Windsor-Essex County Children and

Youth Planning Committee

2014 to 2016 Community Plan

March 2014

1

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 2

Approach to Developing the Community Plan ................................................................................. 2

What do we know about children living in Windsor-Essex County? ......................................... 3

Total Essex County Child Population (including Windsor) ...................................................... 3

Windsor Child Population .................................................................................................................. 3

Essex County Child Population ....................................................................................................... 4

Where Children Live: Best Start Neighbourhoods ...................................................................... 4

Where Children Live: Natural Neighbourhoods ........................................................................... 6

Population Projections ....................................................................................................................... 7

Early Development Instrument (EDI) Results ............................................................................... 8

Kindergarten Parent Survey ............................................................................................................ 11

Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) Results .............................................. 13

What infrastructure do we have to support children and their families? ............................... 14

Ontario Early Years Centres (OEYCs) .......................................................................................... 14

Licensed Child Care Programs ...................................................................................................... 15

Community and Recreation Centres ............................................................................................. 17

Elementary Schools .......................................................................................................................... 17

Libraries ................................................................................................................................................ 17

What is provincial policy telling us? ................................................................................................. 19

What did we hear from stakeholders?.............................................................................................. 20

Service Providers ............................................................................................................................... 20

Parents/Caregivers ............................................................................................................................ 30

Parent/Caregiver Outreach and Engagement Project .............................................................. 40

What are our priorities for the next three years? .......................................................................... 44

Attachments ............................................................................................................................................ 45

Terms of Reference

Windsor Essex Population (0-19 years) Maps by Natural Neighbourhoods

EDI Result Maps by Best Start Neighbourhoods

Windsor Essex Schools by Best Start and Natural Neighbourhoods

Innovation Fund Report

2

Introduction This Community Plan provides a blueprint for the strategic focus and direction of children’s services in Windsor-Essex County for the years 2014 to 2016. It is a time of transformative change in the children’s services sector, with a strong focus on moving toward an increasingly integrated system of services for families and children. According to the Ontario Early Years Policy Framework, Ontario’s vision for the early years is:

“Ontario’s children and families are supported by a system of responsive, high-quality, accessible and increasingly integrated early years’ programs and services that contribute to healthy child development today and a stronger future tomorrow.”

The Windsor-Essex County Children and Youth Planning Committee (CYPC) is working to build an effective integrated system of services that supports children and youth prenatal to 12 years of age and their families (see Attachment A for Terms of Reference of this committee). The committee provides leadership for this process in the form of input, advice and recommendations. This serves to inform the broader system planning as well as planning done by individual agencies/sectors in an effort to integrate services into a system and create a seamless service experience for children, youth and their families. One of the first steps in moving towards achieving an integrated system of services in Windsor-Essex County is the development of this Community Plan.

Approach to Developing the Community Plan The CYPC undertook a number of steps to complete this plan, including: Reviewing key demographic data about the community Conducting an environmental scan of services for families with children aged prenatal to 12

years Consulting with key stakeholder groups The key stakeholders that were involved in the development of this plan include:

Service providers Parents Specific populations, such as Original people, newcomers and Francophone

parents/caregivers were also approached in phase two of the planning process Children and Youth Planning Committee

Information was collected from these groups in a number of ways. An online survey was sent to organizations that provide services to children prenatal to 12 years of age and a survey (both in written and online formats) was completed by parents/caregivers with children in this age group. The number of responses to the surveys can be seen in the table below.

Stakeholder Group # of Surveys Completed

Service Providers 91 surveys were completed by 30 organizations

Parents/Caregivers A total of 824 surveys were completed by parents 770 English language surveys were completed 51 French language surveys were completed

3

The result of this planning process is a robust plan which represents the most current information about children and families living in Windsor-Essex County. In order to identify priorities for the Children’s Services Community Plan, the CYPC reviewed the data captured in this plan and identified the following two priorities:

1. Hubs/system coordination 2. Access to service

Action plans will be developed to move forward in each of these areas over the course of the next three years.

What do we know about children living in Windsor-Essex County? Total Essex County Child Population (including Windsor) The child population in Windsor-Essex County has been declining steadily since 2001. There has been a 9.4% decrease in 0 to 14 years olds from 2001 to 2011, with the largest decrease being seen between 2006 and 2011. This is in juxtaposition with the overall population which grew by 3.7% over this same time period and which saw a slight decline (1.2%) from 2006 to 2011 (see the table below for further details).

Source: Statistics Canada Windsor Child Population When looking just at the child population in Windsor, there has been an 8.5% decrease in 0 to 14 years olds from 2001 to 2011, again, with the largest decrease occurring between 2006 and 2011.

Source: Statistics Canada

Age 2001 Population 2006 Population 2011 Population

0 to 4 Years 23,660 23,205 21,100

5 to 9 Years 51,925 24,810 22,930

10 to 14 Years 26,935 24,460

0 to 14 Years 75,585 74,950 68,490

Overall Population

374,975 393,405 388,785

Age 2001 Population 2006 Population 2011 Population

0 to 4 Years 13,155 12,795 11,855

5 to 9 Years 26,495 12,985 11,975

10 to 14 Years 13,700 12,455

0 to 14 Years 39,650 39,480 36,285

Overall Population

208,402 216,476 210,890

The child population in

Windsor-Essex County is declining

4

Essex County Child Population When looking just at the child population in Essex County, the decrease in child population has been even greater. There was a 10.4% decrease in 0 to 14 years olds from 2001 to 2011, again, with the largest decrease occurring between 2006 and 2011. This is in juxtaposition to the overall population in the County, which increased 6.8% between 2001 and 2011.

Source: Statistics Canada

Where Children Live: Best Start Neighbourhoods The following table outlines where children live, by Best Start Neighbourhood, in Windsor and Essex County. Note that data are only available for all age groups in 2011. 2001, 2006 and 2011 data are available for the 0 to 4 age group. Overall, the most highly populated neighbourhoods are Central, South, Forest Glade/Riverside and Lakeshore. Of note: The most highly populated neighbourhoods for the 0 to 4

age group are: Central, South, Forest Glade/Riverside and Lakeshore, all with over 2,000 children in this age group

The least populated neighbourhoods for the 0 to 4 age group are: Central South, Sandwich South and Industrial Zone, Tecumseh and Essex, all with less than 1,000 children in this age group

The most highly populated neighbourhoods for the 5 to 9 age group are: Central, South, Forest Glade/Riverside and Lakeshore, all with over 2,000 children in this age group. South has the largest number of children in this age group (3,219)

The least populated neighbourhoods for the 5 to 9 age group are: Central South and Sandwich South and Industrial Zone, both with less than 1,000 children in this age group

The most highly populated neighbourhoods for the 10 to 14 age group are: Central, South, Forest Glade/Riverside, LaSalle and Lakeshore, all with over 2,000 children in this age group. South has the largest number of children in this age group (3,414)

The least populated neighbourhood for the 10 to 14 age group is Sandwich South and Industrial Zone, with less than 1,000 children in this age group

Central Age Group 2011 2006 2001

0 to 4 2,343 2,473 2,945

5 to 9 2,069

10 to 14 2,193

Central South Age Group 2011 2006 2001

0 to 4 837 991 960

5 to 9 942

10 to 14 1,045

Age 2001 Population 2006 Population 2011 Population

0 to 4 Years 10,505 10,410 9,245

5 to 9 Years 25,430 11,825 10,955

10 to 14 Years 13,235 12,005

0 to 14 Years 35,935 35,470 32,205

Overall Population

166,573 176,929 177,895

Central, South, Forest

Glade/Riverside and

Lakeshore are the most

highly populated

neighbourhoods

5

South Age Group 2011 2006 2001

0 to 4 2,691 2,950 2,510

5 to 9 3,219

10 to 14 3,414

West Age Group 2011 2006 2001

0 to 4 1,304 1,372 1,710

5 to 9 1,101

10 to 14 1,139

East/Fountainbleu Age Group 2011 2006 2001

0 to 4 1,799 2,006 2,355

5 to 9 1,729

10 to 14 1,801

Sandwich South and Industrial Zone

Age Group 2011 2006 2001

0 to 4 20 30 90

5 to 9 20

10 to 14 40

Forest Glade/ Riverside

Age Group 2011 2006 2001

0 to 4 2,851 3,054 2,680

5 to 9 2,901

10 to 14 2,794

LaSalle Age Group 2011 2006 2001

0 to 4 1,500 1,770 1,765

5 to 9 1,890

10 to 14 2,085

Tecumseh Age Group 2011 2006 2001

0 to 4 775 1,190 1,030

5 to 9 1,115

10 to 14 1,305

Lakeshore Age Group 2011 2006 2001

0 to 4 2,240 2,170 2,377

5 to 9 2,753

10 to 14 2,906

Amherstburg

Age Group 2011 2006 2001

0 to 4 1,075 1,315 1,220

5 to 9 1,235

10 to 14 1,480

Essex Age Group 2011 2006 2001

0 to 4 890 1,180 1,030

5 to 9 1,105

10 to 14 1,215

Kingsville Age Group 2011 2006 2001

0 to 4 1,135 1,075 1,095

5 to 9 1,210

10 to 14 1,270

Leamington Age Group 2011 2006 2001

0 to 4 1,764 1,880 1,934

5 to 9 1,804

10 to 14 1,814

6

When looking specifically at the 0 to 4 age group and changes in this population over time (from 2001 to 2011), the majority of neighbourhoods are seeing a decreasing population that ranges from 5.8% to 77.8%. The only neighbourhoods which have seen a growth in the 0 to 4 age group over the period of 2001 to 2011 are:

South (7.2% increase in 0 to 4 population) Forest Glade/Riverside (6.4% increase in 0 to 4 population) Kingsville (3.7% increase in 0 to 4 population)

Those neighourhoods experiencing the highest decrease in the 0 to 4 population are:

Sandwich South and Industrial Zone (77.8% decrease in 0 to 4 population) Tecumseh (24.8% decrease in 0 to 4 population) West (23.7% decrease in 0 to 4 population) East/Fountainbleu (23.6% decrease in 0 to 4 population)

Where Children Live: Natural Neighbourhoods When looking at the natural neighbourhoods, according to Statistics Canada 2011 data, the following are the most highly populated and least populated neighbourhoods (see Attachment B for maps visually showing the populations):

Age Group Most Highly Populated Neighbourhoods

Least Populated Neighbourhoods

0 to 4 years (Windsor)

East Windsor (1,199) Roseland (1,185) Forest Glade (1,151) Walkerville (1,098)

Ojibway (8) Walker Farm (11) Industrial/Sandwich South (20) Malden (70)

0 to 4 years (Essex County)

Leamington Town (1,309) LaSalle Town (1,040)

McGregor West (30) McGregor East (49) Maidstone West (87) Gosfield South (92)

5 to 9 years (Windsor)

Roseland (1,405) Forest Glade (1,151) East Windsor (1,124)

Ojibway (4) Walker Farm (14) Industrial/Sandwich South (20) Malden (75)

5 to 9 years (Essex County)

LaSalle Town (1,325) Leamington Town (1,297)

McGregor West (30) McGregor East (66) Maidstone West (95)

10 to 14 years (Windsor)

Roseland (1,395) Forest Glade (1,134) East Windsor (1,126) South Windsor (1,113) Walkerville (1,058) Riverside (1,025)

Ojibway (4) Walker Farm (18) Industrial/Sandwich South (40) Malden (80)

10 to 14 years (Essex County)

LaSalle Town (1,435 Leamington Town (1,306)

McGregor West (30) McGregor East (70) Maidstone West (89)

15 to 19 years (Windsor)

Roseland (1,305) Walkerville (1,318) South Windsor (1,249)

Ojibway (6) Walker Farm (14) Industrial/Sandwich South (45)

7

Age Group Most Highly Populated Neighbourhoods

Least Populated Neighbourhoods

Forest Glade (1,221) Riverside (1,203) East Windsor (1,194)

15 to 19 years (Essex County)

LaSalle Town (1,650) Leamington Town (1,343)

McGregor West (47) McGregor East (80)

Source: City of Windsor, Data Analysis Coordinator

The neighbourhoods commonly appearing on the most highly populated list across the age groups are:

LaSalle Town Leamington Town Roseland Forest Glade East Windsor

Population Projections Looking out to the 2030s, the child population is expected to continue to decline in Essex County. There will be a slight increase in the child population in the city of Windsor (see bullets below for further details). For Windsor-Essex County as a whole: The Windsor-Essex population is projected to grow from 393,400 persons in 2006 to

469,400 persons in 2026 and 491,800 persons in 2031 (an increase of 25%) Younger age groups, under 20 years of age, will gradually decrease as a proportion of the

population From 2006 to 2016, the 0 to 4 population is projected to decrease by 85, the 5 to 9

population is projected to decrease by 409, and the 10 to 14 population is projected to decrease by 2,076

For Windsor: The proportion of the population composed of children and youth (0 to 19 years of age) is

projected to decline slightly from 25% of the population in 2006 to 23% in 2031. Although this age group is expected to decline as a proportion of the total population, it will increase by 8,244 persons between 2006 and 2031, representing a 16% increase in this age group

From 2006 to 2016, the 0 to 4 population is expected to grow by 649, the 5 to 9 population is expected to grow by 829 and the 10 to 14 population is expected to decrease by 75

The following table outlines the population projection for 0 to 12 year olds in Windsor-Essex for each year from 2010 to 2036. Although there are fluctuations in numbers of children in age groups across the years, overall, from 2010 to 2036, it is projected that the number of children in each age group will decline (with the exception of 8 year olds, which remains the same).

8

Source: City of Windsor, Data Analysis Coordinator

Early Development Instrument (EDI) Results The EDI measures children’s developmental health at school entry by asking questions covering five different areas (called domains) of their early development (see table below for the five domains).

Physical Health & Well-Being

Includes gross and fine motor skills and adequate energy levels for classroom activities

Social Competence Includes curiosity about the world, eagerness to try new experiences, knowledge of standards of acceptable behaviour in a public place, ability to control own behaviour, cooperation with others, following rules and ability to play and work with other children

Emotional Health & Maturity

Includes ability to reflect before acting and ability to deal with feelings at the age appropriate level and empathic response to other people’s feelings

Language and Cognitive Development

Includes reading awareness, age appropriate reading, writing and numeracy skills, board games, and ability to understand similarities and differences and to recite back specific pieces of information from memory

Communication Skills and General Knowledge

Includes skills to communicate needs and wants in socially appropriate ways, symbolic use of language, story-telling and age appropriate knowledge about life and world around

A child is considered to be “vulnerable” if they score below the lowest 10th percentile of the distribution.

Population of Ontario Census Divisions by Age and Sex, 1986-2036Sources: Statistics Canada estimates for 1986-2010 and Ontario Ministry of Finance projections (Spring 2011).

Windsor - Essex Region Projections of population age 0 - 12 by year

YEAR 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2010 4,562 4,602 4,591 4,555 4,808 4,761 4,705 4,597 4,517 4,613 4,760 4,715 4,796

2011 4,116 4,605 4,620 4,582 4,534 4,777 4,723 4,664 4,556 4,483 4,584 4,741 4,693

2012 4,111 4,171 4,627 4,616 4,566 4,514 4,744 4,688 4,629 4,525 4,462 4,570 4,719

2013 4,115 4,169 4,207 4,628 4,605 4,552 4,494 4,714 4,657 4,602 4,506 4,454 4,552

2014 4,130 4,174 4,209 4,221 4,620 4,593 4,535 4,472 4,686 4,631 4,585 4,498 4,439

2015 4,150 4,190 4,214 4,225 4,226 4,611 4,577 4,515 4,450 4,660 4,614 4,576 4,481

2016 4,175 4,211 4,232 4,230 4,232 4,228 4,596 4,557 4,493 4,429 4,643 4,606 4,560

2017 4,202 4,238 4,255 4,250 4,239 4,236 4,224 4,577 4,535 4,472 4,417 4,635 4,590

2018 4,233 4,267 4,284 4,275 4,260 4,244 4,234 4,216 4,555 4,514 4,460 4,413 4,619

2019 4,263 4,298 4,314 4,304 4,286 4,266 4,243 4,227 4,205 4,535 4,502 4,456 4,401

2020 4,298 4,330 4,346 4,336 4,316 4,294 4,266 4,237 4,217 4,194 4,523 4,498 4,445

2021 4,326 4,367 4,379 4,368 4,349 4,324 4,296 4,262 4,228 4,208 4,192 4,520 4,487

2022 4,347 4,395 4,417 4,402 4,382 4,359 4,326 4,292 4,255 4,219 4,207 4,198 4,509

2023 4,358 4,418 4,446 4,441 4,417 4,392 4,361 4,323 4,285 4,248 4,219 4,213 4,195

2024 4,358 4,429 4,470 4,471 4,456 4,428 4,396 4,359 4,316 4,278 4,249 4,227 4,210

2025 4,351 4,431 4,482 4,495 4,487 4,468 4,432 4,394 4,354 4,310 4,280 4,257 4,225

2026 4,335 4,425 4,485 4,508 4,511 4,499 4,472 4,430 4,389 4,349 4,312 4,290 4,256

2027 4,314 4,410 4,480 4,512 4,526 4,523 4,505 4,472 4,425 4,384 4,351 4,322 4,289

2028 4,288 4,390 4,467 4,508 4,530 4,540 4,529 4,505 4,467 4,420 4,388 4,362 4,322

2029 4,259 4,365 4,448 4,496 4,527 4,544 4,546 4,529 4,501 4,462 4,424 4,399 4,363

2030 4,231 4,337 4,424 4,478 4,516 4,542 4,552 4,546 4,526 4,496 4,466 4,436 4,400

2031 4,204 4,310 4,397 4,455 4,499 4,532 4,550 4,554 4,543 4,523 4,500 4,478 4,437

2032 4,182 4,284 4,371 4,429 4,477 4,516 4,541 4,552 4,551 4,540 4,527 4,513 4,479

2033 4,165 4,263 4,346 4,404 4,453 4,495 4,526 4,545 4,551 4,548 4,546 4,540 4,515

2034 4,151 4,247 4,326 4,380 4,428 4,473 4,506 4,530 4,544 4,549 4,554 4,559 4,542

2035 4,143 4,234 4,311 4,361 4,406 4,448 4,485 4,512 4,530 4,543 4,555 4,568 4,561

2036 4,139 4,228 4,299 4,346 4,387 4,428 4,462 4,491 4,513 4,529 4,551 4,570 4,571

9

Three cycles of EDI implementation have now been completed across Ontario. In Windsor and Essex County Cycle 1 was completed between 2004-2006, Cycle 2 in the 2007-2008 school year and Cycle 3 in 2011-2012. Windsor-Essex County’s EDI results have improved over the three cycles in all domains except “emotional health & maturity” which had only a slight increase. For Cycle 3 there were fewer children in Windsor-Essex considered “vulnerable” than the provincial baseline (see table below).

