when everything matters - university of …...monica clarke-johnson, mi’kmaw family and...
TRANSCRIPT
WHEN EVERYTHING MATTERSCoMpARING THE ExpERIENCES of fIRST NATIoNS ANd NoN-AboRIGINAl CHIldREN REMoVEd fRoM THEIR fAMIlIES IN NoVA SCoTIA fRoM 2003 To 2005
Cindy Blackstock A thesis submitted in confrmity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate Department of the Factor Inwentash School of Social Work University of Toronto
© Copyright by Cindy Blackstock, 2009
ii
Abstract
The Canadian Incidence Study on Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (Trocmé, 2001) found
that structural factors such as poverty, poor housing, and substance misuse contribute to
the overrepresentation of First Nations children in child welfare care and yet there is very
little information on the experiences of First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children after
they are placed in care. The When Everything Matters study tracks First Nations and Non-
Aboriginal children removed from their families between 2003–2005 in Nova Scotia to
the time of reunification or to the time of data collection if the child remained in care.
The characteristics of children and their families are compared to the primary aims of child
welfare services provided to children and their families. Results indicate that poor families
living in poor housing are graphically over-represented among all families who have their
children removed. Poverty-related services were not provided to families in proportion to its
occurrence. Caregiver incapacity related to substance misuse was most often cited as the
primary reason for removal and although substance misuse services were provided there is
a need for further child welfare training, policy, and services in this area given the scope of
the problem presenting in both First Nations and Non Aboriginal families. Study findings
are nested in a new bi-cultural theoretical framework founded in First Nations ontology
and physic’s theory of everything called the breath of life theory. Implications for theoretical
development as well as child welfare research, policy and practice are discussed.
When Everything Matters:
Comparing the experiences of first Nations and Non-Aboriginal
children removed from their families in Nova Scotia from 2003 to 2005
Doctor of Philosophy, 2009
Cindy Blackstock
Factor Inwentash Faculty of Social Work
University of Toronto
iii
dedication
To the children and young people of Nova Scotia, their families, communities and those
who work to ensure that every child grows up knowing what it is to be loved, safe, valued
and respected.
And
To mom who taught me my life’s strategy for tackling difficult problems—look for the
obvious almost no one does.
iv
The dreamer’s Thanksgiving
To all who travel beyond the fences of the possible—thank you. You gave me the
strength to glide when I felt I could not fly, the wisdom to believe when I could
not understand and courage to do the impossible:
Jordan River Anderson whose spirit inspires me
Cheryl Regehr, University of Toronto, Faculty of Social Work
Chiefs of the Mi’kmaw Communities and Mi’kmaw Citizens
Joan Glode, Mentor and Director of Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services
Vicki Wood, Nova Scotia Department of Community Services
Terry Cross, Mentor and Director of National Indian Child Welfare Association
Nico Trocmé, McGill University, School of Social Work
Aron Shlonsky, University of Toronto, Faculty of Social Work
Child and Family Service Agencies in Nova Scotia
Nancy MacDonald, Dalhousie University, Faculty of Social Work
Monica Clarke-Johnson, Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services
Jennifer Naples, Dalhousie University, Faculty of Social Work student
Mary Anne Fraser, Nova Scotia Department of Community Services
Heather Kearney, Nova Scotia Department of Community Services
Barbara Fallon, University of Toronto, Faculty of Social Work
Manuela Popovici, University of Toronto, Faculty of Social Work
Seong Gee Um, University of Toronto, Faculty of Social Work
Leah Gryfe, Leah Gryfe Designs
Frances Westley, Waterloo University
Fred Bird, Waterloo University
Adel Sedra and the award named to honor his vision of excellence and innovation
Social Sciences and Humanities Council
v
Fred and Carol Anne Wien, Friends and Mentors
Ivan Brown, Friend and Mentor
Sheila Neysmith, University of Toronto, Faculty of Social Work
Brad McKenzie, University of Manitoba, Faculty of Social Work
vi
Contents
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
The Dreamer’s Thanksgiving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
A Mic Mac Legend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Honoring the Mi’kmaw and Non-Aboriginal Children in Nova Scotia . . . . . . . 2
Locating Myself: A Tradition in First Nations Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Chapter 1: The Breath of Life Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
First Nations and Western Ontology: The Shaping of Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Cross-Cultural Validity of Western Theories to First Nations Child Welfare. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Ecological Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Structural Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Anti-Oppressive Approaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Complexity Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Creating Space for First Nations Ontology and Epistemology in Child Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Western Physics Symbiosis with First Nations Ontology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Comparing the Theory of Everything with First Nations Ontology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
The Emergence of the Breath of Life Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
The Relational Worldview Principles: The Standard Model
for the Breath of Life Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
Accounting for Culture, Context, and Human Diversity in the Breath of Life Theory. . . . . . . .42
Reality Pluralism: Acknowledging the Unseen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
All My Relations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
vii
Summarizing the Breath of Life Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
Testing the Breath of Life Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
Linking Research Questions, Theory, and Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
Chapter 2: Reviewing the Literature
on Overrepresentation and Structural Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
What is Child Maltreatment? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
Research on Ethnic Overrepresentation Using Administrative Data Sets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
Implications of Relying on Substantiated Reports in Overrepresentation Research . . . . . . .63
Exploring Racial Bias in Child Welfare. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
Why Research on Structural Risks Holds Promise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67
Resource Inequities as a Structural Risk Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
Why Research and Research Capacity are Important in First Nations Child Welfare . . . . .71
Implications of the Literature for When Everything Matters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
Chapter 3: Design and Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Child Welfare Service Delivery in Nova Scotia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80
Population Distributions of First Nations and Non-Aboriginal Children in Nova Scotia. . . . . .81
Administrative Child Welfare Data in Nova Scotia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
Data on Child in Care files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
Variables for When Everything Matters Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
Implications of the Contextual Realities of Child Welfare Agencies
for Sampling Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93
The ideal design: A Longitudinal Cohort Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93
Modified Sampling Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94
Data Collection Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97
viii
The WEM Data Collection Instruments and Codebook. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98
Pilot Testing of the Data Collection Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99
Data Collection Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106
A Summary of Methodological Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107
Chapter 4: Breathing Life into Research Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109
First Nations Research Ethics and Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110
Objective Humanity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114
Embracing Spirit and Emotion as Research Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
From the Beginning: The Research Allies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117
Collective Approval as a Research Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119
The Social Contract of Research Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123
Informal Ethics Protocols. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124
Gift Giving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124
The Researcher’s Responsibility for Cultural Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125
The Mi’kmaw Have No Word for Good-Bye. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126
Chapter 5: Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127
Characteristics at Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130
Provincial Removal Incidence Rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130
Structural Factors at Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135
Reasons for Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139
Physical Abuse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140
Sexual Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140
Emotional Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
Caregiver Incapacity—Mental Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
ix ix
Caregiver Incapacity—Substance Misuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
Caregiver Incapacity—Child’s Special Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
Primary Reason for Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142
Secondary Reason for Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144
Tertiary Reason for Removal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146
Child Functioning at Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149
Caregiver Functioning at Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154
Services for Primary Caregiver at Removal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159
Services to Children While in Care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160
Relationship between Functioning and Services Provided While Child in Care . .162
Relationship between Child Functioning at Removal
and Services Provided While Child in Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164
Characteristics at Reunification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165
Structural Factors at Reunification
or Data Collection if Child Remains in Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166
Time to Reunification from Date of Removal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .167
Placements of Children at Time of Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .168
Reunification Destination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169
Reason for Reunification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .170
Children Remaining in Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171
Legal Status at Time of Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172
Reason for Child Remaining in Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172
Functioning Concerns for Primary Caregiver
by Caregiver First Nations Status and Child Reunification Status . . . . . . . . . . . .174
Significant Service Differences between First Nations
and Non-Aboriginal Children at Time of Reunification or
at Time of Data Collection if Child Remains in Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176
x
Comparing Services for Non-Aboriginal and First Nations Children
Who Were Reunified or Remained in Care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178
Significant Service Differences for Non-Aboriginal Children
Who Were Reunified or Remained in Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178
Significant Service Differences for First Nations Children
Who Were Reunified or Remained in Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181
Significant Service Differences between Primary Caregivers
for First Nations and Non-Aboriginal Children
at Time of Reunification or at Time of Data Collection
if Child Remains in Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181
Children Who Were Reunified or Remained in Care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183
Relationship between Functioning and Services Provided
at Reunification or Data Collection if the Child Remained in Care . . . . . . . . . .183
Relationship between Child Functioning at Removal and Services Provided Post
Reunification or at the Time of Data Collection
if the Child Remained in Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .186
Culture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .186
Cultural and Spiritual Services While Child in Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187
Cultural Service Data at Reunification or Data Collection if Child in Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189
Spiritual Service Data at Reunification or Data Collection if Child in Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189
Cultural Placement Match for Children
as of Reunification or Data Collection Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190
Predicting Reunification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194
xi
Chapter 6: We are all made of stars:
Implications of WEM for the Breath of Life Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197
What does child welfare do?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202
Where does the responsibility for overrepresentation lie? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .206
Are First Nations children safer because of Child Welfare? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211
Do Relational Worldview Principles Matter?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213
Poverty, Housing and Substance Misuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214
Chasing the Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216
Culture and Services as Vibrating Strings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .220
Culture as a Vibrating String. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221
Service inequities as a contextual factor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226
Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226
Does Everything Matter?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229
A Word about Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234
Chapter 7: Conclusion: Sending Forth the Breath of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236
Future Research: Breath of Life Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .237
Future Research: When Everything Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .237
Implications for child welfare policy and practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .238
Breathe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .239
The Mi’kmaw have no word for good-bye. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .241
Appendix AWEM Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .257
Appendix BWEM Data Collection Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .258
Appendix CWEM Data Collection Instrument
Adapted for Replication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .270
xii
Table of figures
Figure 1: The medicine wheel depiction of the holistic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Figure 2: Ecological Theory Viewed from the Perspective of Indigenous Ontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Figure 3: Physics Theory of Everything . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Figure 4. Applying the Seven Grandfather Teachings to the Holistic Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
Figure 5: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
Figure 6: Cross (2007) Maslow through Indigenous Eyes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
Figure 7: Bonding Relational Worldview Principles to Holistic Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
Figure 8: Network Science and the Creation of the Small World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
Figure 9: Child Welfare After Applying Breath of Life Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
Figure 10: Incorporating research “lessons learned” into design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
Figure 11: Confederacy of Mi’kmaw Nations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
Figure 12: Summary of Administrative Data in Nova Scotia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
Figure 13: Longitudinal Cohort Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93
Figure 14: Modified Sampling Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96
Figure 15: Research Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97
Figure 16: Mi’kmaw Research Approval Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120
Figure 17: Child Age at Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132
Figure 17: Data collected by the CIS and WEM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198
Figure 18: Current Child Welfare Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .200
Figure 19: Breath of Life Theory Applied to Child Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201
1
A Mic Mac legend
A long time ago, the Great Spirit who lived in the Happy Hunting Grounds created the
universe and all life. The Wise One enjoyed his creation in the twinkling lights of thousands
of stars, the sun and the many galaxies in the universe.
After creating the universe, the Great Spirit sat down to rest. Then he created Glooskap
and gave him special spiritual and physical powers. He called Glooskap to share the sacred
pipe and said, “Glooskap, I am going to create people in my own image. I will call them
Micmac.”
The Great Spirit was pleased with this creation. He took out his sacred pipe and again
called Glooskap. As the Great Spirit was smoking he noticed a large amount of dark red
clay left over. “Glooskap, look at this large piece of clay, the same color as my Micmac
people. I will shape this clay into a crescent form and it will be the most beautiful of all
places on Mother Earth. It will become the home of my Micmac people.”
The great spirit fashioned an enchanting island and called it Minegoo. He dressed her
dark red skin with green grass and lush forests of many different kinds of trees, and
sprinkled her with many brightly colored flowers. Her forest floors were like deep soft
carpets which would cushion the moccasined feet of the Micmac people.
Minegoo was so beautiful that it made the Great Spirit extremely happy—so happy that
he thought about placing Minegoo among the stars. After considering this for a short
time, the Wise One decided that Minegoo should be placed in the middle of the singing
waters, now known as the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
(Mi’kmak Nova Scotia First Net, N.D.)
2
Honoring the Mi’kmaw and Non-Aboriginal Children in Nova Scotia
I respect and honor the Mi’kmaw peoples as the proper owners and caretakers of Mi’kmaw
knowledge, language and experience. So too with the Non-Aboriginal children included
in this study—their experiences and knowledge are owned by them, their families and
communities. Any descriptions of their realities in this dissertation will fail to adequately
capture the depth of their experiences. The best I can do is present my general perception
of First Nations and western knowledge based on my relationships with First Nations and
Non-Aboriginal knowledge keepers, the published literature and the conversations with
Indigenous peoples around the world.
3
locating Myself: A Tradition in first Nations Research
As a First Nations person I believe that I am inextricably connected to all reality across time
and thus cannot stand apart from any research that I have the privilege of working on. For
this reason, I must locate myself so that others can meaningfully discern my influence.
This dissertation is centered on First Nations ontology. These teachings have been passed
on from generation to generation since the time before time. They defy the confinement
of the written word which seems to freeze them in time and space disconnecting them
from the emotion, spirit and physical touch that give them meaning. At best, these
teachings appear as glimmers among the pages—most present when the words seem to
dance with spirit and emotion. Endowed with interconnection, this dissertation crosses
the fences of the social work discipline to understand humanity through lenses that may
appear disparate but, from my worldview, cannot be separated. I travelled through the
tall grass of traditional knowledge, law, physics, biology, cognition, network science and
social work. I do not pretend to have captured the richness of the knowledge in these
areas but hope to show why detours into other ways of knowing, even within the limits
of western knowledge, have strong potential to inform child welfare.
With Gitksan and European ancestors, I had to create a personal ethical space so that I
could live simultaneously in these two very different cultures without being pulled to the
neutral center of what was common to both or being pulled apart all together. Although
it would have been easier to live on common ground, I have chosen to bathe in the
differences, allowing the tensions between these two worldviews to inspire new ways of
feeling and thinking. The transition between western and First Nations thinking is a messy
journey. As I pass the border from one worldview to another, some things I cannot bring
with me… they beguile translation and others transform in a way that dissipates their
brilliance. As you read this dissertation watch for the shifts between worldviews and the
sputters in thinking that happen in the transitions as I grapple for language to capture
4
in writing what many First Nations people rightfully believe cannot be expressed by the
written word alone. As a traveler, I see myself more often in dirty kneed jeans as I crawl
under the fences than in one of my much loved and well tailored Burberry coats.
So how does one write a dissertation that lies at the shorelines of western and First
Nations thought when the institutions who judge the merit of the work lie firmly in
western territory? When I write in the western style, I fence in the emotion, spirit and
passion fueling my thinking and beguile any natural wisdom. My mind dims and the
computer keys are harder to press. Perhaps that is why I can only write western for a little
while and then I need to un-cage my mind and think—and be. I can only hope that this
dissertation reads like a journey through two distinct Nations—the crossing of cultural
borders should be obvious, uncomfortable but not totally unfamiliar. For all who read it, I
wonder if the words are harder to read when the keys are harder to press.
5
Introduction
Fifty years after western social work imposed its child welfare systems on First Nations
communities in Canada, there are more First Nations children in state care than at any
point in history including during the residential school era (Blackstock, 2003; Assembly of
First Nations, 2007; Fontaine, 2007). The failure of western child welfare has invigorated
efforts to affirm, and develop, child safety approaches based on First Nations ontology
and theoretical paradigms (Blackstock, 2003; Assembly of First Nations, 2007; Blackstock,
2007). This dissertation presents four new innovations in social work. First, it presents
a new social work theory based on First Nations ontology and physics called the breath
of life theory. Second, it presents an original study describing the characteristics of First
Nations and Non-Aboriginal children removed from their families in Nova Scotia. This study
is known as the when everything matters (WEM) study. Third, this dissertation provides
the first detailed account of how First Nations research ethics can be practically applied in
bi-cultural research. Last, WEM provides an initial indication of the practical application of
the breath of life theory.
The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) estimates that there are over 27 000 First Nations
children in child welfare care in Canada, representing about 30 percent to 40 percent
of all children in care although First Nations children comprise less than 5 percent of the
overall child population (Farris-Manning and Zandstra, 2003; Blackstock, 2003; Blackstock
and Trocmé, 2005; Assembly of First Nations, 2007). Year-end data collected by Indian
and Northern Affairs Canada indicates that the problem is worsening as the number of
status First Nations children in care living on-reserve increased a staggering 71.5 percent
from 1995 to 2001 (McKenzie, 2002).
Two previous cycles of the Canadian Incidence Study on Reported Child Abuse and
Neglect (CIS) conducted in 1998 and 2003 found that First Nations children were not
overrepresented among reports of abuse but were more than twice as likely to be reported
for neglect than Non-Aboriginal children (Trocmé, Knoke, and Blackstock, 2004; Trocmé,
6
MacLaurin, Fallon, Knoke, Pitman, and McCormack, 2006). In unpacking neglect, CIS
researchers drew a relationship between structural factors such as poverty, poor housing,
and substance misuse and the overrepresentation of First Nations children among
substantiated neglect cases (Nelson et al., 1994; Blackstock, Trocmé and Bennett, 2004;
Blackstock and Trocmé, 2005; Trocmé et al., 2006).
CIS made an important contribution in understanding why First Nations children
are coming into care at disproportionate rates compared to Non-Aboriginal children
(Blackstock, Trocmé & Bennett, 2004; Trocmé, Fallon, MacLaurin & Shangreaux, 2005) but
there is very little information on the experience of these children once they are in child
welfare care. Provincial child welfare reports are often limited to describing the number
of children at various levels of care with little information on the child and family factors
contributing to various child welfare trajectories. Preliminary analysis of child in care data
from several provinces1 and 28 First Nations child and family service agencies indicates that
First Nations children are overrepresented among children in permanent custody in Canada
(First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, 2006). For example, Aboriginal
children represent 7.3 percent of the child population in British Columbia (Statistics Canada,
2001) but 47.8 percent of all children in care as of May 2005 (British Columbia, Ministry
for Children and Family Development, 2005). The over-representation continues to be
prevalent when looking at the numbers of Aboriginal children in temporary and permanent
child welfare care. Aboriginal2 children represent 53.5 percent of all children in permanent
care in BC and 47.6 percent of all children in temporary custody (British Columbia, Ministry
for Children and Family Development, 2005). In 2005, a national survey of First Nations
child and family service agencies, excluding Ontario, found that 47 percent of the children
served by 28 First Nations child and family service agencies were in permanent care (First
Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, 2006). Data from the Nova Scotia
Department of Community Services indicate that First Nations children account for 14
1 Data from four provinces that collect disaggregated information by Aboriginal cultural group on children in care as well as data from a sample of 28 First Nations child and family service agencies.
2 Describes a person of Métis, Inuit, or First Nations heritage.
7
percent of the total number of permanent order applications in 2005/2006 (Nova Scotia
Department of Community Services, 2008) whereas Statistics Canada Census data for
2006 suggest that North American Indian children account for only 2.85 percent of the
Nova Scotia child population aged 0–14 years (Statistics Canada, 2008).
A review of the literature suggests that structural factors play a critical role in predisposing
First Nations children to disproportionate placement in child welfare care but there is no
research exploring how adequately child welfare interventions address these risks once
the child is placed in child welfare care. There are studies suggesting that First Nations
children receive far fewer child welfare services from the public and voluntary sectors than
Non-Aboriginal children (McDonald & Ladd, 2000; Blackstock & Trocmé, 2005; Blackstock,
Prakash, Loxley, & Wien, 2005; Auditor General of Canada, 2008; Committee on Public
Accounts, 2009). Given the limited services available and the overrepresentation of First
Nations children in care, it is critical to maximize service outcomes for existing programs
while the inequity issue is addressed.
Studies from the United States suggest that neglect interventions with Native American
families should promote father involvement, redress parental substance misuse, promote
caregiver employment, and employ long-term empowerment approaches to deal with
situational depression (Nelson et al., 1994; Landsman, Nelson, Allen & Tyler, 1992). The
lack of research in Canada describing the trajectory of First Nations children once they are
placed in child welfare care makes it almost impossible to develop effective interventions
to address the overrepresentation. The outstanding questions here are whether First
Nations children are overrepresented among those in child welfare care because they are
at greater risk and/or whether they are overrepresented because the services provided to
them fail to adequately address the risks they experience.
New research and new thinking are both required to answer these questions.
Using the proven design of the Canadian Incidence Study on Reported Child Abuse
and Neglect as a platform, this study compares the experiences of First Nations children
who were taken into care in Nova Scotia from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2005,
8
with a sample of Non-Aboriginal children matched on the basis of age at entry into care
and exit destination (reunification or not). As shown in Table 1, this study compares
the factors influencing social worker decisions to either reunify or continue with child
welfare placement for First Nations children and Non-Aboriginal children. Child and family
caregiver functioning concerns are also compared against the primary aims of services
provided while the child was in care and post-reunification.
Table 1: Research Questions
Research Question Hypothesis Supporting Citations
Do rates per thousand of First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children who are removed differ?
First Nations children will be removed at higher rates than Non-Aboriginal children.
Trocmé, Knoke, & Blackstock (2004); Blackstock et al. (2005); Trocmé et al. (2006)
Do the rates per thousand of First Nations versus Non-Aboriginal children who are reunified with family or remain in child welfare care differ?
First Nations children will be overrepresented among children who remain in foster care and less likely to be reunified with family than Non-Aboriginal children.
Trocmé, Knoke, & Blackstock (2004); Blackstock et al. (2005); Trocmé et al. (2006)
Do the factors resulting in the reunification or continued placement of First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children differ?
Neglect is more likely to be the primary type of maltreatment for First Nations children in child welfare care. Structural factors such as poverty, poor housing, and caregiver substance misuse substantially account for the overrepresentation.
Trocmé, Knoke, & Blackstock (2004); Blackstock et al. (2005); Trocmé et al. (2006)
Do the number and nature of services provided to First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children and caregivers differ?
First Nations children and caregivers are less likely to receive services than Non-Aboriginal children and caregivers.
Olson (1982); McDonald & Ladd (2000); Burns et al. (2004); Libby et al. (2006); Blackstock (2005); Blackstock et al. (2005); Loxley et al. (2005)
Do the aims of services provided to First Nations align with the factors contributing to reunification or continued placement?
Services provided to First Nations children and their families do not address the structural factors that increase the likelihood that First Nations children will remain in child welfare care.
Blackstock (2005); Blackstock & Trocmé (2005); Blackstock et al. (2005); Loxley et al. (2005); Assembly of First Nations (2007)
The breath of life theory evolved because western social work theories are unreflective
of First Nations ontology and do not provide a satisfactory framework for understanding
the risks experienced by First Nations children and their families. These risks are often
historically rooted and structurally sourced. The breath of life theory draws from First
9
Nations ontology and western physics to propose the first potentially testable social work
theory and provide a new way to conceptualize child safety and maltreatment.
This dissertation begins by describing the breath of life theory before moving on to
summarize the current literature relevant to this study and describe the research method
for the when everything matters study. A summary of how First Nations ethical standards
were applied in the bi-cultural WEM study is followed by a description of the WEM research
findings. Theoretical implications of WEM for the breath of life theory are also discussed.
The dissertation ends with a discussion of the research findings for Canadian child
welfare research, policy, and practice.
10
CHApTER 1
The breath of life Theory
Is the theoretical whole of human experience really just a sum of its parts? As the Mic
Mac3 creation story (Mi’kmaq, n.d.) opening this dissertation beautifully demonstrates,
First Nations ontology suggests that people are interconnected with the universe, the
natural world, and each other—across time and dimensions of reality. First Nations believe
the whole can be understood only as an interconnected reality governed by a set of simple
principles that must be in balance in order to achieve optimal balance for individuals
and groups in the system. In effect, First Nations believe that western theories of parts
of things are false realities and, instead, what should be pursued is the understanding
human existence within the context of a unified theory. First Nations are not alone in
favouring a unified theory of nature; many disciplines in western science such as physics
and ecology are actively investigating the same.
Despite the growing evidence that structural factors play a key role in the overrepresentation
of First Nations children in child welfare, there is very little theoretical work relevant to
First Nations. Social science theories most often applied to First Nations child welfare
such as ecological theory, structural theory, and anti-oppressive frameworks are imbued
with western cultural preferences for reductionism, individuality, and determinism that do
not easily interface with the holistic worldview of First Nations families or bridge the gap
between the source of structural risk and its manifestation among disadvantaged groups
(Blackstock, 2007). As ontology and theory are intrinsically linked (Archer, 1995), this
paper contrasts the general characteristics of First Nations and western ontology before
proposing a bold new theoretical approach to understanding social phenomena by drawing
on First Nations ontology as well as the theory of everything (TOE) from western physics
called the breath of life theory. This theory, which at first glance may appear too general to
3 The terms Mic Mac, Mi’kmaq and Mi’kmaw are interchangeable. The term Mi’kmaw is used by the author as the Mi’kmaw believe it most properly reflects the correct linguistic of their language.
11
western thinkers, holds the potential to be a testable unified theory capable of predicting
future outcomes in social work or other social fields. This new theoretical framework can
better explore the intersections between structural risk and First Nations children. The new
theory challenges western theoretical social work paradigms by proposing that everything
does matter, albeit to different degrees, when it comes to child safety and well-being—or
any other element of human existence. Applications of the breath of life theory in other
disciplines and cultures are also discussed.
first Nations and Western ontology: The Shaping of Theory
Despite the diversity of First Nations cultures in Canada, there are several common
fundamental differences between First Nations and the general character of western
ontology: (1) First Nations believe their ancestors were right about most things (Knudtson &
Suzuki, 1992; Assembly of First Nations, 1993; Auger, 2001), and westerners believe their
ancestors were either mostly wrong or had ideas that could be improved upon (Postman,
1993; Wright, 2005); (2) First Nations believe in an indivisible reality whereas westerners
believe in a reductionist reality (Blackstock, 2007; Cross, 2007); (3) First Nations knowledge is
situated within more expansive concepts of space, dimensions of reality, and time (Campbell
& Moyers, 1991; Auger, 2001; Blackstock, 2007); (4) First Nations ontology and science
are constructed as part of the natural world (Knudtson & Suzuki, 1992; Assembly of First
Nations, 1993; Auger, 2001) whereas western culture largely views human experience as
separate (Postman, 1993); (5) First Nations believe in multiple dimensions of reality whereas
western culture tends to focus on only the observable dimension of reality (Greene, 1996;
Blackstock, 2007; Kaku, 2006); (6) First Nations believe there are sufficient resources to meet
everyone’s needs (Cross, 2009) whereas westerners focus on a scarcity of resources primarily
driven by a conflation of want and need (Campbell & Moyers, 1991; Postman, 1993); and
(7) First Nations favour a stochastic view whereas western thought is largely deterministic.
12
From these differences flow very different concepts of reality, informing all dimensions
of experience including child welfare (Knudtson & Suzuki, 1992; Blackstock, 2007).
First Nations believe that well-being is achieved when there is balance among spiritual,
physical, emotional, and cognitive dimensions of experience at the individual, community,
and natural world levels across time. This interconnected concept of well-being is known
as the holistic model and is often depicted as the Medicine Wheel as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The medicine wheel depiction of the holistic model
For First Nations children, learning about living in balance begins when children first
learn about the oral history of their ancestors through teachings, ceremony, role modeling,
and observation (Auger, 2001; Absolon and Willett, 2004.) Children will continue to
revisit oral history learning throughout their lifetimes so that they can explore different
dimensions of the same concept across the life stages (Assembly of First Nations, 1993;
RCAP, 1996). First Nations understanding of knowledge reaches maturity toward the end
of life when they fulfill the two most important life functions—passing the knowledge to
children and mentoring the middle-aged as they transition to become the next generation
of Elders (Assembly of First Nations, 1993).
One of the most fundamental differences between First Nations and Non-Aboriginal
ontology relates to concepts of time. First Nations believe in expansive concepts of time where
the past, present and, future are mutually influencing whereas western culture focuses on the
13
present and, to a lesser extent on the future. In terms of children, First Nations often consider
their actions in terms of the impacts of the “seven generations.” This means that one’s actions
are informed by the experience of past generations and by considering the consequences for
the seven generations to follow (Assembly of First Nations, 1993). If western child welfare
followed First Nations ontology it would need to assess child maltreatment based on the
ancestral experience of that child and actively consider the consequences of intervention not
only on that child but on the subsequent seven generations of children. This simply does not
happen. At best, western child welfare considers the impacts of parental behavior and the
impacts of child maltreatment on the child as they grow to adulthood and become a parent.
The same pattern is apparent in western theories. Although some theories such as ecological
theory and complexity theory include concepts of time, they are limited to one life cycle and
therefore are not as expansive as the seven generation concept.
Another fundamental difference that should be emphasized is the western child welfare
cultural bias towards one dimension of reality. In the main, western child welfare defines
reality much like a book store. There is non-fiction, the dimension of reality that can
been seen and experienced relegating other dimensions of reality to fictitious or futuristic
status. First Nations believe in multiple dimensions of reality, some of which are based
on legend but many are considered to be non-fictional. I am open to debate on this
one but western child welfare would likely view a person presenting with a belief in
multiple dimensions as eccentric or needing DSM intervention. First Nations view these
multiple dimensions of reality as valuable resources to inform present decision making.
Although it varies by First Nations culture, the richness of multiple dimensions of reality
are usually harvested using spiritual and ritualistic ceremonies. As discussed later in this
dissertation, these ceremonies continue to be invoked today in First Nations child welfare
as an accepted practice (Blackstock, 2003).
After thousands of generations, First Nations believe that there is very little new
knowledge when it comes to children and families (Blackstock, 2007). Thus the gold
14
standard of Indigenous4 social work research methods often involves literally re-searching
the past, while paying particular attention to the content, values, and interconnections of
knowledge passed from one generation to the next (Smith, 1999; Bamblett, 2005).
In general terms, the world looks much different from the western perspective.
Western ontology typically proclaims those who came before as either mostly wrong or
less developed; contemporary and futuristic knowledge are highly valued and the past
is usually relevant only as a starting point for creating better knowledge (Campbell and
Moyers, 1991; Postman, 1993; Wright, 2005). The western bias toward individual rights
and reductionism segments knowledge into a series of different and discrete theoretical
models applied to child welfare with little tolerance for plurality of perspective (Lather,
2006). For example, feminism, critical theory, positivism, and modernity all explore
reality using different lenses but they exist like separate flashlight beams in a dark room.
Sometimes the beams cross each other but little attention is paid to the intersections or
unlit areas. Instead, the holder of the flashlight tends to see only those things enlightened
by the narrow epistemological beam of choice (Blackstock, 2007). Some epistemological
approaches in social work, such as ecological model and structural theory, acknowledge
interconnections but even these theories bracket the time frames and dimensions of reality
(Blackstock, 2007). Several authors have tried to combine western social science theories
to try to account for interconnected phenomena, but there is no accepted process for
combining social work theories nor is there often much reflection by authors about the
symbiosis, tensions, and gaps created when different theories are combined (Houston,
2002; McCurdy and Daro, 2002; Ventegodt, Merrick, and Anderson, 2003).
Western thought places importance on the individual and the fulfillment of individual
rights, needs, and wants. Viewing the satiation of individual wants and needs as equal to,
or even more important than ensuring the survival of the human race in perpetuity sets
academia and industry on a course of what Thomas Berry (2000) calls “outsmarting the
4 Indigenous is most often used in an international context to describe persons who self-identify as Indigenous, tribal, or Aboriginal.
15
planet” (p. 32) to extract the resources and develop goods/services to meet those wants
and needs. The unfortunate side effect of outsmarting the planet without understanding
the interconnections of all things has often led to a mass reproduction of problems, as
scientists, trying to solve one problem, give birth to a plethora of unexpected consequences
(Wright, 2005). Industry and the academe rely on the scientific method to test rigor, and
entrust researchers with owning new knowledge as they produce papers based on it. But
researchers must deliver their papers to only their peers and, if judged favourably by them,
are seen as valid holders of good knowledge. When they become old, they retire and are
replaced by new people with better ideas who create a new, improved, and progress-
filled reality (Powell, 2000). For Aboriginal peoples who draw a correlation between age
and wisdom, setting aside the Elders in favour of the less wise young and middle-aged
would be unthinkable (RCAP, 1996). Terry Cross (2009) points to another fundamental
difference; Indigenous peoples start from a premise of abundance—meaning that there
are more than enough resources to ensure the well-being of us all. What becomes
important then is not the resources themselves, but our relationship to them. This is why
teachings regarding the respectful use of resources, the importance of giving, service, and
reciprocity are engrained into First Nations cultural fabrics (Knudtson & Suzuki, 1992).
Western assumptions of resource scarcity are part of various theoretical frameworks
including anti-oppressive frameworks, suggesting that power and resource tug-of-wars
between the oppressor and oppressed are theoretical focal points. First Nations would likely
agree with Non-Aboriginal anti-oppressive theorists that there are unequal distributions
of power and resources but the solution is not embedded in the struggle between the
“have” and “have-nots”; rather, it is in our common relationship to those resources. If
there were a shared view of resource and power abundance, there would be no need for
the struggle. This is a particularly important question when it comes to power imbalances;
power must be considered a finite resource for there to be an imbalance—and no one
has proven that.
16
The impact of ontological differences can be seen when comparing child welfare
organizations run by First Nations versus Non-Aboriginal peoples. For example, Blackstock
et al. (2005) found that First Nations child welfare agencies were more likely to take a
community development approach to child safety that draws on ancestral knowledge. It
is important to note that there is no evidence that child safety is less valued within the
First Nations community development model than in the western model, which focuses
primarily on the manifestation and intervention of risk for the child. Rather these two
different worldviews suggest different starting points for addressing the risk. For First
Nations, the assumption is that if communities are well, the majority of families are better
able to keep their children safe. For western social work, individual families can keep their
children safe with adequate services.
The differences between western and First Nations ontology are so vast in dimension,
scope, and value that they cannot be substituted for one another without significant
impact to the theoretical model or question under study. They can, however, bring very
different and valuable perspectives to the same phenomena, opening up new pathways
of understanding and intervention in child welfare and other fields.
Cross-Cultural Validity of Western Theories to first Nations Child Welfare
Despite all of the challenges, many child welfare social workers remain wedded to
western social work paradigms as the preferred approach while continuing to exclude or
marginalize First Nations alternatives. This section evaluates three of the most common
western theoretical approaches applied to research respecting First Nations peoples:
ecological theory, anti-oppressive approaches, and structural theory. These western social
work paradigms are evaluated from a First Nations perspective to judge their merits in (1)
achieving their stated aims; (2) cross-cultural validity; (3) capacity to respond to structural
child welfare risk; and (4) testability. Unfortunately, there are no uniform standards for
17
social science theories, resulting in wide variation in what is termed a theory in social
work. For example, as grounded theory does not propose a hypothesis before collecting
data, it is more of a research method than a theory as it has no predictive power and does
not propose a null hypothesis (Blackstock, 2009). For the purposes of defining a robust
social science theory, I suggest that it must propose a plausible null hypothesis and have
some mechanism for prediction using either Indigenous or western research methods.
Ecological Theory
Rooted in developmental psychology, ecological theory was one of the earliest theoretical
approaches applied to First Nations peoples in Canada (Ungar, 2002). Some believe that
ecological theory is particularly well suited to First Nations’ holistic worldview, as it situates
individual experience within the nested layers of community and societal experience
(Ungar, 2002). But as McGregor (2005) notes, Indigenous peoples have been reluctant
to reduce Indigenous knowledge to fit within the western ontological limitations of
ecological theory.
Bronfenbrenner (1979) proposed four different layers of experience that impact on
individuals: (1) the microsystem—such as family, neighbours, and workplace—which has
an immediate and persistent effect on the individual; (2) the mesosystem—such as family
and workplace—which connects microsystem environments; (3) the exosystem—such as
school boards or proximal neighbourhoods—which tangentially affects the individual; and
(4) the macrosystem, encompassing broader societal culture and context. Bronfenbrenner
(1989) later added time as a dimension of the model by including the chronosystem to
reflect patterns of change over the life course.
Figure 2 shows how differences in time and ancestral knowledge, values, and beliefs
play out when the ecological model is viewed from western and First Nations ontological
perspectives.
18
Figure 2: Ecological Theory Viewed from the Perspective of Indigenous Ontology
ECOLOGICAL THEORYWestern Worldview
Micro system(child)
Chrono-system(one lifetime)
Ancestral knowledge(intergenerational)
Blackstock2007
Cognitive
Child, community and world
Physical
Spiritual
EmotionalMeso system(family)
Exo system(workplace)
Macro system(society)
Indigenous Worldview
Under the western ecological approach, the child is seen in a fixed moment in time within
a larger context of family and world. There are interconnections between these dimensions
that shape the reality of the child. Although the concept of the chronosystem captures
experience across the life cycle of a child, it does not consider ancestral knowledge which
requires deliberate consideration of multi-generational influences that have come before
as well as the influences of current behavior on generations to come. If a First Nations
epistemology is applied, the child, family, community, and world are wholly affected
by four interconnected dimensions of knowledge—emotional, spiritual, cognitive, and
physical—informed by ancestral knowledge, which is to be passed to future generations
in perpetuity (AFN, 1993; RCAP, 1996).
Overall, ecological theory is primarily descriptive in nature; it acts like a theoretical zoom
lens allowing the viewer to see how one individual is nested within different layers of his
or her environment. From a child welfare perspective it is often very helpful to think of
19
children within the social spheres that influence them, particularly in terms of the growing
evidence that structural risks located outside the family can increase risk for maltreatment.
However, ecological theory does not provide a clear pathway for identifying or responding
to structural risks impacting intergenerational groups of disadvantaged children nor
does it help us identify and navigate important pathways within or between ecological
dimensions. If Bronfenbrenner had chosen to situate the determinants of health within
the model then it might be able to be tested in some fundamental ways and it also would
help provide some guidance on the question of once you have located a problem then
what do you do about it? Bronfenbrenner does not specifically propose a null hypothesis
for his theory nor propose the development of measures for the micro-, meso-, macro-,
and chronosystems. These limitations, coupled with the questionable cultural validity of
the model, compromise its value in a First Nations child welfare context.
Structural Theory
Structural social work theory focuses on the influence of societal inequality and power
differentials on the systemic marginalization of certain individuals or groups (Mullaly, 1997;
Mullaly, 2007; Baskin, 2002). Structural theory advocates a societal change perspective
in order to mediate inequality (Mullaly, 1997, 2007) but it does not explicitly define or
measure structural risk nor set out a way of exploring the intersection between structural
risks and the experience of individuals or groups across dimensions of reality or time
(Blackstock, 2007b).
On the surface, structural theory seems to lend itself well to dealing with the child
welfare structural risks faced by First Nations children and families in child welfare;
however, despite its promise, it has substantially failed to influence the plight of First
Nations children coming into contact with the child welfare system in Canada.
As Baskin (2002) argues, structural theory is consistent with a First Nations worldview
in that it does zoom out from the experience of risk at an individual level to explore the
sources of that risk at a societal level. However, the overall cross-cultural validity of the
20
model in a First Nations context is limited given its primary focus on structural issues, lack
of attention to ancestral knowledge, intersections between realities, or interconnections
to other phenomena.
Bob Mullaly (2007), a leading structural theorist, differentiates structural theory from
ecological and systems theory approaches, suggesting the latter are too general to
be tested, falsely presume the overall goodness of societal systems, and are primarily
descriptive, giving little attention to suggesting remedies to identified oppression. I agree
with Mullaly’s critique but he leaves readers with the impression that structural theory is
distinguished from the others on these points. I find little evidence of this.
Like ecological theory, structural theory provides an important vantage point for the
analysis of structural risk but it does not specifically define structural risks in a way that
they can be measured or tested nor does it account for how structural risks interact with
each other and with other dimensions across time. As it currently exists, structural theory
cannot adequately address the experience of First Nations children in child welfare.
Anti-Oppressive Approaches
Anti-oppressive (AOP) social work is a broad set of practices and approaches that are
intended to free the potential of each person and honour diversity with a particular focus
on addressing structural oppression arising from power imbalances between individuals
and groups (Williams, 1999). Although AOP is broadly respected and practiced in
Canadian child welfare, there is little evidence to suggest it is effective when applied to
First Nations child welfare. Frankly, the plurality of the approach coupled with the lack of
specificity of definition makes it difficult to empirically evaluate the model even in western
applications, let alone to evaluate its cross-cultural validity in a First Nations context. AOP’s
centrism on oppression raises important questions about its validity when set against First
Nations ontological beliefs in an indivisible reality where oppression would form only one
perspective on experience—not the defining one. AOP also does not explicitly account for
differences in First Nations ontological value of ancestral knowledge, concepts of time,
21
interconnection with other dimensions of reality, or references to the natural world.
It is difficult to evaluate these ontological differences within the context of First Nations child
welfare because there is no historical evidence that the anti-oppressive social work movement
engaged in any widespread or sustained action in the area. For example, the historical record
shows no evidence that AOP social workers protested against residential schools throughout
their 100 years of operations ending in 1996 nor have they mobilized to address the vast
overrepresentation of First Nations children in care today (Blackstock, 2007).
In addition to the questions about AOP’s cross-cultural validity to First Nations, other
factors may further erode AOP efficacy in responding to the oppression experienced by First
Nations. They include (1) the tendency for social workers to be employed in bureaucracies
that reinforce standardization and conformity to institutional norms, thereby muting social
justice activities (Bauman, 1999); (2) social work motivations to feel good by doing good,
which can serve to usurp a constituent’s right to self-determination and the right to define
the “good” (Milloy, 2005); and (3) a lack of pragmatic ways to deal with widespread
systemic risk once it is identified.
As an approach to First Nations child welfare AOP may be an interesting lens, but it is
not robust or comprehensive enough to meet the challenge of informing new approaches
to deal with structural risk factors affecting First Nations.
Complexity Theory
One of the most progressive interdependent and interdisciplinary western theoretical
models is complexity theory (Zimmerman, Linberg, & Plsek, 1988). This theory was
inspired by biological discoveries and attempts to situate knowledge within complex and
interconnected systems. Its emphasis on an interconnected reality makes it particularly well
suited for research on the determinants of health or organizational behaviour (Zimmerman
et al., 1988). Although complexity theory provides a promising framework to understand
the experiences of children experiencing child maltreatment within their connected
environments, it largely remains a fringe theoretical perspective in child welfare, which
22
tends to be populated by critical theory adherents. Complexity theory is more specific
than ecological theory and offers at least the potential of testing some of its theoretical
attributes.
Nevertheless, complexity theory does not fully account for some of the basic tenets
of First Nations ontology. For example, complexity theory brackets time and knowledge
within the life cycle running from birth (known in the model as exploitation) to the
reincarnation phase (known in the model as the creative destruction phase) (Zimmerman
et al., 1998). There is no conception of ancestral knowledge and the model is usually
localized within one aspect of society (e.g., an organization or system) in a specific period
of time. Complexity theory acknowledges that multiple life cycles within organizations
and societies are possible and the passage of some information likely, but decision making
and knowledge building across life cycles are not anchored in any defined set of values
or principles to preserve integrity of phenomenal essence. First Nations would view these
areas as critical oversights because they are fundamental to ensuring the transmission of
knowledge across generations.
Creating Space for first Nations ontology and Epistemology in Child Welfare
Given that western child welfare approaches informed by western ontology are not robust
enough to address the cultural and contextual realities facing First Nations children in child
welfare (RCAP, 1996; McDonald and Ladd, 2000; Trocmé et al., 2004; Absolon and Willett,
2004; Blackstock et al., 2005), how can First Nations ontological and epistemological
approaches be centered in the social science theoretical discourse?
It begins by challenging assumptions that Lather (2006, p. 45) typifies in her description
of non-western epistemologies as “born of the interstices of dominant discourses.”
There are two problematic assumptions here: (1) that undiscovered epistemological
approaches are new rather than newly recognized by western-dominated knowledge
23
and knowledge institutions; and (2) that these new or newly recognized approaches
only fill in the gaps of western knowledge rather than set out a whole new process of
knowledge or emphasis on a dimension of knowledge that western epistemology has
not considered. This type of epistemological bracketing would admonish First Nations
epistemologies to fill in the gaps in social work knowledge. The dissimilarity between First
Nations and western epistemologies suggests differences on the dimensional scale not at
the shorelines. By Lather’s (2006) confining what she terms “new epistemologies,” she
misses an opportunity to explore multiple epistemological positions that go beyond the
boundaries of western thought (Blackstock, 2007). Fawcett and Hearn (2004) also describe
the challenges of researching the other but they do not necessarily introduce a strategy
for understanding the epistemologies of the other on the other’s own terms. Rather, they
introduce western-based critical theory as a framework for building this understanding.
In effect, they advocate using an outsider epistemological framework to understand the
insider, something they discuss in other parts of their article as being problematic because
it distorts understanding (Blackstock, 2007).
The cultural mismatch between research epistemology, methods, and research
participants is fraught with problems (Smith, 1999; Kovach, 2007). For example, when
the gold standard of western research, the randomized control trial, is applied to First
Nations knowledge, it fails. At best, randomized control trials describe a phenomenon in
relation to a bracketed number of variables and in a defined period of time. Even when
replicated, a control trial is usually limited to exploring relationships between variables
identified in the source study and thus may miss the influence of unexplored variables
or changes of context over long periods of time. For examples, one need look no further
than the pharmaceutical industry to see how randomized clinical trials suggesting a drug
is safe and beneficial can later prove to be incorrect when the long-term effects of the
drug or its interactions with unintended variables become apparent. Qualitative social
work research methods offer some similarity to First Nations ontology but they too are
imbued with western concepts of reductionism and determinism so may not be suitable
24
for exploring questions situated within expansive concepts of time, dimensions of reality,
or interconnected realities (Blackstock, 2007). First Nations research methods are also
limited by their ontological viewpoint. For example, First Nations methods of storytelling
would not necessarily be the best approach for understanding new phenomena from
which no prior history or knowledge can be drawn.
First Nations and western ontology theory and research methods should not be rank
ordered in terms of their implicit value but, rather, should be measured against the nature
and context of the question and population under study. By drawing on the richness
of these diverse ontological standpoints and those offered by other cultures, we can
significantly expand our efficacy in all fields of academic study and human understanding.
Table 2 shows how western and indigenous research methods generally match to different
research goals. Indigenous methods are better for exploring ancestral knowledge and
phenomena occurring over long periods of time whereas western research is better
matched for research of new phenomena and documenting indigenous realities in a way
western policy makers can understand. Of course, the exact method is always subject to
the specific nature of the research question.
Table 2: Indigenous Research Goals and Methods Matrix
Research GoalIndigenous Methods
Western Qualitative
Western Quantitative
Exploring Ancestral Knowledge x
Research Phenomena over the long term (i.e. decades and centuries) x
Translation of Indigenous Reality for Western Understanding (usually to inform change) x x
Entrepreneurial research of new phenomena affecting Indigenous Peoples x x
Unfortunately, the current reality in many schools of social work in Canada is that
western ontology, epistemology, and research methods remain the only recognized
legitimate choice. In some ways, it is not surprising given the colonial context in which
Canadian social work has developed. Western social work, and its derivative research,
25
struggle to understand First Nations ways of caring for children and, in most cases, have
not even acknowledged that First Nations peoples have well-developed knowledge and
knowledge-building systems on the subject, let alone invested any time learning about
them (Cross & Blackstock, 2005). By assuming vacancy of knowledge in First Nations
cultures, western-based social work applies its distorting concepts on First Nations
(Blackstock, 2007). This extends to the overreliance on western theoretical paradigms by
social workers to explore the experience of First Nations peoples.
Given that western social work theories are inadequate for exploring structural issues
in a First Nations child welfare context, what about theories from western sciences? Is it
possible, that while social work often judges the pure sciences for being too reductionist
to apply to human experience, the pure sciences are busy capturing a view of reality
that approximates First Nations ontology to a degree that social work has not even
contemplated?
Western physics Symbiosis with first Nations ontology
Although unified theories of reality have been recorded in western thought dating back
to ancient Greece, Einstein was the first person to seriously contemplate a “theory of
everything” (TOE) in science when he succeeded in drawing a relationship between Sir
Isaac Newton’s notion of gravity and electromagnetic force and developed the theory
of relativity (Falk, 2002; Isaacson, 2007). The theory of relativity unites these forces by
suggesting that the universe is composed of a space-time fabric that contours under the
pressure of large masses, such as planets, thus creating gravity. It turned out that in the
cosmos, both of these forces operated in a predictable and interdependent manner in what
would later be termed the “world of the big” (Public Broadcasting Corporation, 2003).
This inspired Einstein and others to see if general relativity could bond with quantum
mechanics in what was then termed “the unified theory” or “the theory of everything”
(Hawking & Mlodinow, 2005).
26
Einstein’s quest for a unified theory was cast into doubt when quantum mechanics
physicists revealed that subatomic particles—the world of the small—operated in a highly
unpredictable manner (Falk, 2002; Greene, 2003). Quantum mechanics suggests that
specific subatomic outcomes cannot be predicted due to the unpredictable behaviour
of individual particles; the best one can do is predict the probability of an outcome.
Quantum mechanics proved so accurate under scientific study that it cast serious doubt
among physicists that marrying the unpredictable world of quantum mechanics with
Einstein’s predictable physical world of cosmology would ever be possible (Hawking &
Mlodinow, 2003). Einstein was unshaken by the skeptics and pursued the TOE to the time
of his death, despite the professional segregation that came with studying what was then
viewed as improbable (Isaacson, 2007).
The puzzle of marrying Einstein’s predictable world of the big with the unpredictable
quantum mechanics world of the small was so ominous that mainstream physics largely
ignored the question for several decades. There were, however, a small number of TOE
devotees who continued to focus on the intersection between the world of the big and
the world of the small; this gave rise to string theory. Early TOE theorists believed that the
same principles that gave rise to the harmonized universe could also explain the erratic
behaviour of particles in quantum mechanics (Falk, 2002). This belief was fuelled by studies
of black holes. Black holes form when a small but very heavy and dense particle (relevant
to quantum mechanics) is set on the space-time fabric (relevant to cosmology), creating a
very sharp contour in a V-shape compared to the wave shape normally created by planets.
This phenomenon sets Einstein’s theory of relativity in play as the gravitational pull created
by the deep, sharp imprint on the space-time fabric is so strong it draws everything into
it, including light (Hawking, 1998; 2005). Because black holes can be only created when
something very small but large in mass penetrates the space-time fabric, there had to be
some mechanism to bind the physical principles of quantum mechanics and cosmology.
It turned out that Einstein was right after all and the unified theory gained momentum
(Hawking, 1988).
27
String theory is physics’ answer to how the world of the big (cosmology) and the world
of the small (quantum mechanics) can be connected. String theory suggests a way in which
the erratic behaviour of individual particles can be harmonized to a degree where the
physical principles are compatible with those governing the universe. Before string theory,
most physicists thought that the smallest subatomic particles existed as independent
units, which created conditions for relatively free and unpredictable movement. String
theory basically rejects this idea. Instead, subatomic particles exist as strings that moderate
the movements of individual particles in such as way that they become more predictable
and can therefore be united with the world of the big (Falk, 2002). In the same way, we
moderate unpredictable behaviours of children by stringing them together with family
and community. String theorists further propose that varying vibrations of strings give rise
to different types of matter and energy (Greene, 2003) in the same way that culture and
context give rise to the rich diversity of human experience.
After years of refinement, string theorists eliminated the mathematical anomalies plaguing
earlier designs, achieving mathematical and theoretical balance between the world of the
big and the world of the small, and thus paving the way for the unified TOE (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: Physics Theory of Everything
World of the Big (Cosmology)
World of the Small(Subatomic)
BALANCED
FOCUS
Pred
icta
ble
Un
pre
dic
tab
le
BALANCED
FOCUS
Assumption:Small number of
physical forces interactingwith matter bind allreality across time—intersection between
big and small ismost important.Multiple realities
probable.
ExpressedMathematically
QuantumMechanics
String Theory binds world
of small and big creating a predictable
reality
Weakforce
Strongforce Electro-
magneticforce
28
Physics’ pursuit of TOE suggests numerous things about reality:
I. Only about 4 percent of matter is visible, suggesting that a study of reality based only
on what can be seen would be extremely limited (CERN, 2008).
II. It accepts a stochastic view of reality.
III. There are multiple dimensions of reality also known as degrees of freedom—four
of which we can observe in everyday life and six or seven of which cannot be seen
(Greene, 2003; Public Broadcasting Corporation, 2003; Kaku, 2006):
(1) Observable:
(a) Dimension of left and right
(b) Dimension of back and forth
(c) Dimension of up and down
(d) One dimension of time
(2) Unobservable:
(a) Undefined but may be circular such as clockwise and counterclockwise
(b) According to M theory, gravitons are thought to be able to pass through
two or more dimensions of reality (Witten, 1998).
IV. All reality is formed in strings of particles (in circles or strands or circles and strands)
and variations in string vibrations give rise to different forms of matter and energy
(Falk, 2002; Greene, 2003).
V. There are 18 numeric constants of nature known as the standard model. Each constant
has a precise value; if these values were altered, the universe as we know it will cease
to exist (Greene, 2003; Oerter, 2006).
VI. Although the standard model is very robust, it does not explain all matter and energy
in the universe and thus there is ongoing work to achieve a true TOE (Oerter, 2006;
CERN, 2008).
29
Some have suggested that string theory should not be considered a true scientific theory
because strings are not visible using current technology; therefore, the theory cannot
be disproved using contemporary technology (Woit, 2006; Cartwright and Frigg, 2007).
However, string theory does at least posit a plausible test for the theory; if strings do not
exist, the theory is wrong. String theory advocates suggest that it is reasonable to believe
that technology capable of seeing strings will be available in the foreseeable future (Kaku,
2006). Moreover, they argue the sophisticated mathematical balance in string theory is very
unlikely to be achieved in error and that “fingerprints” of strings such as the Higgs Boson
particle will be detectable as new technologies are employed, such as the Large Hadron
Collider (LHC) that recently began operations in Switzerland (Cartwright and Frigg, 2007;
CERN, 2008; and Quigg, 2008). Discounting a theory solely on the basis that available
technology cannot conduct a reliable test is ill advised. If this same thinking applied in
Newton’s time then his law of gravity would have never gotten off the ground but it is
critical that any proposed theory has a strong evidence base and a plausible way of being
disproved. These are characteristics that too many social work theories simply fall short
on.
There is something else at work as well, relating to the question of how an empirical
science like physics can investigate the creation of the universe when it occurred over 13.7
billion years ago (Falk, 2002). Some believe that there is no way science can empirically
investigate something that happened so long ago, charging that such an endeavour rings
more of philosophy than science. This same argument is often leveraged at First Nations
ancestral knowledge.
In physics, what empirical evidence could possibly survive over such a vast period of
time? The answer is starlight. The universe is so large that the light from the oldest stars
(dating back to the time of the creation of the universe in what has been termed “the
big bang”) is just reaching us now, even though the stars have likely long burnt out
(Hawking & Mlodinow, 2005). This ancient light provides an imprint of how the universe
was created, just as the spirit and oral history of the first Elders that has echoed through
30
ancestral knowledge for millennia to imprint on the current generation of First Nations
children. For the evidence suggesting that First Nations oral history is valid, one need look
no further than the detailed study and ruling made by the Supreme Court of Canada in the
historic Delgamuuk case in which the Court ruled that the oral history of the Gitksan and
Wet’suwet’en meets the test of valid evidence in legal proceedings in Canada (Delgamuuk
vs. British Columbia, 1997), and is as valid as western written evidence.
