Findings Package For CAS

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS
TORONTO
STAR ANALYSIS:
4/23/2015
CAS / CROWN WARD DATA

This document shares the findings of a Toronto Star analysis
of 4th Quarter Reports (2008/09 2012/13) and Crown
Ward Reviews (2013) for Ontario Childrens Aid Societies.
Page 1 of 31
TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS:

CAS/CROWN WARD DATA
SUMMARY
The data used in this Toronto Star analysis comes from budget reports sent to the Ministry of Children
and Youth Services detailing how each society spends the governments money and from
government case audits of children who have been in the care of foster parents or group homes for two
or more years. Reports and audits dating back five years (2008/9 to 2012/13) were obtained by the Star
through freedom of information requests.
In order to make comparisons between individual societies, Star journalists consulted with experts on
which data points might speak to differences in philosophy and other factors such as geographic
setting and demographics of catchment areas that would impact how children in care are treated.
Such comparisons have never been done before. The Ontario Association of Childrens Aid Societies says
the data was never collected with making comparisons in mind, but there is agreement that this is the
best and only available data to make such comparisons.
The Star shared its preliminary analysis and sought input from the ministry and the OACAS, which in turn
shared it with its member societies.
After receiving feedback from the OACAS, a final findings package was prepared and is available at
thestar.com.
Another caveat: Due to privacy concerns of the ministry, counts of children that were between 0 and 5
were redacted. This has an impact on some calculations. Also, because some of the calculations are over
a time period when some societies amalgamated, the total number of societies varies.
The Stars analysis shows significant discrepancies, indicating that Ontarios most vulnerable children are
treated differently depending on the children's aid society (CAS) that takes them into care. At the
Algoma society, based in Sault Ste. Marie, 30 per cent of children, on average, were placed with kin
during a five-year period ending in 2013. Next door at the Sudbury and Manitoulin society, however, the
number drops to 18 per cent. Its even lower at the Childrens Aid Society of Toronto 11 per cent
and less than 7 per cent at Dufferin Child and Family Services, just northwest of the city.
Page 2 of 31
Likewise, some agencies carefully consider mandatory questionnaires detailing a childs history when
deciding on his or her plan of care; others dont. Some put a significant number of children in group
homes, while others almost completely avoid doing so.
From Quarterly Reports, similar discrepancies can be found when examining the amount spent for group
home care the Jewish CAS in Toronto spends 33 per cent of its total paid days of care on group
homes; at Prescott-Russell, its less than 2 per cent.
Significant differences were also found in other important areas, including the number of investigations
conducted by societies, compared to the number transferred to ongoing. It suggests that some CASs
are far more intrusive than others when it comes to investigating families. Questions are also raised
when the number of reopened cases is considered.
In the Crown Ward Reviews, significant differences were found among CASs in the number of times
wards were moved since their most recent admission (more than 8 times at James/Hudson Bay; less
than 3 times at Peel Region), and the number of case workers they encountered (13 at Tikinagan; 3.6 in
Sarnia). Big differences are also evident in other areas, including annual medicals in some CASs 100 per
cent of Crown Wards get them; in BruceGreyCounty, only 65 per cent. Similar gaps are found for annual
dental checkups.
Societies can avoid costly and bitter court battles by using an alternative dispute mechanism (ADR) that
gets parents and relatives to agree on a plan that changes behaviour and protects children. Yet few CASs
use this method. Thunder Bay scores highest by using it the most, while Toronto CAS made little use of
it. Six societies did not use it at all.
What follows is a detailed breakdown of findings for the categories we examined. You will find in most
cases a top 5/bottom 5 CAS ranking, based on percentages and ratios, along with the Ontario average.
You will also find a detailed bar chart for the categories we compared.
The Toronto Star analysis was conducted by reporters Sandro Contenta, Laurie Monsebraaten and Jim
Rankin and data analysts Andrew Bailey and Hidy Ng. If you have any questions regarding the analysis or
methodology, please feel free to contact Jim Rankin at 416-869-4431, or by email at jrankin@thestar.ca.
Page 3 of 31
SECTION I: QUARTERLY REPORTS

