KEY FACTS

Community Living Mississauga was founded in 1955

Provide person-centred supports to more than 2,300 individuals

  • Residential
  • Social
  • Employment
  • Day Programs

OUR MISSION

Providing support to individuals who have an intellectual disability to ensure their quality of life in the community is meaningfully improved.

OUR VISION

All people will live in a state of dignity and respect, share in all elements of living in a community which is welcoming, accepting and inclusive of all individuals. All people will have the freedom to make choices and decisions that enable them to achieve self-determination.

KEY MESSAGE #1 – FAIR SHARE FOR PEEL

It has been documented by the Fair Share for Peel effort and the MCSS that Peel has been grossly underfunded and receives as little as 40 per cent of the average allocation for developmental service dollars. This is an excellent opportunity to right a past wrong by allocating fair funding to this region in addition to the new funding being allocated using an equitable and needs based formula.

KEY MESSAGE #2 – RESIDENTIAL SUPPORTS

It is a critical point, that any new 24 hour support locations be limited to no more than four people receiving support within their home. We know from experience that larger groupings of people tend to make the support more about the organization’s financial needs and less about quality of life for people. Additionally, the current criteria used by Developmental Services Ontario (DSO) only addresses those most in need. We would like to strongly suggest that opportunities must also be given to those who have engaged in future planning for their sons and daughters as under the current system they would not be considered for residential support. Consequently, this creates a disincentive for families to plan.

Consideration should be given to families who would like their funding individualized so they can carry out their own support plans. Community Living Mississauga supports over 20 families through this model. In 2011, we studied this model of Individualized Funding. Of 15 families participating, the cost was $490,145 versus a potential $819,000 if these individuals were supported through our association. This translated to a 40% savings to the system. Another important point is a caution should be given to families or groups that offer to purchase their own homes in order to jump the waiting lists. Allocations of resources should be fair and not based on people buying their way into support.

KEY MESSAGE #3 – DAY SUPPORTS

While most of the allocations will be made through the existing Passport program the following should be considered:

  • In Peel we are concerned that the coordinating agency has lost files and previous approvals
  • That many individuals currently in receipt of Passport funding have told us they asked for and required more than their current allocations
  • That the cap of $25,000 does not cover the cost for someone with very high support needs
  • That people technically cannot apply for Passport funding until they are approved by the DSO and in Peel the DSO has a backlog of hundreds of individuals from Mississauga who will not be on the Passport request list

All of the above mentioned issues will contribute to wrong assumptions being made by the province on what the true needs of Mississauga families are and we assume these issues exist across the province. In addition, it is imperative that a system to safeguard individuals be developed to ensure private operators of day supports meet some form of accountability. This has previously been outlined as a concern by Community Living Ontario. Some consideration should be given to agency based funding to develop programs for individuals with higher support needs where no amount of Passport funding has enabled families to purchase adequate supports.

KEY MESSAGE #4 – SERVICE PROVIDERS VERSUS FAMILIES

While we acknowledge that many service providers have received little or no funding (e.g. lack of Pay Equity funding) we maintain that individuals and families remain the main focus for the allocation of funds. We would concede that some ancillary support dollars be allocated to services aimed at behavior supports, service coordination and respite as these services are partially preventative in nature.