ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

Date: February 15, 2000
Author/Local: P.Coates/

J.Brooks/871-6643

RTS No. 1262
CC File No. 4102
P&E Date: February 24, 2000

TO:	Standing Committee on Planning and Environment
FROM:	Director of Community Services, Social Planning
SUBJECT:	Response to the Provincial Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security (MSDES) Childcare Paper

RECOMMENDATION

A. THAT Council indicate its support of the provincial vision statement for childcare as articulated in the discussion paper “Building A Better Future for British Columbia’s Kids” [Appendix A (Attachment 2) - limited distribution];

B. THAT Council recommend to the Provincial Government that the following areas need attention and action:

i) develop a new core funding mechanism and budget for childcare; establish an incremental planning framework; create an affordable fee structure for parents; shift the funding emphasis from the subsidy approach;

ii) provide immediate financial relief to existing infant and toddler programs to prevent any further closures prior to the development of the new core funding mechanism;

iii) in consultation with the urban aboriginal, immigrant settlement and ethno-cultural agencies, develop pro-active policies and strategies which will support the participation of children from the urban aboriginal, refugee, new immigrant and ESL communities in formal childcare services;
iv) consult with school districts, municipalities and provincial childcare organizations prior to proceeding with the proposed use of school portables for childcare;

v) in consultation with municipalities and local childcare planning groups, develop specific targets for childcare expansion and once core funding is in place for operating costs, develop an appropriate capital funding program;

C. THAT Council forward the attached “think tank” project report developed by Westcoast Childcare Resource Centre (Appendix A) to the Hon. Moe Sihota and other key Cabinet Ministers, with a letter highlighting those issues and recommendations that are of particular significance from the City’s perspective as noted in this Council report;

D. THAT Council forward copies of the “think tank” project report and this Council report to UBCM and all B.C. municipalities, with a letter encouraging them to respond to the Province’s discussion paper on childcare directly to Hon. Moe Sihota;

E. THAT Council forward copies of the “think tank” project report and this report to the Hon. Jane Stewart, Minister of Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), indicating Council support for the development of a National Child Care Strategy.

CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS

The City Manager RECOMMENDS approval of A, B, C, D and E.

COUNCIL POLICY

City Council unanimously approved the adoption of the Civic Childcare Strategy on October 23, 1990. The Civic Childcare Strategy includes a policy statement which commits the City “to being an active partner with senior levels of government, parents, the private sector and the community in the development and maintenance of a comprehensive childcare system in Vancouver”. The Strategy sets out a vision for this comprehensive childcare system based upon principles of quality, accessibility and affordability.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to highlight the community feedback received regarding the recently released provincial childcare discussion paper, “Building A Better Future for British Columbia’s Kids”, to provide an analysis of the paper from a City perspective and to recommend appropriate action.

BACKGROUND

On October 21, 1999, the Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security (MSDES) released a discussion/options paper entitled “Building A Better Future for British Columbia’s Kids”. The provincial paper outlined many of the problems facing childcare operators and parents needing care, provided a vision statement, discussed a number of “first step” and “stepping stone” proposals and asked for community feedback. On November 4^th, City Council provided Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre with a civic childcare grant to organize a series of think tank sessions to stimulate discussion and feedback on the Province’s proposed options and to help to inform a City response to the provincial document.

DISCUSSION

Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre has summarized the community feedback received from approximately 600 participants including parents, service providers, childcare staff, school district personnel, and social planners from several Lower Mainland municipalities. See Appendix A. Relevant information was also collected from the recent Windows of Opportunity planning documents, the Aboriginal Health Plan and the needs assessment of the Iraqi-Kurdish community.

Generally the think tank respondents were pleased to see the childcare issue being profiled as a priority, but were disappointed with the limited scope of the options being proposed by the Province. They also expressed concern that the provincial proposals all seemed to hinge upon federal cost sharing initiatives. The issues raised consistently related to concerns about affordability, accessibility and flexibility of childcare services. Solutions tended to focus around the need for more funding through a new type of funding mechanism. Many people referenced the Quebec model as the type of bold approach to childcare that is needed in B.C.

Using the feedback from the think tank sessions, the City’s Social Planning Department has pinpointed seven issues in the provincial discussion paper that are particularly relevant to the City.