Theoretical development and testing in western physics takes on a more collective
flavour than in the western social sciences. For example, the European Organization for
Nuclear Research (CERN) has brought together hundreds of scientists from all over the
world to develop the Large Hadron Collider at a cost of over 3 billion euros to test string
theory and build toward a TOE (CERN, 2008). This approach is largely consistent with First
Nations concepts of knowledge building, which promote a collective, multidisciplinary,
and multigenerational approach. In comparison, social science theory development and
testing remains a rather solitary undertaking where theoretical development is often done
by individuals and, in the absence of ways to empirically test the theories, the involvement
of others is often limited to exploring the application of the theory in a variety of contexts.
Although theoretical enterprise in physics is more robustly funded than the social sciences,
the collective approach to theoretical development and testing is something by which
social science should be inspired.
Comparing the Theory of Everything with first Nations ontology
I am not suggesting that the TOE can be imported wholesale into First Nations child
welfare, but rather that its basic tenets can be applied in a bicultural way to inspire
new thinking about the relationship between structural risk and groups of First Nations
children. The TOE, like First Nations knowledge, assumes all reality across time and space
can be united according to a series of simple principles. For physics, these principles are
31
presented as mathematical formulas; in First Nations knowledge they are presented as
interdependent principles (such as the well-being constants in Cross’s (2007) relational
worldview principles), which, when in balance, achieve optimal community, family, and
individual well-being. These principles are often guided by a set of values similar to the
Seven Grandfather Teachings (see Figure 4), and are often employed in efforts to reset the
relational worldview principles when they are out of balance.
One of the most pronounced features binding First Nations knowledge and the TOE
is that all reality across time and space is interconnected. Social work theories are often
segmented in terms of population (e.g., feminism, anti-oppressive practice, queer theory),
scope (e.g., structural theory), or time (e.g., ecological theory, complexity theory), and there
has been little consideration as to whether these theoretical frameworks are themselves only
components of an all-encompassing theory of human social reality across time and space.
Some may argue that the particles and cosmological phenomena studied in physics have
no links to the complexity of human functioning or consciousness and thus linkages between
physics and social science should be discounted. Advances in quantum biology suggest
they are wrong (Anderson, 2009). Research has demonstrated that photosynthesis is likely
dependent on the phenomena of quantum walk, where changes to one particle affect
other particles linked to that particle since conception. Emerging work in anesthesiology
suggests that quantum phenomena may affect neurological functioning including
consciousness (Anderson, 2009). Although physicists have not explored the application of
TOE to human beings in any depth, Nobel Laureate physicist Stephen Hawking suggests
that if TOE is true then it logically follows that the physicists, and the study of TOE itself,
are also subject to its influence. Indigenous ontology is likely much better positioned to
propose a TOE to explain human experience than western alternatives.
TOE and First Nations ontology are symbiotic in the following ways:
1. Both assume that all reality across all time can be explained on the basis of a limited
set of interconnected principles.
32
2. Both acknowledge multiple dimensions of reality—some of which are observable and
many of which are not.
3. Both respect historical patterns as a means of informing present and future realities.
4. Both state that ensuring an appropriate balance between dimensions and realities
achieves optimal outcomes whereas placing one dimension out of balance creates
destruction or harm.
5. The TOE suggests at least some, and in some cases all, strings are circular; the breath
of life worldview believes in circular creation. For example, that one lives your life on
the basis of ancestral teachings, you contribute to those teachings in your lifetime and
then you become an ancestor.
6. Both discern a perception of reality based on references to the natural world.
7. Both believe it is highly improbable that our universe could have been created by
chance alone.
TOE and First Nations ontology as expressed in the breath of life theory differ in that:
1. The breath of life theory emphasizes circular creation to a larger extent than string
theory.
2. The breath of life theory takes physical principles and translates them into human
constants designed to ensure balance in reality at individual, group, societal, and
intergenerational levels.
3. The breath of life theory values multiple expressions of knowledge as equally valid
whereas TOE focuses primarily on empirical research and mathematical expression.
Despite these differences, the fundamental similarities between the TOE and the
First Nations ontology allow for a cross-cultural theoretical discourse that is simply not
achievable with western social work theories.
33
The Emergence of the breath of life Theory
First Nations Elder and academic Willie Ermine (2004) suggests that an ethical space needs
to be created between western and First Nations knowledge and research where they can
coexist as distinct but complimentary ways of understanding reality. I agree and believe
that child welfare is particularly well suited to the creation of an ethical space as it sits at the
ontological shoreline of western and First Nations child caring knowledge. The wholesale
imposition of western child protection systems has failed dramatically and while traditional
First Nations child care knowledge is incredibly rich, it has not fully contemplated some
of the colonial hazards facing First Nations children in the child welfare system today. A
theoretical framework is needed that presents at least the possibility of distinct coexistence
between First Nations and non-First Nations child welfare knowledge while taking into full
account the role of the structural risks impacting First Nations children.
What could an ethical space theory in child welfare look like? Let’s walk through what
we know before arriving at my proposition for a TOE in child welfare. Research indicates
that structural risks (the world of the big) have a direct impact on child safety (the world
of the small) and this is particularly true for First Nations children (Costellano et al., 1997;
Chandler & Lalonde, 1998; Blackstock & Trocmé, 2005; Trocmé et al., 2006). Current
western social work theories inadequately explain the intersection between structural
risk and the reality for the child. Additionally, western social work theories are imbued
with dominant western cultural constructs (e.g., preference for contemporary knowledge,
belief in one observable and divisible reality, and focus on the individual) and do not
account for dimensional differences in First Nations worldview. More importantly, unless a
new way of understanding and dealing with the problem emerges, the growing numbers
of First Nations children in care will likely continue unabated. (Blackstock, 2007).
34
The Relational Worldview principles: The Standard Model for the breath of life Theory
As the conceptual framework in Figure 3 suggests when First Nations ontology is used to
adapt the TOE for use in First Nations child welfare, structural factors (the world of the
big) are symbiotic with the experience, and thus a risk to, the child. Both are tied together
by the following interdependent principles for well-being set out by Native American child
welfare expert Terry Cross in the relational worldview model (Cross, 1997; Cross, 2007)
which is described in greater detail later in this section:
• Cognitive:selfandcommunityactualization,role,service,identity,andesteem
• Physical:water,food,housing,safety,andsecurity
• Spiritual:spiritualityandlifepurpose
• Emotional:love,relationship,andbelonging
Consistent with the TOE, I hypothesize that, if relational worldview principles are out
of balance, then risks to the child’s safety and well-being predictably increase. I also
hypothesize that if interventions are geared toward restoring balance among the relational
worldview models principles then systemic balance will be achieved and the child will have
an optimal opportunity for safety.
Among First Nations peoples, balance is the ultimate state of well-being both on
an individual and collective basis; therefore, each cultural group has highly developed
mechanisms to optimize balance among the principles. Values, social norms, teachings,
laws and ceremonies were, and are, used to maintain or restore balance among the
relational worldview principles within and across dimensions of reality and time. For
example, the Ojibwe believe that individual and community life is governed by seven
life values known as the Seven Grandfather Teachings: Respect, Humility, Love, Truth,
Honesty, Bravery, and Wisdom (DeMaille, 1984). These values are situated within a holistic
worldview that requires balance among the spiritual, emotional, physical, and cognitive
35
elements of self and community. Figure 4 shows how the Seven Grandfather Teachings
intersect with the medicine wheel acting as value markers to ensure balance within, and
between, the quadrants of the Medicine Wheel. The beliefs embedded in the holistic
model are widely accepted by First Nations in Canada and Native American and Alaskan
Native Peoples in the United States, although they will manifest differently according to
culture and context.
Figure 4. Applying the Seven Grandfather Teachings to the Holistic Model
Cognitive Emotional
SpiritualPhysical
7 Grandfather Teachings guide holistic balance: Respect, Humility, Love, Truth, Honesty, Bravery, and Wisdom
Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs model suggests that understanding human
needs is critical to understanding personal well-being. Maslow’s model was inspired by
his work with the Blackfoot Indians in Canada where he studied their beliefs and lifestyle
and began to identify a series of human needs fundamental to personal well-being and
existence. Maslow believed that some human needs were more foundational than others
and that both the identified needs and hierarchal importance were valid across cultures
(Hoffman, 1998). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is typically represented in an eight-level
triangle (see Figure 5) with the most fundamental physical needs depicted at the bottom
and personal fulfillment needs of self-actualization and transcendence at the top. Maslow
emphasized the importance of looking at these needs as interdependent in that all of
them are important for ensuring proper human development and fulfillment.
36
Figure 5: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Transcendence
Self-Actualization
Aesthetic Needs
Need to Know and Understand
Esteem Needs
Belongingness and Love Needs
Safety Needs
Physiological Needs
Huitt, 2004
Blood First Nation scholar Billy Wadsworth (2008) explains that Maslow’s interpretation
of Blood perceptions of human and societal need are not wholly reflected in Maslow’s
final model. If Maslow would have more fully integrated Blood First Nations perspectives,
the model would be based on community self-actualization and transcendence instead of
on individual experience. It is interesting to explore Maslow’s model in greater detail and
realize that the individual needs require some level of social interaction to achieve and yet
the model does not fully account for social realities. For example, it is very difficult, if not
impossible, for one person to entirely meet his or her physical needs alone; thus, arguably,
one must reach outside oneself, drawing on the resources of others, to achieve even
the bottom level in Maslow’s individual hierarchy of need. From a Blood perspective, the
model would also need to take full account of ancestral knowledge, and more expansive
concepts of time, as well as acknowledge multiple dimensions of reality.
As shown in Figure 6, Native American child welfare expert Terry Cross (2007)
reinterprets Maslow’s hierarchy of needs through Indigenous eyes, arguing that needs
are not uniformly hierarchical but, rather, interdependent in nature, with cultural values
and laws defining how balance is achieved on personal and collective levels. Another
distinct characteristic of Cross’s Indigenous model; it assumes abundance in that there
37
are sufficient resources. The assumption of abundance means the critical issue is not the
amount of available resources but how we relate to those resources and Cross argues
that the relationship between a people and resources is culturally laden (Cross, 2009).
For example, Cross argues that physical needs are not always primary in nature, as there
are many examples where people will forgo physical well-being in order to achieve love,
belonging, and relationships or to achieve spiritual objectives. The most extreme examples
are those in which people will sacrifice their lives in order to save someone else or to fulfill
a spiritual or pedagogical mission. Overall, Cross believes that spirituality trumps physical
needs as it is the unique force that differentiates human life from other forms of life and
defines our individual and collective experience. Spirituality should not be misinterpreted
to mean organized religion alone; rather, it is a personally defined force that centers our
understanding of ourselves and the world around us across time (Baskin, 2002).
Figure 6: Cross (2007) Maslow through Indigenous Eyes
Spirituality
EmotionalLove, Relationships
Physical ShelterWater, Safety,Food, Security
CognitiveSelf-Actualization,
Role, Service
As shown in Figure 7, I reorient Cross’s worldview principles in the Medicine Wheel
holistic model for the breath of life theory and further emphasize the interconnection
of these elements within levels (personal, family, community, society, and world), across
38
time and dimensions of reality. Culture and context act as vibrating strings that give
manifestation to these needs at all of these different levels:
Figure 7: Bonding Relational Worldview Principles to Holistic Model
Culture
Time and Dimensions of Reality
Context
It is important to emphasize that the principles in Cross’s model have a substantial
Indigenous evidence base as they have been identified as important by different Indigenous
cultures based on oral history capturing patterns of human experience across millennia.
There is also a reasonable amount of western research evidence to support the concept
that these factors affect risk to families. For example, the Canadian Incidence Study on
Reported Child Abuse and Neglect suggests that poverty and poor housing, which align
with Cross’s physical dimension, are key drivers in the overrepresentation of children in
the child welfare system (Trocmé, Knoke, & Blackstock, 2004). Cultural identity erosion
and spiritual disconnection have been linked to heightened risk for stress-related disorders
and substance misuse (Carriere, 2005; Chandler & Lalonde, 1998; Dell & Lyons, 2007) and
positive spiritual connection has been linked with increased reunification rates of children
in child welfare care (Bullock, Gooch, & Little, 1998).
39
The idea that structural risks across the physical, emotional, spiritual, and cognitive
dimensions affect holistic health underpins the international determinants of health and
determinants of social health movements as well (Commission on Social Determinants
of Health, 2007). Similar to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, both movements assume basic
human needs must be met on the individual and social dimensions in order to achieve a
basic level of personal health and well-being. Just as in the models proposed by Maslow
and Cross, the determinants of health and social health movements both assume basic
needs are largely universal in nature. For example, the Public Health Agency of Canada
(2007) lists the following determinants of health as being central to improving the overall
health of Canadians:
1. Income and social status
2. Social support networks
3. Education and literacy
4. Employment and working conditions
5. Physical environments
6. Personal health practices and coping skills
7. Health child development
8. Biology and genetic endowment
9. Health services
10. Gender
11. Culture
These determinants were developed based on a thorough review of scientific literature
with a focus on research originating from Canada. The evidence base for each determinant
varies and the Public Health Agency of Canada continues to pursue research to validate
the list of determinants and refine optimal values for each. The World Health Organization
(2007) concurs that the evidence base for individual determinants of health varies widely,
with the most important bases supporting determinants relating to transport, health,
40
water and food security, housing, and environmental factors such as radiation, energy,
and urbanization. The assumption of the determinants of health movement that a limited
number of principles have universal application to human health suggests that the same
may be true of child welfare and relational worldview principles.
The other reason the determinants of health movement is helpful to informing child
welfare is that it recognizes that some factors have protective functions against risk. For
example, Dell and Lyons (2007) emphasize that culture has a protective factor relative to
alcohol abuse in that along with having high rates of binge drinking, First Nations peoples
also have one of the highest rates of abstinence from alcohol in Canada. Those more likely
to abstain from alcohol use have strong cultural identities. As mentioned earlier, higher
rates of self-determination and improvements in family income have also been related
to improvements in the overall social well-being of First Nations peoples (Cornell & Kalt,
1992; Chandler & Lalonde, 1998.)
Within a First Nations ontological perspective, the determinants of health and social
health movements do not clearly propose a way to evaluate the determinants of health
within an interconnected reality across cultures, time, and dimensions of experience.
However, the global and widespread nature of the determinants of health and social health
movements underscores the likelihood that individual and collective human experience
can be explained by a series of simple universal principles as proposed by Cross (2007),
Maslow (Huitt, 2004) and in the breath of life theory.
The outstanding challenge of establishing a social work comparator for the standard
model in physics will be to more specifically define the worldview principles and determine
the value or range of values for each constant that produces optimal levels of well-being
at these levels. Keep in mind that the standard model in physics says there are a limited
number of physical constants in the world set at precise values. If those values are altered
then the universe as we know it will cease to exist. To put it another way, think of oven dials;
when one is turned slightly, the universe will alter considerably. I am arguing that a similar
set of constants exist in terms of human behaviour along the lines of the determinants of
41
health concepts. The trick will be to determine at what value, or range of values, the child
welfare oven dials should be set and then to predict what happens in terms of structural
and individual risk when one dial exceeds the optimal threshold. A secondary question is
at what values do risk levels to children move from acceptable to unacceptable levels. This
may sound simple but as other researchers have demonstrated, it will not be. For example,
CIS data indicate that poverty is a key driver of neglect in First Nations children but the CIS
uses source of income (e.g., full-time employment, social benefits) as a proxy measure for
income given that child welfare workers are more likely to know source of income versus
level of income. The problem is that these two measures are not necessarily conflated; for
example, a person may be employed full time but earning minimum wage, resulting in an
income that is equivalent to social assistance benefits. Context also makes a difference as
factors such as the high cost of rent in urban centers may result in less disposable income
for a person than a similar person living in a rural area.
Although there is a need for culturally valid instruments to measure Cross’s relational
worldview principles, the plethora of western instruments that already exist to test various
aspects of the model indicate the possibility of creating such measures within Indigenous
contexts. For example, the western personal orientation survey measures self-actualization
(Jones & Crandall, 1986) and research on attachment theory has given rise to the spiritual
assessment inventory (Hall & Edwards, 2002). Environmental science has developed
measures on the attachment to place (Vorkinn, 2001) and more recently has extended
the inquiry to measuring attachment to space and place among Indigenous populations
(Semkin, 2005). Townsend and Kennedy (2004) provide a good synopsis of the variety
of poverty measures, which, although imperfect, are providing a reasonable basis for
public policy making. Over time it is entirely plausible that culturally valid measures can be
developed to test the relational worldview principles.
First Nations knowledge suggests that there are a limited number of constants that
govern reality in the social world, and the determinants of health and social health
movements seem to be moving along similar lines of thought. The fact that reliable and
42
culturally valid instruments to test the values for all constants are not currently available
should not thwart the entire model. Over time, empirical testing of various constants
against their affect on child maltreatment risk at structural and individual levels will better
define the constants and establish a platform for testing them at different values.
Accounting for Culture, Context, and Human diversity in the breath of life Theory
Now what about the strings? I build on what Indigenous peoples have known for millennia
in suggesting that although the human constants, such as those in Cross’s model, are
universal, they manifest with great diversity according to culture and context. I suggest that
the unpredictable nature of individuals is moderated when one conceptualizes them not as
single units but as interconnected groups and that these groups will interpret the constants
differently according to the culture and the context in which they find themselves, thus
contributing to the diversity of human experience. Time is also a moderating force in that
individual differences come together to create human patterns of behaviour across time.
There are already strong indications in research to support the idea that culture and
context matter in child welfare. For example, differing child-rearing practices have been
found to influence substantiation rates in child welfare (RCAP, 1996; Earle-Fox, 2004;
SNAICC, 2007) and First Nations status appears to influence social worker decisions to
place children in care (Trocmé et al., 2006.) Contextual factors such as colonization, social
exclusion, geographic location, and service access have all been linked to differing levels
of child maltreatment risk (RCAP, 1996; Nadjiwan & Blackstock, 2003; Loxley, De Riviere,
Prakash, Blackstock, Wien, & Thomas-Prokop, 2005; Carriere, 2005; Irvine, 2004).
43
Reality pluralism: Acknowledging the Unseen
Many First Nations acknowledge plural realities of equal validity and realism whereas
westerners tend to define their dichotomous dimensions of reality like a bookstore—fiction
and non-fiction. Social work and its western cultural derivative have often misinterpreted
First Nations beliefs in alternate realities as fictional. As described earlier, leading research
in physics echoes First Nations multidimensional views of reality, suggesting that multiple
dimensions of reality are not only possible—but also are probable (Kaku, 2006). For the
purposes of the breath of life theory, multiple and equally valid dimensions of reality
are acknowledged. Some of these dimensions are created through differences in culture
and context while others are embedded in a fundamental belief in spirituality, ancestral
knowledge, and ancestral presence. These conceptions of reality run up against a long-
held western ideological tug-of-war between spirituality and multiple dimensions of reality
at one end and science and empiricism at the other (Campbell and Moyers, 1991). These
two realities were thought by many to be mutually exclusive but for First Nations, and
now increasingly western science, they are seen as being indivisible. Although alternate
dimensions of reality would be difficult to test, the breath of life theory accepts that they
are probable and must not be discounted out of hand as fiction or immaterial.
There is one final important adjustment in current child welfare thinking needed to
apply the TOE to social work; consciousness must move from thinking about child welfare
to children’s welfare. Structural risk must be considered within the collective context in
order to facilitate the measurement of the relational worldview constants and assess the
relationship they have to groups of children. Child welfare’s preoccupation with individual
children, while needed to respond to individual need, is inadequate to inform strategies
to address systemic risk.
44
All My Relations?
The phrase “all my relations” is frequently used among First Nations and Native Americans
to acknowledge the influence of other elements of reality, both past and present, on one’s
current reality. As acclaimed American Indian scholar Vine Deloria Junior (1997) notes,
interconnection is essential to the Indigenous world view and yet it is often antithetical
to the reductionism and determinism infusing western science. Although Deloria’s views
were largely correct at the time of writing, advances in physics and the emerging field
of network science has drawn western science closer to the interconnected worldview
advanced in the breath of life theory.
Network science is a field of study that assumes interconnectivity between elements
of complex systems but believes that some elements and relationships within complex
systems are more important than others when achieving specified outcomes (Watts,
1996, 2006; Strogatz, 2001; Laszlo-Barabasi, 2003). For example, knowing one highly
connected and influential person in a profession when you are looking for a job can be
more important than connecting with multiple colleagues who are not as highly connected
and lack influence. Duncan Watts (1999, 2006) has pioneered the application of network
science in social systems. Based on the idea of six degrees of separation, it suggests that
players in large complex networks are connected through a series of relationships that
create the “small world phenomena” within large world networks. Watts (2006) has
taken the original concept and applied it to social networks—specifically social identity.
He argues that social identity:
• governsthecreationofthenetwork
• allowssuccessfulsearchstrategiesonthenetwork
• makestheactualsearchpossible.
Watts’s (2006) model uses social networks to get at questions relating to how similar or
different we are from others. Originally, scholars viewed the transition between ordered
45
and random networks within a context where all relationships were equally important
and every person in the network would have a random chance of forming a relationship
with someone else. This of course is a false reality in the social world so Watts and
others introduced the idea of hierarchies into social networks to better describe social
relationships. In this model, Watts argues that people cluster in various ways (and around
common ancestors) and it is this clustering pattern that yields social identity. Key elements
of clustering behaviour are geography and social distance.
Social distance (lowest common ancestor) is defined by the minimum social distance
across all dimensions (Watts, 1999). This implicitly means that within any network there
are key actors (assume five for argument sake) that result in higher rates of social identity
(and thus arguably resources). Some actors in the network will have no connections and
others all five. Network science allows us to identify the critical five and help inform
strategies to “rewire” the network so that those without the key connections for success
are provided with that opportunity. Watts violates the triangle of inequality (the length
of a given side must be less than the sum of the other two sides but greater than the
difference between the two sides) so that d (a,b) ≤d (a,c) +d (b,c) because of the idea of
the lowest common ancestor.
Figure 8 demonstrates how a network might play out in child welfare. For example,
child “a “and “d” are at the lowest tier separated by a great distance but they can access
one another through their common ancestor social worker “a.” Moreover, the distance
between child “a” and “d” can be linked back to their common ancestor—the provincial
child welfare agency. Watts argues that the top and bottom tiers of the hierarchy are
the least interesting as the top is very global in nature and the bottom is limited to one
person—it is the middle tiers that network science has the most to offer in understanding
social identity.
46
Figure 8: Network Science and the Creation of the Small World
Provincial ChildWelfare Agency
Child Welfare Regional
Supervisor A
ChildWelfare
Worker A
Family A
Child A Child B Child C Child D Child E Child F Child G Child H
Family B Family C Family D Family E Family F
ChildWelfare
Worker B
ChildWelfare
Worker C
Child Welfare Regional
Supervisor B
Watts’s (1999) concepts of social identity hinges on several assumptions:
• Hierarchyisacognitivedevicethatdefinessimilaritiesanddifferencesamongpeople.
• Networkisgeneratedasafunctionofsocialdistance.
• Shortpathsexistacrosscomplexnetworksandthesepathsarefindable.
Laszlo-Barabasi (2003) explains that when log on log plots using logarithmic scales
on both the “x” and “y” axes determine that variables follow a power distribution
(which looks like a positively skewed distribution) versus a random distribution there is a
strong likelihood that principles of network science will apply. Network science has been
successfully used in a wide variety of applications such as computer science (especially the
World Wide Web), hydro-electric grids, spread of disease, biological phenomena, and social
identity. It has symbiosis with the Aboriginal world view that emphasizes interconnection
and the way “networks” are wired as being key to planning interventions in complex
systems and networks. This is true among social relationships as well.
Although a growing number of researchers have acknowledged the importance of
social network actors in broader social networks in relation to child maltreatment, I was
47
not able to identify any child maltreatment studies using network science as a locus of
analysis. Network science offers an opportunity to understand how children within child
welfare are the same or different from other children within the context of complex social
networks. Network science can also identify key paths and common ancestors between
factors influencing child maltreatment, measure social distance, and inform “rewiring of
networks.”
Importantly, the growing body of literature is confirming that the world is connected,
just as First Nations have believed for millennia, suggesting that child maltreatment
research needs to account for an interconnected reality in order to achieve optimal levels
of reliability and validity.
Summarizing the breath of life Theory
As the summary of the breath of life model in Figure 9 demonstrates, I propose a modified
TOE for use in examining structural risk affecting First Nations children in child welfare.
The breath of life theory provides a new way to conceptualize how a limited sequence of
human constants identified as being important through Indigenous oral history known
as the relational worldview principles simultaneously influence risk sourced at a structural
level (the world of the big) and the intergenerational experience of First Nations children
and families (the world of the small).
48
Figure 9: Child Welfare After Applying Breath of Life Model
World of the Big (Interconnection of time, reality, nature, and humanity)
World of the Small (Individuals or groups)
BALANCED
FOCUS
Pred
icta
ble
Pred
icta
ble
BALANCED
FOCUS
Relational Worldview PrinciplesPhysical: water, food, shelter
Emotional: belonging(attachment to family and community)
Spiritual: spirituality and life purpose
Cognitive: self – and communityactualization, identity, service
Principles are interdependent –optimal functioning achieved when
balance is achieved within andamong all dimensions
Expressedphysically,mentally,
emotionally and spiritually
Expressedphysically,mentally,
emotionally and spiritually
Assets and risk to groups ofchildren and families
Cultural and contextualstrings give rise to
different manifestationsof humanity
Structural assets and risk
By focusing on principles that apply both at the structural and individual levels, the
breath of life theory reaches across the expanse of structural and individual social work
foci, combining them into one coherent reality. Diversity among people can be accounted
for by thinking of culture and context operating in the breath of life theory in the same
way that the vibrations do in string theory, diversifying the manifestation of the relational
worldview principles at the level of individuals and groups. Just as in string theory, I
hypothesize that the predictable impacts of structural factors can be harmonized with the
comparatively erratic patterns of individuals when individuals are viewed within collectives
of family and community. This is consistent with the statistical phenomena of the normal
curve, suggesting that individual observations predictably distribute along a normal curve
when they are in placed in groups of about 30 or more.
So how does the breath of life model differ from structural theory, ecological theory, and
anti-oppression approaches? This new model draws from both First Nations and western
49
knowledge to create the ethical space advocated by Ermine (2004) for the exploration of
the experience of First Nations children in child welfare. The model assumes the world
is indivisible and that everything across all time is important to understanding human
experience, including that of First Nations children in child welfare. This model goes beyond
describing structural risk to identifying a series of constants that must be in balance in
order to eradicate or reduce structural risk and its manifestation at the level of individuals
and groups. The model would agree that Bronfenbrenner’s dimensions of reality (1979) are
important but would argue one lifetime is inadequate to truly understand the individual
experience and would require the addition of some mechanism to assess individual and
collective functioning at different levels of the model. This new model embraces the value
of ancestral knowledge not only in identifying the constants that govern our reality, but also
the culture and context that give shape to different manifestations of reality. It considers
oppression as important only as a contextual factor—not as a focal factor—and provides
a mechanism for restoring well-being: balance among the constants. But its greatest
potential is that it is potentially testable using Indigenous and western research techniques
given the plausible development of culturally based measures for the principles.
Testing the breath of life Theory
The breath of life theory would need to undergo rigorous testing from both First Nations
and western perspectives to achieve true theoretical standing using the null hypothesis
definition set out earlier in this paper. Testing from a First Nations perspective means
having the theory validated by First Nations knowledge holders, particularly Elders, who
will judge it against ancestral knowledge and their own experience as to the effect its
application has on children in the community and their descendants. In fact, this theory
has already been presented to Indigenous knowledge holders in Australia, the United
States and Canada who judged it as fundamentally sound before it was prepared for
publication. This preliminary testing would need significantly more work in order for the
50
breath of life theory to meet the rigorous standards of validity when set against Indigenous
oral history in a diversity of First Nations cultures.
Testing from a western perspective is comparably easier using null hypothesis framework.
So what would null look like? If rigorous statistical analysis reveals an insignificant effect
of the relational worldview principles on the relationship between structural risk and the
experience of First Nations children in child welfare care then the breath of life theory, or
aspects thereof, will be disproven. Unlike many other social work theories, this theory can
be tested as it focuses on the effects of empirically supported constants on the structural
risk of groups of First Nations children coming to the attention of the child welfare system
versus an individual child, thereby injecting the social back into social work and calling on
the statistical principles of the normal curve.
Multi-level statistical techniques such as hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) are reasonably
well matched to the breath of life approach as they allow analysis of nested data. For
example, children are nested in families, which are in turn nested in communities. If
traditional multivariate analysis were used, then all of these elements would be measured
simultaneously. However, HLM allows for the variance at each level to be measured against
the outcome variable (Raudenbush, Brynk, Fai Cheong, Congdon, & du Toit, 2004). The
fact that HLM does not measure change over time would need to be taken into account
and focused consideration would need to be given to the interdependent functioning
of the principles. Advancements in group theory, network science, and the study of
symmetry and super symmetry in mathematics may also inform options for exploring the
interconnected values of the worldview principles.
Testing using qualitative western research methods is also possible, no matter what
the result of the research; advancing a testable theory in social work is an important
contribution in a field that has struggled to transform social hypothesis and conjecture
into truly testable theoretical frameworks.
As the breath of life theory is based on Indigenous knowledge created by generations of
First Nations people who came before, it is already a collective work. This newly emerging
51
theory calls for the involvement of others to build on, and test, the model. Some of the
areas for future work include
1. further defining the worldview principles and developing culturally based measures for
each principle
2. developing mechanisms to measure the interdependent impacts of the principles on
risk experienced by First Nations children across varying dimensions of time and reality
3. further development of the model and testing using Indigenous ontology and research
methods
4. analysis to test application of the theory across cultures and in different contexts such
as health, justice, and education.
linking Research Questions, Theory, and Method
The breath of life theory proposes that optimal child and family functioning are attained
when a limited number of interdependent human constants are in balance across time. The
outstanding challenge for the model is to measure the optimal value, or range of values for
each constant and then set the interacting values for the constants in a way that achieves
optimal child and family functioning within specific cultures and contexts. Research on
the TOE suggests that long-term experimentation by a broad constituency of researchers
should result in enough data to resolve the theoretical null hypothesis. What is important is
that this theory does propose a way to be wrong—something that makes it unique among
other theoretical framework used in social work. As stated before, BOL relational worldview
principles must be explored individually but in a way that does not detach them from their
relationships with the other relational worldview principles or the shaping factors of time,
culture and context. For demonstration purposes, let’s consider how the model could be
proven incorrect using the ability to meet physical needs as an example. If the ability of
families to meet physical needs such as housing and shelter do not influence child well
52
being then the model is questionable. In addition, if the ability of meeting physical needs
has no relationship to cognitive, spiritual and emotional well being the model is wrong. On
top of all that, if the ability to meet physical means is not influenced by culture, context and
time then the model is wrong. Although it is reasonable to believe the breath of life theory
could be used in a wide variety of settings to understand structural risks such as health,
psychology, spirituality, justice, and family violence, the current research project should
be considered only an exploratory study in the practical application of the theory in child
welfare given the following methodological limitations:
• Thestudyincludesagroupofchildrentakenintocarebetween2003and2005versus
a longitudinal sample tracking child welfare cases from time of referral to child welfare
exit. The latter could better measure changes in theoretical constants over time.
• Studyreliesononlylatentvariablestomeasureunderlyingconstructs.
• Studyleveragesthepre-existingCISchildandcaregiverfunctioningscales.Although
this enhances consistency in definition across studies exploring overrepresentation,
these scales were not developed within the theoretical construct of the breath of life
model and thus measures do not specifically correspond with theoretical constants.
• TheCISchildandcaregiverfunctioningscalesweredevelopedonthebasisoftheoretical
supports based primarily in western research and were not specifically developed within
the cultural or contextual parameters of First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children in
Nova Scotia.
• Proxymeasuresforkeystructuralfactorssuchaspoverty,poorhousingandsubstance
misuse need to be used as there is significant debate on how to measure some of
these factors and it is unlikely that social workers will know the exact values of these
factors. Thus the proxy measures only approximate the real experience of children and
caregivers in the sample thus obfuscating the exact measures needed to inform the
breath of life constant values.
53
• Theserviceaimscalewillmeasuretheaimsofservicesbutnottheduration,efficacy,
or cultural relevance of services.
Clearly, ongoing research, with specific and culturally valid instruments, will be needed
over time to fully explore the implications of the breath of life model. The Mi’kmaw
Ethics Watch and the Chiefs of the Mi’kmaw First Nations communities have approved
the breath of life model for the current study. As shown in Table 3, this study is the
first practical application of the theory and will be useful in identifying future theoretical
development.
Table 3: Linking Theory, Method and Hypothesis
Theoretical Constants
Operational Descriptor
Measures or Proxy Measures
Limitations of Measures Hypothesis
Physical (food, shelter, water)
Poverty, adequate housing
Source of income, social worker assessments of housing safety, overcrowding and number of moves
Will not directly deal with water security and use of proxy measures for poverty and housing mean that poverty levels can be only approximated.
Structural factors such as poverty and poor housing explain the over representation of First Nations children in child welfare care. Children and families above the poverty line will have fewer functioning issues than those below the poverty line Children with fewer structural risks will be more likely to be reunified with family.
Emotional (attachment to family and community)
Child functioning and cultural match of services
Child functioning scales, family structure, caregiver cooperation, and cultural/linguistic match of services
Child functioning scales have not been developed to measure cultural constructs of functioning or to specifically measure attachment of child to family and community.
Child functioning does not explain the over representation but children receiving culturally based services have fewer functioning concerns than other children.
Spiritual Spirituality and life purpose
Child and caregiver functioning scales and referral to spiritual services
This constant will be the least well tested in the model.
Insufficient information to develop hypothesis although rates of spiritual service provision measured against child and caregiver functioning will provide some indication whether there is sufficient sample size to conduct this analysis.
54
Table 3: Linking Theory, Method and Hypothesis
Theoretical Constants
Operational Descriptor
Measures or Proxy Measures
Limitations of Measures Hypothesis
Cognitive Self and community actualization, identity and service
Caregiver functioning scales, cultural/linguistic match of services and access to relevant services
Service and contribution of caregivers and children not specifically measured.
Caregivers who speak their language, are more highly educated and receive culturally based service targeted to their needs have fewer functioning concerns
Child Welfare Response
Services aims and cultural match of services
Number and aims of services provided to First Nations versus non- Aboriginal children and families
This will be measured both at time of removal and time of reunification/ongoing placement.
Service aims will not relate to the structural factors (poverty, poor housing and substance misuse), resulting in a lower rate of family reunification and disproportionate placement of First Nations children in ongoing care
Summary
Inspired by Ermine’s (2004) concepts of ethical space and the tragic, longstanding
overrepresentation of First Nations children in care, this paper proposes a holistic theoretical
model for conceptualizing structural factors affecting First Nations children in the child
welfare system known as the breath of life theory. These pages cover millennia—literally.
Drawing from physical and humanistic principles dating back to the beginning of the
universe, I argue that just as the light of the stars created during the big bang are just
reaching us now, so too are the rays of knowledge and behaviour of our ancestors. It
comes at an important time when our current ways of thinking about child welfare have
held generations of First Nations children hostage from their families.
Despite our human addiction to make progress and be different, we are biologically
bound to be like those who came before us in the most important ways. We may look
different, talk differently, and do different things but in each new age we continue to
need to be loved, fed, and watered in a cycle of mutual care. First Nations accept this
to be true while western cultures and their derivative social work pursuits continue to
reinvent humanity in the context of the now and next.
continued
55
So how does the breath of life model differ from structural theory, ecological theory and
anti-oppression frameworks? This new model draws from both First Nations and western
knowledge to create the ethical space advocated by Ermine (2004) for the exploration of
the experience of First Nations children in child welfare. The model assumes the world
is indivisible and that everything across all time is important to understanding human
experience, including that of First Nations children in child welfare. This model goes beyond
describing structural risk to identifying a series of constants that must be in balance in
order to eradicate or reduce structural risk and its manifestation at the level of individuals
and groups. The model would agree that Bronfenbrenner’s dimensions of reality (1979) are
important but would argue one lifetime is inadequate to truly understand the experience
of intergenerational groups of disadvantaged children. This new model embraces the
value of ancestral knowledge in not only identifying the constants that govern our reality,
but also the culture and context which give shape to different manifestations of reality. It
considers oppression as important only as a contextual factor—not as a focal factor—and
provides a mechanism for restoring well-being: balance among the constants.
The implications of the model are potentially significant. If this new theory is proven
correct, it would suggest that child welfare interventions should focus on restoring
balance among the relational worldview principles instead of over focusing on treating
how the imbalance manifests at the level of individual children and families. It also likely
has application in other disciplines where structural risk impacts on individual experience
such as in justice, health, and education. Importantly, even though the breath of life
theory was developed for use with First Nations, with proper cross-cultural evaluation it
may inform structural interventions for other cultural groups.
56
CHApTER 2
Reviewing the literature on overrepresentation and Structural Risk
Needell et al. (2007) defines overrepresentation (also known as disproportionality) as the
rate of an event for a particular racial group being higher than what would be expected
given the proportion of population for that group.
An analysis of the child in care data from three sample provinces in May 2005 found
that approximately one in 10 of all status First Nations children were in child welfare care,
compared to one in 200 Non-Aboriginal children (Blackstock, Prakash, Loxley, & Wien,
2005.) Year-end data collected by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
indicates that the number of status First Nations children living on-reserve entering child
welfare care increased a staggering 71.5 percent from 1995 to 2001 (McKenzie, 2002).
The Canadian Incidence Study on Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (Trocmé, MacLaurin,
Fallon, Daciuk, Billingsley, et al., 2001) found that neglect was the primary reason that First
Nations children were coming into care at disproportionate rates. Controlling for poverty,
substance use, and poor housing substantially accounted for the overrepresentation
(Trocmé, Knoke, & Blackstock, 2004; Trocmé, MacLaurin, Fallon, Knoke et al., 2006).
The overrepresentation of First Nations children occurs at every phase of child welfare
intervention from reports, investigation, substantiation, entry into care and placement in
permanent child welfare care (Trocmé, MacLaurin, Fallon, Knoke et al., 2006; Blackstock,
2007). Preliminary analysis of child in care data from three provinces5 and 27 First Nations
child and family service agencies indicates that First Nations children also make up a
disproportionate number of permanent wards in Canada (First Nations Child and Family
Caring Society of Canada [FNCFCS], 2006). For example, Aboriginal children represent
7.3 percent of the child population in the Province of British Columbia (Statistics Canada,
5 Data from three provinces that collect disaggregated data by Aboriginal cultural group on children in care as well as data from a sample of 27 First Nations child and family service agencies.
57
2001) but 47.8 percent of all children in care as of May 2005 (British Columbia Ministry for
Children and Family Development [BCMCFD], 2005). In Nova Scotia, First Nations children
are 3 to 6 times more likely to be in child welfare care than Non-Aboriginal children (Nova
Scotia Department of Community Services, 2008). Moreover, Aboriginal children represent
53.5 percent of all children in permanent care in BC and 47.6 percent of all children
in temporary custody (BCMCFD, 2005). In 2005, a survey of 27 First Nations child and
family service agencies across Canada (excluding Ontario) found that 47 percent of the
children served were in permanent care (FNCFCS, 2006). Despite this overrepresentation
throughout the child welfare systems, there are no Canadian studies that specifically
explore the role of structural factors after the child is placed in child welfare care.
Although the overrepresentation of specific racial groups is broadly acknowledged in
the American and Canadian child welfare systems, this is a relatively new, and growing
area, of child welfare research. Most of the literature in the United States focuses on
the experiences of African American or Hispanic children. Where Native Americans are
included, the sample size is often too small to do in-depth analysis (Bowser & Jones,
2004). Moreover, the studies themselves tend to be either descriptive summaries of the
overrepresentation at referral and investigation stages using administrative data that is
sometimes augmented by qualitative interviews (Earle-Fox, 2004) or snapshot descriptions
of overrepresentation throughout various stages of placement in limited geographic regions
(Clegg & Associates, 2004; Wulczyn, 2003). Inconsistency in operational definitions of child
maltreatment and ethnic group definitions as well as variable metrics across studies makes
it difficult to compare or synthesize findings. The other challenge is measuring the degree
that race affects child welfare decisions as most studies on overrepresentation suggest
that race is not a factor in child welfare decisions when child and family functioning is
accounted for. The problem with this assumption is that there is no reliable information
to suggest that race is not a factor when it comes to social worker assessments of child
or family functioning (Chand, 2001; Trocmé et al., 2006). Despite these limitations,
important methodological lessons and research findings are beginning to emerge. The
58
following section reviews the reliability and validity of child maltreatment definitions before
moving on to describe the implications of research relying on administrative data sets and
substantiated cases in child maltreatment research involving First Nations children. The
chapter ends with a discussion on the influence of race in child welfare and outlines how
the current literature informs the present study.
What is Child Maltreatment?
Up until now, I have used the term “child maltreatment” and its subcategories as if we
all understood what they meant. Increasing numbers of reports suggest that this is not
necessarily the case. Child maltreatment is defined broadly in Canadian provincial child
welfare statutes in five broad categories: physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse,
exposure to domestic violence, and neglect (Portwood, 1999; Bala, Zaph, Williams, Vogl,
& Hornick, 2004; Trocmé, MacLaurin, Fallon, Knoke, Pitman, et al., 2001). More recently,
child welfare statutes have included forms of anticipatory abuse. Although the exact
terminology for anticipatory abuse varies from region to region, it is generally described
as social workers having significant concerns that maltreatment may occur but it has not
occurred to date (Bala, 2004).
Given the broad policy implications of research on maltreatment, there have been calls
by many to agree on a set of maltreatment definitions across jurisdictions (Portwood,
1999; Trocmé, MacLaurin, Fallon, Knoke, Pitman, et al., 2001; Slep & Heyman, (2006) and
to also clarify criteria on child welfare decision-making points (Slep & Heyman, 2006).
The lack of clarity in child maltreatment definition leaves open the possibility that non
clinical factors can influence decisions of what behaviours count as child maltreatment
among social workers and other allied professionals (Portwood, 1999). For example,
factors such as parental cooperation levels, race, personal liability, and the amount of
time that social workers have to complete investigations were all cited as factors that
influence decision making in child welfare (Slep & Heyman, 2006). Social work experience
59
has also been linked to overconfidence in assessment accuracy (Slep & Heyman, 2006)
meaning that experienced social workers are less willing to use assessment tools than
inexperienced workers.
Mass removals of First Nations children have been linked to a failure to account for
poverty, cultural displacement, and profound service inequities arising from colonization
in maltreatment definition criteria (Kimmelman, 1985; Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples, 1996; Blackstock, 2003; Blackstock & Trocmé, 2005; Blackstock, 2009).
Kathleen Earle-Fox was the first to pioneer research on the cross-cultural validity of child
maltreatment definitions among Native Americans. Her findings revealed that Native
Americans agree with mainstream definitions of child maltreatment except that there is a
clear delineation between poverty and neglect. There currently are no studies in Canada
that specifically explore child maltreatment definitions among First Nations, Métis or Inuit
communities. However, the current literature on child maltreatment definitions suggests
it is important to consider in the development of culturally valid definitions and measures
of child maltreatment in Canada.
Portwood (1999) assembled a multi-disciplinary sample of professionals working with
children who may be maltreated and asked them to rate whether or not the behaviour
in a vignette was child maltreatment. The study used a 7-point scale testing 21 different
factors. Across professions, results indicate that actual, or risk of, physical and emotional
harm were the most important factors in child maltreatment classification. A more recent
study exploring the influence of emotional harm on child maltreatment suggests that
although emotional harm is an important factor it is seldom the focus of child maltreatment
investigations. Instead, emotional harm was more likely to co-occur with other forms of
child maltreatment such as neglect and physical abuse (Tickett, Mennan, & Jina Sang,
2009).
Relevant to the study of First Nations children, the Portwood (1999) sample included
only two cases involving substance misuse and neither implicated the parent as being
intoxicated. Instead, the vignettes described children having access to whiskey. In both
60
cases, professionals found the vignettes to indicate child maltreatment but ranked the
other six neglect vignettes involving physical neglect and failure to supervise as being
of more concern. This limitation of the study is particularly important in the context of
First Nations as caregiver substance misuse has been found to be a leading factor among
substantiated cases of maltreatment (Trocmé et al., 2006)
The definitions of maltreatment first used in the 1998 cycle of the CIS were primarily
informed by definitions used by the Ontario Incidence Study, which were in turn derived
from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) and the National
Incidence Study in the United States (Trocmé, MacLaurin, Fallon, Knoke, Pitman, et al.,
2006). This first set of definitions proved important as researchers would understandably
be cautious about changing maltreatment definition in future cycles so as to preserve
comparability of maltreatment incidence rates across cycles. Unfortunately, at the time
when the first set of CIS definitions were being developed, there was very little research on
child maltreatment definitions and this was reflected in the rather rudimentary empirical
support for the first set of child maltreatment definitions. The CIS researchers adapted the
CIS instruments for the 2003 cycle slightly based on newly published child maltreatment
literature and a conceptual and epidemiological framework proposed by Wolfe & Yuan
(2001). The most significant change in maltreatment definitions came in the 2008 cycle
where researchers included anticipatory forms of child abuse and neglect. Once the
data is analyzed, it will be particularly interesting to see if the factors contributing to an
anticipatory form of maltreatment differ from cases where the same type of maltreatment
has already occurred. The CIS data collection instruments provide a proven set of definitions
for child maltreatment classification at the referral and substantiation stages. The validity
of these definitions after the time when a child has been placed in care is untested and
will be explored in the current study.
Slep and Heyman (2006) proposed a set of maltreatment definitions and field-tested them
by comparing the assessments of a panel of experts to those made in the field by a sample of
79 child protection social workers. Results were encouraging, as researchers noted a slight
61
but important increase in the specificity and sensitivity of social worker assessments when
child maltreatment definitions were provided. However, there were differences among the
types of child maltreatment, with more agreement between experts and social workers in
cases of abuse than in cases of neglect or emotional maltreatment. The definitions proposed
in the Slep and Heyman study also did not include any forms of anticipatory maltreatment so
it is not possible to determine the effect of clearly defined definitions on this classification of
maltreatment. Nonetheless, providing social workers with a clear set of child maltreatment
definitions does appear to improve assessment accuracy.
Overall, this growing area of investigation suggests that child maltreatment definitions
in legislation and, in many cases, child welfare policy continue to be quite subjective. More
attention is required to develop culturally appropriate definitions and definitional criteria
for child maltreatment. Future studies should investigate definitions for anticipatory forms
of maltreatment and the influence of caregiver and community-level factors such as
substance misuse, poverty, and inadequate housing.
Research on Ethnic overrepresentation Using Administrative data Sets
One of the most prominent studies on ethnic disproportionality in the United States was
conducted by Fluke et al. (2003) using a sample of over 700,000 children from five U.S.
states taken from NCANDS. Researchers used two indexes to examine disproportionality
among the White, Hispanic, African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American Indian
cultural groups in each state: (1) the Investigation Disproportionate Representation Index
(DRI) which measures the proportion of children for each cultural group reported to
child welfare against census population estimates for that group and (2) the Victim DRI,
which derived from the percentage of children for each group found to be a victim of
maltreatment divided by the number of children investigated for child maltreatment. For
both indexes values close to 1 are consistent with no overrepresentation, values below
62
1 indicate underrepresentation and over 1 indicate overrepresentation. Findings indicate
that African American children score higher than 1 in both Investigation and Victim DRI
across all five states whereas Native American children score below 1 in the investigation
DRI for four out of five states and below 1 for two out of the five states for the Victim DRI.
Researchers attribute disproportionate child welfare reports rates for African Americans
as the primary reason for the Investigation and Victim DRI scores usurping those of
white children. Although Fluke et al. (2004) did not question the validity of the NCANDS
data system in relation to documenting ethnic origin, Earle-Fox’s (2004) analysis of the
NCANDS found that American Indian children are underrepresented in the data set as
child welfare data submitted by Native American Tribal child welfare authorities are not
uniformly incorporated into the NCANDs system.
Ards, Myers and Malkin (2003) explored racial overrepresentation among child welfare
referrals and report substantiations in a sample of African American, White, Hispanic,
Asian, and Native American children based on the Minnesota Social Services Information
System (SSIS) data system. The study sample was drawn from three metropolitan counties
selected by the research team because they had the largest proportion of what they term
“children of color” of the total 87 counties in Minnesota. Ards, Myers & Malkin (2003)
found that although child, caregiver, and socioeconomic factors substantially account for
the overrepresentation at both the report and substantiation levels for African American
children, racial bias could not be discounted as a factor. When researchers analyzed Native
American children they found overrepresentation at both the report and substantiation
stages in all studied counties but found a reverse effect in the non-studied counties, which
appear to under substantiate Native American cases. Researchers argued that in effect, the
overrepresentation in the studied counties was cancelled out by the underrepresentation
in the non-studied counties. The problem is that the sample includes only counties in
metropolitan areas and many of the Native American reservations in Minnesota are in the
non-studied counties, raising questions as to the degree to which tribal data was included
in the SSIS system in these rural areas. This concern is reinforced by a notation in the
63
Minnesota Department of Human Services (2007) SSIS newsletter dated April 20, 2007,
indicating that the first Native American Band began using the SSIS system on April 17,
2007—four years after the Ards, Myers and Malkin (2003) study was published.
Correspondence from the National Indian Child Welfare Association (2008) indicates
underrepresentation of American Indian and Alaskan Native children exists in the other
major U.S. child welfare dataset known as the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and
Reporting System (AFCARS), which collects data on children covered by Title IV-B and
Title IV-E protections pursuant to the federal Social Security Act. Likewise in Canada, First
Nations child welfare authorities are not uniformly linked to provincial or national data
systems, meaning that analysis of provincial child welfare administrative data alone will
likely undercount First Nations children (Blackstock et al., 2005). This suggests that studies
exploring overrepresentation of American Indian/Alaskan Native children in the United
States or First Nations in Canada should include both mainstream and Aboriginal data
systems to achieve more reliable estimates of child welfare overrepresentation.
Along with providing good examples of why it is essential that researchers are clear
about what data on Aboriginal children may, or may not be, included in administrative
data sets used to assess the overrepresentation of various groups, these studies suggest
that report and substantiation rates for cultural groups should be measured against census
data and as a proportion of each other; for example, taking the number of substantiated
reports for any given group and dividing by the total of reports received.
Implications of Relying on Substantiated Reports in overrepresentation Research
Slep and Heyman (2006) suggested that social workers have varying understandings of
what substantiation means. This is an essential point as much of the research on child
maltreatment focuses on substantiated cases of child maltreatment. For example, much of
the CIS analysis for First Nations children focuses on substantiated cases. CIS researchers
64
faced significant challenges when trying to determine definitions of maltreatment and
decision-making points for this national cross-sectional study. First, there are no nationally
agreed-upon definitions of child maltreatment or social work decision-making points so
the study had to provide definitions specific enough to provide some useful guidance to
social workers completing the CIS forms but general enough to account for the multiple
definitions of terms across jurisdictions. CIS provides social workers with a standardized
definition suggesting that a case should be considered substantiated if the “balance of
evidence indicates that abuse or neglect has occurred” (Canadian Incidence Study on
Reported Child Abuse and Neglect, 2008, p. 17). The problem is that this definition itself
is relatively vague, thus raising questions about the construct and external validity of the
definition.
Given that many of the research projects on overrepresentation focus on substantiated
cases, it is also important to understand if there are significant differences in child outcomes
between substantiated and unsubstantiated cases. Secondary analysis of the National
Survey of Child and Adolescent Well Being (NSCAW) (United States Department of Health
and Human Services, 2008) helps answer this question. The NSCAW collected data on over
5000 cases drawn from a nationally representative sample of 97 child welfare agencies
across the United States during a three-month period spanning 1999 and 2000. Data
was collected on children in care as well as those receiving services in their homes and
was derived from a combination of administrative records and interviews with children,
parents, teachers, and social workers. Secondary analysis on all children in the dataset
indicated that differences between child well-being outcomes among substantiated and
non-substantiated cases were not significant; however, social workers were more likely
to provide service referrals in substantiated cases (United States Department of Health
and Human Services, 2008). Although race was not explored as a factor in this study, this
finding raises important questions regarding the degree to which child functioning factors
influence substantiation decisions and should raise a caution among child welfare workers
and policy makers about viewing unsubstantiated cases as being in less need of services.
65
More recently, researchers using the NIS-3 data set employed multi-level relational
statistical modeling (MLR) to explore substantiation as a multi-tier process (King, Trocmé,
& Thatte, 2003). Indications are that substantiation is subject to a multi-tier effect, which
can be more easily detected in three- versus two-level models (King, Trocmé, & Thatte,
2003). The multiplier effect is consistent with the breath of life assumption that all reality
is interconnected.
Overall, the emerging research on substantiation calls for more clearly defined
operational definitions of substantiation, and more research comparing child welfare
outcomes between substantiated and non-substantiated cases that consider structural
factors such as poverty and race.
Exploring Racial bias in Child Welfare
Aggregation bias can significantly mask the effects of racial bias in research on
overrepresentation in child welfare (Ards, Myers & Malkin 2003; Ards et al., 2004)
and justice (Mitchell, 2006) suggesting that, whenever possible, samples should
be disaggregated by region and race. This is echoed in the findings of Trocmé et al.
(2006) indicating that although child and caregiver factors substantially accounted for
the overrepresentation of First Nations children in the Canadian child welfare system,
racial bias regarding child placement decisions could not be eliminated as a factor.
Moreover, analysis of administrative data on Aboriginal children in three provinces found
that First Nations children are significantly more likely to be placed in child welfare care
than other Aboriginal children (Blackstock et al., 2005). Overall, these results suggest
poverty, preventative service provision, and family structure should be included along with
disaggregated racial and geographic categories when exploring child welfare trajectories
for overrepresented groups.
One of the few U.S. studies to explore child welfare service provision to ethnic minorities
was done over 25 years ago, and found that Native American children and families were
66
the least likely of any racial group in the United States to receive family support services
via the child welfare system (Olson, 1982). More recently, Libby et al. (2006) measured
the incidence of substance misuse/mental health problems among a sample of 3340
American Indian, White, Black, and Hispanic caregivers using the National Survey of Child
and Adolescent Wellbeing (NSCAW) dataset. After establishing mean rates for reported
substance misuse and mental health problems, researchers went on to describe social work
referrals for mental health and substance misuse assessment and service for each ethnic
group. Results indicate that Native American caregivers were less likely to be reported
as having substance misuse problems than White and Black caregivers and were slightly
more likely than Hispanic caregivers to be reported. American Indians were less likely than
Hispanic caregivers to be referred for assessment or services, but their referral numbers
were not significantly different from White or Black caregivers. These results need to be
interpreted with some caution given the relatively large confidence intervals across both
reports of substance misuse problems and service referrals. Burns et al. (2004) explored
the connection between race and the need for, and use of, mental health services using
a nationally representative sample from NSCAW. Results indicate that almost half of the
children in the sample of over 3800 cases had some emotional or behavioural problems.