1) KINSHIP AND CUSTOMARY CARE:
The Star examined how different societies place their children in care by looking at different placement
types compared to overall average number of children in care, for the five fiscal years 2008/2009 to
2012/2013. In order to make meaningful comparisons, the Star grouped together placements with kin
(with and without care designation i.e. Care vs. Service) and Customary Care, a special placement
for Aboriginal children.
Looking at these three types of care, combined, we used average number of children in care plus
children in kinship service (no financial support) as a denominator. We calculated percentages for each.
The higher the percentage, the more use of these placements. (Aboriginal children can be placed in a
special arrangement called customary care. Essentially, any family or community member who can raise
a child in accordance with his or her band communitys customs.) Keeping children with relatives or
community members is considered preferable to other placement types such as foster and group
homes.
TABLE 1: KINSHIP AND CUSTOMARY CARE
CAS
Weechi-it-te-win Family Services Inc.
Tikinagan Child and Family Services Inc.
Anishinaabe Abinoojii Family Services
Dilico Anishinabek Family Care
Chatham-Kent Integrated Children's Service
Ontario Average
Native Child and Family Services of Toronto
Family, Youth and Child Services of Muskoka
Highland Shores Childrens Aid Society
Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto
Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto
Children's Aid Society of Toronto
County of Prince Edward Children's Aid Society
Dufferin Child and Family Services
Percent Rank
68.1%
1
64.6%
2
54.8%
3
35.0%
4
31.3%
5
22.9%
15.6%
39
15.2%
40
15.1%
41
13.8%
42
12.0%
43
11.6%
44
9.4%
45
6.5%
46
Page 4 of 31
Page 5 of 31
2) GROUP HOME CARE

We compared group home days of paid care to total days of paid care. It indicates the extent to which
societies place children/youth in group home care. Urban societies tend to use group homes at higher
rates than non-urban ones.
During a five-year period, the Jewish CAS of Greater Toronto spent 33.2 per cent of its total days of paid
care on group homes, and the Catholic CAS of Toronto 21.9 per cent. That compares to less than 2 per
cent for Prescott-Russell CAS.
Six societies spent more than 20 per cent of total days paid care on group home care during the fiveyear period. Nineteen societies spent less than 10 per cent of total days of paid care on group home
care.
TABLE 2: GROUP HOME CARE
CAS
Payukotayno: James and Hudson Bay Family Services
CAS of the RegionalMunicipality of Waterloo
Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society
Children's Aid Society of the City of Sarnia and the County of Lambton Inc.
Ontario Average
CAS of the City of Guelph& the County of Wellington
Children's Aid Society of Brant
The Children's Aid Society of Haldimand-Norfolk
Services aux enfants et adultes de P-R Services to Children and Adults
Percent Rank
33.2%
1
27.2%
2
21.9%
3
21.1%
4
20.5%
5
20.4%
6
12.4%
5.4%
41
5.4%
42
4.6%
43
4.6%
44
4.5%
45
1.9%
46
Page 6 of 31
Page 7 of 31
3) ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR)

