DMFS

• DMFS Update
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
• Training
• Funding Central
• MFSP Participant Survey
• Research
• C/MFRCs In Focus
  • Submission Guidelines
• Resources for C/MFRCs
  • Children's Deployment Support Program
  • Key Reference Documents
  • Forms
  • MFRC Board Orientation and Training Kit
  • C/MFRC Contact List
  • MFSP Logos
  • Second Language Training
  • Policies and Standards
  • Publications
  • Research
  • Deployment Support Database
  • Family Violence Prevention and Awareness
• Useful Links

National Standards and Communication Key Recommendations for Military Family Services Program

When the Canadian Forces (CF) Family Advisory Committees and Working Groups met to discuss specific fields of improvement for family services, they also reflected on general enhancements that could positively affect all facets of the Military Family Service Program (MFSP).

Advisory Committees and Working Groups were tasked with taking the action plans drafted at the CF Family Services Summit in May 2008, and tailoring them into recommendations for the Director Military Family Services (DMFS). An Advisory Committee and/or Working Group was created for each of the six enhancement themes identified at the Summit: education, health care, deployment and reunion, mental health and social supports, employment and childcare.

When the first round of meetings ended, the Advisory Committees and Working Groups shared three overall recommendations for enhancing programs across the board: an improved set of national standards and resources for the MFSP; better communication between all CF family service stakeholders (including the families themselves); and clarified definitions of who provides which services, and for whom.

The need for national service standards was a key recommendation in most meetings. Though Canadian/Military Family Resource Centres (C/MFRCs) do a great job of recognizing local needs, the groups felt that more national guidance, resources and policies could be beneficial. For example, having a national protocol for briefing and supporting families on Imposed Restriction could be very helpful, as could national standards and resources for transition support.

Enhancing communication between all parties involved in CF family services was another touchstone for group discussions. Each meeting focused on increasing family awareness about the MFSP, easing communication between family service providers and partners, and reliable, responsive evaluations of service effectiveness. Many groups also recommended that making resources on local best practices and CF family contact information nationally available could facilitate communication between locations.

The final overall recommendation, clarifying MFSP definitions, was a two-pronged issue for most groups. First, they recommended better defining the roles for individual service providers. Giving families a clearer picture of which services are provided by which family service partners at each CF location could help families navigate the system with greater ease. Clarifying service providers’ roles could ensure that mandated services are not needlessly duplicated, or insufficient for families at any location.

Second, each group discussed the need to have an enhanced definition of who is considered part of the CF family. They recommended that a broad definition of the CF family could be used to give families support comparable to that of CF members. Overall, each group recommended broadening the definition of the CF family to more actively include reservists and their loved ones, families in remote communities, and parents of CF members who need support.