1. The provincial paper needs to acknowledge the extent to which the provincial childcare subsidy system has and continues to contribute to the financial fragility and patchwork nature of childcare in B.C. The paper recommends that the majority of any new funding be allocated to increasing the childcare subsidy rates and exemption levels. There is a need to move away from this individualised subsidy funding mechanism to a ‘systems supportive’ core funding mechanism in order to create the kind of comprehensive childcare system articulated in the Civic Childcare Strategy and the Province’s own vision statement.

2. The provincial paper needs to acknowledge the extent to which childcare services are reliant upon fundraising, gambling revenues, in-kind subsidies and volunteer time of staff, parents and community members to keep the doors open and the costs as low as possible. These contributions should be acknowledged if there is to be realistic planning and funding for the future of childcare in B.C.

3. The provincial paper while acknowledging the huge differential between the actual cost of infant/toddler care and the fees charged and the provincial subsidy available, fails to identify that infant/toddler care is in financial crisis. Closures are inevitable unless immediate financial relief is forthcoming. These problems have been well documented in the recent reports to Council regarding the City’s Childcare Endowment Reserve. The provincial paper calls for significant expansion of infant/toddler spaces, yet only suggests core funding assistance for Young Parent Programs associated with high schools.

4. The provincial childcare vision statement seems to have left out discussion on the issue of children’s entitlement to childcare services regardless of parental employment. This may reflect the “labour force attachment” focus of the Income Assistance branch of the new Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security. The Civic Childcare Strategy articulates the importance of early childhood experiences to the overall healthy development of young children.

5. The unique childcare needs and barriers faced by urban aboriginal, refugee, new immigrant and ESL families are referenced in the provincial paper but no pro-active solutions are proposed. In Vancouver, these issues must be addressed if we are to develop culturally appropriate childcare, particularly in the inner-city neighbourhoods.

6. The provincial proposal to use old school portables for childcare, while well intentioned, requires consultation with and the support of key stakeholders like the school districts and municipalities. There are issues related to zoning, code requirements, ownership, project management, leasing, maintenance, operating, ...just to name a few which must be considered prior to embarking upon a province-wide scheme.

7. The provincial paper references the concept of developing partnerships with municipalities, school districts, private business, labour, etc. to enhance childcare options and flexibility, but it does not propose any concrete ways to do this. Our experience at the City, especially related to childcare expansion in the Downtown core, clearly shows that there is a need to synchronize planning and funding of new projects with the Province.

It is staff’s recommendation that the Westcoast think tank project report should be forwarded to key provincial Cabinet Ministers to ensure that all the issues and ideas raised by participants are brought to their attention. It is suggested that the City’s response focus on:

· the need to develop a new core funding mechanism as the primary source of provincial funding for childcare
· the need for immediate financial relief for infant/toddler care
· the lack of discussion on the issue of entitlement of children to childcare services
· the need for pro-active policies and strategies to support the participation of aboriginal, refugee, new immigrant and ESL children in childcare
· the need to consult with stakeholders prior to proceeding on the use of school portables for childcare
· the need to synchronize provincial and local planning of childcare expansion with the provision of appropriate capital and operating funding.

CONCLUSION

This report discusses the recently released provincial discussion/options paper on childcare, highlights the feedback from participants in the Westcoast facilitated think tank sessions, and notes the key issues about the provincial proposals from the City perspective. It recommends a number of issues related to the provincial paper be brought to the attention of the Provincial and Federal Governments and further suggests that the City should encourage other B.C. municipalities to respond to the provincial proposals.

THINK TANK PROJECT

Responding To The ‘BUILDING A BETTER FUTURE FOR B.C. KIDS’

A Discussion Paper From

The B.C. Ministry Of Social Development And Economic Security

WESTCOAST CHILD CARE RESOURCE CENTRE

January 2000

Principal Consultant: Muriel Kerr
In Association With: Adele Ritch

This Project was funded by the City of Vancouver

THINK TANK PROJECT REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On October 21, 1999, Moe Sihota, Minister of Social Development and Economic Security, released a discussion paper, Building a Better Future for British Columbia’s Kids. Vancouver City Council approved a proposal from the Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre to conduct a series of ‘think tank’ sessions regarding the paper, and to summarize the resulting feedback in a report that would help to inform City Council’s perspective.

