
function and thus no transfer of responsibility, assets or
staff.
There was an
initial proposal was produced for the Board by Board staff with
the help of an external consultant. That proposal was the basis
on which this Board’s bid was selected. The Ministry has
continually urged the Board to meet the performance levels
referred to in that proposal. The Ministry has ignored the
portion of the proposal which clearly showed the collective
agreement covering the employees and the wage grid which they
had negotiated. None of the seven Intake Screening Units is
consistently meeting the response times required by the
Ministry.
The NISU contract
expires in December 2005. The Board can not unilaterally abandon
the agreement before that date. Sometime in 2004, we expect a
Request For Proposal for the provision of ISU services beyond
2005. The RFP may include fewer sites, increased
responsibilities or other significant changes from the original
RFP. When the details of the RFP are known they will come to
this Board for a decision on whether or not to bid.
ISU Program
Directives
This Board has
almost no control of the daily work at the NISU. The style of
inbound telephone based intake is determined by the Ministry
despite the fact we have lobbied for increased flexibility to
allow maximization of staff resources through full use of call
downloading and outbound calling. After considerable pressure,
the Ministry finally approved advance data gathering on persons
being released from institutions.
The text delivered
to callers by the NISU Intake Screeners is set and monitored by
the Ministry. Once again, we have lobbied unsuccessfully for
control of the script to decrease application times, increase
the availability of screeners and decrease costs. Each
additional minute of mandatory script translates over the full
operation into the need for more staff. Mandatory scripts
include information on literacy and mandatory drug treatment
which we advised the Ministry were more appropriately delivered
at the second stage Ontario Works verification interview.
During 2004 we will be approaching the Ministry for increased
flexibility in the script in order to offset staffing decreases.
Ontario Works
Program Transfer
This Board and its
predecessor, the Algoma District Social Services Administration
Board, had been delivering social assistance since 1969. With
LSR, the only new caseload being transferred in was the sole
support parent cases previously on the Family Benefits program.
The actual transfer of responsibility for
this caseload followed a lengthy transfer planning process and
the formal acceptance by the Ministry of Community and Social
Services of a detailed transfer plan. Once again, the Ministry
allocated staff, resources and detailed expectations related to
the transfer process. The transfer of the Family Benefits
sole support parent caseload occurred in March 1999.
Staff (2
positions) and some minor physical assets were transferred under
the negotiated written transfer plan. The transfer plan
required the Board to manage the cases at a far higher level
than the provincial delivery. That higher level of management
subsequently lead to the reduction from 300 cases at the time of
transfer (March 1999) to 180 cases by September 1999.
The significantly
higher monitoring and the new employment programming for the
sole support parent caseload were never recognized in the
Ontario Works administrative budgeting process.
OW Program
Directives
Since 1995 most of
the local flexibility related to the delivery of this program
has been removed through the development and implementation of
very detailed program directives. There are literally hundreds
of pages of directives. Although these directives have lead to
increased province wide consistency it has reduced our ability
to deal with exceptional income support problems.
It should be noted
however that the directives related to employment support are
very flexible. In most cases, the use of multiple programs and
the flexibility of the directives ensure that client needs
related to return to the labour market are met.
The directives are
supplemented by interpretations called “Clearing House” items.
These are formal responses to interpretations of the Directives.
Unlike Children’s
Services and Social Housing there was no requirement to maintain
any particular caseload level. In fact, every effort has been
made to reduce caseloads through inadequate rates and harsh
eligibility rules. There is now a bizarre situation in which
Ontario Works delivery agents are required to maintain high
caseload monitoring standards regardless of their efficacy in
reducing caseloads. The continuously increasing monitoring
requirements and the increasing complexity are supposed to be
funded from an arbitrarily established and declining
administrative cost per case.
The Ministry also
requires specific positions to be filled. These include
Eligibility Review Officers, Addictions Workers and Family
Support Workers. The introduction and complexity of the
Learning Earning And Parenting (LEAP) program and the Self
Employment Initiative have also created the need for specialized
staff. These functions must be in place, regardless of the level
of activity, and are funded by the cost per case driven
administrative budgets.
Social Housing
Program Transfer
Transfer of this
program also followed a very lengthy detailed planning process.
In fact, this transfer could be considered to be the best
planned and implemented. Board staff wrote a detailed transfer
plan based on Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
guidelines. There was a formal approval process, designated
provincial / municipal transfer teams and separate transfer
funding. In this case, there also was a post transfer
assessment and ongoing review of the new legislation.
The transfer provided for the transfer of the
public housing stock from the Ontario Housing Corporation to a
new Board, the Algoma District
Local Housing Corporation (ADLHC). The ADLHC was created as a
wholly owned subsidiary board of ADSAB. The ADLHC was
subsequently dissolved
in December 2003. This transfer of assets was by a Minister’s
order.
A Minister’s order
also provided for the transfer of specifically named staff of
the Algoma District Housing Authority to ADSAB. Unfortunately,
several of the named staff had vacated their position prior to
the transfer so we never received the full staff complement
required to manage the portfolio.
The Social Housing
transfer obliges the Board to retain the same number of Rent
Geared to Income (RGI) units that were in place prior to the
transfer. If the Board were to close or otherwise lose RGI
units it must create other RGI units to retain the service level
standard. It also obliges this Board to accept and administer
provincial and federal agreements with non-profit housing
provider boards. Those agreements also provide for specific
numbers of RGI units.
The transfer also
provided for the creation of the Social Housing Services
Corporation (SHSC). The legislation and directives require this
Board to invest its housing reserves with the SHSC, buy
insurance from them and purchase some utilities through them.
In addition, the Ministry has retained the mortgage refinancing
function.
Social Housing
Program Directions
The Ministry
provides very few Directives on administration of this program
with the noted exception of Victims of Family Violence ~ Special
Priority policies. The Ministry is very specific in this regard
and sets rigid criteria how this group is to be handled with the
waiting lists.
The Ministry
expects each CMSM to develop comprehensive policy and procedures
which must be consistent with provincial legislation. The
Ministry has a review process to ensure that we have
comprehensive policies and that we are meeting our own policies.
David Court - CAO
|