Factors contributing to reduced likelihood of care were African American ethnic status
among latency-aged youth, youth living at home, and reduced clinical need. Overall, race
appears to be an important factor affecting case outcomes and service provision; however,
the limitations found in sample size and/or composition, the focus on specific service
provision (i.e., substance misuse or mental health problems), lack of disaggregated data on
Native Americans, and the U.S. cultural and contextual base raise questions regarding the
ability to generalize these findings to other Indigenous peoples.
A comparison of First Nations children and other visible minority children coming to
the attention of the Canadian child welfare system in the 1998 cycle of CIS suggests that
the differences between these groups are so substantial that collapsing them into one
category of analysis is not recommended (Blackstock, Trocmé & Bennett, 2004).
67
Most importantly, it is critically important to build on the existing ethnic research taking
into account the importance of aggregation bias in order to ensure more equitable and
positive child welfare outcomes among children in an increasingly diverse society. The
growing literature on the relationship between structural risks and ethnic overrepresentation
in child welfare is particularly interesting.
Why Research on Structural Risks Holds promise
Child welfare research on Indigenous6 populations in Australia and the United States
reveals striking parallels to the experience of First Nations children in Canada in terms of
the primary type of child maltreatment and the contribution of structural factors to the
overrepresentation of Indigenous children in out-of-home care.
In Australia, Aboriginal children are on average seven times more likely than non-
Indigenous Australians to be in child welfare care and the numbers are rising (Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare, 2008). The primary type of child maltreatment experienced
by Aboriginal children is neglect—not abuse (SNAICC, 2007). According to the Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare (2008) the key contributing factors to neglect are poverty,
low socioeconomic status, cultural difference in child caring, and the intergenerational
impacts of colonization. Similarly, in the United States, Native American children are
overrepresented for neglect but not for other forms of child maltreatment (Earle-Fox,
2004; U.S. Department of Health and Social Services, 2004). In a secondary analysis of
data from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) supplemented by
key informant interviews with social workers, Earle-Fox (2004) found that Native American
children substantiated for neglect were more likely to come from families misusing alcohol,
experiencing domestic violence, and relying on public assistance than other Americans.
Research from other child- and family-related fields underscores the importance of
structural factors on the well-being of Indigenous children. For example, Chandler and
6 “Indigenous” is used to describe the universal experience of Aboriginal peoples.
68
Lalonde (1998) studied suicide in First Nations communities in British Columbia (BC)
and found that collectively, the rates are among the highest in the world. When they
disaggregated the data among the 197 First Nations in B.C., they found that over 90 percent
of the suicides occurred in 10 percent of the communities. Key factors influencing lower
suicide rates were related to higher degrees of self-determination as expressed by women
in government; First Nations–controlled education, health, fire, police, and child welfare
services; and advancement in treaty negotiations. This is consistent with the findings of
Cornell and Kalt (1992) who found that improved socioeconomic outcomes in American
Indian communities were related to higher degrees of sovereignty.
The work of Costellano et al. (1997) further emphasizes the importance of structural
risk in their longitudinal study of children’s mental health among Native American children
of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina. As expected, they found
disproportionate rates of mental illness among Native American children. However,
during the course of this research, the tribe opened a casino, employing a number of the
children’s parents. Costellano et al. (1997) found that the rates of mental health problems
among children whose parents worked at the casino actually decreased because parents’
incomes rose above the poverty level. This resulted in significant improvements in the
mental health of their children being observed.
Psychologist James Garbarino (1995) notes that “socially toxic” families experiencing
disproportionate rates of poverty, discrimination, and poor housing have heightened
stress levels and are more likely to experience family problems such as substance misuse,
family violence, and child maltreatment.
A growing body of research challenges the presumption that poverty is related to
higher rates of abuse (Sealander, 2003). This finding appears to be reflected in Indigenous
populations as well, given that First Nations in Canada experience poverty at far greater
rates than non-Indigenous people and yet do not have higher rates of abuse. This is
also true of Indigenous children in Australia (SNAICC, 2007) and in the United States
(Sealander, 2003). Duncan Lindsay (2004) argues that, despite various reformations in
69
the child welfare sector, there is no evidence that the child welfare system has made
any gains in reducing the incidence or ill effects of child abuse in the United States. He
suggests that, given the failure of the child welfare system to adequately respond to child
abuse, it should be dealt with by justice authorities, leaving child welfare to focus on the
structural factors that affect the ability of so many caregivers to provide adequately for
their children.
Despite growing evidence that structural factors play a key role in predisposing First
Nations children to higher risk for social disadvantage, research in this area continues
to be limited. This may be because Canadian child welfare tends to focus primarily on
child and family interventions, paying only subsidiary attention to the impact of structural
factors such as poverty, poor housing, and the multi-generational impacts of colonization
(Blackstock, 2003). This focus on risk in child and family environments is reflected in child
welfare risk assessment models and methods that do not account for structural risk, other
than how it may manifest at the level of the child. For example, a social worker may
assess a child as malnourished but not take account of the impoverished conditions in the
community or the lack of services that have interfered with parents’ capacity to provide
a nutritious diet. The problem with this approach is that it opens up the possibility that
caregivers living in areas where structural risks are more prevalent (e.g., on reserves or in
low-income areas) will be held responsible for poor nutrition or unsafe housing, when
they are not reasonably capable of affecting the causes.
There is a substantial need for more research to better define structural risks affecting
the overrepresentation of First Nations children in child welfare care in order to inform
effective interventions. While increased research in this area is contemplated, it is critical to
redress existing child welfare service inequalities experienced by First Nations families. These
inequities can compound the problem of overrepresentation by denying families equitable
opportunities to care safely for their children and undermining the ability of progressive
child welfare agencies to implement evidence-based practice as the understanding of
structural risks in First Nations child welfare grows.
70
Resource Inequities as a Structural Risk factor
A growing body of research points to First Nations children and families receiving far
fewer public and voluntary sector services than other children, despite the overwhelming
evidence that First Nations children are at greater risk across the socioeconomic, health, and
education spectrums (McDonald & Ladd, 2000; Nadjiwan & Blackstock, 2003; Blackstock,
2005; Blackstock & Trocmé, 2005; Blackstock, Prakash et al., 2005; Shangreaux, 2004;
Amnesty International, 2006; Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada, 2006). A
study done by Nadjiwan and Blackstock 2003 found that First Nations children on reserves
receive negligible benefit from the voluntary sector, which delivers services valued at over
$90 billion per year to other Canadians (Nadjiwan & Blackstock, 2003; Blackstock, 2005;
Auditor General of Canada, 2008).
The shortage of voluntary sector services is aggravated by insufficient levels of child
welfare funding provided by the federal government to reserves (McDonald & Ladd,
2000; McKenzie, 2002; Blackstock, 2003; Blackstock & Trocmé, 2005; Blackstock, Prakash
et al., 2005; AFN, 2007). The federal funding shortfall is particularly severe for least
disruptive measures, meaning that First Nations families receive far fewer child welfare
services to help them safely care for their children at home (McDonald & Ladd, 2000;
Blackstock, Prakash, Loxley, & Wien, 2005; AFN, 2007). The Department of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development (INAC) and First Nations agree that the current child welfare
funding is inadequate but disagree in terms of the extent of the problem and how it
should be addressed. In February 2007, the Assembly of First Nations in partnership with
the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada submitted a complaint to the
Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging that current and proposed INAC funding
options are inadequate and inequitable to First Nations children. The Auditor General of
Canada (2008) recently evaluated both the old and new funding approaches advanced
by INAC and found them both to be inequitable; nonetheless, INAC has not advanced
any meaningful plan to redress the shortfalls. The Canadian Human Rights Commission
71
has formally accepted the complaint and referred the matter for full inquiry before the
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (Assembly of First Nations, 2009). The tribunal is expected
to hear the case in 2009.
Service-access inequities undermine the capacity of families and child welfare authorities
alike to design and implement meaningful strategies to tackle structural risks affecting
children. It is simply not reasonable to expect equal child welfare outcomes on a foundation
of unequal resources.
Why Research and Research Capacity are Important in first Nations Child Welfare
Child welfare in Canada is a political system. Provincial/territorial and federal cabinet
ministers who frequently have limited child welfare knowledge are ultimately responsible
for child welfare legislation, policy, and practice. Ministers usually rely on bureaucrats to
examine the available evidence and determine the best policy direction. The problem is
that the capacity of federal government bureaucrats to understand and apply research
in child welfare policy is questionable (Auditor General of Canada, 2008). The federal
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (INAC) has the largest child welfare
agency in the country and yet he assigns only three full-time staff at INAC headquarters to
oversee the entire First Nations child welfare system and provide policy advice. The results
are predictable. Federal bureaucrats often do not have the skill or the time to analyze
the available evidence, and poorly supported policy approaches often get repackaged as
“evidence-based policy” for First Nations child welfare.
For example, INAC set aside a thoroughly researched national child welfare funding
proposal supported by the best child welfare and economic evidence possible developed
jointly with First Nations (Loxley et al., 2005) to unilaterally roll out a child welfare program
founded in Alberta to all regions of the country. The model is called the Alberta Response
Model (ARM) which is a hybrid of differential response and concurrent planning. ARM
72
has been widely promoted as a best practice by the Alberta Government (n.d.) and more
recently, by the Department Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Prentice, 2007);
however First Nations have routinely raised concerns about the cultural validity of the
model and whether or not adequate family resources are in place to ensure the efficacy of
the model (Assembly of First Nations, 2007).
Over the past 10 years, several provincial child welfare systems have adopted a differential
response model that differentiates between low- and high-risk families, steering the
former to community-based services whenever possible. Differential response is based
on three basic assumptions: (1) risk severity varies among children and families coming
to the attention of the child welfare system, suggesting lower levels of intervention are
needed for lower-risk families; (2) community-based services offer the most accessible,
sustainable, and relevant service option to reduce risk to children; and (3) adequate services
are available though the child welfare system or via other service providers. Although
differential response has become widely regarded as a promising child welfare approach
in Canada, there is no definitive evidence that it works—either with Non-Aboriginal or
First Nations children (English et al., 2000). Part of the problem is in identifying reasonable
outcomes to measure differential response against, because Canada has not defined
basic child welfare outcome indicators, such as those advanced by Trocmé, MacLaurin,
and Fallon (2000). Another problem is that the implementation of differential response
varies widely between, and within, provinces. For example, Alberta has linked differential
response with concurrent planning in what is known as the Alberta Response Model
(ARM). The differential response component of ARM aims to keep children out of care
if possible by providing referrals to community services, while concurrent planning aims
to ensure permanency for children in child welfare care by preparing other permanent
placement options at the same time as working toward family reunification (Alberta
Government, n.d.).
As the following section lays out, the federal and provincial governments would have
been well advised to heed the cautions of Chandler and Lalonde (1998) about importing
73
western-based best practices into First Nations communities without detailed contextual,
cultural, and community assessments.
First Nations children in Alberta are drastically overrepresented in child welfare care,
making up approximately half of all children in care and yet the ARM does not explicitly
target neglect or account for structural risk driving it. Another concern is that the
Government of Alberta and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
have not taken sufficient steps to address the outstanding service inequalities facing First
Nations families living on and off reserves.
Service access inequities are a major problem in applying ARM to First Nations families
as the community-based voluntary sector and government family support services that
the model assumes are simply not available in many First Nations communities. The
implementation outcomes of ARM in First Nations communities have not been thoroughly
evaluated but reports from many First Nations child and family service agencies are not
encouraging. For example, Alberta Children’s Services (2006) reports that the number of
Aboriginal children placed in permanent care increased an astounding 82.5 percent over
the previous year. Meanwhile, the rates for child maltreatment report recurrence rates
over one-year periods are increasing (Alberta Children’s Services, 2007) something that
would not be expected if ARM was successful.
Although there is no research explaining what is driving either the increase in the
numbers of First Nations children in care or the rise in child maltreatment recurrence
rates, it is reasonable to believe that the service deficits coupled with the lack of focus on
structural risks are contributing factors. As a result, First Nations families are less likely to
receive the intensive and relevant services that are available to other families in Alberta,
and the time frames for changing the structural risks facing their families are in many
cases unrealistically short. The result is more and more First Nations children being placed
in permanent child welfare care.
74
Implications of the literature for When Everything Matters
Overall, the literature on overrepresentation raises a number of important methodological
considerations for future researchers such as the following:
• Operationallydefinemaltreatment,forFirstNationschildren,accountforsubstance
misuse and structural risk factors.
• Ensure study samples and data sources are representative of groupswhomay be
overrepresented in the child welfare system.
• Clarifypredictorandoutcomevariabledefinitions,anduseconsistentlyacrossstudies
exploring racial/ethnic overrepresentation.
• Clarifydefinitionsofracial/ethnicgroupsandsubgroups.
• Defineoverrepresentationasa racial/ethnicgroup’s rateofexperience foranevent
being in excess of the proportion of the population for that group and define disparity
as a comparison of one ethnic group to another.
• Describe overrepresentation at different points throughout the trajectory of child
welfare cases and analyze factors at each stage to determine differential effects of
independent variables.
• Explore interactions between independent variables at different points where
overrepresentation or disparity are measured.
• Althoughstatisticallycontrollingforsocioeconomicfactorssubstantiallyexplainsthe
overrepresentation of certain racial groups in the child welfare system, in real life race
and socioeconomic factors cannot be so neatly parceled out. For example Aboriginal
peoples in Canada are much more likely to be poor than Non-Aboriginal Canadians—
and this has been the case for decades.
75
• Theissueofoverrepresentationisparticularlysuitedtolongitudinalstudiesexamining
the trajectories of one representative sample of children across time; when this is not
possible, cohort samples should be used.
The outstanding question is whether First Nations children are overrepresented among
those in child welfare care because they are at greater risk and/or because the services
provided to them fail to adequately address the primarily structural risks they experience.
The When Everything Matters study informs this question and Figure 10 summarizes how
the “lessons learned” from literature are transposed into the study design.
Figure 10: Incorporating research “lessons learned” into design
Lessons Learnedfrom Literature
Incorporating lessons into current study
Longitudinalpreferred;cohort studyreasonablealternative
Sample of children removed 2003–2005
Disaggregate by race and within racial groups
Data collectedfrom tribal and provincial childwelfare providers
Consistent variable definition and measurement means and times
Use of CIS definitions of variables whenever possible; all new variables defined
Learning Design Sampling Measurement
More specifically, this study leverages methodological issues raised in other research on
overrepresentation by:
• using the dichotomous outcome variable of reunificationwith family or remaining
in child welfare care. The independent variables are divided into three separate data
collection instruments: (1) child, (2) household, and (3) service aims.
• using a sample of First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children removed from their
families from 2003–2005. Although a longitudinal study would have been better able
to comparatively track trajectories of First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children from
point of referral through to either reunification or ongoing placement I am unable to
76
pursue a longitudinal design as the Province of Nova Scotia does not require social
workers to indicate the racial status of children until time of placement.
• whenever possible using the same variables and definitions used in the Canadian
Incidence Study on Reported Child Abuse and Neglect to allow for some comparisons
of the overrepresentation of First Nations children at time of referral and at time of
placement. Although these comparisons must be interpreted with caution as they will
involve different samples, the use of standard measures makes comparisons of factors
such as type of maltreatment, child functioning and caregiver functioning plausible.
• disaggregatingthedataonAboriginalchildrenbycollectingdataonaspecificcultural
group of First Nations children. Although, the literature suggests that First Nations
children are drastically overrepresented among Aboriginal children in care, no study
on overrepresentation disaggregates the experience of Aboriginal children by tribal/
cultural group. The most extensive disaggregation was done by Needel et al. (2007)
who explored differences among Native American and Alaskan Native groups but this
modest differentiation likely masks differences within these groups.
• comparingreunificationandongoingplacementratesagainstcensusdataforNova
Scotia to contextualize findings within the First Nations and Non-Aboriginal child
populations.
• comparinganychangesintheprimarytypeofchildmaltreatmenttypefromthetime
when child was taken into care order to ongoing placement or reunification with
family.
• usingthesamesampletodetermineincidenceratesforoverrepresentationandfactors
contributing to reunification or ongoing placement, and comparing these factors to
the primary aims of services provided to the child and the caregiver.
77
• conducting the study in partnership with First Nations and Non-Aboriginal child
welfare authorities is important to ensure the inclusion of all children removed from
their families.
The present study represents the first exploration of the experiences of First Nations and
non–First Nations children removed from their families and placed in child welfare care in
Canada. Given that the study focuses only on one province, caution should be exercised
when generalizing the method or results outside Nova Scotia. Nonetheless, the study has
the potential to inform future research on ethnic overrepresentation by testing a set of
maltreatment definitions and decision-making definitions, identifying factors contributing
to children remaining in care or being reunified with families, and exploring the relationship
between child and caregiver functioning and services provided to ameliorate the risk of
child maltreatment.
Moreover, the survey of the literature is beginning to demonstrate the interdependence
of factors in child maltreatment consistent with the assumption of interdependence in
the breath of life theory. Although there is no doubt some factors are more important
than others, there do appear to be significant interfaces between factors at the levels of
the child, family, and society. Moreover, the influence of historical antecedents such as
colonization and racial discrimination cannot be discounted, particularly when researchers
account for aggregation bias.
continued
78
CHApTER 3
design and Method
The present study is designed to respond to the following research questions and
hypotheses:
Table 4: Research Questions
Research Question Hypothesis Supporting Citations
Do rates per thousand of First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children who are removed differ?
First Nations children will be removed at higher rates than Non-Aboriginal children.
Trocmé, Knoke, & Blackstock (2004); Blackstock et al. (2005); Trocmé et al. (2006)
Do the rates per thousand of First Nations versus Non-Aboriginal children who are reunified with family or remain in child welfare care differ?
First Nations children will be overrepresented among children who remain in foster care and less likely to be reunified with family than Non-Aboriginal children.
Trocmé, Knoke, & Blackstock (2004); Blackstock et al. (2005); Trocmé et al. (2006)
Do the factors resulting in the reunification or continued placement of First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children differ?
Neglect is more likely to be the primary type of maltreatment for First Nations children in child welfare care. Structural factors such as poverty, poor housing, and caregiver substance misuse substantially account for the overrepresentation.
Trocmé, Knoke, & Blackstock (2004); Blackstock et al. (2005); Trocmé et al. (2006)
Do the number and nature of services provided to First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children and caregivers differ?
First Nations children and caregivers are less likely to receive services than Non-Aboriginal children and caregivers.
Olson (1982); McDonald & Ladd (2000); Burns et al. (2004); Libby et al. (2006); Blackstock (2005); Blackstock et al. (2005); Loxley et al. (2005)
Do the aims of services provided to First Nations align with the factors contributing to reunification or continued placement?
Services provided to First Nations children and their families do not address the structural factors that increase the likelihood that First Nations children will remain in child welfare care.
Blackstock (2005); Blackstock & Trocmé (2005); Blackstock et al. (2005); Loxley et al. (2005); Assembly of First Nations (2007)
Using the proven design of the Canadian Incidence Study on Reported Child Abuse and
Neglect as a platform, this study compares the experiences of a sample of First Nations
children who were taken into care in Nova Scotia from January 1, 2003, to December 31,
2005 matched with a sample of Non-Aboriginal children on the basis of age at entry into
care and exit destination (reunification or not). If the child was admitted into care multiple
times during the study period, data was only collected on the first admission of care.
79
This study also compares the factors influencing social worker decisions to either reunify
or continue with child welfare placement for First Nations children and Non-Aboriginal
children, and contrast those with the primary aims of child welfare services provided to
the child and his or her family.
A number of benefits are achieved by basing this study in Nova Scotia. Mi’kmaw Family
and Children’s Services is the only First Nations agency in the province thus controlling
for variations between the larger number of First Nations child welfare providers in other
provinces. Additionally, Nova Scotia is the traditional territory of one large cultural group
of First Nations—the Mi’kmaw peoples, thus providing a natural control for the large
variation in First Nations cultural groups in other regions of the country.
Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services and the Nova Scotia Department of Community
Services (DCS) have successfully participated in two previous cycles of the CIS, upon which
the design for this study is based, and have demonstrated a commitment and capacity to
participate in child welfare research projects and employ results for community benefit.
As the sample includes all First Nations children but only a portion of all Non-Aboriginal
children, the findings on Non-Aboriginal children may not be entirely representative of
the population of Non-Aboriginal cases. Nonetheless, this study forms the best, and only,
data available contrasting the factors contributing to social worker decisions to reunify or
continue placement for First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children in Canada.
This chapter describes the development of the sampling design and method for the
study. It starts by describing the child welfare service delivery structure and child population
distribution in Nova Scotia, moves on to describe the type of provincial child welfare data
collected from the point of child protection referral to the time that the child is reunified
with family or remains in child welfare care, and then explains implications for sampling
design. The chapter ends by describing the research method, paying particular attention
to instrument design, pilot testing, and administration during the study.
80
Child Welfare Service delivery in Nova Scotia
Non-Aboriginal children in Nova Scotia receive child welfare services through 6 government-
operated district offices and 12 private agencies located in 4 geographic regions (North,
East, West, and Central). First Nations children resident on reserve in Nova Scotia receive
services from Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services, and the agency can continue
providing services for a three-month period should the child move off reserve. This means
that both the province and Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services provide child welfare
services to First Nations children.
All child welfare agencies, on and off reserve, in Nova Scotia operate pursuant to the
Children and Family Services Act (1990), which defines a child as a person under the age of
16 although the act allows for children who are placed in care prior to their 16th birthday
to receive services until they are 19 years of age. Social workers can apply for orders to
provide services to children in permanent care until they reach 21 years of age. For the
purposes of the Act, child abuse includes physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse,
and neglect. The Act also allows removals of children when there is a substantial risk of
child abuse. The DCS reports that in 2004 there were 11,500 child welfare cases in Nova
Scotia and 840 children were apprehended, which is termed as “taken into care” in Nova
Scotia data systems (Nova Scotia Department of Community Services and the Nova Scotia
Association of Social Workers, 2005.) The Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare (Gough,
2006) reports that Nova Scotia receives approximately 8200 new child protection reports
per year and services 2050 children in care, of whom 1160 are in permanent care.
The Province of Nova Scotia funds child welfare services on reserves whereas the federal
government funds child welfare services to First Nations children resident on reserve. It
is important to underscore that shortfalls in federal child welfare funding compounded
by inequitable voluntary sector supports mean that children and families on reserves will
typically have fewer services available to address child protection concerns than Non-
Aboriginal families off reserves.
81
population distributions of first Nations and Non-Aboriginal Children in Nova Scotia
Statistics Canada (2008) census data from 2006 indicates that there are 146,435 children
under the age of 14 years in Nova Scotia. The Confederacy of Mainland Mi’kmaq (2008)
provides the map in Figure 11 showing the geographic location of Mi’kmaq communities
in Nova Scotia:
Figure 11: Confederacy of Mi’kmaw Nations
Bear River
Acadia
Glooscap
Pictou Landing
Millbrook
Indian brook
Afton
WagamatcookWaycobah
Chapel Island
Membertou
Annapolis Valley
Confederacy of Mainland Mi’kmaq, 2008.
As in other parts of Canada, Non-Aboriginal children are concentrated in the metropolitan
areas. However, as shown in Table 5, 58 percent of First Nations children in Nova Scotia
are resident on reserves, 21 percent live off reserve in rural areas, and 22 percent live off
reserve in urban areas (Statistics Canada, 2008).
Table 6 shows each Mi’kmaw First Nation in Nova Scotia with the corresponding
population resident on and off reserve derived from Department of Indian Affairs and
Statistics Canada data (Cape Breton University, 2008). It is important to note that not
all First Nations participate in the census and discrepancies between population figures
provided by First Nations and Department of Indian Affairs are not unusual. Nonetheless,
this data provides a general sense of the geographic location of Mi’kmaw communities
and their corresponding populations.
82
Table 5: Population Distribution of Aboriginal Children in Nova Scotia
Statistics Canada Age Category
Aboriginal Group*
Nova Scotia
On Reserve
Rural off Reserve
Urban off Reserve
Percentage on Reserve
<5 years North American Indian
1,355 875 225 250 65%
Métis 360 0 230 135
5–9 years North American Indian
1,525 910 320 290 59%
Métis 495 10 285 205
10–14 years North American Indian
1,830 1,020 370 435 56%
Métis 575 0 385 185
15–19 years North American Indian
1,670 850 410 410 51%
Métis 620 0 425 195
TOTAL <19 years
North American Indian
6,380 3,655 1,325 1,385 57%
Métis 2,050 10 1,325 720
83
Table 6: Mi’kmaw Nations by Population and Location
Mi’kmaw Nation Communities
Total Population
On Reserve
Off Reserve
Nearest Non Reserve Community (ies)
Acadia Gold River, Medway, Ponhook Lake, Wildcat and Yarmouth
1,062 183 879 Halifax, Yarmouth
Annapolis Valley Kampalijek
Cambridge & St. Croix
233 100 133 46–88 km northwest of Halifax
Bear River- L’setkuk
Muin Sipi (Bear River)
280 103 177 6–10 km southeast of Annapolis Valley
Chapel Island- Potlotek
Chapel Island & Malagawatch
606 470 136 69 km southwest of Sydney
Eskasoni-Eskisoqnik
Eskasoni #3, Eskasoni #3A & Malagawatch #4
3,841 3,284 557 40 km southwest of Sydney
Glooscap-Pesikitk Glooscap(2004)
297 85 212 69 km northwest of Halifax
Membertou-Maupeltuk
Membertou #28B, Caribou Marsh #29, Sydney #28A and portions of Malagawatch #4
1,151 769 382Within 10 km radius of Sydney except Malagawatch which is located 62 km southwest of Sydney
Millbrook-We’kopekwitk
Millbrook #27, Beaver Lake #17, Truro #27A, Truro #27B, #27C, Cole Harbour #30, Sheet Harbour #36
1,140 (1,999)
631 566 Millbrook 8 km east of Truro, Beaver Lake, 79 km southeast of Halifax, Truro #27A, #27B and #27C surround Truro; Cole Harbour, 10 km east of Halifax; and Sheet Harbour, 92 km northeast of Halifax
Paq’tnkek-Paqtkek
Pomquet-Paq’tnkek, Franklin Manor, & Summerside
506 341 165 Pomquet-Paq’tnek is 24 km east of Antigonish; Franklin Manor,32 km southwest of Amherst and Summerside, 18 km east of Antigonish
Pictou Landing Fisher’s Grant, Boat Harbour, Merigomish Harbour & Franklin Manor#22
566 434 132 Fisher’s Grant, 9.6 km north of New Glasgow; Fisher’s Grant, 3.2 km southeast of Pictou Landing; Boat Harbour, 8 km north of New Glasgow; Franklin Manor, 32 km southwest of Amherst
Shubenacadie-Sipekni’katik
Shubenacadie, Indian Brook, Pennal & New Ross
2,248 1,183 1,065
Shubenacadie, 32 km north of Halifax; Indian Brook, 29 km southwest of Truro; Pennal#19, 67 km northwest of Halifax; New Ross#20, 64 km northwest of Halifax
Wagmatcook-Wagmitkuk
Wagmatcook, Margaree & Malagawatch
672 476 196Wagamatcook #1, 51 km west of Sydney; Margaree #25, 69 km northwest of Sydney; Malagawatch #4,62 km Southwest of Sydney
Waycobah-We’koqmaq
Whycocomagh #2 & Malagawatch #4
872 790 82Whycocomagh #2, located 70 km West of Sydney and Malagawatch #4,62 km southwest of Sydney
Cape Breton University, 2008
84
The sample selected for the WEM study under represents First Nations children resident
off reserves. Mi’kmaw and DCS representatives attribute this underrepresentation to the
selection of Non-Aboriginal sites serving First Nations children off reserves not including
communities with high populations of First Nations resident off reserve.
Administrative Child Welfare data in Nova Scotia
All child welfare agencies in Nova Scotia feed information into a shared data system housed
at the DCS. This shared data system is currently under review and a new information data
system is being implemented. Figure 12 summarizes the available administrative data as
of April 2008 based on conversations with the DCS and Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s
Services as well as a review of statistical reports from the administrative data system.
Figure 12: Summary of Administrative Data in Nova Scotia
• Number of referrals to child welfare
• Number of new child protection reports
• Ethnicity of the child not required, meaning it is not possible to explore overrepresentation of First Nations children on the basis of administrative data at the report stage
Report
• Social workers may collapse “substantiation for family crisis and child protection” and do not typically record changes in maltreatment from time of referral
• Ethnicity is not always recorded as it is not required until the child is placed in care.
Substantiation
• Children in care by legal status and by age group using uneven age intervals
• < 1 year
• 1 to 2 years
• 3 to 4 years
• 5 to 10 years
• 11 to 15 years
Taken into Care
• Total number of children in permanent care and number entering care per annum
• Social history forms required on all permanent wards but not uploaded onto the administrative data system
PermanentOrders
Table 7 shows the numbers of new children taken into care or placed permanently by
non–First Nations child welfare agencies and Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services for the
years 2003, 2004, and 2005 as reported by the DCS (2008) administrative data system.
85
Table 7: New Cases Taken into Care and Placed in Permanent Care in 2003, 2004, and 2005
Year (January 1 To December 31)
NonAboriginal or Mi’kmaw Agency
Taken into Care
Permanent Orders
Sub Total by Agency
Total by Year
2003Non -Aboriginal 258 27 285
359Mi’kmaw 66 8 74
2004Non -Aboriginal 284 27 311
373Mi’kmaw 58 4 62
2005Non-Aboriginal 244 16 260
303Mi’kmaw 40 3 43
Total All Years 950 85 1,035 1,035
data on Child in Care files
The DCS (2004) Child in Care Custody Manual indicates that the social workers should
record the following information on child in care files in Nova Scotia:
• Planninggoalforthechild
• Foreachofthefollowing,thechild’scurrentstatus,needs,andinterventionstomeet
the child’s needs:
> Placement
> Physical and emotional state and level of development
> Family and social relationships including visits and contact with parents and
family members
> Educational developmental progress, as appropriate
> Health
> Cultural heritage
> Social and recreational activities
> Sexual health
• Anyotherneedsofthechildandinterventionsprovidedtomeetthechild’sneeds
• Theviewsofthechild,parents,andsignificantothersregardingtheplan
86
The manual also requires social workers to list the interventions used to ensure child safety
if the plan is reunification with family and to record plans to ensure the cultural identity
of Aboriginal children. There was no way of knowing how consistently this information
is included in files on children taken into care in Nova Scotia prior to conducting an initial
file review to test the data instruments.
Variables for When Everything Matters Study
Tables 8-10 identify the variables for each instrument along with the theoretical support
underpinning each variable. The child and caregiver variables are based on the Canadian
Incidence Study on Reported Child Abuse and Neglect with modifications made to reflect
the decision to reunify with family or continue child welfare placement and the structural
factors found to drive the overrepresentation of substantiated child welfare reports
respecting First Nations children (Trocmé et al., 2006). There is simply no precedent for the
service aim form and thus it was developed based on a review of the literature, my own
experience of the range of services available to children and families in the child welfare
system, and conversations with Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services and DCS.
Table 8: Child Variables
Independent Variable Theoretical importance Variable Type
Supporting Citations
Age Age correlates to the vulnerability of children to specific types of child maltreatment. For example, First Nations children are more likely to experience neglect for which toddlers should theoretically be at greater risk. Research on neglect suggests that age may be related to subtypes of neglect. Interestingly, CIS analysis shows no difference between age groups among substantiated First Nations neglect cases. The outstanding question is whether sub-types of neglect vary according to age among First Nations children substantiated for neglect. Inclusion of child age will document differences of child maltreatment type, service provisions and factors contributing to placement across the age spectrum
Continuous Erickson & Egeland, (1998); Trocmé et al., (2006)
87
Table 8: Child Variables
Independent Variable Theoretical importance Variable Type
Supporting Citations
Gender There has been only modest analysis of child maltreatment from a gender based analysis and much of this has centered on physical and sexual abuse. There is no known data on male and female children in care or among those children who are reunified with family members and as such the inclusion of this variable informs analysis of gender based differences among children in care.
Dichotomous—dummy variable coded O and 1
UNICEF, (2003)
Aboriginal Status
Previous cycles of OIS, CIS and the Wen:de studies indicate that First Nations children are vastly over represented among reports of neglect but not for abuse. The inclusion of this variable is important to compare the incidence rates of family reunification or remaining in care among First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children and to further explore any differences relating to Aboriginal cultural group.
Categorical Trocmé, Knoke, Blackstock, (2004); Blackstock et al., (2005); Trocmé et al., (2006)
Child Functioning
Specific child behaviors have been linked with child maltreatment. The child functioning scale is taken from the CIS and thus has already proven valid across two cycles of that study. Substantiation scales for each variable allow for differentiation between professional guess and confirmed occurrence
Categorical Lynch & Cicchetti,(1998); Wolfe, (2001); Trocmé et al. (2001)
Primary type of maltreatment at time of removal and primary type of child maltreatment at time of reunification or time of form completion if child remains in care
CIS has documented that First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children come to the attention of child welfare authorities for different reasons. This scale ask social workers to indicate the primary type of child maltreatment at time of removal for three reasons: (1) to see if type of child maltreatment at time of removal has any relationship to reunification or remaining in care; (2) to determine if the type of maltreatment at removal is the same or different at the time of reunification or form completion if child remains in care and (3) to see if service aims are related to maltreatment type
Categorical Trocmé, Knoke, Blackstock, (2004); Blackstock et al., (2005); Trocmé et al., (2006)
Child’s current placement
Studies suggest the majority of children taken into care are reunified with family within one year of removal. This question tracks the child’s placement at the current time.
Brown et al., (1998); Wolfe, (2001); Harris and Courtney, (2003)
Date of reunification with family
Studies indicate that most children will be reunified with family one year after removal. This question tracks the time to reunification for First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children in Nova Scotia.
Brown et al., (1998); Harris and Courtney, (2003)
continued
88
Table 8: Child Variables
Independent Variable Theoretical importance Variable Type
Supporting Citations
Primary reason for reunification with family
None of the studies on racial over representation in child welfare track why children are reunified and whether or not services make a difference. This question identifies both the reason for reunification and whether or not services were primarily responsible for the reunification.
If the child remains in care, current legal status
This question will help determine how many First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children remain in care are in each legal category of care.
Primary reason for application for child remaining in care
Child welfare statutes require that social workers exhaust every alternative before considering ongoing placement. This section lists five reasons for ongoing care as identified by statute and discussions with practitioners
Categorical Sinclair et al., (2005)
Table 9: Household Variables
Independent Variable Theoretical importance
Variable Type
Supporting Citations
Caregiver A and B in Home
It is important to identify the relationship between the caregiver and the child to determine if caregiver status has any relationship to reunification or continuance in care. Research has indicated that step parents are more likely to perpetrate some forms of abuse than biological parents particularly in terms of sexual abuse.
Categorical Brown et al., (1998); Wolfe, (2001); Harris and Courtney, (2003)
Gender Gender of primary caregiver has been cited in some studies as being a significant factor.
Dichotomous Dummy variable coded 0 and 1
Kendall-Tackett, Meyer- Williams & Finklehor, (2001)
Caregiver Age Traditionally, First Nations children were cared for by Elders and there is some information to suggest that First Nations children may be cared for full time by older family members more often than Non-Aboriginal children. This variable is included to determine if there are any differences in caregiver age between Non-Aboriginal and First Nations children and to determine if caregiver age has any relationship to service provision.
Continuous Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, (1996); Blackstock, (2004); Carriere, (2005)
continued
89
Table 9: Household Variables
Independent Variable Theoretical importance
Variable Type
Supporting Citations
Primary Income Source
Poverty has been linked to child maltreatment. Although there is a debate as to whether poverty affects abuse incidence rates there is strong evidence that poverty is related to neglect in Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal families. Source of income is used as a proxy measure for actual income as social worker as social workers are more likely to know source of income versus level of income.
Categorical Wolfe, (2001); Harris & Courtney, (2003); Trocmé, Knoke, Blackstock,(2004); Townsend & Kennedy, (2004); Blackstock et al., (2005); Trocmé et al., (2006); Lindsey, (1999); Garbarino,(1995); Earle-Fox, (2005); Needel et al., (2007)
Education Level
Education has been linked to income level, social empowerment and literacy. First Nations have poorer educational outcomes which are correlated with lower income than other Canadians and thus education is included as a possible factor influencing reunification or continued placement incidence.
Categorical Wolfe,( 2001); Mendleson,(2006)
Ethno-Racial Group
First Nations children are drastically overrepresented in the child welfare system. CIS 2003 could not eliminate First Nations status as a factor influencing social workers’ decisions to place children in care. Ethno-racial group of caregivers has also been linked to disproportionate social disadvantage resulting in impoverished parenting capacity. Caregiver ethno-racial group is included to determine what effect, if any, the caregiver ethno-racial status has on social worker decisions to place children or the nature and range of services provided.
Categorical Brown et al., (1998); Barn, Landino & Rogers, (2006); Trocmé et al., (2006)
Aboriginal Cultural Group and Residency on and off Reserves.
There are significant differences in child welfare funding and voluntary sector service availability on and off reserve in Canada. CIS and the Wen: de reports have demonstrated significant differences in the incidence rates of child welfare involvement and placement among Aboriginal groups. Disaggregation of Aboriginal data has also proven essential in studies on youth suicide, child welfare and socio-economic status.
Categorical Cornell & Kalt, (1992); Chandler & Lalonde, (1998); Blackstock, et al., (2005); Trocmé et al., (2006)
continued
90
Table 9: Household Variables
Independent Variable Theoretical importance
Variable Type
Supporting Citations
Primary Language
At best Canadian child welfare authorities offer services in the two official languages (English and French) and yet Aboriginal peoples are drastically overrepresented among child welfare clients in many regions of the country. For some Aboriginal peoples English and French are a second language. Research regarding ethnic minorities from the United Kingdom found that interpretation services in child welfare are often inadequate and inconsistent. This question is included to determine whether the primary language of the caregiver has any relationship to decisions to reunify family or the nature of service provision.
Categorical Bowen, (2001); Ashok, (2005); conversations with practitioners
Contact with Caregiver
Level of cooperation of the caregiver is relevant in terms of accurately assessing the family situation and providing relevant services.
Categorical Saskatchewan Community Resources and Employment and Montreal Lake Child and Family Services Inc., (2003).
Caregiver Risk Factors at time of removal and at time of reunification or continuance in care
Structural risk factors such as poverty, poor housing and caregiver substance misuse contribute to the substantiation of neglect reports respecting First Nations families. Overall social stress has been linked to what Garbarino terms” toxic families” that have higher rates of family problems including child maltreatment. Substance misuse has been found to be related to neglect. Collecting the data here and then at the time of reunification or continued placement helps to understand if the risk factors changed or remained the same and to what degree they were related to service aims.
Categorical Brown et al., (1998); Wolfe, (2001); Costellano et al., (1998); Kelley, (2002); Epstien, (2003): Kroll & Taylor, (2003); Earle-Fox, (2004); Trocmé, Knoke, Blackstock, (2004); Blackstock et al., (2005); Garbarino, (2005); Trocmé et al., (2006); Assembly of First Nations, (2007)
Other adults in the home at time of removal and time of reunification or continuance in care
Increased number of adults in a home may impact child safety and well-being in two ways: (1) introducing more stress due to overcrowding and (2) potential of increased exposure to adults who may pose a risk to the child
Continuous Wolfe, (2001)
continued
91
Table 9: Household Variables
Independent Variable Theoretical importance
Variable Type
Supporting Citations
Unsafe Housing Conditions at time of removal and time of reunification or continuance in care
Unsafe housing is a key factor explaining the overrepresentation of First Nations children among neglect cases. Studies have raised widespread concern about housing conditions for Aboriginal peoples on and off reserves.
Categorical Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, (1996); Trocmé, Knoke, & Blackstock, (2004); Trocmé et al., (2006); Assembly of First Nations, (2007)
Home overcrowded at time of removal and at time of reunification or continuance in care
Over- crowding is a key factor explaining the overrepresentation of First Nations children among neglect cases. Over- crowding raises stress levels for family members. Studies have raised widespread concern about housing conditions for Aboriginal peoples on and off reserves.
Categorical Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, (1996); Trocmé, Knoke, & Blackstock, (2004); Trocmé et al., (2006); Assembly of First Nations, (2007)
Number of moves last 12 months at time of removal and time of reunification or continuance in care
Frequent moves have been associated with higher levels of family stress which can contribute to heightened risk of child maltreatment.
Continuous Wolfe, (2001)
Household income estimate at time of removal and at time of reunification or continuance in care
Poverty has been linked with disproportionate substantiation of First Nations children for neglect and has been identified as one of the key factors resulting in the over- representation of First Nations children in care.
Continuous Townsend & Kennedy, (2004); Trocmé, Knoke, & Blackstock, (2004); Trocmé et al., (2006); Assembly of First Nations, (2007)
Number of other children removed from household up to the time of reunification or continuance in care
There is no information on the removal rates of siblings of children in child welfare care. There is some research on Non-Aboriginal pre-school aged children in the United States indicating that children placed with older siblings have fewer behavioral and emotional problems but lower vocabulary scores than other children. This variable is included to determine if number of siblings removed has any relationship to social worker decisions to reunify children or keep them in child welfare care.
Continuous Smith (1998)
continued
92
Table 10: Service Aim Variables
Independent Variable Theoretical importance
Variable Type
Supporting Citations
Services Provided at Time of Removal to Reunification or Continuance in Care
Services to Child
CIS suggests that child characteristics do not explain the overrepresentation of First Nations children in care. Theoretically, however, the services to the child should relate to the distribution of child functioning concerns at the time of removal for both First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children. Additionally, research has demonstrated that funding inequities result in lower levels of child welfare service on reserve. This variable will help compare the levels of service provided to First Nations versus Non-Aboriginal children.
Categorical McDonald & Ladd, (2000); Trocmé, Knoke & Blackstock, (2004); Blackstock et al., (2005); Loxley et al., (2005); Trocmé et al., (2006); Assembly of First Nations, (2007)
Services to Caregiver
CIS suggests structural risks such as poor housing, poverty and caregiver substance misuse are the key drivers of the over representation of First Nations children in care. Theoretically, services to the caregiver should reflect these risk factors. No study has been done that explores the relationship between caregiver risk factors and services at any point of child welfare intervention in Canada however data from the United States suggests poverty alleviation among Native American families was related to significant improvements to child mental health. Reliable research on child welfare interventions is sparse with the possible exception of home visitation programs. Additionally, research has demonstrated that funding inequities result in lower levels of child welfare service on reserve. This variable will help compare the levels of service provided to First Nations versus Non-Aboriginal caregivers.
Categorical Olds et al.,(1997); Costellano et al., (1998); McDonald & Ladd, (2000); Townsend & Kennedy, (2004); Trocmé, Knoke & Blackstock, (2004); Blackstock et al., (2005); Loxley et al., (2005); Trocmé et al., (2006); Assembly of First Nations,(2007)
Cultural match of services to child by child welfare authority
Cultural match of services for First Nations children has been found important in research on adoption, youth suicide and socio-economic improvement.
Categorical Cornell & Kalt, (1992); Chandler & Lalonde, (1998); Carriere, (2005)
Cultural match of services to caregiver by child welfare authority
Cultural match of services for First Nations children has been found important in research on adoption, youth suicide and socio-economic improvement.
Categorical Cornell & Kalt, (1992); Chandler & Lalonde, (1998); Carriere, (2005)
Cultural match of services to child provided by outside service provider
Research has found that First Nations on reserves receive far fewer voluntary sector services than other Canadians. Cultural match of services for First Nations children has been found important in research on adoption, youth suicide and socio-economic improvement.
Categorical Cornell & Kalt, (1992); Chandler & Lalonde, (1998); Blackstock, (2005); Blackstock & Trocmé, (2005); Carriere,(2005)
Cultural match of services provided to caregiver by outside service provider
Research has found that First Nations on reserves receive far fewer voluntary sector services than other Canadians. Cultural match of services for First Nations caregivers has been found important in research on adoption, youth suicide and socio-economic improvement.
Categorical Cornell & Kalt, (1992); Chandler & Lalonde, (1998); Blackstock, (2005); Blackstock & Trocmé,(2005); Carriere, (2005)
93
Implications of the Contextual Realities of Child Welfare Agencies for Sampling design
Because this study occurred shortly after a very sensitive case in Nova Scotia, office
stress levels in some non-First Nations agencies were too high to ask staff to take on the
additional task of collecting data. This resulted in design modifications to respond to the
research questions identified in Table 4. This section describes the ideal design to respond
to the research questions identified in Table 4 before describing the sampling design used
for the study which was modified to reflect the contextual realities of participating child
welfare agencies, the available data and the population distribution of First Nations and
Non-Aboriginal children in Nova Scotia.
The ideal design: A longitudinal Cohort Study
As shown in Figure 13, a longitudinal study comparing the trajectories of a complete
cohort of First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children from the time of referral to the time of
child welfare exit (i.e., reunification, adoption) or permanent placement is the ideal design
to respond to the research questions outlined in Table 5.
Figure 13: Longitudinal Cohort Design
Cohort ofChild Protection
Referrals
SubstantiatedNon-Aboriginal
SubstantiatedFirst Nations
Non-AboriginalEntry into care by court order
First NationsRemain in care
First Nations(reuni�cation,
adoption)
Non-AboriginalRemain in care
Non-Aboriginal(reuni�cation,
adoption)
First NationsEntry into care by court order
94
However, this would require the universal participation of all child welfare agencies and a
sufficient sample size of First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children at all stages of child welfare
intervention. It would also require an administrative data system or consistent file recording
format that captures robust data on the variables set out in Tables 8-10. It was not possible
to use this design for the current study given the following realities: (1) the Nova Scotia
administrative data system does not differentiate children by race until time of placement; (2)
there are low sample sizes of new entries into permanent care per year; (3) it was not possible
to collect data at all Non-Aboriginal child welfare agencies given the sensitive-case situation.
These realities required that modifications in sampling design and method. The following
section sets out the modified sampling design which was used in the current study.
Modified Sampling design
Selecting a sampling design for this study was informed by the following factors:
1. Racial status is not indicated in the administrative data system until the child is placed
in care in Nova Scotia, meaning that identifying potential cases to sample by race is
not possible until placement occurs.
2. Nova Scotia uses a mixed private and public governance model in child welfare consisting
of 6 government district offices, 13 private agencies, and Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s
Services, all of which follow the same child welfare statute; however, there is some
variation in practice and in the recording and processing of child welfare information.
3. A priori power analysis using G* Power software for F tests loaded with the following
values (effect size for f = .25, α level of .05, and number of groups 2) indicates that
a minimum sample of 210 cases are needed to achieve .95 actual power level. In
addition, G*Power estimates the power for Chi Square using (effect size for w = .3,
α level of .05, and 1 d.f.) indicate that a sample size of 145 is needed to achieve actual
power level of .95.
95
4. Due to a sensitive case resulting in significant stress for social workers employed in
non–First Nations child welfare agencies in Nova Scotia and concerns about increasing
the workload of social workers at these agencies, a sample of all Non-Aboriginal
children is not possible. Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services was not impacted
by the high-profile case and is eager to include all cases to facilitate more detailed
analysis.
5. The number of potential matching variables for selecting the Non-Aboriginal children
taken into care sample was limited as the Nova Scotia administrative system collects
data on only date of entry into care, child age, and legal status.
Given that a sufficient sample of Mi’kmaw cases where children were reunified or
remained in care was available and needed to ensure adequate statistical power, the
challenge became developing a sampling strategy to select Non-Aboriginal cases that are
reasonably comparable. The following three-stage sampling strategy was used as a practical
alternative given the limitations in data and the need to respect the working realities of
both Mi’kmaw and the Non-Aboriginal child welfare agencies in Nova Scotia. As shown
in Figure 14, the sample includes all First Nations children removed from their families in
Nova Scotia from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2005. The Non-Aboriginal sample
was selected using a three stage strategy. As a first step, five non–First Nations agencies
were selected according to their proximity to the five largest Mi’kmaw Nations to provide
geographic comparability between the sample of Mi’kmaw cases and the Non-Aboriginal
cases in the sample. The next step was to select a matched sample on the basis of age at
entry into care and exit destination (reunified or remained in care).
96
Figure 14: Modified Sampling Design
Children removedin Nova Scotia in2003, 2004, 2005
First Nationsall children removed
(First admissionto care only)
All Non-Aboriginalremoved
(First admissionto care only)
All cases wherechild reuni�ed
Cases matched on ageand exit destination
with Mi’kmaw sample(reuni�cation orremain in care)
Non-Aboriginalagencies selected
by proximity to�ve largest Mi’kmaw
communities
All cases wherechild remains
in care
N = 107
N = 103
Although Table 7 suggests 164 First Nations children were taken into care during the
study period, further analysis revealed that children who are subject to supervision orders
are included along with children who are removed under the “taken into care category”
in the administrative data system. A manual sort of cases was conducted and 57 First
Nations cases involving supervision orders were excluded from the sample yielding a final
N=107 of First Nations cases for inclusion in the sample.
A sample of N=107 Non-Aboriginal children was then selected matched on age and
child welfare exit destination (reunified or remained in care) from a pool of approximately
840 eligible cases. However, in three cases the racial status of the child was not recorded
leaving a valid sample of N=103 of Non-Aboriginal children. Table 11 describes the sample
by First Nations status and child welfare exit destination.
Table 11: Estimated Sample Distribution by Service Provider
Child First Nations Status Reunified Remain in Care Total
First Nations 46 41 87
Non -Aboriginal 57 66 123
TOTAL 103 107 210
97
It is important that if a child was removed multiple times during the study period of the
study, data was collected on the first admission only. Future studies may want to include
information on subsequent admissions into care to determine child removal recidivism rates.
data Collection Method
Figure 15 details the steps in the research cycle beginning with the pilot testing of the data
collection instruments and codebook then continuing through to data collection and the
dissemination of findings.
Figure 15: Research Process
PilotTesting of
Instruments
InstrumentRevision
Training ofRegional
Researchers
Contactwith DataCollection
Sites
DataCollection
DataCleaningand Entry
DataAnalysis
FindingDissemination
Researchers were trained on the instruments during two half-day training sessions in
August of 2008 with a refresher just before data collection began in September 2008. This
section describes the method used for data collection instrument development, pilot testing
of data collection instruments and finally the collection of the actual data for the study.
98
The WEM Data Collection Instruments and Codebook
The When Everything Matters study uses three data collection instruments which were informed
by the data collection instruments used for the 2003 cycle of CIS. The instruments consist of
a Child Information Sheet, Household Information Sheet, and Service Aim Form. The Child
Information Sheet includes a tear-off face sheet that collects semi-identifying information
such as the agency file number and the first two letters of the child’s surname. The only
purpose of collecting this near-identifying information was to cross reference computerized
administrative data with information on the child in care file. The tear-off portions are stored
at the agency and will be destroyed at the end of the study, March 31, 2010.
The Child Information Sheet collects demographic information on the child such as
age, Aboriginal status, and gender, as well as information relating to the reason for the
removal resulting in the child placement in care and the reasons for the reunification or
continuance in care. The form also collects information on the functioning of the child both
at the time of removal and the time of reunification or at the time of data collection if the
child remains in care. The Household Information Sheet collects demographic information
on the primary and secondary caregivers (e.g., relationship to child, age, gender, and
Aboriginal status) and caregiver functioning information at the time of removal as well as
at the time of reunification or at the time of data collection if the child remained in care.
Although the Child Information Sheet and Household Information Sheets were based
on the instruments used in the 2003 cycle of CIS 2003, they have been adapted by
excluding questions relating strictly to investigative functions as well as rephrasing
and adding questions to reflect the situation of children who have been removed. For
example, questions were added relating to reunification or continuance of placement and
the primary form of maltreatment both at time of removal and time of reunification or
continuance of placement.
In terms of the Household Information Sheet, the primary language options for the
caregiver(s) have been expanded to include Aboriginal languages, and questions were
99
added relating to which caregiver posed the most significant risk to the child as well as the
number of other children removed.
The Service Aim Sheet is completely new as the CIS does not collect this type of data.
A review of the literature revealed that there was no instrument available to adequately
capture the range and aims of services provided to children taken into care and their
families. The Service Aim Sheet collects data on services that the child or caregiver(s)
actually received. The instrument was developed based on my own long experience as
a child protection worker, a review of the literature, and were further refined through
consultations with Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services and DCS.
The three data collection instruments were professionally designed to create a single
form package known as the “When Everything Matters Placement Form” hereinafter
referred to as the “form.” The forms are designed to be completed by trained researchers
on the basis of computerized and paper child in care file data and then reviewed with the
child’s social worker to ensure accuracy.
The codebook defines the various terms in the data collection instruments and sets out
a uniform process for data collection. It was adapted from the 2008 CIS cycle (Canadian
Incidence Study on Reported Child Abuse and Neglect, 2008) and was informed by reviews
by Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services and the Department of Community Services. The
CIS codebook was adapted to reflect changes to the Child Information Sheet and Household
Information Sheet data collection tools and expanded to include the new Service Aim Sheet.
Pilot Testing of the Data Collection Instruments
Pilot testing of the form took place using a convenience sample of three agencies (one in
Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services and two in the DCS) during September 2008. Ten
cases were selected from Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services and 10 each from the
two DCS offices (N = 30) to assess the validity of the instruments. This testing sample size
was selected as it ensured a reasonable basis for testing the data collection instruments
and it did not place an undue burden on participating agencies.
100
The procedure involved trained researchers completing 10 forms at each site based
on file reviews and making note of any concerns regarding the form, codebook or data
collection procedure. Pilot testing resulted in the following substantive modifications to
the instruments:
1. Maltreatment Types
Researchers collecting data from the First Nations sites were able to complete the type of
child maltreatment using the child maltreatment codes from the Canadian Incidence Study
on Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS). However, in the Non-Aboriginal agencies the
type of maltreatment was not noted to the specificity level of the maltreatment subtypes
listed in the CIS. Moreover, both First Nations and Non-Aboriginal samples indicated a
substantial number of cases where children were removed due to parental incapacity
related to mental health or substance misuse, or because workers were concerned that
abuse/neglect may happen but nothing had actually occurred to date. These findings led
to the collapsing of the CIS child maltreatment types to more global categories (i.e. sub-
types of sexual abuse were collapsed to the new categories of sexual abuse and sexual
exploitation.)
Two new categories were developed to reflect parental incapacity related to substance
misuse and mental health. In these categories, the principle reason for removal relates to
the caregiver(s) behavior and the potential harm that may create for the child.
Another new reason for removal was the inclusion of the anticipatory forms of each
major category of child maltreatment. For the purposes of the study, anticipatory abuse or
neglect meant the worker was concerned that the caregiver(s) posed a substantial risk to
the child of maltreatment but the caregiver had not actually perpetrated the maltreatment
to date. An example of anticipatory physical maltreatment would be if a caregiver who
was physically abusive to children in a prior relationship moves into the family home and
the worker is concerned that the caregiver may be abusive to the children. An example
of anticipatory neglect would be if the caregiver had a pattern of neglecting children in
the past and has just given birth to a new baby and the worker is concerned about the
101
potential of the parent of neglecting the new child. In Nova Scotia, the child welfare statute
refers to these cases as “at risk of” maltreatment but I chose to use the terminology of
anticipatory forms to differentiate from cases where maltreatment had occurred and the
worker was concerned the child was “at risk” of it happening again.
Table 12 compares the maltreatment major categories and subtypes used during testing
and in the final data collection instrument.