In total, 28 think tank sessions were conducted involving about 600 individuals. Participants in the sessions came from several stakeholder groups including parents, child care providers, service providers, school district personnel and social planners from several Lower Mainland municipalities. Participants were provided with copies of the discussion paper as well as several supporting documents.

Two broad themes emerged from the consultation process:

· Participants were pleased that the Ministry for Social Development and Economic Security had produced the Discussion Paper, thereby identifying child care as a priority issue on the political agenda.

· Participants were disappointed that the Paper does not present a broad plan that would commit the provincial government to establishing a comprehensive child care system in B.C..

Three issues relating to child care services were repeated consistently by parents, child care providers, child care organizations and family-serving agencies:

· Affordability
· Accessibility
· Flexibility

Low and moderate income earners have said that they are overburdened by the current cost of quality child care. Participants stated that there are insufficient numbers of regulated child care spaces, especially for infants, toddlers and school age children. As a result of persistent financial fragility, agencies have stated that they are unable to offer the full range of child care services that are needed to meet the needs of today’s diverse families.

While participants were generally in favour of the vision for child care presented in the Discussion Paper, they were clear in stating their opinion that the proposals for action offered would not achieve that vision. Many participants noted that these proposals were merely more of the same short-term band-aid measures that have been around for several years. They emphasized that they were looking for something bolder from the Province — a true commitment toward a publicly-funded child care system in B.C.. Many of these respondents cited the example of Quebec’s child care model.

THINK TANK PROJECT REPORT

A. INTRODUCTION

On October 21, 1999, Moe Sihota, Minister of Social Development and Economic Security, released a discussion paper, Building a Better Future for British Columbia’s Kids. Vancouver City Council approved a proposal from the Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre to conduct a series of ‘think tank’ sessions regarding the paper, and to summarize the resulting feedback in a report that would help to inform City Council’s perspective.

Westcoast was subsequently contracted by the City of Vancouver to “to plan, coordinate, administer and implement a series of think tank sessions... to stimulate public discussion and gather feedback regarding the Minister’s options paper”. Two facilitators were contracted to facilitate the think tank sessions.

The report that follows documents the implementation of the think tank project and summarizes the comments of participants from the think tank sessions and from faxed feedback forms. Written reports from recent consultation processes were reviewed for comments related to community perspectives regarding child care needs and issues in Vancouver.

B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THINK TANK SESSIONS

The think tank sessions took place from the middle of November to the middle of December, 1999. In order to make the most of the short time period, sessions were primarily conducted with groups having regularly scheduled meetings during the time period. Some additional sessions were created as ‘spin-offs’ from the first set of groups, and other meetings were set up specifically for the project. Appendix A contains a list of participating groups.

As some interested groups were unable to meet during the project period, information packages were sent out to these groups for dissemination to their members. A feedback form was developed as part of the package to facilitate a faxed return. A sample information package can be found in Appendix B. This form was distributed in information packages as well as at each think tank session, and people were encouraged to copy and distribute the form for colleagues, parents and others.

Ministry translations of the discussion paper Executive Summary were accessed and copies of the Chinese, Spanish and Vietnamese versions were made and distributed. Project funds were utilized to translate these materials into Serbo Croatian through Westcoast Multilingual Child Care Resources, a child care specific translation service. As part of the information package, a one page summary of the Vision and the Proposals for Action was developed using the Ministry’s original documents. Project funds were used to translate these summaries into the same four languages. All of these materials were copied, widely disseminated and used as reference material during all think tank sessions.

Early in the project, the Discussion Paper and the reference materials developed from the Paper were not yet available, and much of the discussion focused on what session participants desired government to do regarding child care. The feedback forms were used in these situations, to encourage a later response once the paper and other materials could be accessed.

A Drop-in Feedback Event was held near the end of the ‘consultation’ period to allow an opportunity for those who had been unable to attend other think tank sessions to give feedback. This also provided an opportunity for those people who participated in earlier sessions when the paper was not yet available to share their comments.

A review was conducted of all of the network action plans prepared for the Windows of Opportunity project. This review was to identify the child care issues highlighted through the recent Windows consultations. The Iraqi-Kurdish Community of the Lower Mainland: Needs Assessment , April 1998, and Healing Ways: an Aboriginal Health and Service Review, October, 1999. were also reviewed for their recommendations regarding child care in Vancouver.