Vulnerability Summary Ontario Baseline

Windsor-Essex

Cycle 1: 2004-2006

Windsor-Essex

Cycle 2: 2007-2008

Windsor-Essex

Cycle 3: 2011-2012

Low on at least 1 domain 28.0% 23.5% 23.1% 21.1%

Low on 2 or more domains 13.9% 11.4% 11.5% 10.0%

Multiple Challenge Index 3.6% 2.9% 2.4% 2.0%

Communication Skills & General Knowledge

12.1% 9.0% 9.1% 7.6%

Emotional Health & Maturity 10.3% 8.4% 8.3% 8.7%

Language & Cognitive Development 9.6% 9.2% 7.6% 6.3%

Physical Health & Well-being 12.9% 10.6% 11.6% 9.8%

Social Knowledge & Competence 9.3% 7.1% 6.7% 6.5%

10

Based on the 2011-2012 EDI results, the Best Start neighbourhood of Forest Glade/Riverside presents with the most vulnerability (see table for further details). Attachment C contains maps of each of the EDI domains by Best Start Neighbourhood.

Upon a review of all of the EDI findings across Windsor and Essex County, the CYPC determined that the three priority Best Start neighbourhoods are Forest Glade/Riverside, East/Fountainbleu and Leamington. The analysis of children with special needs was done separately from those children without special needs. In Windsor-Essex County 166 Senior Kindergarten students with valid EDIs were identified as having special needs in 2012. This accounted for 4% of all the valid EDIs for Windsor-Essex and was comparable to past percentages from Cycle 1 and 2. Also, similar to other years, 71.1% (118) of students with special needs were boys. Teachers were asked on the EDI about any special problems that influence a student’s ability to do school work in a regular classroom. For students with special needs, 79.5% had a special problem. Speech impairment (31.3%) followed by learning disability (30.1%) were the most reported problems. For conditions that were diagnosed or identified by a doctor or psychological professional, autism was the highest, at 20.5% of students with special needs. Autism rates for boys were higher (16.3%) than girls (4.2%). For children with special needs, 55.4% are vulnerable in two or more domains. The highest vulnerability is in:

1. Communication skills and general knowledge (53%) 2. Physical health and well-being (46.4%) 3. Emotional maturity (45.8%) 4. Social competence (41%) 5. Language and cognitive development (34.3%)

11

Kindergarten Parent Survey The Kindergarten Parent Survey (KPS) is a companion document to the EDI that provides more information on family characteristics and experiences of children before entering Kindergarten. This voluntary eight page survey completed by parents of Senior Kindergarten students asks questions related to the following areas:

Child Health and Development Child Care Pre-Kindergarten Experiences Kindergarten Family Neighbourhood Background Information

The KPS was implemented across Ontario for the first time during Cycle 3 of the EDI. A total of 4,124 surveys were distributed and 1,934 (47%) were returned. Highlights from the results of this survey are provided below.

The majority of respondents were mothers (87.8%), had always lived in Canada (76.4%), and primarily spoke English (86.4%)

Almost 40% had a college diploma or trades certificate with most working 25 to 49 hours per week

31.2% reported household income between $50,001-$100,000 and 27.9% greater than $100,000

Most families had two parents at home (81.1%) with two to three children

Child Health and Development Most children were reported to be in excellent health (59.5%) or very good (31.3%) The majority (96.7%) of respondents had a regular health care provider 4.9% (94 families) had used a food bank one to three times annually, but 89.3% had never

used one Child Care Most families did not use child care when children were very young (79.9% indicated “parent

care only” for 0 to 1 year olds) Usage of other types of care increased as the child got older For the 2.5 to 4 year old age group 36.9% used licensed care in a centre Of those children in other types of care, the highest percentage of hours in care per week

was more than 30 hours for all age groups. This was consistent with provincial results Barriers when seeking child care arrangements: 40.1% indicated care was too expensive,

followed by a concern about quality at 22.4% Factors and their importance when selecting child care services: The number one factor

indicated as very important was “quality of program care” at 76.9%. “Centre/caregiver reputation” was next at 75.4%, followed by “staff are professional/certified Early Childhood Educators” at 63.8%

Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten Experience Senior Kindergarten children in Windsor-Essex were less involved in community activities

(once a week or more) than the province The most reported programs accessed in the year before Kindergarten were music, arts, or

dance programs, play-based programs, and the public library

12

79.8% of respondents indicated that they had never attended a Parent and Family Literacy Centre

Services Used Prior to Kindergarten The most reported services accessed were speech and language (13.2%) and hearing

(7.9%) Barriers to service use: “Times did not work” and “Didn’t have information about services”

were reported the most Parental Involvement at School Respondents were more likely to attend a parent/teacher conference (65.9%) than other

meetings or events at their child’s school The greatest barrier to attending was “times don’t work/conflict with work” Transportation to School 46.7% of Senior Kindergarten children take a school bus or taxi to school 31.4% ride with or take transit with a parent Only 13.3% walk or bike with a parent/guardian compared to 22.0% for the province Activities with Children Daily activities that parents reported doing most with their children were:

Talked together about their child’s day (79.9%) Told or read him/her a story (53.1%) Household chores together (42.0%)

The least reported daily activities were arts, crafts, or drawings, and simple math games Parenting Workshops 64.7% of respondents had never attended a class, workshop, program, or event to help

them in their role as a parent Parenting Challenges The biggest reported parenting challenge was “finding family time” (36.9%) and “getting

child to eat healthy” (34.6%) Physical Activity 36.5% of parents reported performing moderate to vigorous activities three to four times a

week Other than gym class, children participated in a sport or activity once a week or more

With a coach or instructor (64.5%) Without a coach or instructor (76.9%)

TV, Computer and Video Game Use On an average school day 37.4% of Senior Kindergarten children watched TV, played video

games, or used a computer for two hours This was higher than the provincial results of 35.7% for two hours use Neighbourhood/Community Safety Compared to the provincial results, more respondents in Windsor-Essex (73.4%) felt their

neighbourhood was safe to walk alone in after dark and 86.2% felt it was safe for children to play outside during the day

Most also felt they knew and could trust their neighbours

13

Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) Results The EQAO reports on assessments of reading, writing and mathematics for the primary division (Grades 1 to 3) and junior division (Grades 4 to 6). Both of the school boards in Windsor-Essex County measure this. According to the 2011-2012 results, children in the Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board are faring better in all areas than children in the Greater Essex County District School Board (see the table below).

Area Greater Essex County District School Board

Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board

Grade 3 Reading 62% of students at or above the provincial standard (66% in the province)

65% of students at or above the provincial standard (66% in the province)

Grade 3 Writing 70% of students at or above the provincial standard (76% in the province)

77% of students at or above the provincial standard (76% in the province)

Grade 3 Mathematics 64% of students at or above the provincial standard (68% in the province)

68% of students at or above the provincial standard (68% in the province)

Grade 6 Reading 73% of students at or above the provincial standard (75% in the province)

74% of students at or above the provincial standard (75% in the province)

Grade 6 Writing 70% of students at or above the provincial standard (74% in the province)

74% of students at or above the provincial standard (74% in the province)

Grade 6 Mathematics 56% of students at or above the provincial standard (58% in the province)

59% of students at or above the provincial standard (58% in the province)

Other highlights from the 2011-2012 EQAO reports include: Mathematics at both the grade 3 and grade 6 levels received the lowest scores

In terms of gender, males are lagging significantly behind females in reading and writing in

grades 3 and 6 across both Boards of Education. Females and males are fairly even in terms of percentage of students at or above the provincial standard in mathematics

14

What infrastructure do we have to support children and their families? There is a wide range of infrastructure available in Windsor-Essex County, including Ontario Early Years Centres, Parenting and Family Literacy Centres, licensed child care programs, community and recreation centres, elementary schools, and libraries. Ontario Early Years Centres (OEYCs) OEYCs are places for children up to the age of six and their parents and caregivers to take part in programs and activities together. OEYCs also bring together, in one location, information about children’s services and programs in the community. There are 23 OEYC sites in Windsor and Essex County – eight located in Essex County and 15 in Windsor. There is a cluster of OEYCs in downtown Windsor and fairly good coverage of the County (see the map below for the locations of the OEYCs).

Parenting and Family Literacy Centres (PFLCs) Parenting and Family Literacy Centres are school-based programs for parents/caregivers and their children up to six years of age. PFLCs operate during the school day and offer programs that encourage families to engage in their child’s learning. Children and their caregivers participate in a range of activities that focus on the optimal development for the child and the early acquisition of literacy and numeracy skills. There are six PFLCs in Windsor and Essex County – five in Windsor and one in Essex County (see the table below for locations of the PFLCs).

15

Best Start Neighbourhood

PFLC Site

Leamington Queen Elizabeth PFLC

Forest Glade/Riverside Roseville PFLC Georges P. Vanier PFLC

Central John Campbell PFLC Begley PFLC

West Taylor PFLC

Licensed Child Care Programs As of February 2014, there are 133 licensed child care programs in Windsor and Essex County – 65 in Windsor and a further 68 in the County. These programs are spread across the neighbourhoods and communities (see the maps below for further details).