Table 12: Comparison of Maltreatment Types In Pilot Testing and Final Data Instruments
Pilot Testing: Child Maltreatment Type Major Maltreatment Categories During Testing (CIS)
Pilot Testing: Child Maltreatment Sub type
Final Instrument: Child Maltreatment Categories
Final Instrument: Sub Types of Child Maltreatment
Physical Abuse Shake, push, grab or throw
Physical Abuse
Anticipatory physical abuse
Hit with handPhysical abuse resulting in injury
Hit with objectPhysical abuse resulting in no injury
Other physical abuse
Sexual Abuse Penetration Anticipatory sexual abuseAttempted penetration
Oral sexSexual abuse
Fondling
Sex TalkSexual exploitation
Voyeurism
Exhibitionism
Exploitation
102
Table 12: Comparison of Maltreatment Types In Pilot Testing and Final Data Instruments
Pilot Testing: Child Maltreatment Type Major Maltreatment Categories During Testing (CIS)
Pilot Testing: Child Maltreatment Sub type
Final Instrument: Child Maltreatment Categories
Final Instrument: Sub Types of Child Maltreatment
Neglect Failure to supervise: physical harm
Anticipatory neglect
Failure to supervise: sexual abuse
Permitting criminal behavior Failure to supervise
Physical neglect
Medical neglect
Physical neglectFailure to provide psychological treatment
Abandonment Other neglect
Educational neglectAbandonment
Emotional MaltreatmentEmotional abuse
Anticipatory emotional maltreatment
Non organic failure to thrive
Emotional abuse
Emotional neglectAnticipatory exposure to domestic violence
Exposure to domestic violence
Exposure to domestic violence
Other
Caregiver incapacity- mental health
Caregiver incapacity-substance misuse
Caregiver inability to meet child’s special needs
Other (please specify)
2. Reunification Destination
Pilot testing also revealed that reunification did not necessarily mean reunification of the
child to the caregiver(s) from whom they were removed. There were times when the child
was removed from one caregiver and returned to another but the term “reunification”
continued
103
was still used to describe the discharge destination. In order to better capture the child’s
reunification discharge destination, modifications were made to the instrument to identify
the caregiver the child was returned to. Modifications were also made to the Service Aim
Sheet to capture services provided to various caregivers after reunification.
3. Caregiver Risk to Child
Where there were two caregivers in the home at the time of the removal, it was clear from
many of the pilot test cases that one caregiver presented more of a risk to the child than the
other. This was particularly the case in sexual abuse and domestic violence situations where
the perpetrator often presented more risk to the child than the non-offending caregiver.
The final instrument therefore included a question asking if caregiver A or caregiver B
presented more of a risk to the child or if both caregivers presented equal risks.
Pilot testing also revealed that file organization between offices was not consistent so
researchers had to adjust to changing file organization structures and recording formats.
This may have contributed to the average time for form completion rising to 30 minutes
instead of the 20 minutes originally estimated.
data Collection Method
Consistent with the procedure used in data instrument testing, trained researchers
collected the data based on file reviews and then reviewed the forms with the child’s
social worker or if he or she was not available, with a senior social worker or supervisor
who was familiar with the case. In the vast majority of cases, the researchers were present
when the social worker reviewed the forms; however, if this was not possible, a letter
outlining the form review process and a copy of the codebook were left with the social
worker who would then review the form and submit it for processing using a secured
courier service.
This process provided a number of advantages: (1) it reduced the burden on social
workers, (2) provided for uniform data collection, (3) allowed researchers to determine
104
what information was actually recorded as part of the file and what information social
workers knew but did not record, and (4) ensured accuracy through the review of the
completed by social workers.
Data collection occurred over a five-week period between September 21, 2008, and
October 31, 2008. The actual data collection timing was important as the Canadian
Incidence Study on Reported Child Abuse and Neglect began collecting data in the same
province in November 2008 and it was important that overlap in data collection be avoided
in order to reduce the burden on participating offices.
At each site, the researcher conducted briefing sessions with office staff on the study.
All but one Non-Aboriginal site took advantage of this opportunity. Senior Mi’kmaw
Family and Children’s Services staff were briefed at a meeting in Halifax in September
2008. Researchers also offered to return to participating sites at DCS and Mi’kmaw after
data analysis to provide a summary of results. All participating sites believed this was very
important and accepted the offer.
DCS staff sent a list of selected files to each site in advance so that the files could be
made available for the researchers to review on site. All of the participating sites were
extremely cooperative in ensuring the file materials were provided and social workers were
available to review forms. Consistent with First Nations cultural protocols, researchers
brought a food gift for each participating office to acknowledge the staff and thank them
for their participation.
Table 13 describes important observations made during data collection. While some
of these observations are directly relevant to the findings of the current study, others
were anecdotal but nonetheless important to record as they suggested areas for future
investigation.
105
Table 13: Observations Made During Data Collection
Issue
Directly related to WEM research questions? Implications
Recommendations for future research
Culture and race
Yes
While the Non-Aboriginal sites routinely noted the racial and cultural identity of Aboriginal children, very rarely was the racial or cultural status of Non-Aboriginal children found in the file recording. If it was on the file it was most often on police, medical or psychological reports. Cultural status was more often recorded as a separate item for First Nations children with workers recording the First Nations status and cultural community of the child.
Research to explore the incidence and implications of the conflation between culture and race in child welfare.
Religion
No
The religious status of the caregiver was more often recorded than race and culture for Non-Aboriginal children however there did not appear to be many references to religious preferences in case planning other than when the child was placed for adoption.
Research on the role of religion in child welfare/adoption case practice.
Income, workplace and housing conditions
Yes
Case workers rarely recorded these items for Non-Aboriginal children in care. If the information was on the file it was contained in external parental assessment reports or police reports. Social workers were, however, routinely able to provide this information when they reviewed the forms. The fact that social workers do not record this information is important as poverty measures are strong predictors of neglect.
Research on social worker perceptions of poverty as a predictor of child maltreatment assessments and how this influences case recordings.
The link between substance misuse and parenting capacity
Yes
While incidents of substance misuse were frequently reported in case files, substance misuse typologies were often global in nature (e.g. “drug abuse” versus “cocaine/marijuana” use) and did not link the particular substances to parenting impacts.
Research on social worker knowledge levels and perceptions of substance misuse on parenting capacity.
Service provision time period and overall impact of service on child risk
Yes
Overall, it was very difficult to determine the start/stop times of various services and the impact of the service on a specific child maltreatment risk factor from case recordings. Social workers would note the referral date for the service but subsequent information on the service was not always clear. The most specific information came from the reports prepared by service providers but these were not uniformly available.This was particularly problematic when trying to determine what changes in services, if any, occurred when the child was reunified with family.
Research on social work perceptions and knowledge levels on evaluating the relationship between child maltreatment risks and service aims.
106
Table 13: Observations Made During Data Collection
Issue
Directly related to WEM research questions? Implications
Recommendations for future research
Re-assessment of child and caregiver functioning after the original risk assessment is completed
Yes
Although it is clear that social workers did reassess the risk to a child and caregiver functioning on an ongoing basis, it was not clear what process or criteria were used for these reassessments.
Research to determine what processes social workers use to reassess risk and caregiver functioning levels once the child is admitted to care.
Case recording emphasis
No
There seemed to be a pattern that file recording content will focus on the caregiver with significantly less information being recorded on the child. This pattern changes if the child has significant special needs or is a permanent ward. Rarely did recordings focus on the child and the caregiver in a balanced way.
Research to determine if social worker decisions post admissions to care are driven by caregiver and/or child functioning and to what degree this affects case recording behavior.
Caregiver deaths
No
There were a number of cases where the child’s caregiver died after the child was admitted to care. This was not anticipated in the WEM study and should be included as a factor if the study is replicated.
Research to determine whether there are any differences in the caregiver death rates of children in care and other children and what, if any, implications caregiver deaths have for child welfare practice.
data Analysis
As the vast majority of the data collected in this study is categorical in nature, cross-
tabulations were used to compare the characteristics of First Nations and non–First
Nations children who are reunified with children who continue placement in child welfare
care. Correlations were used to analyze relationships between child/caregiver functioning
concerns and service aims and dichotomous regression was used to determine the variables
predicting reunification or remaining in child welfare care. As child welfare exit destination
was a matching variable for the study, removal and reunification rates were calculated on
the basis of administrative data instead of WEM study data.
continued
107
While these techniques are consistent with the methods used in other child maltreatment
studies (Trocmé, MacLaurin, Fallon, Daciuk, Tourigny et al. 2001; Trocmé et al. 2006)
they are limited in terms of accounting for the influence of interconnected variables
or determining any causal relationships. One option involved using survival analysis to
determine the influence of various factors on social workers’ decisions to reunify or have
the child remain in care. Unfortunately, social workers rarely recorded any reassessments
of child or household risk factors or changes in service provision, raising significant
questions about the reliability of any information gleaned as a result of survival analysis
procedures. Moreover, given the fact that child and caregiver information collected at
time two (reunification or data collection if the child remained in care) was not recorded
systematically in the files, survival analysis was not possible.
The use of techniques to measure the influence of interconnected factors over time would
have been an ideal approach to test the breath of life theory. Unfortunately, the sample
structure and size does not allow for multi-level analysis to determine the amount of variance
contributed by factors at the levels of the child, household, and community. The inclusion
of multi-level analysis in future studies examining the experience of children in child welfare
care is recommended. Moreover, it would be useful to compare children in child welfare care
with children not served by child welfare. Methods such as the power analysis suggested in
network science could be useful in contrasting the network and strength of relationships
between these two groups, and multi-level analysis could usefully explore the amount of
variance contributed by factors at different levels of the relationships (Raudenbush, 2004).
A Summary of Methodological lessons learned
The exploratory method used in this study provides a useful reference for future researchers.
Methodological considerations for future researchers include the following:
108
• Consider including a sample of FirstNations andNon-Aboriginal childrenwho are
not involved in child welfare to compare the influence of structural risks and social
connectivity (including service provision) on child maltreatment.
• Considerasamplesizeoffamiliesandcommunitieslargeenoughtoachieveadequate
power levels for multi-level statistical analysis.
• Continuetobuildontheeffortsinthepresentstudytodisaggregatetheexperience
of First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children served by child welfare authorities.
• Account foranticipatoryabuseandcaregiver incapacityas reasons for removalbut
improve the operational definitions making clear how these problems manifest at
the level of the child. Ideally this would be captured in administrative data collection
systems but may require original data collection.
• Includeascaletodeterminethelevelofharmexperiencedbythechildatthetimeof
removal.
• Workwithchildwelfareserviceproviderstoimproverecordingofriskreassessmentand
service provision throughout the time a child is in care to better understand the influence
of various factors on the child welfare exit destination and the timing of that exit.
• Disaggregateexitdestinationcategoriessuchasreunificationtounderstandwhether
reunification means the child is placed back with the caregiver from whom he or she
was removed or placed with an alternate caregiver.
• Improvethedefinitionsofcultureandspiritualitysoastoavoidaconflationbetween
race and culture.
As noted in this chapter, the present study has a number of limitations; nonetheless,
it represents the best information on First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children in child
welfare care in Canada. As an aid to future researchers, I have reformatted the data
collection instruments to support replication of the study. The next chapter describes how
First Nations ethical standards were applied in the WEM study.
109
CHApTER 4
breathing life into Research Ethics
Colonialism infused western research, frequently resulting in knowledge expropriation
that benefited corporate or government groups that commissioned the research, the
researcher, and, to a lesser degree, Non-Aboriginal Canadians—with little discernible
benefit to First Nations (Bryce, 1922; RCAP, 1996; Schnarch, 2004; Smith, 1999; Kovach,
2008). In response, growing numbers of First Nations are reaffirming First Nations
research ontology and methods. The development of First Nations research is incredibly
encouraging as it holds potential to facilitate understanding of questions that western
approaches have not adequately addressed. However, western research can also play a
valuable role in supporting First Nations communities so long as these approaches are
suited to the question under study and are enveloped in First Nations ontology and ethical
research standards. Over the past number of years, First Nations and other Indigenous
peoples in Canada and abroad have developed a host of ethical standards and western
research method modifications to enhance the cross-cultural validity, reliability, and utility
of western research. Although there is a growing sensibility among Non-Aboriginal child
welfare researchers in Canada about the need for such standards, their application is
often still framed within western ontology, leaving open the important question of how
they can be practically applied within First Nations ontology.
The breath of life theory, and derivative theoretical model, assumes an interconnected
reality across expansive concepts of time governed by a series of life constants that are
given shape by culture and context. Spirit, emotion, cognition, and physical existence
are interconnected realities that cannot be disconnected from the research process.
These ontological assumptions require that the ethical standards referred to in the When
Everything Matters (WEM) project be applied simultaneously to the Mi’kmaw and the
Non-Aboriginal participants while allowing their distinct cultural and contextual realities
to shape the application of the standards.
110
The challenge of positioning western research within First Nations ontology is amplified
for those who are unfamiliar with the general character of First Nations ontology and cultural
protocols. For example, research ethics in western research are not necessarily reflective of
the personal ethics of the researcher but, in First Nations cultures, no such differentiation
exists—ethics are something you are, not something you put on (Blackstock, 2007). In
some ways, using First Nations ethical standards requires Non-Aboriginal researchers to
do what First Nations university students and scholars are called upon to do every day: to
walk in two worlds. It is difficult but not impossible.
This chapter begins by summarizing the First Nations ethical standards and considerations
informing the WEM study within the context of the breath of life theory before describing
how they were practically applied in a bicultural research context. The chapter ends by
outlining how First Nations ethical standards are augmented by informal cultural protocols.
Given the diversity of First Nations communities, the research protocols and standards
set out in this chapter should not be generalized to other settings without meaningful
discussion with respective First Nations and Non-Aboriginal communities.
first Nations Research Ethics and Standards
The following ethical standards relevant to First Nations were enveloped within the breath
of life theory for the present study: (1) the Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch guidelines (Mi’kmaw
Ethics Watch, 1999); (2) Reconciliation in Child Welfare: Touchstones of Hope for
Indigenous Children, Youth and Families (Touchstones of Hope) (Blackstock, Cross, Brown,
George, & Formsma, 2006); (3) Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession principles
(OCAP Principles) (Schnarch, 2004); (4) the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
Guidelines for Health Research Involving Aboriginal Peoples (Canadian Institutes of Health
Research, 2007); and (5) Chapter 6 of the Tri-Council Policy (Canadian Institutes of Health
Research et al., 1998) respecting Aboriginal peoples. The Touchstones of Hope and
OCAP principles are constitutional principles intended to infuse all aspects of research
111
whereas the CIHR and Tri-Council policies provide more practical research guidance. The
Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch guidelines cover both research principles and application, and will
be described in greater detail later in the chapter. As I move on to describe each of the
standards in greater detail, it is useful to note how concepts of time, culture, context,
holism, relationship, and accountability embedded in the breath of life theory serve as
strings to bind the models together so they can be applied in the WEM study.
The Touchstones of Hope resulted from a meeting of over 200 experts aimed at
reshaping child welfare to improve the outcomes for Indigenous children in North America
using a reconciliation framework (Blackstock et al., 2006). There are four stages in the
Touchstones of Hope reconciliation process: truth telling, acknowledgement, restoring,
and relating. Truth telling involves child welfare hearing the impacts of its past and
current actions on Indigenous communities. Acknowledgement involves child welfare
taking responsibility for its actions and making an active decision to learn from the past.
Restoring involves child welfare taking action to correct past wrongs where possible and
establishing a basis for improved practice going forward. Relating acknowledges the long-
term nature of reconciliation and the need for a relationship based on respect, humility,
learning, and the shared goal of ensuring the safety and well-being of all children. The
reconciliation process is guided by five interrelated constitutional principles intended to
permeate all aspects of child welfare: (1) self-determination, (2) culture and language,
(3) holistic response, (4) structural interventions, and (5) non-discrimination (Blackstock,
Brown, & Bennett, 2007).
From a child welfare research perspective, self-determination draws attention to First
Nations ownership of their distinct knowledge and any information collected about them.
It also affirms the principle that First Nations are in the best position to make decisions for
First Nations children. The holistic response principle requires that First Nations peoples be
viewed within their interconnected relationships across time, and with family, community,
and the natural world. The structural interventions principle draws a researcher’s attention
to the structural risk factors that particularly disadvantage First Nations families coming into
112
contact with the child welfare system. The non-discrimination principle requires researchers
to respect First Nations ontology and practice, and view it on equal footing to western
knowledge. Non-discrimination also requires researchers to contextualize findings within
the context of the resource inequalities experienced by First Nations (Blackstock, Brown, &
Bennett, 2007). Since their release, the Touchstones of Hope principles have been widely
accepted by First Nations and other Aboriginal groups in Canada and among Native
American/Alaskan Native communities in the United States. Full implementation of the
principles is underway in South Dakota and, more recently, in northern British Columbia.
Within the WEM project, the Touchstone of Hope principles manifested in the following
ways: (1) respecting the self-determination and cultural principles by viewing Mi’kmaw
children as citizens of the Mi’kmaw Nation; (2) accepting a responsibility to work within
research frameworks established by the Mi’kmaw to protect their citizens, culture,
language, and knowledge; (3) valuing the holistic principle by situating the research in
a theoretical approach that assumes an interconnected environment; (4) observing the
structural intervention principle through the direct inclusion of structural risks as research
foci; (5) upholding the non-discrimination principle by engaging First Nations ontology
as a fundamental research paradigm and respecting the value of both First Nations and
Non-Aboriginal participants.
The Touchstone principles compliment the OCAP Principles (Schnarch, 2004) for
Aboriginal research, which establish the primacy of Aboriginal ownership, control, access,
and possession of research affecting them. The OCAP principles specifically reinforce the
Touchstone principles of self-determination and non-discrimination by affirming First
Nations ownership of their knowledge, experience, and resources while emphasizing the
fundamental research value of using First Nations approaches when conducting research
with First Nations peoples. OCAP principles are meant to be interpreted within each
distinct culture and are intended to infuse the entire research process. They go beyond the
typical end point of western research to suggest that researchers must remain available
113
to Aboriginal communities after the research project is finished to ensure the research
manifests in discernible benefit to community members.
The CIHR Guidelines for Health Research Involving Aboriginal Peoples (2007) cover a
wide variety of topics pertinent to Aboriginal research, including the concept of collective
consent. As the Mi’kmaw value collective rights and well-being, collective consent needed
to be considered as a vital part of the ethics approval process. This involved working with
the Mi’kmaw community to better understand their concepts and processes for collective
consent in a research context. The idea of collective consent was not limited to the First
Nations organization participating in this study. The Department of Community Services
also had a process of collective consent and, in keeping with the bicultural respect infused
in the Touchstones of Hope and OCAP principles, it was essential that the Department’s
collective consent processes was also respected. A more detailed discussion of the issue of
collective consent is addressed later in this chapter.
The final set of ethical standards referred to in this study is contained in Chapter 6 of
the Tri-Council policy (Canadian Institutes of Health Research et al., 1998.) This is the
shortest and least specific of all of the Aboriginal research guidelines but it establishes the
importance of respecting Aboriginal community-based ethics boards. This is consistent
both with OCAP and the Touchstones of Hope in that it implicitly affirms that First Nations
peoples are in the best position to determine the best interests of their citizens—including
in a research context. This principle was actualized by submitting the research proposal
for full review by the Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch (Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch, 1999). The primary
mandate of the Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch is to protect the cultural integrity of the Mi’kmaw
peoples and ensure any research conducted with, or among, Mi’kmaw peoples is
beneficial.
The most essential component of successfully applying First Nations research principles
and guidelines is to accept them as a valued philosophy of research versus as a sidebar
to western research ethics. This is challenging—even when the researcher has substantial
experience working in both First Nations and Non-Aboriginal communities. The following
114
section describes the interface between western research values for objectivity, divisibility,
and determinism with First Nations concepts of spirit, emotion, and relationship as I
conceptualized and experienced them in the WEM research project. It is not intended
to provide an exhaustive account but, rather, to situate the reader in the jungle of cross-
cultural research before seeing how First Nations research standards were practically
applied in the WEM study.
objective Humanity?
Raised on the idea that relational distance equals objectivity, western researchers frequently
raise concerns about whether or not the formation of relationships in a First Nations
research context introduces unnecessary bias. However, as science historian Theodore
Porter (1995) points out, even western concepts of scientific objectivity were born from
the very cultural, political, and spiritual influences that objectivity seeks to admonish. Porter
(1995) argues that western researchers simply cannot excise their interests, emotions, and
relationships from pure science research—let alone the social sciences centered on human
experience. Linguistic science affirms Porter’s point of view, noting that people interpret
information, including research, through cognitive frames shaped by our life experience,
culture, and context (Lakoff, 2004). Cognitive science goes a step further suggesting that
information and consciousness are not by-products of reality—they create reality (Lazlo,
2007). For Porter, Lakoff, Lazlo, and Stephen Hawking (Hawking & Modinow, 2005),
scientific objectivity is more properly defined in degrees than in absolution.
First Nations view the researcher as part of the interconnected environment that he or
she seeks to explore (Kovach, 2008). The western idea of researchers being insiders or
outsiders assumes it is possible to be an outsider; to, in effect, dissect oneself from the
research context and guard against any undue influence on the research findings. First
Nations believe that the researcher is a live actor in an interconnected web co-creating
reality—including the research findings. In this context, the insider and outsider debate is
115
superfluous—influence by the researcher on the research findings is assumed. Research
findings must be viewed in context of their relationship with other elements of reality—
including the researcher’s ontology, personality, and context. This is what leads Aboriginal
scholars to say that First Nations researchers must locate themselves within the research
endeavor so that consumers of the research can properly assess the research findings
(Smith, 1999; Kovach, 2008).
Embracing Spirit and Emotion as Research Tools
Viewing the researcher as a vital part of the research endeavor requires some consideration
of the influence of spirit and emotion in research and western constructs of what
counts as valid academic knowledge. For some reason, the trend in western research
is to conflate objective truth with an absence of emotion and passion. It seems the
more indifferent you are about a topic, the more respected you are for your “objective”
and “unbiased” opinion (Priddy, 1999). For millennia, First Nations believed that such
distance between logic and emotion is impossible, not to mention undesirable. Consistent
with a holistic world view, First Nations believe that a balance of cognition, emotion,
spirituality, and physical knowing are needed to cultivate valid and useful knowledge
(RCAP, 1996). It is important to understand the importance of the word “balance” in the
holistic worldview. First Nations and Non-Aboriginal researchers would likely agree that
too much emotion distorts reality. However, First Nations believe that emotional balance
requires acknowledging and embracing emotion as a reality versus trying to sideline it or
deny it (Kovach, 2007). This means going beyond “declaring bias” in a research report to
understanding your emotional connection to reality as a dynamic resource and influence
throughout the research process.
For First Nations peoples the written word is frozen—when knowledge was meant
to be alive. To infuse life into the written word, the physical elements of a First Nations
quantitative report must be in balance with the emotional, spiritual, and cognitive elements.
116
First Nations research reports consistently employ symbolic art, legends, and teachings
to add meaning and context to the findings. In contrast, western social work journals
require articles to be submitted in text form, augmented by equations or figures. The
inclusion of spiritual content is typically discouraged. In general, the more bland the cover
of the journal, the more scholarly it appears to a western audience. Is it any wonder the
readership of academic journals is so limited? Western research has not yet embraced the
spiritual as a legitimate and integral aspect of knowledge—but First Nations researchers
are demonstrating how spirituality can help readers infuse information with meaning to
create and internalize knowledge.
So how does one write a dissertation that lies at the shorelines of western and First
Nations thought in a way that honours the intertwining between cognition, emotion,
spirit, and physical knowledge when the institutions that judge the merit of the work
lie firmly in western territory? I know that I will be more highly rewarded in western
academia when I write in a fashion familiar to them rather than the more poetic style that
comes so naturally to me. When I write in the western style, I fence in the emotion, spirit,
and passion fuelling my thinking and I divert any natural wisdom. My mind dims and the
computer keys are harder to press. Perhaps that is why I can write western for only a little
while and then I need to uncage my mind and think and be.
If this dissertation successfully embodies the breath of Life theory, it should read like a
journey through two distinct nations—the crossing of cultural borders should be obvious
but not totally unfamiliar. First Nations and western thinking should be employed for the
exploration of issues most responsive to their respective attributes. For all who read this
dissertation, I wonder if the words are harder to read when the keys are harder to press.
I now switch back to western academic writing to describe the practical application of
First Nations research standards and processes in the WEM study. If you see me slipping
into writing with passion, emotion, and spirit, hold on—it is probably the best part.
117
from the beginning: The Research Allies
The OCAP principles (Schnarch, 2004), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
Guidelines for Health Research Involving Aboriginal Peoples (Canadian Institutes of Health
Research, 2007), and Chapter 6 of the Tri-Council policy (Canadian Institutes of Health
Research et al., 1998) respecting Aboriginal peoples all emphasize the importance of engaging
Aboriginal peoples in all aspects of the study. In keeping with this principle, Mi’kmaw FCS
and the Department of Community Services were consulted in the development of the
breath of life theory, the research questions, and the method for the WEM study. This
was accomplished by contacting the Joan Glode, Executive Director of Mi’kmaw Family
and Children’s Services, and Vicki Wood, Director of Child Welfare for the Department of
Community Services (DCS), to guide the development of the research advisory committee.
The advisory committee was composed of the Executive Director of Mi’kmaw Family
and Children’s Services, the Director of Child Welfare for the Department of Community
Services as well as senior staff from each organization. Three in-person meetings and several
teleconferences were supplemented by communication by electronic mail.
The feedback of the advisory committee was extremely helpful in shaping the research
questions and method, and ensuring the research process was as culturally appropriate,
ethical, effective, and efficient as possible. Guidance on cultural protocols and linguistic
conventions in both the Mi’kmaw and Non-Aboriginal sites was a key focus of the
committee work.
The advisory committee went beyond simply providing advice and counsel to being
active participants in the research process. For example, they identified staff and social
work students to assist in the sample selection and data collection in order to provide
support to the research project and provide another opportunity for staff to build on
their research knowledge and skills. The Department of Community Services named two
staff members, Heather Kearney and Mary-Ann Chambers—and a fourth-year social work
student, Jennifer Naples, placed with the Department as part of her practicum—to assist
118
with sample selection and data collection in DCS offices. Mi’kmaw Family and Community
Services named a senior staff person, Monica Clarke-Johnson, assisted by agency
supervisors Colleen MacPherson and Diana Christmas, to collect the data from Mi’kmaw
offices. The DCS and Mi’kmaw Family and Community Services were very pleased with the
involvement of Nancy MacDonald, a Mi’kmaw instructor and PhD student from Dalhousie
University. Once the sample was selected, the advisory committee facilitated contact with
the supervisors of community-based offices where the child in care files were based and
also attended at each site in order to facilitate the data collection. I believe the direct
involvement of advisory committee members and community-based research assistants
resulted in the extraordinarily high level of cooperation and participation by agency social
workers and supervisors.
The advisory committee continued its important role by assisting with data analysis by
reviewing preliminary findings and providing feedback on important contextual factors.
The advisory committee is now planning meetings with participating agencies to report
on the final findings in the spring of 2009 in Mi’kmaw, French, and English languages.
Looking back, the term “advisory committee” was simply too small to capture the
rich contributions made by this group. They helped navigate the cultural, linguistic, and
contextual realities of child welfare in Nova Scotia while providing helpful advice and
support in research design, sampling, data collection, and data analysis. Their “on the
ground” knowledge helped troubleshoot the inevitable complications of a provincial
study and take advantage of unexpected opportunities.
Did their direct participation in the research project introduce unacceptable levels of
bias? From my perspective, the answer is no. Their motivation to participate in WEM was
to learn more about the children in their care so they can serve them better. It was perhaps
for this reason that both organizations were so very supportive of the WEM research
project and equally open to learning from findings that may be seen to reflect positively
or negatively on current child welfare practice.
119
I have been told the closest English translation for the word Mic Mac is “allies.” That is
what this group really was—research allies who were in turn fuelled by an alliance with
the children and families they serve.
Collective Approval as a Research process
A growing number of First Nations have developed their own ethics boards in response
to growing concerns that First Nations were the subjects of many exploitive and non-
beneficial research projects conducted by primarily Non-Aboriginal researchers (Royal
Commission on Aboriginal Peoples [RCAP], 1996; McDonald & Ladd, 2000; Blackstock,
2003; Schnarch, 2004). First Nations ethics boards were also motivated by First Nations
beliefs that mainstream ethics processes could not adequately assess whether or not
research posed cultural or linguistic risks for First Nations at individual or collective levels
(RCAP, 1996, Schnarch, 2004). Aboriginal researcher Darlene Oxenham (1999) explains
that as Indigenous peoples value collective rights, research ethics must consider issues of
collective consent and participation.
Based out of Cape Breton University, the Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch was established by the
Sante’Mawio’mi Grand Council to ensure any research conducted with or among Mi’kmaw
peoples protected their cultural integrity and knowledge, was beneficial to communities, and
posed minimal risk of harm. Although, like other ethics boards, members consider issues of
individual consent, risk, and benefit, they also specifically consider the protection of collective
rights including the right of collective consent. The Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch is composed of
esteemed members of the Mi’kmaw community including nationally recognized traditional
knowledge holders, university-based academics, and community leaders.
First Nations ethics board approval should be viewed as an essential precursor to doing
any research in the community even where university ethics board approval has been
granted. Essential to the First Nations approval process is the researcher’s disclosure of the
theoretical perspective. In the case of the current project, the breath of life theory was
120
reviewed by the Director of Mi’kmaw Family and Child Services. Only when she and other
Mi’kmaw knowledge holders had reviewed the theory, was it proposed to, and eventually
approved by, the Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch as the theoretical framework for the WEM Study.
Approval by the First Nations ethics boards in some communities may satisfy research
approval requirements but in the case of the Mi’kmaw it was part of the three-stage
approval process outlined in Figure 16.
In keeping with OCAP principles, Mi’kmaw FCS was involved in the design of the
research project, and Joan Glode, Executive Director of Mi’kmaw FCS, gave her preliminary
approval for the project upon reviewing the final design. This preliminary approval
allowed for the filing of the formal ethics review by the Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch using its
established procedures, described below. Once approval was received from the Mi’kmaw
Ethics Watch, the Executive Director of Mi’kmaw FCS facilitated a meeting between the
researcher and the Chiefs of all Mi’kmaw communities to request final approval for the
research project. All three approvals signaled the creation of a relationship between the
researcher and the Mi’kmaw whereby the researcher agreed to conduct the research in
partnership with the Mi’kmaw and ensure the results are provided in accessible and useful
ways resulting in community benefit.
Figure 16: Mi’kmaw Research Approval Process
121
The Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch is not required to register for Tri-Council Policy Statement
(TCPS) compliance pursuant to Section 6 of the TCPS policy, which states “During the
drafting of this Policy Statement, suggestions were made to create a section dealing with
research involving Aboriginal Peoples. The Agencies, however, have not held sufficient
discussions with representatives of the affected peoples or groups, or with the various
organizations or researchers involved. The Agencies have therefore decided that it
is not yet appropriate to establish policies in this area” (Canadian Institutes of Health
Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences
and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 1998, p.6.1). The Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch
ethics approval application requirements are generally consistent with TCPS adhering
research ethics boards such as the University of Toronto. However, the University of
Toronto ethics board application requires the following information that is not required
by the Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch: (1) some of the administrative details; (2) information on
other ethics boards relevant to the research project; and (3) different formats for conflicts
of interest and participant withdrawal policies. The Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch contains the
following requirements, which are not specified by the University of Toronto ethic board:
(1) researcher agreement to the obligations and protocols outlined in the preamble of the
Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch criteria; (2) requirement to accommodate language and cultural
differences; (3) guidelines regarding how data will be interpreted; (4) whether or not
Mi’kmaw people will be involved and consulted; and (5) the duty of the researcher to
disclose publication plans and describe how any resulting royalties will be shared with
participants.
In addition to the Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch and University of Toronto ethics reviews,
it was essential that the researcher request approval from the DCS through its formal
administrative review process. The administrative review was established by DCS to ensure
that research is of benefit and that there is no harm to children served by child welfare
authorities in Nova Scotia. The DCS review also satisfies the requirements of Children and
Family Services Act Regulation 61 and Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Article 29
122
for the use of data collected by social workers pursuant to the Nova Scotia Children and
Family Services Act by researchers.
Although the DCS research proposal process is not formally TCPS compliant, the DCS
research review requirements are substantively similar to those of the University of Toronto
ethics board with the possible exceptions of the following: (1) there is not an explicit
DCS requirement to note any conflict of interests; (2) a separate section for participant
withdrawal is not needed; and (3) some University of Toronto–specific administrative
details are not relevant to the DCS review. Similar to the Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch, DCS
requires some information not explicitly required by the University of Toronto ethics review
board such as (1) theoretical framework for the study, (2) statement on the distribution
of royalties resulting from the work, (3) a work plan and budget, and (4) a description of
institutional resources utilized for the study. Additionally, DCS requires that researchers
agree to adhere to Article 29 of the Freedom of Information Act, which referentially
includes Regulation 61 of the Children and Family Services Act.
In recognition of the sensitive nature of the information on child in care files and the
importance of supporting research to increase the efficacy of child welfare practice, the
Department of Community Services and Mi’kmaw agencies/offices are subject to legal
requirements that guide the release of file information regarding children in care for
research purposes as set out in Article 61 of the Nova Scotia Family and Children’s Service
Act Regulations 4 and Article 29 of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. Pursuant
to Regulation 61, the Administrator has the authority to grant access to researchers to
analyze non-identifying data on children in protective care and their families provided that
the Administrator receives a written request that “specifies the purpose of the research,
the specific information required from the Child Abuse Register, the use of the research
results, and the names and qualifications of the researchers.”Additionally, Article 29 of
the Nova Scotia Freedom of Information and Privacy Act provides authority for research
purposes subject to the proposed research project’s meeting the specifications spelled out
in Article 29.
123
The Department of Community Services research proposal review process satisfies these
requirements and, accordingly, a full research proposal was submitted to the Director of
Policy, Program, and Research for the DCS for administrative review. Upon reviewing the
research proposal, the Director of Policy, Program, and Research approved the research
project without modification.
The approval of Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch and the DCS facilitated the approval of the
research proposal by the University of Toronto Ethics Review Board in July 2008. Although
the issue of collective consent is more actively considered within First Nations research
contexts, it is important to point out that all three ethics review processes in this study
had some aspect of collective consent. The issue of collective consent was explicit in
the case of the three-phase process for obtaining research approval from the Mi’kmaw.
Although not as explicit, issues of collective consent were nonetheless evident as the DCS
considered the proposal in light of legislation and the risks and benefits to the community
of children in care, child welfare agencies, and the Department as a whole. Similarly, the
University of Toronto provides ethics approval based, in part, on the implications of the
study for the liability and research credibility of the university.
The Social Contract of Research Approval
Consistent with OCAP principles, there are important differences in what approval means
in a First Nations context. As Margaret Kovach (2008) explains, once the findings are
published in a peer-reviewed journal, western researchers often believe the research
relationship implied in the approval process has been completed; however, for First
Nations researchers it is just beginning. Although some would argue that western
researchers engaged in applied or participatory action-based research are also ensuring
that studies result in benefit, it is an important distinction that applied research is viewed
as fundamental to all research conducted with First Nations communities.
124
The approval received from the Mi’kmaw Chiefs, Ethics Watch, and FCS requires that
researchers continue to be actively engaged until there has been discernible benefit to the
Mi’kmaw community members. This will require that researchers continue to be available
to the Mi’kmaw communities in ways that the communities will define. At this point,
researchers must present the findings to the community in person and prepare an executive
summary of the research results in English and Mi’kmaw for distribution to the Mi’kmaw
leadership and community members. In addition, a copy of the When Everything Matters
SPSS data file will be provided to Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services as well as the
DCS to conduct further analysis, replicate the study, or add additional cases. Researchers
will also be available to assist with the preparation of policy documents.
Informal Ethics protocols
As in many cultures, many important First Nations research protocols are nuanced,
unpublished “around the water-cooler” type of knowledge. This knowledge is essential to
the success of the research endeavour and is most effectively gained by forming respectful
relationships with First Nations who are participating in the research project. This section
details the informal ethics protocols and principles employed in the When Everything
Matters research project that appeared to augment the cultural integrity of the research
and, in many cases, further affirm the First Nations research principles and protocols
described earlier in this chapter.
Gift Giving
Gift giving is an important cultural element of many First Nations in Canada including my
own First Nation, the Gitksan of northern British Columbia, and the Mi’kmaw of Nova
Scotia. Gifts are exchanged as symbols of the importance of the relationship and the
value each person brings to the relationship. In a research context, giving a gift marks
the existence of a relationship between the researcher and others, reminding us of our
responsibilities to one another, and acknowledges the interdependent nature of research.
125
There are times when gift giving must be done in a formal way following cultural
protocols. In fact, throughout this research project I have been planning a community
gathering to present the findings and honour the Mi’kmaw and the DCS in a formal way.
This gathering must be designed in full consultation with both groups and will involve the
presentation of meaningful cultural gifts in a manner that respects Mi’kmaw traditions
and is mindful of Non-Aboriginal cultural viewpoints and standards.
Gift giving in WEM is not restricted to formal events; it is so essential to proper cultural
protocol that it was woven into the day-to-day work of the research project. It involved
things such as arriving at the district offices to collect data with gifts of food, offering
presentations for staff, sending notes of appreciation, and finding ways to acknowledge
research assistants, advisory committee members, and other stakeholders.
It is important to note that gifts need not be expensive; however, they must be
meaningful and presented with a good spirit. Throughout the project, I have tried to fully
experience the relationships formed with each person, organization, and community; this
provides me with the inspiration to meaningfully choose a gift that symbolizes that special
and unique relationship.
The Researcher’s Responsibility for Cultural Learning
Although I am a First Nations person, I did not have an in-depth understanding of the rich
cultures, traditions, languages, or contexts of the Mi’kmaw or Non-Aboriginal peoples in
Nova Scotia. I did, however, come with an understanding that it was my responsibility to
learn as much as I could from credible community sources and available literature. This
included asking community members to recommend readings and other resources that I
should review. I cannot overstate the value of works such as Daniel Paul’s seminal work
on Mi’kmaw history and culture entitled First Nations History: We Were Not the Savages
(2006) or the numerous policy documents shared by the DCS. I also understood that in
addition to the self learning, I needed to be actively open to guidance from both the
Mi’kmaw and Non-Aboriginal Nova Scotians as the research relationship unfolded.
126
The Mi’kmaw Have No Word for Good-bye
English is full of words to describe the end of relationships. The Mi’kmaw have no word
for “good-bye” but they do have the expression “Nmu’ltis app,” which means “I’ll see
you again” (Confederacy of Mainland Mi’kmaq, 2007.) First Nations scholar Margaret
Kovach (2008) says that one of the key differences between Non-Aboriginal and First
Nations researchers is that for Non-Aboriginal researchers the project is over when the
research findings have been published and disseminated. For a First Nations researcher,
the relationship is just beginning as he or she works with the First Nation to ensure
community members receive a discernible benefit. Even then, the relationship is not over.
First Nations are interconnected societies that often share information across communities
so researchers should be aware that in each interaction with a First Nations person or
community, they are continually shaping their personal and professional reputation as one
of integrity or one of disrepute.
By paying close attention to the ethical standards relevant to First Nations and
implementing them in tandem with them, optimal research results will be obtained and
optimal relationships ensured.
127
CHApTER 5
findings
The present study is designed to measure the incidence and characteristics of child removal
and reunification amongst First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children in Nova Scotia. The
study sample included 213 children who were removed from their families between
January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2005. First Nations children removed from their
families were matched with Non-Aboriginal children in care using two matching variables,
age and exit destination (reunified or not). The study tracked the children until the time
of reunification or, if the child remained in care, until the time of data collection for the
present study. The sample included 103 Non-Aboriginal children, and 107 First Nations
children. Aboriginal status was missing in a small number of cases (N=3). From a gender
perspective, 117 female and 96 male children were in the sample. This chapter presents the
findings relevant to the following research questions described in Table 4.
Table 4: Research Questions
Research Question Hypothesis Supporting Citations
Do rates per thousand of First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children who are removed differ?
First Nations children will be removed at higher rates than Non-Aboriginal children.
Trocmé, Knoke, & Blackstock (2004); Blackstock et al. (2005); Trocmé et al. (2006)
Do the rates per thousand of First Nations versus Non-Aboriginal children who are reunified with family or remain in child welfare care differ?
First Nations children will be overrepresented among children who remain in foster care and less likely to be reunified with family than Non-Aboriginal children.
Trocmé, Knoke, & Blackstock (2004); Blackstock et al. (2005); Trocmé et al. (2006)
Do the factors resulting in the reunification or continued placement of First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children differ?
Neglect is more likely to be the primary type of maltreatment for First Nations children in child welfare care. Structural factors such as poverty, poor housing, and caregiver substance misuse substantially account for the overrepresentation.
Trocmé, Knoke, & Blackstock (2004); Blackstock et al. (2005); Trocmé et al. (2006)
Do the number and nature of services provided to First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children and caregivers differ?
First Nations children and caregivers are less likely to receive services than Non-Aboriginal children and caregivers.
Olson (1982); McDonald & Ladd (2000); Burns et al. (2004); Libby et al. (2006); Blackstock (2005); Blackstock et al. (2005); Loxley et al. (2005)
128
Table 4: Research Questions
Research Question Hypothesis Supporting Citations
Do the aims of services provided to First Nations align with the factors contributing to reunification or continued placement?
Services provided to First Nations children and their families do not address the structural factors that increase the likelihood that First Nations children will remain in child welfare care.
Blackstock (2005); Blackstock & Trocmé (2005); Blackstock et al. (2005); Loxley et al. (2005); Assembly of First Nations (2007)
The following issues should be considered when interpreting the WEM results:
• Thissample iscomposedofchildrenremovedbycourtorder.Caseswherechildren
were placed in care under agreement or pursuant to supervision orders were excluded
from the analysis.
• Thestudyincludesinformationprovidedbysocialworkersineithercaserecordsorin
interviews with the researchers and this information was not independently verified.
• ThesampleincludesallMi’kmawchildrenwhowereremovedmatchedwithasample
of Non-Aboriginal children on the basis of age and exit destination (reunification or
remained in care.) Therefore, children were in care for varying periods of time which
are not accounted for in the analysis unless specifically noted. There were two key time
measures in the study: 1) time of removal and 2) time of reunification or if the child
remained in care at time of data collection. Data collection occurred in September/
October 2008.
• Ifachildwasremovedseveraltimesduringthestudyperiod,datawascollectedonthe
first admission to care only.
• ChildfunctioningcharacteristicsaremodeledaftertheCIS.Themajorityoffunctioning
concerns relate to older children (i.e. running away, substance misuse) and thus may
not accurately account for the functioning concerns of younger children. This is also
true of the services identified in the study as more services are available to children.
continued
129
• Childfunctioningwasmeasuredatthetimeofremovalonlyaspre-testingrevealed
that there was not a systematic way for social workers to re-assess child functioning
over time.
• Caregiverfunctioningwasnotedatremovalandagainattimeofreunificationordata
collection if the child remained in care. The functioning characteristics were derived
from the CIS and were not designed to measure change in functioning over time.
• ThesampleincludesasmallnumberofcasesofFirstNationschildrenoffreserve(N=8)
and thus a comparison of First Nations cases on and off reserve is not possible.
• Insomecases,thechildhadmultiplesocialworkersduringthestudyperiod.Inthose
cases, the file information was verified with either a senior social worker or supervisor
knowledgeable about the case.
• Forcross-tabulationanalysisacellsizeof5observationswasrequiredtoreliablyreport
findings.
• Therearealimitednumberofpredictorswithadequatecellsizeforuseindichotomous
regression meaning several important factors such as reason for removal were collapsed
to facilitate analysis and others such as many of the secondary caregiver characteristics
had to be excluded.
The findings section begins by presenting the descriptive statistics relevant to removal,
reunification and service provision paying particular attention to any differences related to
First Nations status before moving on to present inferential statistics using the dichotomous
outcome variable of reunification or not.
130
Characteristics at Removal
The following section reports the findings relevant to the time when the child was removed.
Provincial removal incidence rates calculated from administrative data contextualizes study
findings relating to child, caregiver and structural characteristics and services at time of
removal.
Provincial Removal Incidence Rates
Provincial removal incidence rates for the calendar years 2003, 2004, 2005 were calculated
by dividing the number of First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children removed in each of
those years by the population of Registered Indian and Non-Aboriginal children in Nova
Scotia as reported in the 2001 Canadian Census. As the Census is only taken every five
years population variations within and between First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children
are not accounted for in this analysis. Removal rates were derived from administrative
data provided by the Department of Community Services (2008).
As shown in Table 14, this calculation yielded the following results:
Table 14: Annual Removal Incidence Rates by First Nations and Non-Aboriginal Status
Year
First Nations children removed
NonAboriginal children removed
Registered Indian children as per Census 2001
NonAboriginal children as per Census 2001
Annual percentage of Registered Indian children removed
Annual percentage of NonAboriginal children removed
2003 28 322 3,820 153,025 0.73% 0.21%
2004 37 256 3,820 153,025 0.96% 0.17%
2005 35 253 3,820 153,025 0.92% 0.16%
Overall, First Nations children were 3.4 times more likely to be removed than Non-
Aboriginal children in 2003; 5.62 times more likely to be removed in 2004 and 6.0 times
more likely to be removed in 2005 than Non-Aboriginal children.
131
Child Gender at Removal
As shown in Table 15, data on child gender by First Nations child status was collected on
210 cases. First Nations female children (N=59) and Non-First Nations female children
(N=57) account for 55 percent (N=116) of the cases. First Nations male children (N=48)
and Non-Aboriginal male children (N=46) account for 45 percent (N=94) of the cases.
There were three cases for which First Nations status was not recorded of which one was
a female child and two were male.
Table 15: Child Gender by First Nations Child Status
Child First Nations Status Female Male Total
N % N % N %
First Nations 59 28 48 23 107 51
Non -Aboriginal 57 27 46 22 103 49
TOTAL 116 55 94 45 210 100
Based on a sample of 210 cases for which data on gender and First Nations status was available. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Child Age at Removal
As shown in Figure 17, the age of the children at removal is positively skewed with a
significant number of children being removed between birth and one year of age. The
mean age at time of removal is 6.12 years. While there were no significant differences
in the ages of the First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children in study as this was the
matching variable. It is important to note the one exception to the rule was that Non-
Aboriginal children were twice as likely to be between zero and one year of age at the
time of removal in the sample.
132
Figure 17: Child Age at Removal
50 –
40 –
30 –
20 –
10 –
0 –
Child Age at Removal
Freq
uen
cy
0 5 10 15
6.125.138210
Mean =Std. Dev. =
N =
– – – –
Description of Caregiver(s) Relationships at Time of Removal
Data was collected on the primary caregiver (Caregiver A) and secondary caregiver
(Caregiver B) at the time of the child’s removal and at time of reunification or at the
time of data collection if the child remained in care. As shown in Table 16, 99 percent
(N=207) of the primary caregivers were biological parents among the 210 cases for which
information on the relationship of the child to the primary caregiver was collected.
Table 16: Relationship of Primary Caregiver to the Child by First Nations Child Status
Child First Nations StatusBiological
Parent Other No Response Total
N % N % N % N %
First Nations 105 98 0 0 2 1 107 51
Non -Aboriginal 102 99 1 0 0 0 103 49
TOTAL 207 99 1 0 2 1 210 100
Based on a sample of 210 cases for which data on the relationship of the primary caregiver and First Nations status was available. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
As shown in Table 17, information was also collected on the relationship between the child
and the secondary caregiver. Overall, 84 percent (N=96) of the secondary caregivers are
biological parents, 12 percent (N=14) are step-parents and 4 percent (N=4) are grandparents.
There were no significant relationships between the nature of the relationship of the primary
or secondary caregiver to the removed child and the First Nations status of the child.
133
Table 17: Relationship of Secondary Caregiver to the Child by First Nations Child Status
Child First Nations StatusBiological
Parent Step Parent Grandparent Total
N % N % N % N %
First Nations 41 82 9 18 0 0 50 44
Non -Aboriginal 55 85 5 8 4 6 64 56
TOTAL 96 84 14 12 4 4 114 100
Based on a sample of 114 cases for which data on the relationship of the secondary caregiver and First Nations status was available. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Data on the gender of the primary caregiver at the time of removal was collected in 210
cases. An overwhelming majority of the primary caregivers were female (91%). Gender
was not collected on the secondary caregiver.
Caregiver Presenting the Most Risk at Time of Removal
As shown in Table 18, data was collected on the caregiver presenting the most risk to
the child in 210 cases. Options include the primary caregiver, secondary caregiver or the
primary and secondary caregiver presenting equal risk to the child. Results suggest that
primary caregivers presented the most risk to the child at the time of removal in 58 percent
of cases (N=122) followed by primary and secondary caregivers presenting equal risks to
the child in 30 percent of cases (N=62). Secondary caregivers were least often cited at
12 percent of cases (N=26). There were no significant differences on the basis of First
Nations status.
Table 18: Caregiver Presenting the Most Risk to the Child by First Nations Child Status
Child First Nations StatusPrimary Caregiver
Secondary Caregiver
Caregivers equal risk to child Total
N % N % N % N %
First Nations 67 63 9 8 31 29 107 51
Non -Aboriginal 55 54 17 16 31 30 103 49
TOTAL 122 58 26 12 62 30 210 100
Based on a sample of 210 cases identifying which caregiver presented the most risk to the child at time of removal and First Nations child status was available. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
134
Caregiver Cooperation at Time of Removal
Data was collected on the cooperation levels of the primary and secondary caregivers at
the time of removal. As shown in Table 19, information on the cooperation level of the
primary caregiver by First Nations child status was available in 206 cases demonstrating that
the vast majority of primary caregivers were assessed by social workers to be cooperative
in 38 percent of cases (N=80) or somewhat cooperative in 48 percent of cases (N=99).
Only 13 percent of primary caregivers were assessed to be non cooperative (N=26).
Table 19: Primary Caregiver Cooperation at Time of Removal by First Nations Child Status
Child First Nations Status Cooperative
Somewhat Cooperative
NonCooperative
Not Contacted Total
N % N % N % N % N %
First Nations 44 42 48 46 11 10 1 1 104 51
Non -Aboriginal 36 35 51 50 15 15 0 0 102 49
TOTAL 80 38 99 48 26 13 1 .05 206 100
Based on 206 cases where data on First Nations child status and primary caregiver cooperation was available. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Trends are similar for the secondary caregiver. As shown in Table 20, data was collected on
the cooperation levels of the secondary caregiver in 121 cases demonstrating that 36 percent
were cooperative (N=44) and 33 percent were somewhat cooperative (N=40). Twenty-
three percent of secondary caregivers were noted for being non cooperative (N=30).
There were no significant differences related to First Nations status.
Table 20: Secondary Caregiver Cooperation at Time of Removal by First Nations Child Status
Child First Nations Status Cooperative
Somewhat Cooperative
NonCooperative
Not Contacted Total
N % N % N % N % N %
First Nations 22 38 15 26 13 22 7 12 57 47
Non -Aboriginal 22 34 25 39 15 23 2 3 64 52
TOTAL 44 36 40 33 28 23 9 7 121 100
Based on 121 cases where data on First Nations child status and primary caregiver cooperation was available. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
135
Description of Other Children in the Home at the Time of Removal
Results suggest a significant relationship between First Nations status and the number of
other children in the home χ2 (1,210) = 7.514 p <.01, Cramer’s V=.189. Non-Aboriginal
children were more likely to come from homes with no other children (64%) versus their
First Nations peers (37%).
As shown in Table 21, 70 percent (N=147) of households had at least one other child
removed from the home. One other child was removed in 26 percent of cases (N=55) and
2 or more children were removed in 44 percent (N=92) cases.
Table 21: Number of other children removed from the household at removal
Child First Nations Status
No other children removed
1 other child removed
2 or more other children removed
Unknown/No response Total
N % N % N % N % N %
First Nations 28 26 32 30 45 42 2 1 107 51
Non -Aboriginal 32 31 23 22 47 46 1 1 103 49
TOTAL 60 29 55 26 92 44 3 1 210 100
Based on 210 cases where data on First Nations child status and the removal of other children was available. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Structural Factors at Removal
The following section outlines the structural factors affecting children and their families
at the time of removal. Data was collected on several structural factors such as housing,
caregiver education, service provision and poverty. Obtaining a valid poverty measure is
a challenge in child welfare research with many studies relying on source of income or
income estimates as proxy measures for poverty. The CIS uses both estimated income and
source of income to indicate poverty and, although these measures are limited, a survey of
the literature did not reveal a more appropriate measure for use in this study. This section
begins by describing the estimated income levels and housing conditions of families from
whom children were removed in this study before describing the educational levels of the
136
primary and secondary caregivers. Whenever possible, findings are contextualized within
population parameters for Nova Scotia.
Estimated Income Level at Time of Removal
Estimated household income was collected on 67 percent (N=144) of the 213 cases in
the study with household income being reported more often for First Nations child status
(N=84) than for Non-Aboriginal (N=60). The amount of missing data is important as
poverty has repeatedly been cited as an important factor in child maltreatment particularly
in relation to neglect.
As described in Table 22 a staggering 95 percent of children who are removed come
from families who earn less than $25,000.00 per year even though the average income
in Nova Scotia across all industries is approximately $46,000 per year (Statistics Canada,
2001). The Province of Nova Scotia Department of Finance (2009) notes that 32 percent
of all households earn incomes below $30,000 per annum, 53 percent earn between
$30,000–$100,000 and the remaining 15 percent earn incomes over 100,00.00. There
were no significant differences on First Nations status for this variable but it does suggest
that poverty is a very significant factor related to the decision to remove children.
Table 22: Estimated Annual Income by First Nations Child Status
Household Income estimate NonAboriginal First Nations Total
N % N % N %
Under $15,000 40 67 63 75 103 72
$15,000–24,999 15 25 19 23 34 23
$25,000–$39,999 3 5 1 1 4 3
Over $40,000 2 3 1 1 3 2
60 100 84 100 144 100
Based on a sample of 144 cases where data on household income and First Nations child status was available. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
137
As shown in Table 23, however significant differences in the binomial variable of
employed or on social assistance/benefits related to the First Nations status of the child.
Overall, 97 percent of primary caregivers of First Nations children were on social assistance
and benefits as compared to 58 percent for their Non-Aboriginal peers χ2 (1,179)=41.598
p <.001, Cramer’s V=.482.
Table 23: Source of Income for Primary Caregiver by First Nations Child Status
Household income estimate NonAboriginal First Nations Total
N % N % N %
Employment 32 42 3 3 35 20
Social Assistance/Benefits 45 58 99 97 144 81
Total 77 100 102 100 179 101
Analysis based on a sample of 179 removals with information on source of income for the primary caregiver. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. Significant at p<.001
Housing Conditions at Time of Removal
As shown in Table 24, housing type was significantly related to First Nations child status
at the time of removal χ2 (1,173) = 92.098 p <.001, Cramer’s V=.730. Consistent with
the low family income at the time of removal, 97 percent of all families in the sample did
not own their own homes at the time of removal. The racial differences are significant but
are predictably related to prevalence of housing types on and off reserves. For example,
over 83 percent (N=60) of families with Non-Aboriginal children lived in rental housing as
compared to 16 percent (N=16) of families with First Nations children. This is predictable
given the vast majority of First Nations in the sample live on reserves where rental housing
availability is limited. However, First Nations families were more likely to live in band
housing (75%, N=75) than Non-Aboriginal families (4%, N=3) which is reflective of the
reality that First Nations families on reserves will access band housing which is typically
not available to Non-Aboriginal families. This finding is consistent with the different types
of low cost housing available to First Nations and Non-Aboriginal families in Nova Scotia.
