May 31, 2013 - Phoenix Sinclair Inquiry

B.D. MCKENZIE - DR.EX. (OLSON) MAY 31, 2013
1
2
interested in it because it gave them predictability in
funding and it removed some of the administrative burden
3
from, from them.
And from the agency's point of view it
4
provided them with more flexibility in how those funds
5
could be used.
And as a part of that flexibility was the
6
ability to carry over surpluses.
They could provide for
7
8
9
10
the, for, for, for the children that needed out-of-home
care through the child maintenance budget, if they could
save money there they could build up surpluses which could
be invested in alternate programs at the community level.
11
And that's essentially what they did.
They were able to
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
save money, they were able to invest in alternate programs
that reduced the rate of children in care over time,
developed a number of alternative programs in the community
that provided better care for children closer to home than
having to send them out to residential care, and they built
community capacity by engaging more effectively with the
community and how services should be developed in their
community.
So in the year 2004/2005, for example, about 40
percent of that child welfare maintenance budget was being
spent on alternative programming that helped to build
community capacity and ensure the wellbeing of families and
24
children.
That's a very brief summary of, of the way that
25
that fund operated.
- 39 -