16

17

Community and Recreation Centres Community and recreation centres in Windsor-Essex County offer courses, lessons, facilities, camps, etc. There are 18 centres in Windsor and 22 in Essex County. The following map shows the distribution of the 40 community and recreation centres by Best Start neighbourhoods.

Elementary Schools Four different school boards operate in Windsor-Essex County: Greater Essex County District School Board, Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board, Conseil Scolaire Viamonde, and Conseil Scolaire Catholique Providence. There are 69 schools located in Windsor and 73 located in Essex County. See Attachment D for a complete listing of the schools and their locations by both Best Start and natural neighbourhoods. Libraries There are 24 libraries located across Windsor-Essex. The Windsor Public Library has ten branches located in the city and the Essex County Library has 14 branches spread throughout the county. See the maps below for the locations of library branches in Windsor-Essex, mapped by both natural neighbourhoods and Best Start neighbourhoods.

18

19

What is provincial policy telling us? The Provincial government released the Ontario Early Years Policy Framework in January of 2013. This policy document outlines the provincial government’s strategic direction for the early years. Of note in this document: Continued implementation of Full Day Kindergarten, with full

implementation of the initiative in September 2014 Create an effective approach to implementing Best Start Child and

Family Centres by September 2014 Improve the delivery of speech and language services Stabilize and transform the child care system

In April of 2014, the Provincial government released How Does Learning Happen? Ontario’s Pedagogy for the Early Years. This document is an optional professional learning resource “designed to provoke deeper thinking about the delivery of high-quality programs and services for children and families in early years settings across Ontario.”

In April, the Provincial government also announced a new strategy for special needs services, “Putting it All Together: A Strategy for Special Needs Services that Make Sense for Families.” This is a four Ministry strategy (Ministries of Children and Youth Services, Community and Social Services, Education, and Health and Long-Term Care) designed to improve services for children and youth with special needs and their families. This strategy identifies a vision,

“An Ontario where children and youth with special needs get the timely and effective services they need to participate fully at home, at school, in the community, and as they prepare to

achieve their goals for adulthood.”

It also identifies three key areas where improvements will be made. These include: Putting in place a new, voluntary standard developmental screen Establishing coordinated service planning processes for children with multiple and/or

complex special needs in communities Implementing integrated delivery of children’s rehabilitation services

20

What did we hear from stakeholders? As noted in the introduction to this plan, as part of the planning process, a number of stakeholder groups were consulted, including parents/caregivers and service providers. This section of the report details what we heard from the different stakeholder groups about the current system of services available to children prenatal to 12 years of age in Windsor-Essex County. Service Providers An online survey was distributed to organizations that provide services to children prenatal to 12 years of age. In total, 91 surveys were completed by individuals representing 30 organizations. The following outlines the key results from the completed online surveys. Top Barriers to Children and Families Accessing Services Service providers were asked to identify the top three barriers to children prenatal to 12 years of age and their families accessing the services they need and want in Windsor/Essex County. The top barriers were identified as being:

1. Lack of knowledge of available programs and services 2. Transportation/location of programs and services 3. Waiting lists for existing programs and services (for example: special needs

resourcing, speech and language services and assessment and interventions) 4. Language/cultural barriers

What does this mean? Potential areas of focus for future work include: Determining how families like to find out about programs and services and making

information about existing programs and services easier to find for families Looking at the current location of programs and services and determining if they are in

the right locations for children and families, other locations where programs and services should be located, transportation options

Identifying those programs and services with current waiting lists to determine a true picture of demand and funding/other service options required to meet the demand

Exploring options to ensure services are provided that meet the language and cultural needs of children and families

Most Urgent Gaps in Programs and Services for Children and Families Service providers were asked to identify the top three most urgent gaps in programs and services for children and families in Windsor/Essex County. When analyzing the responses to the question, five gaps were consistently mentioned. These include:

1. Services for children with special needs 2. Coordination of services, including transition points 3. Mental health services 4. Lack of space in programs 5. Services that support language/cultural needs

21

The following table outlines the specific areas which require focus in each of these gaps.

Gaps Specific Areas of Focus

Services for Children with Special Needs

Funding for Special Services at Home (six year wait with no end in sight)

Services for children with developmental delays Funding for nursing services for children with complex needs

attending child care settings Full time resource teachers on site in daycare to effectively

and quickly assist with a child in regards to inclusion/full funding for program support to include high needs children

Autism services (length of time for diagnosis and services) Behavioural support services to children in the primary grades

of school Variety of approaches/programs available to parents for

children with autism (currently only IBI/ABA available) Wrap around services for children/youth with developmental

disabilities or autism Appropriate school and intervention programs for children with

significant needs related to autism Adequate transitional and ongoing supports for children with

special needs in JK/SK (public board)

Coordination of Services, including Transition Points

Lack of central information point and coordination of services (centralized intake, one number to call, overlap in agencies)

Seamless transitions between services Information hub/central access for all services Ensuring that services for infants and preschoolers are well

integrated and stay that way Transition from preschool services to school age services

(most services stop at 6 years old) Lapse/gap of intervention in transfer of services when a child

leaves one agency and needs to go to another Current inaccessibility for Children First to Partner with the

school boards to enter the school to assist with smooth transition into JK

System navigators to assist families to coordinate services provided by multiple agencies

Collaborating with the school staff on the children we share before and after school and on P.D. days, etc.

Type and amount of services provided by different agencies Transition in to services - Unaware of services available Community collaboration to join resources to adequately

screen young toddlers prior to JK entry Coordination amongst service provides that facilitates

planning, intervention, etc. This is especially true with Child Welfare and next step services when leaving the 0-6 population and integrating into the 6-18 services

Communication and awareness between service providers (e.g., medical, child care, OEYs, community providers)

22

Gaps Specific Areas of Focus

Failure of multiple agencies to collaborate in an effective/timely manner

Mental Health Services Flow of services that accompanies holistic intervention aimed at helping adults, families and children - services are segmented into child/youth services or adult mental health services

Children with mental health concerns Lack of services for those older than 6 six years (such as

mental health services) Access to supports for children with challenges in behaviour

and mental health We need to provide specialized and targeted Infant Mental

Health services in a more timely way Availability of mental health supports in a timely manner Specialized mental health services

Lack of Space in Programs

Limited space Lack of space to accommodate client's need Lack of space to accommodate the children and their parents

in the English classes and child care Not enough space for developing the programs according to

the needs of newcomers Waiting lists for certain services too long---no assistance to fill

gap while waiting (for example: JMCC Augmentative Clinic) Wait times and restricted hours Reduction of waiting lists/reducing any duplication and child

care Extensive waitlist for Special Services at Home program to

provide much needed respite for families

Services that Support Language/Cultural Needs

Cultural backgrounds Cultural shock and adaptation issues Literacy skills Lack of cultural and diversity awareness importance of the

early years Early literacy (e.g., baby signs) Lack of services provided in different languages Information provided in more languages and professionals in

various services speaking them Style of parenting- culture Language services Lack of funding for translation and interpretation

23

What does this mean? Potential areas of focus for future work include: Reviewing the capacity and demand for special needs resourcing supports and services Developing a model of integrated services for children and families Identifying key transition points for children and determining ways to make the transitions

more seamless for families Reviewing the capacity and demand for mental health services for children prenatal to 12

years of age Identifying those programs and services with current waiting lists to determine a true picture

of demand and funding/other service options required to meet the demand Exploring options to ensure services are provided that meet the language and cultural needs

of children and families

Unique Characteristics that Require Closer Attention Service providers were asked what some of the unique characteristics are of children and families in Windsor-Essex County that require closer attention in the planning process. Some of the key characteristics mentioned include:

Very diverse, multicultural community with a large number of newcomer families

French language population

Many services are Windsor-based. Need to be aware of needs in the towns and rural parts of the county

Transportation barriers for people living in the county

Rising population of children with autism

More children with medical complexities are surviving to adolescence

Poverty, levels of low-income The words provided by service providers were used to create a word cloud, with those words being mentioned more often noted in larger font.

24

What does this mean? When planning for an integrated system of child and family services in Windsor/ Essex County, the unique characteristics of the community need to be kept in mind. These include: Newcomers and different cultural communities, including those who speak French The mix of urban and rural populations New service needs – rising number of children with autism and children with complex

medical needs Areas of poverty, low income

Integrated System of Child and Family Services in Windsor-Essex County Service providers were asked what an integrated system of child and family services should look like in Windsor-Essex County. The responses to this question were placed into themes and the most commonly mentioned themes include: Have an easily recognizable location in each community, hubs Provide a seamless service experience for families Have a centralized intake system, one number to call Provide a continuum of services Service providers who know what services are available and how to access them The following table details the commonly mentioned themes (as noted above) and provides further comments from service providers to help explain what the concept means or would look like in practice.