The most important factor that so few home owners are represented in the sample as over
138
71 percent of Nova Scotians own their own homes. Rural residents are more likely to own
their own homes (77%) than those residing in urban centers (62%) in Nova Scotia (Rural
Communities Impacting Policy Project, 2003). If child removals were evenly distributed
across all income brackets and housing types we should see a much higher incidence of
children removed from families who own their own homes.
Table 24: Housing Type at Removal by First Nations and Non-Aboriginal Child Status
Housing type NonAboriginal children First Nations children TOTAL
Number
% of Non-Aboriginal children in care Number
% of First Nations children in care Number
% of all children in care
Own home 4 6 1 1 5 3Rental 60 79 16 21 76 44Public housing 5 7 7 7 12 7Band housing 3 4 75 75 78 45Shelter/hotel 1 1 1 1 2 1TOTAL 73 100 100 100 173 100
Based on a sample of 173 removals with information on housing type at time of removal. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. P<.001
Surprisingly, as shown in Table 25, 22 percent (N=46) of Non-Aboriginal children lived in
unsafe homes as compared to 8 percent (N=17) of First Nations children with χ2 (1,166) = 31.762
p <.001, Cramer’s V=.437. This is contrary to national data suggesting that First Nations
children are far more likely to live in unsafe homes than Non-Aboriginal children.
Table 25: Unsafe Housing Conditions at Removal by First Nations Child Status
Housing Safety NonAboriginal First Nations Total
N % N % N %Home Unsafe 46 22 17 8 44 21Home Safe 29 14 74 36 40 19Unknown 28 14 12 6 44 21TOTAL 103 50 103 50 206 100
Based on 206 cases where data on First Nations child status and home safety conditions was available. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
As shown in Table 26, data on overcrowding of homes was collected on 178 cases
among which 16 percent (N=26) were noted for living in overcrowded conditions. There
was no significant relationship between First Nations child status and overcrowding.
139
Table 26: Housing Overcrowding at Removal by First Nations Child Status
Housing Overcrowding NonAboriginal First Nations Total
N % N % N %
Home Overcrowded 15 8 11 6 26 16
Home Not Overcrowded 62 34 90 51 152 84
TOTAL 103 42 107 57 178 100
Based on a sample of 178 removals where data on over crowding and First Nations child status were available. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Reasons for Removal
The present study collected data on the primary reason for removal according to five
mutually exclusive broad categories: Physical Abuse, Sexual Abuse, Neglect, Emotional
Maltreatment, and Other. These categories are comparable to those used in the Ontario
Incidence Study, the U.S. National Incidence Study, and the first cycle of the CIS with the
exceptions of the sub-categories of anticipatory maltreatment and caregiver functioning
issues which were created after pilot testing of the instruments suggested these were
important reasons why children were being removed in Nova Scotia.
Social workers were asked to rate cases on their clinical opinion versus on provincial or
agency/office specific definitions. In cases where several codes may apply,, social workers
were asked to enter what they considered to be the most harmful to the child as the
primary reason for removal followed by any secondary or tertiary reasons.
The term anticipatory is used to describe cases where the child has not experienced
maltreatment but the social worker believes there is a substantial risk of maltreatment in
the future. Caregiver incapacity is used to describe cases where the primary reason for the
removal relates to the caregiver’s substance misuse, mental health concerns or inability to
meet the child’s special needs.
140
Physical Abuse
The child has suffered, or was at substantial risk of suffering, physical harm, at the hands
of the child’s caregiver:
•Anticipatory Physical Abuse: The child has not been physically abused but the worker
believes there is substantial risk of physical abuse in future.
•Physical Abuse Resulting in Injury: The child was physically abused and resulted in a
physical injury to the child.
•Physical Abuse Resulting in No Injury: The child was physically abused but no physical
injury occurred.
Sexual Abuse
The child has been, or is at substantial risk of being, sexually molested or sexually exploited.
Intra-familial, extra-familial sexual abuse and sexual abuse involving an older child or youth
perpetrator were included in this category:
•Anticipatory Sexual Abuse: Sexual abuse has not occurred but the social worker feels
there is substantial risk of the child being sexually abused in the future.
•Sexual Abuse: The child was sexually abused (attempted or actual penetration, oral
sex, sex talk, fondling, voyeurism or exhibitionism.)
•Sexual Exploitation: The child was sexually exploited. This includes situations where
an adult sexually exploits a child for the purposes of financial gain or other profit,
including pornography or prostitution.
Emotional Abuse
The child was emotionally abused or was at substantial risk of suffering emotional
abuse:
141
•Anticipatory Exposure to Domestic Violence: The child was not exposed to domestic
violence but the social worker feels there was a substantial risk of future exposure to
domestic violence.
•Exposed to Domestic Violence: A child witnessed violence occurring between the
caregivers (or a caregiver and his or her partner). This includes situations where the
child indirectly witnessed the violence (e.g., saw the physical injuries on his or her
caregiver the next day or overheard the violence).
Other
This category was developed after instrument testing for the present study to capture
cases where the traditional categories of child maltreatment did not appear to apply:
Caregiver Incapacity—Mental Health
The caregiver was diagnosed mental illness that results in them being unable to care safely
for the child.
Caregiver Incapacity—Substance Misuse
The caregiver’s use of drugs, solvents and/or alcohol resulted in them being unable to care
safely for the child.
Caregiver Incapacity—Child’s Special Needs
This category was used in situations where it was reasonable to believe that a parent could
provide for the child’s special needs but was unable to safely do so and a special needs
agreement was not viewed as an appropriate option.
Maltreatment type is conventionally identified as a key factor informing removal
decisions. However, results indicate that maltreatment type was not significantly different
among First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children even though the latter is much more
likely to be removed. As this is the first study in Canada to describe the reasons for
142
removal of children in care, the full results are recited for information purposes even
though First Nations status is not significantly related to the primary, secondary or tertiary
reasons for removal.
Primary Reason for Removal
Table 27 sets out the primary reason for the removal of First Nations and Non-Aboriginal
children. There were 3 cases where First Nations status was not indicated and only 2 cases
where the primary type of maltreatment was not noted on the case file and these were
excluded from analysis. There were slightly more First Nations children (N=105) than Non-
Aboriginal children (N=103) resulting in an overall sample of N=208.
Table 27: Primary Reason for Removal by First Nations and Non-Aboriginal Status
Primary Reason for Removal NonAboriginal Child First Nations Child Total % Total
% of All Non-Aboriginal Cases Number
% of All First Nations Cases Number
% of All Cases Number
Anticipatory physical abuse 11 11 7 3 3 14
Physical abuse causing injury 11 11 7 3 3 14
Physical abuse no injury 3 3 2 2 2 5
Anticipatory sexual abuse 0 0 1 2 2 2
Sexual abuse 0 0 0.5 1 1 1
Anticipatory emotional abuse 0 0 1.5 3 3 3
Emotional abuse 1 1 0.5 0 0 1
Anticipatory exposure to domestic violence
2 2 3 5 5 7
Exposure to domestic violence 15 15 16 17 18 33
Anticipatory neglect 4 4 2 1 1 5
Failure to supervise 4 4 4 4 4 8
Physical neglect 6 6 6 6 6 12
Other neglect 2 2 2 2 2 4
Abandonment 4 4 3 3 3 7
Caregiver incapacity- mental health 5 5 6 8 8 13
143
Table 27: Primary Reason for Removal by First Nations and Non-Aboriginal Status
Primary Reason for Removal NonAboriginal Child First Nations Child Total % Total
Caregiver incapacity-substance misuse 24 24 28 33 35 59
Caregiver incapacity-inability to meet child’s special needs
6 6 4 2 2 8
Other 5 5 6 7 7 12
TOTAL 103 105 208
Based on 208 cases for which primary reason for removal was recorded. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Among Non-Aboriginal children who were removed:
• Caregiver incapacity related to substance misuse was the most common primary
reason for removal accounting for over one-fifth (24%, N=24) of cases.
• Exposure to domestic violence was the secondmost frequently reported category
accounting for 15 percent (N=15) of cases.
• Anticipatoryphysicalabuseaccounted for11percent (N=11)ofcasesandphysical
abuse resulting in physical injury was also cited in 11 percent (N=11) of cases.
• Physicalneglectwasreportedastheprimaryreasonforremovalin6percent(N=6)of
cases and caregiver incapacity related to the child’s special needs was also noted in
6 percent (N=6) of cases.
• Sexualabuseandsexualexploitationwerenotlistedastheprimaryreasonforremoval
in any of the cases involving Non-Aboriginal children.
Among First Nations children who were removed:
• Caregiver incapacity related to substance misuse was most often reported as the
primary reason for removal accounting for one third (28%, N=33) of all cases.
• Exposure to domestic violence was the second most common primary reason for
removal at 16 percent (N=17).
continued
144
• Theothercategorywastheprimaryreasonorremovalin6percent(N=7)ofallFirst
Nations cases.
• Caregiverincapacityrelatedtomentalhealthissueswascitedin6percent(N=8)ofall
cases.
• Sexualabusewasonlyreportedasbeingtheprimarytypemaltreatmentin1caseand
anticipatory sexual abuse was cited in 2 cases.
The differences among First Nations and Non-Aboriginal were not statistically significant.
Secondary Reason for Removal
As shown in Table 28, 78 percent of all cases included a secondary reason for removal.
Again there are 3 cases where First Nations status was missing and these were excluded.
In coding this variable if it was left blank it was assumed there is no secondary reason
for removal so there was no missing data on the reason for maltreatment in this variable
resulting in N=210. There are slightly more First Nations (N=107) than Non-Aboriginal
children (N=103) in the sample.
Table 28: Secondary Reason for Removal by First Nations and Non-Aboriginal Status
Secondary Reason for Removal NonAboriginal Child First Nations Child Total % Total
% of all Non-Aboriginal cases Number
% of all First Nations cases Number
% of all cases Number
Anticipatory physical abuse 0 0 0 0 0 0
Physical abuse causing injury 1 1 0 0 0.5 1
Physical abuse no injury 0 0 0 0 0 0
Anticipatory sexual abuse 0 0 0.5 1 0.5 1
Sexual abuse 0 0 0 0 0 0
Anticipatory emotional abuse 3 3 1 1 2 4
Emotional abuse 6 6 2 2 4 8
Anticipatory exposure to domestic violence 5 5 4 4 4 9
145
Table 28: Secondary Reason for Removal by First Nations and Non-Aboriginal Status
Secondary Reason for Removal NonAboriginal Child First Nations Child Total % Total
Exposure to domestic violence 7 7 9 10 8 17
Anticipatory neglect 6 6 8 8 7 14
Failure to supervise 5 5 8 8 6 13
Physical neglect 10 10 9 10 10 20
Other neglect 2 2 8 8 5 10
Abandonment 2 2 0 0 1 2
Caregiver incapacity- mental health 9 9 10 11 10 20
Caregiver incapacity-substance misuse 13 13 19 20 16 33
Caregiver incapacity-inability to meet child’s special needs
8 8 3 3 5 11
Other 4 4 1 1 2 5
Not Applicable 21 22 19 20 20 42
TOTAL 81 87 210
Secondary reasons for removal recorded in 168 cases. Percentages based on all cases in each ethnic category. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Among Non-Aboriginal children, a secondary reason for removal was noted in 79 percent
(N=81) of the cases. The following percentages are calculated on the basis of all cases
involving Non-Aboriginal children:
• Caregiverincapacityrelatedtosubstancemisusewastheleadingsecondaryreasonfor
removal among Non-Aboriginal children noted in 13 percent (N=13) of cases.
• Physicalneglectwasnotedin10percent(N=10)ofthecases
• Caregiverincapacityrelatedtomentalhealthwasnotedin9percent(N=9)ofcases.
• Caregiverincapacityrelatedtothechild’sspecialneedswasnotedin8percent(N=18)
of cases.
• Exposuretodomesticviolencewasreportedin7percent(N=7)ofcases.
continued
146
• Therewasonlyonecaseofphysicalabuseandnocasesof sexualabuseor sexual
exploitation.
Among First Nations children, a secondary reason for removal was noted in 81 percent
(N=87) of the cases. The following percentages are calculated on the basis of all cases
involving First Nations children:
• Caregiver incapacity related to substance misuse was most often reported as the
secondary reason for removal in 19 percent (N=20) of cases.
• Caregiverincapacityrelatedtomentalhealthconcernswasnotedin10percent(N=11)
of the cases.
• Exposuretodomesticviolence(N=10)andphysicalneglect(N=10)werereportedin
9 percent of cases respectively.
• Anticipatoryneglect(N=8)andfailuretosupervise(N=8)werereportedin8percentof
cases respectively.
• There were no cases of physical abuse being reported as a secondary reason for
removal and only 1 case of sexual abuse and 1 case of sexual exploitation.
The differences among First Nations and Non-Aboriginal were not statistically significant.
Tertiary Reason for Removal
Table 29 sets out that just under one half of all cases included a tertiary reason for removal
(49%, N=99). There are 3 cases where First Nations status was missing and these were
excluded. If the response field was left blank it was assumed there is no secondary reason
for removal. Percentages are calculated on the basis of all children in each ethnic group.
147
Table 29: Tertiary Reason for Removal by First Nations and Non-Aboriginal Status
Secondary Reason for Removal NonAboriginal Child First Nations Child Total % Total
% of All Non-Aboriginal Cases Number
% of All First Nations cases Number
% of All Cases
Anticipatory physical abuse 2 2 1 1 0.5 2
Physical abuse causing injury 1 1 0 0 0.5 1
Physical abuse no injury 3 3 3 3 3 6
Anticipatory sexual abuse 1 1 0 0 0.5 1
Sexual abuse 0 0 0 0 0 0
Anticipatory emotional abuse 2 2 0 0 1 2
Emotional abuse 1 1 0 0 0.5 1
Anticipatory exposure to domestic violence 1 1 2 2 1 3
Exposure to domestic violence 11 11 4 4 7 15
Anticipatory neglect 1 1 1 3 2 4
Failure to supervise 6 6 8 8 7 14
Physical neglect 8 8 10 11 9 19
Other neglect 2 2 0 0 1 2
Abandonment 2 5 3 3 4 8
Caregiver incapacity- mental health 4 4 3 3 3 7
Caregiver incapacity-substance misuse 0 0 6 6 3 6
Caregiver incapacity-inability to meet child’s special needs
0 0 0.5 1 0.5 1
Other 3 7 0.5 1 4 8
Not Applicable 47 48 57 61 52 109
TOTAL 103 107 210
Tertiary reasons for removal recorded in 99 cases. Percentages based on all cases in each ethnic category. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
148
Among Non-Aboriginal children, 53 percent (N=48) of cases included a tertiary reason
for removal. The following percentages are calculated on the basis of all cases involving
Non-Aboriginal children:
• Exposuretodomesticviolencewastheleadingtertiaryreasonforremovalin11percent
(N=11) of cases.
• Physicalneglectwasreportedin8percent(N=8)ofcases.
• The“other”categoryfortertiaryreasonsformaltreatmentwasindicatedin3percent
(N=7) of cases.
• Failuretosupervisewasnotedin6percent(N=6)ofcases.
• Therewasonecaseofanticipatorysexualabuseandnocasesofsexualabuseorsexual
exploitation.
Among First Nations children, a tertiary reason for removal was noted in 43 percent
of the cases (N=46). The following percentages are calculated on the basis of all cases
involving First Nations children:
• Physicalneglectwastheleadingtertiaryreasonforremovalaccountingfor10percent
(N=11) of cases.
• Failuretosupervisewasnotedin8percent(N=8)ofcases.
• Caregiverincapacityrelatedtosubstancemisusewasindicatedin6percent(N=6)of
cases.
• Exposuretodomesticviolencewasnotedin4percent(N=4)ofcases.
• Physical abuse resulting inno injurywas reported in3percent (N=3)of cases and
anticipatory physical abuse in 1 percent (N=1) of cases.
• Therewerenocasesofsexualabuse,sexualexploitationoranticipatorysexualabuse.
The differences between First Nations and Non-Aboriginal were not statistically significant.
149
Child Functioning at Removal
Data on child functioning was collected on children in the sample at the time of removal
using the following categories and associated definitions:
• Depression/Anxiety: feelings of depression or anxiety that persist for most of every
day for two weeks or longer, and interfere with the child’s ability to manage at home
and at school.
• ADD/ADHD: Attention Deficit Disorder/Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
includes: distractibility (quickly moving attention from one thing to another); impulsivity
(acting quickly without thinking of the consequences); hyperactivity (excessive activity
and physical restlessness). These behaviors are very noticeable, occur over a long
period of time in many situations, and are troublesome to others.
• Negative Peer Involvement: high-risk peer activities (e.g. gang activities, graffiti,
and vandalism).
• Alcohol Abuse: problematic consumption of alcohol (consider age, frequency and
severity)
• Drug/Solvent Abuse: include prescription drugs, illegal drugs and solvents.
• Self-Harming Behavior: include high risk or life threatening behavior, suicide
attempts, and physical mutilation or cutting.
• Violence Toward Others: aggression and violence to other children or adults.
• Running (One Incident): has run away from home (or other residence) on one
occasion, for at least one overnight period.
• Running (Multiple Incidents): has run away from home (or other residence) on
multiple occasions for at least one overnight period.
• Inappropriate Sexual Behavior: child involved in inappropriate sexual behavior.
150
• Other Emotional or Behavioral Problems: significant emotional or behavioral
problems not covered by the previous items.
• Learning Disability: disability that is usually identified in schools. Children with
learning disabilities have normal or above normal intelligence, but deficits in one or
more areas of mental functioning (e.g. language usage, numbers, special, reading,
work comprehension)
• Specialized Education Services: any special education program for learning disability,
special needs, or behavior problems.
• Irregular School Attendance: irregular attendance and truancy (+5 days/month).
• Developmental Delay: is characterized by delay intellectual development. It is typically
diagnosed with a child does not reach his/her developmental milestones at expected
times, such as speech and language, fine gross motor skills, and/or personal and social
skills.
• Physical Disability: physical disability is the existence of a long-lasting condition
that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities such as walking, climbing
stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying. This includes sensory disability conditions such as
blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment that noticeably affects
activities of daily living.
• Substance Abuse Related Birth Defects: birth defects related to substance abuse
of the biological parent (e.g. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS)/Fetal Alcohol Effect (FAE),
cocaine addiction, solvent use).
• Positive Toxicology at Birth: when a toxicology screen for a newborn tests positive
for the presences of drug or alcohol.
• Other Health Condition: ongoing physical health condition (e.g. chronic disease,
frequent hospitalizations).
151
• Psychiatric Disorder: psychiatric disorder, use the confirmed category only if diagnosed
by a Psychiatrist (e.g. conduct disorder, anxiety disorder).
• Youth Criminal Justice Act Involvement: charges, incarceration or alternative measures
with the Youth Justice system.
• Other: specify any other conditions related to child functioning.
Table 30 represents the functioning of Non-Aboriginal and First Nations children at the
time of removal.
Among Non-Aboriginal children, the “Other behavioral and emotional” category was the
most common concern reported by social workers in 16 percent (N=45) of all functioning
concerns experienced by Non-Aboriginal children followed by other health conditions in
11 percent (N=33) of cases. Special education services and (N=23) depression/anxiety (N=23)
and learning disability were noted in 8 percent of functioning concerns respectively.
For First Nations children, irregular school attendance was the most frequently recorded
16 percent (N=34) of all functioning concerns experienced by First Nations children,
followed by other behavioral and emotional problems at 13 percent (N=29). Depression
and anxiety (N=17), negative peer functioning (N=17) and violence toward others (N=17)
account for 8 percent of First Nations functioning concerns respectively.
152
Table 30: Child Functioning Concerns Noted at Removal by First Nations and Non-Aboriginal Child Status
Functioning ConcernNonAboriginal
RemovalsFirst Nations
Removals
%
Number of noted cases %
Number of noted cases
Depression/anxiety 8 23 8 17
ADD/ADHD 7 19 5 10
Negative peer functioning 7 21 8 17
Alcohol abuse 2 6 3 7
Drug/solvent abuse 2 7 3 7
Self harming behavior 2 6 3 7
Violence toward others 6 18 8 17
Running (multiple incidence) 1 3 2 4
Inappropriate sexual behavior 3 8 2 4
Other behavioral/emotional problems** 16 45 13 29
Learning disability 8 22 7 15
Special education services** 8 23 5 11
Irregular school attendance* 7 19 16 34
Developmental delay 5 15 7 15
Physical disability 1 3 4 8
Substance abuse related birth defect 2 6 3 7
Positive toxicology at birth* 3 9 1 2
Psychiatric disorder** 2 6 0 0
Other health conditions*** 11 33 3 6
Criminal involvement 1 4 1 2
TOTAL 100 290 100 219
Analysis based on a sample of 213 removals with information on child functioning. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. *χ2, p<.05 **χ2, p<.01 ***χ2, p<.001
Significant Differences in Child Functioning by Non-Aboriginal and First Nations Status
Overall, at least one child functioning concern was noted in 53 percent (N=54) of Non-
Aboriginal cases and 47 percent (N=50) of First Nations cases. Although this result is not
statistically significant, there were significant differences between Non-Aboriginal and
153
Non-Aboriginal children on some of the specific functioning concerns. Non-Aboriginal
children were significantly more likely to noted for other health conditions, psychiatric
disorders, other behavioral/emotional problems, special education services and positive
toxicology at birth whereas First Nations children were significantly more likely to be noted
for irregular school attendance.
Significant Functioning Findings: Non-Aboriginal Children
A significant relationship between First Nations status and other health conditions χ2
(1,184) =28.52, p <.001, Cramer’s V=.39. Other health conditions accounted for 11 percent
(N=33) of Non-Aboriginal concerns versus 3 percent (N=6) of First Nations concerns. There
was also a significant relationship between First Nations status and psychiatric disorders
with χ2 (1,194) = 6.311, p <.01, Cramer’s V =.178. Two percent (N=6) of the Non-
Aboriginal children were noted as having a psychiatric disorder as compared to none of the
First Nations children. Other behavioral and emotional problems were also related to First
Nations status χ2 (1,198) = 6.607, p<.01, Cramer’s V=.183. Non-Aboriginal children were
noted as having an emotional/behavioral problem in 16 percent (N=45) of noted cases as
compared to 13 percent (N=29) of functioning concerns for First Nations children. Special
education services was significantly related to First Nations status χ2 (1,196) = 6.730,
Cramer’s V=.185 with Non-Aboriginal children more likely noted for special education
in 8 percent (N=23) of cases as compared to 5 percent (N=11) of functioning concerns
for First Nations cases. The final child functioning characteristic for which Non-Aboriginal
children were noted more frequently was positive toxicology at birth χ2 (1,146)=4.613,
p<.05, Cramer’s V=.178. Positive toxicology at birth was noted in 3 percent (N=9) of Non-
Aboriginal cases as compared to 1 percent (N=2) of First Nations cases.
Significant Functioning Findings: First Nations Children
Irregular school attendance was the only functioning concern for which First Nations
children were significantly more likely to be noted than Non-Aboriginal children.
Specifically, χ2 (1,146) = 4.443, p<.05, Cramer’s V=.149 with 16 percent (N=34) of First
154
Nations children being noted for irregular school attendance versus 7 percent (N=19) of
Non-Aboriginal children.
Caregiver Functioning at Removal
Information on the functioning of primary caregiver known as “Caregiver A” and the other
caregiver known as “Caregiver B” was collected at the time of removal. The following
definitions derived from the CIS were used to identify whether or not the caregiver(s) had
functioning concerns:
• Alcohol Abuse: The caregiver’s use of alcohol posed a problem for household.
• Drug/solvent Abuse: The caregiver’s abuse of prescription drugs, illegal drugs or
solvents posed a problem for the household.
• Criminal Activity: The caregiver was absent due to incarceration, involvement in
criminal activity (e.g., drug dealing, theft, prostitution, etc.).
• Cognitive Impairment: The caregiver’s cognitive ability impacted the quality of care
provided in the household.
• Mental Health Issues: The caregiver received a mental health diagnosis or has a
suspected mental health problem which remained undiagnosed.
• Physical Health Issues: The caregiver had a chronic illness, frequent hospitalizations
or a physical disability.
• Few Social Supports: The caregiver experienced social isolation or a lack of social
supports.
• Maltreated as a Child: The caregiver suffered maltreatment as a child.
• Victim of Domestic Violence: During the past six months the caregiver was a victim
of domestic violence, whether physical, sexual or verbal assault.
155
• Perpetrator of Domestic Violence: During six months prior to the removal, the
caregiver perpetrated domestic violence.
• Other: Identify other issues/concerns that describe the caregiver’s functioning.
The following section describes the incidence of caregiver functioning concerns noted
for Non-Aboriginal and First Nations caregivers.
Caregiver A: Functioning Concerns at Time of Removal
Table 31 represents the functioning of Non-Aboriginal and First Nations primary caregivers
(Caregiver A) at the time of removal.
For Non-Aboriginal primary caregivers, mental health concerns was the most frequently
noted concern accounting for 17 percent (N=70) of all functioning concerns reported
for Non-Aboriginal as compared to 14 percent (N=63) for First Nations caregivers. Being
a victim of domestic violence was the second most noted concern for Non-Aboriginal
caregivers being noted in 16 percent (N=68) of cases as compared to 12 percent of (N=52)
First Nations. Alcohol abuse followed closely accounting 14 percent (N=52) of functioning
concerns whereas First Nations was slightly higher at 16 percent (N=70).
The most frequent functioning concern noted for First Nations primary caregivers at
the time of removal was alcohol abuse at 16 percent (N=70) of all functioning concerns
followed by drug and solvent abuse and mental health issues at 14 percent (N=63).
156
Table 31: Primary Caregiver: Functioning Concerns at Removal by First Nations and Non-Aboriginal Caregiver Status
Functioning ConcernNonAboriginal
primary caregiverFirst Nations
primary caregiver
%
Number of noted cases %
Number of noted cases
Alcohol abuse** 14 59 16 70
Drug/solvent abuse 13 55 14 63
Criminal activity 7 30 9 40
Cognitive impairment 5 21 4 18
Mental health 17 70 14 61
Physical health 5 20 5 20
Few social supports 12 52 13 56
Maltreated as a child*** 8 32 11 47
Victim of domestic violence 16 68 12 52
Perpetrator of domestic violence* 3 11 4 16
TOTAL 100 418 100 443
Analysis based on a sample of 200 removals with information on primary caregiver functioning. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. *χ2, p<.05 **χ2, p<.01 ***χ2, p<.001
Significant Relationships between Caregiver A Functioning and First Nations Status
Overall, First Nations primary caregivers were more significantly more likely to be noted
for alcohol abuse, perpetrating domestic violence and being maltreated as a child. More
specifically, there was a significant relationship between First Nations caregiver status and
alcohol abuse χ2 (1,192) =8.646, p <.05, Cramer’s V=.013. Alcohol abuse was noted in
16 percent of First Nations functioning concerns versus 14 percent of their Non-Aboriginal
peers.
There was also a statistically significant relationship between First Nations caregiver
status and perpetration of domestic violence χ2 (1,210) =15.325, p <.05, Cramer’s
V=.190. Being maltreated as a child is the final functioning concern where a statistically
significant difference was noted in relationship to First Nations status χ2 (1,117) = 17.216,
p <.001, Cramer’s V=.384. 11 percent (N=47) of First Nations primary caregivers were
noted as having being maltreated as a child as compared to 8 percent (N=32) for Non-
Aboriginal.
157
Multiple Functioning Concerns for Primary Caregiver at Time of Removal by First Nations Status
The number of functioning concerns for the primary caregiver at the time of removal
is normally distributed with mean of 5 functioning concerns. As shown in Table 32,
an overwhelming number of Non-Aboriginal and First Nations primary caregivers had
more than one functioning concern. Specifically, 96 percent of Non-Aboriginal primary
caregivers had more than one functioning concern as compared to 99 percent of their First
Nations peers. For Non-Aboriginal primary caregivers, 6 functioning concerns was most
frequently reported (21%, N=24) followed by 5 functioning concerns (17%, N=19)and 3
and 2 functioning concerns at 13 (N=14) percent respectively. The largest percentage of
First Nations caregivers experienced 4 functioning concerns (26%, N=23) followed by 3
functioning concerns (21%, N=19) and 7 functioning concerns (20%, N=19).
Table 32: Multiple Functioning Concerns for Primary Caregiver by First Nations and Non-Aboriginal Child Status
Number of Noted Functioning Concerns
Primary caregiver for nonAboriginal child
Primary caregiver for First Nations child Total
%*Number of
Cases %*Number of
Cases
0 4 4 1 16
(including one non response)
1 9 10 1 1 11
2 13 14 3 3 17
3 13 14 21 19 33
4 11 12 26 23 36
5 17 19 12 1131
(including one non response)
6 21 24 14 13 37
7 12 13 20 19 33
8 2 2 2 2 4
9 0 0 2 2 5
TOTAL 100 112 100 94
Analysis based on a sample of 200 removals with information on primary caregiver functioning. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. P<.001
158
Secondary Caregiver: Functioning Concerns at Time of Removal
If a secondary caregiver was in the home at the time of the removal, they are called
“caregiver B” in this study. Of the 213 cases in the sample, a secondary caregiver was
present in 133 cases at the time of removal. Table 33 provides an overview of the functioning
concerns noted for the secondary caregiver at the time of removal by First Nations and Non-
Aboriginal caregiver status. The number of valid N for each analysis varies in accordance to
the amount of missing data.
Table 33: Secondary Caregiver: Functioning Concerns at Removal by First Nations and Non-Aboriginal Caregiver Status
Functioning Concern
NonAboriginal Secondary Caregiver
First Nations Secondary Caregiver Valid N
% of All Noted Concerns
Number of Noted Cases
% of All Noted Concerns
Number of Noted Cases
Alcohol abuse 15 33 20 21 99
Drug/solvent abuse 7 35 19 19 97
Criminal activity*** 20 42 13 14 96
Cognitive impairment 1 1 1 1 61
Mental health* 7 14 3 3 68
Physical health 4 8 3 3 75
Few social supports 10 20 13 13 71
Maltreated as a child 3 6 6 6 45
Victim of domestic violence 4 8 3 3 79
Perpetrator of domestic violence 20 42 19 20 94
TOTAL 209 103
Analysis based on different values of valid n as indicated with information on the functioning of the secondary caregiver at the time of removal. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. *χ2, p<.05 **χ2, p<.01 ***χ2, p<.001
There were no significant differences between First Nations and Non-Aboriginal
secondary caregiver functioning at the time of removal with the exceptions of criminal
activity and mental health concerns. Criminal activity was significantly related to First
Nations caregiver status χ2 (1,96) =11.952, p <.001, Cramer’s V=.353. Non-Aboriginal
159
secondary caregivers were significantly more often noted for criminal activity (20%, N=42)
than First Nations (13%, N=14).
The only other area where First Nations status was significantly related to secondary
caregiver functioning was in terms of mental health although caution should be exercised
as the cell size for the analysis was less than five.
Services for Primary Caregiver at Removal
Data was collected on services provided to the primary caregiver at the time of removal.
As shown in Table 34, Non-Aboriginal primary caregivers are more likely to receive parent
education services χ2 (1,202) = 8.742, p <.05, Cramer’s V=.208 and “other family/
parenting support” services χ2 (1,202)=13.933, p <.001, Cramer’s V=.263.
Table 34: Services Provided to Primary Caregiver at Time of Removal
ServiceCramer’s V
(if Significant)NonAboriginal Children
(N=103)First Nations Children
(N=98)
% of All Services
Provided
Number Receiving
Service
% of All Services
Provided
Number Receiving
Service
Supervised visits 14 63 13 65
No contact order 2 8 0 4
Drug testing 5 22 7 34
Parent education* .208 11 50 6 28
In home parenting support** .227 8 35 11 56
Other family/parent support*** .263 9 41 3 16
Substance misuses assessment 6 29 9 46
Substance misuse treatment 7 31 8 39
Substance misuse support 7 31 7 34
Welfare/social assistance* 2 10 4 22
Employment training 0 4 0 1
Education/literacy 0 0 0 1
Food bank 0 5 0 3
Shelter services 0 4 0 3
160
Table 34: Services Provided to Primary Caregiver at Time of Removal
ServiceCramer’s V
(if Significant)NonAboriginal Children
(N=103)First Nations Children
(N=98)
Low income housing 0 3 0 4
Domestic violence services 5 21 3 13
Psychiatric/psychological services* .217 8 38 11 58
Recreation services 0 3 2 8
Victim support services 2 10 2 9
Medical/dental services 0 1 0 2
Child/Daycare services* .143 2 8 3 17
Cultural services*** .256 0 0 2 12
Spiritual services* .162 0 0 1 5
Other caregiver service 8 37 6 28
TOTAL 454 508
Analysis based on a sample of 202 removals with information on services provided to the primary caregiver at removal. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. *χ2, p<.05 **χ2, p<.01 ***χ2, p<.001
First Nations are more likely to receive in home parenting support χ2 (1,202) =10.402,
p <.01, Cramer’s V=.227, childcare services χ2 (1,202) = 4.117, p <.05, Cramer’s V=.143,
and psychiatric/psychological services χ2 (1,202) = 9.525, p <.001, Cramer’s V=.217.
Significant differences were also evident in cultural and spiritual services as well as social
assistance but the cell size for these services fell below the reliability threshold of 5
observations per cell and thus should be viewed with caution.
Services to Children While in Care
Data was collected on the types of services provided to Non-Aboriginal and First Nations
children while they were in child welfare care. Table 35 describes the number of children
receiving specific services while they were in child welfare care. Differences in time in care
are not accounted for in this analysis. Overall, Non-Aboriginal children were significantly
more likely to receive mental health assessments χ2 (1,205) = 5.151, p<.05, Cramer’s
V=.159, than First Nations children. However, First Nations children were significantly
continued
161
more likely to receive dental treatment χ2 (1,205) = 10.860, p<.01, Cramer’s V=.230
and mentorship services χ2 (1,205) = 27.502, p<.001, Cramer’s V=.366. First Nations
were also more likely to receive recreation services χ2 (1,205) = 8.467, p<.05, Cramer’s
V=.207 and cultural χ2 (1,205) = 67.135, p<.001, Cramer’s V=.572 and spiritual services
χ2 (1,205) = 9.108, p<.05, Cramer’s V=.211.
Table 35: Services Provided to the Child While in Care by First Nations and Non-Aboriginal Child Status
Service
Cramer’s V (if
Significant)NonAboriginal Children
(N=103)First Nations Children
(N=102)
% of All Services
Provided
Number Receiving
Service
% of All Services
Provided
Number Receiving
Service
Mental health assessment* .159 10 37 5 22
Mental health treatment 10 35 8 36
Physical health assessment 15 53 11 49
Physical health treatment 11 39 7 31
Dental assessment 7 25 8 36
Dental treatment** .230 3 12 7 31
Disability supports 1 5 0 2
Mentorship*** .366 3 9 9 41
Educational supports 10 35 6 27
Employment services .05 2 0 1
Social assistance .05 2 0 2
Recreation* .207 8 27 10 47
Cultural services*** .572 .05 2 11 54
Spiritual services** .211 1 4 4 17
Substance misuse assessment 0 1 0 2
Substance misuse treatment 0 0 0 1
Behavior management 4 15 3 14
Child development 6 20 3 15
Other service 10 36 6 26
TOTAL 100 359 100 454
Analysis based on a sample of 205 removals with information on services provided to the child while in care. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. *χ2, p<.05 **χ2, p<.01 ***χ2, p<.001
162
Relationship between Functioning and Services Provided While
Child in Care
Data was collected on primary maltreatment type and functioning concerns at the level of
the child, caregiver(s) and structural levels and services provided to the families were also
noted. This section explores whether or not there is a relationship between functioning
concerns and the provision of relevant services during the period that the child remained
in care using the Pearson correlation test.
Primary Maltreatment Type and Service Provision
Substance misuse was the most frequently noted reason for removal accounting for
24 percent of all cases (N=59). Substance misuse concerns were noted in 46 percent
(alcohol N=114, drug/solvent N=92) of primary caregivers and 45 percent (alcohol N=59,
drug/solvent N=62) of secondary caregivers. Data on several services related to substance
misuse were collected for the primary caregiver: drug testing, substance misuse assessment,
substance misuse support and substance misuse treatment. The following section sets out
the frequencies and correlations between the presence of substance misuse issues for the
primary caregiver and the services he/she received.
As shown in Table 34, drug testing was provided to 27 percent (N=56) of primary
caregivers. A positive correlation existed between the notation of substance misuse
concerns and the receipt of drug testing r(195)=.346, p<.01. A correlation addressed the
relationship between the notation of substance misuse concerns for primary caregivers
and the provision of substance misuse assessment services while the child was in care.
Substance misuse assessments were provided to 33 percent of primary caregivers (N=75)
and there was significant relationship between this service and the notation of substance
misuse concerns r (202) =.311 P<.01.
Data was also collected on substance misuse interventions. Substance misuse treatment
was provided to 33 percent of all primary caregivers (N=70) and substance misuse support
was provided to 31 percent (N=65). A significant relationship exists between the notation
163
of substance misuse and the provision of substance misuse treatment r (195) =.389,
p<.01. There was also a significant correlation between notation of substance misuse and
the provision of substance misuse support r (195) =.239, p<.001.
Interestingly, there were no significant correlations between the notation of substance
misuse concerns with the secondary caregiver and the provision of drug testing, substance
misuse assessment or intervention services.
Relationship between Structural Concerns and Services While Child in Care
Data was collected on notation of structural concerns at the time of the child’s removal and
the provision of services to the primary and secondary caregiver while the child was in care.
The following section outlines the relationship between family income and related services.
Family income and Service Provision
As noted earlier, 95 percent of all families who had their children removed had family
incomes below $25,000.00 per year. Data was collected on the following poverty related
services provided for the primary and secondary caregiver while the child was in care: food
banks, welfare/social assistance, employment training, education/literacy, shelter services,
and low income housing.
Contrary to the issue of substance misuse, there was only one statistically significant
relationship between family income and the provision of services to the primary caregiver
and that was in relationship to food bank services. Only 4 percent of primary caregivers
were referred to food banks (N=8) but this was significantly correlated to family income
r (204) =.225, p<.01. There were no significant relationships between family income and
the provision of poverty related services for the secondary caregiver.
There were no significant relationships between primary or secondary caregivers noted
for less than high school education and the provision of educational or employment
training services.
164
Housing Concerns and Service Provision
Information was collected on safety of housing and the overcrowding of housing as well
as the following housing related services: low income housing and shelter services for
both the primary and secondary caregiver while the child was in care. Results indicate a
significant correlation between housing safety and the provision of low income housing
to the primary caregiver r (169) =.247, p<.001. There were no significant relationships
between housing safety and the provision of shelter services to either the primary or
secondary caregiver nor was there any significant relationship between the housing safety
and the provision of low income housing to the secondary caregiver.
A significant service relationship was detected regarding housing overcrowding conditions
and the provision of shelter or low income housing to the primary caregiver receiving low
income housing services r (174)=.267, p<.001. There were no significant relationships
between the provision of shelter services and housing over-crowding to either caregiver.
Relationship between Child functioning at Removal and Services provided While Child in Care
The most frequently reported child functioning concerns fell into the “other category”
(N=74), irregular school attendance (N=53), depression and anxiety (N=40) and negative
peer involvement (N=38). The functioning concerns noted in the other category varied
widely and thus no correlation to service provision was possible for this variable. However,
correlations could be run for irregular school attendance, depression and anxiety and
negative peer involvement.
For irregular school attendance, correlations were run to see if there was a significant
relationship to the provision of educational supports while the child was in care. For
depression and anxiety, the related service was mental health treatment and for negative
peer involvement mentorship services and behavior management services were tested.
165
There were no significant correlations between the most frequently reported child
functioning concerns and the services provided to the child while they were in care.
Characteristics at Reunification
Administrative data for Nova Scotia only reports the aggregate number of reunifications per
year without linking to the date of the child’s removal. This means that it is not possible to
track how many of the children reunified in the administrative data were actually removed
during the time period for this study. Another challenge is that the administrative data
system only tracks the number of reunifications by office so it was necessary to assume
that children being served by Non-Aboriginal offices were Non-Aboriginal and those
served by Mi’kmaw were First Nations. This assumption likely results in an under-count
of First Nations children. Given these data limitations, calculation of reliable reunification
estimates for the province in the years 2003, 2004, 2005 was not possible. Table 36 sets
out the annualized reunification data were derived from administrative data provided by
the Department of Community Services (2009).
Table 36: Annualized Reunification Data for the Years 2003, 2004, 2005
YearFirst Nations children removed
NonAboriginal children removed
First Nations children reunified
NonAboriginal children reunified
2003 28 322 36 272
2004 37 256 22 285
2005 35 253 22 233
Department of Community Services (2009)
In the study sample, reunification data was collected on 210 cases of which 107 were
non First Nation children and 103 were First Nations children. Overall, 123 (59%) of all
children removed during the time period were reunified by the time of data collection which
occurred in September and October of 2008. First Nations status was not significantly
linked to reunification with 62 percent of all First Nations children being reunified versus
166
57 percent of Non-Aboriginal children. The mean age at time of reunification was 7 years.
Child age and gender were not significantly related to reunification.
Structural Factors at Reunification or Data Collection
if Child Remains in Care
The following section outlines the structural factors affecting children and their families at
the time of reunification or at the time of data collection if the child remains in care. Data
was collected on several structural factors such as housing, caregiver education, service
provision and poverty. Although the structural measures included in this study were not
designed to measure change they do represent two different time periods where social
workers assessed these factors. Just as at time of removal, structural factors continue
to exert a significant pressure of families at time of reunification or at the time of data
collection if the child remains in care.
Estimated Income Level at Time of Reunification or Data Collection
Estimated household income was collected on 53 percent (N=112) of the 213 cases in
the study with household income being reported more often for First Nations child status
(N=67) than for Non-Aboriginal (N=44). The amount of missing data is important as
poverty has repeatedly been cited as an important factor in child maltreatment particularly
in relation to neglect.
At the time of reunification or data collection if the child remains in care, 90 percent of
children who are removed come from families who earn less than $25,000.00 per year
even though the average income in Nova Scotia across all industries is approximately
$46,000 per year (Statistics Canada, 2001). There were no significant differences on First
Nations status or child reunification status for this variable.
Housing Conditions at Time of Reunification or Data Collection if Child Remains in Care
Housing type was significantly related to First Nations child status at the time of reunification
or data collection if the child remains in care χ2 (1,182) = 79.142 p <.001, Cramer’s V=.659.
167
Consistent with the low family income at the time of removal, 97 percent of all families in
the sample did not own their own homes at the time of removal. The racial differences are
significant but are predictably related to prevalence of housing types on and off reserves. For
example, over 78 percent of families with Non-Aboriginal children lived in rental housing as
compared to 23 percent of families with First Nations children. This is predictable given the
vast majority of First Nations in the sample live on reserves where rental housing availability
is limited. However, First Nations families were more likely to live in band housing (53%)
than Non-Aboriginal families (3%) which is reflective of the reality that First Nations families
on reserves will access band housing which is typically not available to Non-Aboriginal
families. This finding is consistent with the different types of low cost housing available to
First Nations and Non-Aboriginal families in Nova Scotia. Just as at the time of removal, there
are very few home owners represented in the sample (4%) especially when one considers
that over 71 percent of Nova Scotians own their own homes.
Reunification status was not significantly related to housing type.
Time to Reunification from Date of Removal
Time to reunification from date of removal was collected on 116 of the 123 children who
were reunified. Table 37 shows the time to reunification from date of removal in months.
Consistent with the literature, 30 percent of all children were reunified within 6 months of
removal with over one half (57%) being reunified within 12 months and 84 percent were
reunified within 24 months of removal. There were no significant differences between
First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children.
168
Table 37: Time from Removal to Reunification (in Months)
Months from Removal Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
0 4 3.4 3.4
1 7 6 9.4
2 5 4.3 13.8
3 2 1.7 15.5
4 3 2.6 18.1
5 11 9.5 27.6
6 3 2.6 30.2
7 6 5.2 35.3
8 8 6.9 42.2
9 3 2.6 44.8
10 8 6.9 51.7
11 2 1.7 53.4
12 4 3.4 56.9
13 3 2.6 59.5
14 4 3.4 62.9
15 3 2.6 65.5
16 14 12.1 77.6
17 5 4.3 81.9
18 2 1.7 83.6
19 1 .9 84.5
20 2 1.7 86.2
21 4 3.4 89.7
22 4 3.4 93.1
24–40 months 8 7 100
TOTAL 116 100
Placements of Children at Time of Data Collection
As noted in Table 38, First Nations status is significantly related to the child’s placement
at the time of reunification χ2 (1,205) =53.250, p <.001, Cramer’s V=.510. Overall, First
Nations children are more likely to remain in child welfare care with 31 percent (N=32) of
children remaining in care as compared to 22 percent (N=21) for Non-Aboriginal children.
First Nations were also more likely to be reunified with no supervision order (49%, N=75)
versus Non-Aboriginal (25%, N=26) and to have an “other” placement (14%, N=14) than
169
their Non-Aboriginal peers (3%, N=3). In contrast, Non-Aboriginal children were more likely
to be placed for adoption (20%, N=21) versus none for First Nations children and be reunified
under supervision orders (27%, N=28) compared to 5 percent (N=5) for First Nations.
Table 38: Child’s Placement at the Time of Data Collection (September/October, 2008)
PlacementNonAboriginal
children First Nations children TOTAL
Number
% of Non-Aboriginal Children in Care Number
% of First Nations Children in Care Number
% of All Children in Care
Remains in child welfare care 22 21 32 31 54 26
Reached age of majority 3 3 2 2 5 2
Placed for adoption 21 20 0 0 21 10
Reunified with family under supervision order 28 27 5 5 33 16
Reunified with family with no supervision order 26 25 49 48 75 37
Other 3 3 14 14 17 8
TOTAL 103 100 102 100 205 100
Analysis based on a sample of 205 removals with information on current child placement. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Reunification Destination
During instrument testing it became apparent that some children were reunified to the
caregiver(s) from whom they were removed whereas others were placed with a caregiver
who was not at the home at the time of the removal. Placement reunification data was
collected on 119 of the 123 children who were classified as reunified. Table 39 describes
the reunification destination by First Nations Status among the 119 children for whom
reunification destination data were collected. Overall, 24 percent (N=29) of all children are
reunified to another caregiver who was not in the home at the time of removal. Given
this high percentage, it is important that future child welfare studies unpack the term
reunification to determine whether the child is actually “reunified” to the caregiver(s) from
whom they are removed or whether “reunification” actually means a change of caregiver.
170
Table 39: Reunification Destination by First Nations and Non-Aboriginal Status
Reunification destination NonAboriginal First Nations Total
Caregiver(s) from whom the child was removed 45 45 90
Other caregiver 9 20 29
TOTAL 54 65 119
Based on a sample of 119 children for whom reunification destination and First Nations child status data was collected.
First Nations status did not have a significant relationship to reunification destination.
However, the p value was .07 suggesting that there may not have been enough power in the
sample to detect the difference and further investigation is recommended in future studies.
Reason for Reunification
Data was collected on the primary reason why the child was reunified using the following
mutually exclusive categories:
• Risk factors present at time of removal were reduced to acceptable level by
family without services: The risk factors that resulted in the removal have been
reduced without the aid of services (e.g., offender voluntarily moves out of home,
parent ceases behavior that placed child at risk).
• Risk factors present at time of removal were reduced to acceptable level with
aid of services: The risk factors that resulted in the removal have been reduced with
the aid of services (e.g., parenting skills program improves parenting ability, substance-
misuse program reduces risk to child, alternate child care reduces failure-to-supervise
concerns, food bank ensures adequate nutrition for child).
• Risk factors discovered after removal were reduced to acceptable level by
family without services: The risk factors discovered after the removal have been
reduced without the aid of services (e.g., offender voluntarily moves out of home,
parent ceases behavior that placed child at risk).
171
Table 40 depicts the primary reason for reunification. Over 66 percent (N=76) of all
children in the sample were reunified as services had reduced the risk factors present at
removal to an acceptable level. An additional 5 percent (N=6) of children were reunified
as the risk factors present at removal had reduced to an acceptable level without aid of
services. An additional 28 percent (N=32) were reunified for other reasons which most
often involved a change of caregiver. There were no significant differences between First
Nations and Non-Aboriginal children in the sample on this factor.
Table 40: Reason for Reunification
Reason for reunification FrequencyValid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Risk factors reduced without aid of services 6 5.2 5
Risk factors present at removal reduced with aid of services 76 66.1 71
Risk factors discovered after removal reduced with aid of services 1 0.5 72
Other 32 28 100
Missing 8
Based on a sample of 115 children for whom data on the reason for reunification was noted.
Children Remaining in Care
Data was collected on children who remained in care. Whenever necessary, the time of
data collection was used as a benchmark for assessing the child’s current status. All data
was collected in either September or October, 2008. There were three cases where the
current placement of the child was unknown at the time of data collection and these
cases were dropped from analysis leaving a sample of 210 cases. At the time of data
collection, 41 percent (N=87) of the children remained in child welfare care.
172
Legal Status at Time of Data Collection
As shown in Table 41, the majority of all children (69%, N=59) removed during the study
period who remained in care at the time of data collection were in permanent care and
custody at the time of data collection. The next most frequent legal status for children in
care was adoption representing 23 percent (N=20) of all children in the sample but these
were exclusively Non-Aboriginal children. There is a statistically significant relationship
between First Nations child status and legal status χ2 (1,86) =26.374, p <.001, Cramer’s
V=.554 that is probably a result of no First Nations children being placed for adoption.
Table 41: Current Legal Status for Children in Care by First Nations and Non-Aboriginal Status
Legal StatusNonAboriginal
ChildrenFirst Nations
Children TOTAL
Number
% of Non-Aboriginal Children in Care Number
% of First Nations Children in Care Number
% of All Children in Care
Temporary care and custody 1 2 0 0 1 1
Permanent care and custody 23 50 36 90 59 69
Under application for adoption 1 2 0 0 1 1
Placed for adoption 20 44 0 0 20 23
Other 1 2 4 10 5 6
TOTAL 46 100 40 100 86 100
Analysis based on a sample of 86 children in care for which legal status data was collected.
Reason for Child Remaining in Care
Data was collected on the primary reason why the child remains in care using the following
mutually exclusive categories:
• Risk factors present at time of removal remain unresolved: The risk factors that
resulted in the removal of the child have either not been resolved or remain at unacceptable
levels.
173
• Risk factors discovered after removal remain unresolved: The risk factors discovered
after the child was removed have either not been resolved or remain at unacceptable
levels.
• Statutory time limits exceeded for reunification with caregiver: The time limits
on the duration that a child can remain in temporary care have been exceeded, and
the child welfare statute requires that the child be either reunified with the caregiver
or placed in permanent care.
• Caregiver abandonment: The caregiver has abandoned the child.
• Lack of relevant services to reduce risk factors: The caregiver and child were cooperative
but services relevant to the risk factors were either inadequate or unavailable.
• Other: Specify any other reasons that the child remains in care.
Data on the reason why the child remained in care at the time of data collection
was available on 79 of the 87 children in care. Table 42 outlines the primary reason
why children remained in care at the time of data collection. The most common reason
was that risk factors present at the time of removal remained unresolved representing
73 percent (N=58) of cases followed by caregiver abandonment at 8 percent (N=6) of
cases. Risk factors identified after removal remaining unresolved accounted for a further
5 percent (N=4) of cases. Exceeding statutory time limits accounted for 4 percent (N=3)
of all cases. First Nations status was not significantly related to the reason why children
remained in care.
174
Table 42: Reason for Children Remaining in Care
Reason for Child Remaining in Care Frequency Valid PercentCumulative Percent
Risk factors present at removal remain unresolved 58 73 73
Risk factors identified after removal remain unresolved 4 5 78
Statutory time limits exceeded 3 4 82
Caregiver abandonment 6 8 90
Other 8 10 100
TOTAL 79 100
Analysis based on a sample of 79 children for whom the reason why the child remained in care was noted.
Functioning Concerns for Primary Caregiver by Caregiver
First Nations Status and Child Reunification Status
Table 43 summarizes the recorded functioning concerns for the primary caregiver by
caregiver First Nations status at the time the child was reunified or at the time of data
collection if the child remained in care. Mental health issues were the most frequently
noted concern across all groups. Significant mental health differences existed between
Non-Aboriginal caregivers whose children were reunified (20%, N=22) and those who
remained in care (18%, N=17) with χ2 (1,85) =12.366 p <.001, Cramer’s V=.381. There
were no significant differences between First Nations whose children were reunified or
remained in care.
175
Table 43: Noted Functioning Concerns for Primary Caregiver by Caregiver First Nations Status and Reunification Status of the Child
Functioning Concern
Cramer’s V (if significant)
Valid N NonAboriginal Caregiver First Nations Caregiver
Non-AboriginalFirst Nations
Remain in Care Reunified
Remain in Care Reunified
% of All Concerns #
% of All Concerns #
% of All Concerns #
% of All Concerns #
Alcohol abuse
*151 10 11 9 8 17 14 11 10
.272
Drug/solvent abuse
* **146 11 12 10 9 16 13 5 5
.292 .393
Criminal activity 131 7 7 8 7 5 4 4 4
Cognitive impairment
***126 11 12 3 3 0 0 1 1
.488
Mental health issues
***152 20 22 18 17 20 16 18 17
.381
Physical health issues 129 5 5 8 7 4 3 10 9
Few social supports 132 5 5 6 6 17 14 20 18
Maltreated as child 111 10 11 11 10 13 11 14 13
Victim of domestic violence
*148 17 18 27 25 6 5 12 11
.219
Perpetrator of domestic violence
131 2 2 1 1 2 2 4 4
TOTAL N 105 93 82 92
Analysis based on a sample of 85 removals with information on services provided to the primary caregiver post reunification or at the time of data collection if the child remained in care. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. *χ2, p<.05 **χ2, p<.01 ***χ2, p<.001
Non-Aboriginal caregivers whose children were reunified or remained in care were also
significantly differentiated regarding cognitive impairment. Overall, 11 percent (N=12) of Non-
Aboriginal caregivers whose children remained in care were noted for cognitive functioning
176
issues versus 3 percent (N=3) whose children were reunified resulting in χ2 (1,72) =17.137
p <.001, Cramer’s V=.488. There were also significant differences on the alcohol abuse factor
with Non-Aboriginal caregivers whose children remained in care being noted in 10 percent
(N=11) and those with their children reunified in 9 percent (N=8) of cases χ2 (1,86) = 6.377
p <.05, Cramer’s V=.272. There were no significant differences among First Nations primary
caregivers on either the cognitive impairment or alcohol abuse factor.
Non-Aboriginal caregivers who had their children reunified were also significantly more
likely to be victims of domestic violence (27%, N=25) than those whose children remained
in care (17%, N=18) with χ2 (1,85) = 4.092 p <.05, Cramer’s V=.219.
