Ontario Agencies Supporting Individuals with Special Needs
Ontario Agencies Supporting Individuals with Special Needs

TRANSFORMATION SURVEY FEEDBACK

TO ALL MEMBERS OF OASIS

December 5, 2005

From Gerry Sutton, Chair of Operational Support
Subject: Transformation- Regional Interpretations

At the Executive Committee meeting of October 19 there was a discussion of the different ways MCSS regional offices are interpreting the Transformation directives emanating from Queen’s Park and I was requested to contact the regional advisers of Operational Support and get their responses to a questionnaire that we could distribute to all members for their information. Replies were received from six regions and are as follows( I have abbreviated the names of the regions to CW (Central West), NE (North East) HN ( Hamilton Niagara) T (Toronto) CE (Central East) and SE (South East):

Schedule 1 Closures

How many new spaces will be created in your region as a result of people leaving Schedule one facilities?

CW – 57 but the number may change slightly
NE – 15 in Parry Sound- Muskoka; 4 for Nipissing; 2 for Temiskaming; 2 for Timmins and 4 for Cochrane North for a toral of 27
HN – About 9
T – 137
CE – 24
SE – 62 but additional “citizens of the world” may raise that to about 100

Will These be new spaces in new homes?

CW – Yes
NE – The option is up to each individual agency but I have heard the Regional office is planning on 4 new group homes for the Parry Sound-Muskoka area.
HN – Don’t know
T – Either new homes or unfounded spaces.
CE – While all of these new spaces will be eligible for capital investment support there will be no new spaces in new homes during year one; after that has not been determined.
SE – Yet to be determined through the planning process for each individual or living unit but expect that most will be housed in staffed residential arrangements yet to be developed.

Will there be any increased spaces in homes you already have?

CW – In one situation there may be an addition to a home in North Halton, all others will be new homes.
NE – Up to each individual agency
HN – Don’t know
T – Yes
CE – Some may be attached to group homes such as through garage conversions.
SE – Very few. Most are at capacity.

Will any people move into current or expected vacancies in current homes?

CW – No
NE – One has moved into an existing vacancy because nobody on the wait list was suitable for the placement. We were able to enhance support in the home.
HN – Don’t know
T – No
CE – Some, for expediency, may go into existing funded vacancies. If this occurs MCSS has said it will fund the support costs of any individual that will be supported in an alternative setting. Thus new placements will not be absorbed through existing budgets.
SE – Possibly, but vacancies are rare and wait lists are long and the needs intense. In our planning group vacancies would be allocated to the wait list, not to people coming from RRC with funds attached.

SIL / family home. Have funds been set aside for each of the next four years to increase capacity? What is the annualized operating amount per person?

CW – Not in the first year but yes in other years. $20,000 per person
NE – Not in the first and third years; in years 2 and 4 $80,000 for four spaces in each.
HN – Not sure.
T – Yes
CE – Yes, 7 spaces for next year. Likely $20,000 per person
SE – No

Do these funds include capital? If so, how much per person?

CW – No
NE – No
HN – Not sure
T – No
CE – No
SE -No

Group Living. Have adequate resources been made available for those coming out of institutions?

CW – Proposals have been approved as submitted, including capital.
NE – In the case of CLSM fiscal dollars for five months were $89,248 and the annualized amount was $97,709 plus 1.000 hours of transitional night support plus behavioural support of $26,870 yet to be confirmed and to be reviewed prior to end of March to determine the actual need for permanent funding. Capital funding $25,000 for vehicle,$19725 for bedroom renovation etc and $15,384 for SMG training.
HN – The agency submits a proposal.
T – Yes.
CE – Capital is available fiscally this year. Allocations for operating support appear adequate. All 7 positions went to York region this year.
SE – So far MCSS has been flexible with funds and they have been adequate.

At risk people. Is there support for additional staff ?

CW – Yes if the community plan indicates the need.
NE – The region was allocated $782,700 and this was given directly to those agencies which were previously supported through fiscal variances. My understanding is that these have been annualized.
HN – Not sure.
T – Yes
CE – Understand that funding will be directed to those most in need to address area pressures based on a priority system that will involve local planning groups.
SE – So far so good. It has been on a case by case basis.

Has the local planning group been involved in how dollars are allocated?

CW – Yes, they would be.
NE – No.
HN – Not sure.
T – Yes.
CE – Not able to comment.
SE – Yes, but there is uncertainty how these processes interact.

Community Networks funding; is there any?

CW – Innovations fund.
NE – The Northeast and Northern regions are sharing an allocation and have a joint implementation team. There ar 3 spaces for 2005/6 and 4 for 2006/7 with operating support of $910,000 and capital funding of $1,050,000.
HN – No comment.
T – Innovations fund only.
CE – Yes. Funding is available for Durham region for this ; proposals being reviewed. Support has already been allocated to beef up APSW and VON (select) services on a fiscal basis.
SE – Not yet.

Passport initiative.

CW – There is a small amount for established foundation programs, possibly more in January. No provision for day programs for those exiting the school system.
NE – The North East allocation was $284,100 and those agencies who did not have foundations funding will be given priority.
HN – Provision for $12,450 per person for those exiting the school system. No capital. Whether full or part time is up to the agency.
T – Provision for 67 new spaces this year.
CE – Day programs can be used to expand programming for students leaving the school system. Twelve new targets have been set. Minor capital available. Funding inadequate. Full or part time depends on the agency.
SE – Funding is determined individually. The numbers coming through the school system are increasing faster than funding.

Special needs; are funds being set aside for them?

CW – Yes, but only fiscal.
NE – N/A
HN – Yes but only fiscal.
CE – Being addressed by MCSS in consultation with the local planning table.
SE – No

Community Investment and Planning.

CW – A very small amount of funding. Agencies have met to work on 5 year plan. Need for additional management staff to handle proposed new spaces.
NE – $30,200 set aside for completion of five year plan. May be divided between agencies at $1,700 each. Also $90,700 available this year for one-time projects through the fiscal innovation fund; agencies have to submit proposals. $260,000 provided for 77 people for services at home. Agencies have prepared a five year plan showing need for more management staff. Plan assumes top wage rate of $24.02 per hour plus benefits, with 10% admin costs. Also a need for a community planner for Muskoka-Parry Sound, expected salary $101,000 annually.
HN – Agencies have met to prepare five year plan
T – Agencies have met on five year plan. Have identified nedds for infrastructure investments and wage and salary increases.
CE – Five year plan completed. Need to beef up management support.
SE – No five year plan yet.