Integrated System of Child and Family Services

What the Concept Means/Would Look Like in Practice

Easily Recognizable Location in each Community

One stop shopping – an easy access location where parents can get many things done at one time

Centrally located and accessible to families Offering services as locally as possible is important Services available in each community Easily accessible in multiple formats (online,

telephone, in person) A community based, visible, and accessible entry

point that families can call into or visit in order to access services and/or gather further information about the range of services available

Seamless Service Experience for Families

Develop a service response designed to assist families meet their gaols

No duplication – everyone has a clear role and function

Clear pathways for referrals Merge programs that are similar Families enter one door to access whichever

program best suits their needs A conscious effort will be made to ensure no two

agencies are providing the same services to avoid

25

Integrated System of Child and Family Services

What the Concept Means/Would Look Like in Practice

confusion. Where it makes sense, these agencies with similar services will amalgamate

Seamless information sharing and seamless referrals. Quick transfers between agencies, when needed

One agency offering services to everyone. Teams could be focussed on age experiences/expertise (e.g., birth to 6, 6-12, adolescent and adult). Members of different teams working with one family would focus on coordinating services and goals (as well as prioritizing services in order not to overwhelm the family)

There needs to be an easy flow between agencies

Centralized Intake System One number to call or one website to contact to see what and where they can go

Single door through OEYCs or PFLCs Central number and centralized intake for families to

access information and start the process for additional supports/services

A method of sharing information will be coordinated to avoid families telling their stories repeatedly

Central access for all families as a linkage to resources in the community

One phone call to make to have access to many services

Continuum of Services Open to everyone, not just families in crisis or low income

From universal to more targeted and intensive services

Core supports and services available at the local Child and Family Centre and then families could be connected to more specialized services

Home based component

“Plugged In” Service Providers Need for a strong team of professionals who can sort things out right at the intake level

Every service available to families should have knowledgeable workers who can get them the services they want and/or need.

The responses to the online survey align with the newly developed vision for an integrated system of child and family services in Windsor-Essex County. This vision states:

Windsor-Essex County is a community that welcomes all children, youth and their families to a system of family-centred opportunities

with multiple entry points, supporting healthy outcomes.

26

What does this mean? The components of an integrated system of services for children and families, as outlined by the respondents of the online survey, need to be further defined and compared to the responses from families. When building this new system, it should include these components: Have an easily recognizable location in each community, hubs Provide a seamless service experience for families Have a centralized intake system, one number to call Provide a continuum of services Service providers who know what services are available and how to access them

Biggest Risks to Transitioning to an Integrated System of Child and Family Services in Windsor-Essex County After identifying what an integrated system of child and family services would look like in Windsor-Essex County, service providers were asked to identify the biggest risks to transitioning to an integrated system. The commonly mentioned themes include: Not all organizations are on board with/buy into this change Potential to lose valuable, existing programs/what’s working well in the system Loss of a more personalized approach to serving children and families, lose sight of serving

the family Ineffective planning process Loss of staff, staffing issues The following table details the commonly mentioned themes (as noted above) and provides further comments from respondents to the online survey.

Risks Comments

Lack of Buy In I think some people are worried about losing their jobs. This may make morale low

Sometimes service providers can be territorial and don't want to lose some of their roles

That some agencies/services continue to work in isolation...don't buy in to integrating, or don't come to the table ready to embrace change

The lack of buy-in from integral community partners providing services to children ages prenatal to 12 years and their families. It can't be an integrated system with missing links

27

Risks Comments

Loss of What’s Working Well

To not up heave the things that are working well for families

Some programs will be lost Risk that larger organizations may be looked at to provide

a wide menu of services that may not include their area of expertise simply due to funding considerations. Bigger is not always better!

If all services were located in one agency I would be concerned that the focus would become ages 6-12yrs and the early intervention and prevention would be lost and create a larger population in need of services, creating larger waitlists and a decrease in the quality of services offered

I am also very concerned about services from birth to 6 simply being added to agencies generally helping older children and families. There are different skill sets and ways of working that are necessary for different age ranges (as noted above) and those areas of expertise should be emphasized and respected

The slogan "what about the baby?" comes to mind. These are our most vulnerable of the population yet the least recognized in terms of clinical needs. On other hand, older children tend to be more "noticed" in their impact on the community and so it is easy for funding to get shifted to areas in which there is greatest "noise" about needs (politically and at experiential level by broad community systems)

That age groups will be missed eg. that 0 to 6 children may not have the same level of services as they currently have (and certainly we need more) -the same level of services need to be kept in place in terms of developmental and mental health services that are currently being provided

28

Risks Comments

Loss of Family-Centred Approach

We want families to be treated with the utmost respect, we want them to feel that their time with us has been a very valuable use of our time and we don't ever want them to feel that they are being judged. Families being moved through a "production" line

Some families that are already frustrated will be lost in the shuffle... they will not know where to go for what they need

I think people can easily be uncomfortable if the wrong people are handling their needs. If people are not understanding and compassionate to needs of families how can families feel safe, valued, and helped

Risk that the child's needs will not be considered in the context of the family and community and that the focus on service development/creating the right services may minimize the value of forming trusting relationships with children and families

Would not be a personalized service. Would look more like a medical model rather than family centered

Families/children falling through the cracks due to limited resources, late identification and schools not prepared to handle children unidentified coming in

Ineffective Planning Process

Insufficient transition planning that fails to identify and plan for all the major risks

Programs and services that will be affected are not aware of the planning process currently being undertaken and do not have the opportunity to participate

Larger agencies with gov’t funding leading the organization i.e. school board, CAS etc. - a few representing the many. Equal voice from all partners. The risk is that you will create something that has been done before by ELF; early years; best start etc. Please do not become just another attempt to put these agencies together. Cannot allow government to lead this - the community has to lead this initiative

Staff Issues One of the biggest risks is the possibility of agencies combining and some people losing their positions. But it makes sense to combine intake, data management, IT, and other common areas. We have way too many agencies that overlap. There should be appropriate severance packages for those people who may be affected. I think that the benefits far outweigh the risks

As we move to integration it may mean the dismantling of the 'familiar' and perhaps a loss of agencies/staff

I think some people are worried about losing their jobs. This may make morale low

Loss of staff from community agencies due to an increased level of stress and change during the transition period that results in the loss of key expertise

29

Children and Families

Smoother paths

Programs and services based on their needs

Children develop fully

Better outcomes for children and families

Shorter wait times

Seamless services for families

Happy families

Easy access to services

Service Providers

Enhanced training opportunities

Better opportunities to interact and build on each others'

strengths

Better serve the community

Shared responsibility in working together for the betterment of

children and families

Work jointly with agencies that serve similar ages and needs

Communities

Better use of resources

Enhanced community wide planning

Reduced duplication of services/Less gaps in service

Increased quality of life

A much clearer and collaborative approach to

service delivery

What does this mean? The Children and Youth Planning Committee will need to discuss and design a process to decrease the level of the risks identified. As this is a large change, a change management process should be utilized in helping to manage the planning for and implementation of this new system.

Opportunities in Transitioning to an Integrated System of Child and Family Services in Windsor-Essex County Service providers were also asked to identify the opportunities to transitioning to an integrated system. The responses to this question were grouped into three categories of opportunities – those for children and families, those for service providers and those for the community. The visual below depicts the opportunities service providers see in transitioning to an integrated system of child and family services.

30

Of note is the fact that two respondents to the online survey stated that they don’t know what the opportunities to transitioning to an integrated system of child and family services are. This points to the need for increased communication and dialogue about what an integrated system might look like and the potential benefits and value of moving to this type of system of services.

What does this mean? The community plan should continue to build on and leverage the opportunities that moving to an integrated system provides. These opportunities need to be communicated clearly and often.

First Steps to Take to Provide a Seamless Service Experience to Children and Families Service providers were asked to identify what first steps the community can take to provide a more seamless service experience to children and families. The commonly mentioned themes include: Ensure that the key players are at the table and engaged in the process. Have agencies

declare their commitment to the process Map current services, generate service pathways and identify entry points into the system Develop one phone number, central intake, information point and access into the system of

services Communicate the planning process clearly and continually, keep talking, host events Identify priorities, goals and evaluate progress Explore current “hub” models in the community and build on them

What does this mean? The Children and Youth Planning Committee should develop an action plan to continue to move its work forward. Smaller working groups should be established to explore some of the first steps noted above. For example: entry points and access, integrated service (hubs) After reviewing the service provider survey results, the Children and Youth Planning Committee noted the following key areas for action:

Transportation/access to programs and services

Mental health services

Central access

Resources/capacity in the service system

Knowledge/education (both parents and service providers)

Language

Parents/Caregivers An online survey was completed by parents/caregivers with children prenatal to 12 years of age. Three specific populations (Original people, newcomers and Francophone parents/caregivers) were also approached in phase two of the planning process.

31

A large number of parents responded to the online survey, with 6.2% of the surveys being completed by Francophone parents (see the table below). A further 6.3% of families responding to the survey immigrated to Canada in the last five years.

In terms of who completed the survey and where they lived, there was good geographic representation of families across Windsor and Essex County (see the table below for further details).

