I'm not sure I caught all the questions, so we'll come back to them.
I'll turn the formula question over to Ms. Cram.
I think the point I'd like to register, very briefly, is that the program prior to 2006 had a fundamental policy flaw, which is that it was biased toward taking kids into care.
The formula isn't really the most important issue, in my view. What we had was a system that basically provided funds for kids in care. So what you got was a lot of kids being taken into care. And the service agencies didn't have the full suite of tools, in terms of kinship care, foster care, placement, diversion, prevention services, and so on.
The new approach that we're trying to do through the new partnership agreements provides the agencies with a mix of funding for operating and maintenance--which is basically paying for the kids' needs--and for prevention services, and they have greater flexibility to move between those. We don't want the agencies biased toward taking kids into care. We want them to make the judgments in the communities about the best interests of the child. That's why we put such an emphasis on the prevention thing. We're trying to do a very fundamental policy renovation and remove the systemic bias.
One of the reasons the costs grew so much in the 1990s is that the system had a tilt toward taking kids into care, which is precisely the most expensive part of the whole system; it can run over $90,000 to $100,000 per child per year. If you get the kids earlier, it's actually cost-effective, as well as in the best interests of the child.
I'm not denying or negating the importance of the question about the funding formula, which I'll have to ask Ms. Cram to help me out with, but I did want to get across that we're trying to give the agencies the tools on the ground to deal with case management more effectively.