In total, 28 think tank sessions were conducted with about 600 individuals participating in the sessions or faxing in feedback forms. Sessions were conducted with groups of parents, child care providers, interagency service providers, agency service providers, school districts personnel and a group of social planners from Lower Mainland municipalities. Information packages were distributed at a United Way event, to individual programs and groups, and through displays at Kitsilano Neighbourhood House, South Vancouver Family Place, South Vancouver Neighbourhood House and at the Jewish Community Centre.

C. FEEDBACK SUMMARY

Feedback from all the various sources has been summarized within the following five categories:

· Major themes relating to respondents’ comments regarding the paper as a whole.
· Major themes from the comments that focus on the vision contained in the paper.
· Major themes from comments on the ‘proposals for action’
· Major themes related to what respondents said they would like the provincial government to do regarding child care.
· Other Related Themes

1. Themes From Comments On the Discussion Paper As a Whole

Areas of Agreement
The most frequently-made comment regarding positive aspects of the Paper was that the Paper exists. Respondents stated that the Paper’s existence places child care on the political agenda. They also reported that the Paper has created the opportunity for discussion about the challenges and needed responses for child care in B.C..

Respondents stated that the Paper gives a clear and realistic account of the current status of child care in the province. They were pleased that the Paper gives recognition to the important contribution of child care to children’s early years, to the need to address the cost of child care for both low and middle income families, and to the subsidization of child care services through child care workers’ low wages, as well as the need for better compensation for these workers.

Respondents echoed the Paper’s emphasis on the need for affordable child care. People were pleased that the true costs of care were clearly presented, as were the relative amounts spent on child care by parents and government.

Areas of Concern
Respondents were, however, disappointed that the Paper does not present a broad, comprehensive plan for an actual child care system in British Columbia. People stated that the Paper does not commit the provincial government to establishing a comprehensive child care system in B.C.. Many of the respondents noted that the actions suggested in the Paper seem to be dependent upon Federal funds. Respondents stated that they were looking for something bolder, a true commitment toward core funding, toward a publicly-funded child care system from the province. Most of these respondents cited the example of Quebec’s child care model.

Community social service providers and parents indicated that the Paper does not recognize the contribution made to child care by parents and other community volunteers in direct support of child care programs, and in fund raising efforts. They indicated that these contributions to keeping centres open need to be added to the dollars spent on child care each year.

People indicated that the paper itself seems fragmented, containing a ‘patchwork’ of ideas making it difficult to respond. They stated that they did not want to make choices among the options presented because the proposals “are really just bigger band aids”.

A number of respondents commented on the lack of identification of, and the lack of any proposals for, the major and serious challenges of providing group infant/toddler child care. Some respondents noted the lack of action regarding urban Aboriginal child care issues.

A group of Lower Mainland municipal staff and a group of representatives from Lower Mainland school districts commented on the lack of sufficient distribution of the Paper. They were critical of the lack of consultation with them about the ideas presented in the Paper, given the emphasis on partnerships and the contributions that would be required for implementation of several of the proposals.

2. Themes From Comments On The Discussion Paper Vision

Areas of Agreement
Most people stated that the vision presented in the Discussion Paper is a good one although it does not “go far enough”.

Areas of Concern
People with criticisms of the vision feel that it is not sufficiently comprehensive. Many respondents stated that they would like to see the vision include a statement that entitles all children to child care services regardless of the employment or economic status of their parents.

3. Themes From Comments On the ‘Proposals For Action’ In The Discussion Paper

While the majority of respondents were positive about the broad objective statements introducing each area of the proposals. Respondents wanted it clearly understood that the proposals outlined will not achieve the vision outlined in the discussion paper. Individual proposal initiatives met with varied responses. Many people felt that the proposals were not specific enough or sufficiently clear for real discussion. People often asked where the money was to come from for implementing the proposals.

a) Reduce the Direct Cost of Child Care for Low-and Modest Income Parents

Areas of Agreement
Respondents supported this broad statement. They were generally in favour of raising income thresholds and reducing the “clawback” rate for subsidy.

Discussions regarding improving access to Child Care Subsidy often elicited negative comments regarding the current subsidy system.

