Towards Better Public Policy

Towards Better Public Policy
by Dianne Bascombe

It is a time of change and opportunity for the development of public policy that meets the needs of children, youth and their families. Since the introduction of the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST) in 1996, the politics of policy change for health, education and social services have been radically altered. The Social Union Framework Agreement (SUFA), adopted in 1999, was intended to “reform and review Canada's system of social services and to reassure Canadians that their pan-Canadian social programs are strong and secure.” In the wake of the National Children's Agenda (NCA) agreement signed in May 1999, and the Early Childhood Development (ECD) agreement signed in September 2000, the networks of health and social services at the community level are far from “strong and secure.”

Governments in Canada have clearly indicated their collective commitment to improving policy and programs for children and youth through the NCA and ECD agreements. In the fall of 2000, the federal government pledged $2.2 billion over five years for early child development programs to: promote healthy pregnancy, birth and infancy; improve parenting and family supports; strengthen early childhood development, learning and care; and strengthen community supports. The federal funding began in April 2001, using the CHST as the funding mechanism.

Within the ECD agreement, First Ministers acknowledged the need to be publicly accountable in their commitment to provide:

  • annual reports beginning in 2002 on investments and progress from an established baseline of expenditures and activities
  • a shared framework of agreed upon comparable indicators for the expenditures and activities
  • regular reporting on child well-being using agreed upon common outcome indicators.

These agreements have critical implications for the delivery of services at the community level. The CHST is a block funding mechanism to transfer federal resources to provincial/territorial jurisdictions in health, education and social services. The use of the CHST as the funding mechanism for the ECD increases the importance of public accountability regimes. Through the annual reporting from established baselines, governments can be held to account to ensure that ECD funds are actually being spent in the four priority areas identified in the agreement.

The purpose of the baselines is to identify current spending on all ECD programs and services for 2000/2001 prior to the new federal dollars entering the system via the CHST. It is critical that baselines are clearly reported and easily understood so that communities and organizations can track funding by jurisdiction. There will be challenges in defining the boundaries of ECD. When governments make public their baselines in September 2001, we cannot expect consistency in reporting across jurisdictions, which in turn will make it difficult to make comparisons.

Beyond the simple expenditure of federal dollars within the parameters of the ECD agreement, SUFA speaks to "ensuring access to reasonably comparable services.” The tracking of funding investments by activities and programs will enable a picture of available services for ECD to come into view. The ECD agreement holds provincial/territorial governments to spending in any or all of the four priority areas – but it is a menu of services rather than a basket. To develop social programs that are truly accessible, we need to encourage governments to invest in all four areas of the ECD. It is difficult to imagine an effective system of ECD at the community level without regulated child care.

To compare services, we also have to look beyond mapping what exists. What we now know about effective programming and best practice in service delivery provide some tools for a systemic approach to assessing services and programs for "reasonable comparability.” When you move to a new community in Canada, you would hope to find a familiar basket of services to meet your family’s needs. Thus, we need public dialogue on what works at the community level to scope out what Canadians believe should be the core of public services.

For the last several years, public debate in Canada has centred on health care. When we consider research on the determinants of health, the public debate needs to shift to include preventive health programs and social services. Community responsiveness in service delivery is compatible with stable, sustainable health and social service infrastructures. The research tells us that it is not only families that contribute to their child's capacity to reach their potential—communities also make an important contribution. Pogram evaluation can help us measure program effectiveness based on client outcomes. However, we are a long way from developing indicators that link a mix of community services to large-scale outcomes.

Yet it is critical that we track child outcomes at the community level. This will provide us with an important public policy tool. The ECD agreement and its commitment to child outcome indicators is an opportunity to continue the Canadian research and data collection that has begun. In the voluntary sector, recognizing that this work is in its infancy provides an opportunity to engage governments in an ongoing process of this development. It is time to move away from relying on negative outcome indicators and move towards an asset-based approach.

All these recent government agreements include common themes of transparency and process. In the area of reporting to the public, the ECD agreement will set the standard for the future. As the levers for social policy at the federal level shrink, the importance of public reporting cannot be overstated. And as leaders and organizations in the voluntary sector, we have a role to play in gaining access to these new decision-making processes. As monitors, we need to ensure that the indicators used are understood to be “works in progress” that can be updated to respond to new research and emerging issues. It is time for us to be at the table.

The implications of the ECD agreement extend well beyond services for early childhood. Next year, SUFA will be reviewed—and the ECD agreement is the major inter-governmental initiative under SUFA. Indicators and monitoring have replaced federal spending power and cost-sharing as levers for national policy. If we want a sustainable national infrastructure for health and social services across jurisdictions, now is the time to bolster the policy research capacity of the voluntary sector. This will enable our effective participation in these complex inter-governmental policy-making processes.
The challenges of having an impact on the upcoming inter-governmental work on indicators and outcomes for the ECD are significant, yet we have to keep trying to influence the process and the content. One of the strengths of the National Children’s Alliance is its capacity to mobilize diverse communities for dialogue, policy development and action on issues impacting on children, youth and their families. Monitoring the ECD agreement will test our collective policy development capacity and expertise in our efforts to participate actively with federal, provincial, and territorial governments. Monitoring the health and well-being of Canada's children in the context of the ECD agreement cannot be done effectively without the voluntary sector taking a leadership role.

Dianne Bascombe is the Director of Children's Issues and the National Children's Alliance at the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations. She is the former executive director of the CCCF. To contact the NCA: phone (613) 238-1591 ext 250; fax (613) 238-5257; Websites www.nationalchildrensalliance.com and www.nvo-onb.ca.

What is the National Children's Alliance?
The National Children's Alliance is a network of national organizations committed to improving the lives of children and youth in Canada.
L'Alliance nationale pour les enfants est un réseau d’organismes nationaux voués à rehausser la vie des enfants et des jeunes du Canada.

Members

Questions to ask our politicians about monitoring the ECD

  • What baselines are you using for services and programs? What's in and what's out?
  • Would you consider working with other governments to standardize the baselines so that they will be more understandable and consistent across Canada?
  • Are you planning to make additional investments at the provincial/territorial level so we move closer to a "basket" of services at the community level rather than a "menu"?
  • How can we work with you to develop indicators for children's health and well-being that help us better deliver services and programs?
  • What sustainable mechanisms would you consider so that we can work with you to monitor "how well we're doing for our children"?
  • Are you setting aside new resources for research and data collection?

Interaction, Vol. 15, No. 3, Fall 2001, p. 3-4.