Postal Code % of Survey Responses

English French

N8N 5.5% 11.8%

N8P 2.0% 2.0%

N8R 1.9% 4.0%

N8S 4.7% 5.9%

N8T 2.7% 4.0%

N8V 0.0% 0.0%

N8W 6.6% 0.0%

N8X 4.2% 4.0%

N8Y 3.8% 2.0%

N9A 4.3% 7.8%

N9B 4.2% 0.0%

N9C 0.09% 2.0%

N9E 6.4% 5.9%

N9G 6.0% 4.0%

N9H 1.2% 2.0%

N9J 5.4% 2.0%

N9K 0.03% 0.0%

County

N8H (Leamington) 6.8% 2.0%

N8M (Essex) 4.6% 2.0%

N9V (Amherstburg) 6.3% 4.0%

N9Y (Kingsville) 7.5% 0.0%

N0P (Kent – Blenheim)

0.08% 2.0%

N0R (Essex – Belle River – Lakeshore)

13.8% 27.5%

32

Language for Provision of Services The majority of families responding to the survey would like to receive services for their children in English. Other languages mentioned include: Both English and French (6), Arabic (4), Hindu, Chinese, Mandarin, Cantonese and German. Natural Entry Points to the System of Services Parents/caregivers were asked where they go to get information about services for their children and/or family. The first four places that families go to access information about services for their children or family are:

1. Family/friends 2. Internet/website 3. School 4. Doctor/health care provider

These entry points are either universal or agency/organization-based. Services Used Parents/caregivers were provided with a list of services and asked to identify all of the services they currently use for their children prenatal to 12 years of age. The most commonly used services for both English and French language parents/caregivers are: schools, physical activity/recreation programs, libraries, and child care centres (see the table below).

In terms of specialized services, speech and language is the most commonly used service, followed by occupational therapy (see table below for further details).

33

Location of Services Used Parents/caregivers were asked where the services they currently use are located. The majority of families responding to the survey access services located either in their neighbourhood or at a central location in their city/town. Other locations where families are accessing services include: neighbouring city or town (41), school (14), outside of the area – U.S., London, etc. (8) and throughout the city and county (7).

Things Families like about Services they Use Parents/caregivers were asked to identify what the like about the services they use for their children. Most parents/caregivers identified two or more things they liked about the services they use for their children. In some cases, respondents only identified the program or service they liked, in others they identified both the program or service they liked plus what they liked about it, and others only identified what they liked without referencing any particular program or service. The three main things parents/caregivers liked about the services they use are:

1. Benefit to Family and/or Child (42%) 2. Program Quality and Service (33%) 3. Program Accessibility (25%)

1. In terms of the benefit to the family and/or child, parents/caregivers identified a number of

benefits, including:

Benefit Description

Socialization and Interaction

Socialization and interaction benefits for the child as well as the adults. Mentions were made of enjoying watching children play together, having the opportunity to interact with their child in a different setting, getting out of the house, and interacting with other parents

Educational and Developmental

Parents identified that their children were getting ready for school, learning specific skills, learning something new, and practicing English. Some parents noted that they were learning along with their children and liked learning in the parenting classes

Support for Parent Some of the responses provided by parents include “getting a night’s sleep”, emotional support, address our worries, peer support from parents who have troubled children, “takes a village to raise a child”, “offer encouragement and affirmation”, “help me plan and prepare”, “get helpful advice and support on issues in

34

Benefit Description

our household”

Child Enjoys It In some cases, parents referenced that their children enjoy or have fun at specific programs and services while in others they noted generally that their child(ren) have fun, enjoy themselves, like it, are engaged and interested, are “simply being a kid”, that staff make their child feel “happy, comfortable, and confident”

Source of Information The program or service provider acts as an information broker about other services, programs and resources available in the community

2. In terms of the program quality and services, parents/caregivers mentioned:

Staff Staff are wonderful, professional, knowledgeable, friendly, warm, accepting, supportive, willing to listen, and welcoming

Programming Parents feel that programs are of good quality and well run. Appreciation for the wide variety of programs and services available both across the County and within programs. Parents like the variety of toys, that some services provide healthy snacks and help children be active. There were some references to enjoying outdoor activities along with some identification of the need for more of this

Safe Safe and secure, safe and reliable, safe and warm, trust

Facility Clean, bright, welcoming and comfortable

Philosophy and Approach

Foundational concepts such as nature-based, respect for self and others, child or family focused, and evidence-based

3. In terms of program accessibility, parents/caregivers identified the following aspects that they like:

Location Most identified that they liked that the services or programs were in their neighbourhood; some liked that services were co-located, often in a school

Cost Parents said they liked that the programs were affordable, free, or low cost. With regards to the affordability of special needs services, some parents identified that they needed to turn to private service providers. These parents acknowledged that although they could afford these services, others would not be able to. They saw this as a gap in the system

Convenient and Accessible

Convenience and accessibility, and ease of registration and finding information

Hours Excellent or appropriate hours, able to schedule children of different ages into programs concurrently, having day and evening hours, some special need providers come to the parent’s homes at the time that best suits them, flexible hours, accommodate work hours. Some of this flexibility is associated with the service provision being home care or special needs support

Language and Culture

Liked that the programs were bilingual

35

Challenges to Accessing Services Parents/caregivers were asked what the challenges are to getting services for their children. For the most part, families responding to the survey feel that there are no challenges to accessing services for their children prenatal to 12 years of age (46.7% English survey, 66% French survey). Of those noting challenges, the most commonly reported challenges are:

Waiting list for service Government funding is not enough Hours do not meet my needs Can’t afford the service Can’t find a service near me/need to get service from multiple locations

How to Make Access to Programs and Services Easier Parents/caregivers had several suggestions about how to make it easier for parents to get programs and services for their children prenatal to 12 years of age. The suggestions provided were grouped into three main themes:

1. System Related (55%) 2. Program Availability and Affordability (36%) 3. Location (21%)

The following table provides more detail about each of these theme areas.

System Related Provide information about services and programs More access to health care and special needs supports and

services Service integration More supportive

Program Availability and Affordability

More programs (6 to 12, after school, preschool, assessment, educational, literacy, tutoring, multi-age or family programs)

Extend or expand hours and days of service (afternoon, evening or weekend)

More affordable (keep costs low, free or affordable for all income levels)

More child care (more options, availability, affordability) More physical facilities for programs

Location Service hubs (many services in one location – many identified the school as the service hub)

More services in county (Leamington, Amherstburg and Kingsville were mentioned)

Decentralized locations (have different locations for services – in neighbourhoods or community-based)

Help with transportation (need to be able to use public transit to get to programs, help with bus fares)

Location of Choice for Families When asked, “ If you could go to one location where there would be a number of different programs and services available for your children prenatal to 12 years of age, what location would you choose?” The top two preferred locations identified by parents/caregivers were:

A school in my neighbourhood (29.7%) A community centre (26.0%)

36

Additional Programs and Services When asked what programs and services they would like to see that aren’t available in Windsor-Essex County, parents/caregivers named five main program areas:

1. Fitness, Nutrition and Recreation (18%) 2. Special Needs (11%) 3. Enhanced Programming within Existing Services (9%) 4. School Age Programs (8%) 5. Arts, Crafts, Music (8%)

The table below provides further details on the responses provided in each of these program areas.

Additional Programs/Services

Description

Fitness, Nutrition and Recreation

The need for specific programs was frequently mentioned – these include gymnastics, sports, children’s fitness, nutrition, swimming, wrestling, dance – many of the references included the specification that the programs needed to be affordable

A number of responses mentioned the need for facilities such as more swimming pools or water parks, facilities in the County, fitness centres and indoor play centres

There were a few mentions of the need for more recreation, sport or fitness activities in the winter, summer or ones that run 7 days a week

Special Needs Increased access to and resources for a range of services and programs including recreation, treatment/therapy and specialized programming for a variety of special needs

Specific special needs mentioned include: autism, speech and language, learning disability including dyslexia, ADHD/ODD/ADD and obesity

There were a few mentions of having supports and services available in schools or day cares, including having special needs resource staff available, and having more parent support such as respite and support groups

37

Additional Programs/Services

Description

Enhanced Programming within Existing Services

Most of the responses related to the need for longer hours, weekend hours or summer programming

Parents would like to see more variety within specific programs as well as more activities at community centres

School Age Programs Having OEY-like programs or PFLC for children ages 6 to 12, free programs, and after school programs including tutoring were mentioned most often

A few parents identified a need for school age programs in Amherstburg and South Windsor

Other wishes included specific programming such as social skills, summer school, age inclusive, and an indoor play yard or gym

Arts, Crafts, Music Desire to see more arts programs, including general arts and crafts, free or affordable, arts and crafts targeted at preschoolers, and one suggestion for Art in the Park

Less frequent were requests for a range of music programs including preschool music, music classes, and affordable music programs

Improvements When asked, “What improvements could be made to make Windsor-Essex County the best place for children prenatal to 12 years of age to live, learn, play and grow?” parents/caregivers identified the following three major items:

1. Programs and Facilities (48%) 2. Accessibility (35%) 3. System Related (19%)

The following items were specifically mentioned:

Parks, Playgrounds and Facilities

Having more parks and playgrounds as well as making sure that these are clean, safe, and updated

There were a number of mentions for child-focused playground and activity type places similar to Storybook Gardens in London, a children’s museum, and indoor play areas

There were a number of mentions of the need for more multi-use, recreational centres or community centres where children and families could get together. A wish for more indoor pools and splash pads was mentioned frequently as well

Specific to the OEYC’s, there were a number of mentions of the need for larger spaces, outdoor areas and better parking, specifically at Talbot Trail

More Programs and Activities

Need for more programs without specifying a particular age group or target population. Many responses also referenced needing more programs without specifying type. There were a number of mentions for more school age programs, and a

38

smaller number stating the need for more programs for 0 to 6 year olds

Specific programs and activities that were mentioned most often include ones geared towards health and fitness; learning and cultural; outdoor activities; after school programs; and arts and music

There were a few mentions of the need to increase programming at Community Centres and OEY centres, including extending the OEY approach to older children. There were a few references for the need to reduce waitlists

Longer Hours Programs offered in the evening and weekends, extending into the summer or running full year, operating on PA days and holidays, being offered at a variety of times at a variety of locations, and having more flexible hours

Specific programs mentioned in regards to this include the OEYC, play groups, drop in programs, child care, community centre activities, and library programs

Advertising and Awareness

Generally, parents indicated the need for more advertising and awareness of programs

Possible avenues include centralized locations for information like websites and one place to call

Information sharers include hospitals, doctors, schools and email updates

Affordable Programs Parents stated the need for affordable, cheap or free programs. Some indicated that free or cheap programs should be for low income, others indicated that the low cost should apply to middle income as well, and others said it should be inclusive of all income levels

Sports and recreation/fitness programs were mentioned most often as programs that should be free or cheap

Also mentioned were community centre activities, entrance to parks and music programs

County Based Many of the responses indicated a general need for increased programming

The need to travel to Windsor is identified as a barrier by a few parents

Program and Facility Locations

Most parents wanted programs and services to be offered in multiple locations for ease of access

Support for Special Needs

Parents most often expressed a wish for no waitlists. Tied to this, some parents identified the need for more funding for specific programs (vision and home based services) and special needs resourcing, ability to access a range of therapies and overall improvement in the quality and availability of the programs

They also expressed a wish for a range of additional services and activities including physical activity/recreation/ extracurricular activities for children with special needs and parent learning and support programs

There were some suggestions related to the need to streamline or integrate service delivery in order to make it

39

easier for parents to know where to go and to access different services

More Health Related Services

More specialists or pediatricians were mentioned most often, followed by more mental health services

The need for more doctors, and health services in general was also mentioned, as was a suggestion for a birthing centre and a request for hearing and vision testing done automatically before starting school

Summary of Parent Survey Responses Overall, many of the parents who responded to the survey are satisfied with the programs and services they access as well as with the availability of the services they need or would like. Half of all survey respondents identified specific things they liked about the services the use. Of the 85 parents who provided additional comments, half expressed satisfaction, thanks or appreciation. Of those parents/caregivers who identified reasons that they liked the services they used, almost half said that they and their children experience benefits from the programs and services such as receiving parenting support, education and learning skills, and most often, opportunities for socialization. One third appreciates the program quality, particularly with regards to staff and the range and variety of programming. Staff who are educated and welcoming are important to parents/caregivers. There is room for growth in the area of special needs services and programming. Concerns include some dissatisfaction with special needs services and programming, particularly getting support within schools, being on a wait list, or being unable to access the programs due to rules or policies. Parents/caregivers would like to have more of the following services: Parks, playgrounds and facilities More and broader programming - specific programs most often cited were fitness, health,

recreation, arts, crafts and music, family-oriented, outdoor/nature-based, learning and cultural and after school programs

More access to health care and special needs supports and services such as more doctors, specialists, special needs programs, mental health supports, a reduction in wait lists for special needs services and more activities for children with special needs and their families

More child care options and more availability, including the option of casual or babysitting care

Parents would like to receive supportive services including parent education, support groups, and being received in a supportive manner

Some of the most important facilitators to accessing services are: Availability of information about programs and services such as the need for more

advertising or marketing and the need for a centralized directory such as an on-line directory, one number to call, and/or hard copy booklet

Location is important – having programs in their neighbourhood or co-located Affordability – low cost and affordable programs are important to parents

40

Hours that accommodate working parents, weekend and evening hours facilitate program access

Receiving services that respect and accommodate ethno cultural/diversity Service integration and information sharing between service providers would help parents

access programs and services

What does this mean? After reviewing the parent/caregiver survey results, the Children and Youth Planning Committee noted the following key findings:

Natural entry points are important to consider

Creation of neighbourhood hubs for services accessibility and transition points (school/community centre)

Multi points of access – have tools and education to access services and programs

More hubs – can be more responsible to the needs of the families in those communities

Identified program needs are: parks and playgrounds, broader programming, health services/physical and mental, more child care options – formal and informal, parent education, nutrition programs

Need to provide flexible hours of service

Keep costs affordable or low

Develop a resource of community services due to lack of knowledge

Accessibility needs to include various languages

Need growth in special needs services and programs (school support, waitlists, barriers – rules and policies)

Lack of transportation

May need more County programs and services

Prevention, education, early intervention in a family centred context

Expand services - put services where the population is

50% of parents that answered survey have problems accessing services – project this trend will continue

Parent/Caregiver Outreach and Engagement Project The Windsor-Essex Children and Youth Planning Committee (CYPC) received $25,000 in funding from the Ministry of Children and Youth Services’ 2013/2014 Community Action Research - Innovation Fund. This funding was provided so that the CYPC could apply a participatory action research approach to identify how to better connect with and support children and their families from the Original People1, Francophone and newcomer communities. Four outcomes were identifed for this project. They include: Increased understanding of the needs of Original People, Francophone and newcomer

families More service providers are aware of how to support Original People, Francophone and

newcomer families More Original People, Francophone and newcomer families are involved in planning for an

integrated system of services in Windsor-Essex County

1 Original People include First Nations, Metis and Inuit

41

Increased awareness of available programs and services and how to access them on the part of Original People, Francophone and newcomer families

A participatory action research approach was employed in this project, including the following (see the table below for further details): Five focus groups with parents/caregivers to identify how they would like to be part of the

planning process and to gather information about how they would like to be made aware of and access programs and services and how existing programs and services can support them better (three focus groups with Original People parents/caregivers and two focus groups with newcomer parents/caregivers). A total of 55 parents/caregivers participated in the focus groups

A written survey provided in both English and French to Francophone parents/caregivers to identify how they would like to be part of the planning process and to gather information about how they would like to be made aware of and access programs and services. A total of 41 surveys were completed2

Three online surveys were designed and conducted with organizations who provide services to Original People, Francophone and newcomer children and their families. A total of 14 service providers responded to the online surveys

Stakeholder Groups Method of Inquiry Participation

Parents/Caregivers

Original People Parents/Caregivers

Three focus groups Ska:Na – 11 participants Ska:Na – 7 participants Ska:Na – 14 participants Total = 32 participants

Newcomer Parents/Caregivers

Two focus groups MCC – 13 participants YMCA – 10 participants Total = 23 participants

Francophone Parents/ Caregivers

Survey distributed through Franco Sol and Place Concorde

41 surveys completed

TOTAL: 96 parents/caregivers participated

Service Providers

Service Providers – Original People Population

Online survey Distributed to 40 individuals 7 responses (17.5%)

Service Providers – Newcomer Population

Online survey Distributed to 13 organizations

4 responses (30.8%)

Service Providers – Francophone Population

Online survey Distributed to 11 organizations

4 responses (36.4%)

TOTAL: 15 service providers participated

Key findings from the parents/caregivers consulted as part of this project include:

2 Note: The project originally planned to hold focus groups with Francophone parents/caregivers, but were unable to

engage the population in this way

42

Population Key Findings

Original People Parents/Caregivers

Original People parents/caregivers use a wide range of programs for their children

Original People parents/caregivers find out about programs and services for their children from people they know, the internet, and from service providers at community and government agencies. They like to find out about programs and services from people/agencies they trust

Original People parents/caregivers prefer to go to a First Nations-based service

Things that can be done to make it easier to access services are: o Provide staff at agencies with sensitivity training re:

culture, language and the way you relate to someone from another culture so that there is a more welcoming presence

o Have First Nations staff at First Nations agencies and more First Nations workers at other agencies (like Children’s Aid Society

o Have agencies communicate/share information with each other

o Provide food at events and activities o Offer all services in one building (hub) o Expand the hours of service beyond 5:00 pm o Provide details when making a referral (for example:

hours, location, services/programs offered) and not just the name of the agency

The individuals that participated in the focus groups would be willing to come together at another time to help plan and share information regarding children’s services

Newcomer Parents/Caregivers

The range of programs that newcomer parents/caregivers have used for their children is limited

Newcomer parents/caregivers find out about services for their children from the people they know, the internet and organizations with which they are involved. They tend to only know of the programs that their network is aware of

The largest barrier to accessing existing services noted by participants in the focus groups was transportation

Things that can be done to make it easier to access services are:

o Offer programs and services closer to their house o Provide transportation – most take the bus o Offer free programs o Expand the hours of service (more services after school –

from 3 to 6 pm, Saturday and Sunday programming, evenings, Christmas break and other holidays)

o Provide someplace, not expensive, where they can take their children for indoor activities (especially in the winter. It is very isolating for them)

The majority of newcomer parents/caregivers would like to receive communication about available programs and services in

43

Population Key Findings

writing. They would like it in writing as English is not their first language and they may need some time to ensure they understand the information correctly

All of the participants in both focus groups were very enthusiastic about continuing to share their ideas about programs and services for their children on an ongoing basis. They stated that the best way to gather information from them was to continue to have small focus group sessions at their locations (face-to-face sessions not an email or survey)

Francophone Parents/Caregivers

The best way to communicate with Francophone parents/ caregivers is by sending home a flyer through their child’s school or child care centre

The majority of parents/caregivers who responded to the survey are interested in sharing their ideas about ways to improve programs and services for children in Windsor/Essex on an ongoing basis. They would like to share their ideas via surveys/feedback forms

Key findings from the service providers consulted as part of this project include:

Service Providers Key Findings

Original People Service Providers

Barriers to accessing services are: transportation, poverty-related issues, requirements of the service, lack of awareness of programs and services and program restrictions

Service providers need resources such as space, staff, funding and snacks to better provide services to children and families

Original People service providers communicate with and provide information to their clients mainly through the use of personal/human contact (in-person conversations, phone call/ message)

The best way to communicate with Original People is through in-person conversations

The area of unmet need most frequently mentioned by service providers was that of transportation

Newcomer Service Providers

Barriers to accessing services are: no room in programs, family's problems or health issues, no transportation, cultural differences (wife needs to stay home with children), lack of awareness of programs, newcomers avoiding programs because they are uncomfortable with language barriers

Service providers need secure funding and support in referring newcomers to their programs

Newcomer service providers communicate with and provide information to their clients mainly through information sessions. Email is not used frequently as a communication tool

Areas of unmet need for newcomers include: not enough space in classes, families are not informed and cannot access information about health and social matters, information brochures are too difficult to read, and there are too many programs that require self-identification in accessing services

Francophone Service Barriers to accessing services are: there are few standardized tests

44

Service Providers Key Findings Providers to assess Francophone children's speech and language skill, and

lack of awareness of programs Service providers need resources such as staff and funding to better

provide services to children and families The preferred way to communicate/share information with

Francophone clients is by voice. All Francophone service providers communicate with their clients via phone and through in-person conversations

Areas of unmet need for Francophone families include: Francophone families are spread throughout Windsor and Essex County, so it isn't possible to have dedicated Francophone OEYC services in all neighbourhoods, so families either have to travel or settle for an English alternative

See Attachment E for a copy of the final report from this project.

What are our priorities for the next three years? Based on the information collected for this plan, two priorities have been identified to work on over the course of this three year Community Plan. These priorities are large in scope and the work to be done will be further defined through the development of annual action plans by the Children and Youth Planning Committee.

The top two identified priorities for action are:

The priority area of action in 2014 will be to explore the use of hubs and, part of this exploration will include how hubs can be used to address issues regarding access to services.

Access to Service

Hubs/System Coordination

Accessibility to comprehensive services for

families (location, range of services, when

services are provided)

Waitlists – too long

County services

Language

Transportation

Importance of variability of cultures,

population, economics and geography

Importance of wraparound services/supports

for parents and their children

Hubs /coordinated service centres

Creativity, innovation of services

45

Attachments

Terms of Reference

Windsor Essex Population (0-19 years) Maps by Natural Neighbourhoods

EDI Result Maps by Best Start Neighbourhoods

Windsor Essex Schools by Best Start and Natural Neighbourhoods

Innovation Fund Report

Windsor-Essex County Children and Youth Planning Committee

Terms of Reference

The Windsor-Essex County Children and Youth Planning Committee is working to build an effective integrated system of services that supports children and youth ages prenatal to 12 years and their families. The committee provides leadership for this process in the form of input, advice and recommendations. This serves to inform the broader system planning as well as planning done by individual agencies/sectors in an effort to integrate services into a system and create a seamless service experience for children, youth and their families. VISION All children, youth and families are healthy and valued. MISSION STATEMENT By working together we plan, lead and implement strategies to achieve the best outcomes for all children, youth and their families in Windsor-Essex County. GUIDING PRINCIPLES The following principles guide the work of the Children and Youth Planning Committee:

Family Centred

Children, youth and families are our priority. They are engaged in decisions made and plans developed.

Respect

We value each other’s knowledge and input and commit to treating each other with integrity and respect.

Accountable

We accomplish our work in a professional and transparent manner and are accountable to families, communities and other planning groups.

Strength Based

We plan together for an integrated service system that builds on strengths of children, youth, families and our community.

Responsive

We aspire to create an integrated service system that is responsive to the changing needs of children, youth and families.

Inclusive

We plan for an integrated service system that is uniquely designed to meet the needs of all children, youth and families and celebrates differences to foster a sense of belonging.

Evidence Based

We plan together for an integrated service system that is evidence based and outcome focused.

OUTCOMES We will achieve the following outcomes for all children, youth and their families: Improved quality of life Increased integration of services Improved access to services and supports Increased quality of services and supports Increased engagement of stakeholders in service planning

STRUCTURE AND MEMBERSHIP The Windsor-Essex County Children and Youth Planning Committee is comprised of representatives from a range of agencies and sectors that reflect the unique composition of our communities. Those individuals representing agencies at the planning table reflect the mandate of their organization and those individuals representing sectors reflect the views of the sector. It is the expectation that additional members will join the table as gaps in representation of services for children and youth are identified. The planning table is comprised of representatives from the following organizations/sectors: City of Windsor, Manager of Children’s Services (Chair) Parent Representatives Data Analysis Coordinator Ontario Early Years Lead Agency (City of Windsor) Ontario Early Years – Satellite Representative Local School Boards (Greater Essex County District School Board, Windsor-Essex Catholic

District School Board, Conseil Scolaire de District du Centre-Sud-Ouest, Conseil Scolaire Catholiques Providence, John McGivney Children’s Centre School Authority)

Windsor-Essex County Health Unit Children with Special Needs (Children First, John McGivney) Preschool Speech and Language/Infant Hearing Program (Talk 2 Me) Blind Low Vision Program (CNIB) Building Blocks for Better Babies Ready Set Go St. Clair College Early Childhood Education Program United Way Centraide/Windsor-Essex County Windsor Public Library Essex County Public Library Recreation (City of Windsor Parks and Recreation) Aboriginal Community Calwell First Nation Francophone Community CAN AM Friendship Centre of Windsor Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society City School-Based Child Care Operators City Non-School Based Child Care Operator County School-Based Child Care Operators County Centre-Based Child Care Operator Licensed Home Child Care Francophone Child Care Operator Aboriginal Child Care Operator Pathway to Potential Family Respite Services Building Blocks for Better Babies Windsor Regional Children’s Centre Multicultural Council of Windsor and Essex County Essex Community Care Access Centre Workforce WindsorEssex Windsor Essex County Local Immigration Partnership Ministry of Children and Youth Services (Ex-officio) Ministry of Education (Ex-officio)

In order to maintain equity in representation, one representative will be identified for each agency/sector, except in cases where an agency has multi-program delivery which requires program specific representation. When unable to attend meetings, the member may name a replacement representative. Sector representation such as child care and Ontario Early Years Centre satellites have a two year term and the call for membership goes out to the sector on a bi-annual basis to ensure an inclusive approach. This committee is chaired by the Children’s Services Manager from the City of Windsor. The Children and Youth Planning Committee has seven Networks which report to the main committee. The seven Networks include (see organizational chart below):

Network Purpose

Inclusion Network

The purpose of the Inclusion Network is to give input/advice to the City of Windsor as Consolidated Municipal Service Manager (CMSM) for child care in Windsor/Essex County. This advice will serve to assist in service system management responsibilities for the planning and implementation of services for children with special needs ages 0 – 12 years with a focus on children ages 0 to 5 years, including the transition to services with the Boards of Education.

Ontario Early Years Centre Network

The purpose of the Ontario Early Years Network is to give input/advice to the City of Windsor as the Consolidated Municipal Service Manager (CMSM) with respect to identifying gaps and overlaps of early years services for families with children 0 – 6 years and to integrate parenting programs into the early learning and care hubs.

Professional Development Network

The purpose of the Professional Development Network is to give input/advice to the City of Windsor as Consolidated Municipal Service Manager (CMSM) for training opportunities to early childhood educators/caregivers working with children ages 0 to 12 years of age in early learning programs in Windsor/Essex County. Through the CMSM, this committee will also provide advice to the Ministry of Education (MEDU) on issues relative to the needs of early childhood educators/ caregivers providing services to children and their families in our community.

Emergent Literacy Network

The purpose of the Emergent Literacy Network is to develop and implement a community plan/strategy that will support the development of early language and literacy skills for children 0-6 and their families in Windsor-Essex County.

Original People Network

The Original People Network is a newly formed committee and is in the process of developing its Terms of Reference.

Child Care Network

The Child Care Network is a newly formed committee and is in the process of developing its Terms of Reference.

Student Support Leadership Initiative Network (WE R Kids & Youth Mental Health Network)

The SSLI has formed and enhanced local partnerships and coordination of services between education, children and youth, health and municipal partners. Clusters continue to work together to prevent to inappropriate and unsafe behaviours that may lead to suspension and expulsion and to promote the well-being of students.

Each Network has its own Terms of Reference. The chair/those with responsibility for the program area of each of the Networks sits on the Children and Youth Planning Committee. The agenda of the Children and Youth Planning Committee has a standing agenda item for Network reporting. Each of the chairs reports back on the work of the Networks. These updates are usually verbal in nature and they then appear in the minutes of the meeting for others to review. In some cases, the chair of the Network brings a recommendation for approval and/or a document for review and input. On occasion, a working group or task group is established to work on a specific, time limited task.

DECISION MAKING It is a clear expectation that all committee members will work cooperatively and collaboratively in decision-making and implementation activities, with a primary focus on broad community needs and the needs of all children and families rather than individual agency interests. Due to this, a consensus decision making model is employed by the planning committee and its networks.

Windsor-Essex County Children

and Youth Planning

Committee

Inclusion Network Ontario Early Years

Centre Network

Professional Development

Network

Emergent Literacy Network

Original People Network

Child Care Network Student Support

Leadership Initiative Network