Areas of Disagreement
Groups of parents and community service providers spoke positively about the proposal to raise subsidy rates. However, many respondents noted that increasing subsidy rates will offer only short term relief for families. In the long term increased subsidy rates will make no difference to the large number of families who are not eligible for subsidies, many of whom will remain ineligible, even with the proposed changes to eligibility criteria.

Child care fees are linked to subsidy rates. Child care programs attempt to keep the difference between the maximum subsidy rate and the fee they charge to a minimum as they know that neither low income families that receive subsidy, nor families of moderate means who do not receive subsidy can afford to pay more. These fees, however, rarely reflect the true cost of care as virtually all child care programs are heavily supported the extensive fund raising efforts and the ‘forgiving’ of debt by sponsoring organizations.

Increased subsidy rates will lead to increased fees in the months that follow the subsidy increase, as sponsoring organizations seek some relief from the financial pressures of their underfunded child care programs. Soon, there will once again be a gap between the fees charged and the maximum subsidy rate, putting families who receive subsidy back in the same difficult situation, and those who are not eligible for subsidy in a worse place.

b) Increase Funding to Child Care Providers

Areas of Agreement
A majority of respondents were also in favour of this broad statement, and the related proposed initiatives.

Areas of Concern
A number of respondents pointed to these proposal initiatives as indicative of the government’ s short term approach to child care. The same question was asked about each of the initiatives.“What happens once the wait list is cleared?” Many respondents felt that funding for training should have been identified, particularly in the area of school age care.

c) More Support to Parents and Caregivers

Areas of Agreement
There was considerable support for expanding the number of Child Care Resource and Referral Programs.

Areas of Concern
Many people, however, questioned the cost estimate for this proposal. They stated that the current programs are already under-resourced and that the figures presented seemed to be low for the operations proposed.

d) Increase the Number of Licensed Child Care Spaces on School Sites

Areas of Agreement
This proposal created considerable discussion in most groups. The majority of participants were in favour of increasing the number of licensed child care spaces close to, or on school sites.

Areas of Concern
People indicated that they seriously questioned the financial estimates for this proposal. School districts’ representatives questioned the proposal and were very critical regarding the lack of consultation with school districts prior to the proposal being incorporated in the paper.

Areas of Disagreement
Most respondents did not support the notion of refurbishing old portable classrooms for use as child care centres. They noted that if these structures were considered unsuitable for classroom use, they would be equally unsuitable for child care programs. Some respondents felt that the portable proposal was favourable in that portables would be an improvement over some of the facilities currently available for school age child care. Others expressed concern that the use of portables for child care on school sites would further reduce the outdoor playground space. Many people felt that there would be great confusion as there has been considerable pressure on school districts across the province to get rid of portables.

e) Keeping Young Parents in School

Areas of Agreement
Most people indicated approval of this proposal. Many respondents stated that there is a need for the creation of additional young parent programs. Some respondents asked whether this proposal would apply to new young parent programs once created. Others questioned whether the amount of money proposed would be sufficient to sustain infant/toddler centres.

f) Stepping Stone - Family-Friendly Workplaces

Areas of Agreement
Again, respondents indicated approval of this concept but do not have high expectations that it would happen in a major way.

g) Stepping Stone - Enhanced Maternity and Parental Leave

Areas of Agreement
Most people were in favour of enhancing maternity and parental leaves. They stated, however, that the eligibility criteria outlined in the current federal proposal will exclude many parents, and will not be feasible for the low income earner. Respondents who commented on this proposal were in favour of the Discussion Paper’s suggested changes.

h) Stepping Stone - School Based “One-Stop-Access” Centres for Children and Family Services

Areas of Agreement
Respondents were often in favour of ‘one-stop-access’ centres for children and families.

Areas of Concern
Respondents cited difficulties in initiatives of this kind that have been tried over the years, commenting particularly on the expectations that such initiatives inevitably receive too few resources to make them truly effective. School districts’ representatives were again critical that consultation regarding such an initiative did not happen prior to its inclusion in the discussion paper.

Areas of Disagreement
Some respondents were in favour of locating these centres in schools, some were not.

4. Themes from Comments On What Respondents Would Like the Provincial Government to do About Child Care

Areas of Agreement
Respondents expressed the desire for the provincial government to enhance the vision outlined in the discussion paper by adding the commitment to the entitlement of all children to quality child care regardless of their parents’ employment status.