The only functioning factor that significantly differentiated First Nations caregivers
whose children remained in care or reunified was drug/solvent misuse. First Nations
caregivers whose children remained in care were more likely to be noted for drug/solvent
misuse (16%, N=13) versus 5 percent (N=5) of cases where children were reunified with χ2
(1,62) = 9.555 p <.01, Cramer’s V=.393. Non-Aboriginal caregivers were also significantly
differentiated on this functioning concern with 11 percent (N=12) of caregivers whose
children remained in care being noted for this problem compared to 10 percent (N=9)
whose children had been reunified with χ2 (1,84) =7.143 p <.05, Cramer’s V=.292.
Significant Service Differences between First Nations
and Non-Aboriginal Children at Time of Reunification
or at Time of Data Collection if Child Remains in Care
Table 44 compares the services provided to First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children at
the time of reunification or at the time of data collection if the child remained in care. It is
important to note that the following findings do not account for differences in the amount
of time that children spent in care. A comparison between services provided to children
who remained in care and those who were reunified follows this description. Overall, First
Nations children were more likely to receive services than Non-Aboriginal children at the
time of reunification or at the time of data collection if the child remained in care.
177
Table 44: Services Provided to First Nations and Non-Aboriginal Children at Time of Reunification or Data Collection if the Child Remains in Care
Service
Cramer’s V (if
Significant)NonAboriginal
Children (N=103)First Nations Children
(N=102)
% of All Services Provided
Number Receiving Service
% of All Services Provided
Number Receiving Service
Mental health assessment 6 11 2 9
Mental health treatment 14 24 8 30
Physical health assessment*** .324 6 11 11 41
Physical health treatment** .211 8 13 8 32
Dental assessment*** .308 4 6 8 31
Dental treatment*** .333 2 4 8 30
Disability supports 2 4 0 2
Mentorship*** .382 4 7 11 41
Educational supports 14 24 6 24
Employment services 0 2 0 0
Social assistance 0 0 0 2
Recreation** .243 24 41 12 46
Cultural services*** .495 0 0 11 41
Spiritual services** .245 2 3 5 19
Substance misuse assessment 0 0 0 1
Substance misuse treatment 0 0 0 1
Behavior management 5 9 4 17
Child development 6 11 5 19
Other service 0 1 0 0
TOTAL 171 386
Analysis based on a sample of 197 removals with information on services provided to the child post reunification or remained in care at time of data collection. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. *χ2, p<.05 **χ2, p<.01 ***χ2, p<.001
First Nations children were more likely to receive a physical health assessment than
Non-Aboriginal children χ2 (1,197) =20.733, p <.001, Cramer’s V=.324 and were also
more likely to receive physical health treatment χ2 (1,197) =8.732, p <.05, Cramer’s
V=.211. First Nations children were also more likely to receive dental assessments χ2
(1,197) =18.692, p <.001, Cramer’s V=.308 and dental treatment χ2 (1,197) =21.876,
p <.001, Cramer’s V=.333 and mentorship services χ2 (1,197) =4.124, p <.001, Cramer’s
178
V=.382. Significance levels were also detected for recreation services χ2 (1,197) =11.587,
p <.01, Cramer’s V=.243; cultural services χ2 (1,197) =48.222, p <.001, Cramer’s V=.495
and spiritual services χ2 (1,197) =11.865, p <.01, Cramer’s V=.245.
Comparing Services for Non-Aboriginal and first Nations Children Who Were Reunified or Remained in Care
Table 45 compares the services provided to Non-Aboriginal and First Nations children
who were reunified or remained in care at the time of data collection. Overall results
suggest that children in care were more likely to receive services than children who were
reunified with family. Non-Aboriginal children in care were significantly more likely to
receive services than Non-Aboriginal children who were reunified χ2 (1,210) =12.220,
p <.001, Cramer’s V=.344 and there were not significant differences among First Nations
children who remained in care or who were reunified.
Significant Service Differences for Non-Aboriginal Children Who Were Reunified or Remained in Care
Non-Aboriginal children who remained in care were more likely to receive a physical
health assessment than children who were reunified χ2 (1,95) =5.552, p <.05, Cramer’s
V=.242 and were also more likely to receive a dental assessment χ2 (1,95) =9.607, p <.05,
Cramer’s V=.318. Children in care were also more likely to receive dental assessments
χ2 (1,95) =9.607, p <.05, Cramer’s V=.318 and dental treatment χ2 (1,95) =6.264,
p <.05, Cramer’s V=.257 and other services χ2 (1,95) =4.124, p <.05, Cramer’s V=.208.
Significance levels were also detected for spiritual services but as the cell count was less
than 5, this result is not reliable.
The most significant differences among Non-Aboriginal children in care and those who
were reunified were for educational support services χ2 (1,95) =12.721, p <.001, Cramer’s
V=.366 and recreation services χ2 (1,95) =19.828, p <.001, Cramer’s V=.366.
179
Tabl
e 45
: Ser
vice
s Pr
ovid
ed t
o Ch
ildre
n by
Fir
st N
atio
ns a
nd F
irst
Nat
ions
Sta
tus
and
by R
euni
fica
tion
Sta
tus
(Yes
/No)
Serv
ice
Cram
er’s
V
(if s
igni
fican
t)N
onA
bori
gina
l Chi
ldre
n (N
=95
)Fi
rst
Nat
ions
Chi
ldre
n(N
=10
2)
Non
-Ab
orig
inal
Firs
t N
atio
nsRe
mai
n in
car
e
(N=
38)
Reun
ified
(N
=57
)Re
mai
n in
car
e
(N=
41)
Reun
ified
(N
=61
)
% o
f all
serv
ices
Num
ber
rece
ivin
g se
rvic
e%
of a
ll se
rvic
es
Num
ber
rece
ivin
g se
rvic
e%
of a
ll se
rvic
es
Num
ber
rece
ivin
g se
rvic
e%
of a
ll se
rvic
es
Num
ber
rece
ivin
g se
rvic
e
Men
tal h
ealth
trea
tmen
t11
1319
115
1211
18
Phys
ical
hea
lth a
sses
smen
t*
*7
85
310
2410
17.2
42.3
07
Phys
ical
hea
lth tr
eatm
ent
78
55
717
915
Dent
al a
sses
smen
t**
*5
60
08
197
12.3
18.2
84
Dent
al tr
eatm
ent*
***
*4
40
010
244
6.2
57.5
24
Disa
bilit
y su
ppor
ts2
24
20
01
2
Men
tors
hip
22
95
819
1322
Educ
atio
nal s
uppo
rts
***
***
1517
127
819
35
.366
.441
Empl
oym
ent s
ervi
ces
22
00
00
00
Soci
al a
ssis
tanc
e0
00
00
01
2
180
Tabl
e 45
: Ser
vice
s Pr
ovid
ed t
o Ch
ildre
n by
Fir
st N
atio
ns a
nd F
irst
Nat
ions
Sta
tus
and
by R
euni
fica
tion
Sta
tus
(Yes
/No)
Serv
ice
Cram
er’s
V
(if s
igni
fican
t)N
onA
bori
gina
l Chi
ldre
n (N
=95
)Fi
rst
Nat
ions
Chi
ldre
n(N
=10
2)
Non
-Ab
orig
inal
Firs
t N
atio
nsRe
mai
n in
car
e
(N=
38)
Reun
ified
(N
=57
)Re
mai
n in
car
e
(N=
41)
Reun
ified
(N
=61
)
% o
f all
serv
ices
Num
ber
rece
ivin
g se
rvic
e%
of a
ll se
rvic
es
Num
ber
rece
ivin
g se
rvic
e%
of a
ll se
rvic
es
Num
ber
rece
ivin
g se
rvic
e%
of a
ll se
rvic
es
Num
ber
rece
ivin
g se
rvic
e
Recr
eatio
n**
***
*14
169
512
2910
17.3
94.4
22
Cultu
ral s
ervi
ces
***
00
00
1228
813
.470
Spiri
tual
ser
vice
s**
33
00
511
58
.221
Subs
tanc
e m
isus
e as
sess
men
t0
10
00
10
0
Subs
tanc
e m
isus
e tr
eatm
ent
00
00
01
00
Beha
vior
man
agem
ent
16
53
49
58
Child
dev
elop
men
t**
16
95
614
35
.327
Oth
er s
ervi
ce*
*10
1112
70
25
9.2
08
TOTA
L N
112
5723
316
4
Anal
ysis
base
d on
a s
ampl
e of
197
rem
oval
s w
ith in
form
atio
n on
ser
vice
s pr
ovid
ed to
the
child
pos
t reu
nific
atio
n or
rem
aine
d in
car
e at
tim
e of
dat
a co
llect
ion.
Per
cent
ages
may
not
add
to
100
due
to ro
undi
ng. *
χ2 , p<
.05
**χ2 ,
p<.0
1 **
*χ2 ,
p<.0
01
cont
inue
d
181
Significant Service Differences for First Nations Children Who Were Reunified or Remained in Care
First Nations children who remained in care were also more likely to receive a physical
health assessment than children who were reunified χ2 (1,102) =9.593, p <.05, Cramer’s
V=.307 and were also more likely to receive a dental assessment χ2 (1,102) =8.244,
p <.05, Cramer’s V=.284. First Nations children in care were also more likely to receive
dental assessments χ2 (1,95) =9.607, p <.05, Cramer’s V=.318 and dental treatment
χ2 (1,102) =28.011, p <.001, Cramer’s V=.524 and child development services χ2
(1,102) =10.893, p <.001, Cramer’s V=.327.
The most significant differences among First Nations children in care and those who
were reunified were for educational support services χ2 (1,102) =19.828, p <.001,
Cramer’s V=.441 and recreation services χ2 (1,102) =18.194, p <.001, Cramer’s V=.422
and cultural services χ2 (1,102) =22.514, p <.001, Cramer’s V=.470.
Significant Service Differences between Primary Caregivers for
First Nations and Non-Aboriginal Children at Time of Reunification
or at Time of Data Collection if Child Remains in Care
Data was collected on primary caregivers of children at the time of reunification or at time
of data collection if the child remained in care. Table 46 compares the services provided to
primary caregivers of Non-Aboriginal and First Nations children.
182
Table 46: Services Provided to the Primary Caregiver by First Nations Child Status at Time of Reunification or Data Collection if the Child Remains in Care
Service
Cramer’s V (if
Significant)NonAboriginal Children
(N=54)First Nations Children
(N=31)% of All Services Provided
Number Receiving Service
% of All Services Provided
Number Receiving Service
Supervised visits 8 8 5 7No contact order 5 5 0 0Drug testing 4 4 2 3Parent education 13 14 10 13In home parenting support*** .439 13 14 17 22
Other family/parent support 12 12 2 3Substance misuses assessment* .306 1 1 5 6
Substance misuse treatment 6 6 4 5Substance misuse support 11 11 9 11Welfare/social assistance* .342 1 1 6 7Employment training 0 0 0 1Education/literacy 0 0 0 0Food bank 0 0 0 1Shelter services 0 0 0 0Low income housing 1 1 0 1Domestic violence services 9 9 5 6Psychiatric/psychological services 9 9 7 9
Recreation services 1 1 4 5Victim support services* 3 3 6 7Medical/dental services 0 0 0 0Child/daycare services* .218 2 2 4 5Cultural services*** .454 0 0 7 9Spiritual services** .364 0 0 5 6Other caregiver service 3 0 0TOTAL 104 127
Analysis based on a sample of 85 removals with information on services provided to the primary caregiver post reunification or at the time of data collection if the child remained in care. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. *χ2, p<.05 **χ2, p<.01 ***χ2, p<.001
Primary caregivers of First Nations children were significantly more likely to receive in
home parenting support services χ2 (1,85) = 16.365, p <.001, Cramer’s V=.439. Results
indicate primary caregivers of First Nations children were significantly more likely to receive
substance misuse assessment, social assistance, child care services, cultural services and
spiritual services but these results need to be interpreted with caution given that the cell
183
sizes fell below the threshold of 5 cases required for accurate cross-tabulation analysis.
Given the low number of reunifications to the secondary (N=10) or other caregivers (N=29)
it was not possible to run reliable service data analysis on these groups as the cross tab cell
size fell below a reliable level.
Children Who Were Reunified or Remained in Care
Table 46 compares the services provided to Non-Aboriginal and First Nations children
who were reunified or remained in care at the time of data collection. Overall results
suggest that children in care were more likely to receive services than children who were
reunified with family. Non-Aboriginal children in care were significantly more likely to
receive services than Non-Aboriginal children who were reunified χ2 (1,210) =12.220,
p <.001, Cramer’s V=.344 and there were not significant differences among First Nations
children who remained in care or who were reunified.
Primary caregivers of First Nations children were significantly more likely to receive in
home parenting support services χ2 (1,85) =16.365, p <.001, Cramer’s V=.439. Results
indicate primary caregivers of First Nations children were significantly more likely to receive
substance misuse assessment, social assistance, child care services, cultural services and
spiritual services but these results need to be interpreted with caution given that the cell
sizes fell below the threshold of 5 cases required for accurate cross-tabulation analysis.
Given the low number of reunifications to the secondary (N=10) or other caregivers
(N=29) it was not possible to run reliable service data analysis on these groups as the cross
tab cell size fell below a reliable level.
Relationship between Functioning and Services Provided at
Reunification or Data Collection if the Child Remained in Care
Data was collected on primary maltreatment type and functioning concerns at the level of
the child, caregiver(s) and structural levels and services provided to the families were also
noted. This section explores whether or not there is a relationship between functioning
184
concerns and the provision of relevant services provided post reunification or at time of
data collection if the child remained in care using the Pearson correlation test.
Primary Maltreatment Type and Service Provision Post Reunification or at Time of Data Collection if Child Remains in Care
Substance misuse was the most frequently noted reason for removal accounting for
35 percent of all cases (N=59). Substance misuse concerns accounted for 39 percent of
functioning concerns for primary caregivers at the time of reunification or data collection
if the child remained in care. Data on several services related to substance misuse were
collected for the primary caregiver: drug testing, substance misuse assessment, substance
misuse support and substance misuse treatment. The following section sets out the
frequencies and correlations between the presence of substance misuse issues for the
primary caregiver and the services he/she received.
Drug testing was provided to 3 percent of primary caregivers (N=7). There was no
significant correlation existed between the notation of substance misuse concerns and the
receipt of drug testing. However there was a significant correlation between the notation
of substance misuse concerns for primary caregivers and the provision of substance misuse
assessment services while the child was in care. Substance misuse assessments were
provided to 3 percent of primary caregivers (N=7) and there was significant relationship
between this service and the notation of substance misuse concerns r (85) =.248, P<.05.
Data was also collected on substance misuse interventions. Substance misuse treatment
was provided to 5 percent of all primary caregivers (N=11) and substance misuse support
was provided to 10 percent (N=22). There was no significant relationship exists between
the notation of substance misuse and the provision of substance misuse treatment. There
was, however, a significant correlation between notation of substance misuse and the
provision of substance misuse support r (85) =.222, p<.05.
Correlations between the notation of substance misuse concerns with the secondary
caregiver and the provision of drug testing, substance misuse assessment or intervention
services were not reliable given the small cell sizes.
185
Relationship between Structural Concerns and Services at Time of Reunification or Data Collection if Child Remained in Care
Data was collected on notation of structural concerns at the time the child was reunified or
at the time of data collection if the child remained in care and the provision of services to
the primary and secondary caregiver on the basis of the same time setting. The following
section outlines the relationship between family income and related services.
Family Income and Service Provision
As noted earlier, 90 percent of all families who had their children removed had family
incomes below $25,000.00 per year at the time of reunification or data collection if
the child remained in care. Data was collected on the following poverty related services
provided for the primary and secondary caregiver while the child was in care: food banks,
welfare/social assistance, employment training, education/literacy, shelter services, and
low income housing.
There were no significant relationships between family income and the provision of
food bank, shelter, low income housing, or welfare/social assistance services for either the
primary or secondary caregiver.
Housing Concerns and Service Provision
Information was collected on safety of housing and the overcrowding of housing as well
as the following housing related services: low income housing and shelter services for
both the primary and secondary caregiver at the time the child was reunified or at the
time of data collection if the child remained in care. Unfortunately, cell sizes were so small
that correlations could not be run between housing conditions and the provision of low
income housing and shelter services for either caregiver.
186
Relationship between Child functioning at Removal and Services provided post Reunification or at the Time of data Collection if the Child Remained in Care
Unfortunately, there was no systemic recording of functioning concerns for children in care
post removal and thus the only data regarding functioning concerns is taken at the time
of removal. This section contrasts the child functioning concerns at the time of removal
with the services provided to the child post reunification or to the time of data collection
if the child remains in care. The most frequently reported child functioning concerns fell
into the “other category” (N=74), irregular school attendance (N=53), depression and
anxiety (N=40) and negative peer involvement (N=38). The functioning concerns noted in
the other category varied widely and thus no correlation to service provision was possible
for this variable. However, correlations could be run for irregular school attendance,
depression and anxiety and negative peer involvement.
For irregular school attendance, correlations were run to see if there was a significant
relationship to the provision of educational supports post reunification or at the time
of data collection for children in care. For depression and anxiety, the related service
was mental health treatment and for negative peer involvement mentorship services and
behavior management services were tested. The only significant correlation between child
functioning at removal and service provision at the time of reunification or data collection
was with regard to irregular school attendance and the provision of special education
services r(213)=.570, p<.01
Culture
Data was collected on the cultural match between services provided to the child and the
caregiver(s). The cultural match data for Non-Aboriginal children should be viewed with
some caution as instrument testing revealed a conflation between Caucasian racial origins
and culture resulting in an assumption that Caucasian children were culturally matched
187
if they were in a Caucasian home. This probably resulted in a larger number of cultural
matches for Non-Aboriginal children than actually occurred as workers did not typically
note the cultural origin of a child if they were Caucasian. This same type of conflation did
not occur with the First Nations children in the sample. Future studies should ensure that
definitions of culture address the issue of racial origin so as to avoid conflation.
Cultural and Spiritual Services While Child in Care
Cultural and spiritual service data was collected on all children during the time they
were in foster care and then after reunification or at the time of data collection if the
child remained in care. Cultural and spiritual service data was collected on caregivers
both after removal and after reunification. The quality of the data on cultural service
provision to children and caregivers after reunification or at the time of data collection if
the child remained in care needs to be viewed with some caution as file recordings rarely
commented on cultural services for Non-Aboriginal children.
As shown in Table 47 First Nations status is significantly related to the provision of
cultural services while in care χ2 (1,210) =72.08, p <.001, Cramer’s V=.586. The contrast
between First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children is quite stark with 51 percent (N=56)
of First Nations children receiving cultural services while in care as compared to only
2 percent (N=2) of Non-Aboriginal children.
188
Table 47: Cultural Services Provided to Children While in Care by First Nations and Non-Aboriginal Status
NonAboriginal First Nations TOTAL
Number
% of Non-Aboriginal Children Number
% of First Nations Children
Number of All Children
% of All Children
No cultural services provided 101 98 48 45 149 71
Cultural services provided*** 2 2 54 51 56 26
No response 0 0 5 4 5 4
TOTAL 103 100 107 100 210 100
Analysis based on a sample of 210 children for whom information on cultural service provision was collected while they were in care. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. ***χ2, p<.001
The provision of spiritual services while the child is in care follows a similar pattern, with
First Nations children being more likely to receive spiritual services (16%, N=21) than their
Non-Aboriginal peers (4%, N=4). As shown in Table 48, First Nations status is significantly
related to the provisions of spiritual services while in care χ2 (1,210) =14.042, p <.001,
Cramer’s V=.259.
Table 48: Spiritual Services Provided to Children While in Care by First Nations and Non-Aboriginal Status
NonAboriginal First Nations TOTAL
Number
% of Non-Aboriginal children Number
% of First Nations children
Number of All Children
% of All Children
No spiritual services provided 99 96 85 80 184 88
Spiritual services provided*** 4 4 17 16 21 10
No response 0 0 5 4 5 2
TOTAL 103 100 107 100 210 100
Analysis based on a sample of 210 for which information on spiritual service provision was collected while they were in care. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. ***χ2, p<.001
189
Cultural Service data at Reunification or data Collection if Child in Care
Data on the cultural service provision was collected for children at reunification or at the
time of data collection if the child remained in care. Table 49 depicts the number of children
receiving cultural services at reunification or at time of data collection if child remains in
care. Again First Nations status is significantly related to the provision of cultural services
χ2 (1,197) =48.222, p <.001, Cramer’s V=.495 with 40 percent (N=41) of First Nations
children receiving cultural services at reunification or at the time of data collection if the
child remained in care as compared to none of the Non-Aboriginal children.
Table 49: Cultural Services Provided to Children at Reunification or WEM Form Completion if Child Remains in Care by First Nations and Non-Aboriginal Status
NonAboriginal First Nations TOTAL
Number
% of Non-Aboriginal Children Number
% of First Nations Children
Number of All Children
% of All Children
No cultural services provided 95 100 61 60 156 79
Cultural services provided*** 0 0 41 40 41 21
TOTAL 95 100 107 100 197 100
Analysis based on a sample of 197 for which information on cultural service provision was available at reunification or data collection if child remains in care by First Nations and Non-Aboriginal status. ***χ2, p<.001
Spiritual Service data at Reunification or data Collection if Child in Care
Information on the spiritual service provision was collected for children at reunification or
at the time of data collection if the child remained in care. Table 50 shows the number of
children receiving spiritual services at reunification or at time of data collection if child remains
in care. Again First Nations status is significantly related to the provision of spiritual services χ2
(1,197) =11.865, p <.001, Cramer’s V=.245. Only 3 percent (N=3) of Non-Aboriginal children
received spiritual services as compared to 19 percent (N=22) of First Nations children.
190
Table 50: Spiritual Services Provided to Children at Reunification or WEM Form Completion if Child Remains in Care by First Nations and Non-Aboriginal Status
NonAboriginal First Nations TOTAL
Number
% of Non-Aboriginal Children Number
% of First Nations Children
Number of All Children
% of All Children
No spiritual services provided 92 97 83 82 175 89
Spiritual services provided*** 3 3 19 19 22 11
TOTAL 95 100 102 100 197 100
Based on a sample of 197 for which information on spiritual service provision was available at reunification or data collection if child remains in care by First Nations and Non-Aboriginal status. ***χ2, p<.001
Cultural Placement Match for Children as of Reunification or
Data Collection Date
Data was collected on the cultural match of children at the time of data collection and
results are summarized in Table 51. In interpreting this data for Non-Aboriginal children,
please recall the apparent conflation between race and culture detected during data
collection. The possible conflation between culture and race for Non-Aboriginal children
may have resulted in social workers recording a cultural match on the basis that a Caucasian
child was placed with a Caucasian family without considering the specific cultural group
of either the child or family (i.e. British, German, Russian, or Swiss).
191
Table 51: Cultural Match of Placement for Child at the Time of Data Collection
PlacementNonAboriginal
children First Nations children TOTAL
Number
% of Non-Aboriginal Children in Care Number
% of First Nations Children in Care Number
% of All Children in Care
Child reunified with family (culturally matched) 49 52 45 48 94 49
Child placed with extended family (culturally matched)
13 14 29 29 42 22
Child placed with non relative (culturally matched
25 26 17 17 42 22
Child placed in culturally matched institution 3 3 0 0 3 2
Sub Total (culturally matched placements) 90 95 91 94 181 94
Child placed with extended family (not culturally matched)
0 0 1 0 1 1
Child placed with non relative (not culturally matched
3 2 6 6 9 5
Child placed in institution (not culturally matched) 1 1 1 1 2 1
Sub Total (not culturally matched) 4 3 8 7 12 7
TOTAL 94 99 193
Analysis based on a sample of 193 children for which information on the cultural match of placement was available as of the time of data collection. *χ2, p<.05.
Overall, results suggest that 94 percent (N=181) of children were in culturally matched
placements at the time of data collection. There were only minor differences related to First
Nations status. There was statistically significant relationship between First Nations status and
in the number of children placed in culturally matched extended family placements. Twenty-
nine percent (N=29) of First Nations children were placed with culturally matched extended
family versus 14 percent (N=13) of Non-Aboriginal children. Culturally matched placements
with non relatives were favored by Non-Aboriginal children with 26 percent (N=25) being
placed in this setting as compared with 17 percent (N=17) for First Nations children.
192
Predicting Reunification
An iterative summary of the logistic regression that best predicts reunification is presented
in Table 52. It first enters reason for removal which has been collapsed into one variable
due to sample size issues and child age followed by the second block related to whether
or not the child, primary and secondary caregiver received services while the child was in
care. The third block relates to structural factors and includes three dichotomous variables:
overcrowded homes, unsafe housing, and family income below $25,000.00 per annum.
The fourth block of variables account for First Nations status of the child and primary
caregiver. As age was used as matching factor and First Nations status is closely correlated
with receiving services from Mi’kmaw Children and Family Services, age is dropped as a
variable from the regression for blocks 4 and 5. The final block in the regression includes the
dichotomous predictor of the primary caregiver having at least one functioning concern. It
was not possible to disaggregate maltreatment type or include the secondary caregiver’s
First Nations status in the analysis as small cell sizes compromised the analysis.
Table 52: Binomial Regression Predicting Reunification
Block Variable(s) BStandard Error Wald
Degrees Freedom Significance
Adjusted Odds Ratio
OneReason for removal
Maltreatment, Substance misuse or mental health
-.159 .204 .606 1 .436 .853
Child age at removal
.011 .496 1.163 1 .281 1.706
Nagelkerke R2 = .008 Correct classification: 58% Model Chi-square: 2.850 df 2 -2 Log likelihood 158.361 Homer and Lemenshow: .750
Two Services at removal
Primary caregiver received services
.222 .081 7.478 1 .436 .828
Secondary caregiver received services
.470 .443 1.128 1 .288 1.600
Child received services
-.322 .089 13.042 1 .000 .725
193
Table 52: Binomial Regression Predicting Reunification
Block Variable(s) BStandard Error Wald
Degrees Freedom Significance
Adjusted Odds Ratio
Nagelkerke R2 = .234 Correct classification: 74% Model Chi-square: 22.378*** df 5 -2 Log likelihood 136.719 Homer and Lemenshow: .750
ThreeStructural factors at removal
Overcrowded home
-1.179 .634 3.464 1 .063 .308
Unsafe housing
-.229 .482 .225 1 .635 .795
Family income below 25K per annum
-.265 .957 .077 1 .782 .767
Nagelkerke R2 = .276 Correct classification: 71% Model Chi-square: 26.916** df 8 -2 Log likelihood: 132.181 Homer and Lemenshow: .738
Four*First Nations status
First Nations child
.849 .755 1.249 1 .264 2.325
First Nations primary caregiver
-.184 .675 .074 1 .785 .832
Nagelkerke R2 = .157 Correct classification: 67% Model Chi-square: 9.606 df 10 -2 Log likelihood: 147.186Homer and Lemenshow: .157
Five*Functioning of primary caregiver
At least one functioning concern for primary caregiver
1.695 .690 6.027 1 .014 5.447
Nagelkerke R2 = .228 Correct classification: 67% Model Chi-square: 22.140* df 11 -2 Log likelihood: 139.783Homer and Lemenshow: .051
Analysis based on a sample of 117 cases with information on all factors. Age was dropped from the analysis for blocks 4 and 5.
The clinical factors of maltreatment type and child age yielded adjusted odds ratios of
.853 and 1.706 respectively and did not significantly predict reunification. The second block
of predictors related to service provision suggest that while whether or not the caregiver
received services did not predict reunification, services to the child were significant (adjusted
odds ratio = .725, p<.001). Consistent with the homogeneity of the sample on income at
the time of removal, family income was not a significant predictor of reunification, nor was
194
unsafe housing or overcrowding of the home. First Nations child and primary caregiver
status were also not significant.
The cumulative effect of the model accounted for 23 percent of the variance in the
outcome variable suggesting that as an aggregate these factors may be important in
predicting reunification.
However, the regression results must be viewed within the limitations outlined earlier
and in light of the fact that the Homer and Lemenshow test indicates a falling off of the
model’s goodness of fit in block 5.
Summary
The following major findings highlighted in this chapter include:
1) Removal Rates by First Nations Status. First Nations children are 3.4–6 times more
likely to be removed than non Aboriginal children in Nova Scotia from 2003-2005
2) Structural Factors Very Evident at Time of Removal and Reunification. Over
95 percent of the families in the sample have incomes below 25,000.00 per year.
This is extraordinary given that the average income in Nova Scotia is about 43,000.00
and only 33 percent of families have incomes below $33,000.00. What this seems to
suggest is that poverty is a key factor streaming people toward removal. There were
no significant differences between First Nations and non Aboriginal families on this
factor—it is simply a very pressing concern for both groups. Another poverty related
factor was the source of income and here First Nations are more likely to rely on
benefits than employment income than non Aboriginal families. Housing was also
significantly related to First Nations status but this was mostly attributed to the fact
that there is more rental housing off reserve accessible to Non-Aboriginal families
and more band housing on reserve accessible exclusively by First Nations. The most
important housing issue was that only 3 percent of families in the sample owned their
own homes despite a home ownership rate of 71 percent Nova Scotia.
195
Poverty continued to be a factor at the time of reunification or data collection if the
child remained in care where 90 percent of families had incomes below $25,000.00 per
year. Housing type patterns at this time were consistent with those noted at the time of
removal.
3) Child Functioning Differences. There were very few differences on child functioning
related to First Nations status. The only factors for which there was significance pointed
to non Aboriginal children being noted for “other behavioural/emotional problems,”
special education services, positive toxicology at birth, psychiatric disorders, and other
health conditions more often than First Nations. First Nations children were noted
more often for irregular school attendance.
4) Removal of Other Children. Another child was removed from the home in 70 percent
of the cases.
5) Primary Caregiver Functioning Differences at Removal. There were few significant
differences in the functioning of the primary caregiver related to First Nations status.
First Nations primary caregivers were more often noted for alcohol abuse, maltreated
as a child and very slightly more likely to be noted for perpetrating domestic violence.
The vast majority of First Nations and non Aboriginal caregivers experienced more than
one functioning concern.
6) Reasons for Removal. The most significant reasons for removal are related to caregiver
substance misuse, mental health and anticipatory forms of abuse/neglect. Consistent
with other research, child maltreatment type does not predict reunification.
7) Reunification. Over the time frame of the study, 59 percent of the children were
reunified. Of the children who were reunified, 57 percent were reunified within 12
months of removal and 84 percent were reunified within 24 months of removal. Of the
children who were reunified, 25 percent were “reunified” with a caregiver other than
those who were in the home at the time of removal.
196
8) Legal Status of Children in Care. Over 69 percent of the children who remained
in care were in permanent custody at the time of data collection. No First Nations
children were adopted as compared to 20 percent of Non-Aboriginal children who
remained in care at the time of data collection.
9) Service Differentials to Children in Care and Those Reunified. Non Aboriginal
children in care are significantly more likely to get more services than children who are
reunified. This same difference did not exist for First Nations.
10) Cultural Services. First Nations children in care are significantly more likely to get cultural
services (51%) versus 2 percent of non Aboriginal children in care. This trend is also
apparent in spiritual services although to a lesser degree with 16 percent of First Nations
children in care receiving spiritual services versus 4 percent of non Aboriginal children.
11) Predicting Reunification. Although analysis was limited due to sample size, the best
predictor model accounted for 23 percent of the variance in the outcome variable
“reunified or remained in care.” Children living in over-crowded homes with caregivers
with multiple functioning concerns were more likely to remain in care. Many of the
factors were not significant but in combination produced a reasonable model. The
factors were grouped according to 1) child factors, 2) services, 3) structural issues,
4) First Nations status, and 5) caregiver functioning.
12) Correlation between Services and Child/Family Functioning. There were very few
services provided to families to deal with poverty issues even though the vast majority
of them were poor. There was a correlation between substance misuse and referral to
substance misuse assessment but not so much for substance misuse treatment. There
were no correlations between the most frequently reported child functioning concerns
and the services provided to the child while in care.
The next chapter reviews the findings within the context of the research questions before
going on to discuss other significant results.
197
CHApTER 6
We are all made of stars: Implications of WEM for the breath of life Theory
Many of the world’s great spiritual, religious and scientific traditions are consumed with
exploring how the first stars were created, giving birth to our universe (Campbell & Moyers,
1991; Knudtson & Suzuki, 1992; Falk, 2002; Hawking & Modinow, 2005). What is known
is these early stars imploded giving birth to all forms of matter across time- including
human beings. The Mi’kmaw believe the stars’ essence was captured by the Great Spirit
who in turn created the Mi’kmaw lands and Mi’kmaw peoples (Mi’kmaq Nova Scotia,
n.d.). Interestingly, every Indigenous creation story I know in North America references the
universe as the source of life. Nobel Laureate Stephen Hawking suggests that one of the
great mysteries of the universe is how the interconnected elements, time, and matter play
out in human experience (Hawking and Modinow, 2005).
Social work has not begun to conceptualize a reality where human existence is viewed
within an interconnected reality across space and time. Social work theories cut reality
into perspectives or loci of analysis at defined points in time and child welfare epitomizes
this type of segmentation. It assesses risk to individual children at defined points of time
with little attention to factors beyond the experience of the child’s family. Child welfare
only believes what it can see and it does not look everywhere.
This dissertation proposed four new innovations in child welfare: 1) proposing a new
theory for conceptualizing structural risks affecting First Nations children known as the
breath of life theory; 2) conducting the first study to compare the experiences of children
who are removed from their families; 3) providing an example of how First Nations ethical
standards are applied in a bicultural study; and 4) exploring study findings within the breath
of life model.
This chapter begins by identifying the results to the research questions posed in Table 1
before moving onto explore those results within the context of the breath of life theory.
198
The discussion highlights trends in child welfare as it is generally practiced in Canada versus
focusing specifically on the Nova Scotia context except where specifically indicated.
As shown in Figure 17, the Canadian Incidence Study on Reported Child Abuse and
Neglect collects data on children from the time of the report to case disposition. The When
Everything Matters Study picks up where CIS leaves off by collecting data from the time of
child removal to reunification or at the time of data collection if the child remained in care.
Despite WEM’s limitations (i.e. non random sample and small sample sizes for some variables)
it represents the only study on First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children in Canada.
Figure 17: Data collected by the CIS and WEM
Report Investigation
Substantiated
Not Substantiated
Reuni�ed
Remains in Care
Canadian Incidence Study on Reported Child Abuse and Neglect collects data from time of child welfare report to
investigation disposition (Trocme et al., 2001)
Not covered by CIS or WEM
When Everything Matters collects data from time of child removal to time of reuni�cation
or to time data collection if child remains in care
Child Removed
Voluntary services,care and
supervisionorders
Table 53, summarizes the specific responses to the research questions explored in the
WEM study.
199
Table 53: Research Question, Hypothesis and Results Summary
Research Question Hypothesis Results
Do the rates per thousand of First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children removed from their families differ?
First Nations children will be removed at higher rates than Non-Aboriginal children.
First Nations children were removed at 3.4-6 times the rate of Non-Aboriginal children.
Do the rates per thousand of First Nations versus Non-Aboriginal children who are reunified with family or remain in child welfare care differ?
First Nations children will be overrepresented among children who remain in foster care and less likely to be reunified with family than Non-Aboriginal children.
Limitations in administrative data meant that reunification rates could not be calculated.
Do the factors resulting in the reunification or continued placement of First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children differ?
Neglect is more likely to be the primary type of maltreatment for First Nations children in child welfare care. Structural factors such as poverty, poor housing, and caregiver substance misuse substantially account for the overrepresentation.
Caregiver incapacity related to substance misuse was the most common reason for removal. Very high rates of poverty and low rates of home ownership were prevalent among all families who had children removed.
Do the number and nature of services provided to First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children and caregivers differ?
First Nations children and caregivers are less likely to receive services than Non-Aboriginal children and caregivers.
There were few significant differences in services to primary caregivers related to First Nations status.
First Nations children were more likely to receive cultural services than Non-Aboriginal children.
Non-Aboriginal children in care were significantly more likely to receive services than children who were reunified. There were no significant differences among First Nations children.
Do the aims of services provided to First Nations align with the factors contributing to reunification or continued placement?
Services provided to First Nations children and their families do not address the structural factors that increase the likelihood that First Nations children will remain in child welfare care.
Overall, services for the primary caregiver were correlated with the major functioning concerns noted at removal and reunification or time of data collection if the child remained in child welfare care.
Caregivers rarely received services related to poverty and substance misuse alleviation.
The only correlation between child functioning concerns and services was with irregular school attendance and special education services.
As noted in Table 53, WEM found removal rates for First Nations children were much
higher for First Nations children than Non-Aboriginal children throughout the study. First
Nations removal rates varied from a low of 3.4 times more likely than Non-Aboriginal
children in 2003, to 5.6 times more likely in 2004, to 6 times more likely in 2005. This is
consistent with the literature suggesting First Nations children are drastically overrepresented
200
among children in child welfare care in Canada (Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples,
1996; Blackstock, 2003; Auditor General of Canada, 2008) and Nova Scotia (MacDonald
& MacDonald, 2007). The longstanding overrepresentation of First Nations children in
child welfare care has persisted despite well meaning efforts by western child welfare
providers to adapt the system in culturally appropriate ways. This has led many to believe
that when it comes to First Nations children the western child welfare system is beyond
repair and new approaches are needed.
As Figure 18 suggests, a substantial change in theoretical paradigm is needed, given the
failure of western social work theories to interface with First Nations ontology and to address
the structural risks underlying the overrepresentation of First Nations children in care.
Figure 18: Current Child Welfare Practice
World of the Big (Societal)
World of the Small (children and families)
MINIMAL
FOCUS
Un
pre
dic
tab
lePr
edic
tab
le
SUBSTANTIAL
FOCUS
Assumption:Child welfare withmodest adaptation
serves everyone
No explicit mechanismor focus to bindworld of big toworld of small
Expressedin programs,
services,practice,
policy, andresearch
Child safety paramount consideration(Results in knowledge and interventionfocus on where child risk is manifested
versus where it is sourced
Culture Knowledge(Western reality privileged –
external versusinternal focus of SW)
Structured Risk(Identified but inadequate
frameworks for addressing atlevel of child/family)
Focus on aspects of familyand child welfare dominated
by western culture
Ecological and structuralapproaches deal with aspectsof big and small but do not
propose a framework forbinding world of big and small
As suggested in Figure 19, when the breath of life framework is applied to First Nations
child welfare, a more meaningful way for thinking about the structural risk affecting First
Nations children in the child welfare system emerges. The breath of life of model is not
unique in terms of the identification of structural risks which can arguably be done by
201
invoking structural theory, ecological theory and anti-oppressive approaches. The unique
contributions of the breath of life model relates to: (1) identifying that balance among
the relational worldview principles is critical for individual and collective well being (2)
acknowledging the importance of culture, context and time as factors that shape the
manifestation of the worldview principles and (3) acknowledging ancestral knowledge
and multiple dimensions of reality.
Figure 19: Breath of Life Theory Applied to Child Welfare
World of the Big (Interconnection of time, reality, nature, and humanity)
World of the Small (Individuals or groups)
BALANCED
FOCUS
Pred
icta
ble
Pred
icta
ble
BALANCED
FOCUS
Relational Worldview PrinciplesPhysical: water, food, shelter
Emotional: belonging(attachment to family and community)
Spiritual: spirituality and life purpose
Cognitive: self – and communityactualization, identity, service
Principles are interdependent –optimal functioning achieved when
balance is achieved within andamong all dimensions
Expressedphysically,mentally,
emotionally and spiritually
Expressedphysically,mentally,
emotionally and spiritually
Assets and risk to groups ofchildren and families
Cultural and contextualstrings give rise to
different manifestationsof humanity
Structural assets and risk
The object of the breath of life theory is to provide a framework to better address
structural risks facing First Nations children so the first theoretical challenge is to demonstrate
why the current child welfare system based on western ontology and assumptions is ill-
equipped to respond to the structural risks eroding the well being of First Nations children.
The second challenge is to show how First Nations ontology as expressed through the
breath of life theory provides a more relevant framework to conceptualize and respond to
the safety and well being of First Nations children.
This chapter begins by challenging the efficacy of the current child welfare system
using the over-representation of First Nations children as a locus point. Three fundamental
questions relating to the over-representation of First Nations children in child welfare
202
care provide a platform for my argument that when it comes to protecting First Nations
children, western child welfare is not up to the job: (1) what does child welfare do? (2)
who is responsible for the overrepresentation of First Nations children in care and (3) does
western child welfare make First Nations children safer?
The exploration of these questions unearths some of the fundamental disconnects
between western child welfare and First Nations culture and realities. The chapter then
goes on to situate the study findings within the context of the breath of life theory
paying particular attention to how the WEM findings support, or aggress, the following
fundamental tenants of breath of life theory:
• Anexplorationofthevalidityoftherelationalworldviewprincipleswithanemphasis
on the physical and spiritual categories;
• Anexplorationofcultureandserviceprovisionasashapingfactorsontherelational
worldview principles and
• TheinfluenceoftimeasconceptualizedwithinFirstNationsontology.
Implications for theoretical development and child welfare research and practice are
discussed.
What does child welfare do?
I have practiced child welfare for over 20 years and I am still not sure what it does. I
cannot understand why there are so many poor children in child welfare care. I cannot
understand the difference between social disadvantage and child maltreatment and
I cannot understand why a system faced with such overwhelming overrepresentation
of First Nations children in care is not marshalling all of its resources to deal with the
problem. Child protection laws across Canada point to the protection of children from
maltreatment as child welfare’s primary role guided by principles of child safety, well being
and/or best interests. This involves a delicate balance between the privacy and sanctity
203
of families at one end and the need to protect children against child maltreatment at
the other (Bala et al. 2004; Mandell et al., 2006). It also implies that concepts of safety
and well being and best interests are clearly understood, and these concepts, as they are
understood, are good for all children. It also assumes that child welfare is intervening in
cases of child maltreatment instead of social disadvantage and that the strength of the
child welfare intervention is proportionate to the harm to the child. The evidence relating
to the overrepresentation of First Nations children challenges all of these assumptions.
First Nations agree children must be protected from child maltreatment (RCAP,
1996; Assembly of First Nations, 2007) and even agree with the major typologies of
child maltreatment (Earle-Fox, 2004). However, First Nations would argue that the
overrepresentation of First Nations children in child welfare is driven by social disadvantage
and not child maltreatment (Assembly of First Nations, 2007). Specifically, First Nations
allege that western child welfare authorities remove their children under the guise of
neglect doing very little about the poverty, social exclusion and discrimination undermining
the capacity of First Nations caregivers to protect their children (RCAP, 1996; Blackstock,
2003; Assembly of First Nations, 2007). In effect, First Nations call attention to the fact
that child welfare laws are applied unilaterally without addressing the reality that resources
for parents to successfully protect their children are not evenly distributed. In other
words, child welfare applies equal treatment to un-equals expecting equal results. As the
following evidence demonstrates, First Nations have substantial evidence to support their
positions that: (1) overrepresentation is driven by social disadvantage versus maltreatment,
(2) that western child welfare is ill-prepared to address the factors underlying the social
disadvantage and (3) that child harm and functioning factors have little to do with child
welfare interventions.
The CIS has found that First Nations children are not at greater risk of being reported
for abuse than Non-Aboriginal children. Neglect fueled by poverty, poor housing and
substance misuse are directly related to the over-representation of First Nations children
in care (Trocmé et al., 1996). WEM did not find significant differences in maltreatment
204
type post removal but did find pervasive evidence that poverty, poor housing and
caregiver substance misuse were key factors streaming children towards removal. Given
that WEM only collected data on children who have been removed from their families
which is arguably the most severe form of child welfare intervention, it is important to
view structural risks as important factors in maltreatment prevention and at earlier stages
of child welfare intervention. There is no doubt that each of these factors erodes child
outcomes but the fundamental question for child welfare is do they amount to child
maltreatment and should child maltreatment responses be used to address them?
If the overrepresentation of First Nations children is primarily driven by safety concerns
then it would make sense that social workers should rate the harm to First Nations
children at higher levels than for Non-Aboriginal children and these higher levels of
harm should in turn be linked to higher levels of child functioning concerns. CIS found
no significant differences in social worker assessments of the harm experienced by First
Nations children nor did differences in child functioning explain the overrepresentation
of First Nations children in care (Trocmé, et al., 2006). Although WEM did not include a
harm measure, it echoed the findings of CIS suggesting that child functioning did not
explain the overrepresentation of First Nations children removed from families. Consistent
with CIS and WEM, other research suggests that child harm measures are less significant
when predicting child welfare involvement than child income and race. For example, some
researchers have found that child welfare workers conflate poverty with maltreatment
and are much more likely to label poor families neglectful than their higher income
counterparts (Lindsey, 2004; Thoma, 2007). Hampton & Newberger (1985) found that
poverty influences physical abuse assessments as well. In their study of 805 children,
medical professionals were more apt to label child injury occurring in poor homes as
physical abuse whereas physical injuries occurring in higher income homes were more
likely to be labeled accidents regardless of the severity of the injury.
Poor housing is closely correlated with household income. Putting it bluntly, families
with higher incomes can afford better housing and Non-Aboriginal families, on balance,
205
have higher incomes than First Nations (RCAP, 1996, Loppie-Redding & Wien, 2009). It is
no surprise that CIS (Trocmé et al., 2006) finds First Nations families are more likely to live
in poor housing than Non-Aboriginal families. WEM did not show substantial differences
in housing but again as housing is closely related to poverty it is likely that poor housing
is a streaming factor toward removal creating a pretty homogeneous sample post removal
composed of poor Non-Aboriginal and First Nations families living in poor housing.
Substance misuse is more complicated. It is an issue where personal responsibility for
change is definitely implied both in terms of taking of substances and stopping the misuse.
The harms to children resulting from substance misuse run the gamut from higher risk for
maltreatment, and poor developmental outcomes to higher rates of substance misuse by
the children as they grow to adulthood (Legal Action Center, 2003; Haight et al., 2009).
However, it is important to acknowledge that there are a series of factors that affect the
parenting capacity of substance misusing caregivers such as the type(s) of substances
misused, the severity of addiction, the presence of a non-addictive caregiver, and other
family-functioning concerns (Garbarino, 1995). Timely access to detoxification and
substance misuse treatment services is also important for caregivers who are motivated
to deal with their issues (Irvine, 2006; Haight et al., 2009) and the provision of caregiver
substance misuse treatment has been linked to children spending shorter periods of time
in foster care (Green et al., 2006).
Although there are no national statistics on the nature and incidence of substance
misuse among Non-Aboriginal and First Nations in Canada, it is generally recognized
that First Nations have the highest rates of drug and alcohol abstinence. Contrary to
popular stereotype, First Nations do not have significantly higher rates of alcoholism
meaning that higher alcohol abstinence rates cannot be adequately explained by
recovering alcoholics choosing not to drink (Thatcher, 2004). First Nations are among
the most likely to experience binge drinking and drug abuse (Thatcher, 2004). Thatcher
(2004) argues that poverty and the intergenerational impacts of colonization substantially
explain the overrepresentation of binge drinking and drug abuse among First Nations.
206
This is consistent with the findings of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996)
which drew a relationship between substance misuse among Aboriginal peoples and the
multi-generational impacts of residential schools. This suggests that substance misuse
cuts across the caregiver and structural levels meaning that effective interventions should
account for both.
The bottom line is child welfare systems across the country are continuing to remove
disproportionate numbers of poor children from their families without really understanding
what is causing it. Does the safety and well being of the child as a paramount consideration
mean child welfare is relegated to dealing with the symptoms as they present at the family
level? If it is only family symptoms we are only dealing with then this brings us back to the
problem of understanding why First Nations children are being removed at far higher rates
even though they are not at greater levels of harm than Non-Aboriginal children coming to
the attention of child welfare. I am not questioning that the First Nations children coming
to the attention of child welfare are disadvantaged, there is lots of evidence they are, but
the job of child protection is to assess the safety and well being of children in cases of child
maltreatment not social disadvantage and it is important that it knows the difference.
Where does the responsibility for overrepresentation lie?
The location of factors such as poverty, housing and substance misuse has important
implications for the overrepresentation of First Nations children in child welfare. The evidence
suggests that factors driving the overrepresentation are primarily located at a structural
level meaning that caregivers have minimal ability to influence change and yet child welfare
primarily locates its risk judgment and interventions on caregivers. In fact child welfare
statutes explicitly state that “parents” have “primary responsibility” for the safety of their
children (Bala et al., 2003). I agree with that as long as parents have “primary capability”
to keep their children safe. This section explores why assumptions about the location of
responsibility for child risk and how child risk assessment and parenting assessment models
207
can fabricate a false reality where social workers locate responsibility for change only where
they are looking and the place they look the most is in the family.
CIS suggests that the preponderance of the factors influencing the overrepresentation
of First Nations children are structural in nature taking the form of poverty, poor housing
and substance misuse (Trocmé et al., 2006). Data from the CIS-2003 also indicates that
poverty is a prevalent factor among families reported to child welfare and poverty levels
are deepest among First Nations families. Moreover, regression analysis of CIS-2003 data
suggest that poverty is a very significant factor predicting the substantiation of child
welfare reports (Trocmé et al., 2006) which may partially explain the overrepresentation of
First Nations children in child welfare care. As shown in Table 54, 53 percent of families for
whom income data was recorded earned less than $25,000 per annum. An overwhelming
85 percent of First Nations families across all investigation outcome categories made less
than $25,000 per annum as compared to 48 percent of Non-Aboriginal families. Among
families who had their children removed, 91 percent of First Nations families had incomes
below $25,000 per annum versus 53 percent of Non-Aboriginal families. The poverty
levels were lower for families for whom the case was not substantiated and the child was
not placed in care. Among this group, 77 percent of First Nations families had incomes
below $25,000 as compared to 45 percent of Non-Aboriginal families. Some caution is
needed in interpreting these results as income data is missing in approximately 49 percent
of cases included in CIS-2003.
208
Table 54: Canadian Incidence Study on Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (2003) Annual Family Income
Annual Family Income
Investigation Outcome
NonAboriginal (excluding missing data)
First Nations (excluding missing data)
Non Aboriginal andFirst Nations
Number
% of Non-Aboriginal Children Number
% of First Nations Children Number
Cumulative % of All Cases
Below $15,000
Not substantiated and not placed
7,003 15% 1,545 27% 8,548 8%
Substantiated and not placed
9,523 22% 2,916 45% 12,439 12%
Substantiated and placed in care
963 28% 811 54% 1,774 2%
Sub Totals 17,489 19% 5,272 40% 22,761 22%
$15,000–$24,999
Not substantiated and not placed
13,903 30% 2,369 42% 16,272 15%
Substantiated and not placed
12,618 30% 2,853 44% 15,471 15%
Substantiated and placed in care
832 24% 593 39% 675 1%
Sub Totals 27,353 29% 5,815 45% 17,418 53%
$25,000–$39,999
Not substantiated and not placed
13,313 29% 716 13% 14,029 13%
Substantiated and not placed
11,454 27% 538 8% 11,512 11%
Substantiated and placed in care
868 25% 71 5% 939 1%
Sub Totals 25,635 28% 1,325 10% 26,480 78%
Over $40,000
Not substantiated and not placed
12,468 27% 432 8% 12,900 12%
Substantiated and not placed
9,101 21% 157 2% 9,258 9%
Substantiated and placed in care
750 22% 62 4% 812 1%
Sub Totals 22,319 24% 651 5% 22,970 100%
Sub Totals across income categories
Not substantiated and not placed 46,687 50% 5,062 39% 51,749 49%
Substantiated and not placed 42,696 46% 6,464 50% 49,160 46%
Substantiated and placed in care 3,413 4% 1,537 11% 4,950 5%
TOTAL All cases with income data 92,796 100% 13,063 100% 105,859 100%
Based on 2003 CIS unpublished weighted data. Fallon (2009)
209
These poverty levels are particularly stark when one considers that Statistics Canada
(2001) reports the median family income for Canadian families in 2001 was $72,524
per annum based on 2000 constant dollars. A report by the National Council of Welfare
(2008) suggests First Nations families receive 47 percent less income than the average
Non-Aboriginal family.
Although the links between poverty, poor housing, and child maltreatment have been
well documented, very few families in the WEM study received any poverty-related
services. For example, Table 34 sets out the services provided to primary caregivers of Non-
Aboriginal and First Nations children at the time of removal. Data suggest that welfare
services accounted for 2 percent of all services provided to primary caregivers of Non-
Aboriginal children and 4 percent of all services provided to primary caregivers of First
Nations children. The provision of food bank, shelter, and low-income housing services
were so minute that they accounted for less than one percent of all service referrals for
both groups.
Predicting the future in any situation is a tricky business as there are many factors that
combine to yield any given outcome. Weather forecasts are probably the best known
and most reliable “risk assessment models” but while the well prepared picnicker will
take heart in a sunny forecast, they will take an umbrella anyway. Just like the weather,
the idea of predicting future maltreatment is fraught with problems. For example, risk
assessment proponents are challenged by limited child welfare research to inform the
model, differences in child welfare typology and taxonomy, difficulty in creating measures
for latent variables (i.e. self-esteem), a limited understanding of how predictors work
in combination and the need to deal with variations of risk assessment model use and
interpretation among social workers and agencies. All of this is complicated even further
when one considers the cultural validity of risk assessment models based on western
ontology applied to First Nations children.
While an in depth review of merits and efficacy of various risk assessment models is
beyond the scope of this paper it is important to underscore that these models typically
210
define structural risks in terms of how they manifest at the level of the caregiver. For
example, poverty becomes defined in terms such as inadequate child nutrition, denial
of medical/dental care, inadequate supervision and poor housing becomes defined as
unkempt home or unsafe housing (Thoma, 2007). The codification of structural risk as
parental risk could lead social workers to define and treat the problem on the basis of the
codification versus on the basis of the source problem. WEM results appear to reflect this
as although caregivers experienced overwhelming poverty they were more likely to receive
parenting education supports than poverty related interventions.
The interpretation of structural risks as maltreatment and the codification of structural
risks as parental responsibility leave First Nations families in a position where child
protection can misdiagnose their problem, provide them irrelevant treatment and yet still
hold the family accountable for demonstrating improvement. The fact that current risk
assessment models negate structural risk suggests that child welfare workers should be
strongly cautioned about the interpretation of risk assessment models with structurally
disadvantaged populations. Additionally, research efforts must be stepped up to revisit
existing models in light of structural risks and in light of frequent concerns regarding the
improper use and interpretation of risk assessment models.
There is also a need to explore the implications of structural risk for parenting assessments
and parenting intervention services. WEM results indicate that parenting capacity assessments
were the most frequently noted “other family/parenting support” among Non-Aboriginal
cases. Choate (2009) notes the growing popularity of professional assessments of parenting
capacity among child protection workers particularly in cases where child removal is being
considered or to assess reunification potential post-removal. Most of these assessments focus
on functioning as it manifests at the level of the caregiver and rarely take stock of the influence
of structural risks such as poverty or service access. Another challenge is that parenting
assessments in child protection imply a minimal standard of parenting capacity to ensure
child safety but this standard is not well defined in the literature (Choate, 2009). All of these
considerations are important for Non-Aboriginal or First Nations children however extending
211
these models to First Nations requires consideration of the cultural constructs of who is the
parent. For example, First Nations believe in communal parenting whereas western cultures
believe that parents are the primary caregivers. The problem for parenting assessment in
First Nations communities is how to assess the capacity of a multitude of caregivers to care
safely for a child. The importance of ensuring the cultural validity of parenting assessment
frameworks is underscored by the well documented cases where western social workers
mistook communal care (i.e. a child being cared for by multiple caregivers) for parental neglect
(Kimmelman, 1985; RCAP, 1996; Union of BC Indian Chiefs, 2002; Blackstock, 2003).
Where does the primary responsibility lie for the over-representation of First Nations
children lay? The evidence suggests that it is primarily driven by social disadvantage and
yet the child welfare system continues to respond as if it is driven by caregiver negligence.
This false codification of the problem detracts from child welfare actually tackling the
factors placing First Nations children at risk and perpetuates the mass removal of First
Nations children from their families.
Are first Nations children safer because of Child Welfare?
I am not going to beat around the bush—overall the answer in Canada is no. No because
child welfare has yielded mass removals of First Nations children over six decades (Union
of BC Indian Chiefs, 2002; MacDonald & Ladd, 2000; Blackstock et al., 2005; Assembly of
First Nations, 2008). No because the tragic impacts of these mass removals on the safety
and well being of First Nations children, families and communities is well documented
(Kimmelman, 1983; RCAP, 1996; Assembly of First Nations, 2008) and these harms were
so significant they commended an official apology from the Prime Minister of Canada in
2008 (Blackstock, 2008). And most of all no, because many of these removals could be
prevented if meaningful efforts were made to target the structural risks that undermine
the safety of First Nations children and their families (Assembly of First Nations, 2007;
Clarke, 2007; Blackstock, 2008; Auditor General of Canada, 2009).
212
There are several ways to think of the long standing overrepresentation of First Nations
children in care depending on how the aims of child welfare are conceptualized and
where one locates the primary focus of responsibility for the over representation. It could
be the result of a system designed to address child risk coming into contact with a group
of children who are at high risk. I think most people in Canadian child welfare believe
this or, as John Milloy (2005) suggests, at least they continue to act as if child welfare is
fundamentally a good system. Others think of it as the logical outcome of a system that
is mismatched to the needs of the children it serves (Lindsey, 2004; Blackstock, 2008) and
still others believe it is the logical outcome of a system which remains historically rooted to
a central aim of removing children from poor and/or Aboriginal families (Sealander, 2003;
Milloy, 2005; Blackstock, 2008). I believe it is a toxic combination of system mismatch to
client needs and contemporary colonialism where western ideology continues to pervade
systems of care for First Nations children. I support the idea that some First Nations
children should be in child welfare care but the success of a few amidst thousands of
failures should not legitimize systemic inertia.
Having said all this, the risks faced by First Nations children are real and harmful. There
is a need for a system that can ensure the safety of First Nations children and not all
parts of the child welfare system are equally egregious. Lindsey (2004) suggests the re-
conceptualization of the child welfare system should begin by separating neglect out from
abuse. He goes on to argue that child welfare does a reasonable job of dealing with abuse
but does an abysmal job of managing neglect. I agree that the evidence that child welfare
has wronged First Nations children who suffered abuse is not at all robust but there is
plenty of evidence that child welfare has wronged First Nations children who experienced
neglect. WEM suggests that neglect needs to be redefined in terms that differentiate
between neglect arising from parental negligence and neglect resulting from social
disadvantage. Structural risks need to be defined and effective interventions developed.
The breath of life provides a framework through which structural risks are centered on the
213
child welfare radar screen and are understood in reference to efforts to balance a series of
humanistic needs known as the relational worldview principles.
Having described the importance of structural risks for First Nations children and the
inadequacy of the current child welfare system to manage those risks, the breath of life
model is now put to the test using the WEM findings. Although WEM is only an exploratory
application of the breath of life theory, it is important to see if the basic tenants of the
model have integrity. This section reviews the WEM data in the context of the relational
worldview principles (Cross, 2007) before moving on to describe the influences of the
“vibrating strings” of culture, context and time.
do Relational Worldview principles Matter?
As described in Chapter 1, Cross’s (2007) relational worldview principles are based on
Indigenous knowledge and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which was in turn inspired by
the teachings of the Blackfoot Indians in Alberta. As shown in Figure 7, the following
relational worldview principles are situated within an interconnected reality:
Cognitive: self- and community actualization, role, and identity
Physical: housing, food, water, safety, and security
Spiritual: spirituality and life purpose
Emotional: relationship and belonging.
Cross (2007) theorizes that when the relational worldview principles are in balance
at individual and community levels, personal and collective well-being is achieved. The
breath of life suggests these principles must be contextualized within the culture and
context of each group of children and situated within expansive concepts of time that
incorporate ancestral knowledge.
WEM purposefully collected data on factors extending beyond what are typically
described as clinical child welfare factors (i.e., maltreatment types and caregiver/child
214
functioning) to consider the impacts of structural risks posed by factors such as poverty
and inadequate housing. Poverty and housing inequalities cut across Cross’s (2007)
relational worldview domains to affect the spiritual, emotional, and physical domains,
whereas housing primarily affects the physical domain. Data on spirituality was also
collected. Culture and service inequalities act as contextual factors give shape to the
manifestation of the relational worldview constants. This section demonstrates how
poverty, poor housing and substance misuse combine to undermine the balance of the
physical worldview principles before discussing the importance of spirituality as a factor in
child welfare and child wellbeing.
Poverty, Housing and Substance Misuse
Poverty is a cross-cutting risk factor affecting spiritual, emotional, cognitive, and physical
well-being of children, families, and communities (Loppie-Reading & Wien, 2009). For
example, research has consistently pointed to children living in poverty as having poorer
physical and mental health outcomes and less success in school (Gabrarino, 1995;
Blackstock, Bruyere, & Moreau, 2007; Barth; 2006; Loppie-Reading & Wien, 2009) and
being particularly related to the substantiation of neglect cases (Sealander, 2003; Lindsey,
2004; Trocmé et al., 2006). While it would be unreasonable to expect that child welfare
can eradicate poverty on its own, child welfare has a minimal expectation of centering it
in the child welfare discourse given the pervasive evidence of its impacts on child safety
and wellbeing.
In child welfare, poverty can manifest as physical neglect or failure to supervise and
be an aggravating factor for other forms of maltreatment (Lindsey, 2004; Trocmé et al.,
2006). Provincial child welfare legislation, including the Child and Family Services Act in
Nova Scotia, do not delineate between neglect resulting from poverty and neglect caused
by parental negligence. This is a critical issue in First Nations communities where poverty
is more widespread, and at deeper levels, than among non- Aboriginal Canadians.
215
Results indicate that 95 percent of all families who have their children removed have
incomes below $25,000. The Canadian Council on Social Development (2002) places
the poverty line in the year 2001 for a family of four at $28,101 per annum for families
living in communities with populations of less than 30,000, to $35,455 per annum for
families living in cities with populations above 500,000. The Canadian Council on Social
Development uses the low-income cut-off measures (LICOs) used by Statistics Canada.
Statistics Canada defines LICOs as the income thresholds below which a family will devote
a larger portion of its income to basic life necessities such as shelter, food, and clothing
than the average Canadian (Statistics Canada, 2006).
This suggests that the preponderance of families who have their children removed
struggle to meet their basic physical needs. This finding is consistent with the literature
suggesting that poverty is a significant factor in poor child outcomes (Garbarino, 1995;
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996; Lindsey, 2004; Sealander, 2003; Blackstock,
2003; Blackstock & Trocmé, 2004; Assembly of First Nations, 2007, Auditor General of
Canada, 2008; National Council on Welfare, 2008; Committee on Public Accounts, 2009)
and with the findings of the CIS suggesting that poverty is a key factor explaining the
overrepresentation of First Nations children in care (Trocmé et al., 2006).
There is also evidence that poverty cuts across the physical domain to place the emotional
and spiritual well-being of adults and children in peril. For example, the connection
between poverty and the despair that underlies substance misuse is well documented
(Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996; Legal Action Center, 2003; Thatcher,
2004; Irvine, 2006). Poverty has also been linked to poor health outcomes among
Aboriginal children (Blackstock, Bruyere & Moreau, 2006) and higher rates of mental
health problems (Costellano et al., 1997; Garbarino, 1995).
Having the necessary resources to meet the basic needs of oneself and one’s family
is a key component of self-determination. As noted earlier in this report, the higher the
rate of self-determination, the lower the suicide rate among First Nations children and
youth in British Columbia (Chandler and Lalonde, 1998) and the better the socioeconomic
216
outcomes for First Nations communities (Cornell & Kalt, 1992). The available evidence
suggests that having enough income to meet a family’s basic needs is critical to ensuring
the well-being of children, their families, and, more broadly, their communities. This
suggests that the inclusion of basic physical needs (i.e. housing, food, and water) as a
relational worldview principle in the breath of life theory has merit.
Housing is a major concern among First Nations children coming to the attention of child
welfare (Blackstock, 2003; Trocmé et al., 2006; Assembly of First Nations, 2007; Auditor
General of Canada, 2008; Loppie-Redding & Wien, 2009; Committee on Public Accounts,
2009) and poor Canadians more broadly (Trocmé et al., 2001). WEM results suggest that
very few families who own their own homes have their children removed and placed in
child welfare care. Of the 213 children in the WEM studies, only 3 percent came from
families that owned their own homes. Poor housing has been correlated with poor health
outcomes for Aboriginal children (Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996; Loxley
et al., 2005; Blackstock, Bruyere & Moreau, 2006). It seems clear from the evidence that
the higher the quality of the housing and the more control one has over one’s housing
conditions, the better the outcomes for the child and the family. This is consistent with
Cross’s (2007) assertion that housing matters as a relational worldview constant.
I am now going to turn to the spiritual worldview principle and as I do, some of the
conventions of academic writing fade to black. The cognitive emphasis of academia tends
to swamp the sacred. Academia attempts to answer everything and the spiritual bathes
comfortably in the unknown. This discussion is not intended to be definitive or exemplary—it
is simply meant to rekindle the importance of the spiritual among those caring for children.
Chasing the Spirit
Spirituality is sacred. More important, some argue, than the actual physical being of a
person (Cross, 2007). Spirituality is a force that calls us to ask the most important of
human questions: Where do we come from? Why are we here? And what is around the
corner? These questions get asked across generations, across cultures and across ages
217
(Campbell & Moyers, 1991). The Mi’kmaw believe that spirituality is a guiding and life
giving force which is non-punishing (Paul, 2006) whereas the Christian colonizers viewed
spirituality as a sorting mechanism between the good people, as defined by Christian
doctrine, who went to heaven and the evil-doers who went to hell. Both spiritual traditions
are legitimate for those who believe in them. The danger comes when proselytes impose
their spirituality on other groups using strategies such as spiritual shaming, indoctrination
of children and spiritual oppression.
As different groups came to understand spirituality in different ways something, I
believe, very tragic began to happen. People became the embodiment of spiritual truth
instead of vessels of spiritual awareness (Campbell & Moyers, 1991). Trouble broke out as
tolerance for multiple spiritual truths was replaced by singular colonial spiritual traditions
which imposed themselves using force if necessary. In the process, spirituality became
distorted and isolated as democratic governments moved to separate church and state
(Moyers, 2008). This trend pervaded western child welfare that primarily views itself as a
secular undertaking where discussions of spirituality are discouraged and marginalized.
First Nations think this is impossible—you cannot secularize something that puts the most
spiritual and sacred people at the center of the undertaking (RCAP, 1996; Auger, 2001;
Blackstock, 2007). To do so is to negate a source of strength and also risk spirituality being
used to obliterate humanity instead of building it up.
I am not sure what spirituality is but I believe it will lose its magic and power if I try to
define it. I have seen its power in the lives of children who have been so badly abused and
yet still have a drive to love, hope and give. I have seen the impact of a lack of spiritual
nurturing when children chose suicide over life. I think the fire of spirituality is found and
shaped by each person and must be supported by others on those terms. Concepts like
resiliency seem to tread on its magic instead of building it up as attempts to define it
outside of the person seem to become “candle snuffer” activities.
First Nations fundamentally believe that although all questions should be asked, some
should never be answered. It comes from a humility founded on the trouble that people
218
can get into when they over-estimate their ability to deal with the problems created in the
pursuit of answers and a belief that most things have multiple versus singular truths. It
also comes from a fundamental value of wonder. The most magical things about life are
often things we cannot understand and to define them is to limit their brilliance.
This type of restraint is not easily echoed among western cultures that take pride in
conquering the unknown. Maybe that is why I love the fact that leading physicist Edward
Witten (1998) bucks the trend by calling his theoretical breakthrough in super-string theory
“magic, mystery and matrix.” It acknowledges the power of combining the understood
with that that should never be understood. On a personal level, I truly believe in the
breath of life. More benevolence and impact, I think, to be a good ancestor than to live
the good life of the moment. I don’t want to deeply describe the role that the breath of
life spirituality plays in my own life because I am afraid it will lose its magic in the telling,
so I offer a more public definition as a proxy. I do not know who said it but it rings true
for me “faith is when you step across that place where light leads into darkness and you
know there will be something solid to stand on or you will be taught to fly.”
As a very spiritual, but unreligious person, I am constantly amazed at how the world’s
major religions propagate an unbinding adherence to the word of God but cannot resist
reinterpreting God’s word(s) and legitimizing the new interpretation by reframing people
as messengers, profits or men of God. I remember reading the Qu’ran several years ago
thinking about how much better it supported women’s rights than the Bible and yet
women from Muslim cultures often experience oppression when interpretations of the
Qu’ran, known as Hadith, become more legitimate culturally than the sacred Qu’ran itself.
The Christians also did this in residential schools as they reframed the whole idea of
obliterating First Nations culture and spiritual traditions as doing the work of God.
A few months ago, I found myself in the brick halls of a residential school sitting with
Herman, a proud and witty man in his 60’s who, in this place, was drawn back to the
abuse and cultural ravages he experienced as a young boy. As he told his story the place
transformed in my mind, I felt colder, sad, and angry and then, like so many others, he
219
transformed this story of torture into one of warmth and forgiveness. He had forgiven the
best he could and yet he could not help imagining coming face to face with the Priests and
Nuns who had perpetrated the harm or stood by while it happened—at the gates of Heaven.
As these men and women stood before God for divine judgement, Herman wanted to ask
a question “you said you did this to us for your God?” Now that would be justice.
Negating the discussion of spirituality and religion can set the climate for child welfare
to perpetrate a violation of children’s spiritual well being. Thankfully, Aboriginal child
welfare agencies are demonstrating how spirituality can be invoked in child welfare
without proselytizing. It begins with the agency modeling spirituality in the way it operates.
Many First Nations agencies incorporate spiritual ceremony into their daily work. It is not
unusual for First Nations child welfare agency meetings to start and end with a prayer
or human resource policies to allow time and resources for staff to celebrate their own
spiritual traditions. By establishing spirituality as an office culture, child welfare staff can
better understand and support the spirituality of the children and families they serve.
The increased frequency in spiritual service referrals for First Nations versus Non-
Aboriginal children and caregivers in WEM suggest that spirituality is on the radar screen
much more often for First Nations clients. There are, of course, Non-Aboriginal child
welfare workers and agencies who actively value spirituality for all children but in the main
they are the exception and not the rule. Much more needs to be done to acknowledge
and support the spiritual dimension of all children and here, First Nations agencies, may
be able to provide some promising ideas to western child welfare just as western child
welfare has provided helpful ideas to First Nations on other matters.
Although WEM explores only a very limited number of the worldview principles, it
does provide at least some initial support for the principles in the physical and spiritual
domains. As noted in the beginning of this dissertation, additional study will be needed
to research the other worldview principles both individually and in combination in order
to fully test the breath of life theory.
220
Culture and Services as Vibrating Strings
The breath of life theory assumes that the relational worldview principles are shaped by
contextual factors and culture. In the theory, culture and context shape the manifestation of
the relational worldview principles. For example, food is important to all people regardless
of culture but culture definitely influences how food is perceived, gathered, prepared,
and eaten. For example, Terry Cross (2009) notes that peoples from western cultures
approach resources, including food, from a position of scarcity resulting in a survival of
the fittest society where those who have more advantage get the best food and those
who do not are left at the fringes. First Nations believe that food is abundant but the way
people relate to food needs to be managed in order to ensure a just distribution of food
throughout a society and across generations. One of the ways First Nations manage their
relationship with food is by ritualizing formal processes for giving thanks to the food itself
for the sacrifice it has made. In this way, the person eating the food situates food as a gift,
even a sacrifice, made by other life forms so one can live. This cultivates a relationship
where food is respected and people are indebted to the food source engendering more
respectful natural resource management.
Culture also influences the way we think about children. Western culture has historically
viewed children as the property and perpetuity of a family (Sealander, 2003) whereas First
Nations viewed children as the property of the Creator and the perpetuity of a cultural
society (Assembly of First Nations, 1993; Auger, 2001; Blackstock, 2003). These views
invoke very different traditions of meeting the relational worldview principles and have also
set up a clash of cultures in child welfare as a predominantly western system imposes itself
on First Nations. This section leverages the WEM findings to explore culture as it manifests
in child welfare. I am going to make some bold, and perhaps unexpected, arguments
suggesting that Non-Aboriginal children need to be better supported in the creation of
their cultural identities and western cultural views of children may propagate conditions for
abusive behavior more than First Nations but it is important to underscore that culture in
221
and of itself is not abusive. Much like Terry Cross (2009) suggests it is not in the culture as
much as it is in the way we relate to the culture and the same goes for spirituality.
Specifically, culture should be considered when determining the susceptibility of families
to different forms of maltreatment and be mindful that cultural views of children and
child-rearing practices are not, in and of themselves, implicitly determinant of child abuse
or neglect (Agathonos-Georgopoulou, 2006). This section reviews the impacts of culture
and the contextual factor of service inequity on the outcomes for children removed from
their families in Nova Scotia.
Culture as a Vibrating String
WEM results suggest three important findings related to the influence of culture on the
relational worldview principles. First, it is clear the vast majority of children removed from
child welfare come from poor households and the evidence suggests that poverty and
race can be conflated with neglect which may partially explain the over-representation of
First Nations children in care. Second, it is clear that Aboriginal children are more likely to
receive cultural services than Non-Aboriginal children despite the Child and Family Services
Act and child in care standards in Nova Scotia specifically requiring consideration of the
child’s cultural, linguistic, and racial identity when determining a child’s best interests
(Department of Community Services, 2004). Third, WEM results suggest that exploring
the ontological underpinnings of western and First Nations views to children may provide
some insight into differences in maltreatment incidence rates among First Nations and
Non-Aboriginal children.
The importance of cultural identity for the well-being of Aboriginal children is well
supported in the literature (Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996; Auger, 2001;
Carriere, 2005; Blackstock et al., 2006; Auditor General of Canada, 2008). Vicki Wood,
Director of Child Welfare, Department of Community Services (2009), notes that DCS
social workers participate in training on cultural sensitivity. According to Wood, “The goal
222
of the training is to increase social workers’ cultural sensitivity to African Canadian and
native children/families involved with a child welfare agency.”
As noted in Table 13, although the cultural identity of First Nations children was routinely
recorded, the cultural identity was rarely noted for Non-Aboriginal children. This pattern
extended to the provision of cultural services, where 51 percent of First Nations children
received cultural services as compared to only 2 percent of Non-Aboriginal children. First
Nations children were significantly more likely to receive spiritual services (16 percent)
versus 4 percent for Non-Aboriginal children.
The reasons for the difference in cultural services by First Nations status is not entirely
clear. One possibility is that the First Nations children are served by a child welfare agency
infused with the First Nations belief that culture is a vital binding agent in the creation
of harmonious and sustainable cultural societies. This cultural value, in tandem with the
heightened awareness created when a culture is subject to aggressive colonial attempts to
eradicate it, may contribute to First Nations children being offered more cultural services
than Non-Aboriginal children. Some may argue that the provision of cultural services
to Non-Aboriginal children is unnecessary given that their culture is matched with the
larger Canadian society, but this line of thinking falsely assumes homogeneity among
the cultures of Non-Aboriginal children in Canada. For example, Nova Scotia has rich
cultures nested within what are primarily Caucasian groups such as the Acadian and
Gaelic communities.
Unfortunately, it is not clear how well child welfare is supporting the cultural identities
of Caucasian children. A search of the literature did not reveal a single study on the
importance of culture for Caucasian children in child welfare care. There were many
studies that reference Caucasian children as a comparator to legitimize the need for
strong cultural identities for minority groups (i.e., African American, Hispanic, Aboriginal)
without defining what cultural identity means for Caucasian children. There were also
studies on bi-racial children but the emphasis in the majority of these articles was on
the non-Caucasian cultural ancestry. One of the few references to the importance of
223
culture for Caucasian children comes from Jeannine Carriere (2007), who is a Métis social
work scholar when she emphasizes the importance of culture for all children. Clearly
more research needs to be done in the area to better support child welfare workers in
respecting the cultural identities of all children in the child welfare system.
Given the overall lack of emphasis on culture for Non-Aboriginal children in the child
protection literature, it may be worthwhile for DCS to expand its current cultural sensitivity
program to include information on why culture is important to all children. The training
program should emphasize the importance of documenting the specific culture of Non-
Aboriginal children and providing opportunities for children to practice and nurture their
cultural identity.
There is clearly a need for ongoing research to determine the reasons underlying the
difference between cultural service provision among Non-Aboriginal and First Nations
children in Nova Scotia. Studies should also be undertaken in other regions to determine
if differences in cultural service provision by First Nations status persist across First Nations/
provincial/territorial jurisdictions.
Differences between First Nations and western cultures may also have another, more
controversial impact related to the different child maltreatment profiles between First
Nations and Non-Aboriginal children. While child maltreatment types were not significantly
related to First Nations status in WEM, a closer analysis of the data suggest that this is
likely related to the small sample size. A review of the international literature points to a
pervasive pattern in which Indigenous children living in developed countries are less likely to
be reported to child welfare as victims of abuse than Non-Aboriginal children. The curious
pattern of Indigenous children being overrepresented in child welfare care despite being
less likely to experience physical, emotional, and sexual abuse occurs among Aboriginal
children in Australia (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2008), Native American
children in the United States (U.S. Department of Health and Social Services, 2008), and
First Nations children in Canada (Trocmé et al., 2006). The overrepresentation of Indigenous
children in all three countries is due to higher rates of neglect fuelled by poverty, poor
224
housing, and caregiver substance misuse (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2008;
U.S. Department of Health and Social Services, 2008; Trocmé et al., 2006).
Although one must always be cautious about automatically assuming that fewer reports
means a lower incidence of abuse, the widespread nature of the pattern suggests further
study on the effect of culture is required to determine what role, if any, culture has on the
characteristics and incidence of child maltreatment.
Historically, Indigenous peoples in all three countries placed a high value on children,
and women because the latter could bear children; thus, abuse and neglect of women and
children was rare (Blackstock, 2003; Bamblett, 2005; Agtuca, 2008). Children belonged
to communities versus to their parents, making a wider range of caretakers and teachers
available to them. Traditional systems dealt with victims of abuse and neglect, often
invoking a communal care approach where extended family or community members took
action to protect and care for the child (Blackstock, 2003). Child abuse perpetrators were
dealt with severely as systems of customary law considered the negative impacts on the
child who was harmed and the intergenerational risks imposed on the child’s descendents
as a result of the abuse. To put it bluntly, perpetrators were often sentenced to death or
put in situations where death was a predictable outcome. For example, Agtuca (2008)
describes how the Tlingit of Northern British Columbia and Alaska would tie family violence
offenders to a post at low tide allowing the ocean to pursue a course of natural justice.
Given the Indigenous value for the perpetuity of community well-being and culture over
time, there were few crimes viewed as negatively as child abuse.
On the other hand, the British and French colonial forces that settled Canada, the United
States, and Australia historically took the cultural view that children were the property of
their parents (Sealander, 2003). Physical punishment and verbal chastising were widely
used as a means of discipline (Agathonos-Georgopoulou, 2006). Elder Fred Kelly (2009)
characterizes the difference between western culture and Indigenous cultural views of
children this way: “They [western culture] talk about how much children need adults while
First Nations talk about how much adults need children.” This simple difference suggests
225
that First Nations adults link their own wellbeing to that of children thus promoting the
importance of children within their societies.
It is possible that the historical underpinnings of First Nations and British/French cultural
views of children are contributing to the differentiation in maltreatment characteristics
between First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children. One of the most promising possibilities
relates to the positioning of children within community.
First Nations children are parented within interdependent concentric circles of support
beginning with their parents, and moving on to extended family, then community (Auger,
2001; Blackstock, 2003). These three “layers” of parenting mean that a disruption in
parenting at one level can be compensated for by another. This type of communal care
is echoed in other cultural groups such as African-Americans, Asian and South Asian and
many African communities. Non-Aboriginal children from western cultures are not so
fortunate. They are almost always cared for exclusively by their parents so if the parental
relationship is disrupted, there is no one to take over the role. Of course, colonization and
persistent resource inequalities have disrupted some of the community capacity to care for
First Nations children, which helps explain the overrepresentation of First Nations children
in care; however, the residual effect of communal parenting and the cultural value of First
Nations children may persist as a protective factor.
There is some support for this at a grass-roots level. The western idea of family privacy
and confidentiality is not widely practiced among First Nations who view knowledge as
a communal versus a private good. The difference in the use of language to describe
one’s relationship to the larger community is just one indication of the cultural differences
between First Nations and Non-Aboriginal peoples. First Nations are “members” of a
community and Non-Aboriginal people are “residents” of their communities. At a grass-
roots level, the communal value of First Nations manifests in much more knowledge
among community members about the personal and family matters of other members.
While this is sometimes a viewed as an intrusion as “everyone knows everyone else’s
business,” it may also provide protection for First Nations children, particularly in relation
226
to secrecy dependent forms of abuse, such as sexual abuse, and, to a lesser degree,
physical abuse.
This is simply conjecture because no Canadian studies explore this issue but it does
suggest more research needs to be done to understand why there are fewer reports
for abuse among Indigenous children. It is important that future research views culture
as a shaping factor versus a causal factor regarding children’s safety so it is essential to
understand how culture can interact with the worldview principles to create conditions
for well being as much as it is important to understand how culture can serve to place
systems out of balance and erode well-being.
Service inequities as a contextual factor
Although there is good evidence to suggest that services are important in redressing
maltreatment and First Nations have fewer services available, First Nations children did
not receive significantly fewer services than Non-Aboriginal children. This seems illogical
if one assumes service provision to families is strictly based on the availability of services.
Cross (2009) offers some useful concepts for thinking about child welfare resources. He
suggests that family resources can include formal services as well as informal community
supports, which tend to be offered at lower cost. The use of resources in child welfare is
influenced by the availability of both informal and formal resources as well as how social
workers and clients relate to these resources. WEM does not provide the detailed data
necessary to determine the formal/informal nature of the service or social worker/client
relationships to these resources. Future study is required to determine the relationship that
services have on the relational worldview principles.
Time
Western child welfare assesses safety and wellbeing on the basis of life snapshots. A report
is received, an investigation and assessment is done, a case disposition decision is made and
then because of overwhelming workloads social workers attend to cases as circumstances
227
or crisis demand. What goes on before, between and after these snapshots in the lives of
children and their families is largely unknown to child welfare. Some of this is unavoidable
given the high work demands of child welfare and the need for child welfare to respect the
sanctity and privacy of families but some of it has to do with how time is conceptualized in
the western culture pervading child welfare. From a western cultural point of view, time is
linear and the scope of its importance is defined by the phenomena under study (Moyers,
2008). If you are interested in the universe then the scope of time of interest is 13.7 billion
years dating back to when the universe was formed (Falk, 2002) and if you are interested
in children then you focus on birth to 18 years of age. From a First Nations perspective,
time is without borders. The past, present and future are not separate they interact and
are mutually reinforcing (Blackstock, 2007). For example, children are influenced by the
teachings of their ancestors and they are taught that their behavior will impact generations
to follow (Assembly of First Nations, 1993; Auger, 2001; Bamblett, 2005).
One of the clearest examples of how the past influences the current circumstances
of First Nations children from the WEM findings relates to child adoption. As shown in
Table 41, there were significantly more Non-Aboriginal children placed for adoption than
First Nations children. Among the children remaining in care at the time of data collection,
44 percent of Non-Aboriginal children had been placed for adoption whereas no First
Nations children had been placed for adoption.
Adoption is a complex issue in First Nations communities because of the child welfare
practice called the “60s scoop,” which involved the mass removals of First Nations children
from their families and placement of them in Non-Aboriginal adoptive homes (RCAP,
1996; Union of BC Indian Chiefs, 2002; Carriere, 2005). Although the practice was most
prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s the pattern continues today although at less significant
levels largely due to increased awareness among Non-Aboriginal social workers and First
Nations activism (Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996; Carriere, 2005). The
negative impacts of this practice, including cultural dislocation and identity issues, are well
documented (Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996; Union of BC Indian Chiefs,
228 228
2002; Carriere, 2005). First Nations have developed a number of responses to stem the
tide of 60s scoop–type adoptions, including adoption moratoriums pending the redress
of the factors impeding First Nations families from caring for their own children and the
development of customary adoption programs.
I contacted Joan Glode (2009), Executive Director of Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s
Services, to explain the lack of adoptions for First Nations children during the years of
2003, 2004, and 2005. The roots of the issue date back to before confederation. The
traditional territory of the Mi’kmaw extends throughout present-day Nova Scotia into
New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and the Gaspe Bay peninsula. The Mi’kmaw had
a well-developed culture that included customary forms of child and adult adoption. The
British began arriving in Nova Scotia in the late 1400s, and by the mid-1700s had begun
negotiating a treaty with the Mi’kmaw to facilitate peaceful British settlement and to
protect the Mi’kmaw way of life. The treaty between the Crown and the Mi’kmaq was
signed in 1752. The Mi’kmaw continued their customary forms of adoption under the
authority of their own custom law as affirmed in the Treaty of 1752 until the early part of
the 21st century. It was only when provincial child welfare and adoption acts were created
that questions were raised by Non-Aboriginal child welfare providers about the legality of
the Mi’kmaw form of adoption.
Mi’kmaw Children and Family Services was keen to affirm traditional forms of adoption.
In the mid-2000s, the province of Nova Scotia was developing its adoption standards
and invited the Mi’kmaw to participate; however, the Mi’kmaw did not want to adopt
a western adoption program, so they declined and proceeded with an effort to get the
province to affirm that the Mi’kmaw had the authority to conduct adoptions pursuant to
the treaty signed in 1752. The Mi’kmaw custom adoption practice was invoked in 2005.
The Mi’kmaw custom adoption practice involves families developing a permanency plan
using the Mi’kmaw family conferencing process and then formalizing the decision using
the Indian Act or provincial legislation (Wien, Glode & MacDonald, 2005). Glode (2009)
emphasizes that traditional adoption plans were in place for Mi’kmaw children during the
229 229
study period but the adoptions began after the affirmation. This is clearly demonstrated in
the 2007–2008 Annual Report for Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services, which notes
that eight children were placed for subsidized adoption in that year.
This example demonstrates how the a study result from 2009 could be explained by a
Treaty signed 257 years ago and how the Mi’kmaw are drawing from ancestral knowledge
dating back millennia to inform their contemporary adoption processes (Wien, Glode &
MacDonald, 2005).
does Everything Matter?
Does everything matter? The answer depends on your worldview and, as I will argue,
what scholars from western science have been trained to view as important. For First
Nations, everything matters— but not everything matters to the same extent; it depends
on the locus of the problem within the interconnected web of life across time. As noted
earlier in this paper, there is abundant and growing evidence among western scientists
that all matter and time are interconnected across knowledge disciplines as diverse as
physics, chemistry, cognition, ecology, mathematics, and sociology. Western child welfare,
however, has operated mostly outside of this larger knowledge trend, focusing instead
on the study of phenomena with little or no attention to how these phenomena are
interconnected with other realities. WEM results suggest that child welfare would be well
served to expand its scope to systematically include structural risks, cultural influences,
and changes over time.
Consistent with the findings of the CIS, WEM findings suggest that some of the most
important factors affecting the overrepresentation of First Nations children in child welfare
care (i.e., poverty, colonization, and marginalization that underpin substance misuse) are
external to the family. Results also indicate that it is essential to think about not only the
risk to the family but also how the child welfare system responds to the risk in the form
230 230
of services and other interventions. This supports the idea that social workers must think
broadly about child risk within the context of their families and communities.
On a practical level, this more inclusive assessment approach should be embedded in
child maltreatment risk assessment processes, which currently focus only the manifestation
of the risk at the level of the family despite the growing preponderance of evidence of
the importance of structural risk factors. By failing to account for structural risk, child
maltreatment risk assessments can predispose families facing higher levels of structural
risks for child removal. Another problem is that social workers tend to situate the locus
for child risk within the scope of their assessment. This means that they may hold families
accountable for changing structural risk factors even when the family has no reasonable
chance of affecting change (Blackstock, 2007).
Moreover, WEM results emphasize the importance of thinking about child safety and
well-being on a time continuum in order to capture changes that occur for the child,
family, and community, as well as changes in the child welfare response. For example,
WEM data suggested that Non-Aboriginal children were being placed for adoption but
Non-Aboriginal children were not. By drawing on historical information, these results
were contextualized and it became apparent that Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services
was simply pursuing a customary form of adoption based on its Treaty signed in 1752
(Glode, 2009). Another example is recent evidence from western neuroscience suggesting
that child abuse affects brain chemistry, reducing the ability of a person to deal with stress
(McGowan et al., 2009) and these markers can be passed down to future generations.
Thankfully, the harmful markers can also be erased if future generations do not experience
child maltreatment. This finding lines up with the teaching in First Nations communities
that the physical elements of a person are affected by our emotional, spiritual, and
cognitive experiences particularly as a child (Auger, 2001).
WEM also encourages a rethinking of some of the basic assumptions embedded in the
language of child welfare. The issue of reunification is probably the best example of this.
231 231
Repeated studies have used the term “reunification” or “family reunification” without
ever researching whether in fact the children are being reunified with family.
Wulczyn’s (2004) seminal work on reunification does not consider the implication of
children who are reunified with a caregiver other than from whom they were removed.
As WEM results indicate, 24 percent of all children who were reunified were returned to
caregiver(s) other than those from whom they were removed. This is the first time that
caregiver reunification destination was included in a child welfare study, and findings
suggest that future reunification research and policy making should differentiate between
reunification to caregivers present in the home at the time of removal and reunifications
to caregivers who were not present in the home at the time of removal. For clarity, I will
call the first group “caregiver at removal reunifications” and the latter group “third-party
reunifications.”
WEM did collect data on services provided to primary caregivers in cases where the
child was reunified to the caregiver(s) from whom they were removed and third-party
reunifications. Overall, Non-Aboriginal children who were reunified were significantly
more likely to receive services than Non-Aboriginal children who remained in care. There
were no significant differences among First Nations children. Again, differences between
First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children reunified or remaining in care are not easily
explained but may be due to the emphasis on holistic family care in the Mi’kmaw agency
(Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services of Nova Scotia, 2008).
When it came to third party reunifications, there were only two incidence of services
provided to the primary caregivers in the 29 cases of third-party reunifications. One service
referral was for child care and the other for “other” services. Although the reliability of
this data is suspect given that there was no systematic way for social workers to record
services post-reunification it clearly demonstrates a need for focused research on third
party reunifications. Including service provision in all research involving reunifications is
particularly important given the literature suggesting that there is a relationship between
the provision of services post-reunification and successful reunification outcomes (Wulczyn,
232 232
2004). WEM did not collect data on the child welfare admission recidivism among the
children who were reunified. A study by Wulczyn (2004) suggests that 28 percent of all
children who are reunified are readmitted back into child welfare care within 10 years.
The first year after reunification is critical as 70 percent of children who will be readmitted
are readmitted within this time frame. Wulczyn (2004) suggests that the provision of
strategic supports to prepare for the reunification and to support the child and family
post-reunification are critical to optimize outcomes.
Given the limitations of the WEM study, it cannot prove that everything matters as the
breath of life theory contends but it does suggest that more matters in child welfare than
current thinking and practice suggest. Studies to explore the interconnections between
the relational worldview principles as they manifest at the levels of the child, family,
community, and world across time will help inform the overall development of the breath
of life theory.
A Word about Significance
If everything matters, then what is to be done about predominance of statistical
significance in child welfare research as a marker for what is important? As Carver (1978)
points out, the statistical tool is only as good as the user and the degree to which the user
understands its utility and limitations. But is the use of statistics in child welfare becoming
more than just a tool to being accepted dogma within quantitative child welfare research
to the exclusion of other options such as network science?
The problem is not with the statistics but, rather, their use as reflex indicators of what
deserves attention, and that no other mathematical methods are considered. Academic
journals frequently encourage researchers to report only statistically significant findings
(Hull & Armstrong, 2005). The problem is that statistical significance is in itself confounded
by factors other than the sensitivity of the research findings. For example, changes in
factors such as research design, sample size, and alpha levels can all shift an insignificant
233 233
result into significance or vice versa. Moreover, there are often misunderstandings of what
“significant” means. People lose sight of the idea that rejecting the null hypothesis simply
means there is a probability (say 95 percent in the case of a p<.05 alpha value) that the
result could be found in a similar sample. Rejecting the null hypothesis does not imply
that significant sample factors are absolutely characteristic of the larger population. The
acceptance of the null hypothesis simply means that there is not enough evidence to
reject the null—not that the factors are unimportant. There is a growing call to moderate
the overreliance on statistical significance to determine what matters by engaging in more
rigorous education on the limitations of statistical significance (Hull & Armstrong, 2005),
and encouraging a more detailed look at insignificant results. The WEM research findings
on primary, secondary, and tertiary reasons for removal are a good example of why the
exclusion of insignificant findings may not be a good idea. This is the first study to track the
maltreatment types of children who are removed in Canada and thus it was important to
note the findings. Another issue affecting this study was that the lack of a random sample
of Non-Aboriginal children and the overall small sample size may have rendered otherwise
significant maltreatment differences insignificant or vice versa. To ensure readers could
contextualize the WEM maltreatment findings, attention was called to the wide array of
empirical and anecdotal evidence suggesting that significant differences in maltreatment
likely are related to First Nations status.
Certain more radical scholars think statistics should be scrapped altogether. Carver
(1978) argues that the overemphasis on statistical significance within academia results
in a systematic corruption of the scientific method as career-conscious academics tailor
studies to result in significant findings.
Overall, there is much more of a call for researchers to consider both statistical significance
and substantive significance when analyzing findings. Substantive significance situates the
meaningfulness of a finding from a more practical viewpoint. For example, if a result was
found to be significant, a substantive significance question would ask, “so what?” Others
are attempting to further contextualize findings using meta-analysis, meta-synthesis, and
234 234
mixed-methods approaches. While all of these have merit, it is important to keep in mind
that these efforts should not discount insignificant findings out of hand.
The breath of life theory is more in keeping with the philosophical underpinnings of
network science and group theory than statistics. Network science examines a focal point
within an interconnected reality or system whereas statistics tries to infer the broader
reality from a subsection or sample of reality. The limitation with network science is that
it does not situate findings within expansive concepts of change over time and it brackets
the unit of analysis to a system. Indigenous ontology and research methods could help
compliment network science by suggesting ways of situating systems within their broader
context across time as well as expanding the research ontological and methodological
menu more broadly.
While Carver (1978) rejected statistical tests outright, he offered few useful alternatives.
However, given the development of other tools such as network science and group theory,
there is a need for social work to view statistics as one of several available analytical options
instead of the only option. It is also vital that academic journals and other knowledge-
transfer mechanisms understand that “statistical significance” is not synonymous with
“importance” and reconsider the systematic exclusion of insignificant findings.
This will be critical if child welfare researchers, such as myself, intend to envelope
statistical methods into the breath of life theory as one of the basic tenants of the theory
is that everything matters but not everything matters equally all the time.
Summary
This chapter argues that when it comes to the overrepresentation of First Nations children in
care, child welfare should be more concerned about poverty, poor housing and substance
misuse than about child maltreatment as it is conventionally understood. Without radical
efforts to better identify and respond to structural risks, the western child welfare system
will continue to produce growing numbers of First Nations children in care (Blackstock,
235 235
2008). WEM provides the first glimpse into the practical application of the fundamental
tenets of the breath of life theory. Results provide support for the theoretical assumptions
that (1) interconnected realities matter in child welfare, (2) time matters when assessing
child well-being both for this generation and future generations, (3) culture is an important
factor shaping the manifestation of the relational worldview principles, and (4) there is
support for the importance of the relational worldview principles set out in the physical
and spiritual domains of Cross’s (2007) relational worldview principles. This study was not
intended to definitively prove or disprove the breath of life theory, and much more work
needs to be done to test the theory using both western and methods.
A logical next step for Indigenous researchers is to compare the breath of life theory,
including the relational worldview principles, against oral history and customary law. On
the western research front, a systematic review of each of the worldview principles would
be helpful, paying particular attention to research that assesses the principles interacting
with one another across time. Further studies on the influence of culture and context on
the relational worldview principles would also be helpful. After proper testing using both
Indigenous and western methods, the breath of life model can potentially inform family
assessment and planning tools for child welfare workers and provide useful touchstones
for policy making and the development of child welfare interventions.
The breath of theory holds the potential to inform thinking outside social work to
disciplines such as health, education, sociology, and anthropology. Given that is derived
from natural-world teachings, it also may also have application in what are termed the
“hard sciences” such as physics, ecology, and chemistry.
236
CHApTER 7
Conclusion: Sending forth the breath of life
This dissertation covers millennia–literally. Drawing from physical and humanistic
principles dating back to the beginning of the universe, I argue that just as the light of
the stars created during the big bang are just reaching us now, so too are the rays of First
Nations ancestral child caring knowledge and behavior. Ancestral knowledge and western
theoretical physics come together to propose a new theoretical model for conceptualizing
structural risks affecting First Nations children in child welfare. Although the theory’s
development was inspired by the tragic and longstanding over-representation of First
Nations children in care it has the potential to inform other fields of inquiry in areas such
as health, education, sociology and the natural sciences. It comes at an important time
when current ways of thinking about child welfare have held generations of First Nations
children hostage from their families.
Building on the breath of life theory, this dissertation explores the characteristics of First
Nations children who were removed by child welfare authorities from 2003–2005 matched
with a sample of Non-Aboriginal children using age and child welfare exit destination
(reunification or remained in child welfare care). Findings suggest that structural risks such
as poverty, housing inadequacy and caregiver substance misuse stream both First Nations
and Non-Aboriginal children toward removal. Once the removal takes place there is little
variability on these factors related to First Nations status. The over-representation of First
Nations children in child welfare care is likely related to the over-representation of First
Nations among poor and substance misusing families in Nova Scotia versus post-removal
characteristics or interventions.
This chapter suggests directions for future research both from theoretical and research
perspectives before moving on to describe policy and practice considerations suggested
by WEM results.
237
future Research: breath of life Theory
As noted in Chapter 6, there are a number of research trajectories available to further
develop and test the breath of life theory. The logical next steps include:
• Comparingthebreathof lifetheoryandtherelationalworldviewprinciplesagainst
Aboriginal oral histories and customary laws of different Indigenous groups across
North America.
• Conducting systematic reviews of (1) the relational worldview principles, paying
particular attention to studies that consider several principles interacting with one
another, and (2) the impacts of culture and context on child safety and well-being.
• Investigating the utility of network science and concepts of symmetry and super-
symmetry to better understand child safety within interconnected environments.
future Research: When Everything Matters
As WEM is the first study in Canada to describe the characteristics of First Nations and
Non-Aboriginal children in care, there are a number of important findings requiring further
investigation. Although the dissertation indicates research directions throughout the text,
the following are the most salient:
• ResearchtodescribethereasonsforremovalamongalargersampleofFirstNations
and Non-Aboriginal children using the WEM categories, which include parental
incapacity related to substance misuse and mental health as well as anticipatory forms
of maltreatment to detect any differences related to First Nations status. Structural risk
factors should be included.
238
• A longitudinal study of First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children starting at child
welfare referral and continuing through for a time frame sufficient to determine child
welfare placement recidivism rates, characteristics for children who are reunified, and
placement trajectories for children who remain in care.
• Research involving First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children to better understand
caregiver and third-party reunifications and any factors that predict reunification
destination and related outcomes.
• Ongoing research to understand the relationship between child and caregiver
functioning as well as structural risks and the provision of child welfare services.
Implications for child welfare policy and practice
Although WEM should be considered an exploratory study, results suggest a number of
pragmatic child welfare policy and practice suggestions that may enhance the safety and
well-being of First Nations and Non-Aboriginal children in Nova Scotia.
The fact that 24 percent of children who are reunified are placed with third parties
suggests the need to systematically document the reunification destination of children
going forward and to differentiate between caregiver and third- party reunifications in
data management systems. Further research describing the characteristics of both types
of reunifications will help inform child welfare and policy to optimize the reunification
outcomes for both groups of children.
The overwhelming presence of poverty and low levels of home ownership among
families who have their children removed strongly suggests that social workers need to
systematically document family income as part of their child welfare investigations and
continue to update this information as changes occur. Moreover, child welfare agencies
should strategically investigate and implement evidence-based child welfare interventions
that reduce poverty and housing risks for families and their children.
239
High rates of removals related to caregiver substance misuse and mental health
concerns imply a need for enhanced social worker training on the characteristics and
parenting impacts of caregiver substance misuse and mental health. Policy makers should
systematically review the growing literature on the relationship between substance misuse
and/or mental health and child welfare in order to develop effective interventions to assist
families presenting with these challenges.
Finally, the low numbers of Non-Aboriginal children receiving cultural services suggests a
need to increase the awareness of social workers regarding the importance of documenting
the cultural backgrounds of all children and then incorporating the affirmation of the
child’s cultural identity into child and family service plans. It is recommended that the
current practice of noting the child’s cultural background only at time of admission to care
be changed so that the cultural, racial, linguistic, and spiritual status of all children and
their primary caregivers are noted at the time of child welfare referral and updated over
the time of the child welfare intervention.
breathe
I think the Ancestors would agree:
It takes a child to raise a community and a community to raise a theory
Not all progress involves discovery and not all discoveries are progress
One cannot define knowledge but knowledge can define us
We know only what we allow ourselves to know
Everything matters and everyone belongs
It is more important to humankind for you to be a good ancestor than it is to live
a good life
Walk on, walk on … on the breath of your ancestors …
The Mi’kmaw have no word for good-bye
241
References
Agathonos-Georgopoulou, H. (2004). Cross-cultural perspectives in child abuse and neglect. Child
Abuse Review, 1(2), 80–88.
Agtuca, J. (2008). Beloved women: Life givers, caretakers, teachers of future generations. In
S. Deer, B. Clairmont, C. Martell & M. White Eagle (Eds.), Sharing our stories of survival:
Native women surviving violence (pp. 3–30). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Alberta Children’s Services (2006). Annual Report 2005/2006. Edmonton: Alberta Children’s Services.
Alberta Children’s Services (2007). Annual Report 2006/2007. Edmonton: Alberta Children’s Services.
Alberta Government (n.d.). Alberta Response Model: building on effective practice and
transforming outcomes for children. Retrieved 5 January 2008 from http://www.
eastcentralalbertacfsa.gov.ab.ca/whatwedo/pdf/ARMfactsheet.pdf
Amnesty International (2006). It is a matter of rights: Improving the protection of economic, social
and cultural rights in Canada. Ottawa: Amnesty International Canada.
Anderson, M. (2009). Entangled life: quantum forces may explain photosynthesis, our sense of
smell and even consciousness itself. Discover: science, technology and the future, February
2009, 58–63.
Ards, S., Myers, S., Chung, C., Malkis, A., & Hagerty, B. (2003). Decomposing black-white
differences in child maltreatment. Child maltreatment, 8(2), 112–121.
Ards, S., Myers, S. & Malkis, A. (2003). Racial disproportionality in reported and substantiated
child abuse and neglect: An examination of systemic bias. Children and youth services review,
25 (5–6), 375–392.
Ashok, C. (2005). Do you speak English? Language barriers in child protection work with minority
ethnic families. British journal of social work, (25), 807–821.
Assembly of First Nations (1993). Reclaiming our nationhood; strengthening our heritage: report
to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Ottawa: Assembly of First Nations.
Assembly of First Nations (2007). First Nations child welfare leadership plan. Ottawa: Assembly of
First Nations.
Assembly of First Nations (2009). Canadian human rights complaint: fact sheet. Ottawa: Assembly
of First Nations.
242
Assembly of First Nations (n.d.). Sexual exploitation/abuse of First Nations children. Retrieved
March 30, 2009 from http://www.afn.ca/cmslib/general/Sex-Ex.pdf
Auditor General of Canada (2008). First Nations Child and Family Services Program-Indian and
Northern Affairs Canada. 2008 May: Report of the Auditor General of Canada. Retrieved May 31,
2008 from http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/aud_ch_oag_200805_04_e_30700.
html#hd3a
Auger, D. (2001). the Northern Ojibwe and Their Family Law. Doctoral dissertation submitted to
Osgood Hall Law School, York University. North York: York University.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2008). Child protection Australia 2006–07. Child welfare
series no. 43. Cat. no. CWS 31. Canberra: AIHW.
Bala, N., Kim Zaph, M., Williams, J., Vogl, R., and Hornick, J., (Eds.) (2004). Canadian child welfare
law: children, families, and the state. 2nd ed. Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing.
Bamblett, M. (2005). From welfare to wellbeing: Progress in pursuing the well being of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Children in Australia. In First Nations Child and Family Caring Society
of Canada (Ed.) Joining hands across the world for Indigenous children. Ottawa: First Nations
Child and Family Caring Society of Canada.
Barn, R., Ladino, C., and Rogers, B. (2006). Parenting in multi-racial Britain, London: National
Children’s Bureau in association with Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Barth, R. (2006). Placement into foster care and the interplay of urban city, child behavior
problems, and poverty. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76(3), 358–366.
Baskin, C. (2002). Circles of resistance: spirituality in social work practice, education and
transformative change. Currents: New Scholarship in the Human Services, 1(1).
Blackstock, C. (2003). First Nations child and family services: Restoring peace and harmony in First
Nations communities. In K. Kufeldt & B. McKenzie (Eds.), Child Welfare: Connecting Research
Policy and Practice (pp. 331–342). Waterloo, ON: Wilfred Laurier University Press.
Blackstock, C. (2005). Same country; same lands; 78 countries away. First Peoples Child and
Family Review, 2(1), 131–159.
Blackstock, C. (2007). The breath of life versus the embodiment of life: Indigenous knowledge and
western social work. World Indigenous Nation’s Higher Education Consortium Journal, 2007,
67–79.
243
Blackstock, C. (2008). Reconciliation means not saying sorry twice: Lessons from child welfare in
Canada. From truth to reconciliation: Transforming the legacy of residential schools. Ottawa:
Aboriginal Healing Foundation.
Blackstock, C. (2009). The occasional evil of angels: learning from the experiences of Aboriginal
peoples and social work. First Peoples Child and Family Review, 4(1), 28–37.
Blackstock, C., Brown, I., & Bennett, M. (2007). Reconciliation: rebuilding the Canadian child
welfare system to better serve Aboriginal children and youth. In I. Brown, F. Chaze, D. Fuchs,
J. Lafrance, S. McKay & S. Thomas Prokop (Eds), Putting a human face on child welfare:
Voices from the prairies (pp. 59–89). Toronto: Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare.
Blackstock, C., Bruyere, D., & Moreau, E. (2007). Many hands one dream: principles for Aboriginal
child and youth health. Ottawa: Canadian Paediatric Society
Blackstock, C., Cross, T., Brown, I., George, J., & Formsma, J. (2006). Reconciliation in Child
Welfare: Touchstones of Hope for Indigenous Children, Youth and Families. Ottawa: First
Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada.
Blackstock, C., Prakash, T., Loxley, J., & Wien, F. (2005). Wen:de – we are coming to the light of day.
Ottawa: First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada.
Blackstock, C., & Trocmé, N. (2005). Community based child welfare for Aboriginal children. In M.
Ungar (Ed.), Handbook for working with children and youth: pathways to resilience across
cultures and contexts (pp.105–120). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Blackstock, C., Trocmé, N., & Bennett, M. (2004). Child welfare response to Aboriginal and Caucasian
children in Canada: A comparative analysis. Violence Against Women, 10 (8), 901–916.
Bowen, S. (2001). Language barriers in health care. Ottawa: Health Canada.
Bowser,B. & Jones, T. (2004). Understanding the over representation of African Americans in the
child welfare system: San Francisco. Retrieved March 29, 2008 from class.csueastbay.edu/
faculty/bbowser/sf_report2.doc
British Columbia Ministry for Children and Family Development, (2005). MARS information system
data May 2005. Unpublished raw data.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
244
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vista (Ed.) Annals of Child
Development: Six Theories of Child Development: Revised Formulations and Current Issues,
pp. 187–247. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Brown, J., Cohen, P., Johnson, J., & Salzinger, S. (1998). A longitudinal analysis of risk factors for
child maltreatment: findings of a 17 year prospective study of officially recorded and self
reported child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22(11), 1065–1078.
Bryce, P.H. (1922). The story of a national crime: an appeal for justice to the Indians of Canada.
Ottawa: James, Hope & Sons.
Bullock, R., Gooch, D., Little, M. (1998). Children going home: The reunification of families. UK:
Ashgate.
Burns, B., Phillips, S., Wagner, R., Barth, R., Kolko, D., Campbell, Y., Landsverk, J. (2004). Mental health
need and access to mental health services by youths involved with child welfare: A national survey.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43(8), 960–970.
Campbell, J. & Moyers, B. (1991). The Power of Myth. New York: Random House.
Canadian Council on Social Development (2002). 2001 Poverty lines. Retrieved March 30, 2009 at
http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/fs_lic01.htm
Canadian Dental Association (2006). First Nations and Inuit oral health. Retrieved March 29, 2008
from http://www.cda-adc.ca/_files/cda/about_cda/government_relations/doth06/06_nihb.pdf
Canadian Incidence Study on Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (2008). 2008 Guidebook.
Montreal, McGill University.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, (2007). CIHR guidelines for health research involving
Aboriginal Peoples. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 1998 (with 2000, 2002
and 2005 amendments). Tri-council policy statement: ethical conduct for research involving
humans. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Cape Breton University (2008). Mi’kmaq resource centre: Mi’kmaq bands in Nova Scotia. Retrieved
April 30, 2008 from http://mrc.uccb.ns.ca/nscouncils.html
Carison, B. E., Smith, C., Matto, H., & Eversman, M. (2008). Reunification with children in the
context of maternal recovery from drug abuse. Families in Society, 89(2), 253–263.
245
Carriere, J. (2005). Connectedness and the health of First Nations adoptees. Pediatric Child Health,
10(9), 545–548.
Carriere, J. (2007). Foreword. First Peoples Child and Family Review, 3(3), 4.
Carver, R. (1978). The case against significance testing. Harvard Educational Review, 4(3), 378–399.
Chand, A. (2001). The over-representation of Black children in the child protection system:
possible causes, consequences, and solutions. Child and Family Social Work, 5(1), 67–77.
Chandler, M. & Lalonde, C. (1998). Cultural continuity as a hedge against suicide in Canada’s First
Nations. Trans-cultural Psychiatry, 35(2), 191–219.