The Star looked at the number of cases that societies deal with through an alternate dispute resolution
process, an option that requires coordinating meetings with family and relatives and/or mediation. The
Star compared the number of ADR cases with the number of ongoing support services- number of
cases served. We created a ratio of cases served to ADR cases. This allows for a comparison of ADR use.
For example, in Thunder Bay, for every 11 cases served, there is one case that goes to ADR.
Overall, the actual numbers during the five-year period are quite low. First Nation societies seem to be
doing very few of these. Thunder Bay, Prince Edward, Renfrew and Brant use it most often,
proportionately.
Societies in major urban centres like Toronto, Ottawa, and Peel rarely use it, and 6 societies didnt use it
at all.
TABLE 3: ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
CAS
The Children's Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay
County of Prince Edward Children's Aid Society
Family & Children's Services of Renfrew County
Children's Aid Society of Brant
Kawartha - Haliburton Children's Aid Society
Children's Aid Society of Algoma
Ontario Average
55-Family and Children's of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville
09-The Children's Aid Society of the Durham Region
14-Halton Children's Aid Society
52-Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society
01-Anishinaabe Abinoojii Family Services
08-Dufferin Child and Family Services
33-Payukotayno: James and Hudson Bay Family Services
44-Tikinagan Child and Family Services Inc.
50-Weechi-it-te-win Family Services Inc.
51-CAS of the City of Guelph & the County of Wellington
Cases
Served
to ADR
Ratio
11:1
15:1
18:1
20:1
22:1
22:1
53:1
205:1
220:1
404:1
792:1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
37
38
39
40
N/A means ZERO ADR
Page 8 of 31
Page 9 of 31
4) NEW PROTECTION APPLICATIONS

The Star compared new protection applications, which involve going to court, with ongoing support
services-number of cases served. We created percentages to compare. The higher the percentage, the
more litigious the society.
TABLE 4: NEW PROTECTION APPLICATIONS
CAS
Family & Children's Services of Renfrew County
The Children's Aid Society of the Districts of Nipissing and Parry Sound
Family and Childrens Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington
CAS of London and Middlesex
CAS of the City of St. Thomas and the County of Elgin
Children's Aid Society of Ottawa
Ontario Average
Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel
Halton Children's Aid Society
Percent Rank
55.2%
1
41.3%
2
34.7%
3
27.0%
4
26.5%
5
25.8%
6
14.9%
7.0%
41
5.9%
42
5.5%
43
5.4%
44
0.1%
45
0.0%
46
Page 10 of 31
Page 11 of 31
5) INVESTIGATIONS
The Star examined CAS investigations. Included in this look is a breakdown of the referral of cases for
investigation, and the re-opening of cases.
5a) Investigations Completed versus Ongoing

We compared total investigations completed with cases transferred to ongoing, by creating ratios.
The greater the ratio of total completed to cases transferred, the higher the number of investigations
that were unfounded.
York Region investigates seven times more cases than it transfers to ongoing during the five-year period.
Durham, Greater Toronto Jewish, and Halton all investigate six times more. At the opposite end,
Prescott-Russell, Haldimand-Norfolk, North Eastern and three First Nations societies investigate about
two or three times more cases than they transfer to ongoing.
TABLE 5A: INVESTIGATIONS - COMPLETED VS ONGOING
CAS
Children and Family Services for York Region
The Children's Aid Society of the Durham Region
Dufferin Child and Family Services
Ontario Average
North Eastern Ontario Family and Childrens Services
The Children's Aid Society of Haldimand-Norfolk
Prescott-Russell Services to Children and Adults
CompletedToOngoing Ratio
7.2:1
6.5:1
6:1
6:1
5.8:1
4.3:1
3:1
2.9:1
2.9:1
2.8:1
2.2:1
2.2:1
Page 12 of 31
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
41
42
43
44
45
46
Page 13 of 31
5b) Investigations Cases Reopened

The Star compared the number of cases opened with the number reopened in the same five-year
period. The higher the ratio, the fewer number of cases being reopened.
Ten CASs reopened more cases than they opened, including Toronto, Toronto Catholic, Durham,
Ottawa, and Waterloo.
Greater Toronto Jewish CAS has by far the lowest ratio of cases reopened only one for every 16 cases
opened. The next lowest scores are two First Nations societies Anishinaabe and Tikinagan with one
reopened for every seven opened.
Most societies are reopening a case for every one or two opened.
TABLE 5B: INVESTIGATIONS - CASES REOPENED
CAS
Kenora-Rainy River Districts Child and Family Services
Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel
Ontario Average
Children's Aid Society of Toronto
Highland Shores Childrens Aid Society
Kawartha - Haliburton Children's Aid Society
Children's Aid Society of Algoma
CAS of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
The Children's Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay
The Children's Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin
OpenedToReopened
16:1
7:1
6.9:1
5.4:1
5.3:1
5.2:1
1.5:1
0.9:1
0.9:1
0.9:1
0.9:1
0.8:1
0.8:1
0.7:1
0.6:1
0.6:1
0.5:1
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Page 14 of 31
Page 15 of 31
6) CROWN WARDS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL ACCESS

When comparing the proportion of Crown wards with access to parents, versus Crown wards without
access, significant differences between CASs again emerge. We created average ratios for this measure,
over the five years of ministry roll-up data. The higher the ratio, greater is the proportion with access.
In Durham, the average ratio of Crown wards with access to those without was 8 to 1. In Chatham-Kent
and Guelph/Wellington and CAS Ottawa, the ratio was 1 to 1. In many other CAS jurisdictions, it was
closer to 2 to 1 having access. In jurisdictions where there was also a Catholic CAS, the Catholic CASs had
a higher proportion of Crown wards with access to parents.
TABLE 6: RATIO OF CROWN WARDS WITH PARENTAL ACCESS TO THOSE WITHOUT
CAS
AnishinaabeAbinoojii Family Services
Family and Children's of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville
Ontario Average
Chatham-Kent Integrated Children's Service
Native Child and Family Services of Toronto
CAS of the City of Guelph & the County of Wellington
Ward Access:NoAccess Ratio

All
61:1
57:1
8:1
5:1
5:1
2.5:1
1.0:1
0.98:1
0.95:1
0.94:1
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
43
44
45
46
Page 16 of 31
Page 17 of 31
SECTION II: CROWN WARD REVIEWS

The Star obtained Crown Ward Reviews for each CAS conducted for each of the five years from 2009 to
2013. The format changed in 2012, making it impossible to compare outcomes over those five years.
Subsequent amalgamations of CASs left the Star with only 2013 as a year to look at results. Significant
differences were found in performance.
1) AVERAGE NUMBER OF PLACEMENTS PER CHILD/YOUTH SINCE

MOST RECENT ADMISSION
Placements ranged from a low of 2.6 for Peel Region to a high of 8.6 for Payukotayno James & Hudson
Bay. Also registering a high number of moves are Tikinagan at 6.6, and Elgin, North Eastern and PrescottRussell with slightly more than 5 moves.
TABLE CW1: AVERAGE NUMBER OF PLACEMENTS
CAS
Average number of
placements per
child/youth since
most recent
admission
Rank
PEEL
2.6
KENORA RAINY RIVER
2.8
RENFREW
2.9
NATIVE
3.0
THUNDER BAY
3.0
ONTARIO AVERAGE
4.0
VALORIS PRESCOTT
5.5
41
ELGIN
5.6
42
NORTH EASTERN
5.7
43
TIKINAGAN
6.6
44
JAMES AND HUDSON BAY
8.6
45
Page 18 of 31
Page 19 of 31
2) AVERAGE NUMBER OF CASEWORKERS SINCE CHILDS ADMISSION

TO CARE
The number of caseworkers ranged from 2.7 in Weechi-it-te-win CAS to a high of 12.8 in Tikinagan CAS.
Twenty CASs had Wards seeing five or more caseworkers.
TABLE CW2: AVERAGE NUMBER OF CASEWORKERS
CAS
Average number of
caseworkers since
the child's
admission to care
Rank
WEECHI-IT-TE-WIN
2.7
NATIVE CHILD (TORONTO)
3.2
SARNIA LAMBTON
3.6
WELLINGTON
3.6
DURHAM
3.7
SIMCOE
3.7
ONTARIO AVERAGE
5.1
BRUCE GREY
7.1
41
DUFFERIN
7.3
42
ANISHINAABE ABINOOJII
7.6
43
8.2
44
12.8
45
TIKINAGAN
Page 20 of 31
Page 21 of 31
3) AAR/ONLAC USED TO DEVELOP PLANS OF CARE

A large number of CASs are not consistently using these important tools to develop plans of care. Bruce
Grey used them in only 21.8 per cent of plans of care, Simcoe in 36.8 per cent, Elgin in 40 per cent. Ten
CASs are using these tools in plans of care 50 per cent of the time, or less.
Only three CASs Algoma, Halton and Weechi-it-te-win used them 100 per cent of the time.
TABLE CW3: PERCENTAGE OF PLANS USING AAR/ONLAC
CAS
AAR/ONLAC
used to
develop plans
of care
Rank
ALGOMA
100.0%
HALTON
100.0%
WEECHI-IT-TE-WIN
100.0%
VALORIS PRESCOTT
95.5%
NIAGARA
91.7%
CHATHAM KENT
91.1%
ONTARIO AVERAGE
64.8%
RENFREW
44.9%
39
MUSKOKA
44.4%
40
WELLINGTON
44.4%
40
ELGIN
40.0%
42
38.2%
43
SIMCOE
36.8%
44
BRUCE GREY
21.8%
45
Page 22 of 31
Page 23 of 31
4) ANNUAL MEDICAL
Only six CASs had 100 per cent of Crown Wards receiving annual medicals within the specified
timeframe. Bruce Grey had the fewest at 65 per cent.
TABLE CW4: PERCENTAGE OF CROWN WARDS THAT RECEIVE ANNUAL MEDICALS
CAS
Annual
medical
Rank
DUFFERIN
100.00%
HALTON
100.00%
100.00%
MUSKOKA
100.00%
VALORIS PRESCOTT
100.00%
WEECHI-IT-TE-WIN
100.00%
ONTARIO AVERAGE
91.87%
HAMILTON WENTWORTH CCAS
86.30%
41
RENFREW
85.70%
42
HIGHLAND SHORES
85.40%
43
ANISHINAABE ABINOOJII
81.60%
44
BRUCE GREY
65.50%
45
Page 24 of 31
Page 25 of 31
5) ANNUAL DENTAL
Only five CASs had 100 per cent of Crown Wards who received annual dental care within the specified
timeframe. Tikinagan scored lowest with 56.6 per cent, followed by Bruce Grey with 69 percent. Seven
CASs scored between 70 and 80 per cent.
TABLE CW5: PERCENTAGE OF CROWN WARDS THAT RECEIVE ANNUAL DENTAL CARE
CAS
Annual dental
Rank
ALGOMA
100.00%
ELGIN
100.00%
JEWISH FAMILY
100.00%
MUSKOKA
100.00%
WEECHI-IT-TE-WIN
100.00%
ONTARIO AVERAGE
86.35%
LONDON
74.10%
41
DILICO ANISHINABEK
73.90%
42
DUFFERIN
72.70%
43
BRUCE GREY
69.10%
44
TIKINAGAN
56.60%
45
Page 26 of 31
Page 27 of 31
6) AVERAGE NUMBER OF FACE-TO-FACE CONTACTS IN PAST 12

MONTHS
Scores ranged from a high of 23 in Algoma to a low of 6 in Weechi-it-te-win. Ten CASs had face-to-face
contact no more than ten times.
TABLE CW6: AVERAGE NUMBER OF FACE-TO-FACE CONTACTS
CAS
Average number of
face-to-face contacts
in the past 12 months
Rank
ALGOMA
23.5
NORTH EASTERN
19.4
NIAGARA
16.6
LANARK LEEDS AND GRENVILLE
15.0
FRONTENAC KINGSTON ADDINGTON
14.7
KAWARTHA HALIBURTON
14.7
ONTARIO AVERAGE
17.3
MUSKOKA
9.9
40
9.8
41
RENFREW
9.5
42
NATIVE
8.8
43
NIPISSING PARRY SOUND
8.3
44
WEECHI-IT-TE-WIN
5.9
45
Page 28 of 31
Page 29 of 31
7) OVERALL COMPLIANCE
The Star found wide variations in overall compliance in Crown Ward Reviews. Some CASs 13 in all
scored 100 per cent when full compliance (what per cent of the standards were complied with 100 per
cent of the time in the cases reviewed) and high compliance (what per cent of the standards were
complied with 75 to 99 per cent of the time in the cases reviewed) are noted together.
TABLE CW7: OVERALL COMPLIANCE
CAS
% Full
% High
% of cases
=Full & High
Compliance
Rank
ALGOMA
68.4%
31.6%
100.0%
ELGIN
81.2%
18.8%
100.0%
HALTON
68.4%
31.6%
100.0%
HAMILTON WENTWORTH
45.5%
54.5%
100.0%
HURON PERTH
57.9%
42.1%
100.0%
42.1%
57.9%
100.0%
MUSKOKA
68.8%
31.2%
100.0%
NIAGARA
47.6%
52.4%
100.0%
OTTAWA
33.3%
66.7%
100.0%
STORMONT DUNDAS & GLENGARRY
33.3%
66.7%
100.0%
TORONTO CAS
36.4%
63.6%
100.0%
WATERLOO
16.7%
83.3%
100.0%
YORK
45.0%
55.0%
100.0%
ONTARIO AVERAGE
38.5%
48.9%
87.4%
HAMILTON WENTWORTH CCAS
30.0%
40.0%
70.0%
40
SARNIA LAMBTON
30.0%
40.0%
70.0%
40
TIKINAGAN
21.1%
47.4%
68.5%
42
SUDBURY MANITOULIN
16.7%
50.0%
66.7%
43
PEEL
22.2%
44.4%
66.6%
44
BRUCE GREY
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
45
Page 30 of 31
Page 31 of 31

Findings Package For CAS

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Findings Package For CAS

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

CAS / CROWN WARD DATA

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS:

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

SECTION I: QUARTERLY REPORTS

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

2) GROUP HOME CARE

TABLE 2: GROUP HOME CARE

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

3) ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR)

N/A means ZERO ADR

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

4) NEW PROTECTION APPLICATIONS

TABLE 4: NEW PROTECTION APPLICATIONS

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

5a) Investigations Completed versus Ongoing

TABLE 5A: INVESTIGATIONS - COMPLETED VS ONGOING

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

5b) Investigations Cases Reopened

TABLE 5B: INVESTIGATIONS - CASES REOPENED

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

6) CROWN WARDS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL ACCESS

TABLE 6: RATIO OF CROWN WARDS WITH PARENTAL ACCESS TO THOSE WITHOUT

Ward Access:NoAccess Ratio

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

SECTION II: CROWN WARD REVIEWS

1) AVERAGE NUMBER OF PLACEMENTS PER CHILD/YOUTH SINCE

TABLE CW1: AVERAGE NUMBER OF PLACEMENTS

KENORA RAINY RIVER

JAMES AND HUDSON BAY

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

2) AVERAGE NUMBER OF CASEWORKERS SINCE CHILDS ADMISSION

TABLE CW2: AVERAGE NUMBER OF CASEWORKERS

NATIVE CHILD (TORONTO)

JAMES AND HUDSON BAY

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

3) AAR/ONLAC USED TO DEVELOP PLANS OF CARE

TABLE CW3: PERCENTAGE OF PLANS USING AAR/ONLAC

JAMES AND HUDSON BAY

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

TABLE CW4: PERCENTAGE OF CROWN WARDS THAT RECEIVE ANNUAL MEDICALS

JAMES AND HUDSON BAY

HAMILTON WENTWORTH CCAS

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

TORONTO STAR ANALYSIS

6) AVERAGE NUMBER OF FACE-TO-FACE CONTACTS IN PAST 12

TABLE CW6: AVERAGE NUMBER OF FACE-TO-FACE CONTACTS

LANARK LEEDS AND GRENVILLE

FRONTENAC KINGSTON ADDINGTON