Respondents from all groups — parents, early childhood educators, community service providers — stated that they want the provincial government to develop a comprehensive, long term plan that moves toward a publicly-funded system of child care.

5. Underlying Themes

Three issues are at the core of all of the challenges related to child care in B.C. -affordability, accessibility and flexibility of child care services to meet the diverse needs of families. The key factor in each issue is cost — cost to those needing child care, cost to those providing child care and cost to organizations trying to offer child care services. These same three issues were identified by session participants and by respondents using the feedback form. They were also listed as priorities in the Windows of Opportunity Action Plans and in two recent documents concerning the Iraqi-Kurdish and Aboriginal communities.

Affordability
Over, and over, parents, caregivers and community social service providers talked about issues related to the affordability of child care.
· Few parents can afford the cost of group infant/toddler care even though current fees do not come close to covering the true costs of operating the programs.
· Refugee and new immigrant women have real difficulties accessing child care during the time that they would be eligible for free ESL classes.
· Some immigrant families have large numbers of children and, therefore, the costs of child care are prohibitive.
· Children who would greatly benefit from stable, quality child care for stimulation and socialization in their early years cannot participate because of their parents’ employment and immigration status.

Accessibility
Many respondents spoke about accessibility. These comments were mainly about the lack of sufficient numbers of child care spaces and/or centres.
· In certain areas of the city, the numbers of child care spaces do not match the need.
· Across the city, group infant/toddler child care spaces are insufficient to the need.
· Additional school-age child care spaces were also identified as needed in many areas.

Flexibility
In addition to increased numbers of the existing forms of care, most respondents, particularly parents and community social service providers, identified the need for more flexibility in the forms of care. Consistently-mentioned needs were:
· drop-in child care;
· licensed child minding;
· emergency child care;
· part time child care;
· evening child care;
· child care for children who are ill;
· weekend child care.

Some groups identified factors that exacerbate the basic challenges mentioned above. Issues for children with extra support needs and their families were often identified. The resources available within the Supported Child Care Program are insufficient for the numbers of children needing extra support. Layering supported child care onto financially-and-staffing-fragile child care system is very challenging for all involved. Poverty and its related issues present major challenges for child care centres operating in inner city neighbourhoods.

D. SUMMARY

The majority of respondents involved in the Think Tank Project indicated that they want to have the discussion on child care taken to a broader level. They want the discussion to be about a comprehensive system of child care and about how this can be achieved. They want all levels of government to become actively involved in the discussion, and they want to participate in these discussions.

Respondents talked about the “fragmentation”, the “patchwork”, the “mishmash” and “all the little glitches in child care” that feed their frustration in trying to make child care work. They observed the waste of time, energy and dollars that continue to go toward just tinkering with child care.

Participants expressed frustration with the seeming inability of governments to offer anything other than band aid solutions and short term stop gap measures in response to the obvious child care crisis in this province. People wondered what our school system, our library system and our recreation system would look like without a commitment of public dollars. The answer was obvious — they would look like child care!

Many people feel that the need for child care affects a significant enough portion of the population that public funding is warranted. They are calling for inter-governmental, and interministerial cooperation and commitment toward a comprehensive quality child care system that is available and accessible to all children regardless of their parents’ economic or employment status.

ATTACHMENT 1

THINK TANK PROJECT

LIST OF PARTICIPATING GROUPS

Burnaby Child Care Resource Group

Child Care Inform Advisory

City Hall Child Care Society

Community Agency Partnership Project

Community Care Facilities Licensing Officers of B.C.

Kitsilano Neighbourhood House

Kiwassa Neighbourhood House

Metro School District

Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House

Pacific Immigrant Resources Society

Parent For Child Care

Pooh Corner Parents

School Age Child Care Association

Senior Supervisors Round Table

Status of Women

Vancouver Supported Child Care Services Society

Vancouver Supported Child Care Services Society Network 5

Vancouver Child Care Resource and Referral

Vancouver Child Care Resource and Referral Training (Serbo-Croatian)

West Coast Domestic Workers Association

Westcoast Open House Attendees

Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre Staff

Westcoast Multi-Cultural and Diversity Services

Working Group on Poverty

YWCA

ATTACHMENT 2

THINK TANK PROJECT

INFORMATION PACKAGE

Information Package consists of printed matter and is not electronically available.

* * * * *

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver