38
shortages, caseload ratios that exceed the provincial standard, and difficulty
recruiting and retaining qualified staff, particularly First Nation staff
(see AANDC Evaluation of the Implementation of the EPFA in Saskatchewan
and Nova Scotia at p. 51). Capital expenditures on new buildings, new
vehicles and computer hardware were identified as being necessary to
achieve compliance with provincial standards, but also as making FNCFS
Agencies a more desirable place to work. However, these expenditures were
not anticipated when implementing the EPFA and were identified as often
being funded through prevention dollars (see AANDC Evaluation of the
Implementation of the EPFA in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia at p. 49),
(emphasis added).
…
[305] Overall, on the issue of the relevance and reliability of the reports on the
FNCFS Program, the Panel finds that from the years 2000 to 2012 many
reliable sources have identified the adverse effects of the funding formulas
and structure of the FNCFS Program. AANDC was involved in the NPR and
Wen:De reports, and acknowledged and accepted the findings and
recommendations in the Auditor General and Standing Committee on Public
Account’s reports, including developing an action plan to address those
recommendations. As the internal evaluations and other relevant and reliable
AANDC documents demonstrate, those studies and reports became the basis
for reforming Directive 20-1 into the EPFA and, subsequently,
recommendations to reform the EPFA. It is only now, in the context of this
Complaint, that AANDC raises concerns about the reliability and weight of the
various reports on the FNCFS Program outlined above. Moreover, the internal
documents discussed above support those reports and are AANDC’s own
evaluations, recommendations and presentations prepared by its high ranking
employees. For these reasons, the Panel does not accept AANDC’s
argument that the reports on the FNCFS Program have little or no weight and
accepts the findings in those reports, along with the corroborating information
in documents relied on above.
…
[344] As indicated above, the provinces’ legislation and standards dictate that
all alternatives measures should be explored before bringing a child into care,
which is consistent with sound social work practice as described earlier.
However, by covering maintenance expenses at cost and providing
insufficient fixed budgets for prevention, AANDC’s funding formulas provide
an incentive to remove children from their homes as a first resort rather than
as a last resort. For some FNCFS Agencies, especially those under Directive
20-1, their level of funding makes it difficult if not impossible to provide
prevention and least disruptive measures. Even under the EPFA, where
separate funding is provided for prevention, the formula does not provide
adjustments for increasing costs over time for such things as salaries,