Choate, P. (2009). Parenting capacity assessment in child protection cases. The Forensic Examiner,
Spring 2009. Retrieved March 14, 2009 at http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/
spring09/8/
Clarke, S. (2007). Ending discrimination and protecting equality: a challenge to the INAC funding
formula of First Nations child and family service agencies. Indigenous Law Journal, 6(1).
Clegg & Associates (2004). Racial disproportionality in the child welfare system in King County,
Washington. Seattle: Catalyst for Kids.
Children and Family Services Act (1990). Retrieved April 25, 2008 from www/gov.ns.ca/legislature/
legc//statutes/childfam.html
Commission on the Social Determinants of Health (2007). Achieving health equity from the root
causes to health outcomes. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Confederacy of Mainland Mi’kmaq (n.d). MMM six member communities. Retrieved April 25,
2008 from http://www.cmmns.com/SixCommunities.php
Confederacy of Mainland Mi’kmaq (2007) Kekina’muek: Learning about the Mi’kmaq of Nova
Scotia, Chapter 3: From legends to modern media. Truro: Eastern Woodland Publishing.
Cornell, S., Kalt, J. (1992). Reloading the dice: Improving the chances for economic development
on American Indian reservations. In S. Cornell & J.P. Kalt (Eds.) What can tribes do? Strategies
and institutions in American Indian economic development (pp.1–59) Los Angeles: American
Indian Studies Center.
Costellano, E., Farmer, E., Angold, A., Burns, B., & Erkanli, A. (1997). Psychiatric disorders among
American Indian and white youth in Appalachian: The Great Smoky Mountains study.
American Journal of Public Health, 87 (5), 827–832.
246
Courtenay, M. & Wong, Y. (1996). Comparing the time of exits from substitute care. Children and
youth services review, 18 (4–5), 307–334.
Cross, T. (2007). Through Indigenous eyes: Rethinking theory and practice. Presentation. 2007
Conference of the Secretariat of Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, September 20, 2007.
Adelaide, Australia.
Cross, T. (2009). Personal conversation with Terry Cross on January 19, 2009.
Dell,C. & Lyons,T. (2007). Harm reduction programs and policies for persons of Aboriginal decent.
Ottawa: Canadian Center on Substance Misuse.
Deloria, V. (1997). Red earth white lies: Native Americans and the myth of scientific fact. Golden
Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing.
DeMaille, R. (1984). The sixth grandfather: Black Elk’s teachings given to John G. Neihardt.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Department of Community Services (2004). Manual of standards, policy and procedures for
children in care and custody. Retrieved March 29, 2008 from http://www.gov.ns.ca/coms/
families/documents/Children_in_Care_Manual/Index_000.pdf
Department of Community Services (2008). New children in care by age. Unpublished
administrative data. Halifax: Department of Community Services.
Earle- Fox, K. (2004). Are they really neglected? A look at worker perspectives on neglect through
the eyes of a national data system. First Peoples Child and Family Review, 1(1), 73–83.
English, D., Wingard, T., Marshall, D., Orme, M.,& Orme, A. (2000). Alternative responses to child
protective services: Emerging issues and concerns. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24(3), 375–388.
Enoch, M. & Goldman, D. (2002). Problem drinking and alcoholism: diagnosis and treatment.
American Family Physician, 65 (3), 441–450.
Epstein, W. (2003). The futility of pragmatic reform: The Casey Foundation in New York City.
Children and youth services review, 25(9), 683–701.
Erickson, M. & Egeland, B. (1998). Child neglect. the APSAC handbook on child maltreatment. J.
Meyers, L.Berliner, J. Briere, C. Hendrix, C. Jenney, & T Reid (Eds). London: Sage Publications.
Ermine, W. (2004). The ethics of research involving indigenous peoples: Report of the Indigenous
peoples health research centre. Regina: Indigenous Peoples Health Research Centre.
247
Fallon, B. (2005). Factors driving case dispositions in child welfare services: challenging
conventional wisdom about the importance of organizations and workers. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation: University of Toronto, Faculty of Social Work.
Fallon, B. (2009). Unpublished CIS data on family income. Toronto: University of Toronto.
Falk, D. (2002). Universe on a t-shirt: the quest for a theory of everything. New York: Arcade
Publishing.
Finkelhor, D. & Jones, L. (2004). Explanations for the decline in child sexual abuse cases. Juvenile
Justice Bulletin. Retrieved March 30, 2009 from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/199298.pdf
First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada (2006). National policy review phase three
First Nations child and family service agency survey results. Unpublished raw data.
Fluke, J., Ying-Ying Yuan, et al. (2003). Disproportionate representation of race and ethnicity in
child maltreatment: Investigation and victimization,” Children and Youth Services 25, 359– 374.
Fontaine, P. (2007). Speaking notes for the Assembly of First Nations National Chief, Phil Fontaine,
International conference on ethics, February 5, 2007. Retrieved April 6, 2008 from http://
www.nationtalk.ca/modules/news/article.php?storyid=299
Fuller, T.L., & Wells, S.J. (2003). Predicting maltreatment recurrence among CPS cases with alcohol
and other drug involvement. Children and Youth Services Review, 25(7), 553–569.
Galavani, S. & Forrester, D. (2008). What works in training social workers about drug and
alcohol use? Retrieved March 28, 2009 from http://www.beds.ac.uk/departments/
appliedsocialstudies/staff/sarah-galvani/galvani-forrester-horeport2008pdf
Garbarino, J. (1995). Raising children in a socially toxic environment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Glode, J. (2009). Personal communication using electronic mail, February 18, 2009.
Greene, B. (2003). The elegant universe: superstrings, hidden dimensions and the quest for the
ultimate theory. New York: Vintage Books.
Green, B. L., A. Rockhill, et al. (2007). Does substance abuse treatment make a difference for
child welfare case outcomes? A statewide longitudinal analysis. Children and Youth Services
Review 29(4): 460–473.
Haight, W., Carter-Black, J., &Sheridan, K. (2009). Mothers’ experience of menthamphentamine
addiction: a case-based analysis of rural, mid-western women. Children and youth services
review, 31 (2009), 71–77.
248
Hall,T. & Edwards,K. (2002). The spiritual assessment inventory: a theistic model and measure for
assessing spiritual development. Journal for the scientific study of religion, 41(2), 341–357.
Harris, M. & Courtney, M. (2003). The interaction of race, ethnicity and family structure with
respect to the timing of family reunification. Children and youth review, 25 (5–6), 409–429.
Hawking, S. & Modinow, L. (2005). A briefer history of time. New York: Bantam Books.
Hoffman, E. (1998). Abraham Maslow: Father of enlightened management. Training magazine,
September, 79–82.
Huitt, W. (2004). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Educational psychology interactive. Valdosta, GA:
Valdosta University. Retrieved December 2, 2007, from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/
regsys/maslow.html
Hull, R. & Armstrong, J. (2005). Are null results becoming an endangered species in marketing?
General Economics and Teaching (0502038).
Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada (2006). First Nations child and family services.
Retrieved January 10, 2009 from http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/is/fncfs-eng.asp
Irvine, K. (2004). Crisis response in First Nations child and family services. Ottawa: First Nations
Child and Family Caring Society of Canada.
Irvine, K. (2006). FASD training study: final report. Ottawa: First Nations Child and Family Caring
Society of Canada.
Jones, A. & Crandall, R. (1986). Validation of a short index of self-actualization. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 12(1), 63–73.
Kaku, M. (2006). Parallel worlds. New York: Random House.
Kendall-Tackett, K., Meyer- Williams, L., & Finklehor, D. ( 2001). Impact of sexual abuse on
children: A review and synthesis of recent empirical studies. Children and the law. Ray Bull
(Ed.), pp 31–76. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kelly, F. (2009). Personal conversation, Toronto, February 28, 2009.
Kelley, S. (2002). Substance misuse as a risk factor for C.M. In J. Meyers, L.Berliner, J. Briere, C.
Hendrix, C. Jenney, & T. Reid (Eds). The APSAC handbook on child maltreatment. London:
Sage Publications.
249
Kimmelman, E. (1985). No quiet place: Manitoba review on Indian and Métis adoptions and
placements. Winnipeg: Manitoba Ministry of Community Services.
King, G., Trocmé, N., & Thatte, N. (2003). Substantiation as a multi-tier process: the results of NIS-
3 analysis. Child maltreatment, 8(3), 173–182.
Knudtson, P. & Suzuki, D. (1992) Wisdom of the Elders: native and scientific ways of knowing
about nature. Vancouver: Greystone Publishing.
Kovach, M. (2007). Searching for arrowheads: An inquiry into Indigenous approaches using a
tribal methodology with a Nehyiyaw Kiskeyihtamotiwin worldview. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Victoria, British Columbia.
Kovach, M. (2008). Searching for arrowheads: An inquiry into Indigenous approaches using a
tribal methodology with a Nehyiyaw Kiskeyihtamotiwin worldview. Presentation at Murdoch
University on September 16, 2008.
Kroll, B. & Taylor, A. (2003). Parental substance misuse and child welfare. New York: Jessica
Kingsley Publishers.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant: know your values and frame the debate. White
River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Landsman, M., Nelson, K., Allen, M., & Tyler, M. (1992). Final report: Family-based treatment for
chronically neglecting families: The self- sufficiency project. Iowa City: National Resource
Centre of Family Based Services.
Laszlo, E. (2007). Science and the Akashic field. Rochester, NY: Inner Traditions.
Laszlo-Barabasi, A. (2003). Linked: how everything is connected to everything else and what it
means for business, science and everyday life. London: Plume Books.
Legal Action Center (2003). Safe and sound: Models for collaboration between the child welfare
and addiction treatment systems. New York: Legal Action Center.
Libby, A., Orton, H., Barth, R., Webb, B. (2006). Alcohol, drug, and mental health specialty
treatment services and race/ethnicity: a national study of children and families involved with
child welfare. American journal of public health, 96 (4), 628–631.
Lindsey, D (2004). The Welfare of Children. 2nd edition. Don Mills: Oxford University Press.
Littell, J., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. New York: Oxford
University Press.
250
Loppie-Reading, C. & Wien, F. (2009). Health inequalities and social determinants of Aboriginal
Peoples’ health. Prince George: National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health.
Loxley, J., De Riviere, L., Prakash, T., Blackstock, C., Wien, F., & Thomas Prokop, S. (2005). Wen:
de: the journey continues. Ottawa: First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada.
Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1998). An ecological-transactional analysis of children and contexts:
The longitudinal interplay among child maltreatment, community violence, and children’s
symptomatology. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 235–257.
Lynne, Jackie (1998). Colonialism and the sexual exploitation of Canada’s First Nations women.
Paper presented at the American Psychological Association 106th Annual Convention, San
Francisco, California, August 17, 1998.
MacDonald, N. (2008). Personal conversation with Nancy MacDonald, March, 2008.
MacDonald, N. & MacDonald, J. (2007). Reflection of a Mi’kmaq social worker on a quarter of a
century work in First Nations child welfare. First Peoples Child and Family Review, 3(1), 34–45.
Mandell, D., Blackstock, C., Clouston Carlson, J., & Fine, M. (2006). From child welfare to child,
family and community welfare: The agenda of Canada’s Aboriginal peoples. In Towards
Positive Systems of Child and Family Welfare. Nancy Freymond and Gary Cameron, Eds.,
211–236. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
McDonald, R. & Ladd, P. (2000). Joint national policy review of First Nations child and family
services joint national policy review. Ottawa, ON: Assembly of First Nations.
McGowan, P., Sasaki, A., Alessio, A., Dymov, S., Labonte, B., Szyt, M., Turecki, G. & Meaney, M.
(2009). Epigenetic regulation of the glococorticoid receptor in human brain associates with
childhood abuse. Nature Neuroscience, 12, 342–348.
McKenzie, B. (2002). Block funding child maintenance in First Nations child and family services:
A policy review. Unpublished paper prepared for Montreal: Kahnawake Shakotiia’takenhas
Community Services.
Mendleson, M. (2006). Aboriginal Peoples and post secondary education in Canada. Ottawa:
Caledon Policy Institute.
Mi’kmaq Nova Scotia (n.d.) A MicMac legend. Retrieved January 18, 2009 from http://www.mns-
firstnet.ca/Legends.php
251
Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch (1999). Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch principles and guidelines for researchers:
Conducting research with and/or among Mi’kmaq People. Retrieved January 1, 2009 from
http://www.mrc.uccb.ns.ca/prinpro.html
Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services of Nova Scotia (2008). Annual report 2007-2008. Truro:
Eastern Woodland Communications.
Minnesota Department of Human Services (2007). SSIS project update, 235 (April 20, 2007).
Retrieved April 1, 2007 from http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/main/groups/agencywide/
documents/pub/dhs16_138190.pd
Mitchell, O. (2006). “Race and sentencing data analysis: Aggregation bias masks unwarranted
disparity.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology
(ASC), Los Angeles Convention Center, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved March 25, 2009 from
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p127291_index.htmlf
Moyers, B. (2008). Moyers on democracy. New York: Doubleday Publishers.
Nadjiwan, S. and Blackstock, C. (2003) Caring across the boundaries. Ottawa: First Nations Child
and Family Caring Society of Canada.
National Council on Welfare (2008). First Nations, Métis and Inuit children and youth: time to act.
Ottawa: National Council on Welfare.
National Indian Child Welfare Association (2008). Correspondence to Kathleen McHugh, Director
of Policy, Children’s Bureau, Administration of Children and Families dated March 11, 2008
re: 45 CFR Part 1355 Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System.
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Shaw, T., Dawson, W., Piccus,
W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Smith, J. , Dunn, A., Frerer, K., Putnam Hornstein, E., Ataie, Y.,
Atkinson, L., & Lee, S.H. (2007). Child welfare services reports for California. Retrieved April 6,
2008 from http://cssr.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreports/>
Nelson, K., Landsman, M., Cross, T., Tyler, M., Twohig, A., & Allen, A. (1994). Family functioning
of neglectful families: Final report, volume one – findings. Washington, D C: National
Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect.
Nova Scotia Department of Community Services (2008). Number of children in permanent care
provided by the Acting Director of Child Protection Services, Nova Scotia Department of
Community Services. Halifax: Nova Scotia.
252
Nova Scotia Department of Community Services and the Nova Scotia Association of Social
Workers (2005). Child welfare services: protecting children by supporting families. Retrieved
April 25, 2008 from http://www.nsasw.org/publications.html
Nova Scotia Department of Finance (2009). Household income distribution. Retrieved March 9,
2009 at http://www.gov.ns.ca/finance/en/home/taxation/taxreview/householdincome.aspx
Olds, D., Eckenrode, J.,Henderson, C., Kitzman, H., Powers, J., Cole, R., Sidora, K., Morris, P.,
Pettitt, L. & Luckey, D. (1997). Long-term effects of home visitation on maternal life course
and child abuse and neglect. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(8), 637–643.
Olsen, L. (1982). Services for Minority Children in Out-of-Home Care. Social Service Review, 56 (4):
572–85.
Optimal Design (2004). Optimal Design. Lincolnwood: SSI Scientific Software International.
Oxenham, D. (1999). Aboriginal terms of reference: the concept at the Centre for Aboriginal studies.
Curtin Indigenous Research Centre Discussion Paper. Perth: Curtin University of Technology.
Paul, D. (2006). First Nations history: We were not the savages. Halifax: Fernwood Books.
Porter, T. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Portwood (1999). Coming to terms with a consensual definition of child maltreatment. Child
Maltreatment, 4(1), 56–68.
Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage Books.
Prentice, J. (2007). The Alberta partnership on child welfare on reserve. Retrieved March 16, 2009
from http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/spch/2007/apcw-apr2707-eng.asp
Priddy, R. (1999). Beyond science. Retrieved March 16, 2009 from http://home.no.net/rrpriddy/
bey/02.html
Public Health Agency of Canada (2007). Determinants of health: What makes Canadians healthy
or unhealthy? Retrieved 1 January 2008, from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/phdd/
determinants/#determinants
Rabins, P. (2003). Cognitive neuroscience of emotion. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 193–194.
253
Rae, J. and the Sub Group on Indigenous Children and Youth (2006). Rights and reality: A report
on indigenous children and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Ottawa:
First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada.
Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Fai Cheong, Y., Congdon, R. & du Toit, M. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical
linear & non linear modeling. Lincolnwood: SSI Scientific Software International.
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996). Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples. Ottawa, ON: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.
Rural Communities Impacting Policy Project (2003). Painting the landscape of rural Nova Scotia.
Halifax: Atlantic Health Promotion Research Centre, Dalhousie University.
Saskatchewan Community Resources and Employment and Montreal Lake Child and Family
Services Inc. (2003). The Baby Andy report: Examination of services provided to baby Andy
and his family. Regina: Saskatchewan Community Resources and Employment.
Semkin, S. (2005). Sense of space and place-based introductory geosciences teaching for American
Indian and Alaskan Native undergraduates. Journal of Geosciences Education, 53(2), 149–157.
Shangreaux, C. (2004) Staying At Home: Examining the implications of least disruptive measures
in First Nations child and family service agencies. Ottawa: First Nations Child and Family
Caring Society of Canada.
Schnarch, B. (2004). Ownership, control, access and possession or self determination applied to
research. Ottawa: National Aboriginal Health Organization.
Sealander, J. (2003). The failed century of the child: Governing Americas young in the twentieth
century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, M., Bala, N., Lilles, H. & Blackstock, C. (2004). Aboriginal child welfare in N. Bala, ., M.Kim
Zaph, J.Williams, R.Vogl, and J. Hornick,(Eds.). Canadian child welfare law: Children, families,
and the state (2nd ed.) Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing.
Slep, A & Heyman, R. (2006). Creating and field-testing definitions of child maltreatment. Child
Maltreatment, 11(3), 217–236.
Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed
Books Limited.
Smith, M. (1998). Sibling placement in foster care: an exploration of associated concurrent pre-
school aged child functioning. Child and Youth Services Review, 20(5), 389–412.
254
SNAICC (2007). Through Black Eyes: A handbook to protect children from the impact of family
violence and child abuse. North Fitzroy, AU: SNAICC.
Standing Committee on Public Accounts (2009). Chapter 4: First Nations child and family services
program – Indian and Northern Affairs Canada of the May 2008 report of the Auditor
General: Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Retrieved March 24, 2009
from http://www.fncaringsociety.com/docs/402_PACP_Rpt07-e.pdf
Statistics Canada (2001). 2001 Census: Analysis series: Aboriginal Peoples of Canada: A
demographic profile. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Statistics Canada (2001). Census families’ median income, Canada, provinces and territories,
1990 and 2000. Retrieved March 1, 2009 from http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/
products/analytic/companion/inc/provs.cfm
Statistics Canada (2006). Low income cut-offs for 2005 and low income measures for 2004.
Retrieved March 30, 2009 at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=75F0002M
IE2006004&lang=eng
Statistics Canada (2008). Aboriginal peoples highlight tables, 2006 census. Retrieved January
18, 2008 from http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/highlights/Aboriginal/index.
cfm?Lang=E
Strogatz, S. (2001). Sync: How order emerges from chaos in the universe, nature and daily life.
New York: Hyperion.
Thatcher, R. (2004). Fighting firewater fictions: Moving beyond the disease model of alcoholism
in First Nations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Tickett, P., Mennen. F., & Jina Sang, K. (2009). Emotional abuse in a sample of multiple
maltreated, urban young adolescents: issues of definition and identification. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 33(2009), 27–35.
Thoma, E. (2007). Predicting the future and the codification of poverty: If you lived here, you’d
be home by now: the business of foster care. Issues in Child Abuse Accusation, 10 (10).
Retrieved April 12, 2009 from http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume10/j10_10_13.htm
Townsend, I. & Kennedy, S. (2004). Poverty measures and targets. United Kingdom House of
Commons Library Research Paper, 4 (23).
255
Trachtenberg, A. & Fleming, M. (2005). Diagnosis and treatment of drug abuse in family practice.
Retrieved March 29, 2009 from http://www.nida.nih.gov/diagnosis-treatment/diagnosis.html
Trocmé, N.., Fallon, B., MacLaurin, B., & Shangreaux, C. (2005). The experience of First Nations
children coming into the child welfare system in Canada: the Canadian Incidence Study on
reported child abuse and neglect. In First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada
(Ed.), Wen:de: coming to the light of day (pp. 60–86). Ottawa: First Nations Child and Family
Caring Society of Canada.
Trocmé, N., Knoke, D., & Blackstock, C. (2004). Pathways to the overrepresentation of Aboriginal
children in Canada’s child welfare system, Social Service Review, (December), 577–600.
Trocmé, N., MacLaurin, B., & Fallon, B. (2000). Canadian child welfare outcomes indicator matrix:
An ecological approach to tracking service outcomes. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment
and Trauma, 4(1), 165–190.
Trocmé, N., MacLaurin, B., Fallon, B. Daciuk, J. Billingsley, D., Tourigny, M., Mayer, M., Wright, J.,
Barter, K., Burford, G., Hornick, J., Sullivan, R., & McKenzie, B. (2001). Canadian incidence
study of reported child abuse and neglect: final report. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada.
Trocmé, N., MacLaurin, B., Fallon, B., Daciuk, J., Tourigny, M. & Billingsley, D. (2001). Canadian
incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect methodology. Canadian Journal of Public
Health, July-August 2001, 259–263.
Trocmé, N., MacMillan, H., Fallon, B., & De Marco, R., (2003). Nature and severity of physical harm
caused by child abuse and neglect: Results from the Canadian Incidence Study. Canadian
Medical Association Journal, 169(9), 911–919.
Trocmé, N., MacLaurin, B., Fallon, B., Knoke, D., Pitman,L., & McCormack, M. (2006). Mesnnmimk
Wasatek: catching a drop of light: Understanding the over-representation of First Nations
children in Canada’s child welfare system: An analysis of the Canadian Incidence Study of
Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS-2003). Ottawa: First Nations Child and Family Caring
Society of Canada.
United States Department of Health and Human Services (2006). Child maltreatment 2004.
Washington, DC: United States Government Printing House.
Vorkinn, M. (2001). Environmental concern in the local context. Environment and behaviour,
33(2), 249–263.
Wadsworth, B (2008). Personal conversation with Billy Wadsworth, Blood First Nation.
256
Watts, D. (1999). Small worlds: the dynamics of networks between order and randomness.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Watts, D. (2006). Six degrees: The science of a connected age. New York: Norton and Company.
Wolfe, D., & Yuan, L. (2001). A conceptual and epidemiological framework for child maltreatment
surveillance. Ottawa: Health Canada.
World Health Organization (2007). Interim statement of the Commission on Social Determinants
of Health. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Wright, R. (2005). A short history of progress. Toronto: House of Anansi Press.
Wulczyn, F. (2003). Closing the gap: Are changing exit patterns reducing the time African
American children spend in foster care relative to Caucasian children? Children and Youth
Services Review, 25(5–6), 431–462.
Wulczyn, F. (2004). Family reunification. Children, Families and Foster Care, 14(1), 95–113.
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) (2003). Innocenti Digest No.11: Ensuring the Rights of
Indigenous Children. Florence: Innocenti Research Centre and UNICEF.
United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (2003). Chairperson’s summary of the
high level panel and dialogue on Indigenous children and youth. New York: United Nations
Economic and Social Council.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2008). National survey of child and adolescent
well-being, No.9: Does substantiation of child maltreatment relate to child well being and
service receipt? Retrieved April 3, 2008 from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_
neglect/nscaw/reports/substan_child/substan_child.html
Wien, F., Glode, J., & MacDonald, N. (2005). Respecting Aboriginal Families: Customary Care and
Family Group Conferencing. In Ungar, M. (ed.) Handbook for Working with Children and
Youth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Wood, V. (2009). Personal communication by electronic mail, February 17, 2009.
Zimmerman B.J., Lindberg C., Plsek, P.E. (1998). Edgeware: Complexity resources for healthcare
leaders. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
257
AppENdIx A
WEM budget
When Everything Matters Expenses (January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008)
Desktop design and printing $ 3790.31
Research assistant fees 2600.00
Instrument testing travel 1410.60
Data collection travel 3832.85
Cultural gifts 8820
Office supplies 285.00
Catering and Meeting fees 275.00
Courier, mail, phone 300.00
TOTAL $ 13,375.76
When Everything Matters Projected Expenses 2009
Finding dissemination travel $ 2000.00
Mi’kmaw translation 1500.00
Desktop design and printing 2000.00
Mail, phone, courier 300.00
Feast and cultural gifts 1000.00
TOTAL $ 6,800.00
Projected Total for Entire Project $ 20,175.76
258
AppENdIx b
WEM data Collection Instrument
1. Date that the report resulting in the child being admitted to care was received D D M M Y Y Y Y
2. Date When Everything Matters placement form completed D D M M Y Y Y Y
3. List all children under 18 years of age in the home at the time of the removal. Include biological, step-, adoptive and foster children.
Relationship codes 1. Biological parent 2. Adoptive parent 3. Step-parent 4. Grandparent 5. Foster Parent 6. Other (please specify) (please specify) (please specify ____________________________________________________
Other caregiver Primary caregiver Sex of relationship to child relationship to child Primary at time of removal Subject of SelectedFirst name Sex Age (years) at time of removal Caregiver (if applicable) investigation? child
M F M F Y N Y N
M F M F Y N Y N
M F M F Y N Y N
M F M F Y N Y N
M F M F Y N Y N
M F M F Y N Y N
M F M F Y N Y N
4. How many times was the child in care prior to this referral?
P L A C E M E N T F O R M
5. Social worker’s name _______________________________________________________________________________________
6. First two letters of child’s surname First two letters of alternate surname (where applicable)
7. Agency case number (use as many squares as required and leave remaining squares blank)
8. Family address (including postal code) _________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
WEM OFFICE USE ONLY
259
Please do not write in this area
CommentsChild Information
Household Information
Service Aim Information
260
Child Information 1 of 2
1. First Name _____________________________________________________________________________ Sex Male Female
2. Date of birth D D M M Y Y Y Y
3. Date of removal D D M M Y Y Y Y
4. Aboriginal Status
Non-Aboriginal First Nations Status First Nations non-Status
Métis Inuit Unknown Other (please specify) (please specify) (please specify __________________________________________________________
5. Child functioning at time of removal Confirmed Suspected No Unknown
Depression
ADD/ADHD
Negative peer involvement
Alcohol abuse
Drug/solvent abuse
Self harming behavior
Violence toward others
Running (one incident)
Running (multiple incidents)
Inappropriate sexual behavior
Other behavioral/emotional problems (please specify)
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Learning disability
Special education services
Irregular school attendance
Developmental delay
Physical disability
Substance abuse–related birth defect
Positive toxicology at birth
Other health conditions (please specify)
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Psychiatric disorder
Youth Criminal Justice Act involvement Criminal Justice Act involvement Criminal Justice Act
Other (please specify) ________________________________
261
Child Information 2 of 2
6. Primary type of child maltreatment at time of removal (enter primary form of maltreatment first, using codes in the box to the left)
1st 2nd 3
rd
7. Has the primary type of child maltreatment changed since the child was removed?
Yes No Don’t know
8. If the primary type of child maltreatment has changed since the time of removal, indicate the current primary type of child maltreatment using the codes in the box to the left.
1st 2nd 3
rd
9. The child’s placement at the current time
Remains in child welfare care
Has reached age of majority and is discharged from care
Has been placed for adoption
Has been reunified with family under supervision order
Has been reunified with family with no supervision order
Other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________________
10. If the child has been reunified with family, has been reunified with family, has been reunified with familyindicate date of reunification
D D M M Y Y Y Y
11. Did the caregiver composition of the household change since the time of removal?
Yes No
12. If the household caregiver composition changed since the time of removal please indicate the nature of the changes (check all that apply)
Caregiver A no longer in the home
Caregiver B no longer in the home
Other caregiver in the home (please specify)
________________________________________________________________
13. If child was reunified please indicate if the child was reunified to
Caregiver A Caregiver B Caregiver A and B Other caregiver (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________________
14. If child has been reunified with a care giver other than caregiver A and B please identify the alternate caregiver’s relationship to the child using the codes to the bottom left
Caregiver C: Caregiver D:
15. Number of placement changes since child admitted to care
16. If the child has been reunified with family, has been reunified with family, has been reunified with familyindicate primary reason for reunificationRisk factors present at time of removal removal were reduced to acceptable level by family without services
Risk factors present at time of removal were Risk factors present at time of removal were reduced to acceptable level with aid of services
Risk factors discovered after removal were reduced Risk factors discovered after removal were reduced to acceptable level by family without services
Risk factors discovered after removal were reduced Risk factors discovered after removal were reduced to acceptable level with aid of services
Other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________________
17. If the child remains in care, indicate current legal status
Temporary care and custody Permanent care and custody Under application for adoption Placed for adoption
Other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________________
18. If the child remains in care, indicate the primary reason
Risk factors present at time of removal remain unresolved
Risk factors discovered after removal remain unresolved
Statutory time limits exceeded for reunification with caregiver
Caregiver abandonment
Lack of relevant services to reduce risk factors Lack of relevant services to reduce risk factors
Other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________________
MALTREATMENT CODESPhysical abuse 01. Anticipatory physical
abuse02. Physical abuse resulting
in injury03. Physical abuse resulting
in no injury
Sexual abuse 04. Anticipatory sexual abuse05. Sexual abuse06. Sexual exploitation
Emotional abuse 07. Anticipatory emotional
abuse08. Emotional abuse09. Anticipatory exposure to
domestic violence10. Exposure to domestic
violence
Neglect 11. Anticipatory neglect12. Failure to supervise13. Physical neglect14. Other neglect15. Abandonment
Other16. Caregiver incapacity-
mental health17. Caregiver incapacity-
substance misuse18. Caregiver inability to meet
child’s special needs19. Other (please specify)
________________________________________
RELATIONSHIP CODES1. Biological mother2. Biological father3. Step-mother4. Step-father5. Adoptive mother6. Adoptive father7. Grandparent8. Other (please specify)
________________________________________ 262
Household Information 1 of 3
The term “caregiver” describes the person(s) acting as the child’s guardian. Each section notes whether or not the questions relate to the time of the
child’s removal or the time of reunification/date of form completion.
2. Caregiver A age (in years)
17 or under 41–50 Unknown
18–30 51–60
31–40 61+
3. Primary source of income
Full time Employment insurance
Part time Social assistance
Multiple jobs Other benefit
Seasonal Unknown
Other (please specify) _____________________________________________________________
4. Education level
Elementary or less College/university
Some secondary Unknown
Completed secondary
5. Ethno-racial group
Non-Aboriginal
Unknown
Aboriginal ∆ If Aboriginal
a) On Reserve Off Reserve
b) First Nations Status First Nations Status
First Nations non-Status First Nations non-Status
Métis
Inuit
Other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________
2. Caregiver B age (in years)
17 or under 41–50 Unknown
18–30 51–60 No other caregiver
31–40 61+
3. Primary source of income
Full time Employment insurance
Part time Social assistance
Multiple jobs Other benefit
Seasonal Unknown
Other (please specify) _____________________________________________________________
4. Education level
Elementary or less College/university
Some secondary Unknown
Completed secondary
5. Ethno-racial group
Non-Aboriginal
Unknown
Aboriginal ∆ If Aboriginal
a) On Reserve Off Reserve
b) First Nations Status First Nations Status
First Nations non-Status First Nations non-Status
Métis
Inuit
Other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________
1. Please indicate which caregiver posed the most significant risk to the child at the time of the removal.
Caregiver A
Caregiver B
Caregiver A and B equal risks
Caregiver information at time of removal
263
Household Information 2 of 3
6. Primary language of Caregiver A
Aboriginal language (please specify) ___________________________________________
English French Unknown
Other (please specify) _______________________________________________________________
7. Contact with Caregiver A
Cooperative Non-cooperative
Somewhat cooperative Not contacted
9. Other adults in home
None
Children >19
Grandparent
Other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________
10. Household income estimate
<$15,000 >$40,000
$15,000–$24,999 Unknown
$25,000–$39,999
11. Housing
Own home Shelter/hotel
Rental Unknown
Public housing Other (please specify)
Band housing ____________________________________
8. Caregiver A risk factors at time of removal
Confirmed Suspected No Unknown
Alcohol abuse
Drug/solvent abuse
Criminal activity
Cognitive impairment
Mental health issues
Physical health issues
Few social supports
Maltreated as a child
Victim of domestic violence
Perpetrator of domestic violence
Other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
12. Unsafe housing conditions
Yes No Unknown
13. Home overcrowded
Yes No Unknown
14. Number of moves in last 12 months
0 1 2 >2
Unknown
15. Number of other children removed from the household
0 1 2 or more Unknown
8. Caregiver B risk factors at time of removal
Confirmed Suspected No Unknown
Alcohol abuse
Drug/solvent abuse
Criminal activity
Cognitive impairment
Mental health issues
Physical health issues
Few social supports
Maltreated as a child
Victim of domestic violence
Perpetrator of domestic violence
Other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
6. Primary language of Caregiver B
Aboriginal language (please specify) ___________________________________________
English French Unknown
Other (please specify) _______________________________________________________________
7. Contact with Caregiver B
Cooperative Non-cooperative
Somewhat cooperative Not contacted
264
Household Information 3 of 3
Caregiver information at time child reunified or at time of WEM form completion Caregiver information at time child reunified or at time of WEM form completion if child remains in care
17. Other adults in home
None
Children >19
Grandparent
Other (please specify)
______________________________________________________
18. Household income estimate
<$15,000
$15,000–$24,999
$25,000–$39,999
>$40,000
Unknown
19. Housing
Own home Shelter/hotel
Rental Unknown
Public housing Other (please specify)
Band housing ____________________________________
16. Caregiver A risk factors at time of Reunification or WEM form completion
Confirmed Suspected No Unknown
Alcohol abuse
Drug/solvent abuse
Criminal activity
Cognitive impairment
Mental health issues
Physical health issues
Few social supports
Maltreated as a child
Victim of domestic violence
Perpetrator of domestic violence
Other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
20. Unsafe housing conditions
Yes No Unknown
21. Home overcrowded
Yes No Unknown
22. Number of moves in last 12 months
0 1 2 >2
Unknown
23. Number of other children removed from the household
0 1 2 or more Unknown
16. Caregiver B risk factors at time of Reunification or WEM form completion
Confirmed Suspected No Unknown
Alcohol abuse
Drug/solvent abuse
Criminal activity
Cognitive impairment
Mental health issues
Physical health issues
Few social supports
Maltreated as a child
Victim of domestic violence
Perpetrator of domestic violence
Other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
265
Service Aim 1 of 4
The following questions relate to the services provided to the child or caregiver(s) after the child has been removed from their family
Primary aims of services provided after removal while child is in care
2. Services to the caregiver (check all that apply) Caregiver Caregiver
A B
Food Bank
Supervised visits
No contact order
Drug testing
Parent education
In-home parent support
Other family/parent counselling (please specify)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Substance-misuse assessment
Substance-misuse treatment
Substance misuse support
Welfare/social assistance
Employment training
Education/literacy
Food bank
Shelter services
Low-income housing
Domestic violence services
Psychiatric/psychological services
Recreation
Victim support program
Medical/dental services
Child/day care
Cultural services
Spiritual services
Other caregiver/familyreferral (please specify)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
None (if none, please indicate primary reason for no services provided)
Services relevant to caregiver’s needs not available
Caregiver uncooperative
Services not needed
Other (please specify)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Services to the child (check all that apply)
Mental health assessment
Mental health treatment
Physical health assessment
Physical health treatment
Dental assessment
Dental treatment
Disability supports
Mentorship
Education supports
Employment services
Social assistance
Recreation
Cultural services
Spiritual services
Substance-misuse assessment Substance-misuse assessment
Substance-misuse treatment
Behavior management
Child development
Other child referral (please specify)
______________________________________________________________
None (if none, please indicate primary reason for no services provided)
Services relevant to child’s needs not available
Child uncooperative
Services not needed
Other (please specify)
_________________________________________________
266
Service Aim 2 of 4
3. Cultural match of services to child provided directly by child welfare authority
Achieved
Mostly achieved
Partially achieved
Not achieved
Unknown
4. Cultural match of services to caregiver provided directly by child welfare authority
Caregiver A Caregiver B
Achieved Achieved
Mostly achieved Mostly achieved
Partially achieved Partially achieved
Not achieved Not achieved
Not applicable Not applicable
Unknown Unknown
5. Cultural match of services to child provided by outside services
Achieved
Mostly achieved
Partially achieved
Not achieved
Not applicable
Unknown
6. Cultural match of services to caregiver provided by outside services
Caregiver A Caregiver B
Achieved Achieved
Mostly achieved Mostly achieved
Partially achieved Partially achieved
Not achieved Not achieved
Not applicable Not applicable
Unknown Unknown
7. Cultural match of current placement for the child
Child reunified with family
Placement is with extended family culturally matched
Placement is with extended family not culturally matched
Placement is with non-relative culturally matched
Placement is with non-relative not culturally matched
Placement is in an institution culturally matched
Placement is in an institution not culturally matched
Unknown
8. Primary aims of services to the child at time of reunification or WEM form completion (check all that apply)
Mental health assessment
Mental health treatment
Physical health assessment
Physical health treatment
Dental assessment
Dental treatment
Disability supports
Mentorship
Education supports
Employment services
Social assistance
Recreation
Cultural services
Spiritual services
Substance-misuse assessment
Substance-misuse treatment
Behavior management
Child development
Victim support program
Other child referral (please specify)
______________________________________________
None (if none, please indicate primary reason for no services provided)
Services relevant to child’s needs not available
Child uncooperative
Services not needed
Other (please specify)
__________________________________________267
Service Aim 3 of 4
If the child has been reunified, indicate the primary aims of services provided to the child and caregiver after reunification
9. Primary aims of services to the caregiver (Complete for Caregiver A in all cases. Complete for Caregivers B, C and D if applicable.)
Caregiver Caregiver Caregiver Caregiver A B C D
Supervised visits
No contact order
Drug testing
Parent education
In-home parent support
Other family/parent counseling (please specify)
___________________________________________________________________
Substance-misuse assessment
Substance-misuse treatment
Substance-misuse support
Welfare/social assistance
Employment training
Education/literacy
Food bank
Shelter services
Low-income housing
Domestic violence services
Psychiatric/Psychological services
Recreation
Victim support services
Medical/Dental services
Child/Day care
Cultural services
Spiritual services
Other caregiver/Family referral (please specify)___________________________________________________________________
None (if none, please indicate primary reason for no services provided)
Services relevant to caregiver’s needs not available
Caregiver uncooperative
Services not needed
Other caregiver/Family referral (please specify) ______________________________________________________________
268
Service Aim 4 of 4
10. Cultural match of services to child provided directly by child welfare authority
Achieved
Mostly achieved
Partially achieved
Not achieved
Unknown
11. Cultural match of services to caregiver provided directly by child welfare authority (Complete for Caregiver A and for Caregivers B,C,D if applicable)
Caregiver A Caregiver B
Achieved Achieved
Mostly achieved Mostly achieved
Partially achieved Partially achieved
Not achieved Not achieved
Not applicable Not applicable
Unknown Unknown
Caregiver C Caregiver D
Achieved Achieved
Mostly achieved Mostly achieved
Partially achieved Partially achieved
Not achieved Not achieved
Not applicable Not applicable
Unknown Unknown
12. Cultural match of services to child provided by outside services
Achieved
Mostly achieved
Partially achieved
Not achieved
Not applicable
Unknown
13. Cultural match of services to caregiver provided by outside services (Complete for Caregiver A and for Caregivers B,C,D if applicable)
Caregiver A Caregiver B
Achieved Achieved
Mostly achieved Mostly achieved
Partially achieved Partially achieved
Not achieved Not achieved
Unknown Unknown
Caregiver C Caregiver D
Achieved Achieved
Mostly achieved Mostly achieved
Partially achieved Partially achieved
Not achieved Not achieved
Unknown Unknown
269
270
AppENdIx C
WEM data Collection Instrument Adapted for Replication
1. Date When Everything Matters placement form completed D D M M Y Y Y Y
2. List all children under 18 years of age in the home at the time of the removal. Include biological, step-, adoptive and foster children.
Relationship codes 1. Biological parent 2. Adoptive parent 3. Step-parent 4. Grandparent 5. Foster Parent 6. Other (please specify) (please specify) (please specify ____________________________________________________
Other caregiver Primary caregiver Sex of relationship to child relationship to child Primary at time of removal Subject ofFirst name Sex at time of removal Caregiver (if applicable) investigation?
Selected child
M F M F Y N
Other children under 18 years of age in the home at the time of the removal. Include biological, step-children, adoptive and foster children
M F M F Y N
M F M F Y N
M F M F Y N
M F M F Y N
M F M F Y N
M F M F Y N
P L A C E M E N T F O R M
3. Social worker’s name _______________________________________________________________________________________
4. First two letters of child’s surname First two letters of alternate surname (where applicable)
5. Agency case number (use as many squares as required and leave remaining squares blank)
6. Family address (including postal code) _________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
WEM OFFICE USE ONLY
271
Please do not write in this area
CommentsChild Information
Household Information
Service Aim Information
272
Child Information 1 of 2
1. First Name _____________________________________________________________________________ Sex Male Female
2. Date of birth D D M M Y Y Y Y
3. Date that the report resulting in the child being admitted to care was received D D M M Y Y Y Y
4. Date of removal D D M M Y Y Y Y
5. Number of prior admissions to care
6. Aboriginal Status
Non-Aboriginal First Nations Status First Nations non-Status
Métis Inuit Unknown Other (please specify) (please specify) (please specify __________________________________________________________
7. Child functioning at time of removal Confirmed Suspected No Unknown
Depression
ADD/ADHD
Negative peer involvement
Alcohol abuse
Drug/solvent abuse
Self harming behavior
Violence toward others
Running (one incident)
Running (multiple incidents)
Inappropriate sexual behavior
Other behavioral/emotional problems (please specify)
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Learning disability
Special education services
Irregular school attendance
Developmental delay
Physical disability
Substance abuse–related birth defect
Positive toxicology at birth
Other health conditions (please specify)
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Psychiatric disorder
Youth Criminal Justice Act involvement Criminal Justice Act involvement Criminal Justice Act
Other (please specify) ________________________________ 273
Child Information 2 of 2
8. Primary type of child maltreatment at time of removal (enter primary form of maltreatment first, using codes in the box to the left)
1st 2nd 3
rd
9. Has the primary type of child maltreatment changed since the child was removed?
Yes No Don’t know
10. If the primary type of child maltreatment has changed since the time of removal, indicate the current primary type of child maltreatment using the codes in the box to the left.
1st 2nd 3
rd
11. The child’s placement at the current time
Remains in child welfare care
Has reached age of majority and is discharged from care
Has been placed for adoption
Has been reunified with family under supervision order
Has been reunified with family with no supervision order
Other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________________
12. Number of placement changes since child admitted to care
13. Did the caregiver composition of the household change since the time of removal?
Yes No
If the household caregiver composition changed since the time of removal please indicate the nature of the changes (check all that apply)
Caregiver A no longer in the home
Caregiver B no longer in the home
Other caregiver in the home (please specify)
________________________________________________________________
14. If the child has been reunified with family, has been reunified with family, has been reunified with familyindicate date of reunification
D D M M Y Y Y Y
15. If child was reunified please indicate if the child was reunified to
Caregiver A Caregiver B Caregiver A and B Other caregiver (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________________
16. If child has been reunified with a care giver other than caregiver A and B please identify the alternate caregiver’s relationship to the child using the codes to the bottom left
Caregiver C: Caregiver D:
17. If the child has been reunified with family, has been reunified with family, has been reunified with familyindicate primary reason for reunificationRisk factors present at time of removal removal were reduced to acceptable level by family without services
Risk factors present at time of removal were Risk factors present at time of removal were reduced to acceptable level with aid of services
Risk factors discovered after removal were reduced Risk factors discovered after removal were reduced to acceptable level by family without services
Risk factors discovered after removal were reduced Risk factors discovered after removal were reduced to acceptable level with aid of services
Other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________________
18. If the child remains in care, indicate current legal status
Temporary care and custody Permanent care and custody Under application for adoption Placed for adoption Child reached age of majority
Other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________________
19. If the child remains in care, indicate the primary reason
Risk factors present at time of removal remain unresolved
Risk factors discovered after removal remain unresolved
Statutory time limits exceeded for reunification with caregiver
Caregiver abandonment
Lack of relevant services to reduce risk factors Lack of relevant services to reduce risk factors
Other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________________
MALTREATMENT CODESPhysical abuse 01. Anticipatory physical
abuse02. Physical abuse resulting
in injury03. Physical abuse resulting
in no injury
Sexual abuse 04. Anticipatory sexual abuse05. Sexual abuse06. Sexual exploitation
Emotional abuse 07. Anticipatory emotional
abuse08. Emotional abuse09. Anticipatory exposure to
domestic violence10. Exposure to domestic
violence
Neglect 11. Anticipatory neglect12. Failure to supervise13. Physical neglect14. Other neglect15. Abandonment
Other16. Caregiver incapacity-
mental health17. Caregiver incapacity-
substance misuse18. Caregiver inability to meet
child’s special needs19. Other (please specify)
________________________________________
RELATIONSHIP CODES1. Biological mother2. Biological father3. Step-mother4. Step-father5. Adoptive mother6. Adoptive father7. Grandparent8. Other (please specify)
________________________________________ 274
Household Information 1 of 3
The term “caregiver” describes the person(s) acting as the child’s guardian. Each section notes whether or not the questions relate to the time of the
child’s removal or the time of reunification/date of form completion.
2. Caregiver A age (in years)
17 or under 41–50 Unknown
18–30 51–60
31–40 61+
3. Primary source of income
Full time Employment insurance
Part time Social assistance
Multiple jobs Other benefit
Seasonal Unknown
Other (please specify) _____________________________________________________________
4. Education level
Elementary or less College/university
Some secondary Unknown
Completed secondary
5. Ethno-racial group
Non-Aboriginal
Unknown
Aboriginal If Aboriginal
a) On Reserve Off Reserve
b) First Nations Status First Nations Status
First Nations non-Status First Nations non-Status
Métis
Inuit
Other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________
2. Caregiver B age (in years)
17 or under 41–50 Unknown
18–30 51–60 No other caregiver
31–40 61+
3. Primary source of income
Full time Employment insurance
Part time Social assistance
Multiple jobs Other benefit
Seasonal Unknown
Other (please specify) _____________________________________________________________
4. Education level
Elementary or less College/university
Some secondary Unknown
Completed secondary
5. Ethno-racial group
Non-Aboriginal
Unknown
Aboriginal If Aboriginal
a) On Reserve Off Reserve
b) First Nations Status First Nations Status
First Nations non-Status First Nations non-Status
Métis
Inuit
Other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________
1. Please indicate which caregiver posed the most significant risk to the child at the time of the removal.
Caregiver A
Caregiver B
Caregiver A and B equal risks
Other (please specify) _____________________________________________________________
Caregiver information at time of removal
275
Household Information 2 of 3
6. Primary language of Caregiver A
Aboriginal language (please specify) ___________________________________________
English French Unknown
Other (please specify) _______________________________________________________________
7. Contact with Caregiver A
Cooperative Non-cooperative
Somewhat cooperative Not contacted
9. Other adults in home
None
Children >19
Grandparent
Other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________
10. Household income estimate
<$15,000 >$40,000
$15,000–$24,999 Unknown
$25,000–$39,999
11. Housing
Own home Shelter/hotel
Rental Unknown
Public housing Other (please specify)
Band housing ____________________________________
8. Caregiver A risk factors at time of removal
Confirmed Suspected No Unknown
Alcohol abuse
Drug/solvent abuse
Criminal activity
Cognitive impairment
Mental health issues
Physical health issues
Few social supports
Maltreated as a child
Victim of domestic violence
Perpetrator of domestic violence
Other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
12. Unsafe housing conditions
Yes No Unknown
13. Home overcrowded
Yes No Unknown
14. Number of moves in last 12 months
0 1 2 >2
Unknown
15. Number of other children removed from the household
0 1 2 or more Unknown
8. Caregiver B risk factors at time of removal
Confirmed Suspected No Unknown
Alcohol abuse
Drug/solvent abuse
Criminal activity
Cognitive impairment
Mental health issues
Physical health issues
Few social supports
Maltreated as a child
Victim of domestic violence
Perpetrator of domestic violence
Other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
6. Primary language of Caregiver B
Aboriginal language (please specify) ___________________________________________
English French Unknown
Other (please specify) _______________________________________________________________
7. Contact with Caregiver B
Cooperative Non-cooperative
Somewhat cooperative Not contacted
276
Household Information 3 of 3
Caregiver information at time child reunified or at time of WEM form completion Caregiver information at time child reunified or at time of WEM form completion if child remains in care
17. Other adults in home
None
Children >19
Grandparent
Other (please specify)
______________________________________________________
18. Household income estimate
<$15,000
$15,000–$24,999
$25,000–$39,999
>$40,000
Unknown
19. Housing
Own home Shelter/hotel
Rental Unknown
Public housing Other (please specify)
Band housing ____________________________________
16. Caregiver A risk factors at time of Reunification or WEM form completion
Confirmed Suspected No Unknown
Alcohol abuse
Drug/solvent abuse
Criminal activity
Cognitive impairment
Mental health issues
Physical health issues
Few social supports
Maltreated as a child
Victim of domestic violence
Perpetrator of domestic violence
Other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
20. Unsafe housing conditions
Yes No Unknown
21. Home overcrowded
Yes No Unknown
22. Number of moves in last 12 months
0 1 2 >2
Unknown
23. Number of other children removed from the household
0 1 2 or more Unknown
16. Caregiver B risk factors at time of Reunification or WEM form completion
Confirmed Suspected No Unknown
Alcohol abuse
Drug/solvent abuse
Criminal activity
Cognitive impairment
Mental health issues
Physical health issues
Few social supports
Maltreated as a child
Victim of domestic violence
Perpetrator of domestic violence
Other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
277
Service Aim 1 of 4
The following questions relate to the services provided to the child or caregiver(s) after the child has been removed from their family
Primary aims of services provided after removal while child is in care
2. Services to the caregiver (check all that apply) Caregiver Caregiver
A B
Food Bank
Supervised visits
No contact order
Drug testing
Parent education
In-home parent support
Parenting Capacity Assessment
Substance-misuse assessment
Substance-misuse treatment
Substance misuse support
Welfare/social assistance
Employment training
Education/literacy
Shelter services
Low-income housing
Domestic violence services
Psychiatric/psychological services
Recreation
Victim support program
Medical/dental services
Child/day care
Cultural services
Spiritual services
Other (please specify) ___________________________________________________________________________
None (if none, please indicate primary reason for no services provided)
Services relevant to caregiver’s needs not available
Caregiver uncooperative
Services not needed
Other (please specify) ______________________________________________________________________________________
1. Services to the child (check all that apply)
Mental health assessment
Mental health treatment
Physical health assessment
Physical health treatment
Dental assessment
Dental treatment
Disability supports
Mentorship
Education supports
Employment services
Social assistance
Recreation
Cultural services
Spiritual services
Substance-misuse assessment Substance-misuse assessment
Substance-misuse treatment
Behavior management
Child development
Other child referral (please specify)
______________________________________________________________
None (if none, please indicate primary reason for no services provided)
Services relevant to child’s needs not available
Child uncooperative
Services not needed
Other (please specify)
_________________________________________________
278
Service Aim 2 of 4
3. Cultural match of services to child provided directly by child welfare authority
Achieved
Mostly achieved
Partially achieved
Not achieved
Unknown
4. Cultural match of services to caregiver provided directly by child welfare authority
Caregiver A Caregiver B
Achieved Achieved
Mostly achieved Mostly achieved
Partially achieved Partially achieved
Not achieved Not achieved
Not applicable Not applicable
Unknown Unknown
5. Cultural match of services to child provided by outside services
Achieved
Mostly achieved
Partially achieved
Not achieved
Not applicable
Unknown
6. Cultural match of services to caregiver provided by outside services
Caregiver A Caregiver B
Achieved Achieved
Mostly achieved Mostly achieved
Partially achieved Partially achieved
Not achieved Not achieved
Not applicable Not applicable
Unknown Unknown
7. Cultural match of current placement for the child
Child reunified with family
Placement is with extended family culturally matched
Placement is with extended family not culturally matched
Placement is with non-relative culturally matched
Placement is with non-relative not culturally matched
Placement is in an institution culturally matched
Placement is in an institution not culturally matched
Child is living independently
Child placed for adoption culturally matched
Child placed for adoption not culturally matched
Unknown
Other (please specify) ___________________________
8. Primary aims of services to the child at time of reunification or WEM form completion (check all that apply)
Mental health assessment
Mental health treatment
Physical health assessment
Physical health treatment
Dental assessment
Dental treatment
Disability supports
Mentorship
Education supports
Employment services
Social assistance
Recreation
Cultural services
Spiritual services
Substance-misuse assessment
Substance-misuse treatment
Behavior management
Child development
Victim support program
Other child referral (please specify)
_____________________
None (if none, please indicate primary reason for no services provided)
Services relevant to child’s Services relevant to child’s needs not available
Child uncooperative
Services not needed
Other (please specify)
_________________
279
Service Aim 3 of 4
Complete this section only if the child has been reunified. Indicate the primary aims of services and the cultural match of services provided to the child and the caregiver(s) they were reunified with after reunification.
9. Primary aims of services to the caregiver
Caregiver Caregiver Caregiver Caregiver A B C D
Supervised visits
No contact order
Drug testing
Parent education
In-home parent support
Parenting Capacity Assessment Parenting Capacity Assessment
Substance-misuse assessment
Substance-misuse treatment
Substance-misuse support
Welfare/social assistance
Employment training
Education/literacy
Shelter services
Low-income housing
Domestic violence services
Psychiatric/Psychological services
Recreation
Victim support services
Medical/Dental services
Child/Day care
Cultural services
Spiritual services
Other referral (please specify)
None (if none, please indicate primary reason for no services provided)
Services relevant to caregiver’s needs not available
Caregiver uncooperative
Services not needed
Other caregiver/Family referral (please specify) _______________________________________________________________
280
Service Aim 4 of 4
© 2008 Cindy Blackstock, all rights reserved
12. Cultural match of services to child provided by outside services
Achieved
Mostly achieved
Partially achieved
Not achieved
Not applicable
Unknown
13. Cultural match of services to caregiver provided by outside services (Complete for Caregiver A and for Caregivers B,C,D if applicable)
Caregiver A Caregiver B
Achieved Achieved
Mostly achieved Mostly achieved
Partially achieved Partially achieved
Not achieved Not achieved
Unknown Unknown
Caregiver C Caregiver D
Achieved Achieved
Mostly achieved Mostly achieved
Partially achieved Partially achieved
Not achieved Not achieved
Unknown Unknown
10. Cultural match of services to child provided directly by child welfare authority
Achieved
Mostly achieved
Partially achieved
Not achieved
Unknown
11. Cultural match of services to caregiver provided directly by child welfare authority (Complete for Caregiver A and for Caregivers B,C,D if applicable)
Caregiver A Caregiver B
Achieved Achieved
Mostly achieved Mostly achieved
Partially achieved Partially achieved
Not achieved Not achieved
Not applicable Not applicable
Unknown Unknown
Caregiver C Caregiver D
Achieved Achieved
Mostly achieved Mostly achieved
Partially achieved Partially achieved
Not achieved Not achieved
Not applicable Not applicable
Unknown Unknown
281